Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Feiereisel
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:41 am

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#151 Post by Feiereisel » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:19 pm

One thing I've not been able to account for:
SpoilerShow
Does Rylance's boat ever make it to the beach along with the other boats traveling to assist? He's intercut with the flotilla as it is revealed, which makes it seem like his boat is among the arriving vessels, but the events of the sea potion make it seem as though they get held up by the fracas en route and never actually arrive as part of the flotilla. Have I missed something?

User avatar
carmilla mircalla
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#152 Post by carmilla mircalla » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:41 pm

Feiereisel wrote:One thing I've not been able to account for:
SpoilerShow
Does Rylance's boat ever make it to the beach along with the other boats traveling to assist? He's intercut with the flotilla as it is revealed, which makes it seem like his boat is among the arriving vessels, but the events of the sea potion make it seem as though they get held up by the fracas en route and never actually arrive as part of the flotilla. Have I missed something?
I just assumed when he picked up all those oil covered soldiers in the water his turned back to drop them off since his boat was most definitely full at that point.

User avatar
Feiereisel
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:41 am

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#153 Post by Feiereisel » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:46 pm

carmilla mircalla wrote:I just assumed when he picked up all those oil covered soldiers in the water his turned back to drop them off since his boat was most definitely full at that point.
SpoilerShow
That's what I assumed, but he still "appears" in the various shots of the arriving ships, which makes it seem as though he is approaching the beach with them. But if he stopped to pick up the soldiers evacuating the Danish boat and the sinking Navy ship, he would have broken off from the flotilla and not made it all the way across the channel.

The issue is that the quick shots of Rylance make it seem as though the Moonstone is approaching the beach with the other ships while my understanding of the geography of the sequence tells me his boat never does so.

If it helps here is the plot of "The Sea" as I understand it:

The Moonstone leaves England. On their way they are overflown by the three fighters from "The Air." The pick up the Shivering Soldier. They witness the first part of the dogfight, during which Farrier damages the German bomber and causes it to wave off of its bombing run. They notice Farrier's wingman crash into the ocean and break off and rescue him. They then head back toward the beach, at which point the German bomber returns and successfully hits the boat before Farrier drives it off again. The Navy ship begins to sink, spilling oil into the water as soldiers on the bullet-riddled Dutch boat escape their own sinking ship. Rylance and his crew fish as many soldiers as they can from the oil slick before returning home with a full boat, having never rejoined to larger group of civilian boats.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#154 Post by Ribs » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:56 pm

Standard DCPs for Dunkirk are supposed to be 2.20:1 in a 1.78:1 frame. Would not be crazy for it to be played wrong in a way to crop it on the edges.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#155 Post by knives » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:15 pm

I feel very hyperbolic on this one tempted to compare it to Ford and the Archers (particularly They Were Expendable and A Canterbury Tale) it achieves its goals so well. I'd say, even with that in mind, it isn't as good as Nolan's last three non-Batman films, but as an example of what makes him tick stripped down as far as it will go it's just about perfect. The technical and narrative elements are the most obvious in this regard, but what I found most compelling is this idea that pervades the film and Nolan in general a little bit of deep emotions conveyed onto flat characterization. The film has a pretty interesting concept of characterization with the civilians being the most normative followed by the slightly more stripped down officers on the mole to the pilots who are literally covered up to be indistinguishable (I think even Murphy's character gets this as at first I thought he was Hardy) though defined against each other to finally the enlisted privates on the mole who are not really given character beyond a will for survival and even look the same (if you can tell any of them apart except shouty guy I'm not sure I'd believe you). Despite this stripped away aspect and the fact that the violence is very abstract in a way I haven't been this horrified by war on film since probably Come and See. Nolan really emphasizes all the ways death hits at war without needing to even think about bullets. I was laughing about Hacksaw Ridge earlier in the month which is full of much more gruesome things yet Nolan is the one simply through a boat movie who is able to send a shiver down my spine. This isn't a theme movie so much (it is pretty indistinguishable from what a film from the era would have been like on the subject down to ending with a Churchill quote) nor a character one, but it is somehow still a very emotional (if stoically so) film which caught me so off guard that it did leave me a little teary eyed at the end even though I recognized in real time that this was pretty much a propagandistic emotional manipulation. Very interesting and unlike other just give the Oscar already films one I'd be happy to see winning.

Also apparently that was Michael Caine as the guy seeing the pilots off.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#156 Post by movielocke » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:08 am

I really liked it overall, especially the flying scenes and the pace of the editing of the flying scenes. I loved that you could see them aiming at the engines not the fusillade and that we didn't cut to a closeup of bullets hitting a plane after every time the guns were fired.

I loved the scale of the aerial battles as well, that we weren't seeing six hundred planes in some implausible Lord of the rings inspired orgy of gargantuan proportions . They kept it to four or five planes max, it was such an improvement from trying to stun the audience with volume.

Speaking of volume, I saw this at the Chinese theatre in IMAX laser and it looked stunning, but you could literally hear the subwoofers rattling in their housing on the first couple waves of low frequency sound. A lot of the unimportant dialog with the "one week" kid was unintelligible but I was able to hear every line of mark rylances character perfectly (I absolutely loved his performance, just great lived in and nuanced performance). It's odd that the sound was bad, it was good for force awakens, but I remember it having a similar problem with rogue one. Like at rogue one, the introducing staff member warns/scolds the audience that the volume is correct. And this might have surpassed rogue one for the most sound I've ever experienced in a theatre.

I'm actually going to try make an effort to see this at a screening on the WB lot this coming awards season, because the studio screening rooms are just such worlds better quality than commercial theatres--even world Class ones--and I want to hear what Nolan thought he was mixing in the kind of environment he mixed it in/for.

The sound design is absolutely tremendous, however I sort of have a love hate take on the score. When it swelled at the end with the letter I really kind of started hating it across the board, but thinking back at it, the droning anonymous monotonous repetition of the score thematically fits and is of course a great match for the sound scape itself. It's sort of like a philip glass score in the style of Hans zimmer, and I don't think that's a compliment to either of them , nor something that in particular sounds very appetizing. Ugh.

The editing and construction of this film is so incredibly bold. I have to see it again simply because I was consciously trying to fit eveything together and piece together relationships long before Nolan does; so I found it very hard to grasp the whole thing because as a viewer I tried too hard to stay ahead of the movie. Next time I can be more appreciative of the way the radical aspects are implemented without trying to piece together the reasoning behind it and figure out he goals of the purpose of the novel structure.

All that said I really liked the film but I dont love it nearly as much as nolans two best films, on the other hand this one may have the most potential to grow in my esteem. I don't think on a first viewing it is more than a 9.

User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#157 Post by djproject » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:54 am

mfunk9786 wrote:Forget what I said about Nolan's aspect ratio bullshit being less tiresome this time around
My apologies for kicking that hornet's nest =]
tenia wrote:The idea being to open the frame to "fill the screen", I always thought that going from widescreen to 1.78 seemed like the most logical way to mimick the theatrical change. I don't think any recent movie like that chose 1.43 instead of 1.78.

It makes sense to present them separately at 1.43, because it's not a question of opening the frame anymore but rather to offer the original picture, but it's not the same logic at work within the movie.
Yes, cropping the IMAX image to 1.78:1 and presenting it that way does mimic more closely the IMAX theatrical experience and makes it a fully immersive experience. But now you have a situation where reportedly 75% of the picture (about eighty minutes or so) was shot in IMAX. So for a home video presentation, I can see three options:

1) Maintain the native aspect ratios through the whole thing, thus alternating from 1.43:1 to 2.20:1
2) Tastefully crop the IMAX portions to fill a 16:9 TV screen and thus alternating from 1.78:1 to 2.20:1
3) Tastefully crop the IMAX portions to be presented at 2.20:1 and it will remain throughout the film (and thus emulating the 70mm presentations).

Given that there was a shoot and protect principle at play with the aspect ratios and knowing 2.20:1 is the widest needed for exhibition, any option can be considered the filmmaker's intent. Now it's just a matter of how the IMAX should be seen at home.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#158 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:43 am

Having seen some increasingly negative reactions (Nick Pinkerton flat out hated Dunkirk) I wound up liking this more than I expected. It's a pretty clear example of Nolan's strengths and weaknesses as a filmmaker. He may not be a great artist, but he is a great technician and I think the film highlights that side of him a bit more than his failings. There were stretches towards the beginning that did leave me cold, and the ending seemed to veer in the opposite direction, falling back on the same formulaic devices he's used in the past to wrap up a story in an upbeat, sentimental way. But the best moments put across a very broad yet effective idea - what war (or combat on a grand scale) really entails, in terms of what you're doing to a mass of individuals.
SpoilerShow
(The ship being sunk by the U-Boat is perhaps the best example of this. One complaint that's popped up is that everyone is reduced to boring, faceless figures, but I don't quite share that belief, partly because of this scene. In the film's best use of his chronological jumping, we see Cillian Murphy on board, which immediately signals to us the fate of the ship. From there we go to the hull where see what we now know to be doomed people, and that colors every shot we see before the torpedoes finally hit.)
It remains a visceral form of voyeurism of a highly meticulous re-creation (i.e. it's nothing like being in war - Sam Fuller was right), but within those limitations, it's as effective as it can be.

Nolan even manages a moment or two of poetry - he's not a poetic filmmaker, but during some of the early POV shots of Hardy's pilot, where we see the vastness of the not-actually-vast English Channel, the isolation and terror of those waters can be evoked when you really consider what you're seeing.

Chronology did feel clumsy in spots, particularly the climax
SpoilerShow
(the final plane shot down by Tom Hardy's pilot)
but otherwise it did work all right, and again as mentioned in the previous spoiler, it could work quite well too.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#159 Post by John Shade » Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:21 am

Saw this last night and I'm likely reiterating some of the points of praise. The posts here I think have pointed out the success of the way Nolan chose to structure this film, which might not have worked as successfully had he done it another way. Like mfunk mentioned, I've been sort of distracted when watching Interstellar on home video. djproject, based on what you're saying about the aspect ratio, will this one switch in and out on home video the way Interstellar does? It seemed seamless to me, but alas I didn't see it in imax.

The aerial shots remained a highlight for me throughout. Like Werewolf by Night there were moments when I found Zimmer's score distracting, one scene in particular around the middle of the film that I can't remember now. The Elgar music was a nice touch at the end--good to use it there, anywhere else and this is really close to Malick territory.
SpoilerShow
The newspaper clip about the boy dying seemed like it could be a poignant touch for some, and a print the legend for others. I did like that one of the other young men read the Churchill quote at the end. Like knives I was moved by this--I too love the Archers and Ford--but it seemed earned in this case and natural. More propagandistic would be to have Churchill as a character reading it. The movie mostly avoided big Hollywood war cliches--another big point for Nolan.
I think above all I praise Nolan for his ambition with this film. If it wins many of the big awards I'll be fine with it (not sure how I "rank" this compared to his others; I loved Inception and Interstellar despite their flaws). On another note, anybody else have a slightly restless theater crowd? There were some kids in my theater, and some adults, who had a few bathroom or refill trips. Nolan jumping to the action and avoiding any traditional characterization likely caused this. If casting Harry Styles brings some teenagers to the movie, good, I had no idea who he was before this. Maybe some of those kids will chance upon some of the other movies Nolan is citing for inspiration. Good work all around.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#160 Post by Luke M » Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:19 am

I thought this was Nolan’s best film since The Dark Knight. He’s at his best in those monster size action sequences, where someone mentioned people become faceless, I thought this was smart, it worked here better than anything else he’s done. I liked how he drew emotion from those big set pieces. I think when he’s tried to develop emotional scenes from dialogue he’s stumbled. I didn’t feel anything from that Interstellar McConaughey scene, sorry. But this was the perfect vehicle for Nolan and I love to see him tackle more stories that are grand in scale and light on plot and dialogue.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#161 Post by Big Ben » Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:09 pm

I finally managed to see this yesterday and really liked it and I'll wager it'll likely become my favorite Nolan film.

I'll be the first to admit that when I first heard about the film I scoffed at the notion and am now thoroughly ashamed of myself. Nolan appears to have taken the criticism of some his past films such as length and dialogue and cut them down a degree, making a sharp and incredibly tight film in the process. The film feels, at it's core to be more about the experience of war rather than specifics of every soldier on the battlefield. Yes there are named characters we follow but even that's topical (Or at least I felt that way). We're given just enough information to "know" these characters but we're not given a Tolkien-esque encyclopedia explaining everything about them. I've seen some people criticize the film as not having enough character to relate to but I feel that criticism is reductive in a way as the film is about the experience itself. The miraculous event known as the Dunkirk evacuation is the star and the characters just pieces of the overall picture.

There's one sequence that really stood out to me and I think it's the most powerful in the entire film.
SpoilerShow
A solider, obviously stressed to the absolute maximum he can be simply walks into the waves to drown himself while the other soldiers, too numb themselves to do anything about it simply watch on. There's no melodramatic dialogue leading up to this point. It just happens out of the blue and I thought it worked magnificently.
I like this type of Nolan film and wonder if he'll use this form again in the future.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#162 Post by Rayon Vert » Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:52 pm

It's been years since I've gone to a cinema theater (not the biggest contemporary film buff - e.g. I've haven't seen a Nolan film since Memento) but wanted to catch this given the hype and the chance to see it on IMAX. I really enjoyed it and admired it as an immersive experience of war. Saving Private Ryan was brought up early in this thread and I still much prefer that one, in part because of the characters and storytelling involved, but this was fantastic visuals and sound and I didn't mind this quasi-phenomenological-documentary style at all. Given what I'd read, I was also expecting I'd be more confused and disoriented - this was relatively easy to follow and understand.

User avatar
HitchcockLang
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#163 Post by HitchcockLang » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:18 pm

I haven't really liked any of Nolan's films after The Dark Knight, but I caught Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm at the Discovery Place Museum in Charlotte and I found it very powerful. The film was visceral and relentless in a way I'm not accustomed to mainstream films being, but was still quite moving as well. Mostly I saw it for the 70mm as a film lover but I really enjoyed the movie as well. Certainly Nolan's post Batman masterpiece and a shoe-in for a Best Picture nomination.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#164 Post by FrauBlucher » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:49 am

I got to see this yesterday. Did the Imax, 70mm thing. I liked it a lot. It's quite beautiful. I do have some issues. The dialogue at times is inaudible (nothing new for a Nolan film) as it clashes with Zimmer's distracting score. The Bresson approach of no music (or much less) would have been more to my liking. It's the old "less is more" idea. The editing was terrific and will probably be a front runner come next winter. The sentimental sequences towards the end didn't bother me. I didn't feel like they were forced unlike Spielberg fare. Although this I could've done without....
SpoilerShow
The soldier sleeping on the dock, waking to no one until he hear's Commander Bolton's voice.
...it seemed quite silly.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#165 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:47 am

SpoilerShow
I had gotten the impression he was knocked out.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#166 Post by FrauBlucher » Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:34 am

I thought that too. But then I thought
SpoilerShow
why would they leave him and not evacuate him with the other injured soldiers.

User avatar
barryconvex
billy..biff..scooter....tommy
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#167 Post by barryconvex » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:54 am

This is the best directed film of recent memory, the oscar is in the bag for Nolan. The editing and sound design are both all but perfect and given the different timelines weaving in and out it's a miraculous display of continuity. I loved Zimmer's score-which is almost Neubauten-esque and at it's most propulsive moments achieved that same pounding effect heard during the rape scenes in The Entity. I whole heartedly share Big Ben's thoughts below:

There's one sequence that really stood out to me and I think it's the most powerful in the entire film.
SpoilerShow
A solider, obviously stressed to the absolute maximum he can be simply walks into the waves to drown himself while the other soldiers, too numb themselves to do anything about it simply watch on. There's no melodramatic dialogue leading up to this point. It just happens out of the blue and I thought it worked magnificently.
I might add that
SpoilerShow
the soldier is never named and i don't believe he was introduced earlier in the film. Thus reenforcing Nolan's interpretation of the impersonality of war. A huge plus the movie has going for it is the complete lack of buddies being killed, tears being shed and vengeance being sought.
An amazing piece of work but one that i felt needed a couple more moments like the one above to push it past excellence into the truly great movie realm.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#168 Post by TMDaines » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:57 am

Some thoughts on Dunkirk:
  • As someone who thought the presentation of Interstellar in 70mm IMAX was seriously undermined by the frequent padding with 35mm shots, I was stunned by this one. The decision to use standard 65mm as backup to where IMAX was not used is a very sensible one. The film now has a fairly coherent look throughout and no longer do you have the glaring shots where 35mm is being blown up to a size for which it is not suited. The only noticeable difference between the film stocks is the aspect ratio of shots, which many viewers will probably not even be aware of. I'm still not sure why IMAX was not used throughout, as the use of 65mm seems rather random with various scenes and shots using IMAX at one point, then 65mm at another. I have no intention of watching this film in any other format, it won't be bettered.
  • The film reminded me of Gravity more than anything else that I've seen. It's an exhausting roller coaster ride from start to finish. Your senses are constantly bombarded with images and sounds and you finish exhausted. Less is more here. You wouldn't want the film to be a minute longer. Furthermore, it does a great job of placing the viewer in the action. the 70mm IMAX format feels 3D and there is a fantastic depth of field throughout the cinematography. If blockbusters want to offer greater immersion, then this is the way to do it - not plastic glasses.
  • The structure of the film has been meticulously well designed. Nolan is renowned for his trademark of films exhibiting non-linear storytelling and the "snowball effect". He usually saves that for later in the film, but this jumps straight in to using those devices early on. This is perfect for providing a glimpse into the confusion and continual false hope that war must surely subject its participants to. The characters and audience are subjected to a continual cycle of calm and panic, hope and dread. This couldn't have been edited any better.
  • The score is an utter masterpiece. It blends superbly with the sounds of war and superbly adds to the feelings of claustrophobia and disorientation of the visuals of the film.
  • This is an art film with a blockbuster budget. I can see why many mainstream audiences have been a little divided. The plot is fairly thin, there's little dialogue, minimal war porn, an avoidance of jingoism and many of the soldiers are shades of grey.
  • Tom Hardy is a superb actor. He could play a mute with a tablecloth thrown on his head and would still ooze charisma.
  • The casting of Harry Styles is interesting. I initially presumed that the choice of a young pop icon playing
    SpoilerShow
    a bit of a cunt was harking back to something like C'era una volta il West, where Leone uses Fonda for those "baby blues" but casts him against type. Styles is instead playing the most thoroughly unlikable person in the entire picture, completely undermining the poster boy image of selfless, heroic boys. Apparently, Nolan did not know of Styles's fame before casting him from auditions. The question remains therefore whether Nolan chose Styles's character after learning of his fame or before.
  • In an otherwise masterpiece, there were two slight flaws for me. The framing of the film is a little off at times, and betrays the fact that it has clearly been framed and protected for multiple aspect ratios. Whatever format you watch the film in, you are going to have shots that have a ridiculous amount of headroom or are cut off at times. Some of the shots when the protagonist first reaches the beach, would clearly be better balanced as panoramas, others do make excellent use of the IMAX aspect ratio, however.
  • Secondly, the final montage didn't quite strike the right tone for me. It does exercise a level of British restraint, but does teeter over into being a little too maudlin for my taste.

User avatar
Apperson
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:47 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#169 Post by Apperson » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:31 am

TMDaines wrote:
  • As someone who thought the presentation of Interstellar in 70mm IMAX was seriously undermined by the frequent padding with 35mm shots, I was stunned by this one. The decision to use standard 65mm as backup to where IMAX was not used is a very sensible one. The film now has a fairly coherent look throughout and no longer do you have the glaring shots where 35mm is being blown up to a size for which it is not suited. The only noticeable difference between the film stocks is the aspect ratio of shots, which many viewers will probably not even be aware of. I'm still not sure why IMAX was not used throughout, as the use of 65mm seems rather random with various scenes and shots using IMAX at one point, then 65mm at another. I have no intention of watching this film in any other format, it won't be bettered.
I remember reading somewhere that the IMAX cameras where too big to film certain scenes, so smaller 65mm cameras where used instead. This is most obvious in the boat segments i.e the smallest space in the movie.

Werewolf by Night

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#170 Post by Werewolf by Night » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:40 am

Apperson wrote:I remember reading somewhere that the IMAX cameras where too big to film certain scenes, so smaller 65mm cameras where used instead. This is most obvious in the boat segments i.e the smallest space in the movie.
It might have been my post saying exactly this on the previous page.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#171 Post by TMDaines » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:43 am

But some of the boat scenes were in IMAX, I swear, even shots from the same perspective. You would have some scenes where some shots were in IMAX, then shots from the same perspective were in 65mm for no obvious reason. I was conscious of this whilst watching it.

My mind could be fallible though.

User avatar
Apperson
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:47 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#172 Post by Apperson » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:51 am

TMDaines wrote:But some of the boat scenes were in IMAX, I swear, even shots from the same perspective. You would have some scenes where some shots were in IMAX, then shots from the same perspective were in 65mm for no obvious reason. I was conscious of this whilst watching it.

My mind could be fallible though.
It might be that cameras on the boat itself were 65mm whilst those in the water were IMAX.

User avatar
All the Best People
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#173 Post by All the Best People » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:54 pm

I'm guessing most contributors here would already be aware of this, but Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell have written at length on the film.

User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#174 Post by djproject » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:37 am

Apperson wrote:
TMDaines wrote:But some of the boat scenes were in IMAX, I swear, even shots from the same perspective. You would have some scenes where some shots were in IMAX, then shots from the same perspective were in 65mm for no obvious reason. I was conscious of this whilst watching it.

My mind could be fallible though.
It might be that cameras on the boat itself were 65mm whilst those in the water were IMAX.
Correct. The boat scenes was shot on 65mm due to the combination of camera size/weight and its noise would have been difficult for on-set recording. (This is why TDK and TDKR alternated between the two film gauges). The same thing for any dialogue on the mole as the camera would have been too loud for on-set dialogue recording.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#175 Post by aox » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:07 am

I caught this last night finally and I thought it was marvelous. I skimmed the thread, and don't have much to add, but a few points. (I'm just going to Spoiler-tag this)

To piggyback a previous post,
SpoilerShow
I loved that besides the markings on the planes (or if you have a cursory understanding of this event/war), you never know it's the Germans. Even the opening text simply called them the "enemy". This helps in two regards IMO: 1. Nolan doesn't have to waste time trying to be "fair" to both sides; he can stick to his story and focus on it. It doesn't take away from screen time even if it is done well. 2. Most of the time, it isn't done well and the film suffers by making the 'enemy' soldiers caricatures and 2-dimensional at best. While my knowledge of film history is of course limited, I don't think I have ever seen this before. Maybe Fuller's "The Steel Helmet" (apologies, I haven't seen it in 20 years)? I thought this was a master stroke.

Of course, the cinematography was fantastic and the sound editing superb. I thought the sound mixing was the only technical casualty here. I could not understand at least 50% of the dialogue which also is attributable to the accents.

Also, in regards to sound, I don't know if any of you caught Kenneth Branagh on Colbert the other week, but he talked about how they screened it for the soldiers that were there. He relayed that they all really enjoyed the film except the sound which they claimed was louder than the actual battle was. :lol: That also might have to do with the ravages of age though, so who knows.

The structure was very effective in its ability to allow Nolan to keep this story personalized and on the ground, but I feel I need to see it again. The cards at the beginning were helpful but I was confused until about 30 minutes into the film until the little moments of overlap began to happen.

The most interesting thing though about this film is that besides the young man who Murphy sends doing a header into the galley floor of the yacht, there is not a drop of blood in this film. How refreshing! I don't mind blood and gore, but for the past 20 years, it seems everyone is trying to mimic or one-up "Saving Private Ryan", which is fine and can work well. I just found this refreshing.

Speaking of Murphy, I caught confused in the timelines because I thought he was the guy in the rowboat telling the main characters to "fuck off and just float there." My g/f had to correct me after the film. This lends to what others have said in this thread about how everyone in this film (sans the officers) look exactly the same. Murphy's only scenes are on the old man's yacht.

My one complaint about the film is the scale. This is minor, but I never got the impression that there were 400,000 men stranded on that beach. Not once. At best it seemed to be 60,000-100K. Minor, I suppose, but it did irk me.
I am not a fan of Nolan at all outside of the Batman trilogy (have not seen the Prestige), but this was such a treat. After loathing his last two sci-fi films and wanting to write him off for good, this secured another purchase of a movie ticket for his next film. Additionally, after some very questionable editing of a few action sequences in the Batman trilogy, he seems to have finally found his groove (though to be fair, there isn't much, if any, hand-to-hand combat scene here).

Great film.

Post Reply