Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#176 Post by DarkImbecile » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:55 am

SpoilerShow
That is Cillian Murphy's character towing the central Mole characters back to shore; we don't see what happens to him in the interim between that scene and his rescue by Mark Rylance in the Sea portion, which I think is a great choice.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#177 Post by aox » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:46 am

DarkImbecile wrote:
SpoilerShow
That is Cillian Murphy's character towing the central Mole characters back to shore; we don't see what happens to him in the interim between that scene and his rescue by Mark Rylance in the Sea portion, which I think is a great choice.
Damn
SpoilerShow
Now the timeline is really screwed up for me. He's on Rylance's yacht throughout this I thought. And, it never shows the ship he boards that is inevitably sunk (he is found sitting on the hull near the propeller).

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#178 Post by Ribs » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:53 am

aox wrote:
DarkImbecile wrote:
SpoilerShow
That is Cillian Murphy's character towing the central Mole characters back to shore; we don't see what happens to him in the interim between that scene and his rescue by Mark Rylance in the Sea portion, which I think is a great choice.
Damn
SpoilerShow
Now the timeline is really screwed up for me. He's on Rylance's yacht throughout this I thought. And, it never shows the ship he boards that is inevitably sunk (he is found sitting on the hull near the propeller).
The timeline's pretty simple: action taking place halfway through in the land segment would be taking place about halfway through the week leading up to the conclusion, therefore about two days before the sea section starts.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#179 Post by HitchcockLang » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:05 am

Ribs wrote: The timeline's pretty simple: action taking place halfway through in the land segment would be taking place about halfway through the week leading up to the conclusion, therefore about two days before the sea section starts.
I don't know how accurate it is to describe the timeline as "simple."

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#180 Post by Ribs » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:20 am

The timeline is very simple - they converge at the end. They each start a week before, a day before, and an hour beforehand, and proceed linearly from there. It's only complicated in the sense that they're intercut - I expect there'll be a good handful of horrible fanedits turning the film into a proper triptych or doing a really crazily organized chronological version.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#181 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:05 pm

Gimme a break with "very simple," but yes, it is made clear in the film.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#182 Post by Big Ben » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:15 pm

I would use the word simple only in comparison to his other films in a certain context. I mean one needs only look at the run times and amount of dialogue to see an objective difference there. Perhaps simplification or stream-lined would be a better word to use at least in some context. However simplification/streamlined does not equate to less nuance in my mind. I think the film is incredibly effective at what it does. It didn't need a long run-time or lots of (possibly even meme worthy) dialogue to get the point across.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#183 Post by Ribs » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:54 pm

I mean, the notion I raise of a chronological version highlights why the film would be viewed as linearly complicated; it basically runs along for maybe thirty minutes, then there's another forty minutes intercutting those characters with parallel action on boats with new characters, and then there's another twenty minutes in the air with new characters all the while intercutting with the others (albeit with less frequency). If using all the footage assembled in the final film in a strictly linear order, it would create a war film that is, all the same, still structured totally unlike anything else I can think of. The intercutting is just a method of doing that without the audience actively thinking about how it's doing that. But maybe I'm just talking nonsense.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#184 Post by warren oates » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:20 pm

I've seen it twice now in IMAX and I agree with all the praise this film has gotten. I'm Nolan fan, and, for me, this is easily his best film, playing to all of his strengths and not just viscerally thrilling and suspenseful as I find much of his work to be but genuinely mature and moving on a whole new level.

I'm especially impressed with the many organic and compelling ways Nolan found to work various "ticking clocks" -- that horary cliche of conventional Hollywood storytelling -- into the narrative: the tides, the airplane fuel, the urgency of the increasingly besieged evacuation itself, even the sound of his own pocketwatch tick-tocking in the score. Speaking of the score, here's a really good explanation of the psychoacoustic trick Nolan and Zimmer have built into the score to ratchet up the tension, the so-called Shepard Tone.

I agree with some of the other comments, especially from aox, about Nolan's very strong decision to focus the story on survival, to preempt one of the big potential pitfalls of war films -- inevitable caricature of the other sides' soldiers -- by not showing them at all. The further step -- of not even referring to the Germans verbally as "Germans" or "Nazis" was something Nolan got from Mark Rylance, who told him he thought that the 17 mentions of "Germans" in the dialogue of an earlier draft of the script he read were counter to the purpose Nolan said he was striving for. On Rylance's sage advice, Nolan cut 16 of those out, substituting "enemy" instead for every instance except
SpoilerShow
the moment inside of the hold of the Dutch ship where Alex accuses Gibson first of being a "Jerry" and "German spy" and then of being a "frog coward," once it's established that Gibson is actually French. It's all the more effective in this one moment because it illustrates in the microcosm how easy it is to use language to dehumanize the other in a war setting. And what a slippery slope this dehumanization process is. Oh, he's actually not a "Jerry"? Well, "frog" will do.
The interview in the published Dunkirk screenplay where Nolan mentions this astute Rylance note also features a nod to the Criterion Collection -- Nolan cites the James Jones essay "Phony War Films" in the Criterion booklet for The Thin Red Line as a major influence on the development of Dunkirk, particularly on the common pitfalls and cliches of war films he was hoping to avoid, as well as on the arbitrariness of an individual's fate in war.
James Jones wrote:Most deaths in infantry combat are due to arbitrary chance, a totally random selection by which an unknown enemy drops a mortar shell onto a man he has never seen -- and perhaps will never see! Such a death is totally reasonless and pointless from the point of view of the individual because it might as well have been the man next to him... And for that reason it is much more terrifying to the individual soldier and to an audience seeking "meaning."

User avatar
The Elegant Dandy Fop
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:25 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#185 Post by The Elegant Dandy Fop » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Ribs wrote:But maybe I'm just talking nonsense.
Yeah, you are. On virtue that it took you one complicated and slightly convoluted paragraph to (barely) sum up the structure of the film shows how complicated the structure is. But Nolan handles it so artfully with careful scripting and precision editing that a casual movie-goer can decipher the narrative without much confusion. There's absolutely nothing simple about that. There's real talent and thought behind it.
Last edited by The Elegant Dandy Fop on Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#186 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:01 pm

I assumed what he was saying was that, while the narrative is very complicated, the story is simple and straightforward.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#187 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:29 pm

Where would you say it fit in this chart? :wink:

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#188 Post by Ribs » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:34 pm

I may have put it poorly but I was just expressing that I don't feel, within the logic of how the film presents thing, it's meant to leave the viewer in any way confused. It's ultimately just the last hour of Inception again, but without an hour building up explaining it - the car chase is a few minutes, the hotel extending that into a few hours, the alpines stretching that further, all of which are happening at the same time. It's not Arrival, it's never trying to convince or fool you that one thing is happening at any time other than when it did.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#189 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:36 pm

It's supposed to leave the viewer disoriented rather than confused, but disorientation isn't typically the mark of a simple story simply told. That said, I had a Facebook friend post "man, that must have been a big gas tank in that plane for it to have two days worth of fuel in it!" - so there are definitely people who will walk away confused, too.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#190 Post by knives » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:42 pm

Though that is only because they didn't remember the explanatory title. I think that is a major aid to keep in mind though most probably wouldn't realize that on first viewing.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#191 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:45 pm

It definitely is, although just seeing the titles isn't a huge tip-off to what the film is doing in and of itself, until you realize for yourself what the film is doing. Or at least, that was my experience.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#192 Post by aox » Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:56 pm

knives wrote:Though that is only because they didn't remember the explanatory title. I think that is a major aid to keep in mind though most probably wouldn't realize that on first viewing.
Absolutely. I just couldn't recall it an hour into my first screening when I needed it. And, I couldn't ponder too much because I was still watching a movie that was moving along quite quickly. Looking forward to a second viewing.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#193 Post by warren oates » Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:20 pm

So long as we're getting into the weeds of the film's structure, I want to ask about the precise choice of one of the three separate section-identifying superimposed titles. Why is it "1. The Mole: one week," "2. The Sea: one day," and "The Air: one hour." Why "the mole" and not "the beach" or "the land," both of which would be more accurate for the arena of action we see play out in the film and more congruent with the two other supertitles? What's the artistic or storytelling value added from using this term -- "mole" -- specifically in the supertitle? Especially given that it's a not so common term of nautical art and has already demonstrably caused confusion in some viewers, some of whom have interpreted "mole" in the more common sense of "spy" or "infiltrator."
SpoilerShow
I suppose you could ultimately look at both Tommy and Gibson in a broader sense of the word, given the various feints they engage in to try and get off the beach.
I wasn't confused by this, but some people were. So why even go there when Nolan could have made a simpler, cleaner choice?

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#194 Post by movielocke » Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:04 pm

Yes, I assumed until Branagh described the long rock thingy jutting out into the water as "the mole" that the kid the film starts on was a spy (and is labeled as "one week: the mole"

this left me baffled for a really long time (especially as he behaves so sneakily trying to get on the medical ship. and he also meets up with someone stealing a british soldier's clothes (whom he seems to know), which further implies spy. I was baffled because I was trying to figure out why the germans would bother putting a spy into a death trap.


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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#196 Post by Ribs » Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:34 pm

Yes, we know that, but "The Pier" or "The Land" or "The Beach" is a much clearer way of describing it without confusing the audience (like literally the second line of the movie is somebody saying "get to the mole!" and pointing at the mole, though I guess some people might have not followed). I imagine the double meaning has to be deliberate, because it just doesn't really make sense in the sense that land/sea/air is so clearly the words you would use when grouped together.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#197 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:38 am

Ribs wrote:...because it just doesn't really make sense in the sense that land/sea/air is so clearly the words you would use when grouped together.
That could be the reason right there - Nolan wanted to avoid the cliché of "land, sea, air" so chose a more specific identification.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#198 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:26 am


User avatar
htom
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:57 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#199 Post by htom » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:18 am

One thing I did question was
SpoilerShow
While we're told the time frame on the mole was one week, following a very small set of soldiers that way did not suggest to me we saw anywhere near seven days of events for them. The point where all three perspectives converge (the shooting down of the bomber/the civilian boat picking up the soldiers escaping the burning sea) is uncertain to me: the setup implies Mr. Dawson's boat was among the first to pick up soldiers. But the last scene has Tommy(?) reading Churchill's famous speech of June 4, which was the last day of the operation.

Someone else mentioned what appeared to be a lack of scale in the film in that no sequence showed the large number of soldiers finally evacuated from the beach. I felt the size of the beach would preclude that in any single shot, any more than a wider shot of the aerial dogfights would have given any feeling of either excitement or verisimilitude.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#200 Post by knives » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:41 am

SpoilerShow
I think the closing events of the mole take place a day or two after their rescue.

Post Reply