Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
- diamonds
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:35 pm
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
A lot of what we've known about the film has set it up to directly answer most of the criticisms Nolan commonly receives. The brisk 1 hour 47 minute runtime leaves little room for narrative bloat, and taking inspiration from Bresson + silent films in its construction would cut down on expository dialog. In that way it makes sense the reviews so far are almost uniformly positive.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Saw this tonight and can’t remember the last time a film almost lost me completely to narrative and editing frustration and won me back so powerfully. Dunkirk begins with some stunning photography reminiscent of the first few minutes of The Master (particularly the color grading), and it seems essentially impossible that this arresting, quiet film could possibly be something that will proceed to alienate and frustrate its viewership. And then the bombs start to fall, and Nolan begins to cut the action without regard to any kind of timeline or narrative. Particularly if you don’t know this story (and I didn’t), the collective effect of cutting from day to night and back again, from sea to air to land, from danger to calm... it is as baffling as any big budget film has ever been allowed to be in this era.
And then there is a turn, and a realization of exactly what we’ve been building toward, and the pieces start to ravel together. Confusion turns to real stakes - terrifying, breathtaking, inspirational moments that form a connective tissue that had me wanting to watch the film a second time before it had even ended. Nolan and Lee Smith’s editing must have involved a great deal of careful mapping, and risky Malickian continuity decisions are made that will surely turn off its fair share of viewers, as it nearly did me. Dunkirk is the first war film I’ve seen that is edited with the disorientation and disorganization of war reflected perfectly in the structure of the entire product, and it is an incredible feat, one that makes it nearly impossible to imagine that Nolan will ever be able to top. It is a capital-A Art with the heft of a big studio behind it... maybe the strongest example of that sort of anomaly since Kubrick shuffled off this mortal coil.
And then there is a turn, and a realization of exactly what we’ve been building toward, and the pieces start to ravel together. Confusion turns to real stakes - terrifying, breathtaking, inspirational moments that form a connective tissue that had me wanting to watch the film a second time before it had even ended. Nolan and Lee Smith’s editing must have involved a great deal of careful mapping, and risky Malickian continuity decisions are made that will surely turn off its fair share of viewers, as it nearly did me. Dunkirk is the first war film I’ve seen that is edited with the disorientation and disorganization of war reflected perfectly in the structure of the entire product, and it is an incredible feat, one that makes it nearly impossible to imagine that Nolan will ever be able to top. It is a capital-A Art with the heft of a big studio behind it... maybe the strongest example of that sort of anomaly since Kubrick shuffled off this mortal coil.
- Big Ben
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
- Location: Great Falls, Montana
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
I'm glad to see someone here come out and defend the film so staunchly. I saw the reviews and was already in disbelief but Jesus Friday can't come soon enough I guess.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
I can’t decide whether it or Interstellar is better but they are both his best films by a significant margin. WB: Keep throwing money at this guy and make sure he never wastes his time with superheroes again.
EDIT: I saw this in digital, non-IMAX (it was an early screening, I’m only human), but here’s a useful guide to the available formats and the aspect ratios. Absolutely going to head out for IMAX 70mm as soon as humanly possible
EDIT: I saw this in digital, non-IMAX (it was an early screening, I’m only human), but here’s a useful guide to the available formats and the aspect ratios. Absolutely going to head out for IMAX 70mm as soon as humanly possible
- carmilla mircalla
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
so are we to understand the way the editing works is that it intercuts all three "segments" (land, sea, air) essentially shuffling it all up?
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
carmilla mircalla wrote:so are we to understand the way the editing works is that it intercuts all three "segments" (land, sea, air) essentially shuffling it all up?
SpoilerShow
Yes, but without regard to time - it regularly cuts between day and night scenes in the relatively short period of time over which the events of the film take place. And that is coupled with nothing resembling a traditional narrative, and accents thick enough that there is the feeling of seeing a foreign language film without subtitles.
Oh, and you never see a single German soldier. Plenty of their planes and bombs and gunfire. But no human beings. Which is fascinating when contrasted with the Hacksaw Ridge debate here: is it more or less dehumanizing to just not show the enemy at all?
Oh, and you never see a single German soldier. Plenty of their planes and bombs and gunfire. But no human beings. Which is fascinating when contrasted with the Hacksaw Ridge debate here: is it more or less dehumanizing to just not show the enemy at all?
- carmilla mircalla
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
mfunk, thanks for the clairifcation and the added detail. I am overall not a fan of war films but this seems like something else altogether. I will definitely take it up in the theater
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Will go to see this in 70mm IMAX – Manchester – but Interstellar was horribly disappointing in this format. The intended awe of the IMAX sections was completely outweighed by the ropiness of the sections blown up from 35mm, which looked awful. Hopefully this is better.
- Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Dunkirk was entirely shot on 70mm.TMDaines wrote:Will go to see this in 70mm IMAX – Manchester – but Interstellar was horribly disappointing in this format. The intended awe of the IMAX sections was completely outweighed by the ropiness of the sections blown up from 35mm, which looked awful. Hopefully this is better.
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Yes, that's why I'm hoping it will be better this time. 35mm blown up and projected onto an enormous IMAX screen ain't pretty.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
I remember having the same experience you did with Interstellar, TMDaines. Frankly, I think Nolan's habit of filming in so many formats and aspect ratios is sort of exhausting, bordering on unacceptable, and it results in needlessly ugly home viewing experiences like the constantly shifting ratios on the Dark Knight disc that made me realize that perhaps I'll never feel moved to watch that film again (well, that's one reason for that, anyway).
At least here it seems as if he is sticking to one ratio all the way through, even though there are four of them spanning different formats. It's a distracting device, and yes, blowing up 35mm for IMAX, particularly with the color palate of the home sequences in Interstellar, was tremendously ugly. Give me a clean digital presentation of a film over that sort of mess any day. Luckily, one doesn't have to make that sort of Sophie's Choice with Dunkirk - having seen it on arguably the worst choice of the available formats (DCP) yesterday, I can confidently say that it's going to look fantastic and consistent no matter how you see it.
At least here it seems as if he is sticking to one ratio all the way through, even though there are four of them spanning different formats. It's a distracting device, and yes, blowing up 35mm for IMAX, particularly with the color palate of the home sequences in Interstellar, was tremendously ugly. Give me a clean digital presentation of a film over that sort of mess any day. Luckily, one doesn't have to make that sort of Sophie's Choice with Dunkirk - having seen it on arguably the worst choice of the available formats (DCP) yesterday, I can confidently say that it's going to look fantastic and consistent no matter how you see it.
- DarkImbecile
- Ask me about my visible cat breasts
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Caught this last night in 70mm, and can wholeheartedly second mfunk's praise for the look of the film; the way the channel is paradoxically both a visually beautiful, open expanse and a very real wall that seems impossible for characters to overcome comes across again and again through Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema's camera. The aerial cinematography in particular is extraordinary, and the dogfights felt like nothing else in that area I'd ever seen.
That said, maybe the most impressive element of the whole film was the sound: the hammering gunfire, concussive bombs and torpedoes, and the screaming of the dive bombers make the terror of the situation overwhelmingly tangible for the audience. Combined with the relative lack of dialogue, this sound work creates tension to such an extent that it mitigates the unusual lack of blood and gore for a war film and helps avoid the concern that Nolan might be glossing over the horrors of war to get a PG-13 rating.
As for the editing:
From a technical standpoint, the film is unimpeachable, and I'm a sucker for scale and practical effects in a film like this. The precision structuring of the film - like the ticking watch sound around which the score is built - on the script and editing levels are truly impressive, and the commitment to building basically an entire film on the tension of the situation and not any particular emotional connection to the characters except as fellow human beings is noteworthy (this is mirrored by the absolute lack of an enemy in human form). That said, if anything doesn't quite work, it's that the group of soldiers we follow on the beach felt so indistinguishable from each other that it undermines what plot and characterization there is to their section, to the extent that
Altogether, easily one of the best of the year so far, and one that I suspect only improves with multiple viewings.
That said, maybe the most impressive element of the whole film was the sound: the hammering gunfire, concussive bombs and torpedoes, and the screaming of the dive bombers make the terror of the situation overwhelmingly tangible for the audience. Combined with the relative lack of dialogue, this sound work creates tension to such an extent that it mitigates the unusual lack of blood and gore for a war film and helps avoid the concern that Nolan might be glossing over the horrors of war to get a PG-13 rating.
As for the editing:
SpoilerShow
I think the section titles that pop up in the first few minutes identifying the land, sea, and air portions as "one week", "one day", and "one hour" respectively establish pretty early on what Nolan is up to, splicing together three different timelines that sometimes brush up against each other in the first two acts, all intersect in the climactic moments, and then diverge again for the closing minutes. This bow-tie structure of the strands really starts to work to the film's advantage around the halfway point, as the stakes for each group of characters builds and becomes interdependent.
SpoilerShow
I didn't realize that the soldier we first see burying someone on the beach is the same one who helps Styles' character carry a stretcher down the pier until much later, which really dampens the reveal of that soldier's identity.
Altogether, easily one of the best of the year so far, and one that I suspect only improves with multiple viewings.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
This element worked for me. There were so many people involved in this event and Nolan goes out of his way (aside from the sea portion, which is almost a necessary glue to keep this from being a full-on abstraction that just wouldn't work without it) to make this a film that's about the event and the bravery of a lot of different people moreso than a disaster film that decides to tell the stories of three or four different main characters within the context of a larger event. It kept this from being San Andreas or Independence Day to keep the view as wide as possible and nod to the idea that for every individual character we see, there were thousands of stories going on all over this beach and channel. Guessing that went into the logic behind casting a good deal of unknown actors, too.DarkImbecile wrote:That said, if anything doesn't quite work, it's that the group of soldiers we follow on the beach felt so indistinguishable from each other that it undermines what plot and characterization there is to their section, to the extent thatSpoilerShowI didn't realize that the soldier we first see burying someone on the beach is the same one who helps Styles' character carry a stretcher down the pier until much later, which really dampens the reveal of that soldier's identity.
Altogether, easily one of the best of the year so far, and one that I suspect only improves with multiple viewings.
- DarkImbecile
- Ask me about my visible cat breasts
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Like I said, I agree with this conceptually and think it mostly works, except when Nolan wants to build some drama intomfunk9786 wrote:This element worked for me. There were so many people involved in this event and Nolan goes out of his way (aside from the sea portion, which is almost a necessary glue to keep this from being a full-on abstraction that just wouldn't work without it) to make this a film that's about the event and the bravery of a lot of different people moreso than a disaster film that decides to tell the stories of three or four different main characters within the context of a larger event. It kept this from being San Andreas or Independence Day to keep the view as wide as possible and nod to the idea that for every individual character we see, there were thousands of stories going on all over this beach and channel. Guessing that went into the logic behind casting a good deal of unknown actors, too.DarkImbecile wrote:That said, if anything doesn't quite work, it's that the group of soldiers we follow on the beach felt so indistinguishable from each other that it undermines what plot and characterization there is to their section, to the extent thatSpoilerShowI didn't realize that the soldier we first see burying someone on the beach is the same one who helps Styles' character carry a stretcher down the pier until much later, which really dampens the reveal of that soldier's identity.
Altogether, easily one of the best of the year so far, and one that I suspect only improves with multiple viewings.
SpoilerShow
the specific identity of one of these characters,
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Yeah, that almost seems like a repeat viewing Easter egg. Which isn't a problem in and of itself.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
A historical query...
Supposedly both the British AND French forces were driven towards Dunkirk. Am I correct in assuming that the British were rescued, but the French were left to fend for themselves?
Supposedly both the British AND French forces were driven towards Dunkirk. Am I correct in assuming that the British were rescued, but the French were left to fend for themselves?
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Michael Kerpan wrote:A historical query...
Supposedly both the British AND French forces were driven towards Dunkirk. Am I correct in assuming that the British were rescued, but the French were left to fend for themselves?
SpoilerShow
One of the last lines in the film is Kenneth Branagh, as a Commander (and the "pier-master"), saying he's sticking around to help the French evacuate. There are French characters here and there, but apparently they're still making their way to to the shore in the timeline we see.
-
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:45 pm
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
I went to see it this morning in 70mm. The projectionist must have had a hell of a time with it because the image was soft for the 20 minutes I stayed. Hopefully others are having better success with the 70mm screenings at their cinemas. I'll try again in a few days.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Additional query: Can a well-known historical event (or what _should_ be one) have spoilers (as to the events themselves -- as opposed to fictionalized individual stories)? (I see you made reference to a bit of the latter -- but my question is more general in scope).
Answering my own question, it seems like the French rear guard (about a third, maybe) would up having to surrender.
Answering my own question, it seems like the French rear guard (about a third, maybe) would up having to surrender.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
It's specific to the film, so it's technically a spoiler, but it answers your question with regard to whether or not the film acknowledges what you asked about (it does)
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
I know -- that's why I added an extra parenthetical).mfunk9786 wrote:It's specific to the film, so it's technically a spoiler, but it answers your question with regard to whether or not the film acknowledges what you asked about (it does)
- solaris72
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Same here. I saw it at the AFI theater in Silver Spring. Looked great at first but then the center went soft and stayed that way for the whole film. Saw some people get up and come back so I assume the theater was informed. Very unfortunate. I've seen 2001, Lawrence of Arabia and The Master all in 70 at that theater and there was never a problem.Carthage64836 wrote:I went to see it this morning in 70mm. The projectionist must have had a hell of a time with it because the image was soft for the 20 minutes I stayed. Hopefully others are having better success with the 70mm screenings at their cinemas. I'll try again in a few days.
Great film otherwise!
- bearcuborg
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
- Location: Philadelphia via Chicago
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Maltin on Dunkirk
I can't say I ever found a Nolan film to be more than passable, but I did catch the very good trailer they had in front Rogue One last winter. That turned out to the best thing about that particular trip to the theater... Anyway, despite any reviews, I hope to go this weekend.
mfunk9786 I figured you would go to the Franklin Institute. I feel like upper/center is the sweet spot there... Let me know if you go.
I can't say I ever found a Nolan film to be more than passable, but I did catch the very good trailer they had in front Rogue One last winter. That turned out to the best thing about that particular trip to the theater... Anyway, despite any reviews, I hope to go this weekend.
mfunk9786 I figured you would go to the Franklin Institute. I feel like upper/center is the sweet spot there... Let me know if you go.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
Damn, I was planning to come down next week to see it there! I saw the Master and the Hateful Eight in 70mm there with no probssolaris72 wrote:Same here. I saw it at the AFI theater in Silver Spring. Looked great at first but then the center went soft and stayed that way for the whole film. Saw some people get up and come back so I assume the theater was informed. Very unfortunate. I've seen 2001, Lawrence of Arabia and The Master all in 70 at that theater and there was never a problem.Carthage64836 wrote:I went to see it this morning in 70mm. The projectionist must have had a hell of a time with it because the image was soft for the 20 minutes I stayed. Hopefully others are having better success with the 70mm screenings at their cinemas. I'll try again in a few days.
Great film otherwise!
- Ribs
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)
If you've got automobile access in the DC area it's probably a better option overall to head to Baltimore where a museum is showing the IMAX 70mm version, by all accounts the very best viewing option.
I'm *shocked* that the Smithsonian didn't manage to get a print of that either given they have the capability but considering they show Interstellar in 70mm like ten times a year it'll probably make its way down to DC proper relatively promptly. The Laser IMAX presentation there is likewise a safe bet for a stellar presentation until that point.
Also keep in mind that though the AFI does show other 70mm films, they're not especially abundant and so there might be a light learning curve in terms of each of their projectionists on every single shift getting everything exactly right.
I'm *shocked* that the Smithsonian didn't manage to get a print of that either given they have the capability but considering they show Interstellar in 70mm like ten times a year it'll probably make its way down to DC proper relatively promptly. The Laser IMAX presentation there is likewise a safe bet for a stellar presentation until that point.
Also keep in mind that though the AFI does show other 70mm films, they're not especially abundant and so there might be a light learning curve in terms of each of their projectionists on every single shift getting everything exactly right.