Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#101 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:55 pm

Oh wow, that's actually way more convenient since I'm in Baltimore and the science museum is close by-- thanks for the tip!

User avatar
essrog
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:24 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minn.

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#102 Post by essrog » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:16 pm

Similarly, for anyone in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, the Minnesota Zoo is the only place in the state to see it in IMAX 70mm.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#103 Post by knives » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:17 pm

Is there a place near Boston playing 70mm?

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#104 Post by Ribs » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:23 pm

The official site has a pretty good map that spotlights IMAX 70mm and 70mm showings. (The answer to your question is yes, there's one in Boston proper showing 70mm)

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#105 Post by knives » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:32 pm

Cool, and thank you.

User avatar
rohmerin
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Spain

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#106 Post by rohmerin » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:35 pm

Only a cinema showing in 70mm in Spain (soon a new country, may be), in Barcelona, just like 950 km off my place.
So, I watched in 2D, digital, and I liked but not loved. I still prefer the Belmondo - Catherine Spaak movie, may be because there's a woman and more background with only a person, Jean Paul.

I found the Nolan quite long, and it should not be.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#107 Post by Michael Kerpan » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:26 pm

Ribs wrote:The official site has a pretty good map that spotlights IMAX 70mm and 70mm showings. (The answer to your question is yes, there's one in Boston proper showing 70mm)
Downtown is definitely easier to get to than the IMAX theater at Jordans Furniture in Natick....

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#108 Post by Black Hat » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:28 pm

Dunkirk is marvelous in every possible way, bravo Christopher Nolan bravo.

Very curious to see how the general public responds as I found it took a bit of getting used to, hard to figure out who was who, what was what so I'm sure it'll reward repeat viewings.

Definitely reminds me of JC Chandor's criminally underrated All is Lost.

And the next time someone tries to tell you or write a think piece that cinema is dead point to Dunkirk.

rohmerin wrote:So, I watched in 2D, digital, and I liked but not loved. I still prefer the Belmondo - Catherine Spaak movie, may be because there's a woman and more background with only a person, Jean Paul.
bless you

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#109 Post by Drucker » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:20 pm

A lot of people have already touched on the points I would make about the film. Speaking as a not-gigantic Nolan fan this film certainly ranks highly for me alongside Interstellar. But whereas that one had the strength of a really emotional, almost melodramatic story, this one absolutely avoids the stuff people dislike about Nolan films and is really expertly made without being plodding. My complaint about Inception was that it tried to pack too much into the story, and even at 2.5 hours, it felt like every second was packed with detail. This film has a ton of space, and the film breathes and takes its brisk time.

The first ten minutes really are just magnificent cinema, and has been noted are just an absolutely expert, excellently made piece of filmmaking. And throughout the film I kept thinking about what a unique piece of war filmmaking this was. With such a singular focus on the one battle, it does a great job of focusing on the individual stories while also keeping the bigger perspectives of the battle itself and the larger war.
SpoilerShow
As far as structure I am disappointed that I didn't really follow the hour/day/week structure. I got that the events were certainly non-linear, but I missed that the story was being told in that fashion. Quite frankly I don't know what I was thinking, but once I came back here and read the thread after seeing the film, everything that left me confused finally clicked.
Looking forward to seeing it again.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#110 Post by All the Best People » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:23 am

This appears to be one of those movies where I'll be cast as the guy who likes it and doesn't love it, and thus comes across as a naysayer. The look is great, textured, epic; the spectacle is well-mounted. I found the structure a little cute; I'm not sure the film had to be a puzzle film, per se, but Nolan's gotta Nolan, and I'll actually trust that he sat down and figured out that particular setpieces had to be laid out in the way they were. Certain subplots felt rather "Hollywood", though I haven't done any research into what anecdotes might be sourced in real experience and which might be dramatic license.

I did find the nearly wall-to-wall music to be highly counterproductive; it's fine as music, but so often either steps on moments (and dialogue) and not infrequently feels like a cheat to ramp up tension that I felt Nolan was already getting to with his typical Griffithian intercutting. Upon some consideration, I wonder if that intercutting, moving through time as well as space, isn't the most interesting thing about the movie -- or, rather, the only interesting thing about the movie. Aside from that, it's a handsome picture but rather in the tradition of past combat films -- it's a generally classical camera style/decoupage married to a narrative in line with the You Are There characterless battle immersion of Black Hawk Down. There's nothing wrong with that, but Nolan has made by my count eight better films (though five, including this, I'd put at roughly the same level -- Inception, Interstellar, Insomnia [which I haven't seen since it was in theaters, so have little memory of], and The Prestige [ditto]), and thus far 2017 has seen at least five better.

Do see it in 70mm, as I suspect this will lose quite a bit on even the best home screens.

ETA: I did like the opening few images, and thought, hey, Nolan's discovered poetry! That didn't last long (not that it needed to for this sort of movie). I did find the plots easy to follow; there are moments where certain questions are raised, which is fine, but the supers early on give you your bearings.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#111 Post by All the Best People » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:41 am

Adam Nayman really nails it for me. A good account of the film's strengths (though I'm not entirely sure which climactic cut he so praises, though I have an idea) with well-expressed reservations about the overall impact.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#112 Post by John Shade » Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:29 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
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.
I was told that some French people maintained a certain negativity toward Churchill for this event and some other, earlier calamity during the war. I wonder if that's still the case or if any of our French posters here know if there's still an element of that.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#113 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:03 am

JohnShade wrote:I was told that some French people maintained a certain negativity toward Churchill for this event and some other, earlier calamity during the war. I wonder if that's still the case or if any of our French posters here know if there's still an element of that.
I suspect this is a reference to the British sinking the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir, which was a month after the Dunkirk evacuation but it's certainly the major mid-1940 event that made the French realise that while under Nazi occupation they couldn't count on British support.

The Sorrow and the Pity tackles this incident in some detail, with contributions from both sides (including the then Foreign Secretary and future Prime Minister Anthony Eden).

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#114 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:10 am

All the Best People wrote:This appears to be one of those movies where I'll be cast as the guy who likes it and doesn't love it, and thus comes across as a naysayer.
I don't think you're alone in that. Plenty of established, mainstream press critics have expressed reservations. They still like it, quite a bit in fact, but they've been throwing some water on the ridiculous hype tossed around by bloggers et al.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#115 Post by Feiereisel » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:01 pm

I went twice and saw it in two formats--Digital IMAX and 70mm--and the film's spareness and simplicity are phenomenal, especially after the lumpiness of Interstellar and others. Nolan plays to his strengths, shamelessly, and the cumulative result is stunning--this is the big-picture film that Interstellar fancies itself to be. As said above, "Nolan's gotta Nolan," but, as with his best work, his peculiarities are what make Dunkirk such a singular experience.

In terms of the spectacle-over-substance reaction--it's a fair take, and though it's often used as a demerit I'm not sure it should be...it is excellent, gripping spectacle, and a welcome diversion to the bland business of many other contemporary blockbusters. Nolan's work here reminds me of how Miller constructed Mad Max: Fury Road in that a lot of attention is given to the physical effort the characters in each film put into whatever they do, which makes their work that much more compelling, visceral, and meaningful.
SpoilerShow
Examples: Max spends a lot of time chafing against an sawing through his restraints, making his eventual escape from them that much more satisfying; Farrier's broken fuel gauge and the careful marking of his remaining fuel give his decision to switch over to his reserve tank much more gravity in the film as a whole.

This is not elaborate or particularly high-concept action-sequence construction, but it feels absent from a lot of other blockbusters and keeps the perspective of the action grounded and personal.
The film plays better the second time around--certain reactions and decisions make more sense because the viewer has a fuller understanding of the film's major characters. The substance is there, it's just that it isn't summed up with a single speech or specific statement.
SpoilerShow
In fact, the lack of some standard conventions (such as character introductions and linear editing) could be understood as a way for Nolan to push viewers to approach understanding the film in a holistic fashion. For example, in framing the evacuation as a miracle but also meticulously presenting the high cost of achieving that miracle, the film expresses as much pride as it does sadness and ambivalence. Though it looms over each of the subplots, consider especially closing minutes of the film, such as the such as the solider scoffing at Collins on the dock and Tommy's reaction to reading the newspaper aloud, as well as the "broken" presentation of the Shivering Soldier is over the course of the story.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#116 Post by carmilla mircalla » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:39 am

saw it tonight in 70mm but just one question right now:
SpoilerShow
Did Hardy's character not have a chute? if he did why didn't he just chute out of his plane when he was still on the british part of the beach?

User avatar
Altair
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: England

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#117 Post by Altair » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:42 am

carmilla mircalla wrote:saw it tonight in 70mm but just one question right now:
SpoilerShow
Did Hardy's character not have a chute? if he did why didn't he just chute out of his plane when he was still on the british part of the beach?
SpoilerShow
You can only parachute out of an airplane if you're above a certain height, otherwise you'll descend too fast before the parachute will slow you down sufficiently.

rawlinson
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#118 Post by rawlinson » Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:28 am

Altair wrote:
carmilla mircalla wrote:saw it tonight in 70mm but just one question right now:
SpoilerShow
Did Hardy's character not have a chute? if he did why didn't he just chute out of his plane when he was still on the british part of the beach?
SpoilerShow
You can only parachute out of an airplane if you're above a certain height, otherwise you'll descend too fast before the parachute will slow you down sufficiently.

Also
SpoilerShow
If the plane came down intact and close to enemy territory it would fall into enemy hands after the evacuation. He probably wouldn't want to take that risk.

User avatar
jorencain
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:45 am

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#119 Post by jorencain » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:37 pm

As some others have noted, sound is so important to this movie. From the near-constant sound of a ticking watch to Zimmer's score to the diegetic sounds of warfare, it's really a layered an complex soundscape. This is completely integral to sustaining the suspense and excitement across the entire film, without ever letting up.

I also want to note the nice use of Elgar's "Enigma Variations" in the score at the end. Zimmer weaves in, slowly but clearly, the theme from the most famous movement, "Nimrod," to underscore the text from Churchill's speech. I think it's used appropriately, without being overstated.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#120 Post by carmilla mircalla » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:41 pm

jorencain wrote:As some others have noted, sound is so important to this movie. From the near-constant sound of a ticking watch to Zimmer's score to the diegetic sounds of warfare, it's really a layered an complex soundscape. This is completely integral to sustaining the suspense and excitement across the entire film, without ever letting up.
My thoughts exactly. Lately I've been paying attention to sound mixes in most things I watch more than anything. Without the score and the sound mix being as great as they are Dunkirk would not have had the strong anxiety inducing impact that it has. What I was most impressed by was the screeching/screaming sounds the german planes made when they flew by on the bombing runs. It was actually scary more than anything

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)

#121 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:43 am

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 that
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.
That wasn't Styles' character who was carrying the stretcher (it was the soldier played by Fionn Whitehead), but that only proves you are correct that the soldiers are often indistinguishable from each other.

I disagree that Nolan's structure is questionably arty because "Nolan has to be Nolan". By their nature, the aerial scenes could not take place over an extended period of time, so to allow those scenes to dictate the time frame of the whole film would be to significantly restrict what action was seen on the beach and on the private boat if the intercutting approach was still used. The other choice would be to structure the film linearly, playing out nearly all of the beach/loading scenes first, then introduce Mark Rylance and the two boys in the film's second half and save the aerial moments for the climax of the film. This approach would make for a completely different and less compelling film in my opinion.

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

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#122 Post by knives » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:46 am

But even considering those stories as separate entities that could be played as self contained tales is a very Nolan trait. Look by comparison at something like The Longest Day which this seems to be in the mold of to get a sense of how Nolan's thought process delivered a different sort of take on an old structure.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#123 Post by Lemmy Caution » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:53 am

Interesting article on why the Germans delayed attacking, which allowed time to evacuate Dunkirk.

As for French troops:
By the end of May the outline of a near-miraculous military evacuation was taking shape. Not only had the Royal Navy turned up to ship out troops from both the harbor and the beach at Dunkirk. A motley fleet of merchant vessels and small leisure boats also sailed across from English ports. On May 29 more than 47,000 men were rescued, nearly three times as many as the previous day.

Each following day the numbers grew, to 68,000 on May 31. By June 4, effectively the end of the operation, 338,000 military personnel had been carried to England. That total included 125,000 French troops, who would form the nucleus of the Free French forces in England with the eventual hope of avenging their country’s abject surrender to the Nazis.
And on a much larger tangent, back in February I saw a bunch of freaks and cross-dressers outside a bar in Shanghai . . . so i stopped in. Turns out they were celebrating Dunkerque Carnivale, an old Dunkirk tradition whereby folks dress up, get drunk in public and demand herring from the local gov't, which complies.

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)

#124 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:57 am

Roger Ryan wrote:
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 that
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.
That wasn't Styles' character who was carrying the stretcher (it was the soldier played by Fionn Whitehead), but that only proves you are correct that the soldiers are often indistinguishable from each other.
Thanks for the clarification! On the other hand, I now have literally no idea who Harry Styles was in the movie. Doesn't help that I couldn't pick him out of a lineup with a gun to my head, but I think I just assumed he was the more prominent of the beach-bound characters.

rawlinson
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#125 Post by rawlinson » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:59 am

DarkImbecile wrote:
Roger Ryan wrote:
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 that
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.
That wasn't Styles' character who was carrying the stretcher (it was the soldier played by Fionn Whitehead), but that only proves you are correct that the soldiers are often indistinguishable from each other.
Thanks for the clarification! On the other hand, I now have literally no idea who Harry Styles was in the movie. Doesn't help that I couldn't pick him out of a lineup with a gun to my head, but I think I just assumed he was the more prominent of the beach-bound characters.
Styles is
SpoilerShow
The other soldier who spends most of the time with those two, the one who starts to suspect that one of them may be German and who rides back on the train at the end.

Post Reply