Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2890
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#2 Post by Ribs » Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:01 pm

Officially confirmed now. From Deadline:
It’s called Dunkirk, and Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh and Tom Hardy will be part of an ensemble made up largely of unknowns. Pic will be shot on IMAX 65mm and 65mm large-format film.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8682
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Christopher Nolan

#3 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:28 pm

Wonder if they'll bump the release date. This doesn't sound like something a major studio would put out in the middle of July.

Good on him for making such a sudden left turn like this now.

User avatar
Trees
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#4 Post by Trees » Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:42 pm

I'm generally kind of tired of WWII pictures, and this seems like an odd choice to make a heroic war picture about a retreat, but I have faith in Nolan and always look forward to his pictures.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28730
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Christopher Nolan

#5 Post by domino harvey » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:13 pm

You should familiarize yourself with the real life story-- everyone coming together to pull off Dunkirk was one of the most heroic acts in all of WWII and the degree of its success was a literal miracle. While waiting for Nolan's take, why not watch Mrs Miniver to see the caliber of great film Nolan will be competing with (though it's more of a B plot there)?

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8446
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#6 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:09 am

There's also the 1958 Ealing film Dunkirk, and Atonement used the Dunkirk evacuation for its rather apt war metaphor.

It has always seemed as if, for Britain at least, the evacuation of Dunkirk helped make the eventual D-Day landings even more significant, as a return back to the beaches that had to be abandoned years before.

User avatar
ellipsis7
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#7 Post by ellipsis7 » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:04 am

A third of a million or so troops of the British Expeditonary Force were succesfully evacuated from Dunkirk back to the UK mainly by a flotilla of small craft, avoiding capture and possible national capitulation, forming the core of a strengthened and enlarged armed force that was then built up for the fight back that culminated in the D-Day Normandy landings...

omotesandohills
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:21 am

Re: Christopher Nolan

#8 Post by omotesandohills » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:59 am

domino harvey wrote:why not watch Mrs Miniver to see the caliber of great film Nolan will be competing with (though it's more of a B plot there)?
Having just come across "Mrs Miniver" while reading Mark Harris's great book "Five Came Back" I agree it's a really great film. Will be interesting to see Nolan's take. Saw on Deadline today that Tom Hardy is in talks to join the cast.

User avatar
Dylan
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#9 Post by Dylan » Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:19 pm

In addition to Mrs. Miniver, there's also Henri Verneuil's 1964 Weekend at Dunkirk, starring Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Spaak. It's pretty good and beautifully shot, but to date its never received an English-friendly home video release. If anybody's interested, you can read pretty much everything you could possibly want to know about it here.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8682
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#10 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:22 pm


User avatar
FrauBlucher
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#11 Post by FrauBlucher » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:52 pm

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It looks great, but I'm all wared out.

User avatar
Luke M
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#12 Post by Luke M » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:45 pm

Yeah, if we're going to kill one sub-genre I'd pick WW2 flicks over comic book films.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28730
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#13 Post by domino harvey » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:53 pm

Heaven forbid we remember and depict true heroes over comic book ones

User avatar
tarpilot
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:48 am

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#14 Post by tarpilot » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:27 pm

While it's tempting to scold the world's real Steve Rogerses for their appreciation of shiny distillations of bold-lined propaganda, I think it's unfair to expect them to have read any thicker books on the subject.

User avatar
Roscoe
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#15 Post by Roscoe » Fri Aug 05, 2016 8:40 am

Looks like another fizzy witty romantic comedy diversion from Christopher Nolan, the 21st Century's Ernst Lubitsch!

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4196
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#16 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:00 pm

I have to say, those shots are very compelling, but morally a bit alarming, recalling what I believe to be recurring problems with many war films that try to be anti-war films: an aesthetic that seems to arrange a physical beauty around some horrific sights (one that's harder to take in the context of a very controlled and staged production rather than, say, a documentary or journalistic film), and one wonders if the very real terror felt by those killed in Dunkirk will be turned into visceral entertainment that's similar to a polished horror film.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28730
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#17 Post by domino harvey » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:10 pm

Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#18 Post by The Narrator Returns » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:19 pm

I don't know about you guys, but I think I can deal with a little moral dodginess when it means I get some Hoyte van Hoytema cinematography in exchange.

User avatar
swo17
Posts: 13557
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#19 Post by swo17 » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:20 pm

domino harvey wrote:Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness
I hope he at least honors them with some kind of cool sci-fi twist ending.

User avatar
carmilla mircalla
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#20 Post by carmilla mircalla » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:21 pm

hearthesilence wrote:I have to say, those shots are very compelling, but morally a bit alarming, recalling what I believe to be recurring problems with many war films that try to be anti-war films: an aesthetic that seems to arrange a physical beauty around some horrific sights (one that's harder to take in the context of a very controlled and staged production rather than, say, a documentary or journalistic film), and one wonders if the very real terror felt by those killed in Dunkirk will be turned into visceral entertainment that's similar to a polished horror film.
how do you feel about the opening sequence in Private Ryan? technical aspects aside but morally. I always felt as I got older that Spielberg had effectively turned what was supposed to be the feel of the "horror of war" into cheap exploitation. I wonder just how many people were shocked by the violence vs how many people thought it was cool to see such graphicness in the sense that it was an attempt at realism. The big problem with the latter is that part of that person is still thinking the violence is impressive no matter in what way. This is how I feel all the violence in Private Ryan works against it.

I'm sure Spielberg had the thought many times during filming. I would not doubt an inch he thought the effects were "cool".

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28730
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#21 Post by domino harvey » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:32 pm

swo17 wrote:
domino harvey wrote:Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness
I hope he at least honors them with some kind of cool sci-fi twist ending.
Morgan Freeman's narration at the end: "...and then, seventy-plus years later, bright electronic devices would enable people from across the globe to remotely connect to each other so they can bitch about how a film depicting the service of these men was too beautiful, because war should look bad like poor people"

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4196
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#22 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:40 pm

domino harvey wrote:Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness
That's a preposterous response-nothing I wrote is remotely close to criticizing those killed, much less accuse them of "complicity."

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4196
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#23 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Aug 06, 2016 12:35 am

carmilla mircalla wrote:how do you feel about the opening sequence in Private Ryan? technical aspects aside but morally. I always felt as I got older that Spielberg had effectively turned what was supposed to be the feel of the "horror of war" into cheap exploitation. I wonder just how many people were shocked by the violence vs how many people thought it was cool to see such graphicness in the sense that it was an attempt at realism. The big problem with the latter is that part of that person is still thinking the violence is impressive no matter in what way. This is how I feel all the violence in Private Ryan works against it.

I'm sure Spielberg had the thought many times during filming. I would not doubt an inch he thought the effects were "cool".
I saw it during its initial theatrical run in 1998. It felt like a video game, or finding out all the ways someone could be killed in combat and checking them off one by one.

I remember reading about a press conference with Tom Hanks and Spielberg where Hanks was quoted as saying that he hoped this type of film would be viewed by a younger person (I think a high school student - this was ages ago so my memory's hazy) and make him think twice about how he viewed violence. Then within a year (after I had seen it), DreamWorks (with Spielberg's creative participation no less) begins a series of first-person video games called Medal of Honor, essentially a pre-cursor to Call of Duty. I saw this, immediately remembered Spielberg and Hanks' solemn press conference, and just shook my head.
domino harvey wrote:"...depicting the service of these men was too beautiful, because war should look bad like poor people"
Another misinterpretation of what I said, though this one is more understandable. I had a long day, so will have to pick this up later, but really quick, I think The Thin Red Line is a masterpiece, and there's no shortage of people who would call that film "beautiful." But that only proves what a generic description "beautiful" really is - it's not really an accurate reflection of what's on screen. A bad film like Pearl Harbor was a beautiful production, but a very slick and shallow one, with moments that felt like high priced TV commercials, not poetry.

MongooseCmr
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#24 Post by MongooseCmr » Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:34 am

carmilla mircalla wrote:how do you feel about the opening sequence in Private Ryan? technical aspects aside but morally. I always felt as I got older that Spielberg had effectively turned what was supposed to be the feel of the "horror of war" into cheap exploitation. I wonder just how many people were shocked by the violence vs how many people thought it was cool to see such graphicness in the sense that it was an attempt at realism. The big problem with the latter is that part of that person is still thinking the violence is impressive no matter in what way. This is how I feel all the violence in Private Ryan works against it.

I'm sure Spielberg had the thought many times during filming. I would not doubt an inch he thought the effects were "cool".
I wholeheartedly agree. In both SPR and Schindler's List Spielberg seems to take a morbid glee in constructing more and more extravagant and memorable ways to kill people. He turns the death of his supposed heroes and innocents into punchlines more often than not. It's really appalling in Schindler's List

User avatar
Roscoe
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

#25 Post by Roscoe » Sat Aug 06, 2016 8:08 am

My take on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was always that it was torn apart by the conflict between wanting to be a Serious Depiction of the Horror of War and being a really bitchin war movie with guns and tanks and planes and stuff. It settles for a really ugly self-righteousness, with that finger-wagging "Earn This!" because war is the handiest guilt trip of them all.

As for DUNKIRK, whatever. Nolan's bogus High Solemnity is as choking as Spielberg's, but without the energy that Spielberg manages to infuse into his work. DUNKIRK looks to be another bloated Nolanathon of gloom and CGI all to send us the message that War Is Bad. I'll avoid it.

Post Reply