Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

..and why not?
User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60005
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby sloopjohnc » 20 Jul 2017, 19:14

Rayge wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:For years I never saw the appeal of 2001 and then I saw it on the big screen and it blew me away. I was enthralled and exhilarated for the whole thing. It's a cliché but seeing it on the big screen is a different experience to seeing it on yer telly.

I never saw it on the telly. Two viewings on the big screen on the 60s were enough to tell me that I never wanted to see it again. The second time was by far and away the worst experience I( remember in a cinema that didn't involve physical illness


:lol:
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 30227
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Goat Boy » 20 Jul 2017, 20:53

I really think he should watch it again!
Lord Rother wrote:Missing the sublime sense of melody which David Longdon brought to the group but nonetheless a damn fine album.

Big Big Train - Goodbye To The Age of Steam

User avatar
Darryl Strawberry
Posts: 6921
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Darryl Strawberry » 20 Jul 2017, 21:26

The Great Defector wrote:
K wrote:The amazing story of Scatman Crothers.

He broke down in tears after Kubrick insisted on 40 takes of the scene where Torrance kills him. "What do you want me to do, Mr Kubrick?" He was 69 years old.
Kubrick had wanted to do more but Jack Nicholson convinced him to call it quits.

Crothers' next film is Eastwood's Bronco Billy. After the first take of his first scene Eastwood says, "OK. That'll do." Crothers broke down in tears of gratitude (or relief).



See, this thing of directors/actors doing 20 or 40 takes, I find it hard to believe that'd down to perfectionism. Rather, deep down, they don't have a fucking clue what they want and are too proud to admit it. I don't care how talented they are.

Noted.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
John Coan, with nothing else to do, wrote:I just Googled his name!

User avatar
PENK
Midnight to Six Man
Posts: 33667
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 20:12
Location: Stockholm

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby PENK » 20 Jul 2017, 21:41

I saw Dunkirk today and it was superb.

I think I should start by saying that I've never been convinced by Nolan before: I think, like Jeemo, that he fills his films with thin pseudo-intellectual waffle, high-octane concepts designed to make him look smart within safe Hollywood parameters. I've usually enjoyed watching his films but found them far too easy to pick holes in, or too baggy or over-the-top.

What I've always thought he could do, though, is direct exciting scenes and Dunkirk cuts out the twaddle in order to deliver a magnificent cinema experience. Like Dougie said about 2001, this one needs to be seen on the big screen. It's not a standard Hollywood blockbuster or indeed a standard war film; it's a 100-minute film of tension, suspense and spectacle without convoluted plotting or star showboating.

I'll dip into spoiler mode for this as I feel it's best to go into it not knowing too many of the details beforehand, but for those who've seen the film or do want to know a bit more:

The film simply shows the evacuation of the beaches without heading elsewhere for context or exposition. There are three separate threads:
a couple of young soldiers on the beach, played by unknown actors Fionn Whitehead and Aneurin Barnard; a civilian boat, captained by Mark Rylance, along with his teenage son and a friend, requisitioned to head over the Channel and help evacuate soldiers; and a trio of Spitfires, one piloted by Tom Hardy, heading across to engage the enemy. We simply see what is going on from those three perspectives - although the scenes on the beach sometimes cut to the men in charge there, with Kenneth Branagh as the navy commander - and there are no scenes of people sitting around chatting, no romantic entanglements, no pitched battles on the streets. There is none of the blood and gore you expect from a war film and there is no time for sentiment. As reviews have suggested, there is little dialogue beyond that which naturally occurs in the moment; there are almost no Germans seen onscreen. The officers we see, Branagh and the others, are just as in the dark as the rest of the men and there is no moralising and no blaming, there are no men behind desks in suits consigning people to their doom: everyone here just wants to get home.
The cinematography and Hans Zimmer's incredible ambient score - it feels like part of the action rather than a soundtrack - push things along and after an initial half-hour in which I was struggling to get involved, due to the lack of strong characters to identify with (only on Rylance's boat does any kind of sentiment crop up, and that does seem like a weak link), things start to come together and towards the end I realised that I was gripped. There are some incredible scenes on a large scale, with thousands of men crowding the beach and pier, and some on an intense small scale: soldiers flailing underwater when their ship is torpedoed.
The three threads do eventually converge which gives it, finally, a kind of satisfying resolution but it's ordered chaos. Nolan and his team do a great job of making this into cinema that feels at once immediate and panicked yet epic and awe-inspiring: despite the massive scale of a lot of it, it doesn't feel overblown but instead intimate and intense.
I don't know if it puts Nolan on a Kubrick level, as Kubrick is a giant of cinema who made a number of legendary classics. But this, whatever posterity says about Nolan's other work, will be up there.
Darkness_Fish wrote:One slight disappointment was that there turns out to be two cinemas in Bolton

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20124
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 20 Jul 2017, 22:20

K wrote:
The Great Defector wrote:
K wrote:The amazing story of Scatman Crothers.

He broke down in tears after Kubrick insisted on 40 takes of the scene where Torrance kills him. "What do you want me to do, Mr Kubrick?" He was 69 years old.
Kubrick had wanted to do more but Jack Nicholson convinced him to call it quits.

Crothers' next film is Eastwood's Bronco Billy. After the first take of his first scene Eastwood says, "OK. That'll do." Crothers broke down in tears of gratitude (or relief).



See, this thing of directors/actors doing 20 or 40 takes, I find it hard to believe that'd down to perfectionism. Rather, deep down, they don't have a fucking clue what they want and are too proud to admit it. I don't care how talented they are.

Noted.


It would take some sort of numbskull to think that Kubrick didn't know exactly what he wanted........oh right
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Darryl Strawberry
Posts: 6921
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Darryl Strawberry » 20 Jul 2017, 22:47

Jeemo wrote:
K wrote:
The Great Defector wrote:

See, this thing of directors/actors doing 20 or 40 takes, I find it hard to believe that'd down to perfectionism. Rather, deep down, they don't have a fucking clue what they want and are too proud to admit it. I don't care how talented they are.

Noted.


It would take some sort of numbskull to think that Kubrick didn't know exactly what he wanted........oh right

;)
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
John Coan, with nothing else to do, wrote:I just Googled his name!

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 16060
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Great Defector » 20 Jul 2017, 23:39

K wrote:
The Great Defector wrote:
K wrote:The amazing story of Scatman Crothers.

He broke down in tears after Kubrick insisted on 40 takes of the scene where Torrance kills him. "What do you want me to do, Mr Kubrick?" He was 69 years old.
Kubrick had wanted to do more but Jack Nicholson convinced him to call it quits.

Crothers' next film is Eastwood's Bronco Billy. After the first take of his first scene Eastwood says, "OK. That'll do." Crothers broke down in tears of gratitude (or relief).



See, this thing of directors/actors doing 20 or 40 takes, I find it hard to believe that'd down to perfectionism. Rather, deep down, they don't have a fucking clue what they want and are too proud to admit it. I don't care how talented they are.

Noted.


Good boy.
Loki wrote:You Brit boys are so contentious!

User avatar
fire and fueryIre
Posts: 8749
Joined: 04 May 2011, 02:57
Location: Accredited BCB Pain in the Arse

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby fire and fueryIre » 21 Jul 2017, 18:02

Radge wrote:
The second time was by far and away the worst experience I( remember in a cinema that didn't involve physical illness



Don't you just hate it when you pay to see a movie you loathe for a second time and then end up having to buy tickets for all your aliases before you can get in...
Image

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 22494
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 22 Jul 2017, 15:23

2001 is a great film, but it is purely cinematic in a way that you either appreciate or you dont. Silly to try and convince anyone. I don't think you NEED to see it on a big screen, but it certainly helps you to take it in on an experiential level.

I like a few of Nolan's films. But the ones I've seen were pretty locked into a more narrative-driven style. Perhaps he breaks free of that with his new film, and the liberation is prompting the comparisons. I'm intrigued by that. But yeah...I don't think the comparison is one that is going to do anything but set unrealistic expectations.
Marginal BCB contributor since 2006

Image

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 44866
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Prof » 25 Jul 2017, 13:52

I enjoyed it.
Although from the first scene you got the impression that The Germans were only a few feet away from the beach, held back by half a dozen French soldiers behind sandbags. In fact they were miles away and had stopped advancing for reasons which are still debated.
I think at one point they were trying to tell Cillian Murphy's character's back story but that got a bit confused and then we kept jumping between night and day.
Mark Rylance only seems to have one character. A steady, knowing middle-aged man that remains totally unflustered throughout. Cromwell in a small boat, really.

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 16060
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Great Defector » 26 Jul 2017, 17:35

Going to see this tomorrow night. Looking forward to it.
Loki wrote:You Brit boys are so contentious!

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 16060
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Great Defector » 28 Jul 2017, 12:18

Fucking superb, you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. It just shredded your nerves from near start to finish. Nolan used every trick in the book too to achieve this. From the sound track, to story ploys, to sounds of the film itself. His thing with time didn't really work. You kinda forgot what he was trying to do with it after 5 minutes, and it didn't really come in to play in terms of story telling until the end. Acting was spot on, I really wish Rylance was in more films, he's just amazing. :( Harry Styles held his own in a part a lot bigger than I thought it would be.. Tom hardy brought some humor, that I just probably found funny, with his almost comedic stiff upper lip of accepting when the shit hit the fan.

All in all, Nolan does it again for me.
Loki wrote:You Brit boys are so contentious!

User avatar
fire and fueryIre
Posts: 8749
Joined: 04 May 2011, 02:57
Location: Accredited BCB Pain in the Arse

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby fire and fueryIre » 28 Jul 2017, 12:39

The Great Defector wrote:Fucking superb, you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. It just shredded your nerves from near start to finish. Nolan used every trick in the book too to achieve this. From the sound track, to story ploys, to sounds of the film itself. His thing with time didn't really work. You kinda forgot what he was trying to do with it after 5 minutes, and it didn't really come in to play in terms of story telling until the end. Acting was spot on, I really wish Rylance was in more films, he's just amazing. :( Harry Styles held his own in a part a lot bigger than I thought it would be.. Tom hardy brought some humor, that I just probably found funny, with his almost comedic stiff upper lip of accepting when the shit hit the fan.

All in all, Nolan does it again for me.


Thanks for not giving away the ending!
Image

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 16060
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Great Defector » 28 Jul 2017, 12:43

fueryIre wrote:
The Great Defector wrote:Fucking superb, you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. It just shredded your nerves from near start to finish. Nolan used every trick in the book too to achieve this. From the sound track, to story ploys, to sounds of the film itself. His thing with time didn't really work. You kinda forgot what he was trying to do with it after 5 minutes, and it didn't really come in to play in terms of story telling until the end. Acting was spot on, I really wish Rylance was in more films, he's just amazing. :( Harry Styles held his own in a part a lot bigger than I thought it would be.. Tom hardy brought some humor, that I just probably found funny, with his almost comedic stiff upper lip of accepting when the shit hit the fan.

All in all, Nolan does it again for me.


Thanks for not giving away the ending!



No problem, it's a bit of an anticlimax.
Loki wrote:You Brit boys are so contentious!

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20124
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 29 Jul 2017, 18:19

Took the wee guy to see Dunkirk today. A chance to get away from all the heavy stuff going on at the moment. I went in wanting to lose myself in a film for a few hours and not have to think about other stuff. I wanted to like it if not love it. I wanted Nolan to win me over.

Likes. it looked fantastic at times, some of the cinematography was wonderful.

didn't likes. No real story, flimsy characters, a fractured timeline for absolutely no real reason whatsoever, fidnt add to the drama, and the cliched music at the end was unforgivable. Any other director would've been presented with his arse for that.

so an average film at best.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20124
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 29 Jul 2017, 18:19

The wee guy said it was alright.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Tactful Cactus
Posts: 17961
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 14:21
Location: by your window

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Tactful Cactus » 30 Jul 2017, 17:48

I loved it. No idea how Kubrickian is it was but it was absolutely gripping, tense, euphoric, terrifying. It had some minor flaws but who cares, it was amazing.

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20124
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 30 Jul 2017, 18:09

Tactful Cactus wrote:I loved it. No idea how Kubrickian is it was but it was absolutely gripping, tense, euphoric, terrifying. It had some minor flaws but who cares, it was amazing.


What was amazing about it?
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
WG Kaspar
Posts: 8385
Joined: 28 Jan 2007, 09:07

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby WG Kaspar » 30 Jul 2017, 18:17

Bombs and shit
I run out of talent

User avatar
Tactful Cactus
Posts: 17961
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 14:21
Location: by your window

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Tactful Cactus » 30 Jul 2017, 18:17

Jeemo wrote:What was amazing about it?


Rhetorical? The films popularity seems to annoy you a bit, there's nothing I can say that'll change your mind.