Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

..and why not?
User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20170
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 30 Jul 2017, 18:27

Tactful Cactus wrote:
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.


no genuine question. I don't understand the acclaim it's getting. I'm not looking to have my mind changed, I'd like to know what I don't get about it that other people are.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Tactful Cactus
Posts: 17979
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, 18:31

Jeemo wrote:I'd like to know what I don't get about it that other people are.


Its all subjective Jeemo. I loved the music, you hated the music. I loved the minimalism, you hated the minimalism etc etc...Its not the film you wanted to see. Plain and simple.

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20170
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 30 Jul 2017, 18:35

Tactful Cactus wrote:
Jeemo wrote:I'd like to know what I don't get about it that other people are.


Its all subjective Jeemo. I loved the music, you hated the music. I loved the minimalism, you hated the minimalism etc etc...Its not the film you wanted to see. Plain and simple.


I get that it is subjective. I paid money to see it, so went in wanting to like it. it was a film I wanted to see. Thanks for answering.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
PENK
Midnight to Six Man
Posts: 33801
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 20:12
Location: Stockholm

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby PENK » 31 Jul 2017, 10:02

Jeemo wrote:didn't likes. No real story, flimsy characters, a fractured timeline for absolutely no real reason whatsoever, fidnt add to the drama


The timeline splitting was disorienting at first but after half an hour or so I found that one settled into it and they handled the convergence really well. I thought that the pretty clear reason for splitting the timelines was to show the action from different perspectives and as was made clear those different perspectives operated at different speeds.
As for the characterisation, I think that's an invalid criticism. This wasn't intended to be a character study and indeed the film quite purposely avoided character development: these guys never even spoke their names onscreen, they never asked each other about their histories or any other details. They were just faces in the crowd, everymen. In that sense, criticising the film for having flimsy characters is like criticising it for not having convincing aliens. Indeed, the one strand which did try for some more emotional impact, the boat scenes with Rylance and the teenagers, ended up being the weak link as it didn't sit well with the overall feel of the film.
And again, not having a real story was part of the point. It was always the filmmakers' intention to just show the evacuation. No fleshing it out with romance or any kind of distractions. We were just thrust into the action with some people we didn't know, watching them try to escape. Sure, the soldiers on the beach got into several different situations but this heightened the drama and some of the scenes were horribly effective.

I agree that aspects of the ending were a bit corny: not just the music but some of the lines about "home" and things like the old geezer passing beers through the train window. At the same time, I think that there really was this passionate patriotic feeling to the events at the time, judging by media reports at the time and it's easy to imagine that that fervour was drummed up as part of the war effort.
Copehead wrote:I have met Gruff Rhys - although he claimed he wasn't and that he couldn't speak Welsh, as I spoke to him in Welsh, but it was him lying bastard.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24294
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Nick » 02 Aug 2017, 11:41

We saw it last night and I thought it was tremendous. Good attention to a lot of historical detail. I liked the lack of back story, and character detail and development, and I thought the general understatement of emotion for the most part very appropriate. It made the ending much more effective.

The flight sequences, dogfights, and close-up detail from the Spitfires' cockpits is probably the best I've ever seen in a film or TV drama. The scene where the Scots pilot is trying to wrench the canopy hood off after ditching in the Channel, then smashing at it with his Very pistol while the water rises around him, was almost unbearably tense - ditto the scenes where the soldiers and sailors are trying to escape from the torpedoed navy ship as it sinks, sealing many of them inside.

Wonderful variations on Elgar's Nimrod on the soundtrack towards the end too, I liked that very much.

The film did one thing, and I think it did it very well.
Last edited by Nick on 02 Aug 2017, 11:58, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 16221
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Great Defector » 02 Aug 2017, 11:45

Nick wrote: Good attention to a lot of historical detail.

I know very little if anything about Dunkirk and some writers take liberties with the facts, so it was spot on then?
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24294
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Nick » 02 Aug 2017, 12:09

The Great Defector wrote:
Nick wrote: Good attention to a lot of historical detail.


I know very little if anything about Dunkirk and some writers take liberties with the facts, so it was spot on then?


Yeah, I thought it was good. I mean, no historical film is ever going to get everything right, and people will always pick holes*, which is fair enough. But it looked to me like they'd taken time and effort to get a lot right.

* My own would be that Tom Hardy's Spitfire seemed to be carrying rather more ammunition than was usual. The Spitfire's standard armament was eight machine guns, mounted in the wings, four on either side. They had a very fast rate of fire, and I've read accounts by Battle of Britain pilots that just a 16 second second sustained burst of firing would have completely exhausted the ammunition. I'm fairly sure that he went well over that ;-)
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 16221
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Great Defector » 02 Aug 2017, 12:20

Nick wrote:
* My own would be that Tom Hardy's Spitfire seemed to be carrying rather more ammunition than was usual. The Spitfire's standard armament was eight machine guns, mounted in the wings, four on either side. They had a very fast rate of fire, and I've read accounts by Battle of Britain pilots that just a 16 second second sustained burst of firing would have completely exhausted the ammunition. I'm fairly sure that he went well over that ;-)



He did. Fucking lonely experience being a fighter pilot. I should have felt more sympathy for Hardy's character but his put on stiff upper lip voice made it impossible. I just have images of bane in 40's England, being a witty at a party dressed to the nines, with his bane mask on.
Last edited by The Great Defector on 02 Aug 2017, 12:40, edited 1 time in total.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Tactful Cactus
Posts: 17979
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 14:21
Location: by your window

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Tactful Cactus » 02 Aug 2017, 12:36

Nick wrote:The scene where the Scots pilot is trying to wrench the canopy hood off after ditching in the Channel, then smashing at it with his Very pistol while the water rises around him, was almost unbearably tense - ditto the scenes where the soldiers and sailors are trying to escape from the torpedoed navy ship as it sinks, sealing many of them inside


Yes! The enduring image I still have in my head is Tom Hardy circling a ship as it lists over into the sea and looking on helplessly while the sailors dive to their death. What made it so memorable was the fact that we were watching this action scene from a distance, over his shoulder, and in the relative quiet of the cockpit. It made it seem so real and creepy. Loads of moments like that in the film.

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 16221
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Great Defector » 02 Aug 2017, 12:53

Tactful Cactus wrote:
Yes! The enduring image I still have in my head is Tom Hardy circling a ship as it lists over into the sea and looking on helplessly while the sailors dive to their death. What made it so memorable was the fact that we were watching this action scene from a distance, over his shoulder, and in the relative quiet of the cockpit. It made it seem so real and creepy. Loads of moments like that in the film.


His partner in crime, telling Rylance to sail on while a plane is going to crash. Knowing that once it hits the water it will ignite the spilled oil from the sinking ship. Watching all those men shouting for help, but for the safety of the small boat, he had to leave them to their death.

It's decisions like that, that make me respect the military (Leaving out if you support their cause in which their fighting in for a minute). I think a vast amount of us will never know what soldiers logically had to do to survive, despite it being morally questionable. I think no matter what terrible situation we might think up it will never be close to decisions they had to make in the heat of war. Like shooting a young teenage kid who doesn't know better, but it's a case of if the solider doesn't, he/she might not make it home to their own kids and family or one or two of their fellow soldiers might die. I remember watching a BBC show on the creation of the SAS (it was during WW2), one solider had to shoot a kid who was on fire, because there was no way of saving him. He had to put him out of his misery. He said it with a stern voice sounding like "what else could I fucking do". But it sounded like he was still trying to convince himself (The original interviews was from the 80's), even though he did the horrible but humane thing.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Harvey K-Tel
Long Player
Posts: 38968
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Harvey K-Tel » 04 Aug 2017, 20:59

Christ almighty. I just walked out of the theatre feeling like I had PTSD. What an incredible sensory experience. It was everything I hoped it would be and everything a war movie should be. I don't need character development or a narrative arc to draw me into a film. It was like seeing a really good concert.
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.

User avatar
Belle Lettre
Éminence grise
Posts: 15004
Joined: 09 Oct 2008, 07:16
Location: Antiterra

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Belle Lettre » 04 Aug 2017, 22:24

Same here. Felt short of breath. Immersive seems an appropriate term!
Nikki Gradual wrote:
Get a fucking grip you narcissistic cretins.

User avatar
!!VAPRANT!!
hounds people off the board
Posts: 14434
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Location: pursued by the enraged queen

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby !!VAPRANT!! » 06 Aug 2017, 18:05

OK - convinced. Off to see it tonight.
Deewank wrote:By the way I gave you some Jelly Tots for your birthday and you didn’t give me ANYTHING

User avatar
!!VAPRANT!!
hounds people off the board
Posts: 14434
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Location: pursued by the enraged queen

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby !!VAPRANT!! » 06 Aug 2017, 23:08

It just screamed at you, didn't it?

'expensive re-enactment'

fuck off
Deewank wrote:By the way I gave you some Jelly Tots for your birthday and you didn’t give me ANYTHING

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 22003
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Toby » 07 Aug 2017, 09:38

I've not seen it yet. I want to, but I distrust Nolan as a director a bit - every film of his I think "oh maybe there's more in this film that warrants a second viewing". Then you watch it again and think "I was wrong, there was nothing".

As a WW 2 history "fan" I'm obviously intrigued, but something about his films holds me back. In terms of the immersive pathos of war, I still feel "Come and See" is unbeatable.

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 44912
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby The Prof » 07 Aug 2017, 10:55

Dr. B. Eef wrote:
'expensive re-enactment'



:lol: That it...summed up in 2 words!

However - we like expensive re-enactments

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20170
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 07 Aug 2017, 14:04

The Prof wrote:
Dr. B. Eef wrote:
'expensive re-enactment'



:lol: That it...summed up in 2 words!

However - we like expensive re-enactments


I didn't.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20170
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby Jeemo » 07 Aug 2017, 14:04

Toby wrote:. I want to, but I distrust Nolan as a director a bit - every film of his I think "oh maybe there's more in this film that warrants a second viewing". Then you watch it again and think "I was wrong, there was nothing".



nail on head.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
algroth
Posts: 4933
Joined: 04 Apr 2010, 03:12

Re: Dunkirk lifts Christopher Nolan to Stanley Kubrick status

Postby algroth » 07 Aug 2017, 15:33

Toby wrote:I've not seen it yet. I want to, but I distrust Nolan as a director a bit - every film of his I think "oh maybe there's more in this film that warrants a second viewing". Then you watch it again and think "I was wrong, there was nothing".

As a WW 2 history "fan" I'm obviously intrigued, but something about his films holds me back. In terms of the immersive pathos of war, I still feel "Come and See" is unbeatable.


For what it's worth, I've already seen it twice and think it holds up even better on a second viewing. Going to watch it a third time this Wednesday on Imax.

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 » 08 Aug 2017, 16:41

Just seen it. Thought it was terrific and pretty much succeeded in what it set out to do.

If it's still on in London on IMAX at the end of this month, will probably go and see it again.
Image