Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
I saw this last night, can take away from the whole filming of it & the Spitfires.
However, going to go against the grain a little and say it didn't show the true horror of war. I'm not a gore fan but despite direct hits, all bodies remained intact; I know it's not something you want to see but Saving Private Ryan bought the point home well - I guess it wouldn't be a 12 certificate otherwise.
Again the whole thing of Dunkirk is the success of the evacuation but there's no recognition of the troops that were sent (mainly reserves), poorly armed to defend things while the BEF was evacuated - my Grandad was one of these sent, with no notice (they were expecting to go to a training camp on the South coast), a motorbike regiment poorly armed & without the bikes. He was with his brother who got killed there & Grandad captured as a PoW.
I was impressed with the film but came away a little empty what with the involvement of someone special to me (damn dusty here).
However, going to go against the grain a little and say it didn't show the true horror of war. I'm not a gore fan but despite direct hits, all bodies remained intact; I know it's not something you want to see but Saving Private Ryan bought the point home well - I guess it wouldn't be a 12 certificate otherwise.
Again the whole thing of Dunkirk is the success of the evacuation but there's no recognition of the troops that were sent (mainly reserves), poorly armed to defend things while the BEF was evacuated - my Grandad was one of these sent, with no notice (they were expecting to go to a training camp on the South coast), a motorbike regiment poorly armed & without the bikes. He was with his brother who got killed there & Grandad captured as a PoW.
I was impressed with the film but came away a little empty what with the involvement of someone special to me (damn dusty here).
SpielBoy said:
Funny how people learn the wrong things from historical events.
Whilst I would never want to disparage the bravery of both military and civilians involved in rescuing the troops.
Dunkirk was not a success it was a disaster (Churchill knew this and said so)
The fact that it could have been a total disaster - does not make it even less of a disaster.
So whilst your logic for implying Brexit will be a success is wrong.
The comparison with Brexit is however still valid - the question really is will Brexit be a Disaster or a Total Disaster?
As Theresa May is no Winston Churchill and David Davis is no Admiral Bertram Ramsay - the high probability is that it will be a total disaster.
Whilst I would never want to disparage the bravery of both military and civilians involved in rescuing the troops.
Dunkirk was not a success it was a disaster (Churchill knew this and said so)
The fact that it could have been a total disaster - does not make it even less of a disaster.
So whilst your logic for implying Brexit will be a success is wrong.
The comparison with Brexit is however still valid - the question really is will Brexit be a Disaster or a Total Disaster?
As Theresa May is no Winston Churchill and David Davis is no Admiral Bertram Ramsay - the high probability is that it will be a total disaster.
Edited by SpielBoy on Wednesday 26th July 10:38
I've just started (re)reading 'Dunkirk (Fight to the Last Man)' by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore & I'd have to agree with Riley Blue @11.11 26/7.
The events leading up to Dunkirk were a disaster but the way we extradited ourselves a (albeit very lucky) triumph.
The observation I make is this. When countries fight wars in their respective analysis the losers tend to focus on why they lost. The winners on why they won.
After WW1 the Germans thought they lost due to Western tanks. (The NAZI's blamed communists & Jews.)
The Americans thought the West won after US industrial strength & manpower (after 1917)
The French thought the West won due to a brilliant defensive campaign (the French defence at Verdun).
Whereas I think we (the British) thought the West won due to our (British) naval blockade of Germany.
The problem was that the French had a defensive mentality. They wished to withdraw behind the Maginot Line and only advance into Belgium rather than fight on French soil - the Germans knew this & took advantage of the Allies (French led) intention to re-fight WW1.
The French outnumbered the Germans in manpower, tanks and planes but their military planning was inept. And they dragged us into defeat.
My Brexit reference was a quip. But you bit so I feel I'd just like to say.
The Brexit analogy: We (UK) population joined the EEC not the EU. We were lied to about what we were joining. We have democratically elected to leave. And just as at Dunkirk our extradition will only work if we all act together according to the (democratic) mandate.
If Remainers want to rejoin the EU then I think they should have the decency to give an Independent UK a fair chance. (say 40 years?)
I quote Tony Ben (a leave campaigner in the 1975 Referendum) "We must respect the sincerity of those who take a different view from our own. We should all accept the verdict of the British people whatever it is, and I shall certainly do so."
(source https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/a-lesson-fro... )
alfaspecial said:
SpielBoy said:
Funny how people learn the wrong things from historical events.
Whilst I would never want to disparage the bravery of both military and civilians involved in rescuing the troops.
Dunkirk was not a success it was a disaster (Churchill knew this and said so)
The fact that it could have been a total disaster - does not make it even less of a disaster.
So whilst your logic for implying Brexit will be a success is wrong.
The comparison with Brexit is however still valid - the question really is will Brexit be a Disaster or a Total Disaster?
As Theresa May is no Winston Churchill and David Davis is no Admiral Bertram Ramsay - the high probability is that it will be a total disaster.
Whilst I would never want to disparage the bravery of both military and civilians involved in rescuing the troops.
Dunkirk was not a success it was a disaster (Churchill knew this and said so)
The fact that it could have been a total disaster - does not make it even less of a disaster.
So whilst your logic for implying Brexit will be a success is wrong.
The comparison with Brexit is however still valid - the question really is will Brexit be a Disaster or a Total Disaster?
As Theresa May is no Winston Churchill and David Davis is no Admiral Bertram Ramsay - the high probability is that it will be a total disaster.
Edited by SpielBoy on Wednesday 26th July 10:38
I've just started (re)reading 'Dunkirk (Fight to the Last Man)' by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore & I'd have to agree with Riley Blue @11.11 26/7.
The events leading up to Dunkirk were a disaster but the way we extradited ourselves a (albeit very lucky) triumph.
The observation I make is this. When countries fight wars in their respective analysis the losers tend to focus on why they lost. The winners on why they won.
After WW1 the Germans thought they lost due to Western tanks. (The NAZI's blamed communists & Jews.)
The Americans thought the West won after US industrial strength & manpower (after 1917)
The French thought the West won due to a brilliant defensive campaign (the French defence at Verdun).
Whereas I think we (the British) thought the West won due to our (British) naval blockade of Germany.
The problem was that the French had a defensive mentality. They wished to withdraw behind the Maginot Line and only advance into Belgium rather than fight on French soil - the Germans knew this & took advantage of the Allies (French led) intention to re-fight WW1.
The French outnumbered the Germans in manpower, tanks and planes but their military planning was inept. And they dragged us into defeat.
My Brexit reference was a quip. But you bit so I feel I'd just like to say.
The Brexit analogy: We (UK) population joined the EEC not the EU. We were lied to about what we were joining. We have democratically elected to leave. And just as at Dunkirk our extradition will only work if we all act together according to the (democratic) mandate.
If Remainers want to rejoin the EU then I think they should have the decency to give an Independent UK a fair chance. (say 40 years?)
I quote Tony Ben (a leave campaigner in the 1975 Referendum) "We must respect the sincerity of those who take a different view from our own. We should all accept the verdict of the British people whatever it is, and I shall certainly do so."
(source https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/a-lesson-fro... )
As regards your Brexit quip - if someone feels the need to assign an analogy to past events to current events - I will feel not unreasonably the need to point out another context that analogy can be taken.
The 1975 referendum was very close to being 2/3 to 1/3 win for remaining in the EEC - last years referendum is near as damn it a 50/50 split - so I am not certain you can expect people to be so accepting of the result.
One thing is certain is that, one way or another, the Europe question is probably going to be a running sore in British politics for the next 30-40 years - by which time the current younger generation will be the senior British Politicians - and remind me again which way did they vote at last years referendum?
Anyway this thread is supposed to be about Dunkirk the film - so I have bitten down on your Brexit tackle - so I am going to leave it as that ;-)
SpielBoy said:
Anyway this thread is supposed to be about Dunkirk the film - so I have bitten down on your Brexit tackle - so I am going to leave it as that ;-)
Fine. We have both made two posts re the film. I have seen it so feel entitled to offer an opinion, have you seen the film?With regard to my one line regarding Brexit (today 8.59), in context, my comment was 'light'. But does bear repetition
"We should learn a history lesson from the film: Dunkirk was a successful 'Brexit'. We can do it again!"
The subtext: We were in a situation from which we* wished to extract ourselves - to make a success of it (Dunkirk and /or Brexit) needed /s us all to act together.
- Being a legitimate referendum result and / or democratically elected Government 2016/1940 respectively.
[
Edited by alfaspecial on Wednesday 26th July 14:08
RicksAlfas said:
Sorry.............graham22 said:
I saw this last night, can take away from the whole filming of it & the Spitfires.
However, going to go against the grain a little and say it didn't show the true horror of war. I'm not a gore fan but despite direct hits, all bodies remained intact; I know it's not something you want to see but Saving Private Ryan bought the point home well - I guess it wouldn't be a 12 certificate otherwise.
I've seen a couple of interviews that stated the lack of gore was deliberate, as Nolan wanted younger people to be able to watch it. Adding lots of gore would have potentially increased the rating.However, going to go against the grain a little and say it didn't show the true horror of war. I'm not a gore fan but despite direct hits, all bodies remained intact; I know it's not something you want to see but Saving Private Ryan bought the point home well - I guess it wouldn't be a 12 certificate otherwise.
fatandwheezing said:
graham22 said:
I saw this last night, can take away from the whole filming of it & the Spitfires.
However, going to go against the grain a little and say it didn't show the true horror of war. I'm not a gore fan but despite direct hits, all bodies remained intact; I know it's not something you want to see but Saving Private Ryan bought the point home well - I guess it wouldn't be a 12 certificate otherwise.
I've seen a couple of interviews that stated the lack of gore was deliberate, as Nolan wanted younger people to be able to watch it. Adding lots of gore would have potentially increased the rating.However, going to go against the grain a little and say it didn't show the true horror of war. I'm not a gore fan but despite direct hits, all bodies remained intact; I know it's not something you want to see but Saving Private Ryan bought the point home well - I guess it wouldn't be a 12 certificate otherwise.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Agree with that. Not sure the mixed timelines worked.
For me I felt the music was over bearing. Maybe that was the aim. In the IMAX viewing we were at the audio was horrid. Way too loud on the score and yet the voices almost muffled. I thought a lot of the building up or crescendo music just went on for far too long. I was wondering just how big the lungs on the brass band were!
The actual SFX were very good though.
I've just seen it. You know what I feel the same. The film was ridiculously smothered in excessive bass at Cardiff IMAX. It was absolutely relentless and after a while really detracted from the film as I was thinking alright, enough already ffs!For me I felt the music was over bearing. Maybe that was the aim. In the IMAX viewing we were at the audio was horrid. Way too loud on the score and yet the voices almost muffled. I thought a lot of the building up or crescendo music just went on for far too long. I was wondering just how big the lungs on the brass band were!
The actual SFX were very good though.
I so wanted to be blown away by the film however there seemed to be too many annoyances/errors for me to really enjoy it.
70s/80s trains what the f
k! Such a clanger those seats they even looked brand new.Ferried back to Dorset - eh?
Tom landing the Spit after the world's longest glide - miles away from friendly troops, why? No effort to run back up the beach, why?
400 thousand on the beach supposedly awaiting evacuation. Looked like 400 to me.
Scale. Expected to see dozens upon dozens of small boats arriving en masse, yet no. No more than ten on screen at any one time ergo no sense of scale. Same goes for the men on the beach, where were they all?
Gahhh.
hornetrider said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Agree with that. Not sure the mixed timelines worked.
For me I felt the music was over bearing. Maybe that was the aim. In the IMAX viewing we were at the audio was horrid. Way too loud on the score and yet the voices almost muffled. I thought a lot of the building up or crescendo music just went on for far too long. I was wondering just how big the lungs on the brass band were!
The actual SFX were very good though.
I've just seen it. You know what I feel the same. The film was ridiculously smothered in excessive bass at Cardiff IMAX. It was absolutely relentless and after a while really detracted from the film as I was thinking alright, enough already ffs!For me I felt the music was over bearing. Maybe that was the aim. In the IMAX viewing we were at the audio was horrid. Way too loud on the score and yet the voices almost muffled. I thought a lot of the building up or crescendo music just went on for far too long. I was wondering just how big the lungs on the brass band were!
The actual SFX were very good though.
I so wanted to be blown away by the film however there seemed to be too many annoyances/errors for me to really enjoy it.
70s/80s trains what the f
k! Such a clanger those seats they even looked brand new.Ferried back to Dorset - eh?
Tom landing the Spit after the world's longest glide - miles away from friendly troops, why? No effort to run back up the beach, why?
400 thousand on the beach supposedly awaiting evacuation. Looked like 400 to me.
Scale. Expected to see dozens upon dozens of small boats arriving en masse, yet no. No more than ten on screen at any one time ergo no sense of scale. Same goes for the men on the beach, where were they all?
Gahhh.
As for the lack of men and boats in view, it is difficult to find enough extras and suitable craft to hire for the day. Some day someone will invent a way to superimpose these on film, some sort of Computerised Graphic Images or a snappy shortened CGI. Pity it hasn't been invented yet.
Saw this on Sunday; full of eager anticipation, whipped up by the hype of a famous director and the rave reviews of a sycophantic media, but mostly because I had spent all Saturday in the company of one of its 'stars' (more on her later). I was expecting an epic movie.
Verdict: What a stinker!
The continuity was nothing short of shocking. In addition to those previously cited such as the rapidly changing weather and the perpetually gliding Spitfire with endless supplies of ammo, there were rapidly changing times of day, back and forth, too (and not because of the three 'timelines' either), the 1970s train seats, errors such as modern nylon rope (the white stuff with blue flecks in it), plastic fenders on Rylance's boat, but worst of all was the burning 'Spitfire' on the beach... a propellor dangling off the end of a broomstick! Really! No dark mass of a Merlin, just a flaming void and a broomstick poked through (not expecting them to burn a real Spitfire but that was just insulting). None of these howlers are excusable in this day and age, especially not with an 'epic' budget. It was like watching a real wartime film ie one made on a limited budget in the 1940s!
And after a while, all these errors stack up in your mind to pull your attention away from the film and totally destroy the magic of cinema.
Sadly. also a real missed opportunity to tell the miraculous story of how a third of a million men were whisked away from under the noses of the enemy. That was the 'triumph'. How they were not all strafed/bombed/sunk is beyond me but the film showed nothing of the scale of the terror of being trapped on a beach, nor the scale of the bravery of the rescue operation. It was all so underwhelming, so under-scaled. I kept waiting to see more men, more boats. Are there no extras available these days? Can they not be 'drawn in' later? It seemed to focus instead on the darker aspects of human behaviour such as queue jumping, fear of foreigners (that is, the French!), cowardice even. Does Nolan hate the British? He could not have shown them in a worse light if he had tried. Maybe he has German ancestors.
Now, back to this starlet that I spent Saturday with... HMS Medusa, the only one of her kind left, she was used to represent the wooden Harbour Defence Launches that were among the 'little boats', although she herself wasn't built until 1943. Interestingly, other little boats that really were at Dunkirk in 1940 and made the trip over to France again last year for the filming were cut from the final edit... shows how poor their research was. And the priority given to unnecessary storylines over realism.
During the filming, a Warner Bros exec asked Medusa's skipper what part she had played during Dunkirk, to which he replied, "A tree". Priceless.
Medusa's real claim to fame was on D-Day. But that is another story.
Verdict: What a stinker!
The continuity was nothing short of shocking. In addition to those previously cited such as the rapidly changing weather and the perpetually gliding Spitfire with endless supplies of ammo, there were rapidly changing times of day, back and forth, too (and not because of the three 'timelines' either), the 1970s train seats, errors such as modern nylon rope (the white stuff with blue flecks in it), plastic fenders on Rylance's boat, but worst of all was the burning 'Spitfire' on the beach... a propellor dangling off the end of a broomstick! Really! No dark mass of a Merlin, just a flaming void and a broomstick poked through (not expecting them to burn a real Spitfire but that was just insulting). None of these howlers are excusable in this day and age, especially not with an 'epic' budget. It was like watching a real wartime film ie one made on a limited budget in the 1940s!
And after a while, all these errors stack up in your mind to pull your attention away from the film and totally destroy the magic of cinema.
Sadly. also a real missed opportunity to tell the miraculous story of how a third of a million men were whisked away from under the noses of the enemy. That was the 'triumph'. How they were not all strafed/bombed/sunk is beyond me but the film showed nothing of the scale of the terror of being trapped on a beach, nor the scale of the bravery of the rescue operation. It was all so underwhelming, so under-scaled. I kept waiting to see more men, more boats. Are there no extras available these days? Can they not be 'drawn in' later? It seemed to focus instead on the darker aspects of human behaviour such as queue jumping, fear of foreigners (that is, the French!), cowardice even. Does Nolan hate the British? He could not have shown them in a worse light if he had tried. Maybe he has German ancestors.
Now, back to this starlet that I spent Saturday with... HMS Medusa, the only one of her kind left, she was used to represent the wooden Harbour Defence Launches that were among the 'little boats', although she herself wasn't built until 1943. Interestingly, other little boats that really were at Dunkirk in 1940 and made the trip over to France again last year for the filming were cut from the final edit... shows how poor their research was. And the priority given to unnecessary storylines over realism.
During the filming, a Warner Bros exec asked Medusa's skipper what part she had played during Dunkirk, to which he replied, "A tree". Priceless.
Medusa's real claim to fame was on D-Day. But that is another story.
Quickmoose said:
As I've said elsewhere, I wonder if this aspect along with casting Harry Styles was a conscious "lets get the kids in and educate them" angle. There were certainly many more teenagers (and of them more girls) sat in the cinema than I'd've thought 'normal' for such a film...
Only two teenage girls when we went, plus a young lad carrying a booster cushion who we thought looked younger than 12. Most people were 25+.
Genuine question: WTF is Harry Styles?
Quickmoose said:
As I've said elsewhere, I wonder if this aspect along with casting Harry Styles was a conscious "lets get the kids in and educate them" angle. There were certainly many more teenagers (and of them more girls) sat in the cinema than I'd've thought 'normal' for such a film...
Probably more like 'lets get the kids in and fleece the parents for every penny we can get' angle, would be nice to think you were correct though.nicanary said:
As for the lack of men and boats in view, it is difficult to find enough extras and suitable craft to hire for the day. Some day someone will invent a way to superimpose these on film, some sort of Computerised Graphic Images or a snappy shortened CGI. Pity it hasn't been invented yet.
I'm pretty sure there was a scene in Black Hawk Down where the crowds were either completely CGI or at the very least enhanced by some CGI.I'm looking forward to watching Dunkirk when I get back to the UK. I'm a big fan of WW2 movies and I don't recall Nolan doing a bad film yet.
As others mentioned above, I feel it was a massive missed opportunity. The review here largely sums up my feelings; https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul...
24lemons said:
As others mentioned above, I feel it was a massive missed opportunity. The review here largely sums up my feelings; https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul...
Yep. Agree with that. Kermode raved about it but my overall impression was that I was watching the emperor's new clothes.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff