Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
Having watched this with my parents who were alive during Dunkirk as teenagers and my Mother having met survivors off of the trains in Newport Wales giving out tea, the one area that the film did not put across well was the huge involvement of the French in holding off the Germans. Yes in the first two minutes of the film we saw some French gun placements but the French military helped at Dunkirk enormously. The only other small area of concern was the lack of additional small ships and their role in ferrying soldiers from the shallows at Dunkirk out to the waiting destroyers and Frigates. This could have been somewhat better illustrated.
belleair302 said:
Having watched this with my parents who were alive during Dunkirk as teenagers and my Mother having met survivors off of the trains in Newport Wales giving out tea, the one area that the film did not put across well was the huge involvement of the French in holding off the Germans. Yes in the first two minutes of the film we saw some French gun placements but the French military helped at Dunkirk enormously. The only other small area of concern was the lack of additional small ships and their role in ferrying soldiers from the shallows at Dunkirk out to the waiting destroyers and Frigates. This could have been somewhat better illustrated.
If that's what you were expecting it's no wonder you were disappointed as I don't think the film set out to recreate the whole of the Dunkirk evacuation, it just focussed on a few small groups of men and their experiences and reactions.yellowjack said:
Well I watched the 1958 film last night.
As others mentioned, it too was riddled with inaccuracies and suchlike.
The most glaring one was among the "real life newsreel" type footage they stitched into the movie scenes. Early on, what purported to be the Wehrmacht rolling through France, Belgium, and the Netherlands showed a Tiger tank among the vehicles rolling past the camera. The Tiger I wasn't even a design requirement until Barbarossa in 1941, and prototypes didn't appear until April 1942.
Other obvious issues (as with a lot of war movies in that period) were with post-war allied vehicles appearing in place of German equipment, and the stitching together of stock newsreel footage of a variety of different aeroplane types during a single air attack scene. There was also "on camera" evidence of pyrotechnic charge bases below the sand, etc, etc, and the jarring appearance of a concrete and glass building on the dockside at "Sheerness".
Obviously the 1958 movie benefited from being a black & white production in so far as it was a lot easier to stitch in newsreel pictures for Stuka attacks, instead of model work. But then a lot of the sets felt too "studio-based" rather than location shoots.
It's a great movie, and relies on following a small group of stragglers split up from their unit, and some key characters among the 'Little Ships' owners to tell the story, rather than trying to tell the whole tale in any detail.
I suppose the point is that I'd remembered it through the rose-tinted mists of time, and given it far more credit for being realistic than I was prepared to give the Nolan version. Clearly now, having re-watched it, this was an error. So with regard to the new film? I imagine that when I've had a chance to sit through it, and get all the (obvious) inaccuracies out of my system, I'll be able to at least look back on it with a "not a bad effort" view, rather than repeatedly sitting through it picking holes in it frame-by-frame...
You can't go judging a 1958 war film against a modern day movie that has absolutely every production trick available to it to enhance it's impact. You'll be moaning that the plumes of water in the Dambusters movie didn't look real next.As others mentioned, it too was riddled with inaccuracies and suchlike.
The most glaring one was among the "real life newsreel" type footage they stitched into the movie scenes. Early on, what purported to be the Wehrmacht rolling through France, Belgium, and the Netherlands showed a Tiger tank among the vehicles rolling past the camera. The Tiger I wasn't even a design requirement until Barbarossa in 1941, and prototypes didn't appear until April 1942.
Other obvious issues (as with a lot of war movies in that period) were with post-war allied vehicles appearing in place of German equipment, and the stitching together of stock newsreel footage of a variety of different aeroplane types during a single air attack scene. There was also "on camera" evidence of pyrotechnic charge bases below the sand, etc, etc, and the jarring appearance of a concrete and glass building on the dockside at "Sheerness".
Obviously the 1958 movie benefited from being a black & white production in so far as it was a lot easier to stitch in newsreel pictures for Stuka attacks, instead of model work. But then a lot of the sets felt too "studio-based" rather than location shoots.
It's a great movie, and relies on following a small group of stragglers split up from their unit, and some key characters among the 'Little Ships' owners to tell the story, rather than trying to tell the whole tale in any detail.
I suppose the point is that I'd remembered it through the rose-tinted mists of time, and given it far more credit for being realistic than I was prepared to give the Nolan version. Clearly now, having re-watched it, this was an error. So with regard to the new film? I imagine that when I've had a chance to sit through it, and get all the (obvious) inaccuracies out of my system, I'll be able to at least look back on it with a "not a bad effort" view, rather than repeatedly sitting through it picking holes in it frame-by-frame...
Dunkirk 2017 fails miserably because Nolan couldn't be bothered and took the audience for mugs. End of.
Edited by Cobnapint on Saturday 6th January 13:32
Just watched it tonight. Very disappointed to be honest.
I don't think it captured the desperation or chaos of war, I didn't care for any of the characters and why did the plane land on the beach miles away from the troops when he could have landed near them and got a ride home on a boat??
It was beautifully filmed and the sound was excellent but it felt more like some kind of art project to show off how "clever" Nolan is rather than a film with a proper storyline.
I don't think it captured the desperation or chaos of war, I didn't care for any of the characters and why did the plane land on the beach miles away from the troops when he could have landed near them and got a ride home on a boat??
It was beautifully filmed and the sound was excellent but it felt more like some kind of art project to show off how "clever" Nolan is rather than a film with a proper storyline.
It's interesting that the negative trend really seems to have taken hold since the home release.
This was a film that didn't even translate brilliantly to a regular multiplex screen (due to the aspect ratio) compared to IMAX, I've not seen it on my TV yet but I imagine much of the immersion and tension take a hit and therefore highlights the relative lack of actual storytelling more so.
This was a film that didn't even translate brilliantly to a regular multiplex screen (due to the aspect ratio) compared to IMAX, I've not seen it on my TV yet but I imagine much of the immersion and tension take a hit and therefore highlights the relative lack of actual storytelling more so.
Cobnapint said:
You're suggesting there was tension in the first place....?
Yes, I lost count of the number of people saying you could here a pin drop through the whole film in the cinema and how tense it was etc.But, as we've clearly already ascertained from this thread, we're all different.
I watched the 4k disc on my home cinema set up (for reference, 20k worth) and while the visuals and audio were great, there really is no substance. In some ways, home cinema can be more engaging than a multiplex as you don't get the distractions around you.
However, I can see if you watched this on a 32" TV while family is chattering around you the impact would be lost somewhat
However, I can see if you watched this on a 32" TV while family is chattering around you the impact would be lost somewhat
The Spruce goose said:
Cobnapint said:
I know it's Christmas Eve, but it's a bit early to be drinking isn't it.....?
Dunkirk comes under the heading 'TOTAL lack of attention to detail' throughout the whole movie too. That's quite some feat.
Dunkirk comes under the heading 'TOTAL lack of attention to detail' throughout the whole movie too. That's quite some feat.
It was clear it was a different type of war film, and even with all the minor detail issues, i never noticed them, i still think it is the best war film i have ever seen.
Eric Mc said:
I have never seen a war film that is 100% accurate. How can it be, X decades on from the real events - and having to telescope time frame and characters in order to provide a narrative that fits into a normal film running time?
My favourite war films are "Battle of Britain" and "A Bridge Too Far" - and both are stuffed full of inaccuracies and anomalies.
But they had the right stuff about them. This simply didn't. My favourite war films are "Battle of Britain" and "A Bridge Too Far" - and both are stuffed full of inaccuracies and anomalies.
Finally got around to seeing this, and despite many things grating which have already been talked to death on this thread, overall I thought it was a good film despite not being the epic that I was expecting. The drama inside the fishing boat with the argument about who to throw off, was probably the worst and least realistic part for me, whereas the Spitfire bits were very well done. Despite it's flaws which I can overlook, I'm glad to have seen it and will probably watch again one day. Lets face it no one else is making a British WW2 film, so this is a lot better than having nothing at all.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff