Dunkirk discussion

[paradox26]

I would like to hear peoples' opinions of the new film Dunkirk. I thought it was technically excellent, and beautifully shot, but overall I found the film quite underwhelming. The reviews I have seen largely consider it to be Christopher Nolan's finest movie, and I just don't really see it myself. Thoughts?

[AdmiralCheez]

It's a very good film that captures the hopeless situation and the desperation of everyone involved, and will no doubt be a good teaching tool for history classes, and those with a strong interest in World War 2.

It is however not a good film if you just want to have a good time. It doesn't have memorable characters that you'd like to see more of (barely any of them had names), it doesn't have a traditional story arc, and it doesn't have a big, triumphant victory in the end. It's just three stories of people surviving Dunkirk.

I personally really liked it for the above reasons, but it's probably a film I'll watch one or two more times. It's not something one would usually pick for a Saturday night out with friends, if you know what I mean.

[paradox26]

I agree with much of what you say. I actually noticed that there are almost no character names. In fact, I just mentioned it to a friend on Facebook. I didn't think the desperation really came across to me, except perhaps in the Spitfire scenes. The film shows a really small part of the scope of Dunkirk, only ever showing a couple of hundred people out of the 300,000 plus that were evacuated. The film seems to lack the sheer scale it needs for me. I did like that there was no artificial triumph in the end, though that would be difficult considering the subject matter.

The way it played with time was initially confusing, but by the end I quite liked that approach. Overall, it was a good movie, but it didn't emotionally connect for me the way that something like Saving Private Ryan did, which is the benchmark for the modern war film.

Thanks for your opinion on the film. It is helping me to evaluate what I saw.

[AdmiralCheez]

Yeah, I was confused with the time scale too at first. I thought when they did the titles with the time (one week, one hour, etc.) that it was like an indication of how long they were expecting to live, or how long it took to evacuate from that spot. But it was actually marking the period of time that that story was taking place over. I was very confused when the pilot was concerned about his fuel level, and then it cuts to the beach people at night, then back to the pilot at daytime worrying about his fuel again; it was about then that I figured it out, and that the pilot was not flying a magic plane.

[paradox26]

That was what confused me, too. It was when there were two scenes in daylight, and the scene between them was at night, that I figured out what they were doing with time. When they showed the time periods signs at the start of the film, I figured that was what they were doing with it, but then overlooked it during the film itself, and assumed a linear timeline. I think their approach worked surprisingly well. Especially when you saw the exact same scene from different angles some twenty minutes apart.

[alec33]

Probably one of the very best war movies I have ever seen in my life. Breathtaking to watch ,and relentless in its tense grip. All craft departments in this movie are oscar worthy. Music, art direction, photography...etc.Bravo to Mr Nolan on all fronts.

[Green Elf]

I think the movie could have used a little more drama. But how? Well, the events going on in Britan at the time (which I can't specify) and showing it affecting the scene in Dunkirk. Also, attaching names and back stories to the characters would help.

The Spitfire scenes were the best.

[BWR]

I think the movie could have used a little more drama. But how? Well, the events going on in Britan at the time (which I can't specify) and showing it affecting the scene in Dunkirk. Also, attaching names and back stories to the characters would help.


and maybe add some scenes of guys bonding and asking questions like "who do you have waiting for you at home?" or "what are you going to do after the war?"?

I strongly disagree.
Bonding, normal war movie clichées like that and even names are entirely irrelevant in the case of the soldiers on the beach. The movie worked better with the minimalist approach than it would have by tacking on a lot of unnecessary stuff like introductions and history and character development. We were told exactly what we needed to know about each character through the visuals and spoken lines, and the actors sold their parts through acting, not dialogue.
On the beach it doesn't matter what their names are, where they're from, what their hobbies are: they are scared, desperate to get home and don't want to die.
The Spitfire pilots have a job to do so banter isn't necessary.
The boat does give us a bit of color, but it fits the situation they are in.

Quite frankly, the bleakness and lack of so many war movie clichees was refreshing.

[Saph]

I've been wanting to see this one. It sounds a lot more interesting than most takes on the war movie (plus it's not very often we get a WWII movie that doesn't revolve around the USA).

[Ninja_Prawn]

Christopher Nolan's finest movie

I agree. Nolan is famous for his movies being overrated, and this was the most overrated film I've ever seen. :smalltongue:

There's no plot (no attempt even to tie what's on the screen into the large picture of the war), no drama, no characters (let alone development or growth), hardly any dialogue, no heroes except for that dreadful Mary Sue on the boat, no villains except for a handful of German aircraft, no ending, no sense of scale (Nolan needlessly hamstrung himself there by insisting on no CGI and using only real, original aircraft) and, to my eyes at least, a lot of historical inaccuracies. Or at least a lot of important parts were missed out and emphasis was put in all the wrong places.

On the positive side... it was nicely shot? I can't think of much else it has going for it.

My overriding impression was that it was dull. Sitting in the cinema, I felt like I was watching a propaganda film from the '40s, and not a particularly good one.

[Saph]

There's no plot, no drama, hardly any dialogue, no heroes, no villains, no ending

Yes, that's how most wars look from the point of view of the people experiencing them.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Yes, that's how most wars look from the point of view of the people experiencing them.

Sure, but the film also has no fear, no brutality, no horror and no peril. There isn't even any blood on screen!

Even worse, it doesn't make you feel anything. Because the 'characters' have no character, you don't feel sympathy for them or care what happens at all. I probably should have said that in my last post, to be honest. It's the film's biggest failing.

[BWR]

Sure, but the film also has no fear, no brutality, no horror and no peril. There isn't even any blood on screen!

Even worse, it doesn't make you feel anything. Because the 'characters' have no character, you don't feel sympathy for them or care what happens at all. I probably should have said that in my last post, to be honest. It's the film's biggest failing.

I have to disagree with you on all accounts. There was fear. There was brutality. there was horror. There was peril. The lack of blood was entirely irrelevant. The movie did make me feel things. I did feel for the characters and care what happened to them. It worked much better this way than spelling things out in detail and dialogue and spoonfeeding it to us.

[Anonymouswizard]

I found it to be a really good film.

I did like what they did with the main character's name, not only is Tommy a period name for British soldiers at the time, Tom/Thomas isn't an uncommon name right now, so it felt appropriately generic. I also liked the lack of names in general, it made the characters feel like one among many, insignificant, as if they could be switched out for anyone else.

I have to say I didn't really like the Spitfire scenes. I wanted more of the boats, because I like boats. Boats are cool. But I understand the purpose of them.

I also disliked how they downplayed the role of the engineered piers to get troops to the destroyers.

On the other hand, I thought the claustrophobic drowning scenes worked well. Death doesn't need blood to be scary. For me those scenes managed to encapsulate the horror, the peril, and the fear of drowning.

I'd make a 'get Styles out of my film' joke, but I didn't realise he was in it until the credits and thought he was actually really good, if I could just work out which interchangeable dark haired white boy he was. But them looking the same made it more real for me, none of them stood out so they were just another Tommy.

[Olinser]

I thought it was a good movie, but Nolan's best? No way.

It was a good movie in the sense he really captured the struggle to survive and the terror the troops felt, but I was quite disappointed that there was no real sense of how big a deal Dunkirk was militarily and historically.

The argument has been made by quite a few military scholars that Dunkirk changed the course of the entire war. Thinking that the BEF was going to be wiped out or forced to surrender, the British Parliament was in a secret but very serious discussion about Britain extending a conditional surrender to Germany (which would almost certainly have been accepted by Hitler).

If that had happened the entire course of the war would have changed. Hitler would have focused on Stalin much sooner, and with more forces - which may have allowed Germany to actually defeat Russia. Then it is debatable whether America would have landed in Europe at all, which would have meant that regardless of which side won then either Germany or Russia would have owned the entirety of Europe - and a completely different historical landscape.

[paradox26]

I agree. Nolan is famous for his movies being overrated, and this was the most overrated film I've ever seen. :smalltongue:

There's no plot (no attempt even to tie what's on the screen into the large picture of the war), no drama, no characters (let alone development or growth), hardly any dialogue, no heroes except for that dreadful Mary Sue on the boat, no villains except for a handful of German aircraft, no ending, no sense of scale (Nolan needlessly hamstrung himself there by insisting on no CGI and using only real, original aircraft) and, to my eyes at least, a lot of historical inaccuracies. Or at least a lot of important parts were missed out and emphasis was put in all the wrong places.

On the positive side... it was nicely shot? I can't think of much else it has going for it.

My overriding impression was that it was dull. Sitting in the cinema, I felt like I was watching a propaganda film from the '40s, and not a particularly good one.

That is pretty much exactly what I thought of the film. I can understand the meaning behind much of what Nolan did, but I still found that left me underwhelmed by it. It was a very well crafted film, and deserves awards. But it didn't really touch me at all. Unlike Saving Private Ryan, which I rewatched a few days ago, and which is gripping, despite the flaws.

[Anonymouswizard]

But it didn't really touch me at all. Unlike Saving Private Ryan, which I rewatched a few days ago, and which is gripping, despite the flaws.

I had exactly the opposite experience, I found Saving Private Ryan confusing and boring, until the end (which is amazing), while foe me Dunkirk was gripping.

Plus finally, a WW2 film I've seen that's not 'America saves the day'. Yes, I know the save the day round the corner by giving economic support, but every WW2 film I've seen bar Dunkirk seems to play up the US involvement and downplay the UK, Canada, and every other country.

P.S. Can we please get a film about the Asian theatre of war? Pretty please? We could have Gurkhas.

EDIT: I just realised that most war movies, especially WW2 ones, are more about winning, while Dunkirk is more about not losing. It makes for an interesting film, as instead of the Germans being pushed back as I've come to expect, it's the allies being pushed back.

Final verdict: 8/10, good film, and a great watch, but not as fun as The Dam Busters.