RE: Dunkirk (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 7:52:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Actually, Dunkirk is just used as a setting for some much deeper themes, such as the anonymous nature of war and the way the individual decisions each have profound ramifications for all the other participants in war. And the way individuals come round to those decisions either quickly or slowly, and the ways those decisions can then be rendered completely irrelevant, perhaps instantly, by random chance, anyway.

Using this movie to get into some sort of national pissing match is a little silly - any battle could be used to explore what this movie is actually exploring. It is slightly unfortunate that because Dunkirk is not well-known at all, any more, the movie will be looked at as telling the "story" of Dunkirk, when it actually does only some of that, and is quite beside the points being made. And with the exception of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, and perhaps Market-Garden, no battle of WWII is known by the public any more, really. It strikes me as a bit of a shame that Nolan picked this battle, with it's implications for relations among Allies, etc., to explore what he explores in the script, rather than some more anonymous battle. Perhaps Dieppe would have worked just the same, though he would not have been able to work a civilian angle in to that one.

warspite1

The nationalistic pissing match seems never far away sadly....

...but as for what the film is about and why Nolan chose Dunkirk, having heard some of Nolan's interviews about the film, it is clear he picked Dunkirk because "it is of the great human stories of all time" and furthermore "hasn’t been addressed in modern cinema". Therefore its not the case that he should have picked another battle. He wanted to tell this story. Fair play to him because he got the backing of Warner Bros - and as he says, he needed such backing because the logistics (and thus the budget) meant the film was not going to be shot without the resources only a major studio could provide. He got their backing despite their being no US involvement, despite the story not being well known in the US. I think he's done a great job.

As for implications amongst Allies, sadly, can you name a famous battle that hasn't got something for someone to come over all unnecessary over? [8|] As said previously, there will always be some professional umbrage taker waiting to be offended.....



Orm -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 8:03:35 PM)

Have you guys noticed that Germans seldom seems insulted?

Maybe I just been blind and didn't notice it.



brian brian -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 8:42:10 PM)

Yeah, I know he wanted to tell the story of Dunkirk specifically. He may have started out on that path, but I don't think he stayed on it, and then achieved something far greater than the story of this battle. He wrote the script, by himself - and that script leads you to thinking about much more. His technique of anonymous characters (one never learns the names of many major characters) put me towards thinking that the specifics of the battle don't matter. The motivations of every character's actions and the costs and implications of their decisions are the thinking matter here, and much of that easily uncouples from the specifics of the battle. With no over-view, scenes from Home, politics, or generals, the movie is much more an exploration of the individual experience of war. He could have set in Korea, Afghanistan, anywhere. The grand scheme of the battle is barely mentioned until the very end, and you almost forget all about it, just as the participants do, as they deal with events as they un-fold in front of them, not meta-narratives about this country or that country or the given battle at hand. For critics to miss that just points out how this is a departure from traditional war movies quite a fair bit.

So as for the French, their portion of the story is handled clearly, in my opinion, though at a bare minimum. They hold the perimeter, they explicitly (on-camera) get refused first call on the ships, and then eventually the Royal Navy continues the operation to evacuate them later, as a second priority. It shows the cold calculation of the British decision and in no way glosses over it. If anything, a major French character quite highlights the terrible reality of it all - and the movie is about stark reality in every way. To get into the French aspect of the battle would require a different movie altogether, with scenes back at HQ with a big map and those little pins with flags stuck all over it and staff officers wringing their hands over the bad news, and a news bulletin on the radio heard by civilians, etc., that we have seen in all the other "The Story of ....." war movies ever made.

The only German characters in the movie are an He-111 and a few Me-109s. Just a few seconds of screen time for a couple actual soldiers.



I think there may have been an interesting cameo from Michael Caine, in one of the RAF portions of the film.



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 8:48:36 PM)

Just to be clear though - in case anyone gets the wrong impression from your post - the French were not 'left until the end'. Yes, imo, Nolan was right, in fairness, to show the French being refused access at one point early in the process, but it was most certainly not the case that the French were all left until the end (clearly those guarding the escape route for others being an exception).

Yes Michael Caine was the ground controller [:)]



rkr1958 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 8:59:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil,
Oh come one ... how does it end. [:D]

By the way, is anyone familiar with the BBC series "Foyle's War". He's a chief detective and it's set during WW-2. His son has just graduate college and joined the RAF. The series starts in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland and ends in 1948 or 1949 at the start of the Cold War. There's is an episode that covers the evacuation at Dunkirk though from the perspective of the Brit's at home. I really enjoyed the series. It's a "who done it" type detective series.



rkr1958 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 9:08:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I would say there is an existential terror question in the first few minutes that few would notice, save military hardware buffs - if you see a Stuka diving toward you, and you don't have a foxhole ready, do you run towards the Stuka, or away from it?
Run towards it in theory. In practice, it would be very difficult to tamp down the terror and rush towards a diving Stuka.



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 9:09:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil,
Oh come one ... how does it end. [:D]

By the way, is anyone familiar with the BBC series "Foyle's War". He's a chief detective and it's set during WW-2. His son has just graduate college and joined the RAF. The series starts in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland and ends in 1948 or 1949 at the start of the Cold War. There's is an episode that covers the evacuation at Dunkirk though from the perspective of the Brit's at home. I really enjoyed the series. It's a "who done it" type detective series.
warspite1

Yes - the wonderfully understated Michael Kitchen - a superb TV series [&o].



rkr1958 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/22/2017 9:53:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil,
Oh come one ... how does it end. [:D]

By the way, is anyone familiar with the BBC series "Foyle's War". He's a chief detective and it's set during WW-2. His son has just graduate college and joined the RAF. The series starts in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland and ends in 1948 or 1949 at the start of the Cold War. There's is an episode that covers the evacuation at Dunkirk though from the perspective of the Brit's at home. I really enjoyed the series. It's a "who done it" type detective series.
warspite1

Yes - the wonderfully understated Michael Kitchen - a superb TV series [&o].

There's even a reference to Norway. Foyle is a DCI. His Sargent is a man who lost a leg at Trondheim as was discharged from the British army. His driver is provided by the women's mechanize corps, or something like that. She is the daughter of a Victor. She also has an uncle that's a Victor. Foyle can't drive and has to rely on Sam, short for Samantha, to drive him around.



brian brian -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 1:02:45 AM)

well, I used the phrase 'at the end' in reference to evacuating the French, because it is a subject right at the very end of the movie in a short, nicely done scene


I might well go see it again in a couple weeks, I think. There will be many key things to watch for on a second go.



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 5:19:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

well, I used the phrase 'at the end' in reference to evacuating the French, because it is a subject right at the very end of the movie in a short, nicely done scene


I might well go see it again in a couple weeks, I think. There will be many key things to watch for on a second go.
warspite1

Yes, fine, I wasn't criticising you, I just wanted to make the position clear because there is sadly too much ignorance of the true position as it is, without fuel being added to the fire because of the way something is written (not because the you didn't know what you're talking about).



Numdydar -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 11:34:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil,
Oh come one ... how does it end. [:D]

By the way, is anyone familiar with the BBC series "Foyle's War". He's a chief detective and it's set during WW-2. His son has just graduate college and joined the RAF. The series starts in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland and ends in 1948 or 1949 at the start of the Cold War. There's is an episode that covers the evacuation at Dunkirk though from the perspective of the Brit's at home. I really enjoyed the series. It's a "who done it" type detective series.


+1 to Foyle's war. They actually enlisted help from the British War Museum to get the uniforms and period pieces correct. Even to the point of removing street signs, etc. for scenes. The show actually does a really great job of showing the turmoil within GB after the war which I had no idea even existed. Nor did I know that as soon as the war was over, the US stopped all aid to the UK which really hurt them. Pretty amazing show. Plus my wife really liked it too [:)]



Neilster -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 12:11:35 PM)

Foyle's War was excellent. Unfortunately, after series five the show was cancelled, and even though it was later reinstated, the scripts for most of 1943 and early 1944 had been thrown out. This would have been an interesting part of the war to explore, as the Allies moved over to the general offensive and final victory was becoming obvious.

Anyway, it seems odd that they were just lost forever. I still have paperwork from the early 90s and there are things on my hard-drive from about three computers ago.

Cheers, Neilster



brian brian -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 5:25:01 PM)

yeah no worries Mr. Battleship, I look forward to your review of the movie, too


with so little action on the ground in this movie, I did not feel any great loss in not seeing the special 70 mm print. I'm not sure lots of sea and sky in so many shots really need much special treatment. I am glad though that I did see it in a 1930s Art Deco theater with an enormous screen, rather than some suburban multi-plex with a low roof and a screen now being equalled in many a Man Cave across the land. (not mine though, I live in a real cave).



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 5:27:42 PM)

This is the review I wrote for the General Discussion forum after seeing the film on Friday - before all the total BS about 'the French' and 'the Russian'...[8|]

Dunkirk – Spoiler Alert

I have just got back from seeing the film. What can I say? It was intense and lived up to the hype.

The film has no frills, no character development, no backstory, there is no love interest and indeed there is very little dialogue. It’s simply a story of essentially four small groups of people – one from the Army, RN/Army officers on the Dunkirk mole, a Royal Air Force fighter patrol and men aboard one of the little ships. I guess the Royal Navy is a fifth group as they are naturally pretty much ever present, invariably adding something to each of the stories – largely as a result of their ships getting sunk having repeatedly put themselves in harm’s way to try and get the Army home.

One immediate thing I noticed was at the very start when a few lines were used to explain what was happening; it was not the Germans attacking and surrounding the French and British – it was ‘the enemy’. Okay…. that seems a little silly but I guess we are all friends now so….

I was a little confused near the start as one minute it was daytime and the next it was dark or heading that way. However, it quickly became apparent that the action is not strictly chronological. By the way this way of telling the story makes it look like the RAF patrol shoots down half the Luftwaffe, but one sees some of the scenes more than once from different viewpoints. This jumbled timeline idea actually works well.

The film doesn’t seek to tell the story of Dunkirk. The French are acknowledged - holding the perimeter along with a British rear-guard. Amongst the limited dialogue, there is reference to the German tanks being halted, the Luftwaffe being given the job of destroying the BEF and their French Allies, expectation that 30-45,000 British troops only are expected to be rescued, and that the RAF are trying to conserve aircraft and pilots for the battle still to come. But enough of the story is told through the trials and tribulations of the individual groups and the brief dialogue to make clear what is going on even if one knows nothing about this episode in history.

I was expecting some sort of soundtrack what with Hans Zimmer being involved but instead, during the action, there was a sort of noise as opposed to a dramatic music score. This worked really well too and added to the intensity.

How did the film fare on the trembling bottom lip front? Well there were a couple of occasions on which it was a good job I had the Kleenex on hand – I wasn’t emotional you understand, I just had something in my eye….

In summary – a great job Mr Nolan!



paulderynck -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 5:49:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just to be clear though - in case anyone gets the wrong impression from your post - the French were not 'left until the end'. Yes, imo, Nolan was right, in fairness, to show the French being refused access at one point early in the process, but it was most certainly not the case that the French were all left until the end (clearly those guarding the escape route for others being an exception).

Yes Michael Caine was the ground controller [:)]

If I recall the figures correctly, they evacuated around 338,000 troops of whom 128,000 were not CW. The majority of those 128,000 were French, but not all of them stayed to become part of the Free French army. Many returned to France voluntarily after Vichy was declared.



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 6:21:08 PM)

It's difficult to find numbers, but some of those French troops evacuated were sent directly to French ports further west. How many, and whether they would have been in any fit state to take part in Fall Rot I don't know.

Equally I don't know if there was time to get any French that were evacuated to Britain back to France before she fell - probably not?

Of those that were in the UK at the time Petain signed the armistice yes, the number that volunteered to stay and fight on were very small. I certainly don't blame them - their country was not officially fighting on (unlike the Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Norwegians etc) and so the choice was far from easy for them with families back in France.

As for Petain's decision not to fight on from North Africa? Well that is a story for another time perhaps.....



brian brian -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 7:29:55 PM)

was the word "Jerries" ever heard in the film? I don't think so.



rkr1958 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/23/2017 7:43:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

was the word "Jerries" ever heard in the film? I don't think so.
What about Nazi? Did hear that word mentioned? Did you see a swastika?



professorhex -> RE: Dunkirk (7/26/2017 5:47:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

was the word "Jerries" ever heard in the film? I don't think so.
What about Nazi? Did hear that word mentioned? Did you see a swastika?




"Nazi" once, in the Churchill speech.

I really enjoyed the film. Should've been more smoke above the port, and more troops on the beach, they say. Nolan didn't want to compromise with CGI apparently.








michaelbaldur -> RE: Dunkirk (7/26/2017 6:28:51 PM)


I going to see it next week. so dont tell to much



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/26/2017 9:42:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

was the word "Jerries" ever heard in the film? I don't think so.
What about Nazi? Did hear that word mentioned? Did you see a swastika?

warspite1

Dunkirk Spoiler Alert

There was a swastika on the Me-109s but no, we don't see see the 'enemy' except for their aircraft - and a brief glimpse right at the very end of some soldiers.

I don't believe Germans are ever mentioned (but may be wrong). If they are its literally once or twice.



AllenK -> RE: Dunkirk (7/27/2017 8:11:50 PM)

I saw the film on Sunday.

I experienced it mostly as a disjointed mess, lacking in any sense of direction or purpose and continually struggled to understand what was happening and why.

For most of the film I was tense and anxious, feeling trapped and claustrophobic, flinching at the volume of the gunfire and wail of the Stukas.

When, almost at the last moment, it miraculously came together, it was a deliverance and relief this was all over and I could get away and go back home.

In short, it was horrible ....

but as an emotional representation of what Dunkirk was probably like (based on the accounts I have read of those who were there), brilliant and inspiring.

Not sure whether I'll go to see it again at the cinema but I'll certainly add it to my film collection.






warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/28/2017 6:26:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

I saw the film on Sunday.

I experienced it mostly as a disjointed mess, lacking in any sense of direction or purpose and continually struggled to understand what was happening and why.

warspite1

Presumably by the end of the film you 'got' the three timelines interweaving and that we were seeing some scenes more than once from different perspectives? If so, and now armed with what is going on, try seeing it a second time - it is even better second time around [:)].



AllenK -> RE: Dunkirk (7/28/2017 3:12:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

I saw the film on Sunday.

I experienced it mostly as a disjointed mess, lacking in any sense of direction or purpose and continually struggled to understand what was happening and why.

warspite1

Presumably by the end of the film you 'got' the three timelines interweaving and that we were seeing some scenes more than once from different perspectives? If so, and now armed with what is going on, try seeing it a second time - it is even better second time around [:)].

t

Cognitively yes. I was trying to convey a sense of my subjective experience of the effect of the asynchronous timelines and general atmosphere.

For that subjective emotional experience I think the film is a masterpiece.



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/28/2017 6:18:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

I saw the film on Sunday.

I experienced it mostly as a disjointed mess, lacking in any sense of direction or purpose and continually struggled to understand what was happening and why.

warspite1

Presumably by the end of the film you 'got' the three timelines interweaving and that we were seeing some scenes more than once from different perspectives? If so, and now armed with what is going on, try seeing it a second time - it is even better second time around [:)].

t

Cognitively yes. I was trying to convey a sense of my subjective experience of the effect of the asynchronous timelines and general atmosphere.

For that subjective emotional experience I think the film is a masterpiece.

warspite1

And on a scale of 1 to 100 just how awesome was the sound and sight of those Spitfires? Let's put it this way - there was a clean up required in row T....

Just listen to that mutha [&o]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2nlGN6aS8g


Sex in the sky
[image]local://upfiles/28156/793E6F6447664E7E9D9FAF7C65254298.jpg[/image]



AllenK -> RE: Dunkirk (7/28/2017 6:42:58 PM)

Love the sound of those Merlins.

Last year as it was a special birthday, my partner and parents got me an hours flight in the Belgium equivalent of the Tiger Moth. What an experience. After a loop and barrel roll, the pilot handed over and I spent the rest of the flight until landing approach flying around the Cotswolds. For my next special I'd love to fulfill a boyhood ambition to fly a Spitfire. Better start saving. I'll need the next 9 years to get the funds together.



warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk (7/28/2017 6:57:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

Love the sound of those Merlins.

Last year as it was a special birthday, my partner and parents got me an hours flight in the Belgium equivalent of the Tiger Moth. What an experience. After a loop and barrel roll, the pilot handed over and I spent the rest of the flight until landing approach flying around the Cotswolds. For my next special I'd love to fulfill a boyhood ambition to fly a Spitfire. Better start saving. I'll need the next 9 years to get the funds together.

warspite1

Cool [8D]



rkr1958 -> RE: Dunkirk (8/2/2017 12:56:06 AM)

Apparently some feel that the movie Dunkirk was to male. I'm speechless [&:]

quote:

"Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness — which apparently they don't get to do enough," Marie Claire's Mehera Bonner wrote in her review.


Reference: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/01/dunkirk-critics-mocked-for-slamming-movies-cast.html



RFalvo69 -> RE: Dunkirk (8/2/2017 1:18:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Apparently some feel that the movie Dunkirk was to male. I'm speechless [&:]

quote:

"Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness — which apparently they don't get to do enough," Marie Claire's Mehera Bonner wrote in her review.


Reference: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/01/dunkirk-critics-mocked-for-slamming-movies-cast.html


In all fairness, how they omitted the role that Wonder Woman had at Dunkirk was a serious disappointment.



RFalvo69 -> RE: Dunkirk (8/2/2017 1:44:31 AM)

However... seriously?? The movie shows women working as nurses in a war zone - and not in the rear lines, but under the bombs! Women do fu**ing DIE when their ships are sunk.

I want to be clear: I'm all for women rights (I want for my daughters to live in a more equal society) and even LGBT's ones. Articles like these ones actually damage the cause, by opening it to (sadly rightful) ridicule. I think that in medical terms the authors could be diagnosed with extreme obsession and/or mania. And, while I do respect the inner suffering coming from mental disorders, these people should see professional counsel - not be allowed to actually write AGAINST the very cause they are obsessed by.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375