Reply With QuoteSums it up for me too. Was a tough watch to think what these boys went through.Originally Posted by SimonK
A very interesting article - thank you for posting.
Based on that, it seems the film did successfully capture a sense of what those involved in the evacuation went through.
One thing which particularly impressed me about 'Dunkirk' (and I see is touched upon in the article) is that it's a kind of "pure cinema" whereby it is left primarily to the visuals, rather than the dialogue, to tell the story and immerse the viewer in the events depicted.
Sums it up for me too. Was a tough watch to think what these boys went through.
A brief trashing of a film (not the subject) has developed into a fascinating conversation. I fully take in board the favourable comments of the film but for me, it still fell well short on many levels.
I think seeing it with a 19yr old, who has a very different idea of WW2 than me, who's dad and uncles actually fought in it, listening through a crack in the door when they got together, has. He very rarely even mentioned his time to me btw, I got most from my mum as I got older, especially after he 'played up'.
In tribute to the poor sods and their comrades, in all theatres, and the real horrors they endured, please indulge me.
My dad, Jim, at 18, started as a gun layer on Russian convoys in '42, the Mulberry harbour D+1, Norway when the U Boats surrendered up there (he was just behind the boss on a quayside guard of honour and actually saw the german officers tears as he handed over his sword. He ended up in Freemantle (HMS Adamant, submarine depot ship) and very nearly settled in NZ.
My uncle Tom and his older bro Sid were in the Territorials pre kick off. I never knew if they were at Dunkirk? Tommy did Nth Africa & Italy, he was away 5 years. My mum, his older sister, never recognised him when he tapped her on the shoulder at Stockwell station when he came home. He left with jet black 'marcel waved' hair, the chap she was goosed by with a 'Hello Sis!' was black as coal with grey hair & service specs!
His older brother Sid was a bit of a rascal. He spent time in the glasshouse and tended to get the worst jobs. He kept it well under his hat but I do remember the term 'D Day Dodger' coming up in our front room.
He unlike Tom, did make it home for leave occasionally, tales of booty being upturned from the kitbag were common.
He went right through France & Germany, and the liberation of the camps at the end.
I think his expeirences must have influenced his later 'life choices'.
If you have taken the time to read this, Thanks.
I'm reluctantly to watch the movie as I have read the superb 'Dunkirk ' by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore. A harrowing book on what happened at Dunkirk, I urge everyone to read it.
You make a good point.
I think people EXPECT similar visceral action from war films now (take a look at Hacksaw Ridge, for example), but Nolan is to be applauded for bucking the trend, as he often does.
You could make a case for a film about Dunkirk more in the style of SPR or HR, I'm sure there's a film there, but Nolan chose to go a different, more personal, route, rather than just do SPR at Dunkirk.
M
I really want to go and see this, but don't want to be disappointment. My Uncle fought rear guard action as part of the BEF he was a Sergeant in Princess Louise's Kensington's, one of the battalions left behind.
He was always very sarcastic when he talked about Dunkirk. The rear guard fought their way to St Valery en Caux where eventually Major General Fortune surrendered to General Rommel. My Uncles company commandeered a fishing boat and my uncle sailed it across the channel.
He named his daughter Valerie (she died only last year). After the regiment was disbanded they amalgamated and fought in North Africa. He was wounded in the invasion of Italy at Cassino. He went on to land on the beaches on D day and survived the war.
General Fortune issued the following directive to commanding officers at 1000hrs on the 11th June:
"The Navy will probably make an effort to take us off by boat, perhaps to-night, perhaps in two nights. I wish all ranks to realise that this can only be achieved by the full co-operation of everyone. Men may have to walk five or six miles. The utmost discipline must prevail.
"Men will board the boats with equipment and carrying arms. Vehicles will be rendered useless without giving away what is being done. Carriers should be retained as the final rearguard. Routes back to the nearest highway should be reconnoitred and officers detailed as guides. Finally, if the enemy should attack before the whole force is evacuated, all ranks must realise that it is up to them to defeat them. He may attack with tanks, and we have quite a number of anti-tank guns behind. If the infantry can stop the enemy's infantry, that is all that is required, while anti-tank guns and rifles inflict casualties on armoured fighting vehicles."
Last edited by wildheart; 25th July 2017 at 14:16.
Saw Dunkirk last night and quite enjoyed it. On the way home my normally cynical 16 year old son surprised me by saying that the last 10 minutes made him feel patriotic and proud to be British - he hadn't realised how young many of the soldiers were and the concept of running out of fuel in a fighter plane effectively made of wood and canvas with no guarantee of safe return had never occurred to someone brought up on 'call of duty'. So Christopher Nolan achieved something'
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't mind the lack of bullets and bodies flying, it just seemed to me to lack the scale necessary. For them to mention 400,000 troops when there were patently only a few hundred in view across the whole film was incongruous to say the least and prevented me from being fully "in the moment" with the film in places.
An interesting post, but (without wishing to sound like a know-it-all!) it's worth pointing out that the Spitfire (which Hardy was depicted flying) was one of the new generation of all-metal framed fighter aircraft (along with the Messerschmitt Bf 109).
It was the Hawker Hurricane which was primarily wooden framed and covered in canvas.
In fact, one of the reasons the Hawker Hurricane is often said to have had a bigger impact during the Battle Of Britain (it shot down far more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire during this period) was that it's construction method meant that battle damage could frequently be repaired in a matter of minutes - just put some canvas (Irish linen) and daub over the bullet holes etc. and a few minutes later the plane was ready to go!
A similar repair on a Spitfire could take many many hours.
I'd second that. It still haunts me. I think young people should see this to get an understanding of what human beings are capable of when things go very badly wrong. Apologies for wandering off topic.
No apology needed, I saw that film at a student (a bird, not me!) screening, same with Das Boot and was going to mention it in my OP, back in the early 80s iirc.
I'm certainly not bemoaning a lack of exploding bodies & stubby chewin heroes in Dunkirk btw. A great war film doesn't need it imo. Ryan was to a degree spoiled by all that, as was Fury.
Think 12 O'clock High, Appointment In London, Target For Tonight, A matter of Life & Death for example.
I just think the film was a stinker and people are getting carried away with the hype.
If you like it, fine but make an honest assesment rather than parrot the 'critics'.
I read the reviews before I saw it and they must have seen a different film to the one I endured.
We went on Saturday, because it was raining. Thought it a very good film. And it was still raining when we came out. Must be summer.
Btw: we live a mile from Goodwood, and see Spitfires flying over the garden on most days. They are very beautiful.
For the record, my views on the film are exactly that, MY views. I never read reviews.
Foggy
I never read reviews. I thought it was haunting, the ticking clock throughout the film with an imposing sense of impending doom.
At the risk of sounding corny - it resonated being proud to be British. In all honesty a new found sense of respect and understanding for this event . I especially noted Tom Hardys omega pilots watch .
Looks like it's an RAF weems watch
The film didn't really focus on one character in particular which was good just a general point of view from various groups.
Genres apart , it was the best film I have seen this year. I saw the trailer a while ago and I didn't think much . The film was very good
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by bond; 26th July 2017 at 15:30.
I'm in the 'it was excellent' camp
3 cheese filled moments aside
1 - it means hope
2 - the salute
3 - Hardys final scene
It was excellent…. Many films could benefit from paying more attention to delivering a truly original and evocative film score
Harry Stiles was suprisingly adequate
It didn't need the big scenes to give it presence, it benefited from not trying to hard
Well worth a watch in my view
Last edited by Wolfie; 30th July 2017 at 04:39.
I saw it on Thursday night with a mate. Scale aside (as has been mentioned, it didn't look like there were 400,000 men on the beaches), I thought it was a powerful film and felt like far more of a stage play brought to the big screen (small-ish cast, a focus on intimate events) than a big war film. Hollywood would never have made a film like this. It put you into the scenes as a pilot, soldier, civilian mariner etc to let you feel the experience of being there without distraction of too much dialog or background action. The ticking soundtrack was haunting (Hans Zimmer incorporated the sound of a pocket watch) and the view of events from a number of different perspectives was clever.
I noticed a couple of things:
- at the opening of the film there is a brief 3 liner explain of the scenario where the Germans are referred to only as 'The Enemy'.
- you don't see any Germans until after the Spitfire has landed and even then they are out of focus.
- it was nice to see a period Omega.
- the culture of the time was very well-represented.
- could this be a Brexit movie? Was Nolan trying to draw parallels with today's events?
- Nolan's aunt (who played Helga in 'Allo Allo') has a blink-and-you-miss-her cameo.
- at Stratford-upon-Avon picture house we had a mainly older audience. Plenty of people my age (40s) and above plus families with teenage children. When the credits rolled, nobody moved. We all just sat there. The kids looked visibly shocked and there were a few tears.
- I think this would make a great film to dissect as part of media/film studies. It should be added to secondary school history curriculums.
- it's not a big war movie. It's a character study of the people involved in the events. From that standpoint, it works incredibly well.
By chance I was wearing my IWC Spitfire Chrono. Perhaps we can start a what watch to wear to the cinema thread? Or perhaps not - I don't want to give anyone any ideas.
100% agree with this!
Won't read yours then.
I apologise kingstepper.
My grammar is terrible . I meant I never had the chance to read any reviews on this particular film. So it didn't bias any opinion I may of had here on this thread.
Not that I do not read reviews .
I'm not going for the Barry Norman /Ebert thread award for Dunkirk reviews just a few musings of the movie .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just back and really enjoyed it.
I thought the different timelines and the way they overlap was very well handled in a way that didn't feel contrived.
On the point of scale, I know what people mean, but many of the iconic photos from Dunkirk are of small isolated groups and I recognised a number on the screen.
The lack of dialogue was a plus for me and the score was excellent imo.
I don't think it was intended to be a grand scale film but I think different angles were handled well to reflect the bigger picture.
Worked for me and good to see something other than America saving the world in a modern war film.
M
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Last edited by snowman; 29th July 2017 at 22:43.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
I just got back from watching it. It's a unique film and is extremely realistic,but in being so realistic it can be abit boring in places
Well, the positive views keep coming and that's fine.
On a wider theory, and don't laugh, would the prevailing wind on this film be 'Brexit' related? Wonder how it's going down over there bearing in mind a couple of friends came back recently and got a pretty frosty reception, plus the odd fruity sticker put on their cars?
Think the yank bashing is uncalled for also, they and more importantly, the Soviet Union, who absorbed up to 75% of the german war machine, did 'save the world' from Mr Hitler and his pals.
Dunkirk was indeed a logistical miracle with great sacrifice and real grit shown under extreme conditions.
Let us not forget also that it was a huge defeat for the BEF, as was the surrender at Singapore a little while later. Wonder if that's in Nolan's pipeline?
Being half French I thought it was a bit of a shame that the French contribution (basically making the evacuation even possible by holding a defensive line) was somewhat glossed over (and in fact showing a French soldier pretending to be British in order to escape). Still thought it was a great film though - have seen it twice already
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
No question about the importance of the US and USSR contribution to the defeat of the Nazis, just nice to see something other than the US story portrayed for a change (especially when it's bare faced lies like the story of the capture of the Enigma machine..). Not sure how that is Yank bashing.
Don't see the Brexit point either. Are you suggesting anti EU feeling is behind the liking for this film? If so, you're well wide of the mark with me.
It was a good film, imo, maybe not worthy of some of the over effusive praise heaped on it, but what film is?
I think the whole point of the film was the sacrifice of individuals, rather than jingoistic BS. In no way does the film make out that the BEF won in some way, which only the most revisionist could claim.
I think you need to accept it just wasn't a film that appealed to you, but does to others, rather than trying to find reasons why we're all wrong!
M
Last edited by snowman; 30th July 2017 at 10:13.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
This was an Interesting aspect for me, I hadn't appreciated that they were scared of being branded cowards on return…. Overlaid with the Churchill speech "fight them on the beeches" they were well treated (to their surprise) on return.
Was this speech in part designed to help swing the British mood in favour of presernting the BEF effort more positively as suggested in the film? I'm aware the speech has other objectives too
Probably - Clearly by any military measure it was a defeat, it would have been easy to believe that there was no way to defeat the Germans and to have the public opinion sue for peace (If you watch the World At War series, there's an episode which makes it clear that the mood in Britain, throughout the war, wasn't universally in support of carrying on regardless) at least or give in altogether.
By turning the evacuation at Dunkirk into a 'success' it allowed the British people to believe that it was possible to fight on.
One point the film didn't make (except in Branagh's parting comment that he's staying 'For the French') was that a total of 140,000 French, Polish and Belgian troops were also evacuated, hardly an insignificant figure in the grand scheme of things and, of course, many went on to fight throughout the war (like fighter pilots in the BoB another case of the "Poles coming over here, taking our jobs" and saving our country!).
Dunkirk is always portrayed as an example of the 'British spirit', but obviously it gave these troops, who chose to (a lot of the French were repatriated to Vichy France), something other than occupation to look forward to.
M
Last edited by snowman; 30th July 2017 at 10:11.
Great to see The World at War mentioned, watched it as a teenager and to this day, it is still probably the difinitive work on WW2. I have urged my 19yr old who I saw the film with, to netflix it or whatever it is they do.
What still strikes me, after catching a couple of early episodes this week (the Dunkirk one is next I think) is seeing some of the participants, from cabinet ministers to 109 pilots, speaking calmly & candidly, as ordinary middle aged men, of extrodinary historical events, some younger than I am now.
Back to the 'British Spirit' then.
I can tell you all that my late dad, a Bethnal Green teenager who went through the blitz & into the RN in 42 (probably to get away) and my late mum in Stockwell, told me of how Londoners were less keen, shall we say, of a full and total prosecution of the war.
They existed in a kind of urban terror we cannot imagine (mum freaked at thunderstorms all her life)
and that the V weapons were the last straw. Many were calling for the whole shebang to stop when they started but Mr C, after being bailed out by the US and his hated Bolsheviks had other ideas.......
So many uncomfortable truths, ie: us bombing german cities 1st, if the U Boats had put another dozen permanantly on patrol out there in 41 we would have probably starved, if no Pearl Harbour would the might of the US have been in, Barborosa stopping the UK being over run and becoming part of the Reich, the Singapore debacle........itgoes on. Apart from Alemein there was very little to flag wave about till D Day.
Important that these matters are still discussed as most 1st hand accountees are passed and 2nd hand ones need to be heard so youngsters now get meat on the bone rather than the perceived historys they get at school etc nowadays.
Sorry about the i before e thing btw, can't get the spellchecker up!
(http://ist3-
1.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/4/7/7/147731/3/n/b/K/3nbKK/560cb56e82cdf.jpgHostilities Only) in '42
Interesting points…
As Churchill stated wars are not won by successful evacuations
The world at war…. Now that is a series
I should look to find it again I think.... completely agree that this is THE definitive account of the period
Some really interesting points I' didn't know…. I hadn't appreciated that we'd bombed German cities first
Saw it today in full IMAX glory. Thought it was really good. I can see the complaints about the lack of scale on the beach but the stories intertwine and hold up well. Harry Styles was so convincing my wife had to ask me which one he was lol.
I'd have like to see it in IMAX although the cinematography (if that's the right word) wasn't as spectacular as I had believed. I suppose our expecations these days are very high!
It wasn't the best film ever but it was an engaging 100 or so minutes and worth however much it costs to get into the cinema where you are.
(By the way, 1000 Nectar points for 2 Vue tickets is decent value at the moment.)
The usher showed off a 1 second 24 frame piece of the 70mm film before the start it is pretty large. Apparently the film is 5+ miles of it! I do think the extra space afforded by the film and screen gives a much better sense of isolation on the beaches in a lot of the shots. Lovely depth to the picture quality too.
Finally saw it last night. I was slightly underwhelmed. I thought the film was a fascinating depiction of an historical event shot (and sounded) magnificently. But it lacked the impact I thought it should have.
I'm not sure if it was due to the scale - I didn't get the feel of 400,000 even if this was supposed to be just a portion of things happening. As a piece to understand the horrors of war it was ok, but I dunno - I felt I would 'feel' more.
I also would have maybe like to see more on the defending of the position - it did seem they were 'too safe' from the forces approaching via land.
My Dad was at Dunkirk.
He didn't think much of the 1958 movie and even less of the scenes on the beaches in the film Atonement.
Not sure what he would have made of this one.
He could never bring himself to talk about it
"It must be realised that what happened on the beaches of Dunkirk can never be shown, because if it was and people saw what had really happened they would be too shocked and upset. I know that many people who were on the beaches even 50 years later still have nightmares about it"
missed opportunity on the title. should have been 'Dunkirk? Dun bother'
Not enough tie-fighters and storm troopers for some.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Yes indeed,brilliant film
Haven't seen this but agree with you on Skyfall... it just didnt gel at all for me...was wrong & not even sure why (sorry very very late to the thread party)
Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app
Saw it today and thought it was excellent, found the whole thing to be very tense. The drowning scenes in particular.
Not sure why people are moaning about the scale, there never was 400k on the beach, the evacuation lasted 10 days, the line we were defending was over 10 miles in length and you'd have been easy pickings on the beach. By the end there would have been more equipment and dead but I thought it represented what was going on very well.
As for the historical inaccuracies, don't care.
I thought the idea would be to get any historical film as accurate as possible.
Cheers,
Neil.
Regardless of the scale I must say I cant quite remember being so immersed in a film. I felt exhausted watching it and even motion sickness at one point.
The score was superb - basically ramping up the tension and resembled a horror movie at times to reflect the terror of war.
Think I read that it had a $100 million budget (last Bond film was 260 I believe) and little CGI, pretty impressive reading how he used boats and ships from the era and many used in Dunkirk.
Best film ive seen in a long time simply for the immersive experience.
I meant the tiny details that only a train spotter might notice. Had the Americans arrived with a fleet to save the day I would have felt differently.I thought the idea would be to get any historical film as accurate as possible
It's entertainment not a documentary.
I thought the idea would be to get any historical film as accurate as possible.
The idea is to provide an immersive thrilling visual experience to stir the emotions while telling a story using characters and narrative.
If you want authenticity I suggest you look beyond mainstream cinema for recreational viewing.
I went last night and endorse the OP's view.
I thought the idea would be to get any historical film as accurate as possible.It's about Dunkirk. It's something that happened in recent history and within remembrance of the previous generation. To be told with respect it should be historically accurate IMO.
If it had been a roman chariot race or something I could understand but not something of such recent history that youngsters will be looking at and hopefully learning from.
Cheers,
Neil.
unfortunately for you thats not how the movie making world works.
there are a precious few minutes to condense a notable event into enterntainment that has to make money at the box office. this usually involves a script and plot that will engage plus a cast that will draw the punters in. there are literally thousands of films that are not historically accurate including those not in living memory (like vikings/Picts etc) because factual re-telling with 100% accuracy does not put bums on seats when creative engaging storytelling does.
i watched a film last week about the deepwater horizon disaster, i wasn’t a brilliant film but it gave me an insight into what happened and just about kept me entertained, i went off to google a few things afterwards to do my own learning, the fact that an experienced off shore oil industry expert would have been in a hissy fit at what was represented on screen means nothing to me or 99.9999% of the films audience.
Surprisingly the true story is often more interesting than anything film makers can dream up and Dunkirk is a good example.
Who could have imagined the story of the little ships?
Personally I am not a fan of "faction" as many movie audiences believe films about historical facts to be true.
A good example of an exciting war film told with as near historical accuracy as possible would be The Battle Of Britain, and on a grand scale also.
Of course there were side stories but It lost nothing in the retelling of the battle.
Cheers,
Neil.
'The Longest Day' was not bad either. As was 'Is Paris Burning?'
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Great choices! I saw TLD at the pictures when it was first released .
I do crave historical accuracy in war films but also understand why that is not much of a priority for mainstream film makers.
Downfall was a cracker IMHO.
'The Battle Of Britain' is fine film for accurately portraying the many strands of a historical narrative and was one of my favourite films growing up.
However, in the context of the points MrSmith made it should be noted that 'The Battle Of Britain' lost a lot of money at the box office.
'Dunkirk' may provide a partial picture of a historical event (eg numbers on the beach / French involvement), but its portrayal is, nonetheless, accurate in what strands of the picture it does show. It's also been a big success at the box office.
Furthermore, 'Dunkirk' very successfully articulates a sense of what those involved in the evacuation went through, and does so with tremendous cinematic flair.
If 'Dunkirk' had tried to incorporate more strands of the evacuation story (as 'The Battle Of Britain' did with its story), I suspect that this would've come at the sacrifice of much of the intimacy which allowed for the "immersion" one feels when watching the film - it would've been more instructional, but wouldn't have done such a good job of putting the audience in the midst of the chaos.
A lot of veterans have praised the film for portraying their experiences.
I won't argue with them...
M
Posting Permissions
