šŸ“½ Films I have seen

None of you were there man, you donā€™t know what it was likeā€¦(sorry, that was paraphrased from some film or other)

:lou_wink_2:

Btw - this event is slipping into history so if you know anyone from that era then ask them about it. Otherwise Hollywood will rewrite it more than this film

It was called Dunkirk. Wouldnā€™t you expect some kind of view of the scale of the operation apart from Kenneth Branagh reeling off some numbers?.We had shots from the air but I donā€™t recall an aerial shot of thousands of small boats on their way over. Wouldnā€™t have been too hard with CGI.

Ok. Mr ā€¦ Letā€™s calm you down a bit. Firstly, yes Christopher Nolan doesnā€™t use CGI ā€¦ at all. Heā€™s quoted as its being a failure in being a director. Dunkirk beach is over 26 miles, he based most of the scenes on actual photos, itā€™s accurate. Also he insists on shooting with 70mm IMAX cameras. For perspective, big old fashioned wieldy old cameras. The major non realistic thing was the lack of air power. In 48 hours the RAF gave everything to defend our troops. Maybe over 100 sorties. In the movie we see 6 spitfires. Dramatic licence and budget :slight_frown: Itā€™s not a traditional Hollywood movie

Christopher Nolan doesnā€™t use CGI? Do you mean specifically in this film?

I find it hard to believe thatā€™s the case - they all use CGI to one extent or another, even if in just the most subtle manner.

I am calm Ted. I said the film is ok. Sorry if that has caused an upset. Are you sure there was no CGI used?

If it was a Spielberg movie, it would be an hour longer and have Tom Hanks explaining why his fucking hand shakes because heā€™s a teacher back in the US and he doesnā€™t really like war and thereā€™s a scene round a camp fire where a character pulls a photo of his girlfriend ā€¦ If you need that lame backstory to feel for people in that situation?

2 Likes

From what Iā€™ve read (thanks to the film peaking/piquing/peeking my interest) there were only around 800-850 or so small boats requisitioned from the south/south east and the thames, and I can only imagine it highly unlikely that they would all arrive at the same time. Nolan himself has described this film as a work of fiction, a survival story based within the events of Dunkirk and I feel it acheived this to the letter.

1 Like

Hey of course some CGI was used, just making the point Nolan is pretty unique nowadays in that he likes practical effects. The Spitfire scenes alone cost millions.

Whatever you think of Saving Private Ryan, it gives you a real, visceral feeling of what it was like to be there on D Day. I got more of a feel for Dunkirk from Atonement. Just my opinion Ted.

Christopher Nolan, Tarantino and PT Anderson all reject CGI as a choice, and shoot all their movies in 70 mm film

I am sure they didnā€™t all turn up at once. I am also sure that they didnā€™t go over in twos and threes. If you see the old newsreels you will see what it looked like. To get 300k plus men off the beach in a few days you would see an awful lot of activity in the area.

1 Like

Itā€™s also really expensive but 70mm film has more latitude than digital atm. Those 3 can do whatever. The Weinstein Bros have gone on record, Tarantino made Resevoir Dogs which made Weinstein pictures, Bob Weinstein has said Tarantino can make anything he likes. Warner Bros would let Nolan do whatever, after Dark Knight. PT Anderson is looked at as an Oscar dude, his films donā€™t have box office appeal, but theyā€™re popular with critics and pretty low budget.

1 Like

Iā€™m boring myself now :grimacing:

1 Like

Fair enough Soggy, I take some of your points that itā€™s not 100% accurate, but I donā€™t think thatā€™s overly important with regard to what the film was trying to put across, think itā€™s reasonable to say we wanted different things from this film.

I watched the Dunkirk movie. It was a strange one It didnā€™t have a lot of things that movies usually have, like we didnā€™t find out bout what the characters have got to lose, i.e. we didnā€™t find out bout their pregnant girlfriend, or disabled son back Home. We didnā€™t even find out that one of the characters has got Hayfever or something, and would have to Heroically Overcome This Flaw To Save The Day. No-one fell in love with a French peasant girl. It was a bit dry in that way, like a documentary or something.

What it was tho, was an excercise in Cinematic Tension, and with the gr8 soundtrack + cinematographies, I thought it done a v.good job in that sense. I wouldnā€™t recommend watch it outside the cinema tho. If Iā€™d watched it in the normal way I watch movies, on my mobile phone while Iā€™m taking a shit, or driving at 90mph down the A14, I donā€™t think I wouldā€™ve got very much from it At All.

5 Likes

Having now had a good old Google, it appears that he did use CGI for this film even though it was shot in 70mm.

I agree about the accuracy Gav although I thought that they flogged the whole fuel thing in Hardyā€™s Spitfire a bit much when a much bigger issue is the whole ammo thing as it had a greater impact on operational air time than fuel. I think the reason I felt disappointed is that I had heard a lot of good things about the movie so was expecting a lot more. Having grown up with lots of black and white war films featuring John Mills and Dickie Attenborough this seemed very similar, but with better effects. Still, if it means that people go and check out the history thats no bad thing. Although we suffered a military disaster, it was nothing short of miraculous getting so many men back so that they could fight another day.

Hey. Yeah, I understand the general philosophy, and the point youā€™re making, but itā€™s just not accurate to say they donā€™t use CGI. Itā€™s may be less in your face, but itā€™s still there. Nolan has a long standing relationship with Double Negative.

Itā€™s the equivalent to purist musicians who record live and to tape, which I think is great - but most still benefit from a little protools touching up here and there. Thereā€™s nothing at all bad about doing so.

2 Likes

All movies are graded, so everything goes through a post production thing. Sound is post produced and a lot of dialogue is recorded in a booth after the movie is shot. There must have been some shots that were digitally enhanced. Iā€™m just going by some documentaries. Film is more expensive but is does still have more latitude than just recording digitally.

Dunkirk was just special that it was a very big budget movie and it didnā€™t follow a template. I.E had no studio interference. There is something more ā€œrealā€ I think about practical effects ā€¦ Just going by people whoā€™ve watched the movie. It ā€œfeelsā€ more real because they put a camera in an actual Spitfire and filmed it.