Dunkirk

D

DLD

Major Contributor
So, I am a big enough WWII history buff to argue whether the Soviet 52K 85mm anti-aircraft gun was a copy of the German 88mm FLAK 18/36/41, as I did a few days ago. Which makes a good/great WWII film so rare.

This might be the one.


Out in the theaters tomorrow. Got 9.1 so far on IMDB and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes. Christopher Nolan. Hoyte van Hoytema on the cam, shooting in Panavision System on 65mm film.
 
Christopher Nolan, and your whole cast and crew, take a bow. Exceptional film. Breathtaking cinematography. Extraordinary soundtrack. Flawless acting.

Best film I've seen in Imax. No question.
 
Yeah what Liam said - the constant rumbling soundtrack was completely immersive, an intense IMAX experience
 
Saw it yesterday at my local IMAX. 70x52 foot screen. 24kw sound system.

I have to say, I wasn't favorably impressed. Dunkirk convinced me that IMAX sized film doesn't work well for narrative film making. For much of the film (just about anything shot in a confined space) the vast majority of what was on screen was out of focus. Doesn't matter how much resolution it can carry it's out of focus.

That's just the laws of physics. For a frame that's 15/70mm, it takes a much longer focal length to match the same field of view as you get with your standard S35 camera. [IIRC, it's 5x? So if it takes a 20mm lens on S35, it'll take a 100mm lens on IMAX, yes? To match field of view. Please correct me if I'm wrong.] And with longer focal length lenses comes much less depth of field. It's not always bad, it can be used to direct the viewers eye, but still.

For example, near the beginning of the film there's a tracking shot where the camera follows the kid between buildings and out onto the beach where the kid slows down to try to take it all in. Where's the focus? Not on the kid, but also not on the sea where the kid is looking. It's in the compromise position between them, so the only thing that's really in focus is some (ugly) concrete work in the middle ground. If Nolan had focused on the sea, the kid's head would have been a shapeless dark blot. If he'd focused on the kid, the sea would have been a big blur and you wouldn't have been able to see what the kid was looking at. And that was on screen for like 15 seconds. Nolan has to own that mistake. Probably didn't give the editor anything else to use there.

Mostly these focus issues happened inside ships and rooms. Where a single face would be in focus and 90% of the screen area would be out of focus. I'm just saying that IMAX doesn't do well here.

OTOH, the big shots, looking at the sea / beach from an airplane, were spectacular. Shots of the ships from piers and boats were amazing. This is the stuff that makes IMAX shine.

Editing however, for me anyway, was a big fail. Did not like the editing at all. The story didn't call for all the back and forth in the time line, the mixing of day and night shots, etc. It really felt manipulative to me. But what are you going to do with a story that thin? War is hell? No kidding.

Yes, I know, this is all sacrilege. Because... Nolan! Well, I normally really like what Nolan has done. I think I've see all his films, and liked them all (Memento is still my fav, and there the editing was excellent). But even a great director stumbles once in a while. And for me anyway, Nolan stumbled with this one. I'm sure it'll win Oscars though. Because... Nolan! And.. Film!
 
I'm happy for Dunkirk but bummed to see that Valerian is struggling. Maybe it deserves to struggle? I'm going to give Valerian a shot because I hear that it is visually spectacular and well...Besson!

 
Bruce Watson said:
Saw it yesterday at my local IMAX. 70x52 foot screen. 24kw sound system.

I have to say, I wasn't favorably impressed. Dunkirk convinced me that IMAX sized film doesn't work well for narrative film making. For much of the film (just about anything shot in a confined space) the vast majority of what was on screen was out of focus. Doesn't matter how much resolution it can carry it's out of focus.

That's just the laws of physics. For a frame that's 15/70mm, it takes a much longer focal length to match the same field of view as you get with your standard S35 camera. [IIRC, it's 5x? So if it takes a 20mm lens on S35, it'll take a 100mm lens on IMAX, yes? To match field of view. Please correct me if I'm wrong.] And with longer focal length lenses comes much less depth of field. It's not always bad, it can be used to direct the viewers eye, but still.

For example, near the beginning of the film there's a tracking shot where the camera follows the kid between buildings and out onto the beach where the kid slows down to try to take it all in. Where's the focus? Not on the kid, but also not on the sea where the kid is looking. It's in the compromise position between them, so the only thing that's really in focus is some (ugly) concrete work in the middle ground. If Nolan had focused on the sea, the kid's head would have been a shapeless dark blot. If he'd focused on the kid, the sea would have been a big blur and you wouldn't have been able to see what the kid was looking at. And that was on screen for like 15 seconds. Nolan has to own that mistake. Probably didn't give the editor anything else to use there.

Mostly these focus issues happened inside ships and rooms. Where a single face would be in focus and 90% of the screen area would be out of focus. I'm just saying that IMAX doesn't do well here.

OTOH, the big shots, looking at the sea / beach from an airplane, were spectacular. Shots of the ships from piers and boats were amazing. This is the stuff that makes IMAX shine.

Editing however, for me anyway, was a big fail. Did not like the editing at all. The story didn't call for all the back and forth in the time line, the mixing of day and night shots, etc. It really felt manipulative to me. But what are you going to do with a story that thin? War is hell? No kidding.

Yes, I know, this is all sacrilege. Because... Nolan! Well, I normally really like what Nolan has done. I think I've see all his films, and liked them all (Memento is still my fav, and there the editing was excellent). But even a great director stumbles once in a while. And for me anyway, Nolan stumbled with this one. I'm sure it'll win Oscars though. Because... Nolan! And.. Film!
Click to expand...
I'd imagine for that outdoor shot going toward the beach (or just shots in general), if they had wanted a deeper depth of field, they could have simply stopped the lens down more, so I don't know if you can fully blame the camera system for that. Without looking up the numbers, I'd guess a Super 35 sensor at f/5.6 would have similar depth of field to a medium format IMAX at f/8 or f/11. For low light scenes you'd then need a lot more lighting to get to the higher f-stops, which is perhaps one reason I believe they shot most or all of the night shots on 35mm.

I believe a lot of the small confine scenes such as inside the boat were shot on 35mm and not IMAX, so any poor focusing would have been the result of shooting too wide open and/or the AC missing focus, and not because the camera choice had a shallower depth of field than than what is typical.
 
Guess I'm providing the counterpoint to Bruce:

6-story-high screen
• 52,000 watt digital sound system
• 12-channels, 114-speaker surround sound
• 4K Laser IMAX Projector (the only one in Florida)

In September 2016, the AutoNation® IMAX 3D Theater underwent an extensive renovation including a new giant screen (60 ft. x 80 ft.), new powerful sound system and the addition of a new 4K Laser projection system for unparalleled clarity and brilliance.

The 15-perf 70mm film was beautiful.

I loved the parallel editing, and the three storylines taking place over an hour, a day and a week. Didn't feel gimmicky whatsoever.
And the story didn't feel thin- it was those characters' experiences in their respective timeframes.
And I had no focus issues.

I've never felt so immersed in a cinematic experience, just truly a tour de force. I think I'll go back for a second viewing, and I never do that at theaters...

Powerful story, powerful film, powerful viewing experience.

It was kind of strange watching the trailer aspect ratios go from 2.35: 1 (I think) for Last Jedi to 1.43:1 IMAX for Justice League.
And the trailer sound at IMAX? Ouch!!! Felt it in my chest...
 
Bruce Watson said:
Saw it yesterday at my local IMAX. 70x52 foot screen. 24kw sound system.

I have to say, I wasn't favorably impressed. Dunkirk convinced me that IMAX sized film doesn't work well for narrative film making. For much of the film (just about anything shot in a confined space) the vast majority of what was on screen was out of focus. Doesn't matter how much resolution it can carry it's out of focus.

That's just the laws of physics. For a frame that's 15/70mm, it takes a much longer focal length to match the same field of view as you get with your standard S35 camera. [IIRC, it's 5x? So if it takes a 20mm lens on S35, it'll take a 100mm lens on IMAX, yes? To match field of view. Please correct me if I'm wrong.] And with longer focal length lenses comes much less depth of field. It's not always bad, it can be used to direct the viewers eye, but still.

For example, near the beginning of the film there's a tracking shot where the camera follows the kid between buildings and out onto the beach where the kid slows down to try to take it all in. Where's the focus? Not on the kid, but also not on the sea where the kid is looking. It's in the compromise position between them, so the only thing that's really in focus is some (ugly) concrete work in the middle ground. If Nolan had focused on the sea, the kid's head would have been a shapeless dark blot. If he'd focused on the kid, the sea would have been a big blur and you wouldn't have been able to see what the kid was looking at. And that was on screen for like 15 seconds. Nolan has to own that mistake. Probably didn't give the editor anything else to use there.

Mostly these focus issues happened inside ships and rooms. Where a single face would be in focus and 90% of the screen area would be out of focus. I'm just saying that IMAX doesn't do well here.

OTOH, the big shots, looking at the sea / beach from an airplane, were spectacular. Shots of the ships from piers and boats were amazing. This is the stuff that makes IMAX shine.

Editing however, for me anyway, was a big fail. Did not like the editing at all. The story didn't call for all the back and forth in the time line, the mixing of day and night shots, etc. It really felt manipulative to me. But what are you going to do with a story that thin? War is hell? No kidding.

Yes, I know, this is all sacrilege. Because... Nolan! Well, I normally really like what Nolan has done. I think I've see all his films, and liked them all (Memento is still my fav, and there the editing was excellent). But even a great director stumbles once in a while. And for me anyway, Nolan stumbled with this one. I'm sure it'll win Oscars though. Because... Nolan! And.. Film!
Click to expand...

It's funny that you see it that way. I heard a reviewer say this film would be polarising. After watching it, I felt the reviewer was wrong and everyone would 'get it'. Obviously, I was wrong. I could counter-argue every one of your negative points with a positive. But that would be pointless, what's interesting is that you can watch the exact same film and have an opposite reaction. I wonder if it's an age thing.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Watson said:
... For example, near the beginning of the film there's a tracking shot where the camera follows the kid between buildings and out onto the beach where the kid slows down to try to take it all in ...
Click to expand...
I won't comment on the cinematic quality of this sequence, as I saw it early this morning online. But the content made me question Nolan's understanding of what Dunkirk was like. The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was in France since September/October, 1939 and, by then, were fairly well trained and tested in the early battles. On the other hand, the behavior of the BEF infantry in that opening sequence made it look as if they were actors in the uniforms, totally unaware of their surroundings and the potential danger.

The sequence of the Stuka buzzing by was also inaccurate. Those Ju-87 B dive bombers were very slow and descended onto their target vertically, with many having the "Jericho Trumpets" installed too. Finally, their effect wasn't of a few dead bodies with everyone else emerging from the sand unscathed. Bomb's fragments and the shock wave were responsible for many casualties also.

And the BEF regular soldiers as well as the medics would immediately come to aid those suffering from the wounds or the shock wave from the explosives

BTW, Dunkirk (Operation Dynamo) wasn't the only evacuation by sea to the British Isles. Subsequently to that, there were Operation Cycle (Cherbourg) and Operation Ariel (via Le Havre). Then, a year later, about 18,000 troops were evacuated from Crete to Egypt following the German Operation Mercur.
 
DLD said:
I won't comment on the cinematic quality of this sequence, as I saw it early this morning online.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you just watched a clip and aren't pirating movies?

BTW There were lots of factual inaccuracies in the film, but Nolan was making a movie, not history lecture.
 
I don't put Nolan (or any other director) on a pedestal, nor let him get away with anything I wouldn't let someone else get away with. That said, yes, there are historical inaccuracies, but no, it's not a doc.

I read about 100 NYT reader comments after their rave review, and 98% loved it and 2% quibbled over inaccuracies (and a few saying there is no "good war", or that looking back yet again reduces focus on the current wars. I disagree). The only thing that bothered me was, yes, the BEF were experienced, battle hardened troops, and they were portrayed as a bit zombie-like on the beach. I wanted them to fire their rifles at the planes and fight back more. Nolan wanted otherwise, and that's ok. Not because he's Nolan, but because he's the director.

And in my quite unscientific poll, it seems like Brits, here and at the NYT, are more overwhelmingly supportive of the film. I imagine the history/impact of WW II still looms large for you gents, understandably...

And history begs the question- what would have happened at Dunkirk, and long term, if Hitler had not stopped the tanks?
 
I haven't seen it yet, and I certainly intend to. I'm mulling over whether I should do the IMAX thing, or not. In any case, this movie, whaterever else, is a "must see" for anyone who is a WWII buff (such as myself). I don't care about tiny inaccuracies like the sounds airplanes made, I would be more bothered by other kinds of historical inaccuracies, so I'll just have to see. And personally I don't give a hoot whether it's a "Nolan" movie or whatnot - I care if it's any good, regardless of who made it. But clearly the "Nolan" thing is a factor for some, including those for whom that's not an automatic good - f.ex.:

http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/dunkirk-movie-review-a-great-war-movie-except.html
 
OldCorpse said:
I haven't seen it yet, and I certainly intend to. I'm mulling over whether I should do the IMAX thing, or not. In any case, this movie, whaterever else, is a "must see" for anyone who is a WWII buff (such as myself). I don't care about tiny inaccuracies like the sounds airplanes made, I would be more bothered by other kinds of historical inaccuracies, so I'll just have to see. And personally I don't give a hoot whether it's a "Nolan" movie or whatnot - I care if it's any good, regardless of who made it. But clearly the "Nolan" thing is a factor for some, including those for whom that's not an automatic good - f.ex.:

http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/dunkirk-movie-review-a-great-war-movie-except.html
Click to expand...

I think too many people get hung-up on who directed a movie, now, and they watch it through rose-colored glasses if it was directed by one of the "big boys". I'm with you, "Is it good or not?". Regardless of the director, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top