Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, July 21st 2017) Movie • Page 25

Slowly backing away after that J Cole comment

 

Interesting women were mentioned above. One of the things I love about this kind of film is it reawakens the history student in me. I recently came across this information:

Fascinating.

 

You've been dropping some solid historical facts in this thread. I dig it.

 

ALSO, is it just me or did Cillian play two roles in this?

 

No, pretty sure it was the same character just in two different timelines.

 

that's what i thought, i just had trouble finding where they intersect.
it took me a while to figure out the non-linear timeline here. wasn't until i got home that i realized that the "one week/day/hour" was how long they took place over

 

One of the few times I've been happy that I stumbled upon a spoiler of sorts. I probably would have been a little lost if I hadn't read before hand about the three timelines.

 

Gonna be honest, I really really enjoyed this movie... but a certain pointless plot line, involving a certain character who dies... annoyed me so much that it's still one of the main things I think about regarding the movie.

I don't even have to go into specifics and spoiler tag that shit, if you've seen the movie you KNOW what part I'm talking about.

 

George?

 

Because the film is so thin on character I found the George arc lacking on first viewing, but as a parallel to the arc of Dunkirk itself: a disaster that left behind a legend that meant something more, I think it works really well. George dies without really doing much of consequence, but his story lasts. Dunkirk was a military disaster, and Styles' soldier bemoans that, that "all we did was survive", but the actuality is, the events really did mean so much more beyond that.

 

Hm, I wouldn't call that pointless. Peter lying to Cillian Murphy's character is a pretty significant moment imo.

 

Yep.

Like okay, I fully understand Nolan's reasoning for not making this an overly character-driven movie, and in most of the movie, I think he made the right decision. But surely he must have realized that when we get NO emotional connection to George and don't even see him do anything "heroic" before his rather random death, as an audience that moment will ring hollow. And they don't even develop the tension at ALL after he does die, instead Peter just immediately forgives Cillian Murphy's character for killing him... which we don't even care about. And then apparently George's dream was to be in the local paper, so of course we get the scene of him being hailed as a hero in the local paper, even though again... we never see him do anything!

I guess I'm just so used to nearly every plot element in a Nolan movie serving a very practical purpose, that this entire subplot just felt really jarring to me for how mishandled it was.

 

I think it could've been, but imo the lack of buildup and not caring about George at all because his character isn't remotely developed ruined any resonance that moment could have had.

 

The whole point of his death is that it's uncerimonious and he didn't really do anything tangible.

 

Decided to take my brother to this to see it in IMAX in fear he'd waste his money by taking his girlfriend to some crummy theater to save some coin. I just can't fathom experiencing this film that way if you have the means.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie twice in it's theatrical run, and now I've went back to back: Baby Driver and Dunkirk. Both so very worth it.

 

Then why even have that character have a subplot? We have plenty of scenes that in my opinion brilliantly illustrate the random carnage of war, where who lives and dies is more chance than anything else. To me, if they were insisting on this subplot to really hammer that home it should've been a fraction of the screentime it had, because you think it's actually going to go somewhere meaningful with the amount of time devoted to it, and then the point ends up just being the meaningless, inconsequential death of an inconsequential character the audience is never made to care about.

 

I didn't even know Baby Driver was showing in IMAX. That opening scene would have been rad as hell.

 

That's why I think this character DID need to be developed more, so that we empathize as an audience with his aspirations and are crushed when he dies so pointlessly. I think not really showing any of his character motivations at all, and only giving a brief glimpse when he dies, is the entire reason that doesn't work for me (and others I've talked to). It was one of the main elements of the movie my friends and I talked about leaving the theater. Doesn't come close to ruining the movie of course, but imo it's one of those things that's actually distracting with how dumb it seems, and detracts from the overall experience because of it.

 

I understand the critique of the lack of dramatized characterization. But everything else you're saying is reinforcing why it's there. Again, it's the Dunkirk story in a microcosm: a disaster that ended up standing for so much more.

This film is about survival, about fear. It intends to show many different sides to fear and bravery and survival. George doesn't quite understand what he's thrusting himself into, but he does it anyway because he wants to help and prove himself. It reinforces the bravery of the civilians who sailed into a war zone, reinforcing that their lives were literally on the line as well. His death comes at the hands of Cillian Murphy's character, the most overt example of fear and pure self interest in the film, showing the consequences of being consumed by fear and self interest has on others. I do understand your desire to see more dramatized characterization, but that's not really this movie. It's not really about that, and our only perspective of the characters are in settings where the priority is survival or helping others survive. Not to mention I think George does come to life in the earnest and wide-eyed performance of Barry Keoghan, so enamored and frightened and anxious about everything around him, paired with Mark Rylance's mostly steady presence.

 

I laughed when that happened because I'm a terrible person. I did feel bad when cillian's character was concerned about it tho, since he'd already been thru so much and i didn't want this to weigh on him and add even more guilt and trauma. Didn't feel anything emotional for the boy or his heroic thing in the paper but I also have a reputation for being a heartless robot so idk. It made my sister cry tho.

 

Some y'all are cold hearted. Heh.

 

I saw this in a theater that has DBOX seats. I'd never heard of it but the seats move a little and rattled when there was gunshots/explosions. It was cool for the scenes with the planes not as much with the boats, haha. Thought it was great but not as blown away as others. I wish I would have just seen it in IMAX.

 

He didn't "immediately forgive him" he spared him the emotional trauma because he's already been through hell at that point. His dad gave him the "you did right thing son" nod. WHAT MOVIE WERE YOU GUYS WATCHING

 

Why Christopher Nolan doesn't allow chairs or water bottles on set

 

I should've phrased that better, yes he didn't "forgive" him but what he did still requires a certain amount of acceptance of what happened that I feel would've been more believable if they had built up to it more, had him struggle with the decision a bit or even get angry at first, etc. If they had done that and added a bit more to George's character I actually think I might've enjoyed that whole plot line. As it stands in the movie it actually feels to me simultaneously like it takes up too much of the movie and yet is also underdeveloped lol.