It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:36 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Reports are trickling out that his next project will be a WWII movie about the evacuation of Allied troops in France.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Christopher Nolan
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Officially confirmed now. From Deadline:

Quote:
It’s called Dunkirk, and Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh and Tom Hardy will be part of an ensemble made up largely of unknowns. Pic will be shot on IMAX 65mm and 65mm large-format film.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christopher Nolan
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Wonder if they'll bump the release date. This doesn't sound like something a major studio would put out in the middle of July.

Good on him for making such a sudden left turn like this now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christopher Nolan
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:04 pm
I'm generally kind of tired of WWII pictures, and this seems like an odd choice to make a heroic war picture about a retreat, but I have faith in Nolan and always look forward to his pictures.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christopher Nolan
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:13 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
You should familiarize yourself with the real life story-- everyone coming together to pull off Dunkirk was one of the most heroic acts in all of WWII and the degree of its success was a literal miracle. While waiting for Nolan's take, why not watch Mrs Miniver to see the caliber of great film Nolan will be competing with (though it's more of a B plot there)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
There's also the 1958 Ealing film Dunkirk, and Atonement used the Dunkirk evacuation for its rather apt war metaphor.

It has always seemed as if, for Britain at least, the evacuation of Dunkirk helped make the eventual D-Day landings even more significant, as a return back to the beaches that had to be abandoned years before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin
A third of a million or so troops of the British Expeditonary Force were succesfully evacuated from Dunkirk back to the UK mainly by a flotilla of small craft, avoiding capture and possible national capitulation, forming the core of a strengthened and enlarged armed force that was then built up for the fight back that culminated in the D-Day Normandy landings...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christopher Nolan
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:59 am 

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:21 am
domino harvey wrote:
why not watch Mrs Miniver to see the caliber of great film Nolan will be competing with (though it's more of a B plot there)?

Having just come across "Mrs Miniver" while reading Mark Harris's great book "Five Came Back" I agree it's a really great film. Will be interesting to see Nolan's take. Saw on Deadline today that Tom Hardy is in talks to join the cast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm
In addition to Mrs. Miniver, there's also Henri Verneuil's 1964 Weekend at Dunkirk, starring Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Spaak. It's pretty good and beautifully shot, but to date its never received an English-friendly home video release. If anybody's interested, you can read pretty much everything you could possibly want to know about it here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
First teaser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It looks great, but I'm all wared out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
Yeah, if we're going to kill one sub-genre I'd pick WW2 flicks over comic book films.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:53 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Heaven forbid we remember and depict true heroes over comic book ones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:48 am
While it's tempting to scold the world's real Steve Rogerses for their appreciation of shiny distillations of bold-lined propaganda, I think it's unfair to expect them to have read any thicker books on the subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 8:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC
Looks like another fizzy witty romantic comedy diversion from Christopher Nolan, the 21st Century's Ernst Lubitsch!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
I have to say, those shots are very compelling, but morally a bit alarming, recalling what I believe to be recurring problems with many war films that try to be anti-war films: an aesthetic that seems to arrange a physical beauty around some horrific sights (one that's harder to take in the context of a very controlled and staged production rather than, say, a documentary or journalistic film), and one wonders if the very real terror felt by those killed in Dunkirk will be turned into visceral entertainment that's similar to a polished horror film.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:10 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
I don't know about you guys, but I think I can deal with a little moral dodginess when it means I get some Hoyte van Hoytema cinematography in exchange.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
domino harvey wrote:
Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness

I hope he at least honors them with some kind of cool sci-fi twist ending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm
hearthesilence wrote:
I have to say, those shots are very compelling, but morally a bit alarming, recalling what I believe to be recurring problems with many war films that try to be anti-war films: an aesthetic that seems to arrange a physical beauty around some horrific sights (one that's harder to take in the context of a very controlled and staged production rather than, say, a documentary or journalistic film), and one wonders if the very real terror felt by those killed in Dunkirk will be turned into visceral entertainment that's similar to a polished horror film.


how do you feel about the opening sequence in Private Ryan? technical aspects aside but morally. I always felt as I got older that Spielberg had effectively turned what was supposed to be the feel of the "horror of war" into cheap exploitation. I wonder just how many people were shocked by the violence vs how many people thought it was cool to see such graphicness in the sense that it was an attempt at realism. The big problem with the latter is that part of that person is still thinking the violence is impressive no matter in what way. This is how I feel all the violence in Private Ryan works against it.

I'm sure Spielberg had the thought many times during filming. I would not doubt an inch he thought the effects were "cool".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:32 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
swo17 wrote:
domino harvey wrote:
Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness

I hope he at least honors them with some kind of cool sci-fi twist ending.

Morgan Freeman's narration at the end: "...and then, seventy-plus years later, bright electronic devices would enable people from across the globe to remotely connect to each other so they can bitch about how a film depicting the service of these men was too beautiful, because war should look bad like poor people"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
domino harvey wrote:
Yes, Nolan must honor the brave sacrifices and calls to duty of these fighting men who faced insurmountable odds by making an anti-war film criticizing their complicity in such foolishness

That's a preposterous response-nothing I wrote is remotely close to criticizing those killed, much less accuse them of "complicity."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 12:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
carmilla mircalla wrote:
how do you feel about the opening sequence in Private Ryan? technical aspects aside but morally. I always felt as I got older that Spielberg had effectively turned what was supposed to be the feel of the "horror of war" into cheap exploitation. I wonder just how many people were shocked by the violence vs how many people thought it was cool to see such graphicness in the sense that it was an attempt at realism. The big problem with the latter is that part of that person is still thinking the violence is impressive no matter in what way. This is how I feel all the violence in Private Ryan works against it.

I'm sure Spielberg had the thought many times during filming. I would not doubt an inch he thought the effects were "cool".

I saw it during its initial theatrical run in 1998. It felt like a video game, or finding out all the ways someone could be killed in combat and checking them off one by one.

I remember reading about a press conference with Tom Hanks and Spielberg where Hanks was quoted as saying that he hoped this type of film would be viewed by a younger person (I think a high school student - this was ages ago so my memory's hazy) and make him think twice about how he viewed violence. Then within a year (after I had seen it), DreamWorks (with Spielberg's creative participation no less) begins a series of first-person video games called Medal of Honor, essentially a pre-cursor to Call of Duty. I saw this, immediately remembered Spielberg and Hanks' solemn press conference, and just shook my head.
domino harvey wrote:
"...depicting the service of these men was too beautiful, because war should look bad like poor people"

Another misinterpretation of what I said, though this one is more understandable. I had a long day, so will have to pick this up later, but really quick, I think The Thin Red Line is a masterpiece, and there's no shortage of people who would call that film "beautiful." But that only proves what a generic description "beautiful" really is - it's not really an accurate reflection of what's on screen. A bad film like Pearl Harbor was a beautiful production, but a very slick and shallow one, with moments that felt like high priced TV commercials, not poetry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:34 am 

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm
carmilla mircalla wrote:
how do you feel about the opening sequence in Private Ryan? technical aspects aside but morally. I always felt as I got older that Spielberg had effectively turned what was supposed to be the feel of the "horror of war" into cheap exploitation. I wonder just how many people were shocked by the violence vs how many people thought it was cool to see such graphicness in the sense that it was an attempt at realism. The big problem with the latter is that part of that person is still thinking the violence is impressive no matter in what way. This is how I feel all the violence in Private Ryan works against it.

I'm sure Spielberg had the thought many times during filming. I would not doubt an inch he thought the effects were "cool".


I wholeheartedly agree. In both SPR and Schindler's List Spielberg seems to take a morbid glee in constructing more and more extravagant and memorable ways to kill people. He turns the death of his supposed heroes and innocents into punchlines more often than not. It's really appalling in Schindler's List


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 8:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC
My take on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was always that it was torn apart by the conflict between wanting to be a Serious Depiction of the Horror of War and being a really bitchin war movie with guns and tanks and planes and stuff. It settles for a really ugly self-righteousness, with that finger-wagging "Earn This!" because war is the handiest guilt trip of them all.

As for DUNKIRK, whatever. Nolan's bogus High Solemnity is as choking as Spielberg's, but without the energy that Spielberg manages to infuse into his work. DUNKIRK looks to be another bloated Nolanathon of gloom and CGI all to send us the message that War Is Bad. I'll avoid it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: caminoreal


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection