• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017 edited
    Ah, well, that depends on what aspect of his films you'd consider "pure Nolan". There's a case to be made that Dunkirk is at once the most unlike Nolan of his films, or the most Nolan film ever. I thought Interstellar was decidedly un-Nolan in handling its emotional content, but very much Nolan in its technical and scientific ambition and themes. Looking at Dunkirk, it's extremely Nolan in how he now has free range to shoot on film, on IMAX camera's, and has his music be functional in building tension to the extreme - something he's done previously, but now stretches to the max. So technically, this is the apex of his craft. Emotionally, how he doesn't linger on dramatics, is something that's been a line throughout his work as well.

    I think the crucial point is that everything that distinguishes Dunkirk from how a different director would handle it, is what bugged you in the first place. It's quite an unusual piece of work in NOT developing the characters, in NOT following a specific person, in NOT creating heroic set pieces and [spoiler]or to send you off with a feeling of victory and bravery[/spoiler]. Instead focussing on anxiety, dread and fear, within its constructs as well as eliciting this in the viewer. Another filmmaker would've gone for a more traditional film, which would include all of the above, but it's Nolan that decided to experiment with a different kind of filmmaking, and got free range of the studio to do so. A lesser succesful director wouldn't have been able to greenlight such a sparse script and to focus on the experience instead of characters, since it's a risky thing to do, because you risk getting reactions such as yourselves. I applaud the fact that a film such as this is made, you clearly don't. But that's the Nolan aspect here.
    Procrastinate now. Don't put it off.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017
    Great post, BobdH, and it got me thinking.

    I feel like Nolan is the epitome of the Ellison quote, "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. If you make them really think, they'll hate you." Some critics go further and say, "Stupid people watch Nolan to feel smart", and I don't think that's true, since many of the people I look up to as intelligent love his movies. But specifically with "The Dark Knight", and "Inception", and what I've heard about "Dunkirk", he always seems like, rather than having a focused goal, he's taken a relatively simple genre film and thrown in a bunch of random curve-balls and jumbled philosophy, some of which work, others don't.

    He actually admitted this himself in an interview, saying, "We throw a lot of things against the wall to see if it sticks. We put a lot of interesting questions in the air, but that's simply a backdrop for the story." Compare that to say, a movie like "Arrival", where every scene, every moment is built around one core idea, [spoiler]the language we speak determines how we think[/spoiler], and you can see how from this simple seed, the whole movie sprouts, focused and carefully composed.

    Then compare that to "The Dark Knight", where we have all these 'deep' quotes thrown at us and then at the end, Gordon literally summarizes for the audience what you were supposed to take away from the film. There's not much room left for 'thinking', but he certainly makes sure we feel like we're thinking.

    All that to say, when I hear, "It's quite an unusual piece of work in NOT developing the characters, in NOT following a specific person, in NOT creating heroic set pieces" I can't help but chuckle. It's like Hans Zimmer saying, "For this next score, I've decided to compose a theme with ZERO notes", or something like that. Nolan seems to think, "Okay, a World War II movie", or "Okay, a Batman movie", and instead of thinking, "How can we make this movie as good as possible using every tool at our disposal", he thinks, "How can we make this different?"


    “If a man were to look over the fence on one side of his garden and observe that the neighbor on his left had laid his garden path round a central lawn; and were to look over the fence on the other side of his garden and observe that the neighbor on his right had laid his path down the middle of the lawn, and were then to lay his own garden path diagonally from one corner to the other, that man's soul would be lost. Originality is only to be praised when not prefaced by the look to right and left.” - Quentin Crisp
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017 edited
    Nolan is mystery. Captivating mood that draws you deeper and deeper, Darkness, twists.

    Dunkirk is one constant stable notion of tension. And then it ends, completely. Abruptly, entirely. With no further remarks or statements. Definitely no relation to his previous works at all.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017
    It's a fact-based story, a very well executed one, a terribly-well choreographed spectacle. But it doesn't have any of the other elements I mentioned above which was standard up to now with Nolan. It's an otherwise very plain and simple concept.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  1. In fact his best-choreographed one, I think. A director that can get action scenes totally wrong a couple of times (thinking of the last act of The Dark Knight Rises is almost traumatic for me; and the Matt Damon/McConaughey fight in Interstellar is also awkward to say the least) got his choreography right this time and on a high artistic level at times.

    I mean, look at the beginning and the wide shot of the beach with two poles, dividing the frame in thirds. Three groups of men are standing. Perfect, almost too perfect, symmetry and geometry. Almost like Nolan did the math, not just saw the frame, but actually calculated the perfect ratio. And then this perfect order dissipates into chaos.

    This is Spielberg level.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017 edited
    PawelStroinski wrote
    In fact his best-choreographed one, I think. A director that can get action scenes totally wrong a couple of times (thinking of the last act of The Dark Knight Rises is almost traumatic for me; and the Matt Damon/McConaughey fight in Interstellar is also awkward to say the least) got his choreography right this time and on a high artistic level at times.

    I mean, look at the beginning and the wide shot of the beach with two poles, dividing the frame in thirds. Three groups of men are standing. Perfect, almost too perfect, symmetry and geometry. Almost like Nolan did the math, not just saw the frame, but actually calculated the perfect ratio. And then this perfect order dissipates into chaos.

    This is Spielberg level.


    Absolutely agree.

    Although at the first opening scenes when they escape from the shots fired at them through the city, and he runs into the open in the beach for the first time, when the camera comes Steadicam to his left and we see the city beach front In his right side, we definitely and very well clearly see modern lightpoles along the beachline and a very European prominent modern (could be 5 years old for instance) building with flats and glass balconies which is very standard in modern European cities and where I live and instantly caught my attention. And I also counted 5 or 6 more times where in the beach front behind and close to them we observe modern buildings with flats that are clearly post 2000 and definitely not wwii era. Anyone else saw that? if you rewatch it, pay attention. How did they miss this for 5-6 times ? I thought to myself: no way, they knew but they thought there's no way to remove all of them so fuck it whoever saw it saw it smile
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017 edited
    I know which flats you mean, saw them as well, but I'm not as quick to dismiss it as a goof. I mean, they're clearly there, it's not like nobody saw it. We're talking huge budget, big screen here. I'd love to look into it, perhaps it's mentioned on the bluray.
    Procrastinate now. Don't put it off.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017
    They appear 5-6 times. On both sides of the beach. And even at 2 of those scenes, they continued showing close ups (side Steadicam following the soldier along the coastline at the beginnings of the film) with completely modern buildings in the clear, direct and close background. How in such a huge production which is so very well choreographed and timed, they could do such a mistake 5-6 times in a row ? I am refusing to believe that. I think they couldn't take them out because they would have to do the complete beach in cgi which would not fit at all with the rest of the natural and organic film making, or it cost too much or it took too much time or they saw it late in the production and had no time to fix it and said fuck it whoever sees it, saw it smile
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017
    Well, with the ease with which they often take out buildings using CGI, I'm sure this wouldn't have been such a big deal to do so. Also considering Nolan wanted such a limited amount of CGI already, which means effects work on post-production was light already. So I'm thinking - are they really modern? Really? Is this style 100% post 1940's?
    Procrastinate now. Don't put it off.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017 edited
    yes, when the bluray comes out I will do screenshots for you. especially the first scene I mention, the opening establishing shot of the movie the lone soldier in the beachfront, first time he goes out in the opening. the building in question is like this one here http://www.aristodevelopers.com/uploads … n-J5US.jpg with glass balconies

    and the light comes from the side and reflects on the glass balconies and shows / outlines it even more!

    the light poles in one scene were https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display … 532009.jpg like these

    see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=movie+m … kftEZ0eUKM

    others saw it too and when bluray comes out many more will.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017 edited
    you don't need to do screenshots, I know exactly which ones you mean. As in, I'm seeing the mental picture of it. I saw the film in IMAX, everything was clearly visible. I just find it hard to believe such a clearly visible thing passed everyone concerned in creating the film.

    I also know they shot large parts here in the Netherlands and they took quite some trouble to mask buildings and make sure nothing modern was seen. So it's incredibly odd they'd leave that be.
    Procrastinate now. Don't put it off.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2017
    read this btw smile http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/08/02/ … anti-score
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2017
    Aidabaida wrote

    “If a man were to look over the fence on one side of his garden and observe that the neighbor on his left had laid his garden path round a central lawn; and were to look over the fence on the other side of his garden and observe that the neighbor on his right had laid his path down the middle of the lawn, and were then to lay his own garden path diagonally from one corner to the other, that man's soul would be lost. Originality is only to be praised when not prefaced by the look to right and left.” - Quentin Crisp


    I like that quote.
    A lot.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    Great post, BobdH, and it got me thinking.

    I feel like Nolan is the epitome of the Ellison quote, "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. If you make them really think, they'll hate you." Some critics go further and say, "Stupid people watch Nolan to feel smart", and I don't think that's true, since many of the people I look up to as intelligent love his movies. But specifically with "The Dark Knight", and "Inception", and what I've heard about "Dunkirk", he always seems like, rather than having a focused goal, he's taken a relatively simple genre film and thrown in a bunch of random curve-balls and jumbled philosophy, some of which work, others don't.

    He actually admitted this himself in an interview, saying, "We throw a lot of things against the wall to see if it sticks. We put a lot of interesting questions in the air, but that's simply a backdrop for the story." Compare that to say, a movie like "Arrival", where every scene, every moment is built around one core idea, [spoiler]the language we speak determines how we think[/spoiler], and you can see how from this simple seed, the whole movie sprouts, focused and carefully composed.

    Then compare that to "The Dark Knight", where we have all these 'deep' quotes thrown at us and then at the end, Gordon literally summarizes for the audience what you were supposed to take away from the film. There's not much room left for 'thinking', but he certainly makes sure we feel like we're thinking.

    All that to say, when I hear, "It's quite an unusual piece of work in NOT developing the characters, in NOT following a specific person, in NOT creating heroic set pieces" I can't help but chuckle. It's like Hans Zimmer saying, "For this next score, I've decided to compose a theme with ZERO notes", or something like that. Nolan seems to think, "Okay, a World War II movie", or "Okay, a Batman movie", and instead of thinking, "How can we make this movie as good as possible using every tool at our disposal", he thinks, "How can we make this different?"


    “If a man were to look over the fence on one side of his garden and observe that the neighbor on his left had laid his garden path round a central lawn; and were to look over the fence on the other side of his garden and observe that the neighbor on his right had laid his path down the middle of the lawn, and were then to lay his own garden path diagonally from one corner to the other, that man's soul would be lost. Originality is only to be praised when not prefaced by the look to right and left.” - Quentin Crisp


    Crucial question about all this philosophical bit, have you watched Dunkirk yet?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2017 edited
    Martijn wrote

    I like that quote.
    A lot


    I first heard it in the preface to "Titus Groan", a book that is perfectly original without the glances to the left and right. it works with familiar concepts and transforms them.

    Demetris wrote

    Crucial question about all this philosophical bit, have you watched Dunkirk yet?


    No. Which is why I wrote, "...what I've heard about Dunkirk", and tried to stick to Inception and the Dark Knight (The biggest culprits) when talking about how the dastardly Mr. Nolan makes us all think we're thinking :P
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2017 edited
    Isn't it kind of a prerequisite that you watch the said film before you bring down a lot of philosophical quotes onto the ones who are too simple minded or too stupid are you suggested, to think of their own and therefore didn't like Dunkirk because it is the one Nolan film that actually made them think? wink i'd suppose so wink anyway watch it first and then we talk, you might find out that you will eventually tone down the philosophy about 50% wink I for one found nothing too deep or too philosophical about it wink it's a plain, simple film, very well executed. Just that.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2017
    ...yes...that's why, in terms of 'making you think you're thinking', I was talking about Inception and The Dark Knight, and mentioned only "what I've heard about Dunkirk", namely, the lack of strong characters. And I don't think anyone who likes Nolan is stupid, all my friends/favorite film critics love his movies. If someone finds that his movies are thoughtful and interesting, that's just as valid as my assertion that they are pseudo-intellectual, probably more valid, since I'm no serious student of film, and many of those who love him are.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2017
    The style of that building Demetris posted could pass as (a latter day adaptation) of funkis, which is very much 40s and before.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2017
    I think they are just modern buildings mate smile people are discussing about this online too.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2017
    Terminator: Genysis

    Hadn't seen this yet. Bland, but watchable. Jason Clarke was really good.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  2. As good as he is in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2017
    Thor wrote
    The style of that building Demetris posted could pass as (a latter day adaptation) of funkis, which is very much 40s and before.


    That's what I was looking for, thanks. Doing some research on that architectural style shows that this style of buildings started around 1930, which means the building in Dunkirk may have been built after the events of the film, but they're not as out of place as I initially thought they might be, which was probably part of the decision to leave them in if they weren't historically accurate. Making a fuss about them is getting in nitpicking territory.
    Procrastinate now. Don't put it off.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2017
    PawelStroinski wrote
    As good as he is in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?


    More interesting.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2017 edited
    GET OUT (Jordan Peele)

    Entertaining thriller which has its social commentary on liberal racism neatly woven into the fabric of its plot.

    I was also pleasantly surprised by Michael Abels' score, an old fashioned and fully organic work including choir chants. Best horror score of the year that seems to be ill-treated by its album release of 43 short tracks.
    Procrastinate now. Don't put it off.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime4 days ago
    Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

    Finally got around to watching this. It was definitely ambitious, and had all sorts of great scenes and moments, but overall, it felt like it didn't master the tone as well as the first movie did. The middle sections especially were really slow. Eventually, it rallied for a really entertaining ending though, and Tyler Bates at times really killed it!
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime4 days ago
    I hated the first movie, and have no intention to watch the sequel.
    I am extremely serious.
  3. I loved the first one and will definitely buy the second on BR. So I skipped it in theatre. And I want the score on CD!

    Volker
    "Did you see anything out there?" - "No. Why? What happened?" - "The ship just got herpes."
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime3 days ago
    Thor wrote
    I hated the first movie, and have no intention to watch the sequel.


    Thank you thor.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime3 days ago
    You're welcome.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTime3 days ago
    Aidabaida wrote
    Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

    Finally got around to watching this. It was definitely ambitious, and had all sorts of great scenes and moments, but overall, it felt like it didn't master the tone as well as the first movie did. The middle sections especially were really slow. Eventually, it rallied for a really entertaining ending though, and Tyler Bates at times really killed it!


    It had some fun scenes, and the humour was, for the most part, on point. But it lacked a solid story, something to drive those scenes and elevate them. The first one had a simple premise: a bunch of misfits get together to keep a thing from an evil dude who wants to use it for power. It worked, it's all it needed. But this one, for more than half the film, you have no idea what's going on. There's no tension. Nothing that connects the exciting and funny scenes together.

    It ended up being more emotional than the first, but it just lacked a solid foundation. Entertaining, but disappointing.