Posted on 11/25/2019 6:02:49 AM PST by C19fan
Sam Mendes’ “1917,” a gripping survival story that unfolds in the crucible of World War I, inserted itself into the awards race on Saturday with a series of well-received screenings in New York.
The movie, which is made with great craft and care, now faces the unenviable task of trying to elbow into a crowded field of best picture contenders, one that already includes the likes of Martin Scorsese’s “The Irishman,” Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite,” and Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.”
Many of these films have been on the festival circuit and these directors have subjected themselves to weeks of grip-and-grins with voters, giving them a head start. And yet “1917’s” epic sweep and undeniable artistry likely means that it has a strong chance of making the cut despite its 11th hour entry into the race. Director Sam Mendes will likely be in the conversation with those auteurs for his work on “1917,” which is from a technical perspective, a staggering achievement. The movie unspools in one, nearly uninterrupted shot — an artistic decision that gives the film a greater sense of urgency and verisimilitude and one that required six months of rehearsing and extensive preparation.
(Excerpt) Read more at variety.com ...
“The definitive WW1 movie has yet to be made.”
Stanley Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory?”
You might look at:
“Beneath Hill 60” and “The Lost Battalion”
I haven't seen that, I will have to check it out. I generally don't really like Kubrick but I'll give it a shot.
“I hope it’s better than Dunkirk...” [Magnum44, post 2]
“...Saw Dunkirk and it was just ok in my book. These artsy war films miss the mark...” [lodi90, post 3]
Not sure what “mark” _Dunkirk_ should have been aiming at, but it came closer to the realities than most films. Aside from some technical errors and a somewhat elastic treatment of the timeline, the filmmakers did a fair job of conveying the fear, chaos, squalor, frustration, futility, frustration, and senselessness that a private soldier probably would have felt or been subjected to, caught in that mess.
No film ought to depict combat with perfect realism anyway. Missing from even the most-highly-regarded films about World War Two are the true levels of noise, heat, cold, odors, and the like. Ultra-realistic sfx would injure or kill theatergoers, sicken them, or drive them from the theater wailing in terror. Alienating a paying audience in such a manner would do the bottom line no good.
Some months ago, another forum member complained that _Dunkirk_ fell short because it didn’t convey sufficient “triumphalism” or something like it. I pointed out that in June 1940, anything resembling a sense of triumph on the part of the Allies would have been premature.
JMHO, Dunkirk had some good scenes surrounded by a timeline that didnt flow (planes flying day then night then day???) and some really boring scenes on the small boats. It just didnt flow to me. Not to take away from the true events, it just could have been told better.
Sam Mendes was responsible for the horrible American Beauty, but I suppose he might not put a leftist spin on everything. He did a war movie called Jarhead, but I don’t know anything about it.
I saw “Dunkirk’’. It stunk.
There are areas around Verdun that over 100 years later are still off limits because of unexploded ordnance. There were a couple of little villages around Verdun at the time that were totally obliterated by shell fire. WW1 was horrible. My grandfather barely survived it. He would never talk about it.
Not sure what “mark” _Dunkirk_ should have been aiming at, but it came closer to the realities than most films. Aside from some technical errors and a somewhat elastic treatment of the timeline, the filmmakers did a fair job of conveying the fear, chaos, squalor, frustration, futility, frustration, and senselessness that a private soldier probably would have felt or been subjected to, caught in that mess.
I’m more of a non fiction book than novel kind of guy. That’s how I like my movies, too. So many true stories of valor that could be told to new generations. Sometimes it seems these movie directors want to make stuff up in the name of art. That’s not my cup of tea.
Yeah to. E, Dunkirk was boring UN epic, with Christopher Nolan as the draw power. These WWI Movies that come out are quite good. Better than the WWII movies.
“...Dunkirk had some good scenes surrounded by a timeline that didn’t flow (planes flying day then night then day???)...really boring scenes on the small boats...Not to take away from the true events, it just could have been told better.” [Magnum44, post 25]
“I saw “Dunkirk’’. It stunk.” [jmacusa, post 27]
“I’m more of a non fiction book than novel kind of guy. That’s how I like my movies, too...Sometimes it seems these movie directors want to make stuff up in the name of art...” [lodi90, post 29]
I would submit that most us have seen so many of Steven Spielberg’s roller-coaster rides that films by others cannot help but seem boring.
Many think valor won the day during World War Two, but it mattered less to the Allies than an industrial base the Axis couldn’t reach, lavish supply lines, air and maritime dominance, and massive numbers of otherwise humble people toiling in obscurity, possessed of the grit, determination, and perseverance to not give up. Rather less glamorous than deeds of heroism, but easier to foster beforehand and produce on demand. Valor is less predictable and less likely to repeat when needed. Plus, it’s risky: odds of survival aren’t that good.
Those who yearn for verisimilitude over art would be even less happy had two major factors in the Allied evacuations been addressed on film in _Dunkirk_.
1. Terrain and soil structure inside the Allied perimeter. Shell and bomb craters created unusually good foxholes, greatly reducing exposure of retreating troops to German fire.
2. Low cloud cover prevailed during much of the evacuation. The weather greatly reduced the effectiveness of Luftwaffe in attacking retreating or surrounded Allied ground forces and the civilian vessels employed in the evacuation.
If Christopher Nolan and crew had insisted on depicting events at that level of fidelity, the film would have been even less appealing.
I dont know. I appreciate seeing as real a depiction of history as can be recreated. The lessons are in the history, not in the dramatization of it.
I dont know. I appreciate seeing as real a depiction of history as can be recreated. The lessons are in the history, not in the dramatization of it.
Agree. My favorite movies are The Right Stuff and The Longest Day. Good acting and a real story. I don’t need fantasy tales. Can take my kid to Frozen 2 if I want that.
“I dont know. I appreciate seeing as real a depiction of history as can be recreated. The lessons are in the history, not in the dramatization of it.” [Magnum44, post 32]
“Agree. My favorite movies are The Right Stuff and The Longest Day. Good acting and a real story. I don’t need fantasy tales. Can take my kid to Frozen 2 if I want that.”[lodi90, post 33]
I tender my apology to the two of you and beg forgiveness from the forum at large. It isn’t my place to cast aspersions on the understanding of and appreciation for art by others.
Moving pictures are an art form. They are thus governed by concepts and constraints relating to art. High on that list are taste and preference, both of which are irreducibly subjective and individually developed. At the end of the day, they cannot be reconciled from one person to the next.
“History” - movies, TV, pictorial, written, oral, living - can have many uses, but it’s of greater use if accurate (let the meaning of that term remain undefined for now). Since our record of past events is necessarily incomplete, at some point the creators & recorders of history are forced to guess. If they are honest, they make their uncertainty plain to their audience.
Painstakingly exacting honesty, however, can clash with the worldview and motives of the historian. Honest writing (or film exposition) can slow the narrative, exceed the word limit, muddle the message, alienate the audience, violate cultural norms & moral standards, or transgress in other ways previously unsuspected. The temptation to editorialize, omit, or fabricate becomes overwhelming; because most writers and filmmakers consider themselves artists, they default to serving their art.
The problem gets much worse when the historian cleaves to an ideology. Left/Progressive dogma requires artists to stick to the party line; since most writers and filmmakers lean Left, we are subjected to written and film works that skew Left.
But the Left isn’t the only problem out there.
As a record of what happened and why, military history ought to be straightforward. It is not. Politics and bureaucratic rivalries frequently intrude. Commanders don’t like to look bad. Some cannot resist leaning on official unit historians to shade their account.
Collecting historical information in battle is problematic. Even if one assumes total honesty and the best intentions, following troops around as they are getting shot at and shooting back is dangerous. Combat can be so chaotic that even the immediate participants may not be able to get a handle on what just happened. More guesswork.
All of these considerations run squarely into the artistic sensibilities of the film director and crew. The gaps, what-ifs, and sundry uncertainties diminish the dramatic tension and drain impact from the main message. Plus, addressing them takes longer and costs more - two outcomes the accountants and investors do not want to hear.
I’ve visited Verdun as well.
The entire area has been terraformed from artillery barrages.
...and those skulls and bones at the chapel...Chilling.
No apologies necessary from where I am standing.
A well thought out post on your part.
My only reply would be that historical movies should be treated differently than fiction, so accuracy of the fact is important, as well as a good story that keeps the audiences attention. Saving Private Ryan, for example, was a fictionalized story, but it stayed accurate to the historical events, paid tribute to heroes, and captivated the audience.
I found the story line in Dunkirk to be poorly constructed. As an example, as the story switched between the air battle and the activities on the beach, the time of day didn’t sync up. It was a distraction from the root purpose of the telling of the story. I chalked it up to just poor post production editing. Lots of great movies have gaffs, mistakes that you can spot, an item that would not have been around at the time of the story, etc. Those I forgive. But switching from a day scene in one place to a night scene in a second place and back to the day scene in the first place with only a few minutes having past, well, that’s just sloppy producing. It was long enough ago since I saw the movie that my recollection of it may not even be fully correct, but the impression it left me at the time remains consistent: disappointing.
I am looking forward to 1917 and hope they did it up right.
“...I found the story line in Dunkirk to be poorly constructed. As an example, as the story switched between the air battle and the activities on the beach, the time of day didn’t sync up. It was a distraction from the root purpose of the telling of the story...” [Magnum44, post 36]
I am uncertain as to what form of storytelling would have better answered your criticisms of Christopher Nolan’s _Dunkirk_.
Would a strict linear sequence of events have been better, with each scene shown to be happening just a little further along in time than the one before it? Showing the whole evacuation of BEF and Allied troops as it happened in real time would not have been practical, as it took ten days. Not even the most patient, devoted moviegoing audience could sit through a film that long. Editing couldn’t be avoided.
Would it have been better to select one single participant in the evacuation, and portray their story from beginning to end? Editing for length would still be required. And the telling of one person’s full story begs the question: there were a lot of other people involved. What about them?
Hundreds of thousands of people played a part. Telling each of their stories during all ten days would be infeasible. Not only would it take too long, many names were not taken down at the time and much detail was never documented and is now lost, likely forever. The Association of Dunkirk Little Ships lists some 850 vessels, but many other authorities admit that not every participating craft was officially identified: the requisition order specified certain minimum dimensions and smaller boats were not documented, even though some were used.
There is no objective standard for storytelling, that is universally accepted and which includes every fact, event, and detail to the satisfaction of all, at all levels of experience, understanding, and interest. This is not to say that real, objectively verifiable, capital-T truth doesn’t exist; but all concerned must be warned that recovering such, corroborating it, and retelling it for today’s citizens will be a tougher task than most of us might think at first.
You are over analyzing my assessment. It just didn’t work for me.
Saving Private Ryan did. Fury did. Patton did. The Longest Day did. A Bridge Too Far did. Tora Tora Tora did.
Dunkirk didn’t, for me.
“You are over analyzing...Dunkirk didn’t [work], for me.” [Magnum44, post 38]
I defer to your judgment.
I’m certainly no film expert, nor dare I claim much of an understanding of art. Creative types baffle me. Art critics mystify me more. Film critics - paid to view movies, then write reviews for publication in whatever news entity - are yet more mysterious.
I found _Dunkirk_ more difficult to understand than the other films you listed. Anyone who bought a ticket, then sat down in the theater expecting 106 minutes of rollicking entertainment up-buoyed by an undemanding plotline reinforcing half-grasped nuggets of pop-historical home-grown folk wisdom, had to have been disappointed.
Christopher Nolan has earned a reputation for nonlinear storytelling. Has this diminished his bottom line? What has it done to his standing in the industry? I couldn’t say. Portions of _Interstellar_ still stump me.
Having dabbled for many decades in historical studies, I am coming to the opinion that film and TV may never present historical topics accurately.
The only thing arty about 1917 is that it appears to be filmed in one continuous shot. Predictably, that is what people were talking about after the movie instead of the movie itself.
Worth seeing.
Some dialogue, especially early on, was hard for me to understand. Wondering if anyone else experienced that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.