criterionforum.org

For me, I now see if these kinds of films put a human face and character to the enemy. When talking about Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down, domino himself pointed out what he felt were racist overtones in terms of this, and while I see it I can't agree with it entirely. Scott himself may have realized this when making Kingdom of Heaven, which has almost a complete balance of this and is a better film for it.

Both Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line (which Nolan cited as one of his top 10 Criterions a few years back) have this too. Whether or not Nolan takes this high route, this will probably be bound to garner the same response his movies usually do. Maybe now that he's done with Batman, the fanboys will have less of a fervor for this but his work is no doubt polarizing to people online from what I see. Even here, obviously.

...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

Morbid glee? Because he showed how brutally his people suffered without pulling any punches? That's morbid glee? And how exactly are the killings in SL extravagant and memorable? This isn't War Of The Worlds. People are graphically shot in the head and that might be disturbing, maybe more disturbing to some coming from the director of E.T. but considering the subject matter he's taken on i don't find anything particularly extravagant or memorable about his methods here. More like raw and dirty. SL is a masterpiece. It's not without it's problems but they're not among any that you've mentioned.

FrauBlucher wrote:Nolan will release early to theaters who still exhibit film.

In 35mm and 70mm, and also 15/70 IMAX. The film was shot in a mixture of 65mm and 15/70. So I'll be seeing it in 15/70 IMAX, which means a choice of two venues in London. I wouldn't be surprised if the Odeon Leicester Square and possibly the Picturehouse Central have this in 70mm too.

I'm pretty sure NFT1 at BFI southbank will be screening this, especially as the BFI have recently moved more towards screening runs of new releases.

Alphonse Tram wrote:I'm pretty sure NFT1 at BFI southbank will be screening this, especially as the BFI have recently moved more towards screening runs of new releases.

They could show it there in 70mm too. I doubt they will show it on its first run though, as the films they show as first runs are arthouse or independent releases or reissues, not major commercial movies like this.

GaryC wrote:

Alphonse Tram wrote:I'm pretty sure NFT1 at BFI southbank will be screening this, especially as the BFI have recently moved more towards screening runs of new releases.

They could show it there in 70mm too. I doubt they will show it on its first run though, as the films they show as first runs are arthouse or independent releases or reissues, not major commercial movies like this.

I won't be surprised if they do, they've been showing some fairly mainstream stuff these days.

Looking good! Especially van Hoytema's cinematography.

As someone who grew up watching gore porn Fangoria-approved horror movies and is far from being easily shocked by violence, I absolutely disagree that Spielberg isn't effectively communicating the horror of violence in his heavier films (Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds not so much, for obvious reasons). Very few movies can get a reaction from me with depictions of violence that is genuinely strong enough to break the spell of seeing it as a special effect or plot device. SPR is one, SL another, and aside from that, all that comes to mind is Badlands (the unease and nausea resulting from the intentionally indifferent context framing the violence and the hyperreal indifference of the character's attitudes towards it), and Game of Thrones. Maybe a few others, maybe several others I haven't seen yet.

To see a director with as much heart as Spielberg, something that comes through in his films, take on that subject matter (not to mention following up ET and Hook with SL and SPR) inherently creates a context of gravitas where you can't help but feel deeply about what is happening on screen. For me, at least. And there's speculation that he takes glee in showing violence in movies like SL and SPR? The fuck? Thoughts like this are to be taken seriously even with common knowledge of how often he broke down on set while making SL? Come the fuck on, man. That interpretation has no truth to it whatsoever.

Regarding Dunkirk, I'm not sold just yet. Nolan's movies until now have been so inventive (Dark Knight Trilogy aside, even though I love it as well), so I'm interested in whether his take on the WW2 genre will be truly special or at best just another very good war movie.

Or, you know, bad - it could be that too

Rated PG apparently

mfunk9786 wrote:Or, you know, bad - it could be that too

And at worst, bad. :p

The opening to Saving Private Ryan is the only good part in my opinion. I think the rest of the film is peak Hollywood poo. I much, much prefer The Thin Red Line. Nolan has actually mentioned the latter as an influence so I'm hoping Dunkirk is more Thin Red Line than it is Saving Private Ryan.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Rated PG apparently

According to filmratings.com, that rating is for the prologue only at this point.

A six-minute preview of Dunkirk is showing in front of 15/70 prints of Rogue One, or at least is at the BFI IMAX in London...and it rather shows up the difference between shot-and-projected-15/70 and digitally-captured (even at 6.5K resolution) on an IMAX Print.

The feature has been rated PG-13. Unbelievably this has already prompted mini-thinkpieces. Are we never safe?

domino harvey wrote:The feature has been rated PG-13. Unbelievably this has already prompted mini-thinkpieces. Are we never safe?

Don't forget about the real tragedy here

This is a hilarious controversy considering Nolan's not made an R-rated film since Insomnia

mfunk9786 wrote:

domino harvey wrote:The feature has been rated PG-13. Unbelievably this has already prompted mini-thinkpieces. Are we never safe?

Don't forget about the real tragedy here

Okay, that's legit funny, love it

Ribs wrote:This is a hilarious controversy considering Nolan's not made an R-rated film since Insomnia

The fact that people are upset about Nolan's rating preference seems to imply that these people believe any war film requires sufficient gore and profanity to warrant a more prohibitive rating. This is absurd given the number of very fine war dramas that don't carry an "R" rating. I'd argue that if the film has the historical and philosophical merit the director is presumably aiming for, the PG rating would enable more young people to see it and thus be as edified as entertained.

Congrats to Nolan on making the first non-rated R WW2 film! What a groundbreaker.

His Batman movies feel like they're R-rated, I don't know why the fanboys were okay with those but are upset now

The ratings board in Ontario rated Saving Private Ryan a 14A (our PG-13) on the grounds that there was enough merit in seeing the historical reality of war that younger kids should not be deprived of the opportunity. I thought then and still think now that that was a commendable decision. I don't know about the MPAA, but they may well have taken the context into consideration and allowed more violence here than they would have for a movie with a less weighty context.

Not that it ought to matter what rating the movie has.