criterionforum.org

Mr Sausage wrote: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.

I do think it's kind of funny though that they'll sometimes air Saving Private Ryan unedited on national TV because it's "Important" that kids get to see that entire scene where the soldiers are sitting around talking about some girl's tits from back home.

"But any war film that takes place in the middle of battle is in a precarious position if it thinks it can handle the gravity of the situation with only a PG-13. We’ll see how it plays out."

This rules out a number of films; off the top of my head the Archers' WWII films, Stalag 17, and a host of others that we could all rattle off are now precarious. For all the talk here about Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg's War Horse was able to convey (like it or not) aspects of WWI and keep a PG-13. Whatever. Nolan gives off some passion about this incredible historical moment, as he did with his last project, and while I like both Mrs. Miniver and Atonement, I look forward to seeing this too and will refrain judgment til later.

For those joking about Nolan's affinity for the twist ending, or something science-fiction like, this article at least hints that the structure of Dunkirk will still have something unique about it. Also, someone critiqued Nolan for over-CGI but I've never really considered that a problem of his. Many of the big action pieces from his Batman films weren't CGI-d to hell like most other films today. And yes, those films had many moments of violence that felt R rated to me, just without gratuitous blood.

I don't know where to place my post. I wonder if there's a WW2 thread.

Were there Coca-Cola and Chewing gum in continental Europe before the arrival of US troops in Italy 1943 and France 44? What about the UK?

rohmerin wrote:I don't know where to place my post. I wonder if there's a WW2 thread.

Were there Coca-Cola and Chewing gum in continental Europe before the arrival of US troops in Italy 1943 and France 44? What about the UK?

I don't know about the chewing gum, but according to Snopes, Coca-Cola was very popular in Germany.

Prior to the outbreak of the second world war, Coca-Cola’s only unqualified success on the international scene was its bottling operations in Nazi Germany. Sales records were being set year after year in that venue, and by 1939 Coca-Cola had 43 bottling plants and more than 600 local distributors in that country.

The allied blockade prevented them from importing the Coke syrup so the head of Coca-Cola in Germany created Fanta!

The first Coca-Cola bottling plants in Europe opened in 1919 in Paris and Bordeaux, France.

Coca‑Cola first arrived in the UK when Charles Candler, son of the Coca‑Cola Company founder Asa Candler, brought five gallons of syrup with him on a visit to London. It was first sold in the UK on 31st August 1900, but didn't go on sale regularly until the early 1920s, when it appeared at outlets around London including Selfridges and the London Coliseum.

Thank's for the links.

Coca-Cola in Selfridges, very popular between working class people...

What I imagine it's you could find them in some places but the huge popularity didn't arrive until the Americans arrived. Mac Donalds didn't arrive to Europe until the 70s. I did know the Fanta story but I didn't about Coca-Cola success in Weimar and 30s nazi Germany.

There's no wiki article about Chewing gun history.

K

How long will it take the internet to add Branagh's Poirot moustache to this?

Unexpectedly, this will be Nolan's shortest film since Following, coming in at an hour and forty-seven minutes

They've been hinting at it being under two hours for a while. It's more of a ticking clock type story (thus that very sound in the trailers), so a brisk film would in theory help with that tension.

I've been hearing that there is very little dialogue in the film with Nolan taking influence from Silent films right down to the framing. Can anyone verify this? If this is true I wonder how modern audiences will react to it. I mean Nolan fans worship the man so...

I mean, the central conceit of the film...

Spoiler

Is that it's divided into three distinct "fronts," if you will; air, taking place over one hour, sea, taking place over a few days, and land, taking place over a few weeks. Air is just Tom Hardy by himself, for the most part, so should be fairly light on dialogue. I guess the "land" segment could be fairly light on dialogue too. But the sea section has Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance, two actors you really wouldn't cast just to stand around and mug at one another.

Social media embargo's been lifted. Spoiler: everyone loves it. Looks like Nolan's streak continues

I won't deny that it won't end up falling on its face as an Oscar play like Interstellar did based on these earlier reactions but as with any July/August release it does seem fairly important to note that we literally have no idea about like 2/3 of the films that will be in serious contention until Telluride starts. The one thing I think that is a big advantage is there's seemingly no way to recognize the film from the actor's branch (as it's too much of an ensemble, and no one person seems to be breaking out enough to make the cut to supporting) and so the Academy might feel tempted to look further up the ballot to reward the film.

If I were making a list of probably Best Picture nominees, I would literally have no faith in anything to have premiered so far this year but Dunkirk at this point in time.

Ribs wrote:If I were making a list of probably Best Picture nominees, I would literally have no faith in anything to have premiered so far this year but Dunkirk at this point in time.

I would be surprised if Get Out and The Big Sick don't make any waves this awards season, especially in Original Screenplay.

I was solely talking about the BP race - Get Out probably has a 30% chance there, Big Sick maybe 20%. In addition to the Screenplay race it's an inevitability that Big Sick will push for either Hunter or Romano with a serious chance of emerging with a winner if they play their cards right. But that's not really related to Dunkirk - I'm just always incredibly wary about any early-season awards movies.

rohmerin wrote:Were there Coca-Cola and Chewing gum in continental Europe before the arrival of US troops in Italy 1943 and France 44? What about the UK?

My father told me chewing gum was unknown in Britain until it was introduced by American GIs during the Second World War. They were issued gum to keep them calm and alert. However, The Big Parade, set during the First World War, has a gag where an American soldier gives his French sweetheart a piece of gum which she swallows like candy.

swo17 wrote: I do think it's kind of funny though that they'll sometimes air Saving Private Ryan unedited on national TV because it's "Important" that kids get to see that entire scene where the soldiers are sitting around talking about some girl's tits from back home.

Just some locker room talk. Boys will be boys.

It's only locker room talk if you're bragging about assaulting a woman, remember

mfunk9786 wrote:It's only locker room talk if you're bragging about assaulting a woman, remember

Shit. It's hard to keep this stuff straight. Carry on then. Thanks

Greatest generation her by the p----

So the review embargo has lifted and the reactions have been unanimously positive. Like Nolan has achieved some sort of apotheosis or something.