The "War Films" Thread

I seriously cannot grasp this explanation as a justification for anything. Dunkirk is not a documentary. It’s not intended to be a reenactment of events. It gives three different character perspectives, using a strange and wonderful timeline enhancement structure, to give a sense of the event from different perspectives. That is to say, to break down the speed and impact of war from an individual perspective.

When we first heard they were making this film, we were all, “Uh. A movie about a bunch of dudes getting taken off a beach. Please. Hard pass.”

And then Nolan went and drilled down into the perspectives of people on the sand, in the air, and in and on the water. Doing so largely without stars (I mean major stars) and without having the enemy snarl about because the threat was clear. As a storm approaching an island, faceless and furious, that was understood.

The distinction between whether it was a “real event” or “purely a fictional work” that takes place within an actual theater of war that happened is an odd way to split a hair. How does Christopher Nolan owe us more with regard to relating “specific historical events” than Michael Cimino does?

I disagree, entirely. If I wanted to make a movie called The Tet Offensive about sexual harassment in an army unit, set in that theater of war, I’m not obligated to try to tell the tale of the actual Tet Offensive. I’m only obligated to deliver a decent movie. I don’t need to tick a bunch of boxes of historical facts. How many boxes do I need to tick in order to fulfill my obligation, exactly?

This line of reasoning is really weird, you guys.

Dunkirk is amazing because it is simultaneously ambitious and tight, which was a total surprise to me. It is masterful in its ability to convey different levels of an event, giving it scope and context while achieving intimacy, without feeling the need to explain everything about the history in a granular manner.

Again, it’s not a documentary. There is room inside real events to show fictional stories that can illuminate those events. So I don’t know what you all are on about.

-xtien

“Talkative sort, aren’t you.”

You are. Ain’t buying. :)

You came too late to the debate. I’ve moved on. :)

Story of my life.

-xtien

Haven’t seen it yet. Is it like Saving Private Ryan?

A few? Could you really make that movie with no historical context? Or should you?

I respect you very much @ChristienMurawski. But in this particular case, I think you might be mistaken. Just IMHO. We still friends? :)

Edit: If you call a movie The Tet Offensive and then tell nothing about that story, isn’t that bait and switch?

He is a scholar and a gentleman. Period.

No argument here. Not at all.

No. Saving Private Ryan is a lot better, even if the violence could have been scaled back just a bit. I still remember very specific details, like not just the character, but the sounds, the faces, the horrors… Dunkirk. young nameless guys and weirdo music playing all the time.

People who love it though, really love it.

Of course, Rich. You’re one of my favorite people around here. And you’re right, I might very well be mistaken. It’s happened before, and I’m pretty good at listening to reasonable arguments and rethinking my position when it is warranted.

Not really. It depends how you tell that story. My point was, you can set a movie against such a backdrop, or in such a theater of war, and tell a personal story that might very well be a metaphor for the larger story, without ticking a bunch of boxes. It was a clumsy metaphor to be sure, but consider what I was going for in trying to craft it.

I don’t think the filmmaker is obligated to meet the particular standards they were talking about just because he chooses the title of a particular place or event. In particular with this story, I think the filmmaker’s focus justifies what I’m talking about. But, again, I’m open to other arguments.

Thanks for saying that. I have to say it’s such a pleasure to see you starting threads like this.

-xtien

I missed this. I love you Dive Cubed!

Ghost Debts. You are welcome.

Wait what? IMO the music is one of the best parts of that movie, intense, moody, and oppressing, like those people in Dunkirk waiting to die or be captured had there not been a rescue, a million thoughts on each of their minds. And the nameless guys are there to prove a point, that war is just a bunch of people killing each other. The meaning of war is meaningless when you are just a peon trying to not die in the chaos. It is not about guys fighting a glorious death for a noble cause.

And Spielberg did the same thing, but made you care about them as people, who had lives, faults and dreams. And they died. Even the people on the other side. And he was unanimously praised praised for his attention to the real history by experts and participants. Nolan chooses to treat both sides as anonymous death machines. And he was taken to task by some experts and participants.

Meh?

No one has said they hate this thing, but aside from the loyal vanguard, the others (me included) say that is was “aight” and getting taken to task for that. Sorry. It was “aight” for me. Sue me. :)

EDIT: The Dunkirk talk is in danger of entering binary choice territory (the land of the false dichotomies, wehere things are either great or they suck). @divedivedive is not a fan of this. He prefers nuance. I agree with him.

Well nuanced or not, I haven’t seen Dunkirk so I’m staying out of this one. Hell, I haven’t even seen Interstellar.

I’ve forgotten both because I have anterograde amnesia.

-xtien

“Don’t believe his lies.”

“You wanna know how I got these scars?”

Yes, it’s basically saying that Dunkirk was not a good war movie because it had the wrong title, and if it had had the right title, it would be a good war movie. That’s…not right.

I disagree. When the film’s simple title is that of a historical event, I expect the film to give me some sense of the scope of that event. Dunkirk gave me none of that. If it had been billed as “Stories from Dunkirk” or some such, I could accept it. I’m not asking for a documentary, but for god’s sake at least make your film feel like it was actually about that event. Dunkirk failed miserably at that. And while I agree that his timeline was “strange,” I strongly disagree that it was “wonderful” (and this from a guy who loves Memento). I think it completely sabotaged any narrative force this film had. It felt like a car starting to accelerate, then suddenly getting thrown into reverse, accelerating again, thrown into reverse again, rinse and repeat.

That may be your take on history. It certainly isn’t mine. The rescue of the British Army from the beaches is one of the most fascinating tales of the war. I would have loved to get some sense of that immense fleet of odd little boats risking the Chanel and Luftwaffe to get those men out of that trap and I got practically none of it from this film.

Drilling down is OK. Leaving the entire movie there isn’t. Other movies about epic events have given us the perspective of the individuals involved without losing the overall scope of the event. Hell, Gettysburg, for all its flaws, did a better job of this than Nolan did.

I’m with Strollen here. You can title a movie anything you want, but I can question it. Titling a move simply “The Tet Offensive” about sexual harassment during the Tet Offensive would be misleading. And titling this film “Dunkirk” misled me.

Thread name change! See Intro post!

Even these guys changed the names (to include Lawrence of Glamorgan and The Bridge Over the River Trent).

OOOOoooOOOOooo! This is exciting! But you do know that since you’ve decided to title this “The ‘War Films’ Thread” you are obligated to comprehensively teach us about War Films. You can’t just post Monty Python stuff and talk about movies you like. Nope. You have to give us a full history lesson on the development and proper structure of “War Films” or the thread doesn’t count.

Nyah nyah nyah!

-xtien