Dunkirk

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

Nolan doesn't hold your hand. There's some exposition but the movie is about Escaping the beach and those who are tasking on helping the army escape the beach. It's not particularly important that the Allies used WW1 tactics in the face of the Blitzkrieg. 

 

Right, but the 1958 version provides the total context of Anglo-Franco alliance against Germany in war first, their expeditionary forces against Germany, and rapid reversal/evacuation once Germany begins to move on western Europe using the similar device of two story lines.   Dunkirk was remarkable in the context of the military and political debacle that preceded events, and preserved resources to fight another day.

[Wilber]

It's interesting how much effort went into not using CGI for the aviation sequences

Dogfighting over Dunkirk

The 109 was one of the ex Spanish Merlin powered 109's used in 1969's Battle of Britain. Mk 1 Spitfires would have definitely been used at Dunkirk but the Mk 5 didn't come out until 1941.

[Boges]

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

It's interesting how much effort went into not using CGI for the aviation sequences

Dogfighting over Dunkirk

The 109 was one of the ex Spanish Merlin powered 109's used in 1969's Battle of Britain. Mk 1 Spitfires would have definitely been used at Dunkirk but the Mk 5 didn't come out until 1941.

But the August says it's all CG 

I also read that 6,000 extras were used in lieu of CG, and cardboard cutouts were used instead of CG to depict large crowds. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Boges

[Wilber]

Are we about to see a bunch of new British war movies?

 

Ridley Scott to direct new Battle of Britain movie for Fox.

 

Will a new Dam Busters movie be next?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Wilber

[August1991]

On 7/26/2017 at 0:37 PM, Wilber said:

The idea behind this movie was to try and come as close as possible to putting you on that beach without resorting to some contrived personal story or claiming to be a documentary. According to those who were there, it succeeded quite well. If that isn't to your taste, I get it. 

...

On the contrary, the movie Dunkirk did not give me the impression that I was on a beach in 1940.

Years ago, there was a similar, PR hyped blockbuster movie, also without plot, called: "Battle of Britain".  It was better. 

=====

Contrived? "Art" requires the suspension of belief.

I fear that too many young people in too many places around the world don't understand sarcasm, let alone irony.

Edited July 28, 2017 by August1991

[August1991]

On 7/26/2017 at 5:12 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

All alone ?    In 1939, the British Empire spanned the entire globe.   Nazi Germany...not so much.

How do you say "Reich" in the king's English ?   Empire !

 

That's a really stupid map; like a dumb graph without an origin.

Churchill said it right, all alone, in June 1940, when Stalin was allied with Hitler, to lonely people in Poland, Jews, in France, in Norway:

"... we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,... and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Can you imagine, with what thought/fear/hope he uttered the words: "... in God’s good time, the New World... "?

=====

Two thoughts:

1. In June 1940, no one knew the outcome. With hindsight, it seems so easy and obvious. But in June 1940, Britain/Churchill was alone against this progressive Nazi/Soviet force. Russia/Stalin was allied with Hitler. The US was neutral - but Roosevelt favoured progressive State-control. National Socialism, Soviet Socialism were the wave of the progressive future... 

2. Of course we will face such attractive, progressive leaders/forces in the future. I pray that when this happens, we will have obtuse, unpopular leaders like Churchill who can do what is right.

Edited July 28, 2017 by August1991

[August1991]

On 7/26/2017 at 1:45 PM, Boges said:

But the August says it's all CG 

I also read that 6,000 extras were used in lieu of CG, and cardboard cutouts were used instead of CG to depict large crowds. 

I strongly advise everyone to download/buy "Mrs Miniver". (It won Best Picture in 1942.) It shows Nolan's supposed idea of people working together - but far better.

As to war/shooting movies, I always recommend Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon". Dunkirk is nothing like war.

On 7/26/2017 at 1:34 PM, Wilber said:

It's interesting how much effort went into not using CGI for the aviation sequences

Dogfighting over Dunkirk

The 109 was one of the ex Spanish Merlin powered 109's used in 1969's Battle of Britain. Mk 1 Spitfires would have definitely been used at Dunkirk but the Mk 5 didn't come out until 1941.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, August1991 said:

That's a really stupid map; like a dumb graph without an origin.

Churchill said it right, all alone, in June 1940, when Stalin was allied with Hitler, to lonely people in Poland, Jews, in France, in Norway:

 

Britain declared war on Germany, but quickly found limitations on its ability to project military power in Europe, just as it floundered during WW1.

Dunkirk was a manifestation of this reality.    Churchill's British Empire spanned the globe because of sea power, not its army, and the Germans would test that as well.

Europeans loved their game of empires...but now those have all faded away.

[Boges]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

Dunkirk is nothing like war.

And you know what war is like? 

You're a liar if you didn't think scenes in this movie were not tense. That scene in the beached boat was crazy. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Boges

[Boges]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

the Germans would test that as well.

Europeans loved their game of empires...but now those have all faded away.

The Germans tested to Globe's safety. Had Britain fallen, would taking Europe back have even been possible within decades? 

The US (and Canada for that matter) could build up their military from the relative safety of North America. The other countries involved didn't have that luxury. 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

The Germans tested to Globe's safety. Had Britain fallen, would taking Europe back have even been possible within decades? 

The US (and Canada for that matter) could build up their military from the relative safety of North America. The other countries involved didn't have that luxury. 

 

 

Yes, it would have been possible.   The Soviets did far more to drain and defeat Germany than other allied nations.

Britain's resources were spread around the world to maintain the "globe's safety", which really means the British Empire and all the good and bad that represented long before the rise of Hitler's Third Reich.   The U.S. supplied blood, oil, and treasure to all allied nations including the Soviets, and had another challenge with the Japanese.

Germany was a country little bigger than the state of Montana.

As for Churchill, Dunkirk was just a more successful version of a previous disaster at Gallipoli during WW1.

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes, it would have been possible.   The Soviets did far more to drain and defeat Germany than other allied nations.

Britain's resources were spread around the world to maintain the "globe's safety", which really means the British Empire and all the good and bad that represented long before the rise of Hitler's Third Reich.   The U.S. supplied blood, oil, and treasure to all allied nations including the Soviets, and had another challenge with the Japanese.

Germany was a country little bigger than the state of Montana.

As for Churchill, Dunkirk was just a more successful version of a previous disaster at Gallipoli during WW1.

And the UK is an Island the size of Southern Ontario. The population is the issue. They mobilized 3 million people to try and take the USSR and had winter not hit, they may have taken Moscow. 

Churchill's main purpose was the keep morale up. 

I'm guess DoP is in Der Cooler because he's normally all over a discussion like this. 

If the Japanese and the Germans actually worked together, they'd have been so much more successful. The USSR knew that Japan was not a threat because they were focused on attacking the US. So they could move their Siberian divisions into the defence of Moscow. At one point the Nazis were in Egypt and the Japanese were in Burma, that's pretty close and it's possible they could have linked up. 

[bush_cheney2004]

48 minutes ago, Boges said:

And the UK is an Island the size of Southern Ontario. The population is the issue. They mobilized 3 million people to try and take the USSR and had winter not hit, they may have taken Moscow.

 

The UK expended vast resources for global empire building for more than 100 years.   Germany rebounded from the totally unnecessary and costly fiasco called WW1, and Britain dithered / appeased Hitler for a decade.   Churchill's Dunkirk is what happens when an accumulation of errors culminates in a total rout.

The British Empire was much larger than Southern Ontario.

 

Quote

....If the Japanese and the Germans actually worked together, they'd have been so much more successful. The USSR knew that Japan was not a threat because they were focused on attacking the US. So they could move their Siberian divisions into the defence of Moscow. At one point the Nazis were in Egypt and the Japanese were in Burma, that's pretty close and it's possible they could have linked up. 

 

At no point in the war did Germany or Japan project power beyond extra-regional boundaries, ostensibly to access and control natural resources and logistical communications/transportation.   The British had expanded empire and control on a global level many decades before this.   The Germans and Japanese dared to challenge Britain's dominance.   France was just a speed bump and Spain was already a has been empire.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

....

-   The Soviets did far more to drain and defeat Germany than other allied nations.

....

In this thread, let me take this single phrase as a response. I strongly, strongly disagree. The "Soviets" did not drain/defeat Germany.

Individual, young Russian men (born around 1920) fought to defeat Germans. And it wasn't just Russian men, many young British/French/Canadian/American men also were terrified then died.

Why?

In a collective battle, which straw breaks the camel's back?  Which particular soldier defeats the enemy? Nowadays, since we live in peaceful times (like Tolstoi) we can ask such questions.

But in 1939, 1941, young men born around 1915 did not wonder - perhaps because of Churchill - they fought to defeat this Nazi scourge.  

Edited July 29, 2017 by August1991

[August1991]

Dunkirk and Vietnam

In all the various reviews, I haven't seen this link. Yet, they are similar, even identical.

Dunkirk and Vietnam were both battles in a larger war. Ultimately, we won the war.

And  if we had not shown our resolve in these battles, we may have lost the larger war.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

In this thread, let me take this single phrase as a response. I strongly, strongly disagree. The "Soviets" did not drain/defeat Germany.

 

History doesn't care whether you agree or not, as the scope, scale, and impact of Operation Barbarosa on the war are well documented.  

It was not a relatively short 26 mile boat ride across the English Channel. 

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

History doesn't care whether you agree or not, as the scope, scale, and impact of Operation Barbarosa on the war are well documented.  

It was not a relatively short 26 mile boat ride across the English Channel. 

 

 

It could be said the RAF defeated Germany.  Had they lost the Battle of Britain and been destroyed as Goering had promised, then Sea Lion could have gone ahead, and Barbarossa postponed. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It could be said the RAF defeated Germany.  Had they lost the Battle of Britain and been destroyed as Goering had promised, then Sea Lion could have gone ahead, and Barbarossa postponed. 

 

I disagree, as the UK was pushed far further towards collapse by German u-boats, long after the defensive Battle of Britain was over.

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I disagree, as the UK was pushed far further towards collapse by German u-boats, long after the defensive Battle of Britain was over.

 

I don't see that as relevant to my point.  If Hitler had gained air superiority over the UK, and been able to land an invasion force, The UK would have collapsed.

Barbarossa could have been postponed indefinitely.  The entire path of history from that point on could have been completely different.  It's all conjecture, of course, but the US would have had no need to send any more supplies eastward.  It would have been stronger in 1941 such that the Japanese might have thought twice about Pearl Harbour.  Or at least been defeated more quickly by a US military concentrating solely on the Pacific.  The Nazi/Soviet non aggression pact would have lasted until Hitler decided to break it, because I doubt the Soviets would. 

There's probably a Harry Turtledove novel about it somewhere.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

 It's all conjecture, of course,

 

Yes...all conjecture.    We know what the real events were and their impact long after 1940.  

The British Empire's decline was already in motion, culminating with the Suez Crisis as the last imperial fling only 11 years after the war.

[August1991]

On 7/29/2017 at 8:03 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

History doesn't care whether you agree or not, as the scope, scale, and impact of Operation Barbarosa on the war are well documented.  

It was not a relatively short 26 mile boat ride across the English Channel. 

 

Operation Barbarosa?

Bush_Cheney, it was individuals who defeated the Nazis (individual Germans), and even these Japanese fanatics.

=====

Did "Russia" defeat "Germany"? No, young individual Russian men fought against young individual German men.

Heck, young Canadian men also fought. Which particular young man won the battle? The war?

Each individual effort, whether Canadian, French, Russian - defeated this German collective effort of individuals.  

My point (and Tolstoi's) is to wonder how individual effort forms a collective. You seem to miss this point, and this movie Dunkirk (among many other weaknesses) also seems to miss this point.

Edited July 31, 2017 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Operation Barborosa?

Bush_Cheney, it was individuals who defeated the Nazis (individual Germans), and even these Japanese fanatics.

 

OK...then it was also individuals who defeated the British Empire.

[August1991]

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK...then it was also individuals who defeated the British Empire.

Bush_Cheney,

Most Americans today have someone they know, typically a man (brother, father, son, friend, uncle, cousin, grandfather) who was in the military in Vietnam.

What did that particular brother, father, son, friend, uncle, cousin.... achieve in Vietnam?

Many Americans sadly today believe..... Vietnam? It was a defeat.

Yet, Soviet Russia is no more. 

======

Churchill's speech after Dunkerque is the answer, but this movie Dunkirk is, well, IMHO - a disaster. The movie misses the whole point. 

Edited July 31, 2017 by August1991

[SpankyMcFarland]

A film about Britain's involvement in WWII has to be very good to be worth watching. The ground has been well trodden already compared to all those other wars that never get a look in. Even WWII itself gets uneven coverage: when was the last English language film about Kursk? I see there's one out soon about the submarine of that name. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Boges]

10 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

A film about Britain's involvement in WWII has to be very good to be worth watching. The ground has been well trodden already compared to all those other wars that never get a look in. Even WWII itself gets uneven coverage: when was the last English language film about Kursk? I see there's one out soon about the submarine of that name. 

Why would an English speaking audience get geared up for a Kursk movie? A movie about Kursk would just be a compelling tank movie. There have been several Stalingrad movies. 

Brad Pitt's Fury came out recently. It was a pretty gripping example of the life of a tank crew, the end was pretty lame though. 

I'd like to see a North Africa movie. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Boges