The score feels very American, it puts the emphasis on the Americans. Not to forget that the film literally opens and closes with a shot of the American flag. The film celebrates the ordinary american men who served. While I'm fine with that for the most part, it was definitely overdone.ArmandFancypants wrote:What C8 and Cup said.
The film celebrates the ordinary men who served, not America though
As for the complaint about the score I don't get that. Hymn to the Fallen is the most heart-breaking thing Williams has done.
Last Film You Watched? VI
In the Valley of Elah ends with a shot of the American flag too, IIRC. Is that a patriotic film?
Dammit I removed a sentence which said: "not that it's solely because of the shots of the american flag." should've left that in lol
Anyway, no of course it's not solely because of a shot of the american flag. I meant it as an emphasis on SPR celebrating the ordinary american men. Although again, I still believe that's more so because of the score and Spielberg rather than the shots of the flag lol I mean that would be a low main argument.
Anyway, no of course it's not solely because of a shot of the american flag. I meant it as an emphasis on SPR celebrating the ordinary american men. Although again, I still believe that's more so because of the score and Spielberg rather than the shots of the flag lol I mean that would be a low main argument.
You can celebrate the people and spirit of a country without being "patriotic" in the jingoistic 'Murica way.
I think Dunkirk is just as much a celebration of a given people FWIW. This is not a sin when the subject warrants it.
I think Dunkirk is just as much a celebration of a given people FWIW. This is not a sin when the subject warrants it.
Posts: 566
Joined:
July 2010
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
What a spooky film this was. Not Black Christmas, not Suspiria, not Halloween but this seems to be the ultimate scare of 70s.
What a spooky film this was. Not Black Christmas, not Suspiria, not Halloween but this seems to be the ultimate scare of 70s.
Posts: 395
Joined:
June 2017
I think a combination of factors of the ending of SPR tells us there is nowhere enough of a basis that we seriously ponder the question of whether it was worth it.
1. The overly patriotic score playing during this scene
2. Ryan saluting his soldiers
3. The fact Ryan has children and grandchildren all behind him and supporting him.
The violence is unsettling and soldiers die in tragic ways, but the ending and portrayals of these soldiers dont do nearly enough to ever make me ponder if Spielberg intended for this film to be a criticism of nationalism. He gets close with the shots of the aftermath of the D-Day invasion, showing shots of blood on the shores and the water attempting to wash away the sins of humanity, but it is not enough.
Saving Private Ryan is certainly anti war, but it is also patriotic for the simple notion that every american soldier is portrayed as either victims or heroes and every German is a monster. Every death, while shown to be horrific, is still played as a necessary sacrifice for the eventual rescue of Private Ryan. Finally, the fact that Ryan is shown to be broken down seeing all his fellow dead comrades at the beginning to realizing they all allowed him to live and have a family and salutes them, tells us Spielberg considers their sacrifice as noble and wants us to be proud of the US Army for doing such a thing for one soldier.
Dunkirk, on the other hand, does not portray every soldier as a victim or a hero. A number of these soldiers are shown as pathetic people who just want to survive and are capable of lying, getting people on their side killed, and even killing their own to save themselves. A number of these soldiers deaths aren't of sacrifice, but of being picked off like an animal. It is horrifying and it is played as such. To the poster who says that SPR is more realistic, he is absolutely right. My biggest problem with Dunkirk is how clean the beach is, but truthfully I was only taken out of the experience for one scene (after the initial plane bombing attack, to show nothing but dirt was laughable to me). However, the politics of SPR are way too one sided for me to ever consider it anywhere as responsible as Dunkirk was. If the film celebrates anyone, it is the people who came for the soldiers. But its ending isn't one that shies away from the death and psychological torment of war and one can see that even in the subversive ending where we are shown images of profound defeat as Churchill's speech is being read dryly.
1. The overly patriotic score playing during this scene
2. Ryan saluting his soldiers
3. The fact Ryan has children and grandchildren all behind him and supporting him.
The violence is unsettling and soldiers die in tragic ways, but the ending and portrayals of these soldiers dont do nearly enough to ever make me ponder if Spielberg intended for this film to be a criticism of nationalism. He gets close with the shots of the aftermath of the D-Day invasion, showing shots of blood on the shores and the water attempting to wash away the sins of humanity, but it is not enough.
Saving Private Ryan is certainly anti war, but it is also patriotic for the simple notion that every american soldier is portrayed as either victims or heroes and every German is a monster. Every death, while shown to be horrific, is still played as a necessary sacrifice for the eventual rescue of Private Ryan. Finally, the fact that Ryan is shown to be broken down seeing all his fellow dead comrades at the beginning to realizing they all allowed him to live and have a family and salutes them, tells us Spielberg considers their sacrifice as noble and wants us to be proud of the US Army for doing such a thing for one soldier.
Dunkirk, on the other hand, does not portray every soldier as a victim or a hero. A number of these soldiers are shown as pathetic people who just want to survive and are capable of lying, getting people on their side killed, and even killing their own to save themselves. A number of these soldiers deaths aren't of sacrifice, but of being picked off like an animal. It is horrifying and it is played as such. To the poster who says that SPR is more realistic, he is absolutely right. My biggest problem with Dunkirk is how clean the beach is, but truthfully I was only taken out of the experience for one scene (after the initial plane bombing attack, to show nothing but dirt was laughable to me). However, the politics of SPR are way too one sided for me to ever consider it anywhere as responsible as Dunkirk was. If the film celebrates anyone, it is the people who came for the soldiers. But its ending isn't one that shies away from the death and psychological torment of war and one can see that even in the subversive ending where we are shown images of profound defeat as Churchill's speech is being read dryly.
Except what you said basically means Dunkirk portrays soldiers as victims. Victims of war. Even Nolan talks about them in such terms in interviews. It's not about what they did but why they did it. And they did it because the war changed them. They are victims of war fighting for their right to survive. Victims can be painted in both negative and positive light, but they're still victims.Spert wrote:Dunkirk, on the other hand, does not portray every soldier as a victim or a hero. A number of these soldiers are shown as pathetic people who just want to survive and are capable of lying, getting people on their side killed, and even killing their own to save themselves.
Posts: 395
Joined:
June 2017
But this isn't the same kind of victims like in SPRRIFA wrote:Except what you said basically means Dunkirk portrays soldiers as victims. Victims of war. Even Nolan talks about them in such terms in interviews. It's not about what they did but why they did it. And they did it because the war changed them. They are victims of war fighting for their right to survive. Victims can be painted in both negative and positive light, but they're still victims.Spert wrote:Dunkirk, on the other hand, does not portray every soldier as a victim or a hero. A number of these soldiers are shown as pathetic people who just want to survive and are capable of lying, getting people on their side killed, and even killing their own to save themselves.
Some of These soldiers portrayed in dunkirk do some despicable things and sure they are victims of war, but they aren't victimized like the scared young soldier in SPR who is unable to do anything and the audience feels so sorry for him. The kid in SPR is victimized but he doesn't do anything bad. Alex in Dunkirk is a victim surely but the fact he uses a nationalist logic that essentially gets an innocent and helpful French soldier killed is not something we can respect or feel sorry for.
Everyone is a victim of war in war films, no matter how hard the director tries to swing a pro or anti war stance. But there is a difference between a victim we feel sorry for and a victim where we can understand their motives but not respect the action.
Controversial opinion: The creepiest character in the film is not Leatherface. It's The Cook.£spade wrote:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
What a spooky film this was. Not Black Christmas, not Suspiria, not Halloween but this seems to be the ultimate scare of 70s.
I get what you're saying but you're overrating what Dunkirk does. Especially when other war films did what you're talking about better. And then the complaint itself against SPR is trivial and shouldn't even be a complaint at all. Like this entire SPR/Dunkirk discussion based on this particular thing is silly. Both movies approach things differently but that doesn't make one better than the other. So the discussion Nomis started here makes no sense.Spert wrote:But this isn't the same kind of victims like in SPRRIFA wrote:Except what you said basically means Dunkirk portrays soldiers as victims. Victims of war. Even Nolan talks about them in such terms in interviews. It's not about what they did but why they did it. And they did it because the war changed them. They are victims of war fighting for their right to survive. Victims can be painted in both negative and positive light, but they're still victims.Spert wrote:Dunkirk, on the other hand, does not portray every soldier as a victim or a hero. A number of these soldiers are shown as pathetic people who just want to survive and are capable of lying, getting people on their side killed, and even killing their own to save themselves.
Some of These soldiers portrayed in dunkirk do some despicable things and sure they are victims of war, but they aren't victimized like the scared young soldier in SPR who is unable to do anything and the audience feels so sorry for him. The kid in SPR is victimized but he doesn't do anything bad. Alex in Dunkirk is a victim surely but the fact he uses a nationalist logic that essentially gets an innocent and helpful French soldier killed is not something we can respect or feel sorry for.
Everyone is a victim of war in war films, no matter how hard the director tries to swing a pro or anti war stance. But there is a difference between a victim we feel sorry for and a victim where we can understand their motives but not respect the action.
