dormouse7 wrote:Everything we have heard indicates Harry went through the same audition process as everyone else. Jack said that. Fionn auditioned with Harry. Harry and Fionn both mentioned audition tape was the first step. It's possible Harry was asked to audition.
That's precisely what the book suggests, Greg Silverman brought him up and Nolan/Emma invited him to audition.
Silverman was probably pitching Harry to multiple WB projects and Nolan is the one who picked up on him.
Pretty smart from Harry to choose a Nolan movie where he'd have a small part in a huge ensemble instead of being a lead in another one. He chose quality over quantity.
I doubt he was pitching him. Harry was working on his album when the call from Dunkirk came and he had to put it in the back burner for five full months to do the film. I do think he was interested in acting but I don't think he was interested in acting right there and then and being pitched around several films. I think it was more that if the right project came along he'd do it.
Harry also mentioned several times that as soon as he heard of the project he knew he'd want to watch the film and that's why he auditioned. I think it's more likely that his agent heard about Dunkirk, asked Harry if he'd like the part, Harry agreed and then he was pitched. He has a very competent agent from CAA and I think it's very possible this agent would have contacts that would tell him of important projects.
This just in: apparently my opinion no matter what i say is an agenda.
Please tell me more about myself that you apparently know, Allstar, you asshat.
Wish I could actually explain what I thought without someone writing me off with a roll eye emoji or someone saying I have an agenda (when the specific member saying that happens to literally only post based off specific agendas he has). Me saying Styles did a good job is a problem here. Give me a break lmao
True - you said Styles did well in his role but that you thought his character was unnecessary.
Who would Tommy speak to if he didn't have Alex? He can't speak to Gibson because that would kill the Gibson-never-says-anything because he's not British. Also, Gibson saved both Tommy and Alex multiple times and they react to him differently. Tommy wants to protect Gibson, but Gibson becomes the target of Alex's fear and anger.
And who would Tommy be with on the train going home? How would they show the guilt that many soldiers felt for escaping?
dormouse7 wrote:True - you said Styles did well in his role but that you thought his character was unnecessary.
Who would Tommy speak to if he didn't have Alex? He can't speak to Gibson because that would kill the Gibson-never-says-anything because he's not British. Also, Gibson saved both Tommy and Alex multiple times and they react to him differently. Tommy wants to protect Gibson, but Gibson becomes the target of Alex's fear and anger.
And who would Tommy be with on the train going home? How would they show the guilt that many soldiers felt for escaping?
What would you have replaced that with?
Thanks for the response.
I wouldn't replace him, I'm just saying his character when compared to the rest of the cast is very insignificant to the plot. Alex, to me, only stood as a person for Tommy to be around. Seemed like Nolan put him in the film simply because he wanted the Gibson reveal but he also wanted a second soldier that could speak. Nearly every other character was vital to the plot, meaning, without them, a core plot point is removed from the story itself. Every character on the boat allows for the conflict that occurs there (remove one and the conflict goes away completely), same goes for Collins and Farrier. Gibson and Tommy are similar, but Alex is not. Alex could have first shown up as part of the soldiers walking to the Dutch boat and nothing about the story would have changed. The (brief) scenes (there may only be a single scene) where Tommy and Alex, with the exception of the very end, could have been removed as well with nothing being lost. Additionally, the conflict in the boat would have happened anyway, most likely still toward Gibson too as he would have been silent for the entire time. The ending makes him slightly interesting due to his response of feeling like a failure and feeling anger towards the retreat only to be comforted by the citizens of Britain when they enter the city.
Styles did fine and this isn't a slight against him or him as an actor, but I truly felt that his character had been written after the initial draft of the script in an attempt to add one more character without changing the story so Nolan could kill Gibson and still have someone be on the train with Tommy.
Location: You'll find me in the region of the summer stars✶*¨*✫
Bacon wrote:
dormouse7 wrote:True - you said Styles did well in his role but that you thought his character was unnecessary.
Who would Tommy speak to if he didn't have Alex? He can't speak to Gibson because that would kill the Gibson-never-says-anything because he's not British. Also, Gibson saved both Tommy and Alex multiple times and they react to him differently. Tommy wants to protect Gibson, but Gibson becomes the target of Alex's fear and anger.
And who would Tommy be with on the train going home? How would they show the guilt that many soldiers felt for escaping?
What would you have replaced that with?
Thanks for the response.
I wouldn't replace him, I'm just saying his character when compared to the rest of the cast is very insignificant to the plot. Alex, to me, only stood as a person for Tommy to be around. Seemed like Nolan put him in the film simply because he wanted the Gibson reveal but he also wanted a second soldier that could speak. Nearly every other character was vital to the plot, meaning, without them, a core plot point is removed from the story itself. Every character on the boat allows for the conflict that occurs there (remove one and the conflict goes away completely), same goes for Collins and Farrier. Gibson and Tommy are similar, but Alex is not. Alex could have first shown up as part of the soldiers walking to the Dutch boat and nothing about the story would have changed. The (brief) scenes (there may only be a single scene) where Tommy and Alex, with the exception of the very end, could have been removed as well with nothing being lost. Additionally, the conflict in the boat would have happened anyway, most likely still toward Gibson too as he would have been silent for the entire time. The ending makes him slightly interesting due to his response of feeling like a failure and feeling anger towards the retreat only to be comforted by the citizens of Britain when they enter the city.
Styles did fine and this isn't a slight against him or him as an actor, but I truly felt that his character had been written after the initial draft of the script in an attempt to add one more character without changing the story so Nolan could kill Gibson and still have someone be on the train with Tommy.
I suppose it is possible the ending with Tommy and Alex could be removed but it would take so much away from the movie, for me at least.
dormouse7 wrote:True - you said Styles did well in his role but that you thought his character was unnecessary.
Who would Tommy speak to if he didn't have Alex? He can't speak to Gibson because that would kill the Gibson-never-says-anything because he's not British. Also, Gibson saved both Tommy and Alex multiple times and they react to him differently. Tommy wants to protect Gibson, but Gibson becomes the target of Alex's fear and anger.
And who would Tommy be with on the train going home? How would they show the guilt that many soldiers felt for escaping?
What would you have replaced that with?
Thanks for the response.
I wouldn't replace him, I'm just saying his character when compared to the rest of the cast is very insignificant to the plot. Alex, to me, only stood as a person for Tommy to be around. Seemed like Nolan put him in the film simply because he wanted the Gibson reveal but he also wanted a second soldier that could speak. Nearly every other character was vital to the plot, meaning, without them, a core plot point is removed from the story itself. Every character on the boat allows for the conflict that occurs there (remove one and the conflict goes away completely), same goes for Collins and Farrier. Gibson and Tommy are similar, but Alex is not. Alex could have first shown up as part of the soldiers walking to the Dutch boat and nothing about the story would have changed. The (brief) scenes (there may only be a single scene) where Tommy and Alex, with the exception of the very end, could have been removed as well with nothing being lost. Additionally, the conflict in the boat would have happened anyway, most likely still toward Gibson too as he would have been silent for the entire time. The ending makes him slightly interesting due to his response of feeling like a failure and feeling anger towards the retreat only to be comforted by the citizens of Britain when they enter the city.
Styles did fine and this isn't a slight against him or him as an actor, but I truly felt that his character had been written after the initial draft of the script in an attempt to add one more character without changing the story so Nolan could kill Gibson and still have someone be on the train with Tommy.
I suppose it is possible the ending with Tommy and Alex could be removed but it would take so much away from the movie, for me at least.
First of all: Spoilers. Second of all:
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I feel like Alex's character's entire point was to be on that train at the end of the film since his character's existence doesn't really change anything else in the film.
