Dunkirk Awards Season Discussion Thread

The 2017 World War II thriller about the evacuation of British and Allied troops from Dunkirk beach.
User avatar
Posts: 2619
Joined: December 2016
They should change the award to best cause.

User avatar
Posts: 2577
Joined: June 2016


Posts: 356
Joined: November 2014
>didn't like Dunkirk
>"Del Toro made a film that speaks on ever f-ing level"

Really? Funny... this Oscar voter makes me absolutely disgusted on every f-ing level.

This is what happens when politics/message supersedes film quality.

User avatar
Posts: 836
Joined: February 2012
Kevin McCarthy seems like a total dork.

User avatar
Forum Pro
Posts: 2175
Joined: January 2016
Location: Norway
Insomniac wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 3:17 pm
Kevin McCarthy seems like a total dork.
So you disagree with him then?

User avatar
Posts: 2577
Joined: June 2016
The Guardian:
Why Dunkirk should win the 2018 best picture Oscar

In the last of our series, Andrew Pulver salutes Christopher Nolan’s second world war drama, a dazzling blockbuster on an intimate, human scale

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/m ... th-branagh
It’s fair to say that Dunkirk is not a frontrunner for the best picture Oscar: it contains no showpiece, emotion-arousing acting performances, it eulogises a wartime episode that doesn’t really register on US consciousnesses as it does in Britain, and – on first sight – it’s a big fat commercial movie of the kind that rarely makes inroads at the top end of the Academy Awards. Its reported budget, $100m, is twice as much as the next highest (The Post, $50m), and it has become clear over time that Oscar voters like a scrappy, up-and-at-’em production rather than one that can spend its way out of trouble.

There may be a whiff of stodginess about its basic subject matter – and indeed, Brexit-endorsing little-Englanderness – that puts it in the same bracket as Darkest Hour. (Can it be a coincidence that two period films set in exactly the same year and hinging on the same historical events should get best picture nominations at the same time?) Other contenders – Get Out, Call Me By Your Name, Lady Bird – clearly have the edge in freshness of perspective. But for all that, Dunkirk has a great chance. In basic terms, this is a passion project from a highly successful film-maker operating at the top of his game, taking a genuine risk for something he clearly feels very strongly about. While it would be a stretch to say that Christopher Nolan might have derailed his entire career if it had failed, it likely would have been a major black mark and forced him back to safety-first sci-fi or comic-book films with his tail between his legs.

For Nolan really has gone out on a limb with this one. Dunkirk is about as unconventional and stylistically high-minded a mainstream war movie as there’s ever been. For a start, there’s hardly any actual combat in it, at least compared with the likes of Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge, which envisioned the Pacific theatre as some kind of bone-liquidising hellstorm. Apart from a surreally unpopulated ambush at the start and some weirdly ecstatic aerial missions flown by Tom Hardy and his RAF chums, there’s little of the human destruction that most war films – even stone-cold masterpieces such as Come and See or Apocalypse Now – routinely offer up.

This is clearly a deliberate tactic by Nolan, to approximate what he considers the authenticity of the events: the (relatively) orderly evacuation of a defeated army, each soldier patiently waiting their turn on the beach. The temptation and pressure to shoehorn in some sort of climactic made-up battle must have been intense. But, as Nolan said in an interview with the Guardian, in the end, “it’s a defeat”. Its dominant mode, therefore, is elegiac rather than heroic; for a war film in the current political climate it is nothing short of remarkable.

Nolan’s anti-action theme also has the curious effect of converting his film into something of a tone poem: mood and rhythm, accentuated by the impressive soundtrack, become the film’s prevailing forces. Moreover – and this again was surely Nolan’s intention – this forces the audience’s attention to the tiny details and subtleties of each individual world that the film engages with: the airman floating in the clouds, the sailor navigating the choppy seas, the infantrymen cowering on the sand. In this context, Nolan’s final sequence – which has attracted considerable criticism for its Brexity evocation of a twee, cosy-fireside Englishness – makes a little more sense, and is not quite the Farage-esque setpiece it may appear on first sight.

But what the Oscar voters may admire most about Dunkirk is that it shows Nolan is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. There’s a good reason why superhero films don’t win Oscars: for all their fire and fury, their furrowed-brow moralising can’t disguise their emotional and spiritual vacuousness. Nolan, having been the pioneer of the overwrought-but-empty comic book movie, has finally managed to break the carapace of big-budget studio movie-making and create a film on a human, intimate scale. Given the world-shaking events that are its backdrop, that’s some achievement. With a bit of good fortune, Nolan might turn defeat into victory on Oscar night.

User avatar
Posts: 13099
Joined: February 2011
Yeah, fuck off, Andrew Pulver.£

Posts: 898
Joined: December 2017
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists ... m=referral
A voter from the Academy's actors branch says she "learned more about 'Dunkirk' from five minutes of 'Darkest Hour' than I did from the whole movie 'Dunkirk,'"
It absolutly insane that people still doesn't understand Nolan's intend.

Posts: 356
Joined: November 2014
Nolan62 wrote:
March 3rd, 2018, 1:53 pm
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists ... m=referral
A voter from the Academy's actors branch says she "learned more about 'Dunkirk' from five minutes of 'Darkest Hour' than I did from the whole movie 'Dunkirk,'"
It absolutly insane that people still doesn't understand Nolan's intend.
I honestly just want to know what people in Hollywood see in "The Shape of Water." It was simplistic, shallow, and its politics were as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face.

Then again... maybe that's why Hollywood likes it. :facepalm:

Post Reply