Dunkirk

Non-linear narrative cinema was a mistake.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6AlDqFgQnqQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I think it's fine if it serves a purpose but I didn't feel as though the film gained anything from it.

>hating Shepard–Risset glissando narrative

TOP PLEB

youtube.com/watch?v=6AlDqFgQnqQ

If it was told chronologically it would be boring as hell as the plane stuff would be stuffed all at the end and the pacing would be shit.

Also it works better to see the shellshocked army guy shellshocked first, then see what he was before that after, then vice versa.

You're a mistake

pulp fiction says hi asshole

>If it was told chronologically it would be boring as hell
The onus is on the filmmakers to make this not the case. Also, you only get a glimpse of what Cilian was like before being shellshocked. It doesn't necessitate the entire film to be shot non-linearly.

>remove plot
>remove characterization
>remove dialogue
>blase composition and cinematography
>excellent sound and music

1.5/5 movie

Your mom not aborting you was a mistake

See basically. If the story was told chronologically, it would be seen for what it is, a pretty cliche war movie.

I also disagree that the jumbled narrative did anything for Cillian Murphy's character. You basically see him in a boat and he goes "No room in here." It's a cameo. I think that's part of what put me off the non linear thing; characters pop up in different timelines, like the singling fishing boat being glimpsed by Tom Hardy in a way that makes you go "Oh. Neat!" It's a structure thats designed to impress you with how cleverly the film is constructed, not to comment on or enhance your emotional understanding of the events. A similar thing happens when Rylance and the kids on the boat see Hardy taking down the second Heinkel. Why do we need to see that moment again, from a different perspective? It adds nothing.

After pulp fiction it should have been retired

Telling a story out of order is a very old technique, and has been used in classics (LotR books for example) and has been used by movies since 1916 ( D. W. Griffith's Intolerance) so it not some new idea.

Also, the director does not try to trick you or use it as a crutch - it explained in the first 10 minutes that the mole storyline starts 1 week before, the Sea storyline starts 1 day, and the air starts 1 hour before the end of the movie.

A traditional war movie would have the pilots drinking tea and reading newspapers and discussing the issues, while Dunkirk just cuts away all that and tells the story like many novelist would write, with chapters skipping between charicters and getting to the point where you see the same event with 3 views, and then the conclusion of each story.

To say that it a trick or somehow jumbled makes me wonder if you have a attention span, as there was no tricks and was easy to follow - in fact, one of the easier to follow war movies made in some time.

lmao Sup Forums will hate literally everything
learn to appreciate art when it's thrown in your face

>Why do we need to see that moment again, from a different perspective?
To get a bigger picture of the situation which is told extremely subjectively from every perspective and to form a coherent interconnected story with those moments.

The air narrative takes place in one hour, the sea narrative in one day and the land narrative in one week, how else would you do it? A linear representation of that whole week?
Then you would have Tom Hardy sitting in an airbase somewhere sipping tea and wanking off to pictures of dear old Marge, and Dunkirk wasn't about that fake empathy/sentimentality, it was about being thrown into the event itself.

>Why do we need to see that moment again, from a different perspective? It adds nothing.
as this user said there is no one person with a large scale view of things - so with the sinking fishing boat, we see it by all the cast, but none of the individual views put it in context, it seeing them all together that you understand what is going on.

Yep, the fact that it a Nolan film also means that Sup Forums will hate it.

>be Sup Forums
>capeshit is praised
>criticize movies that actually try to innovate

How did he do it, bros? How did he go from pleb favorite to pleb filter in a single film?

TDKR was most likely his weakest film in some time.

>blase composition and cinematography
put a bullet in your brain

Nope. You're just stupid.

>le tension building for 99% of the movie

>no argument
>knows I'm right

>onus
hey DB

>DB
who?

You are so much of a pleb that you somehow think composition and cinematography are different terms, while composition is a part of the cinematography you braindead casual, why would I need to form an argument when you spout embarassing bullshit like that

I never said it wasn't easy to follow. I appreciate that there was no generals in map room scene. My criticism of the film's jumbled narrative is that it doesn't add anything.

Right just felt a bit gimmicky to me.

>how else would you do it?
Obviously I'm not a director. But maybe not limit myself to x story *must* be y amount of time, z story must be etc etc. Again, I appreciate the fact that it was an on the ground perspective, as it were.

I just don't think you need any more clues about something like the sinking of a fishing boat

>nonlinear narrative is innovating
Hmm