This movie has no plot
There is no story,just random chaotic events
shareHaha, thats what I thought too, I kept waiting for the story to start but it never did. Any amateur film maker can splice together random events.
share
MovieChat Forums > Dunkirk (2017) Discussion > This movie has no plot
The movie intertwines three threads: one week, one day, one hour ... at Dunkirk.
Those three experiences, plus the experience of the civilians in the boat, are the plot.
Plot Definition
Plot is a literary term used to describe the events that make up a story or the main part of a story. These events relate to each other in a pattern or a sequence. The structure of a novel depends on the organization of events in the plot of the story.
Plot is known as the foundation of a novel or story which the characters and settings are built around. It is meant to organize information and events in a logical manner. When writing the plot of a piece of literature, the author has to be careful that it does not dominate the other parts of the story.
https://literarydevices.net/plot/
Who cares whether it had a plot or not ? Frankly, a film dosen't always have to have a predictable plot or a plot at all in order to be interesting. The film itself was a huge surprise summer hit, so obviously audiences didn't have that much of a problem with it. It was a good film, and that's all that really matters. After years of watching foreign and indie films, I've been used to films that aren't the typical Hollywood stuff.
shareExactly... I agree 100%...
I don't understand this slavish need by many viewers for plot in movies... it isn't a TV show. This isn't a sit-me-on-your-lap-granddad-and-tell-me-a-story kind of movie...
I also loved how thinly drawn and nameless most of the characters were... No backatory, no development, no nerdy world building nonsense... very little exposition...
All of this is necessary to convey the anonymity of war... the desperate will to survive after defeat and to contrast that with heroism of sacrifice and duty... We recognise the humanity and fragility of each of the characters without the need to psych 101 them... It's done visually and through their acting without dialogue and lectures... Real cinema...
All with minimal dialogue and no ridiculous scenes of crybaby soldiers talking about their feelings, their daddy issues and their pasts back home... It avoided so much cliche...
After watching this i spent the rest of the evening discussing war, nationalism, duty and such with friends.. That never happens with the more literal and plot driven superhero movies... I don't ever recall discussing any of the batman movies beyond how creepy Ledger's performance was.
I am a huge Nolan fan you might even call me a Nolanite, but I seriously could not get behind this film, no story, no characters just action sequences. I have heard every excuse in the book and none of them hold up. I wanted this film to be more psychological and it wasn't. It's not bad, but it's definitely one of his weaker films:
1) The Dark Knight Rises
2) Interstellar
3) The Dark Knight
4) Memento
5) The Prestige
6) Inception
7) Batman Begins
8) Dunkirk
9) Insomnia
And I didn't see Following.
I thought it was clear that Nolan's intention with this movie was to provide an immersive visual experience. That's why we get no character development whatsover either. Nolan only wanted us to experience a historical event, in the best possible way. In this movie's case, in IMAX, as he described it himself, virtual reality without goggles. If you didn't get to watch it at least at a regular cinema, you missed this movie's point, as there is not much else going on besides the amazing camera work that can only truly be experienced at an IMAX. Not unlike Avatar, actually. Only that with Avatar we get an actual plot, even if it is a generic one.
shareAgain that may have been his intention but it doesn't make the movie good.
shareActually, there's a lot going on in the movie-----it's just not spelled out for the average viewer from A to B to C. Basically it shows you more than it tells you, which was refreshing. I like how it immersed you into the experience to the point where you really felt like you were going through everything the soldiers went through. That was my experience with the film, anyway. I like the fact that it was kind of unpredictable, because you didn't always know what was going to happen----in fact, there was one scene that completely startled the hell out of me, because what happened in it happened so quick, you almost didn't have time to take it in. I was like, "Damn! What the hell just happened!" (I'm not even trying to spoil it---you got to see it for yourself.) I think part of the reason it was a big hit was precisely because it was something different---it wasn't a superhero or a horror movie, or part of any type of a big known franchise, and it was also about a major incident in World War II that most Americans aren't familiar with, since it was a British-French event. Plus it was actually shot on film, which gave a unique and distinct look from your usual digital films. All of those factors pretty much made it stand out from the usual summer flick, plus the unusual soundtrack helped to enhance the scenes, and express the horror the soldier felt at being trapped like mice in a cage on this island.
This might turn out to be one of those films that improves with repeated viewings. I damn near fell asleep watching this the first time -- a reaction I often have when confronted with screen epics that sacrifice an emotional core for scope and size -- but further immersions in "Dunkirk" might make me privy to depths I wasn't heretofore noticing. We'll see ...
shareIn a world where many great immersive films were ruined by the lack of a plot....
DUN-DUN-DUUUN
Even if you “dig deeper” and find a plot, I’d say ultimately it’s all about the experience the film provides. Either it works for you or it doesn’t.
Exactly... I think the film is stronger because of the minimal plot (civilians sail across the channel to save stranded soldiers as pilots provide air cover)...
Worked for me as there was little exposition and character development to detract from the main themes of the movie... It allows you to experience the moment while contemplating the nature of survival, duty and heroism...
I don't see how Nolan would have been available to convey the annonymity of war and the helplessness if he spent the movie having soliders talk about their feelings for 2 hours, which is what happens in every other cliche war movie with flashbacks to peacetime activities and girlfriends back home, mama's apple pie and daddy's abscence/dissapointment/alcoholism etc...
It's that annonymity and helppessness which is key to show (not talk about) heroism, duty and cowardness... it's key to show the characters empathy and the lack thereof to one another...