WTF! Just make the effing movie in chronological order. It was devoid of plot with enough confusion to keep you from totally enjoying it. Not saying it was bad. Just saying Nolan is his own worst enemy.
shareI wondered about that too. I get what he did, but one has to ask if being non-linear made the film better.
It did allow him to put the four threads into the same time space even though they happen in differing time lengths.
I didn't have a problem with the film at all---but then, I've been watching non-linear movies for years (a lot of indie and foreign films) and enjoyed them, so that's why I enjoyed this. If people had actually done a little research on the film before seeing it, they would have found out that it's not a traditional Hollywood film to begin with, because it's not even a Hollywood film---it's a British film through and through (A British and French co-production, actually.) I thought the film was pretty straightforward in the sense that it's basically about thousands of soldiers trapped by their enemies on a beach, and trying desperately to get off of it as they're being picked off from time to time by said enemies. It's not your typical predictable by-the-numbers war film that you're seen 10,000 times before, which was refreshing. I think some people probably didn't like it because it wasn't like that, which is too bad--you'd think folks would want to see something different every now and then.
shareI understand all that, but a film goer should not have to research a film prior to viewing it. I try my best to not watch trailers for films that may interest me because they show far too much.
I don't have a problem with films being non-linear, as long as the writer and director give the viewer enough information to know that. I'm not sure Nolan did that with Dunkirk.
One has to ask if Nolan added to the film by having it non-linear, or was it an unneeded distraction. It worked for me, and it looks as though it worked for you, but was it the best way to make this film?
Xenopharb is correct. Non-linear is okay as long as you prep the audience for it. He just threw it in there for the viewer to figure out. I never learned about Dunkirk in school. Nolan writes that as if all viewers have previous knowledge of the events. Help us out a little. Good story, purely executed.
shareyou do not have to prepare the audience for non linear storytelling. what you need is a purpose to it.
the story needs a motivation for a non linear storytelling. it worked wonderfully in Memento. There you had the mind/memory illnes of the hero and therefore the movie was told backwards. but what was the motivation in Dunkirk?
There is a purpose: to make it into an artsy artsy movie.
shareThe way the timelines were layered did seem rather useful, as it allowed the audience to see the three main aspects of the story layered alongside one another, rather than a simple chronology. You see the story unfold in a way that highlights the tension, which a play-by-play wouldn't do. One element of the rescue took a week to happen, one element took a day, and one took only an hour. By stretching each one, then layering them, we get to spend equal time with each story, and we get to see how events that happened at different times, but were connected to one another, unfolded. So even though it's being told out of sequence in a strict sense, in a more meaningful sense the moments are being told in perfect sequence in terms of how they relate to one another. This gives buildup to moments in the story, and giving a later reveal increases the tension of the moment. We see a boat sinking, for example, only to later learn that Tommy, Alex, and Gibson are trapped inside that boat. Another time, we see the Moonstone rescue a soldier, and only later do we see him leave Dunkirk. It's this brilliant form of foreshadowing, and a gradual reveal of certain emotional beats, that make the film much more powerful than it would be were it shown in strictly linear fashion.
By giving each of the three stories equal footing, the audience also gets a better sense of Farrier's role, which would have seemed far less important otherwise. Case in point, the actual soldiers on the beach in Dunkirk later criticized the RAF for not being more helpful, which is probably how it would have appeared to audiences without the time-stretching technique used to layer the three stories.
Also, the unexpected time shifting puts the audience a bit off-guard, and forces them to pay attention, and think through what their seeing, leaving them a bit off-kilter, much like the soldiers in the film.
Thank you for explaining it in a way I never could. I've loved the movie since first seeing it, and your response ("giving each of the stories equal footing") says it best!
shareI see what you are saying here but in my oppinion the effect would have been ok if it had its roots in the story. Of course the audience has to pay attention now but it is more of a cheap puzzle then a well composed Story and Design (editing) combination. Following your argument you could also let the soldiers speak backwards to make it more complicated for the audience. I am joking of course.
But what I am missing here is a purpose what makes it necessary for the story. Everything else is just for amusement for puzzle friends. In my oppinion the editing oscar was a late one for Memento (where the editing had a story purpose).
I don't take it to be a puzzle at all. It becomes very clear early on how the story is being told, and I really think layering the times was the best way to tell the story. I never got the sense that anything was done for artistic flourish, or merely to puzzle the audience. It was done because it was the most effective way to tell the story. I went into my reasoning in more detail in my previous post, but to say it more succinctly:
The gist of the story of Dunkirk is really three stories, the land, air, and sea components, in one. The situation on the land unfolded over the course of a week, the boats coming in by sea took place during one day, while the air support, limited though it was, was crucial, and took place in the final hour. Rather than giving the entire story of the week on land, then showing the boats launch, and having them arrive as Farrier clears a path just isn't as interesting as stretching the sea and air stories into proportion with the land story.
As an aside, after I watched the film I thought about it in terms of musical composition. A song that is built around samples often has several components taken from songs that are in different tempos and keys. One way to present them would be sequential-- 3 bars of drums, then 1 bar of bass, then end with one guitar riff. A more interesting way is to do what's called "chopping" or "warping," to bring the samples into step with one another. The musician then has 3 samples of the same length, playing at the same tempo and in the same key, and layers them into one 4 bar song with drums, bass, and guitar playing simultaneously. That's how I processed Dunkirk-- 3 related stories of different lengths, stretched to fit one another, and layered seamlessly into one complete whole.
That is totally the same as I see it. The editing made the movie better. But saying this it includes that the story itself lacks originality.
Speaking musically: All the beautiful orchestrations do not matter it the melody/ tune is not good enough...
Xenopharb:
Oh,come on---it only takes a minute to research a film on the internet nowadays----it's not like you had to read a whole book to find out anything about it. I only looked up just enough to find out what Dunkirk was all about, then avoided reading anything else about it until after I'd seen it---that way I could see it with fresh eyes. Plus I like it when a movie dosen't spoonfeed you every little thing, or spell everything out for you----we as moviegoers are so used to Hollywood films doing that for us, that if some of us are exposed to films that don't do that, we don't know what to make of it. It's nice to see something that takes you out of your movie comfort zone every now and then. Besides, the movie was a huge surprise hit at the box office, meaning a hell of a lot of people didn't have an issue with the non-linear narrative---which is good,lol.
You are so right in saying that Nolan is his own worst enemy, you nailed it.
shareNon-linear story is usually challenging. It demands an certain effort from viewers. That being say, it wasn't the most non-linear out there. Better not try Pulp Fiction.
Concerning the story, you had some glimpse of information. Personally I always enjoy to be thrown in a movie while not knowing exactly what is in the context.
WTF! Just make the effing movie in chronological order. It was devoid of plot with enough confusion to keep you from totally enjoying it. Not saying it was bad. Just saying Nolan is his own worst enemy.
It didn't confuse me. I guess he wanted to intertwine the stories, cut back and forth between them.
shareI know nobody would give a shit, but Nolan explained it before the movie even released.
"For the soldiers who embarked in the conflict, the events took place on different temporalities. On land, some stayed one week stuck on the beach. On the water, the events lasted a maximum day; and if you were flying to Dunkirk, the British Spitfires would carry an hour of fuel. To mingle these different versions of history, one had to mix the temporal strata. Hence the complicated structure; even if the story is very simple. Do not repeat it to the studio: it will be my most experimental film."