Post by robeiae on Jul 25, 2017 15:23:52 GMT -5
Saw Dunkirk last night with my two teens (19, 16). It was really good, imo. But...maybe not super-amazingly-great...
Yet, both my kids disagreed with me. They absolutely loved it.
WARNING: There may by some spoiler-esque bits about the film ahead.
Some backstory is appropriate: the older one here is in film school in college. The other is in a drama program at an arts magnet high school (and he's very good, from acting, to stagecraft, to directing). This is in some ways a product of me (the older one is also majoring in history), I know. They value films, theater, music, and history (and yes, politics) because I've exposed them to all of the above, both intentionally and unintentionally. They have seen a lot of classic films, along with a lot of films that I consider to be classics. Both love Aliens, the older one is a Star Wars geek, the younger one knows his Tarantino inside and out, and both have seen some films that none--or very few--of their friends have, because I made a point of having them watch these movies. Some examples of the last: Taps, Breaking Away, The Last Waltz, Gallipoli, all of John Carpenter's movies, The Outsiders, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, The Man Who Would Be King, The Last Picture Show, The Great Santini, to name a few.
Gallipoli was a recent watch, which makes for a good comparison to Dunkirk, imo. They both really liked the former, they both cried or teared up at the end. They both were moved.
So after Dunkirk, we talked about the movie, as compared to Gallipoli. I like Gallipoli far more, they both preferred Dunkirk. Indeed, they both prefer Dunkirk over Saving Private Ryan, as well.
Here's the thing: Dunkirk is a very different movie than these other two, despite may apparent similarities. My eldest summed it this way (paraphrasing): Dunkirk isn't about anyone, at all; it's about the event. The characters who are the focus of the movie aren't essential. They generally don't have backstories (for the few who do, the backstories are really unessential). And this creates a very different feel for the movie. For her (and my son), this actually drew them deeply into the film; they felt the intentional lack of significant character development--and the lack of details about who people were--made them more real and easier to identify with. The principals in the film could have been anyone who happened to be there. There was nothing that set them apart. Thus my kids felt it could have been them.
Me, I felt more detached from the events in the movie; I felt less of a connection to the principals, as compared to the principals in, say, Gallipoli.
And I'm wondering if this isn't a generational thing that may, in fact, reflect a change to filmmaking, as a consequence of changes in information technologies and media.
I'm still trying to sort it all out, truth be told. Anyway, thoughts?
Yet, both my kids disagreed with me. They absolutely loved it.
WARNING: There may by some spoiler-esque bits about the film ahead.
Some backstory is appropriate: the older one here is in film school in college. The other is in a drama program at an arts magnet high school (and he's very good, from acting, to stagecraft, to directing). This is in some ways a product of me (the older one is also majoring in history), I know. They value films, theater, music, and history (and yes, politics) because I've exposed them to all of the above, both intentionally and unintentionally. They have seen a lot of classic films, along with a lot of films that I consider to be classics. Both love Aliens, the older one is a Star Wars geek, the younger one knows his Tarantino inside and out, and both have seen some films that none--or very few--of their friends have, because I made a point of having them watch these movies. Some examples of the last: Taps, Breaking Away, The Last Waltz, Gallipoli, all of John Carpenter's movies, The Outsiders, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, The Man Who Would Be King, The Last Picture Show, The Great Santini, to name a few.
Gallipoli was a recent watch, which makes for a good comparison to Dunkirk, imo. They both really liked the former, they both cried or teared up at the end. They both were moved.
So after Dunkirk, we talked about the movie, as compared to Gallipoli. I like Gallipoli far more, they both preferred Dunkirk. Indeed, they both prefer Dunkirk over Saving Private Ryan, as well.
Here's the thing: Dunkirk is a very different movie than these other two, despite may apparent similarities. My eldest summed it this way (paraphrasing): Dunkirk isn't about anyone, at all; it's about the event. The characters who are the focus of the movie aren't essential. They generally don't have backstories (for the few who do, the backstories are really unessential). And this creates a very different feel for the movie. For her (and my son), this actually drew them deeply into the film; they felt the intentional lack of significant character development--and the lack of details about who people were--made them more real and easier to identify with. The principals in the film could have been anyone who happened to be there. There was nothing that set them apart. Thus my kids felt it could have been them.
Me, I felt more detached from the events in the movie; I felt less of a connection to the principals, as compared to the principals in, say, Gallipoli.
And I'm wondering if this isn't a generational thing that may, in fact, reflect a change to filmmaking, as a consequence of changes in information technologies and media.
I'm still trying to sort it all out, truth be told. Anyway, thoughts?
