The first 15 minutes of the film includes almost no dialogue. Instead Noland immediately immerses the viewers into the impossible situation facing the soldiers. Hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers stuck on the beaches of France with no escape, surrounded by German soldiers who are closing in by the minute. The movie focuses less on the performance of the actors and places all of its emphases on image and sound. This is done to give the audience the chance to experience what the soldiers on the beach were hearing and seeing.
As stated in the previous paragraph, this movie has very little dialogue. Unlike many of the famous war films such as Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, or The Longest Day which follows the story of a specific character (whether…show more content… I think it’s astounding how different these two films are, and it’s entirely based on the direction that the directors decided to take them. Dunkirk is a beautiful film, focusing on the scenery, sounds, and events taking place. It doesn’t focus on an individual’s particular story, while showing many different timelines. Inglorious Bastards is completely different. In my view, Tarantino focuses on two main aspects, narrative and action. This film follows two very distinct story lines, but they are all about the motivation and backstories of the characters the story follows. I found with Inglorious Bastards, despite the fact that you got to find out more personal facts about the characters than in Dunkirk, that I felt more for the characters in Nolan’s film. Many of Tarantino’s characters are typically stereotyped. I found Brad Pitt’s character to be a classic Southern American, loud, abrasive and very good at war. It was interesting for Tarantino to give these characters such intricate backstories. Each and every person has a different motivation for wanting Hitler’s (and other SS members)
