MovieChat Forums > Dunkirk (2017) Discussion > inaudiable dialog...

inaudiable dialog...

posted 7 years ago by [deleted]
22 replies | jump to latest

This movie suffers from low dialog volume sometimes, like many of his do. I don't mean like some graphic moment where a bomb goes off and we see someone shouting but can't hear it, I mean primary dialog scenes. I went to the IMAX 70mm showing with awesome sound system, sat in the middle, but STILL some dialog was like, "What did he just say??" This should never happen in a movie. Of all the movies I watch, 99% of the time, dialog is just fine. Why are Nolan movies different?

I'm going to Digital XD version tonight, again sitting in the sweetspot, and will report back if that mix is any better.
My background is sound engineering in recording studios, my private studio, and indie film production.

[–] screencat (1) 7 years ago

Totally agree! Could not understand most of the dialog. There was one scene where a guy said something "funny" and a few people chuckled in the audience, but I am pretty sure they were pretending to understand what was said.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

It's probably because Nolan wants the music too loud.

Lately, he also likes it too constant. I've heard that happens here. That was one of many gripes about Dark Knight Rises, it had just constant pounding monotonous music with no real character to it.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

They definitely went all out with the sound. I recall the constant music. Sometimes it helped the intensity, other times it seemed out of place and slapped in for consistency.

I also recall there being a boring scene... like some guy just walking... and all this excessive noise, like booming sound track, that thumping, and other overly loud ambient noises... not like explosions, just NOISE... and I thought, why is this scene so loud with absolutely nothing going on???

Still enjoyed the movie as a whole, but that audio! Ugh! I'll post up after tonight's viewing about the audio at a normal theater.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Yep. Went to another viewing: Digital "XD" in our top of class theater in town, and some dialog was still lost in the mix. I think I missed a couple key words about the plot - what was happening, but overall, didn't seem critical. Makes me feel like I am getting old and going deaf, which I am definitely not, though.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I totally agree. The Oscar for best sound is definitely safe.

😎

[–] PresidentAckbar (1289) 7 years ago

fer sure!

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

😎

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

Don't be too sure. I have seen films with incredibly poor editing or sound be nominated for Oscars in those catagories.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Yes. You never know what to expect from Hollyweird.

😎

"I Am the FBI."

[–] spurtle467 (1520) 7 years ago

There was one scene when Mark Rylance's character turned round on the boat and shouted something, and I can't remember if there was loud music or not, but I couldn't understand a single word of his sentence. It was kind of funny cause it came off sounding like gibberish, as if some baby language.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 7 years ago

Was it when [spoiler] the spitfire is shot down and he's trying to get to the pilot before he drawns? if it's that scene the it's not loud music, his voice breaks due to desperation as that is what happened to his son who had died earlier in the war. Was shot down. [/spoiler]

Was a very emotional delivery of his line. That generation of man didn't show such weakness and vulnerability easily.

The scene is more powerful on a second viewing, as we have more knowledge and context. Well edited movie.

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

I noticed that. Luckily for me, I watched it with subtitles and I realized that I have to rely on them for the whole movie. Otherwise, I would've missed half of the dialogue.

[–] Barclays (960) 7 years ago

What country did you watch it?

[–] letess (1089) 7 years ago

Mumbling. I couldn't understand a lot of the dialogue and needed subtitles. It had nothing to do with accents but it was just muffled. And it was muffled throughout the movie.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 7 years ago

I felt the dialogue was crystal clear... furthermore, the movie could be shown entirely witout dialogue and it wouldn't suffer too much... very visual storytelling, an anti-TV aesthetic... It really isn't interested at all in conveying information, or exposition, rather the focus is on mood and atmosphere...

more movies should be like this... visual storytelling

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

which style of theater did you see it in? It can all come down to how any specific theater sets their center audio channel (or whatever it is in theaters)

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

Renovatio:
Yeah, that's why I liked it. It sounds like a lot of people just didn't understand the English accents, since this is a British film (they can be hard to understand for us Americans or non-British, depending on where in the U.K. the actors are from.) . I grew up watching British films and still do, so I'm used to it---I didn't have a problem understanding anything they said.

[–] Martoto (4467) 7 years ago

I and a lot of my British friends have noticed it's a recurring issue with Nolan's films.

He tries to undercut otherwise perfunctory dialogue that is intended to move the plot along e.g. "You're going to go there and do that because ..[mufflemufflemufffleloudmusiccrescendo]..."

It's not a coincidence. Nolan has explained that he was trying to be impressionistic with the sound (good grief). It doesn't happen as much in Dunkirk but there is at least one moment where you're at the edge of your seat wondering what Rylance's character is going to say next and his voice suddenly drops in the mix when he's about to say something that seems important.