Dunkirk

Revolver66

Anyone seen this yet? Caught it last night. A superb piece of work. Everything about it is technically brilliant and it will no doubt clean up come awards time. Nolan creates an incredible amount of tension and suspense. This man has to direct a Bond flick. He would do a brilliant job. Also after seeing this I wouldn't mind at all if Tom Hardy was cast as Bond. He is the hero of the film and is such a cool presence. Make sure to see it! -{

Thunderpussy

Seems to be getting great reviews, hopefully I'll be able to catch it soon.

Matt S

I hear it's a good film, though it has offended some people due to the lack of women and people of colour.

[url]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/[/url]

welshboy78

Im offended as it has a member of 1 Direction in it

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

I hear it's a good film, though it has offended some people due to the lack of women and people of colour.

[url]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/[/url]

) Historical accuracy can be problematic, apparently.

JTM

Matt S wrote:

I hear it's a good film, though it has offended some people due to the lack of women and people of colour.

[url]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/[/url]

Ugh 8-)

Matt S

Loeffelholz wrote:

Matt S wrote:

I hear it's a good film, though it has offended some people due to the lack of women and people of colour.

[url]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/[/url]

) Historical accuracy can be problematic, apparently.

There are much worse things in history that should offend people than a country not having enough immigrants from distant parts of the world to enlist in their military.

I think some people find it offensive that an historical film that would only include white men could be made at all! I'm all for diversity and fairness to all races and genders, but I also appreciate history, and people's race and gender can't be changed without changing the story.

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Matt S wrote:

I hear it's a good film, though it has offended some people due to the lack of women and people of colour.

[url]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/17/review-christopher-nolan-excellent-dunkirk-explores-heroism-innovative-fashion/482574001/[/url]

) Historical accuracy can be problematic, apparently.

There are much worse things in history that should offend people than a country not having enough immigrants from distant parts of the world to enlist in their military.

I think some people find it offensive that an historical film that would only include white men could be made at all! I'm all for diversity and fairness to all races and genders, but I also appreciate history, and people's race and gender can't be changed without changing the story.

Totally agree {[] It's mildly astonishing that it's an issue at all, IMO. History should be preserved. Cheers

Number24

It seems like two elements have to be in historical movies and TV-series nowadays: drugs and people of colourful. Just look at Vikings. In the fourth season a Chinese woman join the cast...... and she brought opium!
It's all fine if it reflects actual history, but it shouldn't be included just because.

Thunderpussy

Agreed, History should be reflected as accurately as possible.

Number24

Well, that depends on the tone of the movie or TV-series. Wonder Woman, Blackadder or 300 don't presend to be very accurate, but they are very entertaining and they have their own style. But it does become problematic when history is changed for political/ideological reasons and not for artistic reasons.

Silhouette Man

I doubt there were many black immigrants in Britain at the time of Dunkirk (1940), so their lack of numbers in the BEF is really no surprise at all. But even historical accuracy has to kow-tow to the the PC-luvvie line these days, I guess.

Joshua

Speaking as a black man I am not offended. I must wonder who has complained? I wonder if the people complaining are black or white people who are offended. If it is white people who say they are offended then please stop speaking for me! This is more offensive than showing the real history!

I read some things on the military history and I think that there were some Indian soldiers in the British army in France at that time. I think they were not infantry soldiers but support units. They would not have been many.

Joshua

I find this:

http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/makingbritain/content/battle-and-evacuation-dunkirk-operation-dynamo

I think the Indians have more to be offended than black people or women. I think they are strong enough not to complain though!

Joshua

I also wonder if the people complain that there was not enough black men or women in the Nazi army in this film? ?:)

Number24

Many men from the colonies fought for Britain in WWII and they made a great contribution to the war effortlessly. But I doubt any of them were a part of the British Expeditionary Force in France. This was very early in the war and troops from Asia and Africa weren't involved in the fighting yet.
But I do know the French Foreign Legion fought in the battle of Narvik in Norway even before Dunkirk. Troops from outside Europe could have been among them, I suppose.

Joshua

Yes they did. This below is from the link of the Open University that I posted just in case you did not read that. I knew about this before from reading about World War Two. The information for this Open University post is from the Imperial War Museum who I think will know the facts.


Four contingents of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps were sent to support the British Expeditionary Force in France in 1940. There was a need for animal transport companies to help with the supply of troops, as the British Army had disbanded its animal transport companies after the First World War. The British, French and Canadian Forces were cut off by advancing German troops in their push towards the Channel. The soldiers retreated to the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk from where 338,226 were evacuated, among them three contingents of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps, while one contingent was taken prisoner by German forces.

The Indian troops were subsequently stationed in various locations in the UK and received press and publicity coverage. They stayed in the UK until the end of 1943 to help on the home front. Their presence is not well documented in historical writing, however newspaper coverage and photographic evidence held at the Imperial War Museum attests to their presence. Their conduct is invariably praised, especially their bravery and discipline amidst the chaos at Dunkirk. In many ways, the Indian Army Service Corps contribution marks the beginning of India’s significant contribution to the Second World War and precedes the arrival of twenty-four Indian pilots who would train at RAF Cranwell in September 1940 to join the RAF.

Joshua

This also from the politician of Liberal Democrats Paddy Ashdown

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/08/patrickwintour

Joshua

There will have been no Africans or black men from the Caribbean in France in 1940 at Dunkirk, only the British and the French troops and those few Indian troops also. I think the French army also used troops from Africa and Arabian territory but I do not know if they would have been fighting in France in 1940.

Number24

Very interesting and informative. Now I've learnt something new. Thanks, Joshua
I'd like to know if non-white soldiers really fought at Narvik. I'll check with a history forum I'm a member of. (Yes, I sometimes cheat on AJB :v)

Number24

While there were non-white members of the Foreign Legion in the 1930's, they were mainly from north Africa. The 13th Demibrigade that fought in Narvik was formed to fight the Soviets in Finland and was dominated by Germans and Slavs. This is from people who are even bigger history-nerds than I am.

Joshua

I think Narvik is the battle in Norway? I read about World War Two and watch many programmes on the television about the battles of World War Two. I did look and find this film of the Indian support troops in France in 1940 from the news of that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWospST9pHg

I think that the Indian troops and especially the Sikhs were brave soldiers. I think the Sikhs were prized as warriors. But in France they were just the support troops and not the infantry.

Revolver66

I agree the lack of diversity complaint is political correctness gone mad. Ridiculous criticism

Number24

Joshua wrote:

I think Narvik is the battle in Norway? I read about World War Two and watch many programmes on the television about the battles of World War Two. I did look and find this film of the Indian support troops in France in 1940 from the news of that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWospST9pHg

I think that the Indian troops and especially the Sikhs were brave soldiers. I think the Sikhs were prized as warriors. But in France they were just the support troops and not the infantry.

I haven't read much about the troops from India, but it's my impression too that many fought well.
Narvik is in Norway and is the shipping harbour for Swedish iron. Norwegian soldiers fought alongside British infantry, the Foreign Legion and Polish mountain troops. The battle of Narvik was the first battle Germany won, but when Hitler attacked France the allied troops left and Norway lost completely.

I'll watch "Dunkirk" next week. Have you seen the movie, Joshua? Or has anyone else seen it?

Chriscoop

Revolver66 wrote:

I agree the lack of diversity complaint is political correctness gone mad. Ridiculous criticism

It is ridiculous, I could understand fully if there was a genuine Dunkirk story of a non white person who played a vital role saving troops or fearlessly fighting and it was not included n the film! But no such story exists, you can't skew history to make a film of it politicaly correct to modern mind sets. There is a brilliant film called glory about a regiment made up entirely of freed slaves who fought against the confederates in the US civil war of course it was cast using the best black acting of the time, if it were made now should it include some white actors and some oriental actors and maybe some actresses to please everyone? No of course it shouldn't be.

Saying all that, I'm really looking forward to seeing Dunkirk. It looks like a great if harrowing film it's been a long time since the opening scenes of saving private Ryan have been equalled for realism.

walther p99

Saw Dunkirk the night before opening day in 70mm and absolutely loved it. Its really relentless and suspenseful and Zimmer's score helps keeps you on edge throughout. Tom Hardy steals the screen and shows so much emotion with just his eyes. Already bought tickets to see it again in IMAX tomorrow.

Joshua

Number24 wrote:

Joshua wrote:

I think Narvik is the battle in Norway? I read about World War Two and watch many programmes on the television about the battles of World War Two. I did look and find this film of the Indian support troops in France in 1940 from the news of that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWospST9pHg

I think that the Indian troops and especially the Sikhs were brave soldiers. I think the Sikhs were prized as warriors. But in France they were just the support troops and not the infantry.

I haven't read much about the troops from India, but it's my impression too that many fought well.
Narvik is in Norway and is the shipping harbour for Swedish iron. Norwegian soldiers fought alongside British infantry, the Foreign Legion and Polish mountain troops. The battle of Narvik was the first battle Germany won, but when Hitler attacked France the allied troops left and Norway lost completely.

I'll watch "Dunkirk" next week. Have you seen the movie, Joshua? Or has anyone else seen it?

Ah Yes. Thank you. I remember now that Norway was attacked before France.

No I haven't seen the Dunkirk film and when I do I do not expect to see any black soldiers. In fact I would be offended if i did see black soldiers as I think that would be to disrespect the history if no black soldiers were there. I would not think it disrepectful to see perhaps one or two Indian faces as they were there, but to me this is not nesesary anyway as they were only a few.

It is like making the film of the war in the DRC in which I took part for a short time in a small way but making it with some white men when no white men were there. I like to study history and I said before to do this when it is not real to history is the real offence. Why not complain about not seeing black men or women in the Germans side? Why not insist that hitler or Churchill is black? This is as stupid as saying you must see black men at Dunkirk!

I saw the film about Robin Hood and the main helper was a black man. I think this was stupid. I know this is only legend but I even think this is stupid. I think the black man would have been never seen in england at that time so why to make the character black?

Joshua

walther p99 wrote:

Saw Dunkirk the night before opening day in 70mm and absolutely loved it. Its really relentless and suspenseful and Zimmer's score helps keeps you on edge throughout. Tom Hardy steals the screen and shows so much emotion with just his eyes. Already bought tickets to see it again in IMAX tomorrow.

This is Tom Hardy who perhaps to be the next James Bond?

I just add to this. I think James Bond should only be a white man. And that not ever played by a black man or other persons who are not white.

The Domino Effect

To get an idea of what brilliant and brave soldiers the Indians and Nepalese were you only have to read a bit about those that were awarded the Victoria Cross. Some incredible stories of courage.

As for Dunkirk...I saw it last night and it's incredible. Not an easy film to watch. I felt rather emotionally exhausted afterwards because it's so tense. But brilliantly done.

Interestingly enough, there was one black soldier amongst the French troops that I noticed in the film.

Revolver66

Chriscoop wrote:

Revolver66 wrote:

I agree the lack of diversity complaint is political correctness gone mad. Ridiculous criticism

It is ridiculous, I could understand fully if there was a genuine Dunkirk story of a non white person who played a vital role saving troops or fearlessly fighting and it was not included n the film! But no such story exists, you can't skew history to make a film of it politicaly correct to modern mind sets. There is a brilliant film called glory about a regiment made up entirely of freed slaves who fought against the confederates in the US civil war of course it was cast using the best black acting of the time, if it were made now should it include some white actors and some oriental actors and maybe some actresses to please everyone? No of course it shouldn't be.

Saying all that, I'm really looking forward to seeing Dunkirk. It looks like a great if harrowing film it's been a long time since the opening scenes of saving private Ryan have been equalled for realism.

It is a taxing watch however it's only a 100 minutes so it goes quickly. Also there is no blood and gore in it whatsoever, which makes it an easier watch than Saving Private Ryan in my opinion. Check it!

Jag

Revolver66 wrote:

I agree the lack of diversity complaint is political correctness gone mad. Ridiculous criticism

I would like to ask if the alleged lack of diversity complaint has actually been made by anyone, or if it is just more right-wing propaganda.