I don't think any revisionists have risen yet... It was the usual anti-PC crowd who expected some uproar, they must be really disappointed.
I was reading an article about Dunkirk the other day and it included about half-a-dozen tweets from people complaining that the whole film was just two hours white men etc, so this is clearly not some anti-PC fake news.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
+1 for Joshua and Domino Effect's posts. It's obvious that this reviewer didn't just intend to start a conversation about this real and polarizing issue, but that he deliberately lit a match to make his piece go viral, which frankly, effectively demoted himself to a common hack. C'mon, after laying that "suggestion" of impropriety, he didn't do much to articulate a reasonable argument to expound on his "statement" obviously in a attempt to keep his hands clean by saying that others (and not him) might take issue with the film's lack of diversity. Well, just by Googling "USA Today" and "Dunkirk," you'll see that he received his 15 minutes of fame, aided by the outlets who likewise picked up on it while keeping their own hands clean with their "USA Today said... " and ultimately generating lively discourses from the full spectrum of the argument.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I just saw the film, and I enjoyed it a great deal. For the record there is one black soldier with the French troops--so obviously he comes from the colonies--and I think I counted two female nurses. . .but, y' know what, who cares? I was interested in the story and in what was happening, and those things gripped me.
One of the few films I will go and see again. I saw a 35mm print in my small local which was crammed full, average age 50+.
There were definitely some tears from the cinemagoers, especially when the Zimmer synthesizer score riffed on Elgar when the boats were arriving at Dunkirk. Oh dear. Cough. Cough. Lots of throats being cleared.
I had tingles throughout the entire movie, even in such a small cinema, without a strong sound system. I went in expecting a ho hum experience, but I have to say it floored me unlike any movie I've seen for years. The last time I choked like that in a cinema was during Skyfall when Dench was quoting Tennyson and then later when the Aston Martin was racing through the Scottish countryside
Honestly, I always thought Nolan was overrated, but this completely changed my view of him.
Zimmer's score is extraordinary, just a relentless, pulsing presence throughout the movie.
Dear Mr Nolan: Please make a Bond movie. Some time soon.
I don't think any revisionists have risen yet... It was the usual anti-PC crowd who expected some uproar, they must be really disappointed.
I was reading an article about Dunkirk the other day and it included about half-a-dozen tweets from people complaining that the whole film was just two hours white men etc, so this is clearly not some anti-PC fake news.
It turns out that the more we dig, the more we find out that there not only white men at Dunkirk... And in fact there were quite a number...
I am not the anti PC crowd. I am a black African. No black soldiers were with the British army at Dunkirk. This is truth, so why does it have to be said so if it is against the real history? I am not offended that no black men are in this film because they wasn't there during this time. If there were black soldiers at Dunkirk then I would have expected to see even only one or two in the film, but there weren't. I would like to see if only one Indian face in the crowd as they were at Dunkirk, but only a few. I saw on the television that they are to make the Battle of Britain film again. This too should be the correct history. There were many men from nations all over the Europe and the world who was with the RAF, but no black pilots from Africa or other places. Should I be offended when I see none? I am more offended to see real history to be turned (I don't know the word to use) to make things 'PC'!
I say this before. I wonder if those doing the writing about this are black or white? If they are black then they are ignorant of the history. If they are white they are ignorant of the history or just want to ignore the history.
Given that before World War II Britain was still a colonial power, and that some people from the colonies lived in Britain, I really doubt that there were "No black soldiers were with the British army at Dunkirk" at all... But it would be interesting to see what real historians know.
I don't think any revisionists have risen yet... It was the usual anti-PC crowd who expected some uproar, they must be really disappointed.
I was reading an article about Dunkirk the other day and it included about half-a-dozen tweets from people complaining that the whole film was just two hours white men etc, so this is clearly not some anti-PC fake news.
It turns out that the more we dig, the more we find out that there not only white men at Dunkirk... And in fact there were quite a number...
Historian John Broich was quoted by the BBC as saying there were "maybe a few hundred" Indian troops at Dunkirk. But I'm sure the Guardian writer would just dismiss him as another white male. It's funny how it's not only quite alright to vilify one group based on their colour/gendre - ie white men - but socially acceptable and encouraged to do so in many corners. There were over 300,000 troops at Dunkirk, how many did we see in the film? A CGI-few thousand at most? It's ridiculous and absurd to complain that we didn't see any Indian or African troops in the film (we did actually see at least one French African soldier) when we also didn't see any Germans and very few French who were there in their hundreds of thousands because this film chose to concentrate on small groups of British troops.
As for the writer's swipe at the merchant navy which had many non-white faces, well, the merchant navy didn't really feature in the film. I saw small private vessels, yachts, fishing boats and Royal Navy ships but didn't see many close-ups of merchant navy ships. I'm sure some would argue that that was a conscience decision by the imperialist Nolan so he wouldn't have to taint the film with non-white faces but in reality it likely had more to do with the romance of fishing boats and pleasure yachts coming to the rescue and not some racist conspiracy.
Indian, African and Caribbean troops were outstanding in the war as any 20th century historian knows, but had a limited role in the British Army in Europe at the time of Dunkirk which happened very early on. There are plenty of WW2 stories in which they played a far greater role, but this film is on Dunkirk and is reasonably historically accurate.
To accuse Nolan of ignoring Indians in the film because he's a white male is ignorant and bigoted.
I am not the anti PC crowd. I am a black African. No black soldiers were with the British army at Dunkirk. This is truth, so why does it have to be said so if it is against the real history? I am not offended that no black men are in this film because they wasn't there during this time. If there were black soldiers at Dunkirk then I would have expected to see even only one or two in the film, but there weren't. I would like to see if only one Indian face in the crowd as they were at Dunkirk, but only a few. I saw on the television that they are to make the Battle of Britain film again. This too should be the correct history. There were many men from nations all over the Europe and the world who was with the RAF, but no black pilots from Africa or other places. Should I be offended when I see none? I am more offended to see real history to be turned (I don't know the word to use) to make things 'PC'!
I say this before. I wonder if those doing the writing about this are black or white? If they are black then they are ignorant of the history. If they are white they are ignorant of the history or just want to ignore the history.
Given that before World War II Britain was still a colonial power, and that some people from the colonies lived in Britain, I really doubt that there were "No black soldiers were with the British army at Dunkirk" at all... But it would be interesting to see what real historians know.
You may doubt all you like. I am satisfied there are no black soldiers with the British army at Dunkirk. I am not offended there are no black men in this film. I am not a real historian but I guess that neither are you. I think we would have already heard the opinion of the real historians if there was black soldiers at Dunkirk with the British army. This film has a lot of the publicity and I am sure the real historians would have spoken up before now as they have already done with the Indian soldiers.
African troops only in African regiments in Africa at that time, not in France. Caribean troops the same.
The war cabinet under the dithering neville chamberlain did not mobilise any of the colonial armed forces before Dunkirk. It was only after the evacuation of Dunkirk that the Gurkhas, the British Indian army or any regiments from the carribean or Africa were brought in, let's not forget the men evacuated from Dunkirk were the expeditionary force.
There were however a very small number of West Indian men serving in the Royal Navy and had been for many years previous to Dunkirk.
Just to add by the close of the war the British colonies and India ( by then not a crown colony) contributed over 4 million men, India alone ended up with over 2.5 million by 1945. Obviously these included, Canadian and Australian men and they fought all over the world not just in Europe.
I miss the days when a movie could be enjoyed (or not) without everyone dissecting it politically. Oh well, I may as well miss horse-drawn carriages.
Remarkable piece of journalism....... But only in its inaccuracies the world has gone completely insane, I fear what we will end up with is a completley dumbed down film industry which panders to the whims of these PC champions. Films will be cast not by merit but by colour and history overlooked so it can be all inclusive.
Other than the one sentence about the movie "Dunkirk" I think the article is good. Troops from outside Europe did play a role in WWII, especially in British service. I think it's interesting and well worth looking into. What is silly is the notion that because there were a few hundred Indian troops among the 400 000 on that beach, one must show them in the movie. If there were 50 000 or perhaps 100 000 troops from India in Dunkirk it would be questionable to not show them in the movie, but this is not the case.
Other than the one sentence about the movie "Dunkirk" I think the article is good. Troops from outside Europe did play a role in WWII, especially in British service. I think it's interesting and well worth looking into. What is silly is the notion that because there were a few hundred Indian troops among the 400 000 on that beach, one must show them in the movie. If there were 50 000 or perhaps 100 000 troops from India in Dunkirk it would be questionable to not show them in the movie, but this is not the case.
The whole subject of the colonial regiments and armies is interesting. There were over a million Indian soldiers who fought in ww1 also. There is a memorial to them in neuve chapele in France and at Sandhurst there is an Indian army memorial room.
It's really hard no to dissect a political movie politically... Given the timing the movie looks to me like a political commentary on Brexit, for instance. And we should be grateful that those silenced before now are beginning to be able to voice their opinions too.
Other than the one sentence about the movie "Dunkirk" I think the article is good. Troops from outside Europe did play a role in WWII, especially in British service. I think it's interesting and well worth looking into. What is silly is the notion that because there were a few hundred Indian troops among the 400 000 on that beach, one must show them in the movie. If there were 50 000 or perhaps 100 000 troops from India in Dunkirk it would be questionable to not show them in the movie, but this is not the case.
The whole subject of the colonial regiments and armies is interesting. There were over a million Indian soldiers who fought in ww1 also. There is a memorial to them in neuve chapele in France and at Sandhurst there is an Indian army memorial room.
I think I say this before. One million African soldiers also served for the British in WW2, the campaign they fought was against the Japanese. Not all these one million as many would have been for home defence in Africa to make sure that British army troops were free to fight. It is also sad that they were forgotten by the British after the war. White Africans I think served in many parts of the British military and some in the Battle of Britain as pilots.
It's really hard no to dissect a political movie politically... Given the timing the movie looks to me like a political commentary on Brexit, for instance. And we should be grateful that those silenced before now are beginning to be able to voice their opinions too.
I read this post three times and I am sorry to say I disagree. I think only you have these thoughts about a war film about a battle many years ago and try to make it about Brexit? It is about Dunkirk! Please why do you try to make political things out of this film and also seem very much disturbed that no black soldiers are in the film? I think this is not good to the memory of the soldiers who were at Dunkirk.
I ask a general question to everyone. Why must people think that black people are offended at everything if they are not shown on the films or television? This I cannot understand. I think it is white peoples trying to say what black people should or should not be offended at. If this is true then this is the most offensive thing of all! Please stop saying what me and my people should be offended at! We are not children and many of us know about real things not just films and television. If you want to be offended for the black man then please be offended at war and poverty and starvation under the dictators in Africa and how people have no freedom and are persecuted for trying to make things democratic. These are the real things to be offended at, not a film!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,913Chief of Staff
If you want to be offended for the black man then please be offended at war and poverty and starvation under the dictators in Africa and how people have no freedom and are persecuted for trying to make things democratic. These are the real things to be offended at, not a film!
If you want to be offended for the black man then please be offended at war and poverty and starvation under the dictators in Africa and how people have no freedom and are persecuted for trying to make things democratic. These are the real things to be offended at, not a film!
Dunkirk is a film that I have been waiting for, for a long time!
Since my early childhood I've been particularly interested in the first year of WWII, particularly the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain. I thought that the film was excellent, featuring a strong attention to detail and sense of realism. The superb build of tension and clever structure of the narrative make it a unique and interesting film creation as well. I thought that the film combined the suspense of a Hitchcock thriller with the large scale cinematographic mastery of a David Lean epic.
The film was also really well cast, and although it is a fairly large ensemble where no actor really steals the show, I thought each actor brought his role to screen with a sense of gravitas and reality.
My specific obsession is with WWII air combat, so I was particularly anticipating the aerial section of the film. This was superbly created. I thought that the days of WWII dogfights filmed with real aircraft were over, but this film proves that it need not be so. This is also the first time that I have ever seen genuine Mk1 Spitfires in a film depicting the first year of the war. For an aviation nerd that was great too.
Dunkirk is a film that I have been waiting for, for a long time!
Since my early childhood I've been particularly interested in the first year of WWII, particularly the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain. I thought that the film was excellent, featuring a strong attention to detail and sense of realism. The superb build of tension and clever structure of the narrative make it a unique and interesting film creation as well. I thought that the film combined the suspense of a Hitchcock thriller with the large scale cinematographic mastery of a David Lean epic.
The film was also really well cast, and although it is a fairly large ensemble where no actor really steals the show, I thought each actor brought his role to screen with a sense of gravitas and reality.
My specific obsession is with WWII air combat, so I was particularly anticipating the aerial section of the film. This was superbly created. I thought that the days of WWII dogfights filmed with real aircraft were over, but this film proves that it need not be so. This is also the first time that I have ever seen genuine Mk1 Spitfires in a film depicting the first year of the war. For an aviation nerd that was great too.
Nice post -{
I really enjoyed watching the movie & can't recall it making me think of Brexit in any way, shape or form - pretty much as Joshua has summed up in an earlier post ... In fact I find the comparison almost insulting to those brave & courageous souls who gave their lives fighting for the very democracy that ultimately afforded us the recent vote.
Quite right, I can't see it representing Brexit either though I can almost get an analogy out of it Brits leaving Europe. Only thing is then we were fighting in defence of Europe against a tyrannical despot and left due to being militarily out fought out gunned and relentlessly slaughtered. I don't see any similarity personally to that and leaving the Eu. What is ironic is that if Britain and the US hadn't stepped up back then there wouldn't be an EU at all.
I think many movies or books can be reflections of society at the time it was made. The James Bond books and stories can be seen as results of the cold war, escapism from the grey and regulated life for most at that time etc.
I've never checked to see how long it took Nolan to make this film, but I can absolutely guarantee that he thought of filming Dunkirk probably years before last summer's Brexit vote, that the script was finished long before the vote, that the financial backing was done ages before it and I would strongly suspect that filming had started before - or at the latest - immediately after Brexit. I have no idea of Nolan's politics or any comments he may have made regarding Brexit (I really don't care what celebrities think about politics - I prefer the opinions of political analysts and scholars while, although fully entitled to their opinions, celebrities can write songs and make movies), but I would be utterly shocked if the results of Brexit had any influence at all on his movie. I could be wrong, but I think people are trying to see something that's not there.
I've never checked to see how long it took Nolan to make this film, but I can absolutely guarantee that he thought of filming Dunkirk probably years before last summer's Brexit vote, that the script was finished long before the vote, that the financial backing was done ages before it and I would strongly suspect that filming had started before - or at the latest - immediately after Brexit. I have no idea of Nolan's politics or any comments he may have made regarding Brexit (I really don't care what celebrities think about politics - I prefer the opinions of political analysts and scholars while, although fully entitled to their opinions, celebrities can write songs and make movies), but I would be utterly shocked if the results of Brexit had any influence at all on his movie. I could be wrong, but I think people are trying to see something that's not there.
I agree. It is arguing about things that are not there but also trying to make statements about people which are not true. It is to disrespect the history and the soldiers who were there. I think it is sad to make the politics of this film. I have not seen the film yet but I have more respect for the soldiers who were there at that real battle to try to make things up to suit myself or my politics.
There was also an old film about Dunkirk which I have seen. Is this about Brexit? It is the same story after all - and no black men. I think at that times the British were coming out of Africa and other countries in the empire, is that film about that, the British leaving its colonies? No it is about Dunkirk.
I think you can convince your self that films, even the James Bond films, into having the meanings that are just not there if you look hard enough.
These things are seldom conciously about politics or society. I don't think Nolan sat down to write a war movie that's actually about Brexit. But he did sail from England to France in a small boat once. If Nolan spent a lot of time think about that trip, while also thinking a lot about Britain's place in Europe and the world it might subconciosly lead to the Dunkirk script. It's possible, we don't know.
Saw it for the third time in IMAX 70mm this past weekend. Definitely one of those films that has to be seen on the biggest possible screen. Probably the most intense and horrific film score I've ever heard, sounds more apt for a horror film then war but then again war is horror.
Just wondering what people think of my father's opinion. He's 86 and at the age of nine listened to news of Dunkirk on the radio in a Kansas farmhouse. Anyway, he pronounced himself disappointed because the movie establishes very little historical context and hardly ever calls the enemy by name. He finds this confusing and thinks young people (anyone under 35) will be lost because they don't know who is being fought and why. What do you young folk think?
Comments
I was reading an article about Dunkirk the other day and it included about half-a-dozen tweets from people complaining that the whole film was just two hours white men etc, so this is clearly not some anti-PC fake news.
There were definitely some tears from the cinemagoers, especially when the Zimmer synthesizer score riffed on Elgar when the boats were arriving at Dunkirk. Oh dear. Cough. Cough. Lots of throats being cleared.
I had tingles throughout the entire movie, even in such a small cinema, without a strong sound system. I went in expecting a ho hum experience, but I have to say it floored me unlike any movie I've seen for years. The last time I choked like that in a cinema was during Skyfall when Dench was quoting Tennyson and then later when the Aston Martin was racing through the Scottish countryside
Honestly, I always thought Nolan was overrated, but this completely changed my view of him.
Zimmer's score is extraordinary, just a relentless, pulsing presence throughout the movie.
Dear Mr Nolan: Please make a Bond movie. Some time soon.
It turns out that the more we dig, the more we find out that there not only white men at Dunkirk... And in fact there were quite a number...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes
Given that before World War II Britain was still a colonial power, and that some people from the colonies lived in Britain, I really doubt that there were "No black soldiers were with the British army at Dunkirk" at all... But it would be interesting to see what real historians know.
Historian John Broich was quoted by the BBC as saying there were "maybe a few hundred" Indian troops at Dunkirk. But I'm sure the Guardian writer would just dismiss him as another white male. It's funny how it's not only quite alright to vilify one group based on their colour/gendre - ie white men - but socially acceptable and encouraged to do so in many corners. There were over 300,000 troops at Dunkirk, how many did we see in the film? A CGI-few thousand at most? It's ridiculous and absurd to complain that we didn't see any Indian or African troops in the film (we did actually see at least one French African soldier) when we also didn't see any Germans and very few French who were there in their hundreds of thousands because this film chose to concentrate on small groups of British troops.
As for the writer's swipe at the merchant navy which had many non-white faces, well, the merchant navy didn't really feature in the film. I saw small private vessels, yachts, fishing boats and Royal Navy ships but didn't see many close-ups of merchant navy ships. I'm sure some would argue that that was a conscience decision by the imperialist Nolan so he wouldn't have to taint the film with non-white faces but in reality it likely had more to do with the romance of fishing boats and pleasure yachts coming to the rescue and not some racist conspiracy.
Indian, African and Caribbean troops were outstanding in the war as any 20th century historian knows, but had a limited role in the British Army in Europe at the time of Dunkirk which happened very early on. There are plenty of WW2 stories in which they played a far greater role, but this film is on Dunkirk and is reasonably historically accurate.
To accuse Nolan of ignoring Indians in the film because he's a white male is ignorant and bigoted.
You may doubt all you like. I am satisfied there are no black soldiers with the British army at Dunkirk. I am not offended there are no black men in this film. I am not a real historian but I guess that neither are you. I think we would have already heard the opinion of the real historians if there was black soldiers at Dunkirk with the British army. This film has a lot of the publicity and I am sure the real historians would have spoken up before now as they have already done with the Indian soldiers.
African troops only in African regiments in Africa at that time, not in France. Caribean troops the same.
There were however a very small number of West Indian men serving in the Royal Navy and had been for many years previous to Dunkirk.
Just to add by the close of the war the British colonies and India ( by then not a crown colony) contributed over 4 million men, India alone ended up with over 2.5 million by 1945. Obviously these included, Canadian and Australian men and they fought all over the world not just in Europe.
I miss the days when a movie could be enjoyed (or not) without everyone dissecting it politically. Oh well, I may as well miss horse-drawn carriages.
I think I say this before. One million African soldiers also served for the British in WW2, the campaign they fought was against the Japanese. Not all these one million as many would have been for home defence in Africa to make sure that British army troops were free to fight. It is also sad that they were forgotten by the British after the war. White Africans I think served in many parts of the British military and some in the Battle of Britain as pilots.
I read this post three times and I am sorry to say I disagree. I think only you have these thoughts about a war film about a battle many years ago and try to make it about Brexit? It is about Dunkirk! Please why do you try to make political things out of this film and also seem very much disturbed that no black soldiers are in the film? I think this is not good to the memory of the soldiers who were at Dunkirk.
I ask a general question to everyone. Why must people think that black people are offended at everything if they are not shown on the films or television? This I cannot understand. I think it is white peoples trying to say what black people should or should not be offended at. If this is true then this is the most offensive thing of all! Please stop saying what me and my people should be offended at! We are not children and many of us know about real things not just films and television. If you want to be offended for the black man then please be offended at war and poverty and starvation under the dictators in Africa and how people have no freedom and are persecuted for trying to make things democratic. These are the real things to be offended at, not a film!
Well said -{
Since my early childhood I've been particularly interested in the first year of WWII, particularly the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain. I thought that the film was excellent, featuring a strong attention to detail and sense of realism. The superb build of tension and clever structure of the narrative make it a unique and interesting film creation as well. I thought that the film combined the suspense of a Hitchcock thriller with the large scale cinematographic mastery of a David Lean epic.
The film was also really well cast, and although it is a fairly large ensemble where no actor really steals the show, I thought each actor brought his role to screen with a sense of gravitas and reality.
My specific obsession is with WWII air combat, so I was particularly anticipating the aerial section of the film. This was superbly created. I thought that the days of WWII dogfights filmed with real aircraft were over, but this film proves that it need not be so. This is also the first time that I have ever seen genuine Mk1 Spitfires in a film depicting the first year of the war. For an aviation nerd that was great too.
Nice post -{
I really enjoyed watching the movie & can't recall it making me think of Brexit in any way, shape or form - pretty much as Joshua has summed up in an earlier post ... In fact I find the comparison almost insulting to those brave & courageous souls who gave their lives fighting for the very democracy that ultimately afforded us the recent vote.
I agree. It is arguing about things that are not there but also trying to make statements about people which are not true. It is to disrespect the history and the soldiers who were there. I think it is sad to make the politics of this film. I have not seen the film yet but I have more respect for the soldiers who were there at that real battle to try to make things up to suit myself or my politics.
I think you can convince your self that films, even the James Bond films, into having the meanings that are just not there if you look hard enough.