• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dunkirk and its whitewashing of history...

R

Ravensmash

Member
Preezy said:
OP article is garbage. The Guardian is a terrible newspaper (aren't they all).
Click to expand...

Nah, The Guardian is pretty damn good overall.

Their comment is free section does throw up the occasional clanger though - some of which just feel like pure click bait.

There was a ludicrous article about the racism of Thomas the Tank Engine once...
 
M

munchie64

Member
Must say that this complaint is a hell of a lot better than that other article posted here awhile ago about ignoring all the good parts of the movie.

I think I saw POC during like one scene.
 
L

Llyranor

Member
Thaedolus said:
I can get that, I just wonder where the line is drawn? At what point do we have enough representation of X Y or Z in the lines queuing up to get on a ship? And how do we check on how accurate that distribution in the line is? Who gets to decide if the final cut meets the definition of accurate vs. white washed?

Like, I get that historical accuracy is important and tends to favor a certain narrative depending on who is making the film (often being whitey = good) but where do you draw the line between "this is a Brit's perspective of this event" and "this event has been whitewashed!!"? I simply feel, from my impression of the film, it was so narrowly focused that I don't know how it could have been more diversified in such a way that isn't totally on the nose and taking away from what it was going for.
Click to expand...
1) the first line should be drawn above zero.

2) We are talking about subjects of the British Empire. Good enough to plunder for a century, not good enough to be allowed a small kudos in the public consciousness of the Dunkirk myth. The movie is just a movie, it has no moral obligation, but it absolutely helps perpetuate this public perception that only white Brits helped make Dunkirk happen and can be criticized for it while still appreciating the movie's strong points. Rather than any overt racism, it's probably that the people involved also grew up with this perception as well.
 
B

Barzul

Member
Napoleonthechimp said:
Why? Is this seriously the logic of some complaining about this?

No. They wouldn't surely have been at Dunkirk. This was a global war stretching across a continent. It also predates the immigration that came post-war from countries outside of Europe, the same immigration that has led to what multicultural identity Britain has in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

There's a reason I asked the question. I was looking for answers. No need to be condescending, I wasn't complaining either.
 
M

MassiveNights

Banned
This thread is frustrating as it appears people are completely ignoring the statistics of colonial armies actually at Dunkirk to make a hackneyed, emotional response.

Whitewashing absolutely exists in films but I am not sure it exists in Dunkirk.

The French army points are more valid although I can see the argument that the film has a laser focus on one aspect of the evacuation.
 
W

WrenchNinja

Member
KarneeKarnay said:
I don't think men or women have a dong of righteousness in real life. I mean you might by the way your retort make no sense.

Actually upon reflection of the article, it doesn't bring up the authors own race once. So what you just posted makes no sense.

99d9d1_9331063f210a451e8fb55f2ed9421838.jpg


That Ice, that's how I know you no chill. See what I mean. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Dude just own up to your own idiocy instead of doubling down.
 
L

Llyranor

Member
jakonovski said:
The one good insight here is, maybe the UK should be more thankful to ex colonial minorities.
Click to expand...

Spaced Harrier said:
Or you know, the fucking french!
Click to expand...
They could have not sunk the French navy (including the Dunkerque, ironically) a month after Dunkirk, for starters :( Now THAT would have tickled some Brexiters' fancy if shown in a film.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir


MassiveNights said:
This thread is frustrating as it appears people are completely ignoring the statistics of colonial armies actually at Dunkirk to make a hackneyed, emotional response.

Whitewashing absolutely exists in films but I am not sure it exists in Dunkirk.
Click to expand...
Is it as frustrating as being told you didn't contribute enough and shouldn't be allowed to ask for a small seat at the table?
 
W

WrenchNinja

Member
MassiveNights said:
This thread is frustrating as it appears people are completely ignoring the statistics of colonial armies actually at Dunkirk to make a hackneyed, emotional response.

Whitewashing absolutely exists in films but I am not sure it exists in Dunkirk.

The French army points are more valid although I can see the argument that the film has a laser focus on one aspect of the evacuation.
Click to expand...
Why do the statistics matter for historical fiction? I thought this wasn't supposed to be wholly accurate?
 
M

MassiveNights

Banned
Llyranor said:
Is it as frustrating as being told you didn't contribute enough and shouldn't be allowed to ask for a small seat at the table?
Click to expand...

What does portraying 0.5% of the total forces look like to you in the context of this film?

As far as I know the total forces are not shown, it doesn't have that kind of scale.

I am not sure what people are looking for here.
 
J

jakonovski

Member
MassiveNights said:
What does portraying 0.5% of the total forces look like to you in the context of this film?

As far as I know the total forces are not shown, it doesn't have that kind of scale.

I am not sure what people are looking for here.
Click to expand...

This is like the third time: 25% of the merchant navy was lascars (ie. minorities). One of the most celebrated ships of the evacuation was crewed by Indian lascars and eventually sunk.
 
L

Llyranor

Member
MassiveNights said:
What does portraying 0.5% of the total forces look like to you in the context of this film?

As far as I know the total forces are not shown, it doesn't have that kind of scale.

I am not sure what people are looking for here.
Click to expand...
If the argument is that the movie should be as historically accurate as possible, 0.5% of hundreds of thousands of people is way more than zero

If the argument is that it's just a movie showing a specific experience, and that in showing that experience you have the option to either completely remove that contribution, or present it as a small kudos that might even be above the historical statistics as a creative decision, why defend the former decision? Even if you don't care about Indians not being shown, why are you frustrated that some people would have liked to have them shown?
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
This movie was just Nolan looking for another take on Gravity and its success. No time for historical accuracy that could impact its success or its propagandish tone.
 
S

SteveWD40

Member
The US have been taking heat for this for a while, most WW2 films depicting the US winning the war single handedly.

This is no different and probably not as deliberate or insidious as suggested (most of the media / film industry was pro Remain), just filmmakers not thinking through their casting / scripting decisions.
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
Inferno313 said:
Dunkirk is better than Gravity, imo.

I also think the better point of comparison is Fury Road, personally.
Click to expand...

don't see the Fury Road comparisons outside of the pacing of the movie. Mad Max is much more character centric than Dunkirk despite being such a lean film.

it is better than Gravity though, I agree. and all 3 were such good experiences in theaters.
 
KarneeKarnay

KarneeKarnay

Member
WrenchNinja said:
Dude just own up to your own idiocy instead of doubling down.
Click to expand...

What did I say that made no sense? You can disagree with me, but you can't call me out on something I haven't done. All I've done is respond to someone you thought the imagery I was describing, somehow meant I've not read the article, because the author is a woman. (This last point is not brought up at all in the whole article. I'm mature enough to look past gender and upon finding out the author is female, has not changed my opinion on the imagery I described, in the slightest.)
 
C

Chasm Skulker

Banned
Miles Quaritch said:
The movie does have a very strong 'England prevails' feel to it. Intentional or not, it's there.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?

It's not even a celebration of victory or conquest, it's a story of rescue and bravery in the face of disaster. It's not even overtly flag wavy or jingoistic.

I don't understand how culturally masochistic you have to be to accuse it of being fascist in its depiction of the events. Jesus Christ.
 
I

Inferno313

Banned
Chasm Skulker said:
What does this even mean?

It's not even a celebration of victory or conquest, it's a story of rescue and bravery in the face of disaster. It's not even overtly flag wavy or jingoistic.

I don't understand how culturally masochistic you have to be to accuse it of being fascist in its depiction of the events. Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't see how anyone can come away from this movie thinking it's jingoistic or pro-war. I think this film captures the horrors of war better than a lot of much bloodier films in a way. When I first saw it, my reaction was that it wasn't just Nolan's first war film, but also his first horror film. I found it to be a more harrowing experience than any horror film I've seen in the last few years.

Discotheque said:
don't see the Fury Road comparisons outside of the pacing of the movie. Mad Max is much more character centric than Dunkirk despite being such a lean film.

it is better than Gravity though, I agree. and all 3 were such good experiences in theaters.
Click to expand...

Honestly? It probably is mostly the scale of the action combined with the pacing. I think the way that Fury Road continually amps up the action and thrills as it goes on is very similar to how Dunkirk ratchets up the tension further and further as it goes. Agreed though, Dunkirk, Fury Road, and Gravity were all great experiences.
 
M

Mr. Sam

Member
I still feel awful for criticising Joanna Lumley's Ghurka Justice Campaign a few years but I was young and dumb and part of the territory of being young and dumb is being young and dumb (and a prick).

I'll be seeing this film tonight, having booked the ticket a while back.

I think it's unfortunate how many people seem to be wilfully misunderstanding the premise of the article.
 
Thaedolus

Thaedolus

Member
Llyranor said:
1) the first line should be drawn above zero.

2) We are talking about subjects of the British Empire. Good enough to plunder for a century, not good enough to be allowed a small kudos in the public consciousness of the Dunkirk myth. The movie is just a movie, it has no moral obligation, but it absolutely helps perpetuate this public perception that only white Brits helped make Dunkirk happen and can be criticized for it while still appreciating the movie's strong points. Rather than any overt racism, it's probably that the people involved also grew up with this perception as well.
Click to expand...

I think with #1 it was. #2 is fair enough. At least it reflects that nothing felt deliberate about it.

Also Gravity sucks.
 
B

Barzul

Member
Llyranor said:
Apparently Nigerians mostly saw fighting in East Africa and Asia, especially in Burma. Over half of the West African troops in Asia were Nigerian. Can't see anything about Dunkirk.
Click to expand...

Great thanks for the info. I never actually looked deep into it, watching the movie just reminded me of some stories I heard as a kid.
 
A

Alo0oy

Banned
This isn't new for Nolan, Bane was played by a white guy instead of a Hispanic Guy, Ras Al Ghul and Talia were played by white people instead of Middle Eastern.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
It's worth remembering that the BEF - the British Expeditionary Force - was basically our professional army before the war (as opposed to masses of troops scrabbled together via conscription as per later on). They existed before the war and were sent to France pretty much as is. So whilst there ended up being enormous numbers of troops fighting either as part of the British military or as part of a commonwealth military effectively under orders of the UK who were PoC, the BEF itself would have been almost entirely white British people. I'm sure there were some exceptions, but they would be very limited in number.
 
E

Erheller

Member
Llyranor said:
They could have not sunk the French navy (including the Dunkerque, ironically) a month after Dunkirk, for starters :( Now THAT would have tickled some Brexiters' fancy if shown in a film.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir



Is it as frustrating as being told you didn't contribute enough and shouldn't be allowed to ask for a small seat at the table?
Click to expand...

Or shipped half of the French soldiers they "saved" back to France, leaving them to be captured or killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#Aftermath
 
K

Kaswa101

Member
Chasm Skulker said:
What does this even mean?

It's not even a celebration of victory or conquest, it's a story of rescue and bravery in the face of disaster. It's not even overtly flag wavy or jingoistic.

I don't understand how culturally masochistic you have to be to accuse it of being fascist in its depiction of the events. Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

This.

Stupid article. Controversy for the sake of controversy.
 
J

jtb

Banned
The question I asked when I saw the film wasn't "Why did Nolan omit minorities and minorities from Dunkirk" but rather "What about Dunkirk did Nolan find to make for a compelling story?"

I didn't see any shred of politicization or political ideology within Dunkirk, because I don't think the film has any ideas, period. It's not about anything. It exists in a vacuum away from society, from blood, from politics - until the point where it doesn't. It's a very strange decision and one that rings rather hollow towards the end.

It's a set piece in search of a point or a plot. With a stronger thesis (or any kind of ideas at all), the film would be able to sidestep these questions much more adeptly. Instead, there's no "why" for why the film exists sans minorities because there's no "why" for why the film exists at all.

wazoo said:
The correct term would be "art can be political". It does not mean it has to be.
Click to expand...

I'd find this argument more compelling if Dunkirk wasn't a film set within the single most important geopolitical event of the 20th century.
 
W

wazoo

Member
jtb said:
I'd find this argument more compelling if Dunkirk wasn't a film set within the single most important geopolitical event of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

First, you have to prove that it is "the single most etc", but I let you that. (by the way are you talking about Dunkirk or WW2 as a whole ?)

Second, you have to decide that every story told during that period is a political story. I can tell you that it is already not the case for books, songs and movies happening during that period, so Dunkirk (the movie) is not an outlier.
 
J

jtb

Banned
wazoo said:
First, you have to prove that it is "the single most etc", but I let you that. (by the way are you talking about Dunkirk or WW2 as a whole ?)

Second, you have to decide that every story told during that period is a political story. I can tell you that it is already not the case for books, songs and movies happening during that period, so Dunkirk (the movie) is not an outlier.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about World War II.

Yes, every story told during that period is a political story because it exists within the political context - of course, some stories engage more directly with it than others. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is a political story. The Diary of Anne Frank is a political story. etc.
 
A

Albino_Yeti

Member
Really don't get the jingoism/propaganda accusations at all. It's a movie about Dunkirk. The British did not win the battle of Dunkirk. It's considered a miracle because they managed to retreat. And it's not like they are fighting a controversial foe. The enemy is Nazi Germany for fucks sake. Are we suppose to not root for the British? Not every war movie is jingoistic. Showing support for the military is not inherently jingoistic.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Albino_Yeti said:
Really don't get the jingoism/propaganda accusations at all. It's a movie about Dunkirk. The British did not win the battle of Dunkirk. It's considered a miracle because they managed to retreat. And it's not like they are fighting a controversial foe. The enemy is Nazi Germany for fucks sake. Are we suppose to not root for the British? Not every war movie is jingoistic. Showing support for the military is not inherently jingoistic.
Click to expand...

Plus there aren't many wars that are more justifiable and easy to get behind than WW2. It's why I'm so surprised when I've seen peoples' takeaway from Dunkirk being "It shows the futility of war". No, it shows the incredibly damaging nature of war, but World War 2 was far from futile. It was a war against the real-life inspiration between cartoon villains everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Happy Independence Day, GAF
48
2K
German Hops replied
Duae Historiae Antiquae - The History Of The World In Two Moments
Opinion Drama Event
1
723
German Hops replied
Napoleon Bonaparte: History's Greatest Simp
31
5K
dead monkey uk replied
Starfield Q&A on Discord Details
15
2K
balls of snow replied
Starfield Devs Q&A Session
37
3K
Hendrick's replied
Top Bottom