• 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...

Thought this was interesting.

What a surprise that Nigel Farage has endorsed the new fantasy-disguised-as-historical war film, Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan's movie is an inadvertently timely, thinly veiled Brexiteer fantasy in which plucky Britons heroically retreat from the dangerous shores of Europe. Most importantly, it pushes the narrative that it was Britain as it exists today – and not the one with a global empire – that stood alone against the ”European peril".

To do so, it erases the Royal Indian Army Services Corp companies, which were not only on the beach, but tasked with transporting supplies over terrain that was inaccessible for the British Expeditionary Force's motorised transport companies. It also ignores the fact that by 1938, lascars – mostly from South Asia and East Africa – counted for one of four crewmen on British merchant vessels, and thus participated in large numbers in the evacuation.

But Nolan's erasures are not limited to the British. The French army deployed at Dunkirk included soldiers from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and other colonies, and in substantial numbers. Some non-white faces are visible in one crowd scene, but that's it. The film forgets the racialised pecking order that determined life and death for both British and French colonial troops at Dunkirk and after it.

This is important, firstly, because it is a matter of factual accuracy in what purports to be an historical portrayal – and also because it was the colonial troops who were crucial in averting absolute catastrophe for the allies. It is also important because, more than history books and school lessons, popular culture shapes and informs our imagination not only of the past, but of our present and future.

A vast, all-white production such as Nolan's Dunkirk is not an accident. Such a big budget film is a product of many hundreds of small and large decisions in casting, production, directing and editing. Perhaps Nolan chose to follow the example of the original allies in the second world war who staged a white-only liberation of Paris even though 65% of the Free French Army troops were from West Africa. Perhaps such a circumscribed, fact-free imagination is a product of rewriting British history over the past decades, not in the least by deliberate policies including Operation Legacy? Knowingly or not, Nolan walks in the footsteps of both film directors and politicians who have chosen to whitewash the past.

Why is it so important that the covering fire be provided by white French troops rather than North African and Middle Eastern ones? Those non-white faces I mentioned earlier – they were French troops scrabbling to board British boats to escape. The echoes of modern politics are easy to see in the British-first policy of the initial retreat that left French troops at the mercy of the Nazis. In reality, non-white troops were at the back of the queue for evacuation, and far more likely to be caught and murdered by Nazi soldiers than their white colleagues who were able to blend into the crowd.

Could we still see our neighbours as less than human if we also saw them fight shoulder-to-shoulder with ”our boys" in the ”good" war? Would we call those fleeing war ”cockroaches" and demand gunboats to stop them from reaching our white cliffs if we knew they had died for the freedoms we hold so dear? More importantly, would anti-immigration sentiment be so easy to weaponise, even by the left – in the past and the present – if the decent, hardworking Britons knew and recognised how much of their lives, safety and prosperity are results of non-British sacrifices? In a deeply divided, fearful Britain, Nolan's directorial choices succeed as a Brexiteer costume fantasy, but they fail to tell the story of Operation Dynamo, the war, and Britain. More importantly, they fail us all, as people and a nation.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes

Seems an odd decision by Nolan to whitewash events. I wonder what the motivation was.
 
Curious. Interesting topic, and point to bring up, but the way the article is worded - to me - suggests it was designed as a Brexiteer film...and the movie was filmed since late 2015 I think : /

Before I saw some of these articles, I had no idea about the contribution of non-white soldiers...which says a lot about my education (>_> <_<) but also a lot about a supposedly meticulously researched film that Nolan's had a script for since before he made Memento.

Edit: I think the "England prevails" thing is so deliberately a callback to the slogans and patriotism at the time.
 
Arguments are valid. I pondered the same thing while watching the movie. The one scene on the dock with "clearly" non-white actors was jarring. It only distilled my concerns and questions about minorities role in the conflict and evacuation. As I am a minority, I felt it was a missed opportunity.

However, besides my initial viewing where the audience was diverse in race, ethnicity, and age, other times the audience was composed of veterans themselves who were all non-minority. Studios, and Nolan, probably predicted that this movie would mores draw of that audience. An audience that might have had personal experiences with non-white servicemen, experiences that might cause them to reject a narrative with a prominent non-white actor.
 
The movie did make the French look like a bunch of assholes. But nonetheless I know nothing of Dunkirk outside of the movie.
 

Jonnax

Member
Its about England's spirit during WW2, not Brexit.

This is ridiculous.

Well the article talks about how the film removes all the non-whites that were involved.

Therefore it's a Brexitier's fantasy.

Nothing about the nation's spirit at the time.
 
WW2 has been propaganda for the Brits, American, Russians and Japanese for 70 years.

So it's nothing new, U571, is a good example of a historical rewrite between allies/skintone buddies ;)

It's an interesting concept the removal of the non "whites" from the history books.
In a different direction, in Ireland, the contribution made by Irish people in WWI and WWII has been downplayed since the creation of the country, as it didn't align with the prevailing ideologies.
 
I'm of two minds on this. Yes, Dunkirk is a very white, very male film. And, I can understand being turned off by that. For example, considering that we see women on many of the British Civilian Ships at the end, I thought during my screening of the film that there was a missed opportunity to have the Mark Rylance character accompanied by, or even outright replaced by, a woman.

However, I'm also of the opinion that specificity strengthens stories. Dunkirk is, specifically, the story of the British soldiers at Dunkirk. That's the film's PoV. To say: "Why wasn't the French army shown more??" Well, that's specifically not what the film is about.

Not every film needs to be about everything all of the time. I don't think it's fair to say that the film "forgets" the "racialised pecking order that determined life and death for both British and French colonial troops at Dunkirk and after it." It's simply that it's not interested in that idea in the same way that it's not interested in the violent horrors of war that we're used to seeing in the genre relative to the psychological horrors of war. A big reason that the film works as well as it does is because of it's laser-tight focus on one idea: survival in the face of near-certain doom.

If another filmmaker wants to make the story of the French soldiers at Dunkirk, and portray another side of the event, then I would absolutely love to see that.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Its about England's spirit during WW2, not Brexit.

This is ridiculous.

I have not seen Dunkirk, but the article is commending on both the historical accuracy, and modern context of those inaccuracies. The latter of which is, at best, very unfortunate given the Brexit fiasco. It feeds into the narrative of white British needing to separate from Europe, whereas a historically accurate depiction would not.
 
I still don't understand how people consider Nolan an intellectual filmmaker and compare to Kubrick. None of his films seem at all intellectually honest or deep in any sense to me.
 

wandering

Banned
I can't comment on the film itself but I do think that a lot of British media does have a problem in dealing with Britain's colonial past.

Reminds me of hearing about the Gurkhas and their struggle to win the right to settle in the UK after having risked their lives for the British Army.
 
I'm of two minds on this. Yes, Dunkirk is a very white, very male film. And, I can understand being turned off by that. For example, considering that we see women on many of the British Civilian Ships at the end, I thought during the film itself that there was a missed opportunity to have the Mark Rylance character accompanied by, or even outright replaced by, a woman.

However, I'm also of the opinion that specificity strengthens stories. Dunkirk is, specifically, the story of the British soldiers at Dunkirk. That's the film's PoV. To say: "Why wasn't the French army shown more??" Well, that's specifically not what the film is about.

Not every film needs to be about everything all of the time. I don't think it's fair to say that the film "forgets" the "racialised pecking order that determined life and death for both British and French colonial troops at Dunkirk and after it." It's simply that it's not interested in that idea in the same way that it's not interested in the violent horrors of war that we're used to seeing in the genre relative to the psychological horrors of war. A big reason that the film works as well as it does is because of it's laser-tight focus on one idea: survival in the face of near-certain doom.

If another filmmaker wants to make the story of the French soldiers at Dunkirk, and portray another side of the event, then I would absolutely love to see that.
If you stray so far away from what was historical than isn't the argument valid that its a fantasy disguised as a historically accurate film?

I understand the need to filter out things however, for a film about survival, the impact that race had on ones chances of achieving this doesn't seem worth exploring in this context?
 
Great now a solid point about the white washing in the movie is gonna be derailed because the author made a shitty comparison to Brexit.
 
I still don't understand how people consider Nolan an intellectual filmmaker and compare to Kubrick. None of his films seem at all intellectually honest or deep in any sense to me.

Yep in my mind Nolan makes Cinema perfect films. They're big and loud but if you aren't watching them in the big screen then it's a little easier to see the faults in them. He's definitely not a Kubrick more of a Spielberg to me.
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
I still don't understand how people consider Nolan an intellectual filmmaker and compare to Kubrick. None of his films seem at all intellectually honest or deep in any sense to me.
People want what they can't have.

Now I've absolutely need to see the movie. Maybe when it's out of theaters tho.
 

Anticol

Banned
Are you telling me only the white guys are represented as the good guys?

Isn't that history? Oh wait, is it possibe that the white people use their position in power to represent themselves as the good guys???
 
This writer needs to have a chat with his editor. That opening, yikes.

Nothing compromises your credibility like a hokey comparison to Brexit
 
That article is oversellign that point a little.

Based on the linked other article, there were only four companies of Indian soldiers in Dunkirk - among hundreds of thousands. It wouldn't have been wrong to show them fighting because they are kind of ignored in the public perception despite their important distribution in Africa and ME.
 
The hero's welcome at the end definitely felt unearned.
I'm still not letting go of the fact that the main kid and Harry Styles never ever mention the French guy ever again after he dies. He was your buddy for most of the movie you bastards!

And considering how much Nolan wants to make a Bond movie, I don't think anything that could be considered self-aware or critical of the British in the film is there by intention of the author. Bond is the fantasy of the British Empire distilled into one man: killing foreign men and seducing foreign women. If we look at Nolan's cinematography, we can clearly see that there is little interest in anyone who isn't a white, male anglophone.
 
I'm of two minds on this. Yes, Dunkirk is a very white, very male film. And, I can understand being turned off by that. For example, considering that we see women on many of the British Civilian Ships at the end, I thought during my screening of the film that there was a missed opportunity to have the Mark Rylance character accompanied by, or even outright replaced by, a woman.

However, I'm also of the opinion that specificity strengthens stories. Dunkirk is, specifically, the story of the British soldiers at Dunkirk. That's the film's PoV. To say: "Why wasn't the French army shown more??" Well, that's specifically not what the film is about.

Not every film needs to be about everything all of the time. I don't think it's fair to say that the film "forgets" the "racialised pecking order that determined life and death for both British and French colonial troops at Dunkirk and after it." It's simply that it's not interested in that idea in the same way that it's not interested in the violent horrors of war that we're used to seeing in the genre relative to the psychological horrors of war. A big reason that the film works as well as it does is because of it's laser-tight focus on one idea: survival in the face of near-certain doom.

If another filmmaker wants to make the story of the French soldiers at Dunkirk, and portray another side of the event, then I would absolutely love to see that.

You leave out that a huge part of the people involved in the specific events of the film were colonial troops and sailors. It's basically like Gallipoli with all the Australians cut out.
 

JCG

Member
I agree, there should have been a more comprehensive representation of the different forces that participated in this historical event and it's absolutely fair to criticize the film's creators for not taking a more nuanced stance towards the subject matter. That doesn't make the movie inherently terrible or anything, as a work of art and entertainment, but it is a valid issue. Definitely worth bringing up the topic.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Nolan didnt just ignore the minorities, he ignored the french as well. there is only one scene where they are shown holding the perimeter. From what I have read, thousands of french died making sure the germans didnt reach the beach.

Nolan also ignored various acts of heroism by sailors who made almost a dozen trips to the beach and fighter pilots who flew for days with little to no sleep.

He didnt want to make yet another war movie and ended up kinda fucking up. this is the first time i've heard about there being indians on the beach. i have read up on dunkirk a lot and never heard of muslims praying on the beach. While it's disappointing to see Nolan whitewash yet another WW2 movie, adding indians and north africans would've undoubtedly forced him to cover some racial politics in a movie that is supposed to a tight suspense film above anything else.
 
Yep in my mind Nolan makes Cinema perfect films. They're big and loud but if you aren't watching them in the big screen then it's a little easier to see the faults in them. He's definitely not a Kubrick more of a Spielberg to me.

Either comparison makes him a great director though, and one of the best of his generation for me, though. Nolan is more about the filmmaking experience above anything else as well.

Nolan didnt just ignore the minorities, he ignored the french as well. there is only one scene where they are shown holding the perimeter. From what I have read, thousands of french died making sure the germans didnt reach the beach.

Nolan also ignored various acts of heroism by sailors who made almost a dozen trips to the beach and fighter pilots who flew for days with little to no sleep.

He didnt want to make yet another war movie and ended up kinda fucking up. this is the first time i've heard about there being indians on the beach. i have read up on dunkirk a lot and never heard of muslims praying on the beach. While it's disappointing to see Nolan whitewash yet another WW2 movie, adding indians and north africans would've undoubtedly forced him to cover some racial politics in a movie that is supposed to a tight suspense film above anything else.

Nolan wanted to focus specifically one set of soldiers primarily. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Filmmakers in other countries do it all the time as well.
 

Chumley

Banned
Did you read the article or even the OP? The point his about what is left out about the colonial troops and their impact on the war.

Yes, I read it, its still a ridiculous stretch and frankly comes off like the writer didn't even watch the movie. The Brexit comparisons immediately discredit the already very dodgy point.
 
If you stray so far away from what was historical than isn't the argument valid that its a fantasy disguised as a historically accurate film?

I understand the need to filter out things however, for a film about survival, the impact that race had on ones chances of achieving this doesn't seem worth exploring in this context?

You leave out that a huge part of the people involved in the specific events of the film were colonial troops and sailors. It's basically like Gallipoli with all the Australians cut out.

Good points. As I said with my example of wishing for a woman on Rylance's boat, I do think there are a number of missed opportunities to tell a more diverse tale of Britain's survival.
 
Remembered reading a book where Britain focused on evacuating Their soldiers first and foremost, even if it meant abandoning the French.

Gonna try to look for it,
 

CloudWolf

Member
I'm of two minds on this. Yes, Dunkirk is a very white, very male film. And, I can understand being turned off by that. For example, considering that we see women on many of the British Civilian Ships at the end, I thought during my screening of the film that there was a missed opportunity to have the Mark Rylance character accompanied by, or even outright replaced by, a woman.

However, I'm also of the opinion that specificity strengthens stories. Dunkirk is, specifically, the story of the British soldiers at Dunkirk. That's the film's PoV. To say: "Why wasn't the French army shown more??" Well, that's specifically not what the film is about.

Not every film needs to be about everything all of the time. I don't think it's fair to say that the film "forgets" the "racialised pecking order that determined life and death for both British and French colonial troops at Dunkirk and after it." It's simply that it's not interested in that idea in the same way that it's not interested in the violent horrors of war that we're used to seeing in the genre relative to the psychological horrors of war. A big reason that the film works as well as it does is because of it's laser-tight focus on one idea: survival in the face of near-certain doom.

If another filmmaker wants to make the story of the French soldiers at Dunkirk, and portray another side of the event, then I would absolutely love to see that.
Yeah, I'm of the same opinion. This film was about three very specific stories within the evacuation. Including more shots of the entire crowd or spending a X amount of minutes on the French, Indian and other troops, would've undermined the story the film is trying to tell.
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
There were actually only 4 mule divisions from the Indian Army Service Corps in France in 1940. There's an article on them here: http://dunkirk1940.org/index.php?&p=1_412

I can't get an idea how many Indian soldiers served in those 4 mule division. There were a total of 2500 mules, but I can't deduce how many men were needed for so many animals. 400? 500? More? Less?

Still, considering that there were more than 300,000 soldiers being evacuated from Dunkirk and the movie concerns itself with just a few people during the course of the movie, it's farfetched to call the lack of Indian soldiers from those mule divisions in the movie another case of whitewashing history. It's not like those 4 mule divisons changed history, they were just a side note in a larger tale.
 

Blade30

Unconfirmed Member
I still don't understand how people consider Nolan an intellectual filmmaker and compare to Kubrick. None of his films seem at all intellectually honest or deep in any sense to me.

I wouldn't say that his films are intellectual or deep, but that other movies (especially) in the big blockbuster type of movies are just dumb and treat you like an idiot with lots of exposition etc.
 

Daedardus

Member
I have not seen Dunkirk, but the article is commending on both the historical accuracy, and modern context of those inaccuracies. The latter of which is, at best, very unfortunate given the Brexit fiasco. It feeds into the narrative of white British needing to separate from Europe, whereas a historically accurate depiction would not.

I still can't see the jump from valid criticism on whitewashing to how the movie would feed into the current Brexit sentiments. Would you watch this movie and come out 'I rightfully support leaving the EU'?
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
I can imagine him getting shit on for having PoC's, but them all having the shittiest job, which would be historically accurate for better or worse.
 
Yeah, I'm of the same opinion. This film was about three very specific stories within the evacuation. Including more shots of the entire crowd or spending a X amount of minutes on the French, Indian and other troops, would've undermined the story the film is trying to tell.

there were still plenty of crowd shots though and there was like one minority in all of them

there's not focusing on the minorities as part of the story and then straight up omitting them, nolan did the latter
 
The movie does have a very strong 'England prevails' feel to it. Intentional or not, it's there.

I mean, it came across as more of a Remainer to me than anything. Even my non-political GF came out mentioning how odd it was we spent 6 years at war to now pull ourselves out.

You've even got the cheese line from
Brannagh
at the end saying he's waiting for
the French.
 
Top Bottom