Support NeoGAF

[EvilRedEye]

I've started reading the tie-in history book by the historical consultant on this and there have been references to Britain being far less diverse at that time and also the role played by ethnic minorities in the armed forces. I could well imagine them deliberately avoiding foregrounding ethnic minorities in order to highlight the comparative whiteness of the time, although I guess then that will lead to arguments of whitewashing.

I suppose it's pretty subjective although from the discussion here it doesn't seem the film's treatment of race is outside the bounds of reasonableness given the numbers involved.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It's like you can't type up the disingenuous shitpost you want anymore.

Sometimes I fantasize about what it would be like to actually have the power so mamy seem to believe folks like you and I have

 

[Albino_Yeti]

Here we go again.

Nolan was not trying to make a super authentic, 100% historically accurate movie about Dunkirk.

He was making a thriller/action movie set during the Dunkirk evacuations.

If he was trying to make it an accurate retelling of the evacuation, this article would have merit, but he wasn't .

 

[nOoblet16]

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.

There were Indian soldiers at Dunkirk fighting for the British empire. Even if the number was small it would have been nice to see some representation because at the end of the day films have the liberty to do so and it would've been historically accurate too.

 

[Charles Brandon]

A short googling tells of one of the most important merchant ships of Operation Dynamo, the SS Clan MacAlister, operated by a company trading between UK and India.

So once again maybe not that unlikely?

edit: and here we have a reference to the "Indian crew of the Clan Macallister". http://www.lascars.co.uk/war.html

I've just spent half an hour looking for something like that and came back to find your edit.

Yes, I agree with you on all points. It is likely that SS Clan Macallister was sailed by Indian seamen. I was looking for a list of the dead but this is good enough. I suppose it may have been restaffed by Navy men but I can find no reference to that.

Therefore, it is a shame that those people were not recognised. You must admit though, having probably googled it the same amount that I did, that it does not appear to be a fact widely remarked upon or referenced in any way. It does seem to me to be hugely egregious omission in that case. Nevertheless, it is an omission all the same and a lost opportunity.

 

[The Kree]

Here we go again.

Nolan was not trying to make a super authentic, 100% historically accurate movie about Dunkirk.

He was making a thriller/action movie set during the Dunkirk evacuations.

If he was trying to make it an accurate retelling of the evacuation, this article would have merit, but he wasn't .

Any personal conjecture on what was on his mind and in his heart as he was trying to make this movie is not the sole criteria of judgement for the entire audience. Different things matter to different people. What is being criticized is what he did make.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Here we go again.

Nolan was not trying to make a super authentic, 100% historically accurate movie about Dunkirk.

He was making a thriller/action movie set during the Dunkirk evacuations.

If he was trying to make it an accurate retelling of the evacuation, this article would have merit, but he wasn't .

So we have people in this thread claiming "It's not a documentary!", meaning Nolan has no responsibility to have to portray all corners of this moment in history, and thus the creative freedom to apparently omit Indian soldiers and any others that didn't fit his film. Simultaneously, we have people trying to be hyper-rational about the mathematic possibility of actually seeing a person of color on screen, and that the small percentage of minority soldiers means that it is just "so unlikely" that the film would have time to even suggest their involvement.

So which is it? Is it a numbers game, or is it Nolan's "creative freedom" to omit minority soldiers?

 

[WrenchNinja]

Loved the movie, but yeah the first thing on my mind coming out of the theater was that was the whitest movie I've seen in a long time. Would have been nice to have seen some PoC, even if they were just background characters.

Yep.

 

[Addi]

Here we go again.

Nolan was not trying to make a super authentic, 100% historically accurate movie about Dunkirk.

He was making a thriller/action movie set during the Dunkirk evacuations.

If he was trying to make it an accurate retelling of the evacuation, this article would have merit, but he wasn't .

Yup, that's why he mounted Imax-cameras on real spitfires, had 1000 + extras and 50 boats (some of which that actually took part in the real evacuation), shot in it the city of Dunkirk etc.

 

[Albino_Yeti]

Any personal conjecture on what was on his mind and in his heart as he was trying to make this movie is not the sole criteria of judgement for the entire audience. Different things matter to different people. What is being criticized is what he did make.

I understand that. I'm just trying to say that I don't think Nolan was deliberately trying to omit minorities from the film to make some sort of white supremacy statement.

So we have people in this thread claiming "It's not a documentary!", meaning Nolan has no responsibility to have to portray all corners of this moment in history, and thus the creative freedom to apparently omit Indian soldiers and any others that didn't fit his film. Simultaneously, we have people trying to be hyper-rational about the mathematic possibility of actually seeing a person of color on screen, and that the small percentage of minority soldiers means that it is just "so unlikely" that the film would have time to even suggest their involvement.

So which is it? Is it a numbers game, or is it Nolan's "creative freedom" to omit minority soldiers?

I mean, it was his creative freedom to make a movie hyper-focused on about 6-7 different men out of the hundreds of thousands of men that were there. I don't think he was deliberately trying to downplay minorities' involvement in the battle because of that.

Yup, that's why he mounted Imax-cameras on real spitfires, had 1000 + extras and 50 boats (some of which that actually took part in the real evacuation), shot in it the city of Dunkirk etc.

There's a difference between authenticity and historical accuracy.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Guys, just because Michael Bay makes a period drama set during the Pearl Harbour attack, it doesn't mean the attackers need to be Japanese. It's not a documentary. Yeesh!

 

[Whompa02]

What an overreaction.

 

[Llyranor]

Yup, that's why he mounted Imax-cameras on real spitfires, had 1000 + extras and 50 boats (some of which that actually took part in the real evacuation), shot in it the city of Dunkirk etc.

The Bf109s were not even authentic. The crashed plane wasn't even a real WW2-era antique. The main French character was played by a Welsh actor. All the Indian support crew were played by white actors. The bullets in the movie were not real! It was all lies!!!

 

[Firemind]

Guys, just because Michael Bay makes a period drama set during the Pearl Harbour attack, it doesn't mean the attackers need to be Japanese. It's not a documentary. Yeesh!

At least they spoke Japanese, right? I honestly can't remember.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

At least they spoke Japanese, right? I honestly can't remember.

I can't remember a thing about the film. Saw it once and immediately forgot it.

 

[Barzul]

Yeah I did wonder....I'm from Nigeria and there's a couple of great-grand uncles who fought in the war. I never got to meet them as they had since passed but watching the movie I only saw black faces in like one scene and I was thinking if my uncles were anywhere, surely they'd have been at Dunkirk right?

 

[Psychoward]

Here we go again.

Nolan was not trying to make a super authentic, 100% historically accurate movie about Dunkirk.

He was making a thriller/action movie set during the Dunkirk evacuations.

If he was trying to make it an accurate retelling of the evacuation, this article would have merit, but he wasn't .

If he didn't concern himself at all with historical accuracy then why is it so fucking white? Surely if he wasn't paying attention to race he'd throw in some minority roles right? Or is it fucked up that his fantasized version of Dunkirk doesn't even have minorities (barely).

 

[Discotheque]

Yeah I did wonder....I'm from Nigeria and there's a couple of great-grand uncles who fought in the war. I never got to meet them as they had since passed but watching the movie I only saw black faces in like one scene and I was thinking if my uncles were anywhere, surely they'd have been at Dunkirk right?

Wut...How are we supposed to know. There were multiple fronts in the war.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Yeah I did wonder....I'm from Nigeria and there's a couple of great-grand uncles who fought in the war. I never got to meet them as they had since passed but watching the movie I only saw black faces in like one scene and I was thinking if my uncles were anywhere, surely they'd have been at Dunkirk right?

Probably not that likely. Most of the fighting happened after Dunkirk. Dunkirk was the end of the first act of WW2. Also I think most of the BEF were British troops.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Does Nolan ever talk about his politics?

 

[a Master Ninja]

I liked Dunkirk, but it's probably time for Nolan to make a film where the lead isn't a white man.

 

[Psychoward]

So we have people in this thread claiming "It's not a documentary!", meaning Nolan has no responsibility to have to portray all corners of this moment in history, and thus the creative freedom to apparently omit Indian soldiers and any others that didn't fit his film. Simultaneously, we have people trying to be hyper-rational about the mathematic possibility of actually seeing a person of color on screen, and that the small percentage of minority soldiers means that it is just "so unlikely" that the film would have time to even suggest their involvement.

So which is it? Is it a numbers game, or is it Nolan's "creative freedom" to omit minority soldiers?

Yeah, I noticed this too.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I liked Dunkirk, but it's probably time for Nolan to make a film where the lead isn't a white man.

I don't think the non-representation in Dunkirk is a good thing. But I also am not a fan of this mentality of forcing filmmakers/artists to specifically gear their work toward telling stories about underrepresented minorities for the sake of their exposure. An artist should tell a story because they're passionate about it and it feels true to them.

 

[Llyranor]

Yeah I did wonder....I'm from Nigeria and there's a couple of great-grand uncles who fought in the war. I never got to meet them as they had since passed but watching the movie I only saw black faces in like one scene and I was thinking if my uncles were anywhere, surely they'd have been at Dunkirk right?

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.

 

[HariKari]

Movie itself was a poor representation of the actual battle/evacuation, so it's not surprising. It's mostly based around one small group of (white) soldiers trying to get home.

 

[7Th]

What did you expect from Chris "Won't someone think of the rich children?!" Nolan?

Does Nolan ever talk about his politics?

Yeah, he makes his politics quite clear in TDK and TDKR.

 

[The Kree]

I understand that. I'm just trying to say that I don't think Nolan was deliberately trying to omit minorities from the film to make some sort of white supremacy statement.

I mean, it was his creative freedom to make a movie hyper-focused on about 6-7 different men out of the hundreds of thousands of men that were there. I don't think he was deliberately trying to downplay minorities' involvement in the battle because of that.



There's a difference between authenticity and historical accuracy.

Whether it was deliberate or not is beside the point. Racial biases are present in everybody and it takes actual awareness and effort to overcome them. This is entirely his problem in this instance because it's his movie. These criticisms don't change the film, but maybe they change the man who made it, going forward. He does not need to be yelling I HATE SMELLY INDIANS to be taken to task.

 

[Thrillhou2]

Look at all these experts on Dunkirk. I also think it's ridiculous to call Christopher Nolan a racist. Can't we have a discussion without jumping to extremes?

 

[the_darkness]

I don't really subscribe to the notion that a 2 hour film needs to proportionally mirror the exact ethnic/gender/nationality breakdown of the reality lest it be criticised for "whitewashing" or "erasing" genders.

"Mark Rylance's character could have been replaced by a woman in that one scene!". Well, why? Isn't that just tokenism?

I understand that this is potentially symptomatic of a larger, real issue in Hollywood, but it's not a valid criticism in this case.

 

[Daffy Duck]

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.

For you.

 

[a Master Ninja]

I don't think the non-representation in Dunkirk is a good thing. But I also am not a fan of this mentality of forcing filmmakers/artists to specifically gear their work toward telling stories about underrepresented minorities for the sake of their exposure. An artist should tell a story because they're passionate about it and it feels true to them.

Nolan will continue to be successful and make whatever he damn well pleases. I'm just saying I'd be interested in him branching out a little.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't think the non-representation in Dunkirk is a good thing. But I also am not a fan of this mentality of forcing filmmakers/artists to specifically gear their work toward telling stories about underrepresented minorities for the sake of their exposure. An artist should tell a story because they're passionate about it and it feels true to them.

Nobody is forcing anybody.

 

[7Th]

Dunkirk: EU
British soldiers: Britain
The great escape: Brexit
Cillian Murphy: The cowardly left
George: Teresa May
Civilian boats: The brave voters saving Britain by voting YES

 

[MattKeil]

Would it have ruined or damaged the film to show some of the POC involved in the operation? I would say no. So why not show them? Hurts nothing and highlights a lesser known bit of historical truth.

I'm sure they weren't excluded by Nolan out of malice, he just didn't think of it. But the more this kind of thing is pointed out, just as is being done in this thread, the more filmmakers will think of it going forward. It's nothing but a positive outcome.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Would it have ruined or damaged the film to show some of the POC involved in the operation? I would say no. So why not show them? Hurts nothing and highlights a lesser known bit of historical truth.

I'm sure they weren't excluded by Nolan out of malice, he just didn't think of it. But the more this kind of thing is pointed out, just as is being done in this thread, the more filmmakers will think of it going forward. It's nothing but a positive outcome.

I think this is fair comment.

 

[the_darkness]

Nobody is forcing anybody.

Obviously not literally but being targeted with accusations of "whitewashing" if you make a film that doesn't is dumb.

 

[slider]

Just read the OP. I don't know about any subtext. But I'd be all for accuracy. Mass media is powerful. It should be used responsibly.

As an aside, I met a very good friend's grandpa a few years ago when he was visiting the UK. Quite a commanding chap. He'd fought in WW2 and, up until his death, he slept with a revolver(!) from the war under his pillow in rural Pakistan.

Thinking about it now I wish I'd got more details from him but, of course, I wanted to be respectful. My mate talked about him a whole lot. I know if he were my grandfather I'd feel stirred up if there were a WW2 film/whatever and there wasn't recognition.

I'm rambling again. Time for bed.

 

[Addi]

There's a difference between authenticity and historical accuracy.

My point is that when he goes out of his way to make it as real as possible, he could at the very least have thrown in some non-white extras. It's not hard. I'm not necessarily saying he omitted minorities on purpose, but that is a problem, a man in that position should actually be aware. When they casted a 1000 extras, they'd probably had to make a deliberate decision on them being all white.

 

[MrMysterio]

Regarding Brexit-fantasy, it is just the perfect timing for Brits to get a white patriotic hard-on isn't it?

 

[ghst]

fuck me, that opening paragraph. what an utter wanker. my great grandad went over on those boats, nice to see his story reduced to a bit of nationalist propaganda in order to set up a tumblrite care bait rant by some dull twat on their macbook.

at least you're all clued up on british military history now, makes a change from when the film was announced and the general GAF consensus was "what's a dunkirk?".

 

[Charles Brandon]

My point is that when he goes out of his way to make it as real as possible, he could at the very least have thrown in some non-white extras. It's not hard. I'm not necessarily saying he omitted minorities on purpose, but that is a problem, a man in that position should actually be aware. When they casted a 1000 extras, they'd probably had to make a deliberate decision on them being all white.

There were non-white extras

 

[Mael]

Obviously not literally but being targeted with accusations of "whitewashing" if you make a film that doesn't is dumb.

Well when you're literally removing PoC out of the equation it's a fair criticism.
Heck people defended that GitS travesty with multiple reasoning.
Because you claim that it is dumb doesn't make it so too.

 

[takriel]

Here we go again.

Nolan was not trying to make a super authentic, 100% historically accurate movie about Dunkirk.

He was making a thriller/action movie set during the Dunkirk evacuations.

If he was trying to make it an accurate retelling of the evacuation, this article would have merit, but he wasn't .

This goes hand in hand. You make a movie that's set in a certain historical time period, you damn better make sure to portray it as accurately as possible.

What a weak apology that is.

 

[Psychoward]

There were non-white extras

like 3 for 5 seconds and they weren't british

 

[Mael]

This goes hand in hand. You make a movie that's set in a certain historical time period, you damn better make sure to portray it as accurately as possible.

What a weak apology that is.

That's the issue with trying to portray it "accurately".
If you do then it's not necessarily "fun" but if you don't you might as well go full Inglorious Basterds with it.

 

[akira28]

Are we going to do this for every single movie?

we are going to do this for every. single. movie. ever.

and you will watch and participate.

edit: oh I get it, they had to remove all the non-white heroes because the movie was already 105 minutes long. They didn't want to bore the audience with facts. This was supposed to be a historically accurate epic, not some boring documentary.

 

[Mael]

we are going to do this for every. single. movie. ever.

and you will watch and participate.

Well not here obviously.

 

[takriel]

That's the issue with trying to portray it "accurately".
If you do then it's not necessarily "fun" but if you don't you might as well go full Inglorious Basterds with it.

Is Dunkirk fun? I'm sorry I don't think we've watched the same movie.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

This kind of anger does my head in. I've had enough of it.

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.

He didn't ignore them. It was mentioned on a number of occasions with one of the characters being French. Sacrifice from sailors and fighter pilots was shown, but it's difficult to depict in exactly the ways that you want in a movie featuring multiple characters that are loosely connected.

 

[7Th]

Is Dunkirk fun? I'm sorry I don't think we've watched the same movie.

I'd call it entertaining.