No, it actually has a very discreet definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_in_film
And yes, neither "random extra in WWII film" or "cyborg ninja girl" qualify as as "historically non-white character roles".
-
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...
- Thread starter Miles Quaritch
- Start date
No, it actually has a very discreet definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_in_film
And yes, neither "random extra in WWII film" or "cyborg ninja girl" qualify as as "historically non-white character roles".
Psychoward
Banned
got some bad news for you bud
RBelong2Us
Member
Yeah, the term whitewashing is used in an egregious manner with this thread/story.
Something like 21 is whitewashing.... that's exactly the type of movie that should be used for that term.
Something like 21 is whitewashing.... that's exactly the type of movie that should be used for that term.
Gnome Scat
Member
I really don't think that's asking much and if they did their research right, they would have known.
Shit, you're right, off to make a thread about how Kojima was whitewashing by making the Cyborg Ninja a white guy!
brianmcdoogle
Member
Connotations and dennotations. Black and white don't exist, neither did the slave trade, or it was actually a reverse slave trade (i forget), and there weren't even ships at Dunkirk in the first place!!
And, you can totally whitewash background extras. What if the movie Glory featured all African American leads but half the background soldiers were white people? That'd be a bit... strange.
Well considering the thousands of soldiers we see on the beach too, including those remaining towards the end as the final evacuees, their omission seems less forgivable.
Apparently, someone didn't know about Ghost in the Shell before Hollywood put its paws on it.
It always turns out like that ("yeah but what does racist actually mean?"), it's pretty sad.
Psychoward
Banned
What the fuck are you talking about? You said GitS wasn't an example of whitewashing because it wasn't a white person cast as a character that's historically non-white... but that's exactly what it was, why it received the backlash it did and why it's listed in the entry you linked as an example of whitewashing.
I'm not referring to Kojima or Raiden so I don't even know what the hell you're talking about other than deflecting from talking about Dunkirk.
If the thread goes long enough, there's always a point when someone breaks out their dictionary. Like clockwork.
Is this an honest question? Do you want an honest discussion about this issue?
At the time of the British Expeditionary Force, there was no colour bar to enlisting in an English regiment. Not to say that there wasn't a racist barrier to service but there were ME&B British soldiers as early as the Crimean War.
If you're seriously trying to play gotcha and suggest that my point is moot because of a selection of one illustrative screencap from an extended trailer then I can't fucking help you.
The onus is on you to find any representation of the IASC or an Anglo Indian BSM in the film. We know they were there. Why don't we see them?
Surprisingly, Godwin's law is taking more time than I thought and that's in a thread about a WW2 movie.
TransTrender
Gold Member
No, I don't know but boy you seem really upset about this.
Really, this is part of your response? So you're not really interested in a proper discussion?
Sarcastic Poster
Member
0.5% of the British Army isn't a huge number.
The French got little shine but the film is not about them. They certainly have more of a right to feel aggrieved though.
There was a scene where a large group of French soldiers, including several black soldiers, were being held back from the evacuation along the Mole because the British put their own people first. Beyond that you don't see any more foreign soldiers from either side.
Re: The "Ra-ra England" stuff
OR DO YOU
Re: The "Ra-ra England" stuff
The character we follow on the Mole is a coward and fraud. Harry Styles is a giant asshole. Cillian Murphy accidentally murders an innocent kid because he's too scared to go back. The British are horrible to the French until the very end. It wasn't exactly a shining portrait.
TransTrender
Gold Member
So the answer is no
AmayaPapaya
Banned
Some good arguments. It should get criticized, if all this is true, because erasing minorities from history has happened for far too long.
Nolan hate has reached a new level if people here have convinced themselves he wants to erase minorities from history. It's genuinely ridiculous. How can there be any kind of discussion if people are already screaming about him being a racist nationalist and that they refuse to see his movie.
Shadowhelper
Banned
British movies and media have a huge problem with representation, especially with Asian people. The only way it'll happen is kicking and screaming. There's a lot of Asian people in the country. The mayor of London is Asian. But, just like Black British, Asian British frequently go to America and become more famous.
At the end of the day this is a British movie by a British film maker. He lived in London. Edgar Wright lived in London. Lived in very diverse environments, yet all their movies are virtually exclusively white. Only Edgars hollywood movies seem to have a some tokens to appease American audiences who would not stand for the exclusively white nature of British movies.
The problem is British people don't care. Representation to them is the worst and most ugly side effect of 'PC Culture' breh. Even the BBC is insanely white.
EU recently created some diversity commision and put forth its plan for diversity in the EU. It only had policies for women. Not a single policy for black or other people of color. Representation for racial diversity just isn't a belief in Europe. It's scoffed at. Looked down upon.
Messofanego
Banned
Good article, I didn't know about the south asian and middle eastern troops in the actual event. Would have made the film better for me to see my fellow south asians also represented.
I didn't get that impression. It was more tragic that the Brits were being dicks not letting them on board and Harry Styles' character becomes an asshole and goes on the offensive against the French soldier.
Gentleman Jack
Member
I didn't see that poster conflating intent (Nolan wants to erase minorities from history) with outcome (Nolan has erased minorities from history).
Things are getting heated for no reason.
Spaced Harrier
Member
Hmm, I took the article at face value earlier.
Does anyone have the actual full breakdown of the numbers on the beach?
Does anyone have the actual full breakdown of the numbers on the beach?
Psychoward
Banned
Wait what no it didn't lol
Messofanego
Banned
Whether it was intentional or not, he did erasure of minority troops. It's just a fact. It's not Nolan hate, don't act like such a fanboy. I love Nolan's work but this isn't excusable if he was going for historical accuracy. People are allowed to refuse to see a movie just like they did with Wonder Woman because of Gal Gadot's support of IDF during bombings. Point me to the people calling him a racist nationalist, cause I don't see it. It's just that the film conveniently fits with the UKIP all-white narrative.
So the blockbuster film Dunkirk has erased minorities from history itself by not featuring them. Because this film is a historical document and people shouldn't do any kind of further research on their own if they want to be more informed about the event.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-pa...-Army-completely-ignored-in-the-movie-Dunkirk
This was posted on the second page. The film is not attempting to be a historical document of the battle, its on you if you wanted it to be that, but as it stands there's no justification to be saying it erased minorities from history. You're misinterpreting the film to fit a narrative.
How many people do you know read history books regularly?
How many people do you know watch movies regularly?
Do you think mass media has any informative or educational impact?
Do you think the request for fair and accurate representation in mass media is unreasonable?
Nolan chose to tackle this historical event. Thus he bears the responsibility of how he presents this event. Willfully omitting minorities is a bad look.
brianmcdoogle
Member
And they are using actual vets to push the authenticity of the movie.
Saying he's trying to erase minorities from history, or that his film erased minorities from history, is objectively wrong. It isn't a historical document, it isn't even a documentary. It's a narrative film with a specific point of view.
That only white people were at Dunkirk?
Gentleman Jack
Member
Folks have always had the power to do their own independent research, but that feels like a deflection of the foundation behind the criticisms of whitewashing in popular media. From the article:
Feel free to take issue with the idea, but if you believe there is a problem, the answer isn't 'don't criticize how media gets produced and just do your own research'
the_darkness
Banned
Ok I'll cop to getting my wires crossed on that one.
I was originally responding more to the notion of substituting main characters or introducing new characters for the sake of representation.
I'm certainly cognisant of the fact that there is an ongoing issue with representation of racial and gender diversity in Hollywood. I'd love to think that equal consideration for roles was given to actors of all backgrounds and that the end result was the right people being chosen for roles.
When it comes to specific historical characters of diverse backgrounds being actively removed or replaced in films, that's obviously unacceptable but I think it's a long bow to draw to suggest that's what's happened here.
Making massive leaps in logic like this doesn't help your point. It followed a small fraction of the people at Dunkirk, even in the wide shots. It isn't claiming to make any kind of broader statement about all of the people who were there, it just wants to be a story about these dozen or so people.
Like in the film Son of Saul. It followed one man in Auschwitz and only featured one woman for a minute. Does this mean it wants people to think only men suffered in Auschwitz? Of course not. It was simply telling a story about this one man.
Messofanego
Banned
Surely you can agree films and pop culture have a big impact on our knowledge and perceptions of certain things? A lot of people who didn't know anything about Dunkirk will have the film be as their first exposure and possibly their last. Only the diligent would bother to check out a documentary or further research. A recent documentary on Dunkirk I watched didn't mention south asian and Arabic troops either. How are you arguing with facts? The film erased minorities from a historical event. There is evidence, that's why people like the article writer are saying this.
Ignorance and intentions don't let you off the hook.
Films catch flack about this all the time. That Mel Gibson film about Scotland, among many others. If a film is gonna bother with trying to portray true events rather than treating their narrative as mostly fictional and just merely inspired by true events, like The Thin Red Line, then the film is right to get criticism. It doesn't stop the film from being great on its own merits as a film but I wouldn't be surprised if this gets brought up in conversation from now on just like historical inaccuracies were brought up with Braveheart and many other films.
How am I making any massive leaps? There were minority soldiers at Dunkirk. Even if they were shoved at the back of the line, they were there. They aren't there in the film. And we're not talking about 2 or 3 people, we're talking about hundreds. What leap am I making?
Messofanego
Banned
Plus, having minorities represented on screen would have made for a more inclusive narrative that celebrates Britain's diversity even if they were badly treated during the actual war. That would be especially appreciated after recent British far-right politics.
What's done is done. Nolan is a nice guy so I'm sure he would take this criticism and learn from it rather than act aggressively defensive about it like some people are doing now.
What's done is done. Nolan is a nice guy so I'm sure he would take this criticism and learn from it rather than act aggressively defensive about it like some people are doing now.
Minorities not appearing in the movie does not mean the movie erased them from the historical event itself. The burden of being informed about the full breadth of any given historical event is on the audience, not the film. It's first priority is to be entertaining, not to be a thorough historical document.
I can probably guarantee that he'd be defensive, since you're implying he's either a racist or unintentionally made a nationalist or racist film.
Psychoward
Banned
....and having minorities on screen would prevent it from being entertaining?
There are minority soldiers in the film. A British soldier tells them to get fucked (slightly more politely).
I am a member of the audience. I am now aware that the film is inaccurate in it's portrayal of racial representation and I am criticizing the film and the filmmaker for it.
Psychoward
Banned
Because they're French not because they're minorities though. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a single poc who's in the rescue forces or British military (even as a non-combatant) in the film.
Messofanego
Banned
Wow, how the hell did you jump into me implying Nolan is a racist?!
You're the one jumping to conclusions, here.
Blaming minority audiences for speaking up about their erasure in pop culture like this Indian writer Sunny Singh just because they're the audience and the filmmaker is never at fault is not a good look. The film isn't trying to be fantasy or purely fictional, so it makes sense to hold it to higher standards.