Scrooge McDuck
Member
These particular lines of argument are so far beside the point that it feels like you are intentionally misinterpreting what people actually said to fit a narrative in your head.
-
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
These particular lines of argument are so far beside the point that it feels like you are intentionally misinterpreting what people actually said to fit a narrative in your head.
The movie is yet another white exceptionalism movie that whitewashes history. It's not a "brexit movie", but with such blatant ignorance of the role & blight of POC, it feeds into that side of society. It makes Dunkirk into this glorious moment of white humanity while once again ignoring a lot of the ugly, racist side of it and the suffering & sacrifices of POC.
The Scollard
Member
First off, having just seen the movie, I think the Brexit claim the article makes is kind of stupid. First off, the amount of things people have been getting wrong about the film is kind of ridiculous.
Somebody earlier mentioned how a couple Dutch cruisers went to evacuate the soldiers at Dunkirk, and says they weren't shown, when in fact they were, as the captain of the grounded ship the main character of The Mole and Harry Styles hid in was Dutch (he says so when they yank him into the ship). The film also shows the French army as diverse for the short time they appear, and constantly mentions that the French are currently holding the Germans back. It also presents the British characters as prioritizing themselves over French as not a good thing (like when Harry Styles calls the French soldier a coward and holds him at gunpoint in the sinking ship). Branagh's line at the end
is presented as a selfless action of unity on his part.
The film doesn't have any female main characters, but it does show them to be there and in doing so, doesn't erase their presence at the event, it's just that they aren't the focus. Someone posted the statistics earlier, and the Indian soldiers at Dunkirk made up 0.5% of all the soldiers. The film has a limited focus, only showing a couple stories of survival and only having a couple main characters (the two pilots in the air, the three sailors and Cillian Murphy on the Sea, and the three soldiers and Kenneth Branagh in the Mole). The stretch of beach it takes place on also has maybe a couple thousand soldiers on it, compared to the 300000 at Dunkirk. At no point does Branagh turn to the camera and say "There are only white people on this beach; no Indians whatsoever". The film simply focuses on a part of the beach where the Indians weren't (since as someone mentioned earlier, the characters were in their battalions, its likely the Indian battalions would be somewhere else along the beach). It as much erases the accomplishments of them and the French as Saving Private Ryan erases the actions of the British at Gold Beach or the Canadians at Juno on D-Day. Just because it isn't shown doesn't mean it isn't happening. The film has a limited focus, and that focus, since it was a story of mainly survival, was on the British characters on the beach waiting for the ships, which (as the historical records show) were pretty much all white.
The captain of the grounded ship Tommy and Harry Styles got on was Dutch. He says it when they pull him into the ship.
Somebody earlier mentioned how a couple Dutch cruisers went to evacuate the soldiers at Dunkirk, and says they weren't shown, when in fact they were, as the captain of the grounded ship the main character of The Mole and Harry Styles hid in was Dutch (he says so when they yank him into the ship). The film also shows the French army as diverse for the short time they appear, and constantly mentions that the French are currently holding the Germans back. It also presents the British characters as prioritizing themselves over French as not a good thing (like when Harry Styles calls the French soldier a coward and holds him at gunpoint in the sinking ship). Branagh's line at the end
where he says he's staying behind to help the French evacuate
The film doesn't have any female main characters, but it does show them to be there and in doing so, doesn't erase their presence at the event, it's just that they aren't the focus. Someone posted the statistics earlier, and the Indian soldiers at Dunkirk made up 0.5% of all the soldiers. The film has a limited focus, only showing a couple stories of survival and only having a couple main characters (the two pilots in the air, the three sailors and Cillian Murphy on the Sea, and the three soldiers and Kenneth Branagh in the Mole). The stretch of beach it takes place on also has maybe a couple thousand soldiers on it, compared to the 300000 at Dunkirk. At no point does Branagh turn to the camera and say "There are only white people on this beach; no Indians whatsoever". The film simply focuses on a part of the beach where the Indians weren't (since as someone mentioned earlier, the characters were in their battalions, its likely the Indian battalions would be somewhere else along the beach). It as much erases the accomplishments of them and the French as Saving Private Ryan erases the actions of the British at Gold Beach or the Canadians at Juno on D-Day. Just because it isn't shown doesn't mean it isn't happening. The film has a limited focus, and that focus, since it was a story of mainly survival, was on the British characters on the beach waiting for the ships, which (as the historical records show) were pretty much all white.
The captain of the grounded ship Tommy and Harry Styles got on was Dutch. He says it when they pull him into the ship.
TBH I'm not feeling that the films design was based on any of the over-egged Brexit angle.
It definitely omits huge swathes of Dunkirk but the rationale simply seems to be to boil certain aspects of Dunkirk down to 1 hour and 46 minutes.
It's considered absolutely fine artisticsllt in films to do this because of course it's impossible to fit in everything for such huge events.
I feel the points are fair to raise - although they'd come across better without making it feel the film's sole focus is justifying Brexit - but I don't feel they stick.
The film isn't some four hour epic trying for documentary veracity: TBH the film clearly goes the other way and doesn't bother about historical inaccuracies much.
In fact that's maybe the key thing: it is a simplified, fantasy version of Dunkirk; deliberately do. Looking for historical accuracy is arguably useless anyway given this obvious fact.
It definitely omits huge swathes of Dunkirk but the rationale simply seems to be to boil certain aspects of Dunkirk down to 1 hour and 46 minutes.
It's considered absolutely fine artisticsllt in films to do this because of course it's impossible to fit in everything for such huge events.
I feel the points are fair to raise - although they'd come across better without making it feel the film's sole focus is justifying Brexit - but I don't feel they stick.
The film isn't some four hour epic trying for documentary veracity: TBH the film clearly goes the other way and doesn't bother about historical inaccuracies much.
In fact that's maybe the key thing: it is a simplified, fantasy version of Dunkirk; deliberately do. Looking for historical accuracy is arguably useless anyway given this obvious fact.
Professor Renegade
Banned
I think the correlation between the film and Brexit is coicidental at best, I mean it's not like they spent years producing this movie knowing what the political climate of Britain would be like in the next few years to come. Not to mention the whole "England shall previal" thing was veey much a real saying in British WWII propaganda.
The arguments about the historical validity are entirely valid though, make no mistake, but you'd be fooling yourself if you thought that they would actually put the time and effort to be as historically accurate as possible in regards to the lack of representation in a historical fiction film. It's passive erasure, it sucks but there's nothing that can really be done about it except to point out the historical inconsistencies when using the film in the feild of education; otherwise it manages to do it's job and tell the story of Dunkirk in a relatively short and abrdiged fashion.
The arguments about the historical validity are entirely valid though, make no mistake, but you'd be fooling yourself if you thought that they would actually put the time and effort to be as historically accurate as possible in regards to the lack of representation in a historical fiction film. It's passive erasure, it sucks but there's nothing that can really be done about it except to point out the historical inconsistencies when using the film in the feild of education; otherwise it manages to do it's job and tell the story of Dunkirk in a relatively short and abrdiged fashion.
I'm trying to track down a better source but I've found multiple people claiming that the Indian Army Service Corps mule units were some of the first evacuated because they were an unarmed service unit. Service units were evacuated first, before the official start of Operation Dynamo, because they were considered "useless mouths." By the time the film started they'd already be gone.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Noland must be furious thinking he picked a story where he didn't have to historically cast a non white!
But he never rest and will make sure he has no non white women as leads for future films
But he never rest and will make sure he has no non white women as leads for future films
Thaedolus
Gold Member
I just got back from watching this. I thought the hyper focused nature of the movie was integral to its excellence. Calling that white washing seems absurd.
I'd sooner hear criticism about the lack of gore or profanity, which seems more deliberate than any sort of intentional omission of people of color.
I'd sooner hear criticism about the lack of gore or profanity, which seems more deliberate than any sort of intentional omission of people of color.
excelsiorlef
Member
Whitewashing can be unintentional too.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
What does the film being hyper-focused have to do with not making any (outside of a 2 second shot) of the extras minorities? Would they have taken away from the film's focus by being present in the frame?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
There was one Black French soldier in the entire film. I remember because of how much it stood out.
Messofanego
Banned
Yeah, let alone a minority side character, but even minorities as extras wouldn't have hurt the film.
Thaedolus
Gold Member
Sure, but this movie was very much focused on an experience with very little plot or dialogue/exposition. If it spent a lot of time exploring a dozen characters and their varying experiences, in the context of their home situations, I guess I could see it. But it's hyper focused on a few characters, their struggles to survive, and virtually nothing beyond that. I don't think the lack of people of color here is white washing in any reasonable sense of the phrase.
I mean...I'm just not sure how much it matters either way. The extras were given barely a thought regardless. I don't think my thoughts would be swayed too much based on the proportion of light skin to dark skin in those scenes to be honest.
brianmcdoogle
Member
I think this is probably true. People don't give barely a thought to extras. But that leads to the potential issue that casting people will then default to what they know, white, rather than thinking of the implications of things. That's part of the issue when people say "white is the default".
I've read the whole thread and I didn't notice anyone claiming that Nolan was racist or sexist or that he intentionally makes it a point to exclude people of color and women from his work out of malice. What I see people are mostly saying is that it's an area he could work on.
I don't think that's a criticism to get defensive over. It's true of most of Hollywood.
I don't think that's a criticism to get defensive over. It's true of most of Hollywood.
Thaedolus
Gold Member
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.
brianmcdoogle
Member
To be honest, usually the minorities not being considered get to decide what is or isn't the line. And, I think most aren't going to go overboard and say something ludicrous like 50/50, but something approaching actual levels is beneficial to everyone. I mean, you will get and see plastered online all the crazies (reddit is really good at this to drum up hatred), but most just want to see.... something. That's all.
Randy Monk
Member
I'm a big fan of Nolan movies but you can't deny that diversity in casting is a bit lacking.
When will we get a director brave enough to embrace PoC and genderqueer soldiers throughout history.. Not only is Nolan whitewashing British history, he is also trying to tell me there was not one trans soldier at Dunkirk?
This movie is obviously propaganda for Trump's trans military ban, wouldnt surprise me if Nolan and Trump emailed each other due to the suspect timing.
This movie is obviously propaganda for Trump's trans military ban, wouldnt surprise me if Nolan and Trump emailed each other due to the suspect timing.
ronaldthump
Member
did you guys miss the marie claire article which is way worse
excelsiorlef
Member
With this post you both managed to insult and belittle trans oppression and dismiss and mock valid concerns of people of colour.
Congratulations.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Always good time to post Dunkirk as depicted by Joe Wright.
https://youtu.be/y0de2hZ3dsA
https://youtu.be/y0de2hZ3dsA
This is some dumb shit.
I saw it. That was also some dumb shit.
jakonovski
Member
My view is like I said earlier, you owe to the people who were there to represent an accurate order of battle. Which is probably part of the reason why I don't like that many war movies.
As far as obscurity of information goes, I don't think that's a good excuse for a $100 million epic. Considering we got it out of google in under an hour.
What this all tells to me was that the movie production was a rote job for Nolan and the writers. They weren't interested enough to ask the question, who were these people of whom we're making a movie. And assumed they were basically all white.
Miles Quaritch
Member
When a romantic movie does a better job of depicting the war than your $100m dollar movie where the focus is just the war...
RBelong2Us
Member
lol such high levels of hyperbole right there
metalslimer
Member
Please tell what made you think this was somehow witty
I've seen this comment before. How exactly is that the case?
I've watched stock footage and photos and mostly see the barren beach with plenty of men in lines, just like in the movie. Surely also
depended on which part of the beach.
the_darkness
Banned
When you're so desperate to hate on a movie...
TheChewyWaffles
Member
This is nonsense
manfestival
Member
the movie focuses on 3 perspectives mostly. None of which striked me as the grapsing straws type of nature that is being presented
KarneeKarnay
Member
This article is so stupid. I can't- ugh.
This is an argument made so often with any film that you can almost see the erection of the author slapping you in the face with great dong of righteousness.
The overwhelming majority of troops evacuated from Dunkirk and took part in the battles around it were white and British. You can't accuse a film of whitewashing history when this is exactly what happened.
Maybe you can argue an ethnic character could have been included. I wouldn't have complained.
I mean take Enemy at the Gates. Great movie. No one talks about the ethnic troops that fought and died in the battle of Stalingrad. It's good to recognise whitewashing and go against it, but historical events portrayed in film, should attempt to be as accurate as possible.
That just my thoughts on the matter.
This is an argument made so often with any film that you can almost see the erection of the author slapping you in the face with great dong of righteousness.
The overwhelming majority of troops evacuated from Dunkirk and took part in the battles around it were white and British. You can't accuse a film of whitewashing history when this is exactly what happened.
Maybe you can argue an ethnic character could have been included. I wouldn't have complained.
I mean take Enemy at the Gates. Great movie. No one talks about the ethnic troops that fought and died in the battle of Stalingrad. It's good to recognise whitewashing and go against it, but historical events portrayed in film, should attempt to be as accurate as possible.
That just my thoughts on the matter.
What ? the Brits were the assholes of the movie, especially with the French that were saving their asses.
On subject: I don't know what to say, you're following only 3 people in their survival and the movie isn't really accurate either, the numbers of soldiers on the beach is ridiculous, I see this movie as art more than a representation of reality.
I mean, the answer to this is obviously no.
And the argument can very well be made that minority representation doesn't have to be an exact representation of the historically accurate share. That's why we have movies with creative freedoms. So Nolan definitely could have done better.
But the predominant argument being made in this thread is one about historical accuracy and whitewashing history, that minorities were there at the "real" Dunkirk. That's a completely different arugment. Because, with so few people shown in the film, it is pretty much historically accurate (well, to the extent other aspects in the film are). The Indian forces at Dunkirk are a miniscule part of it all, and the logic that one in four rescuers would have been a minority is sketchy at best. No, just because one in four seamen was a minority doesn't mean the representation at Dunkirk was also one in four.
As I said before, it's completely understandable to want more minorities represented in the film. It's something Nolan should be criticised for, because it's not like every other part of Dunkirk is that accurate. So Nolan was very free to overrepresent minorities, and there really isn't a good argument against it. But it's not about historical accuracy and not about whitewashing, because the film doesn't do this.
And well, the argument about what a film on Dunkirk should comprise... Eh, that's not so easy. I mean, you could make a film about how everyone at Dunkirk got incredibly lucky that there was a domestic power struggle in Germany and Hitler forced the approaching tanks to stop. I'm not sure whether that would have been the better story to tell.
Messofanego
Banned
Sarcastic Poster
Member
Where should the women have been?
ffejeromdiks
Banned
That's the author btw, and how I know you didn't read the article.
Pretty lazy retort amigo, women can throw abstract righteous dongs as well.
KarneeKarnay
Member
That's the author btw, and how I know you didn't read the article.
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.
That Ice, that's how I know you no chill. See what I mean. Makes no sense.
How clever. I hope it was worth it.
There were many women on the boats
RipperGrim
Member
I did find it weird that they managed to show black french soldiers but then not show any other races under the British military. It's going way too far though saying it's pro brexit though, it was emulating how people felt at the time with Britain standing alone against the Nazis and their allies. It wasn't factually true but that's how people felt at the time, it took so many years for none white soldiers to get the recognition they deserved for the war. So the Britain alone mentality was fine but it really should have physically represented everyone who was there.
I was also disappointed that they barely even mentioned the people holding the Germans at bay while the evacuation was going on, they knew they weren't making it out and still held their ground for the operation to be a success.
I was also disappointed that they barely even mentioned the people holding the Germans at bay while the evacuation was going on, they knew they weren't making it out and still held their ground for the operation to be a success.
jakonovski
Member
The one good insight here is, maybe the UK should be more thankful to ex colonial minorities.
Spaced Harrier
Member
Or you know, the fucking french!
- about the film, the french were barely represented in it, but that was the point. This was not a jingoistic film, it made it clear that they were futher up, holding the Germans back.
The British soldiers were not displayed as paragons of virtue, but real people trying to survive.
The viewpoint this was somehow brexity, is nonsensical to me. And I'm a cynical cunt who thinks that brexit has a hard, direct line which can be traced back through 70 years of WWII propaganda that has been fed to people.
ironically Juliet Gardiner the historical advisor of that film disagreed with some of the choices that film made.
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbro...1&week=d&msg=c1RX+DOdzLbfm1RAMn5WsA&user=&pw=
she also presented a show on the BBC radio called "Presenting the Past - How the Media Changes History" that goes into the issues some more.
Atonement writer Christopher Hampton
God forbid we Brits ever feel proud of our achievements....
Some of the posts in this thread feel like parody, but I have this horrible feeling that they aren't.