Support NeoGAF

[The Kree]

Giving meaningful screen presence to a character of every ethnicity, nationality, gender and religion present during the conflict? Yeah, that would take time

The lengths we go to maintain white supremacy, even when requesting something as innocuous as more diverse casting in a 90 minute movie.

Wow.

You can't spare a few more minutes of runtime in a relatively disposable piece of cinema.

Wow. I'm at a loss.

 

[watershed]

When it comes to movie execs, yes, this matters. It's pretty much a money play, simple as that.

A background actor who is a person of color costs no more and burdens the production no more than a background actor who is white. You are talking nonsense.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Or... he could have just thought of that before shooting and swapped some of the white actors with minorities...

Were there Indians on the beach too or were they only on the boats that rescued soldiers?

 

[Ocarina_117]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/08/patrickwintour

Was going to link this article also.

My great grandfather was an Indian who served in world war 2. The first id heard of the Indian troops nearly being abandoned was from my father several years ago when Nolan first announced the project, I assume he heard it from his grand father.

India's, in particular Punjab's, contribution has never really been acknowledged by Britain. Irks me that animals get a monument before the Indian men who served Britain during the great wars.

 

[the_darkness]

Or... he could have just thought of that before shooting and swapped some of the white actors with minorities...

Yeah, fuck whoever works best for a character or nails their audition, just swap 'em!

 

[jon bones]

half-British filmmaker eager to erase Indian history?

i'm shocked

 

[TransTrender]

Didn't we just have a thread about how the myth perpetuated by the movie execs that audiences are scared of diversity is not only unfounded, but factually proven to be the opposite? Nolan has more than enough clout to say "hey how about we include some minority actors in this movie as extras or even just reference the struggle/persecution/necessity of those troops?

It's not about minorities, it's about the runtime.

A background actor who is a person of color costs no more and burdens the production no more than a background actor who is white. You are talking nonsense.

Missing my point.It's not about minorities, it's about the runtime, and it's about the money.

 

[Psychoward]

Yeah, fuck whoever works best for a character or nails their audition, just swap 'em!

We are literally talking about fucking extras here, I'm sure any minority actor could have done better than smile guy.

 

[Firemind]

The war would've been over if the British didn't prevail in rescuing their soldiers.

That's debatable. It's partly British propaganda to make Dunkirk bigger than it actually was.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

So if you had a platoon of Indian troops in the background, chilling, manning the line or even marching by, it's a waste of time?

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I don't understand the argument that because people of color were a minority in the actual events of Dunkirk it's okay for the movie to completely ignore them. That kind of sounds like saying because people of color are a minority, it's ok to completely ignore them.

Because it wasn't a broad overview of the entire fucking operation. It focused on a select few people and emphasised their interconnected paths with them largely coming together at various points throughout the movie. In this case it just so happened to fixate on white English people in an era that predates the influx of indian, pakistani, and west indies immigration from countries outside of Europe.

But the Brits only attitude was raised in the actual movie by characters who remarked on the hostility toward the French on multiple occasions.

 

[excelsiorlef]

When it comes to movie execs, yes, this matters. It's pretty much a money play, simple as that.

Maybe he felt the pressure of being time constrained

Spoiler

/s

Well 10 minutes of run-time but if they were never included in the original screenplay and whatnot then you'll have to consider a couple of million $ in extra shoots, costumes, writing, payroll, days on set, SFX, etc.

What the hell are you talking about?

Would randomly inserting minority characters been historically accurate? Probably not.
Would trying to appease every demographic turn this into a Roland Emmerich film? Yes.

Minorities were there

 

[Alebrije]

The problem is people taking movies as reference for historic events and not real history; know some guys that thier Greek mythology knowledge comes from God of War games.

 

[Mael]

We are literally talking about fucking extras here, I'm sure any minority actor could have done better than smile guy.

They wouldn't have been better at being white though.

 

[Psychoward]

Were there Indians on the beach too or were they only on the boats that rescued soldiers?

I'm 99% sure it was both, but it doesn't really matter either way since everyone on the boats was white too.

It's not about minorities, it's about the runtime.



Missing my point.It's not about minorities, it's about the runtime, and it's about the money.

Again, he has enough to clout to do whatever the fuck he wants and including a single "pandering" sentence or some minority extras would hardly up the runtime.

 

[VeeP]

Yeah, fuck whoever works best for a character or nails their audition, just swap 'em!

I think he just means add some more diversity to the cast, mainly to the background actors, to show that it wasn't only Britains involved in the Dunkirk Evacuation. I haven't seen the film so I can't comment.

 

[Llyranor]

Yeah, fuck whoever works best for a character or nails their audition, just swap 'em!

You seriously think minorities were called to audition and they couldn't find a single one to fit the role of one of the 1000 British extras?

 

[The Kree]

What the hell are you talking about?




Minorities were there

But acknowledging them is a literal WASTE OF TIME. That's the current argument.

LMAO I can't. I can't. I CAN'T.

 

[the_darkness]

We are literally talking about fucking extras here, I'm sure any minority actor could have done better than smile guy.

Ok, a bunch of posters in this thread have expressed that substituting in some extras isn't enough and is in fact more insulting than their absence altogether which I would suggest is a totally valid viewpoint.

So it's lose-lose right?

 

[yanipheonu]

Movies portraying historical events will inevitably have historical discrepancies, I would argue accurately recreating a historical event in film is fundementally impossible. There will always be alterations, even if subconscious or a product of the times.

In the case of Dunkirk, accurate as possible portrayal did not seem to be the goal, so the failure to show certain troops at an event seems like a concern to simplify a message rather than distort history.

But yes, Hollywood often sucks at portraying minorities and whitewashing.

 

[Psychoward]

Because it wasn't a broad overview of the entire fucking operation. It focused on a select few people and emphasised their interconnected paths with them largely coming together at various points throughout the movie. In this case it just so happened to fixate on white English people in an era that predates the influx of indian, pakistani, and west indies immigration from countries outside of Europe.

But the Brits only attitude was raised in the actual movie by characters who remarked on the hostility toward the French on multiple occasions.

It didn't just "fixate" on white people, it completely removed any indication that there were any minorities at all involved in the british fighting forces or rescue team.

 

[watershed]

It's not about minorities, it's about the runtime.



Missing my point.It's not about minorities, it's about the runtime, and it's about the money.

Right. Run time. Scripting. Inconsequential subplots. Money. Roland Emmerich and whatever other awful things would happen if this movie more accurately represented the relatively small presence of people of color among all the white people in Dunkirk.

 

[excelsiorlef]

But acknowledging them is a literal WASTE OF TIME. That's the current argument.

LMAO I can't. I can't. I CAN'T.

Also someone said adding them would just be pandering.

That's actually my fav because it nakes the argument that being basically all white is the progressive move because adding a bit of colour would be just pandering.

 

[airmangataosenai]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40724861

"They weren't large in number, maybe a few hundred among hundreds of thousands, but their appearance in the film would have provided a good reminder of how utterly central the role of the Indian Army was in the war," he told Slate

I mean, they could have included these troops yeah but not including them seems reasonable as well. The article in the OP makes it sound like they were a huge chunk of the force which given this information is a huge exaggeration. Like this article says though, this is more about WW2 as a whole rather than this particular event.

 

[DocSeuss]

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.

Spielberg actually earns all his emotions, though. Nolan's got a lot more in common with J.J. Abrams, where he creates moments that are supposed to feel one way, but never really earn it (e.g. convenient Millennium Falcon appearance)

 

[Albino_Yeti]

Last of the Mohicans is appsrently pretty darn accurate actually, apart from some typical noble savage tropes.

Anyway, don't see a problem with not showing a group that consisted of 0.5% of the entire force, and may not have been involved in the specific areas the film focused on. A "pander" shot of some Indian soldiers for a split second would have been equally criticised for using them as some quota filler and not in any prominent role.

I have to agree. If anything, they should have shown more Black French troops, but since, as has been established, this movie wasn't really about the French, that doesn't seem necessary. You see like 10 French soldiers all movie.

 

[Psychoward]

Ok, a bunch of posters in this thread have expressed that substituting in some extras isn't enough and is in fact more insulting than their absence altogether which I would suggest is a totally valid viewpoint.

So it's lose-lose right?

I've seen that once and it was only from some person arguing against their inclusion entirely. So receipts.

 

[the_darkness]

But acknowledging them is a literal WASTE OF TIME. That's the current argument.

LMAO I can't. I can't. I CAN'T.

You can't what? Read good? Because that's mighty reductive.

 

[Mael]

Yall should be thankful, we nearly had another Pearl Harbor on our hand until they decided to cut the minorities out of the movie.

 

[slider]

In a film with so little characterisation, I don't think representing minorities would be a major impact to anything.

That's on the assumption that the proportion of other nations there was "significant" (totally arbitrary, I know).

 

[Gnome Scat]

It's not about minorities, it's about the runtime.

Can't say I agree with the runtime argument, it is a Nolan movie after all. Pacing and set design, however, are another issue. If there were no Indians on the beach and they could not secure the type of vessel the Indian's used at Dunkirk (since the movie looked like it was going for authenticity and practical sets), then in my mind it's understandable that a force that made up less than 1% of the soldiers there were cut since involving them otherwise could have interrupted with the flow of the movie or been too hard to fit in.

Otherwise if it would be accurate to stick some Indian extras on the beach or on one of the ships that were already in the movie, then I can't understand why Nolan wouldn't bother to include them unless he just genuinely didn't care about giving them any credit.

 

[Vixdean]

It's this sort of stupid criticism that make people roll their eyes when even valid accusations of "whitewashing" are made. Also, we're officially into the "tear it down" phase of the Nolan cycle.

 

[Psychoward]

It's this sort of stupid criticism that make people roll their eyes when even valid accusations of "whitewashing" are made. Also, we're officially into the "tear it down" phase of the Nolan cycle.

I love how you put whitewashing in quotes like it's a made up phenomenon.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Other than the last page and one user, this has been a pretty civil and interesting discussions. I certainly learned a lot more about the actual battle from what the OP posted and various other people. Thanks! I think that article raises some interesting points and questions even while disagreeing with some and genuinely liking the movie.

Seeing people talk about TDKR makes me want to post an essay called "Occupy Gotham: The Conflicted Politics in Nolan's Batman" or something.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It's this sort of stupid criticism that make people roll their eyes when even valid accusations of "whitewashing" are made. Also, we're officially into the "tear it down" phase of the Nolan cycle.

People roll their eyes at every whitewashing conversation.

Please don't pretend there's this really receptive audience out there that is just put off of the entire concept because someone wrote a piece about it in relation to Dunkirk.

The argument is in fact valid too sooo...

 

[Mael]

It's this sort of stupid criticism that make people roll their eyes when even valid accusations of "whitewashing" are made. Also, we're officially into the "tear it down" phase of the Nolan cycle.

People said that about Ghost in the Shell and all the other whitewashing instances.
It's kinda like racism, it's quantum locked.
any example can be explained away making sure that no real example exists despite the concept really being a known quantity.

 

[Seiryoden]

Well, like, you could consider the part where the movie maker only has a certain amount of run time and doesn't want to overly convolute the script like a Roland Emmerich film with tons of inconsequential subplots that turn the movie in to an editing clusterfuck.

But whatever.
Racism.

We're not asking for a IASC Muleteer subplot with a Bollywood dance number, we're asking for one of these faces

to be brown. Like they were on the fucking beach in 1940.

 

[frontovik]

It's very rare to view historical films that don't have directors taking creative liberties or deviating from primary sources.

 

[TransTrender]

Otherwise if it would be accurate to stick some Indian extras on the beach or on one of the ships that were already in the movie, then I can't understand why Nolan wouldn't bother to include them unless he just genuinely didn't care about giving them any credit.

Do you think Nolan had this on his mind all the time? He was probably too focused trying to make a movie on budget and on time. The blame isn't his for them not being included, but it would have been nice if he did bring it up. Then again there were probably other writers and fact-checkers who should have known this from the beginning and made an effort, or, possibly, in the grand scheme of things there wasn't time fit something meaningful in the movie during production.

 

[The Kree]

You can't what? Read good? Because that's mighty reductive.

Nah. You win. Chris Nolan needs to be Doctor fucking Strange to find time for non white people in his movies. That's not an argument I can beat.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It's very rare to view historical films that don't have directors taking creative liberties or deviating from primary sources.

Sure and thus he can be criticized.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

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.

There's nothing dodgy about the historical inaccuracies in a film. That's just stone-cold fact. Those inaccuracies happening in a post-Brexit world just make them really, really unfortunate and doubly awkward.

You can definitely argue that aspect of it, but there's literally no viable argument to be made about a film being inaccurate, especially when it glosses over a contingent of people and their contribution to history.

EDIT: I regret googling this, btw. It's basically nothing but Alt-Right articles complaining about SJW's.

 

[EvilRedEye]

Curious as to whether there's a US/UK disparity in opinions on this issue. Britain has historically been significantly less ethnically diverse than the US - we were still 94% white as recently as 1991 and are only very recently starting to close the gap with America. A UK audience would, pretty accurately, perceive the time period and event of Dunkirk as being overwhelmingly patriarchal and white and any kind of focus on the role of women and ethnic minorities would come across as a bold equalitist take on the event. Some would argue that's no bad thing but it's not surprising to me that a British director has done this take on the event, even if the film is aimed at a more global audience. I feel like some the argument in this thread is kind of on the basis that there's a neutral or objectively good way of doing race in this film and I don't think there is. On the one hand it's pretty reasonably to do a overwhelmingly white take on an overwhelming white event and time period and on the other hand that excludes some experiences and plays into the issues with media representation that we have in the present day.

 

[TransTrender]

We're not asking for a IASC Muleteer subplot with a Bollywood dance number, we're asking for one of these faces

to be brown. Like they were on the fucking beach in 1940.

Were there integrated units at that time?

 

[Vixdean]

I love how you put whitewashing in quotes like it's a made up phenomenon.

Nah, only in cases when it actually is made up, in this case to collect clicks from Nolan haters frantically searching for arguments why Dunkirk wasn't that good.

 

[Mael]

Nah, only in cases when it actually is made up, in this case to collect clicks from Nolan haters frantically searching for arguments why Dunkirk wasn't that good.

I rest my case on the quantum qualities of whitewashing or as Vixdean put it : "whitewashing".

 

[Addi]

Nah, only in cases when it actually is made up, in this case to collect clicks from Nolan haters frantically searching for arguments why Dunkirk wasn't that good.

ah, those Nolan haters, they need any ammo they can get to belittle his perfect movies. I'm a Nolan neutral by the way and I thought the movie was only decent.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Nah, only in cases when it actually is made up, in this case to collect clicks from Nolan haters frantically searching for arguments why Dunkirk wasn't that good.

Does the studio pay you for this persecution complex?

 

[watershed]

Dunkirk is not alone in ignoring the contributions, role, or even presence of people of color in films based on historical events. You could call this a form of racial erasure. The film can be about whatever it wants to be about. In this case, the argument is that this is a film about the white British soldiers and their struggle to survive. There is nothing inherently wrong with this focus. But when this film, that is already about white characters, goes on to remove in absentia the presence of any people of color who were present in history and shared this same experience, then the film is saying very clearly to people of color: "Your history is not a part of this movie. This movie is not about you." The problem is this is what Hollywood has always said to people of color. Hence, white washing.

 

[Llyranor]

Sometimes I think there would be more of an outrage at Admiral Ackbar being cast as a human character in a hypothetical Star Wars remake than at handwaving minorities' contributions in historical events.