Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

The correct term would be "art can be political". It does not mean it has to be.

Nah, by definition art cannot be apolitical.
Politic is about trying to rule/influence over all parts of society, there is not a part of society that politic doesn't try to influence.
Art is all about sharing a message cannot talk about a subject that isn't inherently politicized and that the audience will not view through a political lens.
The notion that some piece of art can be free of politic is juvenile, counterproductive and rather myopic.
We can play that game too, name a piece of art and it's text/subtext and we will tell you how it's political.
Please don't choose something as easy as anything to do with love, war or transportation, you have to make it interesting.

 

[jtb]

Plus there aren't many wars that are more justifiable and easy to get behind than WW2. It's why I'm so surprised when I've seen peoples' takeaway from Dunkirk being "It shows the futility of war". No, it shows the incredibly damaging nature of war, but World War 2 was far from futile. It was a war against the real-life inspiration between cartoon villains everywhere.

Well, then you get into the whole argument of 'should Britain and France intervened earlier' appeasement debate (that rages on to this day!) Could the Holocaust have been prevented? Would France have fallen? Would Dunkirk have been necessary? etc. etc. Chuchill, one of history's most iconic (and, frankly, vindicated) hawks, plays a very present role in this film, after all.

Hell, the film even explicitly references the fact that America delayed their entry into the war as long as possible. Did America's inaction prolong the war and lead to millions of unnecessary deaths?

The thing about political art is that even the things we take for granted are, themselves, loaded political questions.

Nolan's pretty obviously and notoriously been deep in Toryism for a while.

His Dark Knight films all flirt with the idea of Batman as the proto-fascist hero (the phone tap in TDK in particular, but the entire TDKR plot warns against trusting 'the people' and their populist urges), but I wouldn't go that far because Nolan never seems willing to go the extra step and just owning it.

Again, the problem with Nolan is that he only ever flirts with ideas. For someone so heavy handed, he's reluctant to actually engage directly with these ideas that he has.

 

[wazoo]

Please don't choose something as easy as anything to do with love, war or transportation, you have to make it interesting.

And you will be the guy to decide how interesting it is, I assume ?

 

[Albino_Yeti]

Plus there aren't many wars that are more justifiable and easy to get behind than WW2. It's why I'm so surprised when I've seen peoples' takeaway from Dunkirk being "It shows the futility of war". No, it shows the incredibly damaging nature of war, but World War 2 was far from futile. It was a war against the real-life inspiration between cartoon villains everywhere.

Yea, WW2 is perhaps the most justified war in human history. There was a very clear good side and bad side to it.

 

[Mael]

And you will be the guy to decide how interesting it is, I assume ?

Well if you prefer to go "lalalal I can't hear you" then I guess you're more Republican than most.
Because you choose to ignore a message doesn't mean it isn't there.
Heck we can even show laws trying to talk about the subject matter if you want.

 

[jtb]

Yea, WW2 is perhaps the most justified war in human history. There was a very clear good side and bad side to it.

Not to belabor this point, but it's not like WW2 exists in a vacuum.

It's an event that has informed and shaped politics ever since - sure, we all agree Nazis are bad, but we disagree as to what the lessons to take from WW2 should be.

After all, if WW2 was an event that had no meaning or significance to today's world, nobody would be making films about it. Clearly, it does.

 

[Preezy]

I'm talking about World War II.

The actual single most important geopolitical event of the 20th century is WW1. Without that, WW2 wouldn't have happened.

 

[Albino_Yeti]

Not to belabor this point, but it's not like WW2 exists in a vacuum.

It's an event that has informed and shaped politics ever since - sure, we all agree Nazis are bad, but we disagree as to what the lessons to take from WW2 should be.

After all, if WW2 was an event that had no meaning or significance to today's world, nobody would be making films about it. Clearly, it does.

Sure, I can agree with that. I'm just saying I find the jingoism accusations silly.

 

[jtb]

The actual single most important geopolitical event of the 20th century is WW1. Without that, WW2 wouldn't have happened.

Well, I think there's a strong argument to be made WW1 was inevitable - and an equally strong case that WW2 could have been avoided. Let's meet halfway and say that the Treaty of Versailles was actually the single most important geopolitical event and that WW1 and WW2 are both inextricably linked to it

 

[wazoo]

Well if you prefer to go "lalalal I can't hear you" then I guess you're more Republican than most.
Because you choose to ignore a message doesn't mean it isn't there.
Heck we can even show laws trying to talk about the subject matter if you want.

No, I am not, it is just funny how you decide the rules. And do not call me republican, I am not insulting you.

I agree that art is about sharing a message, otherwise it is just illustration. I differ to the fact that all artists have a political message but talk mostly about their inner feelings (is that correct terms, I am not english ?)

now it is not because a story happened during WW2 that it is a political story. In the sameway, not all story happening today are about any political problems dealing with political problems of today. Are they interesting to you ? Maybe not. This is your concern.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Really don't get the jingoism/propaganda accusations at all. It's a movie about Dunkirk. The British did not win the battle of Dunkirk. It's considered a miracle because they managed to retreat. And it's not like they are fighting a controversial foe. The enemy is Nazi Germany for fucks sake. Are we suppose to not root for the British? Not every war movie is jingoistic. Showing support for the military is not inherently jingoistic.

The Nazis being bad or Dunkirk being a defeat don't preclude the film from being propaganda or jingoistic. The British government literally created propaganda films about Dunkirk and I can guarantee you they were pretty damn jingoistic.

 

[Irminsul]

Why do the statistics matter for historical fiction? I thought this wasn't supposed to be wholly accurate?

Well, the argument being made is about whitewashing of history, isn't it? For that argument, statistics are very important.

Now, if the argument being made was about representation of minorities, that would be another thing.

 

[LordOfChaos]

The massive contribution and human cost by India under British Rule is often forgotten in history texts, let alone movies. It's unfortunate, and not just for the movie.

 

[jtb]

No, I am not, it is just funny how you decide the rules. And do not call me republican, I am not insulting you.

I agree that art is about sharing a message, otherwise it is just illustration. I differ to the fact that all artists have a political message but talk mostly about their inner feelings (is that correct terms, I am not english ?)

now it is not because a story happened during WW2 that it is a political story. In the sameway, not all story happening today are about any political problems dealing with political problems of today. Are they interesting to you ? Maybe not. This is your concern.

If Dunkirk is not a political story and has nothing to say about World War II, then why does it exist?

 

[Garjon]

The article makes a good point about the whitewashing of non-white soldiers but at the same time, if they had included more non-white faces, the film would be accused of being politically correct and this would have dampened WoM, despite them actually being present at the event. It's an awful thing, but we're at the point where exclusion of PoC roles in historic films can be seen as a deliberate act.

The stuff about Brexiteering is pure nonsense though. The film goes out of its way to show the horrors of war and the ways it scars soldiers in the ways that Brexiters would prefer us to forget.

Spoiler

It shows the ways the media/propaganda manipulated military history to tell their own version of events

. Though with all that, I must also say that

Spoiler

a pilot shooting down a Nazi plane with no engine and the final line from Kenneth Branagh was a bit much and gave the film a 'happy ending', blissfully unaware of the point made in the scene on the train

 

[Shadowhelper]

The article makes a good point about the whitewashing of non-white soldiers but at the same time, if they had included more non-white faces, the film would be accused of being politically correct and this would have dampened WoM, despite them actually being present at the event. It's an awful thing, but we're at the point where exclusion of PoC roles in historic films can be seen as a deliberate act.

Just racist rationalization. If we listened to you there never would've been any POC or women in significant roles. No if it had POC lots of people would've been thrilled and the reviews would've been even better.

It's not that difficult. It could've even been about Indian soldiers, told from their perspective. Could've been amazing. But the unyielding racism of Nolan and British people won't allow us to find out.

 

[MysteryM]

As a Sikh, it was refreshing to see Sikh's being portrayed in the WW1 battles in Wonder Woman, it would be nice to see that portrayed in more movies so as not to forget the minorities who played a part.

 

[Garjon]

Just racist rationalization. If we listened to you there never would've been any POC or women in significant roles. No if it had POC lots of people would've been thrilled and the reviews would've been even better.

It's not that difficult. It could've even been about Indian soldiers, told from their perspective. Could've been amazing. But the unyielding racism of Nolan and British people won't allow us to find out.

Try reading all of the quote, not just the bolded. There would have been 'political correctness gone mad!' BS accusations levelled at the film which would have lowered ticket sales and impacted reviews in *certain* publications. My point was that it was probably deliberate to exclude PoC, even if researchers said they would have been present. We're not talking about high art here, this is a big budget re-imagining of a historic event with the aim to sell tickets rather than inform. I'm not excusing this in any way; I think it's a big problem with society in 2017. I'm just stating facts.

 

[Mael]

No, I am not, it is just funny how you decide the rules. And do not call me republican, I am not insulting you.

Not all republicans are evil twirling villains (most are though)
If we're playing a game we have to set up rules or it's not a game anymore.
I lay down the rules because I'm proposing the game.

I agree that art is about sharing a message, otherwise it is just illustration. I differ to the fact that all artists have a political message but talk mostly about their inner feelings (is that correct terms, I am not english ?)

A message cannot be apolitical. Even something as inner feelings about the most intimate sentiments of an artist is enough to tell us about how the author think of the world and how it should or should not be.
And political action is nothing but the collection of actions from actors to influence society.

now it is not because a story happened during WW2 that it is a political story. In the sameway, not all story happening today are about any political problems dealing with political problems of today. Are they interesting to you ? Maybe not. This is your concern.

An apolitical story about war would have to be pretty well divorced from any message to not tell us anything about our current ordeals.
We still have wars and the means to go to war to this day? Then you can be pretty sure that the story depicted is telling you something about the current situation.
And a story about British people leaving Mainland Europe to regroup after a defeat is gonna be pretty huge in parallel with the UK's current situation.
The very subject calls for it after the event of last year.
Might as well make a movie about Andrew Jackson and claim you weren't trying to say anything about the current administration.

 

[yanipheonu]

Just racist rationalization. If we listened to you there never would've been any POC or women in significant roles. No if it had POC lots of people would've been thrilled and the reviews would've been even better.

It's not that difficult. It could've even been about Indian soldiers, told from their perspective. Could've been amazing. But the unyielding racism of Nolan and British people won't allow us to find out.

Alright now, claiming whitewashing is one thing but claiming racism like that does less than help.

Whitewashing in Hollywood is so systemic is hard to really claim any one person as a particularly racist culprit.

Is the system racist? Sure seems to be. Is Christopher Nolan specifically racist? That's jumping to a conclusion.

I also appreciate the irony of denouncing racism by claiming British people as racist. C'mon now, you're better than that.

 

[DavidDesu]

There was 400,000 troops apparently waiting to leave, I saw maybe 200 in the depiction in this film. So a few faces showing up in one scene probably ticked the proportional representation box.

Seriously though historic films like these I feel should have some responsibility to represent the reality. I remember some American film (well many of them) completely overplay America's role in WW2 and ignore the British and others. Wasn't there that U Boat film that completely wrote the British out ad replaced them with yanks... yeah fuck that noise. Unless it's clearly a more stylistic film or parody then they should have a requirement to not stray too far from what actually happened with the right people who were there.

 

[Mael]

I also appreciate the irony of denouncing racism by claiming British people as racist. C'mon now, you're better than that.

But British ain't a race.

Spoiler

That was far too tempting to pass up.

 

[Inferno313]

But British ain't a race.

Spoiler

That was far too tempting to pass up.

Also helps that "racist" isn't a slur, as much as white people would like it to be treated as such.

 

[Gnome Scat]

This is nonsense

It really isn't.

It was clear that Dunkirk was a piece centered around the perspective of British soldiers and British civilians during the evacuation of those beaches, and probably came from a feeling of patriotism and pride for Nolan as an Englishman. Honestly, if that's where his focus was, then he probably wasn't too concerned about making sure a minority that made up 500 out of 400,000 people were represented, especially since their participation was non-essential to the story he was trying to tell.

However, 500 Indians did participate in the evacuation of Dunkirk, and no one likes being left out of history, even if they were just a small detail in the grand scheme of that event that is being told. I'm white so I never have to worry about my race being ignored in historically-set films. Honestly, I don't think I can name one historically-set film I've seen that didn't have white people in them, even if they weren't the focus. So I can understand how and Indian person can be angry, frustrated, or disappointed in this film for grazing over their participation because once again, Hollywood missed an opportunity to represent them.

Personally, I don't think this is that big of an offense and I think there are some strong overreactions, especially when words like "whitewashing" are used. But if you are making a historically-set film and in your focus you ignore a fact, it may anger some people, even if it is not an overwhelming significant detail. All criticism is fair, even if the movie doesn't aim to accurately portray every aspect of an event.

 

[jtb]

Alright now, claiming whitewashing is one thing but claiming racism like that does less than help.

Whitewashing in Hollywood is so systemic is hard to really claim any one person as a particularly racist culprit.

Is the system racist? Sure seems to be. Is Christopher Nolan specifically racist? That's jumping to a conclusion.

I also appreciate the irony of denouncing racism by claiming British people as racist. C'mon now, you're better than that.

If you're more worried about white people's feelings (and yes, that includes Mr. Nolan) than proper inclusion and representation of people of color and women in films - Dunkirk or otherwise, then you should reorganize your priorities.

 

[yanipheonu]

If you're more worried about white people's feelings (and yes, that includes Mr. Nolan) than proper inclusion and representation of people of color and women in films - Dunkirk or otherwise, then you should reorganize your priorities.

Fighting for equality is not a zero sum game against white people.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Well, the argument being made is about whitewashing of history, isn't it? For that argument, statistics are very important.

Now, if the argument being made was about representation of minorities, that would be another thing.

Not really. We know they were there. A filmmaker can easily show them, theyre not limited by statistical reality.

 

[jtb]

Fighting for equality is not a zero sum game against white people.

Okay, who's saying it is? You're the one arguing that equal representation is only permissible on your terms. That strikes me as a far more zero-sum position than mine.

 

[yanipheonu]

Okay, who's saying it is? You're the one arguing that equal representation is only permissible on your terms. That strikes me as a far more zero-sum position than mine.

I'm simply skeptical the need to claim a director (white or not) is racist with insufficient evidence will provide the diversity you desire.

 

[Angel_DvA]

Not enough French ? Agree.
Too White ? Agree.
Nolan is racist ? Disagree.
Is it important to discuss about the issue ? Yes.

 

[jem0208]

The question I asked when I saw the film wasn't "Why did Nolan omit minorities and minorities from Dunkirk" but rather "What about Dunkirk did Nolan find to make for a compelling story?"

I didn't see any shred of politicization or political ideology within Dunkirk, because I don't think the film has any ideas, period. It's not about anything. It exists in a vacuum away from society, from blood, from politics - until the point where it doesn't. It's a very strange decision and one that rings rather hollow towards the end.

It's a set piece in search of a point or a plot. With a stronger thesis (or any kind of ideas at all), the film would be able to sidestep these questions much more adeptly. Instead, there's no "why" for why the film exists sans minorities because there's no "why" for why the film exists at all.



I'd find this argument more compelling if Dunkirk wasn't a film set within the single most important geopolitical event of the 20th century.

Isn't this post rather contradictory?

You say Dunkirk has very little politicisation then turn around and argue art set within WW2 is inherently political.


Regarding the topic at hand, whilst I certainly wouldn't be against the addition of minorities I feel that considering the statistics the criticisms leveled at the film by the article are huge overstatements. It's a big stretch to call it whitewashing and it is certainly not a "thinly veiled Brexiteer fantasy".

 

[jtb]

Isn't this post rather contradictory?

You say Dunkirk has very little politicisation then turn around and argue art set within WW2 is inherently political.


Regarding the topic at hand, whilst I certainly wouldn't be against the addition of minorities I feel that considering the statistics the criticisms leveled at the film by the article are huge overstatements. It's a big stretch to call it whitewashing and it is certainly not a "thinly veiled Brexiteer fantasy".

Right. What's missing is my belief that Dunkirk is a failure because of its lack of convictions or ideas. Nolan does not properly exert control over his narrative (or seem interested in it, anyways), so Dunkirk ends up meaning everything and nothing all at once.

Fighting for equality is not a zero sum game against white people.

I don't think Nolan is a racist. I also don't think it's important to play 'who's a real racist.' Racism is a structure. It can exist in shades of grey. You can be complicit in perpetuating a racist structure. At that point, does it really matter if he's 'racist'? It doesn't to me.

 

[jem0208]

Right. What's missing is my belief that Dunkirk is a failure because of its lack of convictions or ideas. Nolan does not properly exert control over his narrative (or seem interested in it, anyways), so Dunkirk ends up meaning everything and nothing all at once.



I don't think Nolan is a racist. I also don't think it's important to play 'who's a real racist.' Racism is a structure. It can exist in shades of grey. You can be complicit in perpetuating a racist structure. At that point, does it really matter if he's 'racist'? It doesn't to me.

Right. So do you believe that for a film to be a success it has to politicised in some form?

 

[toastyToast]

Creative license is only ok if it makes historical events whiter.

If Nolan had a bunch of Africans chilling... I already know how this story goes

 

[CyclopsRock]

Well, then you get into the whole argument of 'should Britain and France intervened earlier' appeasement debate (that rages on to this day!) Could the Holocaust have been prevented? Would France have fallen? Would Dunkirk have been necessary? etc. etc. Chuchill, one of history's most iconic (and, frankly, vindicated) hawks, plays a very present role in this film, after all.

Hell, the film even explicitly references the fact that America delayed their entry into the war as long as possible. Did America's inaction prolong the war and lead to millions of unnecessary deaths?

The thing about political art is that even the things we take for granted are, themselves, loaded political questions.

I think that's really more of a practical question than a moral one, though. The Nazis were so successful because they were very, very good at, for want of a better term, "war". The whole of Europe fell in front of them, and we in the UK were really only spared thanks to the English Channel. For all the stick Chamberlain gets for his appeasement, the reality is that the UK was not in a position to fight a war with Nazi Germany. We never were a country with a large land army, always relying on the Navy to dominate any sphere we operated in, and after WW1 bled us dry the army was really left to rot. Chamberlain had little choice, and the fact that even after Churchill took over it was still years before any real push into Europe occured demonstrates that. It's hard to know if Chamberlain really believed Hitler and his letter, but in practice I don't think it matters - we had little choice but to turtle down, work on our production and wait for the US to wake up.