Follow TV Tropes
George's death was badly handled and unnecessary. It would have been helpful if Nolan had broken his aversion to blood and gore or just left him leaving war blinded.
Oh god, I think I need to go out and breathe for a while.
This is Nolan's best work, bar none. He's mentioned in an interview that he waited twenty years until he felt ready to tell the story, and it shows. I'll try to go through the points, one by one:
In response to post #25 above...
...not to argue with an Army veteran but that was how the soldiers on the Dunkirk beaches actually lined up. One can see this from the photos, like this one
or this one
As far as manning the barricades, AFAIK most of the soldiers manning the barricades were in fact French so it would have been wrong to show the English fortifying the streets of Dunkirk. The point regarding poor tactics when Tommy's unit runs straight down the road instead of diving into buildings is well taken, but probably one should remember that those troops were exhausted and shell-shocked and were at the end of a long retreat all the way from northern France.
edited 23rd Jul '17 10:33:25 AM by jamespolk
I wonder whether Tommy and his section were from another BEF unit that had gotten overrun to the south, maybe even having fled all the way from Arras just ahead of the advancing Germans. That certainly would explain why he looks completely lost throughout the whole movie, with no attempt to seek out an officer or NCO who would reorganise him with the remnants of his unit.
Man, this film has one of the most beautiful usage of Nimrod Enigma Variations.
The British Army were never really taught the fine art of FIBUA, or Fighting In Built Up Areas, until after the Second World War, so them having crap tactics at the start of the film is basically Truth In Television. All the training that did occur pre-war was basically for a re-run of the First World War - and as we all know things didn't quite work out like that.
I do. (hollers mod)
So Dunkirk has the distinction of being the first ever film that I edited tropes pages for. It's quite a feeling ranting about poor urban warfare tactics for all the world to see.
BBC: Does Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk ignore the role of the Indian army?
I actually expected to see an Indian or a Gurkha appear as a Token Minority while in the theater, and was rather disappointed that I didn't, what with Arab and Africans appearing among the French troops trying to board the hospital ship.
edited 27th Jul '17 7:51:33 AM by FluffyMcChicken
Are there any great WWII depictions of the Indian Army involvement? Or any other colonies (cough, Canada, cough)? Because we really need some that aren't Euro/American-centric.
I don't think so, unfortunately. Which is a shame, because I think the Burma Campaign could be an interesting thing.
Finally caught the film yesterday. They really should have shown German faces.
Why? Das Boot didn't need to show Allied faces.
Fair enough then.
Now then, in regards to the ending: After shooting down that Stuka, why didn't Farrier just land immediately after? That way, he could have joined the fleeing British Army and not get himself captured by the Germans.
He's gliding dangerously low at that point, and has probably burned a lot of airspeed trying to get a firing solution on the Stuka. Plus Collins' ditching scene has already shown us why you don't want to land on water.
Ejecting isn't really an alternative either - if he jumps over land, there's no guarantee the chute will slow down his fall in time, and if he jumps over water, there's a good chance of getting tangled and drowning. Plus the Spitfire (and its German rival, the Bf 109) has a notoriously cramped cockpit that's kind of hard to get out of, let alone when you're in an unpowered glide and liable to lose control at any moment.
But all he did after shooting down that Stuka was make flybys. Not only that, he could have gotten to work on getting the landing wheels prepared immediately after shooting down the Stuka.
edited 27th Jul '17 12:44:38 PM by HallowHawk
"BBC: Does Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk ignore the role of the Indian army?"
Sweet Jebus, I hate articles like this.
"Does Dunkirk ignore the roles of Poles who fled to England in 1939?"
"Does Dunkirk ignore the role of Canadians?"
"Does Dunkirk ignore the role of American volunteers in the RAF?"
"Does Dunkirk ignore the role of people named Steve?"
I mean, it was pretty easy for Wonder Woman to acknowledge the involvement of Indian soldiers in WWI. Just a few two second shots showing they were there. Not that hard.
Their weren't many Indians at Dunkirk. From what I recall their were three pack mule companies and two of them were evacuated.
"Just a few two second shots showing they were there. Not that hard."
What about Belgian staff officers?
What about the Welsh?
What about Jewish refugees from Vienna?
Norwegian captains in the merchant marine?
Hey, were there any anti-Franco Spanish Republicans there?
Stories like that are idiotic. An intelligent article might ask where are the movies about General Slim's campaign. Where are the movies about Imphal? Why was practically the only movie about Burma made by Americans with Errol Flynn?
I do agree with you that it's impossible for a single media work to be all encompassing, but 60% is still better than 50%. I figure if Dunkirk the film had any few shots of Indian participants or Jewish or Belgian, there would've been no discussion here claiming said shots lowered the quality of the film.
Making more movies is fine by me. Though, current blockbusters purport to be aimed at the widest "possible" audience. More movies is perfectly fine a solution, but, well, it's easier to edit one movie than it is to make two or four or more.
edited 27th Jul '17 4:45:29 PM by Tuckerscreator
I'm not saying Dunkirk needed to fill some sort of quota of representation: it's made by Brits about Brits. I only wish a general wish that our fascination with WWII could extend to different perspectives too. Thinking about it though, Dunkirk is one of those types of films since not a lot of movies about it exist. Or correct me if I'm wrong.
There's a French movie, Weekend at Dunkirk, and a 1958 film starring Richard Attenborough, Dunkirk.
Polk, I think the point that many were trying to make was how Dunkirk explicitly showed Arab and African colonial troops among the French ranks. As a result, many - including myself actually -
expected to see an Indian or a Gurkha show up at any moment since it was clear that Nolan and the production paid enough attention to detail as to include two Token Minority groups that actually played a major role in the Allied war effort.
edited 27th Jul '17 8:40:15 PM by FluffyMcChicken
Am I the only one who thinks that this movie actually feels like a disaster movie? I find the portrayal of the Nazis in this movie really fascinating. There are many good WWII movies in which Nazis are portrayed more humanely...but I've never seen any movie where it takes such a sharp opposite direction that they feel more like a force of nature.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?