Follow TV Tropes
Nothing to do with the left or the right, but honestly, this whole triggered reactions on representation on media is getting rather exhausting.
I don't really see what's so wrong about showing a few Indians in a movie? Put them as extras or some shit, what's the problem in just putting them in the background to show that they exist?
It would be a nice thing. But the movie doesn't have any obligations to. People should stop acting as if it does.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that argument...
Nobody said it was obligated to. Just that the effort could be the minimum.
It's a 100 minute long film about the evacuation of 350-400K soldiers, of which 1,000 at best were Indian Service Corps members. Unless the film was specifically about them, there's no way it wouldn't come off as shoehorned.
It'd be shoehorned to show a couple Indian soldiers as extras despite it being at least a bit historically accurate?
Like Tucker is saying, just put in a little bit of effort and have extras, what the hell is the problem?
edited 6th Aug '17 10:38:27 PM by AdricDePsycho
Eh, war movies are already accustomed to shoehorning.
Especially since barely anyone raised such a complaint about WW as already mentioned.
edited 6th Aug '17 10:40:23 PM by Tuckerscreator
I'm more surprised by the sheer vehement disgust at the idea of showing a couple Indian extras.
Is being politically correct even one of the aims of this movie? Because if not, seems like asking for wrong things in a wrong work.
Nobody, at least not in this thread, is showing disgust at the idea of showing Indians in the movie. There are just people who criticize lack of their portrayal in the movie and people who think it's not that much of a big deal.
edited 6th Aug '17 10:44:11 PM by dRoy
So now historical accuracy is political correctness?
What I'm seeing is that the reaction to some people saying "Hey, maybe there should've been a couple Indian extras" is disproportionally strong.
edited 6th Aug '17 10:46:10 PM by AdricDePsycho
I have no problem with having Indian extras, for God's sake, but this entire issue is such a nothingburger topic. That they're absent doesn't really harm the film.
I don't think "politically correct" is really the right term to use here.
Are we asking for historical accuracy in this movie? Because this movie leaves a whole lot out. It wouldn't be anywhere near being historically accurate.
Operation Dynamo was a massive scoped operation and Nolan decided to focus on very narrow spot there. A whole lot of things didn't get the focus and portrayals of Indian troops just happened to be one of them.
Honestly I wasn't expecting Nolan to, since his past casting demographics have been par for the course of most white Hollywood directors, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't have been easy to subvert that. No anger, just shrugged shoulders at a missed free goal.
edited 6th Aug '17 10:48:23 PM by Tuckerscreator
Nobody here is saying anything like "DUNKIRK IS AWFUL BECAUSE NO INDIAN EXTRAS WERE IN IT". It's just one criticism that I feel is valid.
Again, nobody here is wanting focus, just some background extras at best to acknowledge "hey, they existed".
See, this is why I'm frustrated by the responses. Somebody says "Hey, ya know, maybe there could've been some Indian extras" and then suddenly people get mad.
edited 6th Aug '17 10:50:09 PM by AdricDePsycho
Unless it would have improved the movie by a significant margin, I really don't see the point, small or large.
See, this whole point of view...do we need to have a couple of Indian extras in a movie to acknowledge that Indians exist? Really? Hey, did anybody from Hong Kong enlist and show up at Dunkirk? Why didn't the movie have any Irish volunteers? And as I have already mentioned, there was a total lack of people named Steve.
edited 7th Aug '17 12:27:59 AM by jamespolk
Why, there was also a complete lack of Belgians. How heinous!
edited 7th Aug '17 12:43:17 AM by dRoy
Nice strawman arguments. No, it's to at least acknowledge the people there who were Indian and who were at Dunkirk. Why is it a bad thing to just say "Hey, maybe they could've added a couple of Indian extras", nobody here is saying "DUNKIRK IS AWFUL BECAUSE THERE WERE NO INDIAN EXTRAS", it's just a slight observation that's getting blown out of proportion. Tucker's been the most vocal in this thread about it and even he's stated he's mostly ambivalent.
First, that's not how strawmanning work.
Second, nobody from the other side is getting outraged either. All they are saying that it's a pretty trivial, and nitpicky complaint, given the artistic choices it took.
edited 7th Aug '17 2:07:07 AM by dRoy
So, to summarize:
I'm fine with moving on if everyone else is.
I am once I point out that the only other Indian in this thread was on my side.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?