The Film Thread

[Johnny75]

Sunny Singh has more or less eviscerated Dunkirk for whitewashing in The Guardian today. Decent article if you can find it, although the author makes a lot of accusatory statements that will probably only serve to turn people off but they really understand the point.

You think it's acceptable to use the term 'whitewash'?

The author makes some valid points but her use of language is offensive. Her implication of Nolan being a racist is thoroughly unpalatable and attention seeking. It is written from the view of trying to create offence.

 

[Alan]

...why should whitewashing be an unacceptable term?

I don't disagree that her points linking Dunkirk to Brexit propaganda are a stretch but I already allowed for that. I said the article was decent, not gospel.

To be perfectly honest the lack of black and brown faces in a movie such as this SHOULD bother people. And whitewashing is a perfectly acceptable and commonly used term for such instances in historical film (or any film, really).

 

[Johnny75]

...why should whitewashing be an unacceptable term?

I don't disagree that her points linking Dunkirk to Brexit propaganda are a stretch but I already allowed for that. I said the article was decent, not gospel.

To be perfectly honest the lack of black and brown faces in a movie such as this SHOULD bother people. And whitewashing is a perfectly acceptable and commonly used term for such instances in historical film (or any film, really).

There are different races on the beach (which is a point that is made).

The author uses the term 'whitewash' as a stick to beat Nolan with and is using it as a term to tar Nolan as a racist. Especially when used in conjunction with Farage, Brexit and the insinuation that it could be used by far right groups.

If only the author had the same opinion on Bollywood films.....

 

[Alan]

There are different races on the beach (which is a point that is made).

The relevance of which is what? That doesn't change any of the points being made. Whitewashing does not mean that 100% of the cast and extras are white.

 

[Johnny75]

The relevance of which is what? That doesn't change any of the points being made. Whitewashing does not mean that 100% of the cast and extras are white.

What does it mean then Alan?

 

[Alan]

What does it mean then Alan?

It refers to the erasure of historically significant black and brown lives in historical films, or the unnecessary addition of white lives in ahistorical films. The Great Wall with Matt Damon is a decent example of the latter.

I don't know how it's been marketed in the UK, but in the States it is very much being advertised as a historically accurate film. To then simply remove African and Indian soldiers from the equation just because it's uncomfortable for us to deal with the fact that they were by far the more likely to be left behind than their white counterparts is the very clearest example of whitewashing.

 

[Johnny75]

It refers to the erasure of historically significant black and brown lives in historical films, or the unnecessary addition of white lives in ahistorical films. The Great Wall with Matt Damon is a decent example of the latter.

I don't know how it's been marketed in the UK, but in the States it is very much being advertised as a historically accurate film. To then simply remove African and Indian soldiers from the equation just because it's uncomfortable for us to deal with the fact that they were by far the more likely to be left behind than their white counterparts is the very clearest example of whitewashing.

Were they deliberately removed from the film or just not focused on? As has been said the vast majority of people on the beach were white, the pilots would've been white, the main characters were white. There were people of all races on the beach, just not focused on, is that historically inaccurate?

I don't believe the film says anything about different races not being on the beach does it?

 

[Alan]

Well I'm not sure how four companies of the Royal Indian Army not appearing in the film (they were on the beach during the battle) just happens. What, could Nolan's unfathomable budget for the movie not have afforded to at least stick RIA uniforms on a column of extras?

 

[Johnny75]

Well I'm not sure how four companies of the Royal Indian Army not appearing in the film (they were on the beach during the battle) just happens. What, could Nolan's unfathomable budget for the movie not have afforded to at least stick RIA uniforms on a column of extras?

So you think it was deliberate then or are you just taking offence where there is none to be taken? You and the author are critiquing a film on what you think should be in there and not what happened on the day or what happened in the film makers script or camera. You have absolutely no idea how involved the company which you've just googled were nor did you know before today how the Free French Army were made up (otherwise you would've mentioned it earlier) so why the clamour to get all bent out of shape over a film which isn't rewriting history. It's attention seeking on the author's part.

Not because she's offended at the portrayal of the RIA or Free French Army but because she thinks the film should represent modern society better and is divisive in today's multiracial melting pot. She is applying her own prejudices to the film and that's wrong.

If you feel that film needs to be made then I suggest you write the script and send it to Mr Nolan.

 

[Alan]

You're right, Johnny, I didn't know anything about Dunkirk prior to this discussion. I also didn't know that you think the only thing that constitutes racism is someone dropping an outright slur.

Not everything that has racial undertones is trying to be racist. And the RIA? Those four companies that were on the beach have been historically noted for their performance during the retreat.

There is no reason for them to NOT have been included. But I guess accuracy would be pandering to modern society, ay?

 

[Johnny75]

You're right, Johnny, I didn't know anything about Dunkirk prior to this discussion. I also didn't know that you think the only thing that constitutes racism is someone dropping an outright slur.

Not everything that has racial undertones is trying to be racist. And the RIA? Those four companies that were on the beach have been historically noted for their performance during the retreat.

There is no reason for them to NOT have been included. But I guess accuracy would be pandering to modern society, ay?

There you go again, spectacularly missing the point. That is what you want to see not what the film maker wanted to show you.

You have said you have no knowledge of the battle outside of this article before now so how can you possibly know. The film itself includes different races on the beach so why the mock outrage for something you know nothing about?

 

[Langers]

Well I enjoyed it anyway.

 

[Alan]

There you go again, spectacularly missing the point. That is what you want to see not what the film maker wanted to show you.

You have said you have no knowledge of the battle outside of this article before now so how can you possibly know. The film itself includes different races on the beach so why the mock outrage for something you know nothing about?

That was sarcasm. I don't speak on things I don't know about.

What the filmmaker wanted to show, apparently, was a very, very white version of what happened. So did he want to ignore the other races that played a key part in getting the white British troops home, or was that a coincidence? Because you said earlier that he wasn't trying to be racist, but now you say that he made the film he wanted to, which cuts out huge parts of the historical narrative that he (Nolan) has said he wanted to portray as accurately as possible.

You can't have it both ways. Non-white lives were thrown into the grinder to keep white lives safe and this film has done them a disservice but acting as if they don't exist.

The key here is that in Dunkirk the event, non-whites played a key role. In Dunkirk the film, they are a footnote. That's not accurate, and it's not okay. It's akin to Americans ignoring the labor of the slaves that built this country (which, unsurprisingly, happens all the time).

 

[Alan]

Well I enjoyed it anyway.

Glad you did. I'll be clear here that despite the racial inaccuracies I don't think it's some affront to cinema. There are just issues to it that people should be aware of (assuming they weren't already).

 

[Johnny75]

Glad you did. I'll be clear here that despite the racial inaccuracies I don't think it's some affront to cinema. There are just issues to it that people should be aware of (assuming they weren't already).

What utter bollocks.

 

[darlowolf64]

Through the film there was a severe lack of many soldiers on the beach, Dunkirk was heaving with bodies. The story was concentrating on a few main characters and not the whole "story of Dunkirk". People really need to stop looking for racism in everything and just enjoy the cinematography

 

[lemonjelly]

Bit unfair on Alan some of this criticism.

Perhaps some f the ire should be aimed at advertisers/people who work in marketing. No-one else remember the national anger at the US advertising U-571 as true? There were numerous commentaries that it erased or ignored the role of the brits, and there was a lot of foot stomping.

 

[leedswolf]

There's no real mention of the Canadian, Belgium and Dutch troops either. There was a fleeting reference to French evacuation. There isn't a reference to the BEF that helped hold the defensive line and pushed on (with the French) at Arrass.

 

[Johnny75]

Bit unfair on Alan some of this criticism.

Perhaps some f the ire should be aimed at advertisers/people who work in marketing. No-one else remember the national anger at the US advertising U-571 as true? There were numerous commentaries that it erased or ignored the role of the brits, and there was a lot of foot stomping.

I don't see it as unfair. Just another attention seeking bellend on the interweb.

 

[leedswolf]

Glad you did. I'll be clear here that despite the racial inaccuracies I don't think it's some affront to cinema. There are just issues to it that people should be aware of (assuming they weren't already).

Have you seen the film Alan? I apologise if you have, but I can't be arsed scrolling back.