How accurately does Chris Nolan's film Dunkirk reflect history?

[Vixen]

Having seen the film 'Dunkirk' I was surprised to discover that it has been heavily criticised by critics. In particular, the French claim it fails to give adequate credit to their forces. The film was released in India, where disappointed film goers are upset that the Indian forces were not portrayed.

I myself thought it was an excellent film. However, I am aware history gets revised over time, depending on who's doing the storytelling.

However, as Sibelius once remarked, 'A critic has never had a statue erected in his honour.'

 

[Ray Brady]

It's a small story about a big event. It's not attempting to be a documentary detailing ALL of the contributions of every participant. It focuses on three primary characters who see the evacuation from three different perspectives.

If something in the film could not have happened in the actual evacuation, then that might be reason for criticism. The fact that something might have been omitted seems inevitable.

As far as the French goes, one of the lead characters is rescued by the French at the very beginning of the film. It's pretty clear they're the ones who are holding the line against the German forces.

 

[Giordano]

It's a small story about a big event. It's not attempting to be a documentary detailing ALL of the contributions of every participant. It focuses on three primary characters who see the evacuation from three different perspectives.

If something in the film could not have happened in the actual evacuation, then that might be reason for criticism. The fact that something might have been omitted seems inevitable.

As far as the French goes, one of the lead characters is rescued by the French at the very beginning of the film. It's pretty clear they're the ones who are holding the line against the German forces.

Exactly! The film tells the stories of a few specific individuals embedded within a massively larger event. It is clearly not meant to comprehensively document the entire story of Dunkirk. Near the beginning of the film some French troops are turned away from the mole where the British are evacuating by being told, "You have your own ships." I thought that this not only was meant to illustrate the unfairness of this refusal, but also I wondered if this was slyly meant to indicate that this movie was about the British- the French had best find their own movie...

I will note that I was not a huge fan of the film- it was okay and done in an interesting manner, but I do not understand why some people view it as among the very best films ever made.

 

[Garrison]

Having seen the film 'Dunkirk' I was surprised to discover that it has been heavily criticised by critics. In particular, the French claim it fails to give adequate credit to their forces. The film was released in India, where disappointed film goers are upset that the Indian forces were not portrayed.

I myself thought it was an excellent film. However, I am aware history gets revised over time, depending on who's doing the storytelling.

However, as Sibelius once remarked, 'A critic has never had a statue erected in his honour.'

The BBC website had an article about the Indian controversy and it seems to have been nothing more than a few critics trying to stir up trouble. The Indian complement at Dunkirk seems to have been no more than a couple of companies and unfortunately there's no proper records of what happened to them.

As to the French, well they are in the film and it is made quite clear they are holding the line. The evacuation is however first and foremost a British story and if certain people are unhappy with that, well that's their problem.

Oh and I am firmly in the it was a brilliant move camp.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly! The film tells the stories of a few specific individuals embedded within a massively larger event. It is clearly not meant to comprehensively document the entire story of Dunkirk. Near the beginning of the film some French troops are turned away from the mole where the British are evacuating by being told, "You have your own ships." I thought that this not only was meant to illustrate the unfairness of this refusal, but also I wondered if this was slyly meant to indicate that this movie was about the British- the French had best find their own movie...

I will note that I was not a huge fan of the film- it was okay and done in an interesting manner, but I do not understand why some people view it as among the very best films ever made.

I think Nolan meant to highlight the irony here, of Churchill (as quoted by the top brass in the film) saying the French and the Brits were to be evacuated 'arm in arm', the reality being different.

 

[Vixen]

Here's an interesting take on the Indian Army contribution to the Dunkirk escape:

To be sure, more than 300,000 British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, and the number of troops of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps in Dunkirk amounted to a few hundred. But as John Broich, who teaches history at Case Western Reserve University in the US, pointed out recently in Slate: “There were also four (Indian) companies … on those beaches. Observers said they were particularly cool under fire and well organized during the retreat. They weren’t large in number … 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. Their service meant the difference between victory and defeat. In fact, while Britain and other allies were licking their wounds after Dunkirk, the Indian Army picked up the slack in North Africa and the Middle East.”

During the Dunkirk evacuation, John Ashdown, a British army officer, managed to get many of his Indian troops on the last ship before the jetty was bombed. In doing this, he disobeyed an order from one of his superiors to abandon his Indian troops.

Like many people, I suspect, Dunkirk has always been a term one has heard of, but never given much thought.

It brought into terrifying perspective why so many of the older generation are vehmently pro-Brexit.

They haven't forgotten what Germany did.

 

[Craig B]

Here's an interesting take on the Indian Army contribution to the Dunkirk escape:



Like many people, I suspect, Dunkirk has always been a term one has heard of, but never given much thought.

It brought into terrifying perspective why so many of the older generation are vehmently pro-Brexit.

They haven't forgotten what Germany did.

What about France? If the Germans and the French can now work together not only after Dunkirk, but after the Fall of France and the subsequent Nazi occupation, with all its humiliations and atrocities; why should Dunkirk turn the older generation of Britons so vehemently pro Brexit? And why has this effect been much stronger in England than in Scotland?

 

[zooterkin]

Here's an interesting take on the Indian Army contribution to the Dunkirk escape:

I don't see that as a compelling reason to include a reference to the contribution from Indian troops in Dunkirk. Their major contribution, and that of troops from other parts of what was still the British Empire, came later, which would be the subject of a different film. A mention of them wouldn't have been out of place, but I don't think there are grounds to complain about the omission; I'm sure there are plenty of other units which were there who also don't get named in the film.

 

[zooterkin]

Like many people, I suspect, Dunkirk has always been a term one has heard of, but never given much thought.

Speak for yourself.

It brought into terrifying perspective why so many of the older generation are vehmently pro-Brexit.

They haven't forgotten what Germany did.

I'm not following this line of reasoning at all. Which generations do you think voted for the government that took us into the EEC (as it was) and then voted to stay there in the referendum in 1975?

 

[Nessie]

Why do people think history should be learned from feature films? I think the role of films is to capture the experience of being their during a historical event. The accuracy of what it was like to be on the beach at Dunkirk is what the film is for.

 

[mikado]

I refuse to watch war movies, I don't believe it's entertainment or good for me, personally.

HOWEVER, I made an exception and so for me Dunkirk is my first war movie and quite possibly my last.

I can't say I enjoyed it (spent a fair bit of time with a portion of my face covered) BUT I think it was a superb movie. I am very glad I saw it

 

[Aepervius]

It depends on what you mean with reflecting history.

IMO Reflecting history would put the event in proportion to what scale hapenned. If you concentrate on a very small event and ignore the whole wide scale around, you are not accurately reflecting history anymore. You are accurately *may* reflecting that event but not history.

For example let us say you make a film on the dallas killing of the president, but never show :
1) the president
2) the killing
3) the killer
And only shows , I dunno the life before and after of one of the policement accompanying the president, that does not make it a bad film, but that certainly does not reflect history accurately as it ignores the bigger events. It is only a point of view mega zoomed in on a detail.

I think the problem I have with the film is it is not as such the film itself, it is OK, but the pretention it is reflecting history. There were , what 18000 dead french troop at that battle and about 3500 english commonwealth troop ? Then the event depicted are not reflecting history, they are reflecting a small subset of it, ignoring the whole at large.

As for the "french troop wanted to flee and were refused" the cynic in me think this is because most english/america expect the same old tired "french surrender drop rifle never used" stereotype with having french fleeing. From what I know of the battle , this really is not reflecting history at all in the slightiest.

But i was not expecting anything else. I just disagree that its reflecting history.

 

[Giz]

It depends on what you mean with reflecting history.

IMO Reflecting history would put the event in proportion to what scale hapenned. If you concentrate on a very small event and ignore the whole wide scale around, you are not accurately reflecting history anymore. You are accurately *may* reflecting that event but not history.

For example let us say you make a film on the dallas killing of the president, but never show :
1) the president
2) the killing
3) the killer
And only shows , I dunno the life before and after of one of the policement accompanying the president, that does not make it a bad film, but that certainly does not reflect history accurately as it ignores the bigger events. It is only a point of view mega zoomed in on a detail.

I think the problem I have with the film is it is not as such the film itself, it is OK, but the pretention it is reflecting history. There were , what 18000 dead french troop at that battle and about 3500 english commonwealth troop ? Then the event depicted are not reflecting history, they are reflecting a small subset of it, ignoring the whole at large.

As for the "french troop wanted to flee and were refused" the cynic in me think this is because most english/america expect the same old tired "french surrender drop rifle never used" stereotype with having french fleeing. From what I know of the battle , this really is not reflecting history at all in the slightiest.

But i was not expecting anything else. I just disagree that its reflecting history.

This is like criticizing Saving Private Ryan for not showing any British troops or for having an atypical mortality rate compared to the allied forces overall. It's not a documentary, presenting a balanced view of the whole operation.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Speak for yourself.


I'm not following this line of reasoning at all. Which generations do you think voted for the government that took us into the EEC (as it was) and then voted to stay there in the referendum in 1975?

Baby Boomers were by far the biggest supporters of leaving the EU. Older citizens tended to vote remain.

 

[Aepervius]

This is like criticizing Saving Private Ryan for not showing any British troops or for having an atypical mortality rate compared to the allied forces overall. It's not a documentary, presenting a balanced view of the whole operation.

No it is not. If you pretend to reflect history then you should reflect the events in history proportional to their overall happenstance. The "battle of dunkirk" is not well represented by the film of "dunkirk" (what's up with not calling it with its real name of Dunkerques by the way ? We don't call new york "niou jork").

Saving private Ryan is not also reflecting history either, it is only at best reflecting some realities, some fictious part , on the normandy beach. But it does not pretend to be reflecting history on the retaking of France from the german troops.

See the difference ? When you concentrate on a detail, then admit it is that detail point of view, but do not pretend one reflect acurately the whole. It does not. it only reflects a small subset.

 

[Giz]

No it is not. If you pretend to reflect history then you should reflect the events in history proportional to their overall happenstance. The "battle of dunkirk" is not well represented by the film of "dunkirk" (what's up with not calling it with its real name of Dunkerques by the way ? We don't call new york "niou jork").

Saving private Ryan is not also reflecting history either, it is only at best reflecting some realities, some fictious part , on the normandy beach. But it does not pretend to be reflecting history on the retaking of France from the german troops.

See the difference ? When you concentrate on a detail, then admit it is that detail point of view, but do not pretend one reflect acurately the whole. It does not. it only reflects a small subset.

So your complaint is that the movie title should have been:" [part of the battle of] Dunkirk"?

Maybe Nolan didn't think that was snappy enough?

 

[angrysoba]

However, as Sibelius once remarked, 'A critic has never had a statue erected in his honour.'

Sibelius may have been right then, but not any more:

 

[Craig B]

I went to see Dunkirk today, but half way through the showing there was a power cut affecting the public electricity supply, and the Fire Brigade ordered the evacuation of the building.

 

[theprestige]

I went to see Dunkirk today, but half way through the showing there was a power cut affecting the public electricity supply, and the Fire Brigade ordered the evacuation of the building.

Did they need to bring in small craft, to get everyone out in time?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[Giz]

I went to see Dunkirk today, but half way through the showing there was a power cut affecting the public electricity supply, and the Fire Brigade ordered the evacuation of the building.

Were there enough big buses for the long lines of evacuatees, or was it necessary to call out a fleet of small ubers to bring everyone safely home?