FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Dunkirk statistics

Dunkirk statistics

(2:56) What happened at Dunkirk in 1939.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guesting Guesting (112 days ago)

And that film doesn't even mention the French soldiers??

Original comment

And that film doesn't even mention the French soldiers??

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (112 days ago)

You obviously haven't watched it. Go and see it, and then make your judgments.

The film actually does a lot to counter the Western myth of France being a nation that simply surrendered, and at several key moments the film depicts acts of French heroism that allowed the British to do what they did. Doesn't mention the French soldiers? What?

Obviously the film follows British stories, so France isn't the key player, but it doesn't diminish the French effort. It isn't supposed to be an impartial documentary.

Original comment

You obviously haven't watched it. Go and see it, and then make your judgments.

The film actually does a lot to counter the Western myth of France being a nation that simply surrendered, and at several key moments the film depicts acts of French heroism that allowed the British to do what they did. Doesn't mention the French soldiers? What?

Obviously the film follows British stories, so France isn't the key player, but it doesn't diminish the French effort. It isn't supposed to be an impartial documentary.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guesting Guesting (111 days ago)

You are right, I haven't seen the movie, so I may have been wrong in the statement above.

"I doesnt diminish the French effort." Are you sure?

Take a look at this google search, using only "film dunkirk french soldiers" LINK

... and read the articles.

And then a British film critics (was it?) answered the French should make their own film if they wanted to show the role of the French soldiers. That's when I decided I didn't want to see the movie. Where did I read it? NYT or the Guardian.

My current thinking is that this film is another example of British filmmakers/historians overemphasising Britain's role compared to the USSR, USA, and even France. You can even hear people claim that Britain won the war. Britain was highly important, but other countries, in particular the USSR, were even more important for defeating Hitler. (The crucial role of the USSR during the war became unfortunate after the war, when the USSR stopped any attempts for democracy in Eastern Europa.)

Original comment

You are right, I haven't seen the movie, so I may have been wrong in the statement above.

"I doesnt diminish the French effort." Are you sure?

Take a look at this google search, using only "film dunkirk french soldiers" LINK

... and read the articles.

And then a British film critics (was it?) answered the French should make their own film if they wanted to show the role of the French soldiers. That's when I decided I didn't want to see the movie. Where did I read it? NYT or the Guardian.

My current thinking is that this film is another example of British filmmakers/historians overemphasising Britain's role compared to the USSR, USA, and even France. You can even hear people claim that Britain won the war. Britain was highly important, but other countries, in particular the USSR, were even more important for defeating Hitler. (The crucial role of the USSR during the war became unfortunate after the war, when the USSR stopped any attempts for democracy in Eastern Europa.)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (111 days ago)

It's a real shame that people feel qualified to complain about films on the basis of reading someone else's complaint.

I'm well aware of the French sacrifices at Dunkirk but what you're unaware of is that they are represented in the film where it is appropriate for the narrative. The film basically follows British characters from leaving England to the action itself. The amount of interaction they have with French troops is fairly minimal, as it would have been for a large proportion of British fighters. But apparently telling the stories of British fighters is disrespectful to the French, or even the Russians? Ridiculous.

There is even a part in the film in which the British are portrayed refusing to rescue French troops. Technically, this could be construed as unfair because tens of thousands of French troops were rescued from their own shores and given safe haven in the UK. If this film was an effort to whitewash WW2 and turn it into a long story of British heroism, they would have handled this differently.

I don't think you should watch the film if you're wanting a comprehensive and impartial documentary about all elements of the Dunkirk evacuations. Just read the offended reviews, join in the mock outrage, then find yourself a BBC4 series. If you're happy to leave political correctness aside, immerse yourself in the stories of 3 individuals (yes, even when they're of the same nationality), and form your own opinions, then watch it. It's a terrific film.

Original comment

It's a real shame that people feel qualified to complain about films on the basis of reading someone else's complaint.

I'm well aware of the French sacrifices at Dunkirk but what you're unaware of is that they are represented in the film where it is appropriate for the narrative. The film basically follows British characters from leaving England to the action itself. The amount of interaction they have with French troops is fairly minimal, as it would have been for a large proportion of British fighters. But apparently telling the stories of British fighters is disrespectful to the French, or even the Russians? Ridiculous.

There is even a part in the film in which the British are portrayed refusing to rescue French troops. Technically, this could be construed as unfair because tens of thousands of French troops were rescued from their own shores and given safe haven in the UK. If this film was an effort to whitewash WW2 and turn it into a long story of British heroism, they would have handled this differently.

I don't think you should watch the film if you're wanting a comprehensive and impartial documentary about all elements of the Dunkirk evacuations. Just read the offended reviews, join in the mock outrage, then find yourself a BBC4 series. If you're happy to leave political correctness aside, immerse yourself in the stories of 3 individuals (yes, even when they're of the same nationality), and form your own opinions, then watch it. It's a terrific film.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guesting Guesting (111 days ago)

Hello? Did you read what I wrote?

I said you may be right, and that I may be wrong since my comment was based on second sources. If you want to critisse somone, give a correct version of their view. But why at all get personal?

I'm not qualified to anything in this particular respect. That said, I think you should read those comments made by French and American critics. If I were you, I would be much more humble towards hurt feelings in France and criticism from in the US. But then, the filmmaker never intended to tell a realistic story about Dunkirk. Yes, I think that's a shame.

I might see the film after all. But I'd recommend you to 1) read the criticism from both sides of the Atlantic and 2) avoid personal attacks with claims the other sees as unjustified.

That ends my contribution.

Original comment

Hello? Did you read what I wrote?

I said you may be right, and that I may be wrong since my comment was based on second sources. If you want to critisse somone, give a correct version of their view. But why at all get personal?

I'm not qualified to anything in this particular respect. That said, I think you should read those comments made by French and American critics. If I were you, I would be much more humble towards hurt feelings in France and criticism from in the US. But then, the filmmaker never intended to tell a realistic story about Dunkirk. Yes, I think that's a shame.

I might see the film after all. But I'd recommend you to 1) read the criticism from both sides of the Atlantic and 2) avoid personal attacks with claims the other sees as unjustified.

That ends my contribution.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (110 days ago)
Latest comment:

"I would be much more humble towards hurt feelings in France" Hmm - I'd actually try and establish a more objective reality check. Hurt feelings I think are more likely to give rise to myths and obfuscation.

"criticism from in the US" Yes, right - take criticism on the depiction of WW2 in films from the country that brought us "The Great Escape", "U 571" and "Inglourious basterds" (sic) amongst others?.

" But then, the filmmaker never intended to tell a realistic story about Dunkirk." Where did you get that from? OK, you can't have an exact duplication of the event (which would last days and people would really be killed or injured), but Nolan wanted to recreate what it like on the ground and I think he did a great job.

Original comment
Latest comment:

"I would be much more humble towards hurt feelings in France" Hmm - I'd actually try and establish a more objective reality check. Hurt feelings I think are more likely to give rise to myths and obfuscation.

"criticism from in the US" Yes, right - take criticism on the depiction of WW2 in films from the country that brought us "The Great Escape", "U 571" and "Inglourious basterds" (sic) amongst others?.

" But then, the filmmaker never intended to tell a realistic story about Dunkirk." Where did you get that from? OK, you can't have an exact duplication of the event (which would last days and people would really be killed or injured), but Nolan wanted to recreate what it like on the ground and I think he did a great job.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (111 days ago)

Sad to say that I read what you wrote and saw where it was contradictory and baseless. If you think you might be wrong then maybe don't speak until you have qualified yourself... don't share your "current thinking" about a film or the director's intentions unless at the very least you can be bothered to get off the internet and go and watch it, it isn't difficult. Make up your own mind, I dare you. "If you want to critisse somone, give a correct version of their view", hypocrite much?

I've read plenty of the Euro criticism and I'd even wager I know more about the history than you, but I still went to see the film before having an opinion about it. I was pleasantly surprised. The filmmaker intended to tell a realistic story (3 in fact) and he succeeded. It just doesn't happen to be the story that you want to be told. Plenty of Brits in Dunkirk never said a word to French troops, let alone Russians, so if a film is about those Brits then why on earth would it have to pander to pedants expecting a broader politically correct documentary? It would be a disrespect to those real stories to sanitise them and artificially involve elements that wouldn't have been experienced by the fighters themselves. Some people just like getting their knickers in a twist and you're obviously one of them.

Original comment

Sad to say that I read what you wrote and saw where it was contradictory and baseless. If you think you might be wrong then maybe don't speak until you have qualified yourself... don't share your "current thinking" about a film or the director's intentions unless at the very least you can be bothered to get off the internet and go and watch it, it isn't difficult. Make up your own mind, I dare you. "If you want to critisse somone, give a correct version of their view", hypocrite much?

I've read plenty of the Euro criticism and I'd even wager I know more about the history than you, but I still went to see the film before having an opinion about it. I was pleasantly surprised. The filmmaker intended to tell a realistic story (3 in fact) and he succeeded. It just doesn't happen to be the story that you want to be told. Plenty of Brits in Dunkirk never said a word to French troops, let alone Russians, so if a film is about those Brits then why on earth would it have to pander to pedants expecting a broader politically correct documentary? It would be a disrespect to those real stories to sanitise them and artificially involve elements that wouldn't have been experienced by the fighters themselves. Some people just like getting their knickers in a twist and you're obviously one of them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
What flying was like in the 1960s
What flying was like in the 1960s
North Korea's Japanese bubble
North Korea's Japanese bubble
Julian Assange, nihilist or hero?
Julian Assange, nihilist or hero?
Why is Hitler so popular in India?
Why is Hitler so popular in India?
It's Okay To Be Smart - A brief history of time
It's Okay To Be Smart - A brief history of time