Very much so. I'll be going to the IMAX with a bunch of friends.

I just came back from seeing this.

I didn't go in with high expectations...but even then, this movie felt lacking to me.
I guess it didn't help that the 70mm IMAX showing I went to had regular size screens instead of the huge ones.
It sucks because it was the only place showing that particular version in my city.

Throughout the movie, they build up suspense, but the results never really shook me.
It doesn't help that most people die off screen.
The only parts I really enjoyed were Tom Hardy's fighter pilot scenes.

I'm curious to hear about the thoughts of those that enjoyed the movie.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, I just feel that it should've been better than it was supposed to be.

Quote: (07-18-2017 07:07 AM)Nascimento Wrote:  

I love a good WW2 movie. But I'm apprehensive about anything Hollywood, never mind when it comes to WW2. The ratings for Dunkirk are high, so I might see it later.

If you're looking for a good WW2 film, stick to Das Boot, Stalingrad (1993), and Come and See.

I'm 42 and I've been a huge WW2 buff since the age of 14 or so. I like following up on some lesser publicized things that took place outside of things like D Day in the West and Stalingrad on the Eastern front.

I'd always heard about the assassination of the highest ranked Nazi official during the war Rudolf Heydrich but never saw anything visually based on that.

Then last year I was seeing a Slovak girl and she introduced me to the movie based on it: Operation Anthropoid.

All these years I thought he was assassinated in some remote road in a forest. But his arrogance cost him his life as he thought he was infallible and couldn't be touched.

Very riveting and thrilling movie! I highly recommend it.

Quote: (07-18-2017 08:25 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Quote: (07-06-2017 10:57 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Given how little known the subject matter is I'm cautiously optimistic towards the movie. In a sense Dunkirk is a military blunder on both Allied and Axis side. The Allied due to the extreme loss of equipment and the Axis because of their inability to properly rout their opponent. Few other situations were as decisive in ending/prolonging the war. The only ones coming to mind are Stalingrad, Kursk and Midway.

I always thought Leyte gulf ended the Japanese navy as an effective fighting force. Decisive.

I'll watch Dunkirk just for the visuals. I understand people have agendas. But sometimes, it is cool to just watch something visually powerful/beautiful even if it is lacking intelligence or insight. Like a hot chick.

While the total losses at Leyte Gulf were higher for Japan they only lost 1 Aircraft carrier, as opposed to the 4 lost at Midway.

It's all a moot point to be honest, since Japan lost the war with Pearl Harbor.

I'll probably watch it when I can get it for free.

Beyond that, I'm absolutely sick and tired of WW2 movies and documentaries. I get it, we beat the Germans. They're actually Nazis. Nazis bad. Holocaust was the worst genocide in the history of the universe. Let's demonize Germany and the Germans to the point where they all stop having children and desire to be replaced by sand savages.

The sooner the memory of WW2 fades into obscurity the better. Maybe then Jewish communities around the world can develop a more effective identity than "muh holocaust" in the process.

I think the continued interest in WW2 comes from a deep seated curiosity of a world where the Axis powers actually won. It was refreshing when Man in the High Castle came out. I want to see something where the Nazis and Japs actually win. I said to my girl at the time, it would be better to live under a Nazi regime than a Japanese one.

To the veterans of that war, i'm not surprised that they're heart broken over what the west has become.

Quote: (07-21-2017 01:43 AM)Sancho Wrote:  

I just came back from seeing this.

I didn't go in with high expectations...but even then, this movie felt lacking to me.
I guess it didn't help that the 70mm IMAX showing I went to had regular size screens instead of the huge ones.
It sucks because it was the only place showing that particular version in my city.

Throughout the movie, they build up suspense, but the results never really shook me.
It doesn't help that most people die off screen.
The only parts I really enjoyed were Tom Hardy's fighter pilot scenes.

I'm curious to hear about the thoughts of those that enjoyed the movie.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, I just feel that it should've been better than it was supposed to be.

SPOILERS...











I agree with you - it was good, but not as good as they make out in the MSM. I like Nolan as a director, but he's not very good at doing physical action and some of his stuff is confusing.

The timeline seemed all over the place - apparently there were 3 different stories in the movie (1 hour, 1 day and 1 week??), but the way it interchanges seems very confusing. There were scenes where it was night, then switched to another scene during the day. It was also a bit hard to make out what people were saying and I'm British!

The bit where the boy gets injured was poorly shot - I'm still not sure how he ended up that bottom of the stairs.

I've seen some websites calling it a masterpiece, but on no account is it anywhere near as good as Saving Private Ryan.

Some of the music sounded similar to this:

Quote: (07-21-2017 01:43 AM)Sancho Wrote:  

I just came back from seeing this.

I didn't go in with high expectations...but even then, this movie felt lacking to me.
I guess it didn't help that the 70mm IMAX showing I went to had regular size screens instead of the huge ones.
It sucks because it was the only place showing that particular version in my city.

Throughout the movie, they build up suspense, but the results never really shook me.
It doesn't help that most people die off screen.
The only parts I really enjoyed were Tom Hardy's fighter pilot scenes.

I'm curious to hear about the thoughts of those that enjoyed the movie.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, I just feel that it should've been better than it was supposed to be.

This.

Quote: (07-21-2017 01:43 AM)Sancho Wrote:  

I just came back from seeing this.

I didn't go in with high expectations...but even then, this movie felt lacking to me.
I guess it didn't help that the 70mm IMAX showing I went to had regular size screens instead of the huge ones.
It sucks because it was the only place showing that particular version in my city.

Throughout the movie, they build up suspense, but the results never really shook me.
It doesn't help that most people die off screen.
The only parts I really enjoyed were Tom Hardy's fighter pilot scenes.

I'm curious to hear about the thoughts of those that enjoyed the movie.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, I just feel that it should've been better than it was supposed to be.

Of course you did not like it - there were too little black, female and Muslim soldiers in it. This was blatant White-washing!



Everyone knows that Britain was founded by a very diverse bunch of immigrants since the Roman times.

Nothing is as exciting and wonderful as seeing a bunch of glorious butch-lesbian Puerto-Rican female soldiers battling the Nazis.





They should have put in more scenes like this and the feminists would all get shrieking orgasms while watching it:



I expect the next good war movies to come out after WWIII and a masculine resurgence - but not before.

In answer to the OP's question: yes, was very much looking forward to this film. Just got back from watching it at the cinema, and am trying to digest what I saw.

Solid movie, sure. Well crafted - as one would expect from Christopher Nolan - but strangely dispassionate and detached. A stylistic choice, intended to reflect stoicism and the vaunted British stiff upper lip, perhaps? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Because it seemed oddly directionless - despite it's very deliberate structure of separate but converging timelines - and very uneven in tone.

Tonally, it's mostly... defeatist, and downbeat (though not 'dark' or cynical). Appropriate enough, for a colossal defeat, but I felt it lacked a sense of hope and resolve in the face of defeat. It was a disaster, but on the other hand, Dynamo was a successful, if costly, operation. A desperate struggle is one thing, but a sense of desperation is something else.

And then a jarring change in tone, towards the end of the film, towards something like triumphalism and even - though it seemed painfully forced - patriotism[!]. I could scarcely believe it, in Current Year, but there it was. Rings hollow, however, along with the multiple references to "Home" by various characters, when one is painfully aware that that "Home" - that England - no longer exists. Brought my baggage to the film, there, lol. Cue rant about diversity, rapefugees and islamification...

Thankfully, I don't think I heard the 'N-word' once. Nice not to be beaten with that one, for a change. But strangely, I don't recall hearing the Germans referred to by name either. Called only "the enemy". Added to the abstract, slightly unreal nature of the experience. Made for an interesting, thoughtful atmosphere, overall, but made it difficult to feel particularly involved, as well.

Opening scene, in which our young soldier finds his way to the beach, is highly effective - tense and scary, with virtually nil dialogue - and promises much. After that, though, some things happen, and the film eventually concludes. For what was a series of essentially personal, interlinked stories, the movie felt rather too impersonal. And a little too narrow, for what was such a huge historical event. Would've preferred something more epic, frankly.

Don't regret spending my money on the film - Tom Hardy and the Spitfires were glorious, and the several sinkings of ships were suitably nightmarish - and will watch it again when it's out on disc, though I suspect that there's actually less to the movie than meets the eye; I don't know, will have to ruminate some more. For a better telling of the broader story, I would recommend the 2004 BBC docu-drama. Three hours over three parts. Limited budget, and it shows, but contains a great cast and some powerful moments, and is much more satisfying for those that want more historical context. Watched it again this week, after finding it on the web.

I quite like war films, and don't mind WW2, either. Ultimately, Dunkirk was a slightly odd choice of subject, I think, and given an odd treatment. That said, maybe the film's lack of identity - and its repeated depictions of drowning - really is a fitting commentary on modern Britain.

Those are my initial, muddled impressions anyway. Hope they add some value.

Looking forward, now, to Pegasus Bridge for some fighting spirit and bravery.

Dunkirk is more of a story about how Germany fucked up and didn't wipe out their enemies when they had the chance. The Brits and French were going up against a more well equipped and trained enemy. They were outmatched and fought bravely.

The worst defeat in WW2 for the Brits would probably be the Battle of Singapore. Around 80,000 troops surrendered. You won't be seeing modern films about this since it's still considered a huge embarassment and a black mark on British military history.

The Brits more or less got spanked by the Japanese in combat and one of the biggest and most expensive battleships ever commissioned (the Prince of Wales) was sunk also. It was such a severe defeat that it is what led to the complete takeover of Singapore, the Japanese island hopping, and also led to thousands of civilians and allied prisoners being killed.

The Brits absolutely sucked when it came to fighting in SEA.

I thought the movie was clever in the way the timeline jumped but huge sections were just boring. It's 1:46 minutes long but felt over 2:30.

I'm going to be honest with you guys - I LOVED this movie. It was the best thing that I've seen since Sicario (which I have to say was just a little bit more captivating than Dunkirk).

I thought all of the three previous Christopher Nolan movies that I've seen were fantastic (Batman, Intergalactic, Inception), so I didn't even watch the trailer or really know anything about Dunkirk before I watched it - I just got my woman and bought a ticket.

The movie was fantastic. I was on the edge of my seat the whole film. The first few minutes of the movie are extremely nerve-wrecking & loud (where the guy barely escapes getting shot and gets to the beach), and that "on-the-edge" feeling deep in my stomach continued to build up and become deeper and deeper throughout the movie (although the ending didn't really satisfy that build-up - I agree with a poster above on this).

A poster above wrote that it felt impersonal - almost like there wasn't enough background story for the characters - I don't know - I didn't miss this. I was just overwhelmed with a feeling of dread, and hopelessness throughout the movie - all of it just felt like being slowly sucked into a black hole of death and despair that these guys' lives were slowly becoming as each of their hopes for salvation was consistently destroyed. We watch their souls break, yet these men have no option but to exist and take it all in. I felt connected with these guys - I felt very bad for that one French coward guy.

The scene with the torpedo was fucking intense.

The scene with the pilot water-landing was fucking intense.

The end of the movie where Tom Hardy opens his window was one of my favorites of the film.

The only thing that I felt didn't come together that well for me was the feeling of relief/victory/patriotism that was portrayed when the soldiers saw the civilian boats - but whatever.

Quote: (07-25-2017 09:01 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Dunkirk is more of a story about how Germany fucked up and didn't wipe out their enemies when they had the chance. The Brits and French were going up against a more well equipped and trained enemy. They were outmatched and fought bravely.

The worst defeat in WW2 for the Brits would probably be the Battle of Singapore. Around 80,000 troops surrendered. You won't be seeing modern films about this since it's still considered a huge embarassment and a black mark on British military history.

The Brits more or less got spanked by the Japanese in combat and one of the biggest and most expensive battleships ever commissioned (the Prince of Wales) was sunk also. It was such a severe defeat that it is what led to the complete takeover of Singapore, the Japanese island hopping, and also led to thousands of civilians and allied prisoners being killed.

The Brits absolutely sucked when it came to fighting in SEA.

What about this then?

A Largely Indian Victory in World War II Mostly Forgotten in India [Article from 2014]

Quote:Quote:

KOHIMA, India — Soldiers died by the dozens, by the hundreds and then by the thousands in a battle here 70 years ago. Two bloody weeks of fighting came down to just a few yards across an asphalt tennis court.

Night after night, Japanese troops charged across the court’s white lines, only to be killed by almost continuous firing from British and Indian machine guns. The Battle of Kohima and Imphal was the bloodiest of World War II in India, and it cost Japan much of its best army in Burma.

But the battle has been largely forgotten in India as an emblem of the country’s colonial past. The Indian troops who fought and died here were subjects of the British Empire. In this remote, northeastern corner of India, more recent battles with a mix of local insurgencies among tribal groups that have long sought autonomy have made remembrances of former glories a luxury.

Now, as India loosens its security grip on this region and a fragile peace blossoms among the many combatants here, historians are hoping that this year’s anniversary reminds the world of one of the most extraordinary fights of the Second World War. The battle was voted last year as the winner of a contest by Britain’s National Army Museum, beating out Waterloo and D-Day as Britain’s greatest battle, though it was overshadowed at the time by the Normandy landings.

“The Japanese regard the battle of Imphal to be their greatest defeat ever,” said Robert Lyman, author of “Japan’s Last Bid for Victory: The Invasion of India 1944.” “And it gave Indian soldiers a belief in their own martial ability and showed that they could fight as well or better than anyone else.”

The battlefields in what are now the Indian states of Nagaland and Manipur — some just a few miles from the border with Myanmar, which was then Burma — are also well preserved because of the region’s longtime isolation. Trenches, bunkers and airfields remain as they were left 70 years ago — worn by time and monsoons but clearly visible in the jungle.

This mountain city also boasts a graceful, terraced military cemetery on which the lines of the old tennis court are demarcated in white stone.

A closing ceremony for a three-month commemoration is planned for June 28 in Imphal, and representatives from the United States, Australia, Japan, India and other nations have promised to attend.

“The Battle of Imphal and Kohima is not forgotten by the Japanese,” said Yasuhisa Kawamura, deputy chief of mission at the Japanese Embassy in New Delhi, who is planning to attend the ceremony. “Military historians refer to it as one of the fiercest battles in world history.”

A small but growing tour industry has sprung up around the battlefields over the past year, led by a Hemant Katoch, a local history buff.

But whether India will ever truly celebrate the Battle of Kohima and Imphal is unclear. India’s founding fathers were divided on whether to support the British during World War II, and India’s governments have generally had uneasy relationships even with the nation’s own military. So far, only local officials and a former top Indian general have agreed to participate in this week’s closing ceremony.

“India has fought six wars since independence, and we don’t have a memorial for a single one,” said Mohan Guruswamy, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a public policy organization in India. “And at Imphal, Indian troops died, but they were fighting for a colonial government.”

Rana T. S. Chhina, secretary of the Center for Armed Forces Historical Research in New Delhi, said that top Indian officials were participating this year in some of the 100-year commemorations of crucial battles of World War I.

“I suppose we may need to let Imphal and Kohima simmer for a few more decades before we embrace it fully,” he said. “But there’s hope.”

The battle began some two years after Japanese forces routed the British in Burma in 1942, which brought the Japanese Army to India’s eastern border. Lt. Gen. Renya Mutaguchi persuaded his Japanese superiors to allow him to attack British forces at Imphal and Kohima in hopes of preventing a British counterattack. But General Mutaguchi planned to push farther into India to destabilize the British Raj, which by then was already being convulsed by the independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. General Mutaguchi brought a large number of Indian troops captured after the fall of Malaya and Singapore who agreed to join the Japanese in hopes of creating an independent India.

The British were led by Lt. Gen. William Slim, a brilliant tactician who re-formed and retrained the Eastern Army after its crushing defeat in Burma. The British and Indian forces were supported by planes commanded by the United States Army Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell. Once the Allies became certain that the Japanese planned to attack, General Slim withdrew his forces from western Burma and had them dig defensive positions in the hills around Imphal Valley, hoping to draw the Japanese into a battle far from their supply lines.

But none of the British commanders believed that the Japanese could cross the nearly impenetrable jungles around Kohima in force, so when a full division of nearly 15,000 Japanese troops came swarming out of the vegetation on April 4, the town was only lightly defended by some 1,500 British and Indian troops.

The Japanese encirclement meant that those troops were largely cut off from reinforcements and supplies, and a bitter battle eventually led the British and Indians to withdraw into a small enclosure next to a tennis court.

The Japanese, without air support or supplies, eventually became exhausted, and the Allied forces soon pushed them out of Kohima and the hills around Imphal. On June 22, British and Indian forces finally cleared the last of the Japanese from the crucial road linking Imphal and Kohima, ending the siege.

The Japanese 15th Army, 85,000 strong for the invasion of India, was essentially destroyed, with 53,000 dead and missing. Injuries and illnesses took many of the rest. There were 16,500 British casualties.

Ningthoukhangjam Moirangningthou, 83, still lives in a house at the foot of a hill that became the site of one of the fiercest battles near Imphal. Mr. Ningthoukhangjam watched as three British tanks slowly destroyed every bunker constructed by the Japanese. “We called them ‘iron elephants,’ ” he said of the tanks. “We’d never seen anything like that before.”

Andrew S. Arthur was away at a Christian high school when the battle started. By the time he made his way home to the village of Shangshak, where one of the first battles was fought, it had been destroyed and his family was living in the jungle, he said.

He recalled encountering a wounded Japanese soldier who could barely stand. Mr. Arthur said he took the soldier to the British, who treated him.

“Most of my life, nobody ever spoke about the war,” he said. “It’s good that people are finally talking about it again.”

^^^^

Yes that was an impressive victory for sure but you have to take the historical timeline into consideration.

The Japanese around 1944 were already stretched thin and had its bulk forces committed around China, half a dozen SEA nations, and were also duking it out with the U.S. The effects of the long oil embargo had seriously weakened them at that point.

When the battle of Singapore happened in 1942 Japan was at its peak strength. The Brits vastly underestimated how quick Japan could invade and how devastating Japan's airpower was to ships.

I remember one documentary (world at war) went over the details better but it was a combination of bad military leadership, arrogance, and ignorance on the part of the Brits. Still..the men who fought and died did so bravely it was really the leadership that gets the blame.

Dunkirk is great from a technical standpoint. Solid film done well but what do you expect when you have a massive budget like this?

It's a little lacking in soul and like previous posters have mentioned the Western (read American and British) perspective on WWII has been done to death. The Russians lost more soldiers than any other ally and their sacrifices have been mostly muted and outright silenced in the West due to politics.

Quote: (07-25-2017 09:01 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Dunkirk is more of a story about how Germany fucked up and didn't wipe out their enemies when they had the chance. The Brits and French were going up against a more well equipped and trained enemy. They were outmatched and fought bravely.

Well trained, perhaps, but the idea that the Wehrmacht was more equipped and numbered than the BEF and French military is very much a myth.

Both Allied countries had either completely to mostly motorised their infantry by 1939; the WH were still largely horse-drawn, even more so than the Soviet. The Germans were actually pretty outnumbered.

In terms of armour, the WH lagged far behind the French (mainly) and British, both in terms of quality and quantity. Tank-for-tank, the French easily outstripped the Germans.

Even though the Battle of France (as was the entire Western Front 1940) was a pretty decisive one; in terms of operational manoeuvre and tactics, the WH suffered from the same issue that would plague it during Barbarossa: poor armour-to-infantry co-ordination that would see the former left far behind.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-ske...ring-19484

Quote: (07-25-2017 09:01 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

The Brits absolutely sucked when it came to fighting in SEA.

Though they really lifted their game by 1944; especially in terms of unconventional warfare; cf. the Chindits and the Burma Campaign.

EDIT: Didn't read WalterBlack's reply

Saw the film, wasn't my favorite Nolan movie of all time but it was definitely up there with Inception, Interstellar, and Dark Knight.

The chorus of fuck-its early in this thread is ridiculous, Nolan hasn't given anyone a reason to think he'd put out a leftist propaganda film, he hasn't in the past. In fact, he managed to exclude the focus on the Nazis.

I'd also disagree that WW2 is the most beaten-to-death topic. I'd say Marvel films definitely hold the top spot.

If you really want a good bit of knowledge on the tactics in the Battle in the Low Countries and France read the Book: Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian. It is his memoirs on the war. He also was Chief of Staff for Hitler late in the war until he was placed on leave after he had a massive shouting match with Hitler over the orders given to not break out from Kustrin. I learned that from John Toland's The Last 100 Days.

Guderian was one of the main geniuses behind the creation of the Panzer Divisions and their early successes in Poland, France, Belgium and the initial successes of Operation Barbarossa. He does mention in 1937 in Achtung Panzer that spreading panzers among the infantry as support vehicles is a waste of their power. The Germans concentrated their panzers into hard hitting armored spearheads. Thus even with a numerical disadvantage in comparison to the French they won. Also, the use of efficient radio communication to co ordinate attacks was essentaill and communication with Close Air Suppor. The Panzers would punch through defenses like at the Battle of Sedan and wreak havoc behind the lines with Close Air Support from aircraft like the Ju-87 Stuka, Ju-88, Heinkel-111. Bltizkreig was about speed, efficiency and using terrain good for panzers in an efficient and spectacular manner. It was all about a war of movement instead of positional warfare like the Western Front in the Great War that Guderian at length wrote about in the Achtung Panzer manual. The problem was that the entire wehrmacht was not motorized or mechanized at that time and the artillery was not all self propelled. There were machines later like the Stuf and later the Wespe but at that time they weren't everywhere. That was the problem, not all elements of the Wehrmacht were quick as Panzers were.

Thus, the infantry would have to try to catch up and mop up any resistance in areas already over run by Panzers. If a Panzer division was cut off from its fuel supply it would become essentially useless. I think in the Battle of the Bulge German Panzers could not capitalize on their initial gains because of lack of fuel. "

http://izquotes.com/quote/76503

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2540...zer_Leader

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achtung_%E2%80%93_Panzer!



I just saw the movie. It was a bit boring at times, the music was a bit annoying at times. No scenes showing any large scale German attacks but there were some via Heinkels or BF-109s mostly. I liked that it was not one of those Hurr durr Nazis bad, good versus evil, the good war, etc,etc nonsense. Just a poor bunch of people having to survive.

I noticed that the spitfire pilot was having trouble leading the target. He kept missing usually under the plane. I play a lot of War Thunder and other earlier air combat games so I have a very rudimentry understanding of the tactis. I have over 2000 kills on arcade mode. The Spitfire variant used in the film had only 6 .303 caliber machine guns. You'd have to have good aim to hit the vulnerable parts of a Heinkel. The BF-109 however had two 20mm cannons and two machine guns. A 20mm hitting a spitfire would basically be game over man, game over. A Spitfire was well suited to turning dogfights while the BF-109 E was more of a 'boom and zoom' fighter.

It would be interesting to see if Nolan will make a sequel about the Battle of Britain. Having the raids on London in a film with modern technological know how would be incredible.

I am weaponized autism.

Quote: (07-28-2017 02:44 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  

It would be interesting to see if Nolan will make a sequel about the Battle of Britain. Having the raids on London in a film with modern technological know how would be incredible.

The movie Battle of Britain is already one of the best war movies around due to its use of authentic bf-109s,Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The movie was ok, but was a bit disappointing overall. The air combat scenes were the best parts of the movie and very well done. One criticism is I don't think it was really conveyed just how massive an evacuation it was. Granted, it was just one day of the evacuation shown, which was obviously Nolan's intention, but I would have liked to see after that first wave on the beach was evacuated that the next group waiting for rescue was right behind them. The operation was hardly over. Without knowing any background, you'd think "well those 80 some boats saved those few thousand soldiers with 3 spitfires providing air support. Well done."
Also, the George character was totally unnecessary. The father and his son were a strong dynamic and although there was very little of "superfluous" dialogue, all their verbal communication was about the task at hand, I would have enjoyed watching just the two of them.

I haven't seen Dunkirk but the best/most realistic WW2 movie - and arguably the best war movie period - is The Thin Red Line.

Saw it, glad I paid for a matinee. It was solid at best, wasn't too impressed overall. Nolan directing probably is what saved it from being mediocre.

In what alternate reality was this a masterpiece? This is why I don't really expect anything from a movie made after 2010, and I especially don't trust the reviews.

Quote: (07-28-2017 02:44 AM)dain_bramage Wrote:  

It would be interesting to see if Nolan will make a sequel about the Battle of Britain. Having the raids on London in a film with modern technological know how would be incredible.

Ridley Scott is apparently making the Battle of Britain movie.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/ap...ject-movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6736650/

Does Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk ignore the role of the Indian army?

Quote:Quote:

Christopher Nolan's epic World War Two film, Dunkirk, which tells the story of the mass evacuation of Allied troops from the northern coast of France in 1940, has been getting glowing reviews in India.

But many are glowering over Nolan turning a blind eye to the role of Indian soldiers in the battle. The Times of India wrote that their "significant contribution" was missing from Nolan's "otherwise brilliant" work. Writing for Bloomberg View, columnist Mihir Sharma said the film "adds to the falsehood that plucky Britons stood alone against Nazi Germany once France fell, when, in fact, hundreds of millions of imperial subjects stood, perforce, with them".

Few can deny the role of the subjects. Some five million Commonwealth servicemen joined the military services of the British empire during WW2. Almost half of them were from South Asia. Indian soldiers played a key role in major battles like Tobruk, Monte Cassino, Kohima and Imphal. A multinational force of British, Indian and African units recaptured Burma (Myanmar) for the Allies.

What happened with the Indian soldiers in Dunkirk is less clear. Yasmin Khan, historian and author of The Raj at War: A People's History of India's Second World War, says she has often wondered why there is very little factual data on their role in the battle, which many say cost Germany the war.

What is well known, she told me, is that four companies of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps, including a unit of the Bikaner State forces, served in France during the campaign on the Western Front, and some were evacuated from Dunkirk. Among them were three contingents of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps. One contingent was taken prisoner by German forces.

According to one account, India also provided more than 2,500 mules - shipped from Bombay (now Mumbai) to Marseilles - to the war effort as the British animal transport companies had been phased out. An Indian soldier, Jemadar Maula Dad Khan, was feted for showing "magnificent courage, coolness and decision" in protecting his men and animals when they were shelled from the ground and strafed from the air by the enemy.

The Indian soldiers and the mules were eventually ordered towards the coast. Many of the men could not take their animals on the retreat and gave them away to local people in France, according to the same account.

Historian John Broich says the Indian soldiers in Dunkirk were "particularly cool under fire and well organised during the retreat".

"They weren't large in number, maybe a few hundred among hundreds of thousands, 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," he told Slate.

"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.

'Survival story'

To be fair, Nolan has said that he approached the story "from the point of view of the pure mechanics of survival rather than from the politics of the event".

"We don't have generals in rooms pushing things around on maps. We don't see Churchill. We barely glimpse the enemy," he told the Telegraph. "It's a survival story."

Historian Joshua Levine, who is also the film's historical consultant, told me that Dunkirk was a work of fiction and "it isn't a film's job to tell the full story of Dunkirk... and nor, in the time available, could it even try to do so".

"This film focuses on a few protagonists whose paths cross occasionally, each one of whom experiences just a tiny corner of the whole story. As Hilary Mantel says about historical fiction, 'The man who is fighting can't see over the hill, out of the trench.' What I'd love to see, though, is an Indian film about Dunkirk, or WW2 generally, and I sincerely hope Indian filmmakers are working on it."

But what about the criticism that the role of Indian and their South Asian counterparts in WW2 has been forgotten?



Yasmin Khan says that their "sheer scale of the contribution" has become apparent in Britain in recent years. "No longer is it simply an island story of heroic, plucky British fighting against Nazi-occupied continental Europe; it has now become increasingly customary for historians to refer to the contribution made by Asian, African and Caribbean servicemen in the 1940s", she writes in her book.

A memorial to honour the role of these soldiers came up on London's Constitution Hill in 2002. There have been museum exhibitions, oral history projects and TV documentaries to "reveal how crucial they [the soldiers] often were to the action, the sacrifices that they made in the face of terrible odds, and also to divulge individual stories of great bravery and intrepid action".

"It is no longer true to suggest that this is an entirely forgotten story," she says.

Meanwhile, Indians are flocking to watch Dunkirk, which opened at 416 screens, including 10 Imax screens, across the country, on Friday.

Unlike most Hollywood films, Dunkirk hasn't been dubbed in any Indian language for wider viewership. Still, says Denzil Dias of Warner Brothers (India), the film raked in $2.4m (£1.84m) over the weekend. "This is the biggest opening of an English language-only film in India," Mr Dias told me. Clearly, viewers are not fretting about the lack of Indian soldiers in Nolan's tour-de-force.

Another Battle of Britain film would be nice. One exists already, and it's not too well-regarded from what I remember. (Ebert hated it. That guy was always nothing without Siskel, though.)