Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Dunkirk and the Politics of Reverse Sexism


In a previous blog, I described how cultural diversity upholders have pilloried Christopher Nolan and his “Dunkirk” for whitewashing Operation Dynamo, and how even the French are complaining that the film ignores them. But the biggest heat Nolan’s unconventional war flick received came from the Faux-Feminists who precisely challenge the movie for following combat film conventions.

The FF group has a tremendous beef with the lack of feminine presence in “Dunkirk.” Let me start by saying I do wish there were more women in Dunkirk, but as a war film connoisseur I understand the absence of estrogen and applaud Nolan for at least showing us some girls in his epic.

“Dunkirk” belongs to a subgenre better known as “combat story.” It’s one of the many subgenres that shelters under a huge umbrella known as “War Film.” Other subgenres are Holocaust movies, medical army yarns, resistance tales, espionage flicks and home front drama. In those categories, women rule. Just think ”Diary of Anne Frank,” ”The English Patient, ” “Charlotte Gray, ” and  “Mrs. Miniver.”
Women in war films

On the other hand, it’s a century old convention that films dealing with combat experience in Korean, Vietnam and World Wars do not have women characters hovering about the battlefield. Are there recognizable women around in films such as “Saving Private Ryan, “ ”The Sands of Iwo Jima,” ”The Thin Red Line,” “The Great Escape,” or “Apocalypse Now ?”  Even “Black Hawk Down” and “The Hurt Locker” lacked feminine presence.
(Daily Mail)

Our images of women involved in Operation Dynamo come from old photographs and newsreels, and they are always on English soil: nurses bearing wounded soldiers on stretchers, canteen workers pouring thousands of cups of tea, and, of course, the women that waited on shore for their men. We met them as the “jambusters” of Great Paxton in “Home Fires.” Farmer Steph welcoming her husband back; housewife Pat not so happy to know that her abusive husband is returning after being wounded in Dunkirk; butcher Mim mourning her son missing at sea, and Sarah coming to terms with knowing her husband, and Great Paxton’s vicar, is now a prisoner of war.

Steph gets her husband back, but Dunkirk has traumatized him.

So, it is highly innovative that Nolan placed women in the thick of the battle. Because, despite all the nitpicking, the film does show us female nurses tending soldiers on the ships. And, ohhh my, they look courageous and useful. In fact, their brief appearance makes them seem morally stronger than many of those poor hysterical soldiers. But complainers (complaining is such a free and rewarding habit) already find fault in his inclusion. The nurses are annonymous, they have few dialogues, etc.

Hey, how many male characters have names in Dunkirk? There is Sir Mark Rylance’s Dawson and his crew, they got names. Kenneth Branagh is Commander Bolton, Tom Hardy is Farriers and his sidekick is Collins (played by Jack Lowden. Don’t forget THAT name). Do they get first names? No, that would be too much.
Hurry! Harry Styles is drowning! Give him more lines!

 Harry Styles is called Alex and gets lots of lines (but no last name) because…let’s face it!  He is Harry Styles. Aneurin Bernard’s dog tags identify him as Gibson. But we learn that he has not a Gibson bone in his body. No spoilers here, but it is linked to the French accusing the film as Francophobe. Cillian Murphy’s character is terribly important, and gets to spout gibberish a lot, but in the credits, he is strictly known as “Shivering Soldier.” Hi, Shivering!


The one that is a hoot is Finn Whitehead, who for some reason, is believed to be the main character. In the credits, he is known as “Tommy. “ Critics and reviewers missing the irony, think his name is Thomas. Wrong!!! Tommy was an affectionate nickname for British soldiers.  Sort of Gi Joe. Since Nolan has directed an allegory, Tommy comes to be a sort of Everyman, a representation of all those stranded on that beach, dreaming of haven.

So, it is established that. in “Dunkirk,” male characters have few lines to speak and even less names to wear. Therefore, we cannot hold against Nolan that his women are discreet, but diligent and helpful. Still, I have a feeling that women did play a part in that epic retreat, a larger part.

For years I have wished to write something about a woman in Dunkirk, but who could she be: a nurse, a refugee, a girl crossdressing as a soldier? Then, at the turn of the Millennium, I began writing a novel about the war. At some point, one of the heroines borrows her dad’s yacht and heads to Dunkirk to rescue her French husband. Was there a precedent in real life? Did women man some little boats? Were they part of the crew?

Right before seeing “Dunkirk”, I got to see “Their Finest.”  In that comedy, Gemma Atherton is hired by the Ministry of War to write a script about two girls who crossed the Channel in their dad’s boat. Except that eventually it is found out that due to engine problems, Rose and Lily never got too far from the shore. For propaganda purposes, the filming of  "The Nancy Starling"continues.


 I got a sour taste in my mouth. So that’s what women efforts amount, then and now? To celebrate epic anecdotes that never took place? To make things worse, now “Their Finest” is being peddled as a reverse-Dunkirk, a film that does “highlight the role of women in the Second World War.” Don't get me wrong. I love "Their Finest"but it's not comparable to "Dunkirk."


 In a way, Christopher Nolan has saved the day for us girls. He does include female sailors. In one Little Ship, we see a lady in skirts. Yes, she is woman, doesn’t look like a Scottish soldier on a kilt. And then we have Kim Hartmann, in an apron, all Mama Weasley feeding rescued soldiers in a boat. As her small craft passes Commander Bolton on the pier, she yells at him that she is coming all the way from Dartmoor.

Nevertheless, faux-feminism is not satisfied. The final pearl came from Mehera Bonner. This Marie Claire contributor, took over Twitter to complain about “Dunkirk” calling it “mediocre,” an excuse “for men to celebrate maleness,” and went on to describe Second World War as a war “dominated by brave male soldiers.”  She expanded her peeves further in an article where she summons Nolan to make war films about women or about other marginalized groups. I believe that since so little has been done on Dunkirk, this movie IS ABOUT a marginalized group.


Bonner also says she would rather stick to films like “Wonder Woman.” I happen to like “Wonder Woman,” but I can tell the difference between light fantasy and historical fiction. Bonner’s opinion is of no consequence to me, but the fact that her bizarre tweets got 22.000 Likes tells me she is not alone in Idiocy Land, and that worries me.

For the record, Dunkirk is not a macho movie. My brother fell asleep while watching it, and pronounced it “not riveting enough.” On the other hand, my ovaries had me on the edge of the seat, biting my nails and crying.  Oh, I did cry watching those not so brave male soldiers being rescued by the very  old, the very young, the very feminine. And I’m not a lonely voice in the wilderness. 
Writing for The Federalist, Emily Zanotti has called Bonner’s opinion “offensive” and “sexist” and has remembered that the ones that buried down women’s contributions to Second World War were the late 20th century feminists who, like their icon Jane Fonda (and others),  were sooo anti-war.


 I feel all this nitpicking has dragged us away from the film, its merits and its flaws. Isn’t it about time to bury the hatchet, and concentrate on “Dunkirk” as an artistic achievement?  All the controversy should be settled by an enlightened opinion such as that expressed by  Rohan Nahar  in The Hindustan Times:

Dunkirk is about an ideal - which is why none of the characters are defined beyond basic traits, like their first names and perhaps their rank. We know nothing about them. We care because the film inspires empathy. We don’t want to see human beings die a terrible death. These characters are meant to represent everyone who was involved in the operation. It is a celebration of the bravery shown by common people. And if Indians were involved, the film, however abstract it is in its ways, pays homage to them too.

 I hope as the hype goes down, people will go into libraries and do research about the forgotten minorities.  I hope that in the incoming months more will be written about Dunkirk, about the Indians, the French, the Women, (and even if it’s not politically correct, about the Jews, as well) that were involved in the rescue. Christopher Nolan’s film has opened a door for all of us who are not militant, just afflicted by insufferable intellectual curiosity, to learn about an important but terribly overlooked historical event.


12 comments:

  1. Susie Salom Mira, mija, no se ni como responder pero si lei esto y te me figuras super astute. 😉
    María Elena Venant Oh it's nice to hear from you. Did you see "Dunkirk"?
    Me gusta · Responder · Ayer a las 13:24

    ReplyDelete
  2. Susie Salom No, but Shawn did ...
    María Elena Venant Susie Salom Did Shawn like it? My question is battle films are only for guys?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Susie Salom He liked a few specific scenes. Being married to Shawn has taught me one thing very clearly: there's no such thing as a typical male or female response to art. Yes, we can be classified with semi-broad strokes but it really is true that, as individuals, we channel unique energies, distinct combinations of yin and yang, aggression and soulfulness, the martial and the maternal. I don't think the answer to that question can be reduced to a yes or no. Por ejemplo, I loved the novel A Midnight Clear by William Wharton but I didn't feel like I could stomach the film Saving Private Ryan. Does that help? I don't know! 😆
    María Elena Venant Susie Salom I'm the same, I didn't like Private Ryan, but I loved Band of Brothers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. María Elena Venant THe question is should we like a film even if it lacks important female characters?
      Susie Salom My answer, just straight from the hip: I respond to character, regardless of the externals. If the characters at the center of a story have tremendous heart and they reach me at that visceral level of resonance, I'm not sitting there thinking, hey this demographic is underrepresented in this story. I know a lot of people do. And that they have legitimate reasons for thinking and feeling that way. But I just don't see external distinctions. I never have. My core responds to the core of a character. If there is a part of you that really identifies with a character and they share nothing with you demographically, does that make the connection less valid? In my opinion, it doesn't.

      Delete
    2. María Elena Venant Susie Salom Since I was a kid, I liked romance so I look for inklings of love stories in fiction, regardless of genre. I’m a great shipper, but if the romance is dull, I rather watch a battle story, provided the soldiers are cute. There are so many women stories that are pat or predictable that I can’t invest in then. Or shows that have lot of female characters that are just unlovable (like Spartacus), but I think as an audience, women are more diverse, tolerant and willing to try the unusual. I can’t think of a man watching Downton Abbey, and that’s a pity.
      Susie Salom My brother loved DA. I'm the one who stopped watching it after they killed off Matthew. I felt like the writers didn't love the characters enough.

      Delete
    3. María Elena Venant Susie Salom I’m glad to hear there are male “downties”. Poor Julian Fellowes, he is not to blame for Matthew’s untimely demise (nor for Lady Sybil’s). The actors walked out on him, forcing him to restructure his storyline completely. I often wonder what would Downton had been like if Dan Stevens (or Jessica BF) had not left the show.
      Susie Salom I undertsand that. I do. But if those deaths had been the only examples of what felt like, to me, an unnecessary degree of cruelty and harshness in the lives of the characters in the show as a whole, I certainly would have kept watching. But, for me personally, there was a dark, vengeful hand that seemed to twist the strings in the storylines. There was not enough dignity for me. Not enough honor. Not enough redemption. And actually, my brother, my brother-in-law and my husband all appreciated the show. But then all three of them also appreciated the excellent mid '90s BBC and A&E adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, a handsome series with which I can find no fault!!

      Delete
    4. María Elena Venant Susie Salom Now I'm curious, because I have just finished watching DA for the third time, and I'm willing to forgive all its flaws, so I need to be grounded again. Could you be a bit more specific when you talk about the lack of honor and redemption, and the harshness? Those are adjectives I would apply to Üpstairs, Downstairs"and Fellowes pre-Downton Abbey "Gosford Park"but, now at this moment, I can't apply to DA. And Susie, thank you so much for sharing your time and opinion, but could I bother you furtherly? Could we continue this chat in my blog?

      Delete
  4. "The question is should we like a film even if it lacks important female characters?"

    Interesting question. I would say yes, but I don't mean this film specifically. I wasn't a big fan of Dunkirk because I'm not a fan of the genre, not because it lacked female presence (my apologies to you and Major H!!) I was constantly confused by the different timelines and the many characters, but this is one of Nolan's trademarks: to present complex plots with overlapping timelines and leave things to the audience's interpretation. So I knew what I was getting into.

    I can think of a few books and films I've loved without significant female characters. For example, The Outsiders (it has oly two female characters, one more important than the other, but they're only in two or three scenes). I'm currently reading The Goldfinch and there a very few female characters (I think four, but we hardly see them). Also The Shadow of the Wind and The Angel's Game, very few women. Like Susie, I don't focus on which demographics are represented in a book or movie. I respond to the characters and the story.

    I don't understand all the approar about this film. War movies and Westerns have been notorious for not having female characters for as long as the genres have existed mainly for two reasons: 1. They have a specific target audience: men. Of course there are exceptions of women who like them (like you!) and 2. With some exceptions, like the ones you mentioned, there were no women in the battlefield. So bringing them into the film would be anachronistic (and unbelievable). So the next question would be, should directors and writers focus on political correctness to appease a public that may not be their target audience, or should they spend their creative energy portraying a story as true-to-life as possible?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correction: "I don't understand all the uproar about this film."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Thanks for coming. I was about to page you to join the discussion. I think a while ago, in the days of the Sisterhood, we decided that female characters were not necessary for us to like a story, but now, this Bonar creature comes with that same singsong. Wait, it’s much worse she is saying we shouldn’t like films that celebrate white males because they are exclusive like Toby’s Club. It’s not that we want girls in a macho film, we should boycott the macho film because it lacks girls. I went through this garbage years ago, when I was told no woman should watch “Game of Thrones.”
      Nolan has gotten heat for dispensing of women, people of color, etc. The campaign against the film has to do with him being a little on the right of Leftist Hollywood. That makes him an easy target. In fact, recently he again has been made a scapegoat again because of the Charlottesville incident. He’s been accused by a hysterical Liberal agenda of being an accomplice of White Supremacist with this whitewashed film that tries to minimize the contribution of those of different color.
      Bonar, like you, doesn’t like battle films, but she lacks the ovaries to recognize it. Instead turns the whole think into aggressive controversy that creates buzz and helps sell whatever she sells. I don’t like battle films, unless there is a human element present. I don’t like documentary films like “Tora, Tora, Tora” or “Midway” On the other hand, I detest useless women in battle films (Kate Beckinsale in “Pearl Harbor” or Rachel Weisz in “Enemy at the Gates”) meaning girls that are there just to be the hero’s love interest.
      Joshua Levine who’s been historian-on-board for “Dunkirk” said something I erased from my blog, that Nolan had no obligation to describe the entire experience of Dunkirk, no film had that responsibility. Immediately he got slapped for that one, so I cut out the quote is in a website called “Salon”. So apparently, yes before telling a story, before ensuring its artistic merits, before ensuring its historical accuracy, political correctness should be served: include, impose, bend reality and bygone events. In a nutshell, lie. I don’t know if you saw “Atonement the Dunkirk segment (you can see the clip in many other Nolan entry) James McEvoy is followed on the beach by a black soldier. He is never introduced, he never says a word, he could have been a ghost for all we cared. It was a total embarrassment, since no British colonial forces from Africa were present on that beach.
      Hope everything is peachy at your house, that Andy is getting better, and hope we could talk soon. I miss you!

      Delete
  6. Events on the sea Wow, What a Excellent post. I really found this to much informatics. It is what i was searching for.I would like to suggest you that please keep sharing such type of info.Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THank you so very much. It's nice to know I'm still read. I'm sorry that I'm not longer doing this effort. At least not in English. Never got quorum or steady followers so I am still writing about historical drama but in Spanish, in another blog where I have quite a following. I wish I would have met you a ouple of years ago, but I'm glad I was of assistance.

      Delete