For religious reasons, I couldn’t get to see “Dunkirk” on
its debut week. In the interim, I tantalized myself reading every review of the
blessed film. Soon, I noticed an ongoing trend. Reviews did not dwell on
historical accuracy or cinematic merits, they were all about Christopher
Nolan’s omissions regarding multiculturality. It has been said that the film is
“too white” and that it fails to comprehend all the nationalities present on
that beach. Apparently, Chris Baby, you did manage to wake the dragon. Bad Boy!
But would “Dunkirk” have been historically
correct if the director-producer-scriptwriter had played the diversity card?
Did Nolan have the time and space to tackle every minority’s experience on that
chaotic but amazing evacuation?
I am not a Nolan fan. His films meet with my utmost indifference,
but I am a Second World War buff and I feel the Battle of Dunkirk (and the
evacuation scheme known as “Operation Dynamo”) has got little coverage in historical fiction. The arrival of this mega films to local
theaters had me enthused and grateful for a chance to see my favorite baby
boar, Tom Hardy, in a Spitfire cockpit.
I first heard about the Battle of Dunkirk, there on that
South American outpost known as Chile, when I was eight years old. My dad, a
bigger WWII buff than me, subscribed to a history of the war published, in
installments, by Espasa-Calpe. I still recall the cover of that thin pamphlet
called El Milagro de Dunquerque (The
Miracle of Dunkirk) and the very sad picture of those flat helmets worn by the
British army, strewn on the abandoned beach. It was so touching to see that
last glimpse of the helmets in Nolan’s film.
And so, in second grade I knew all about the British
Expeditionary Force, besieged by Nazi Germany’s army, and wondrously hauled
home by a last-minute mass departure that got over 300.000 men out of that
beach. Although valuable equipment had to be left behind, the rescued troops
saved the Allied cause. Otherwise, there would have been no soldiers to defend
Britain or to continue the war on other shores. In its day, Dunkirk was hailed both as a success and a
miracle, but nowadays most average millennials know nothing about such a pivotal
historical event.
The truth is that Dunkirk, as momentous as it was, is not
properly covered in history texts. Historians have not yet come to terms as to whether
to consider it a terrible defeat (it was) or a triumph of the spirit (in
propaganda terms, it was an absolute victory).
And when it comes to films, so few have been done.
Two years after the mega evacuation, Walter Pidgeon, playing
the husband of that heroic “Mrs. Miniver,” took his sloop to sea to rescue
Allied soldiers. Thus, Hollywood incorporated Dunkirk to its repertoire. Alas!
It was a one-night show, because Tinseltown has never again touched the subject.
Oddly enough, neither were the British very much into
commemorating Dynamo on film. After 1945, the English film industry would
annually bring out a batch of war flicks, but
it took eighteen years for it to develop something about Dunkirk.
Properly called “Dunkirk,” it covered Operation Dynamo through the eyes of a
journalist (Bernard Lee), a profiteer turned heroic rescuer (Lord Richard
Attenborough), and Sir John Mills playing the quintessential Tommy. Even though
“Dunkirk” was a total hit, it would take almost sixty years, before anybody, in
the English-speaking world, dared to film the epic retreat again.
In 1964, The French tried their hand in the Battle of
Dunkirk. Professor Robert Merle had won
the 1949 Goncourt Prix with Weekend a
Zuydcoote, a novel based on his own experiences on that fateful beach. He
was one of those soldiers who didn’t make it to England and ended up in a
German Stalag. He writes then not about Operation Dynamo, but about doomed men
stranded in a town that is slowly being destroyed. Henri Verneuil adapted the
book in 1964 with Jean Paul Belmondo (the hottest actor in France then) playing
the lead, Sergeant Julien.
It was common for Dunkirk to resurface on film adaptation of
novels, but as a passing event in the lives of the protagonists. One example is
Paul Gallico’s tear-jerker The Snow Goose
which is subtitled A Story of Dunkirk.
In 1971, Jenny Agutter (decades before becoming sweet Mother Julienne in “Call
the Midwife”) won a BAFTA, playing Fritha, an Essex country girl. Thanks to the title
goose, she befriends Philip (Sir Richard “Dumbledore” Harris), a reclusive
hunchbacked artist. When war breaks, Philip is rejected by the army. He proves
his valor precisely by taking his boat to Dunkirk and rescuing several hundred
men before getting killed.
Thanks to Ian McEwan, Millennials got to hear about Dunkirk when the most famous soldier to trample its beaches, Robbie Turner, took them there in Atonement. James McEvoy played Robbie in the film adaptation. There are two things I liked about the film, Keira’s green dress and the inclusion of the Battle of Dunkirk.
Thanks to Ian McEwan, Millennials got to hear about Dunkirk when the most famous soldier to trample its beaches, Robbie Turner, took them there in Atonement. James McEvoy played Robbie in the film adaptation. There are two things I liked about the film, Keira’s green dress and the inclusion of the Battle of Dunkirk.
When criticizing Nolan’s merits, one should bear in mind then that there is almost no precedent for his film. In “Dunkirk, ” he strives to cram as much as he can for the viewer to leave the theater with at least an idea of what happened on those Northern France’s beaches. Nolan divides his film in three settings (the Army on the beach, the Navy and the Little Ships on the sea, and the RAF on the air) each within its own timeframe. That is a lot to cover in an hour and forty-seven minutes. Nolan himself has said that this is neither a documentary not your conventional war movie. He describes “Dunkirk” as a work about “the mechanics of survival.”
As I said, before seeing the movie, I tried to get an idea
of what I would encounter. More than reviews, I found disparagement. Few
technical reproaches, plenty on content. On The
Vulture, where the film was ripped apart, one of their complaints was about
Nolan’s glorification of the Little Ships (and the Little People too). “Little
Ships” refers to an armada of over 800 vessels (some of them private and manned
by civilian crews) that took part in Operation Dynamo.
It is true, we can’t say their contribution saved the day.
Obviously, the bulk of the evacuation rested on larger ships, but people such
as the character played by Sir Mark Rylance on “Dunkirk” or like Gallico’s hunchback, inspired the nation with their courage (they
did risk their lives), their patriotism and their altruism. Moreover, and due
to shallow tides, large craft were unable to reach the beaches. By getting close to land and ferrying soldiers
to the bigger vessels, the Little Ships were instrumental in hastening, easing
and upgrading the rescue process.
But the main condemnation that has fallen on Nolan’s work isabout
his lack of cultural diversity. It
started with a standard (in our era of Political Correctness) warning made by
Brian Truitt in his
USA Today review: “the fact that there are only a couple of women and no
lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.” Of course, the conservative
press, on both sides of the Atlantic, had a field day laughing at what they
deemed liberal crap, or the inability to understand that the clashing armies of
Dunkirk were monochromatic. That
incorrigible James
Delingbone had me on stitches.
Also, it would have
added a new dimension had James Earl Jones been cast as the salty old Royal
Naval officer called out of retirement for one last trip across the English
Channel, or if Ice T and Snoop Dogg had been given the role of two aging
rappers who parachute from a Dakota to administer weed to the desperate troops,
or if Oprah appeared in a cameo as Queen Mary welcoming the returning troops
after their desperate voyage.
But it wouldn’t have
been historically authentic.
Delingbone is better at sarcasm than Lyanna Mormont, but he
is missing a point. The British Army was
not entirely white. In 1939, four Royal Indian Army companies arrived in
France. Known as K6, they were mostly Muslim Punjabis and Pathans from what is
now Pakistan. They were present in
Dunkirk, Indian officers were decorated, mules had to be left behind, three
Indian contingents were evacuated, one fell into German hands.
The
Times of India was the first medium to blow the whistle in Nolan’s oversight.
Others followed suit. I do mind the omission, but I can understand the film’s
limitations. However, Indian soldiers have appeared in British war films since
the Rank’s gong days. I remember as a pre-adolescent (in my “drooling over Dirk
Bogarde” stage) watching Indian soldiers fight the Japanese in “The Wind Cannot
Read.” And the Indian military effort has been celebrated on screen from “The
Jewel in the Crown” to “The English Patient”.
Now, Nolan can’t be blamed for this specific lapse since he
has overlooked so many other nationalities. This was a world war, and although
no British colonial forces were present at Dunkirk, we do get to glimpse a
black man in a French uniform on the film. The French colonial army was
anything but white and their contribution was enormous.
Contingents of Moroccan troops were among those forces that held the Germans at bay, propitiating the retreat. But the French are not complaining about the race issue, they find the film offensive because their contribution and their presence are so minimized. I find this nitpicking exhausting. Imagine if other “white” nationalities would echo this bickering?
Contingents of Moroccan troops were among those forces that held the Germans at bay, propitiating the retreat. But the French are not complaining about the race issue, they find the film offensive because their contribution and their presence are so minimized. I find this nitpicking exhausting. Imagine if other “white” nationalities would echo this bickering?
Although, at some point Harry Styles and his Merry Men do
bump into a Dutch soldier, “Dunkirk” does not talk about the Dutch and Belgian
evacuees (ships from the Low Countries also joined the trop ferrying effort).
There were Free Poles on that beach, and thanks to “Home Fires,” I learned
there were also Free Czechs. None of
them are mentioned in the film. Master
Nolan, you are slipping, Sir!
Truth be told, most Eastern European troops were evacuated
in a joint effort known as Operation Ariel that went on a couple of weeks after
the Dunkirk exodus was over. It continued throughout June from the main French ports
on the Atlantic, and rescued French, British, Polish, and Czech soldiers as
well as British nurses and some equipment.
Nolan’s film has made France unhappy. Her media complains
about French troops being ignored in the storyline. Surprising, since the
film is brutally honest about the British attitude towards their allies. The success of Dynamo was possible thanks to
30, 000 French soldiers that remained behind fighting off the Germans (The
Indian contingent fought along them). As the film shows us, British Navy
personnel felt their priority should be their Tommies, so the French were put
on hold. It was only Churchill’s demands that made it possible to evacuate
almost 100, 000 French troops. But they were the last to leave, as exemplified in
the film by Commander Bolton’s final remark:” I’m staying for the French.”
At Le Monde, Jacques Mandelbaum calls
Nolan’s omission impolite. He describes the film as “une histoire purement anglaise.” He says the film only gives a
dozen of minutes to his countrymen. Geoffroy Caillet writing for Le Figaro is much more offensive. He
claims that Operation Dynamo was a betrayal of the French since it ruined Le Plan Weygand and helped pave France’s
debacle. WTF? You idiotic Frog (and I can use the word. My paternal grandmother
hailed from La Gascogne just like D’Artagnan).
That is pure Vichy propaganda! Sorry, Mes petits, I will mourn for the slighted,
forgotten French in Dunkirk, but raise my middle finger to those who use such
false arguments.
When I was young, we had a neighbor, Monsieur Daniel G, he
was a Communist and a former resistant.
He also claimed to have fled Dunkirk. He said that on noticing that the
French soldiers were lagging, he went, found himself a boat, and rowed towards one of the British destroyers.
They couldn’t turn him away and so he got to England. I never knew if the story was apocryphal or
not. But it could have happened.
In Mandelbaum’s critic, he also mentions that we never get
to see the Dunkirk civilians, and they had a tough time too. Well, this is an
odd film, since the idea is to show civilians (ergo British) coming to rescue
the soldiers, but it is true we don’t get to see the town or its inhabitants.
In fact, Dunkirk was far from deserted. Its population expanded thanks to a
constant reflux of Belgian refugees, most of them Jewish.
And hey! Now that every minority is demanding a pound of
Nolan’s flesh, it’s time for me to join in. How come nobody mentions Jews in
this film? There were Jewish refugees on
Dunkirk, and Jewish crews manning both the British vessels and the Little Ships.
There were Jews in the British and French armies. Historian Marc Bloch, then a
captain in the French Army, was evacuated in the Daffodil. There is no mention of the Jewish army doctors that were
taken away by the SS and were never heard again. Only one of them reappeared,
Isadore Scherer, a South African medical
officer, who ended up in Colditz Castle.
Some have complained that Nolan does not show the fate of
those who fell in German hands. In fact, at the end of the film, when Farrier
(Tom Hardy) hands himself over to the Germans, we just shrug. Tom Hardy managed
to escape from “Colditz” in 2005, he can do it again. The truth is that a prisoner’s
lot was not a good one. Officers got to go to Stalags, other ranks became forced
laborers. Those were the lucky ones .
Several hundred of British soldiers of all ranks were massacred
by the SS at Le Paradis. Dunkirk survivors don’t have a happier story to tell,
deprived of food, water and medical aid, they were also beaten and mocked by
the Germans. In a way, I’m glad that Nolan forgot to include their plight. The movie is harrowing enough as it is.
In my next blog, I’ll go on detail about Nolan’s last faux-pas and how it has enraged the
denizens of faux-feminism. Poor man, he just can’t seem to do right by
minorities!
No comments:
Post a Comment