MyCocaine wrote:To be perfectly accurate though most of the Indian army at Dunkirk was actually Pakistani.

Mahiya_Borden wrote:@Ruth: Your post do make sense.

When I think about the film, I just can't see which character could have been non-white. People complain mainly about the troops at the beach being mainly white but it was the case. The movie is showing how Brits were evacuated first over non-Brits. So while there could have been Indians, West and North Africans in the film, they would have gotten the same treatment the French got. If you're not Brit, you don't get on the boats.

So as you said Ruth, if minorities would have been cast, they would have been background extras (which is already the case in the film) and people would have still lost their shit because the movie wouldn't be about them.

The French are also crying left and right about the fact they're not portrayed.
Nolan made a directorial and writing decision to focus on one aspect of what happened in Dunkirk because he wanted to make a suspenseful thriller film and not a docu-drama of 3 hours showing everything that happened there.

HorrorBiz wrote:

Nolan, to be sure, is a master stylist now in his top form who has a solid record with enduring films like "Memento" (2000) and his signature take on his Batman trilogy - but he is no Sergey Eisenstein in "Battleship Potemkin" (1925).

Nolan is a self-assured filmmaker with a solid command of his craft - but he is no Stanley Kubrick in "Path of Glory" (1957) or "Full Metal Jacket" (1987).

Nolan is a gifted storyteller staged confidently here in his "Dunkirk" - but he is no Terrence Malick in "The Thin Red Line" (1998). Nolan stages a judicious sense of drama - but he is no Elem Klimov in "Come and See" (1985). Nolan has a sensual sense of the sea and sand - but he is nowhere near Wolfgang Petersen in "Das Boot" (1981).

Please, ladies and gentlemen film critics: Nolan has a good pair of eyes for the aesthetic of warfare - but he is no Akira Kurosawa in "Ran" (1985). "The greatest war film ever?" You need to go back to film school if you had any serious education to begin with.

Nolan is simply not in the same league. One sequence in Kurosawa's "Ran" - the violent siege in which Hidetora and his samurai are attacked by his sons Taro and Jiro's combined forces - has forever in the history of cinema defined what it means to do a war scene. That sequence uplifts the Shakespearean tragedy and medieval Japanese dynastic feuds into the stage of archetypal truth. Nolan is no Kurosawa. "Dunkirk" is not "Ran".

So no, "Dunkirk" is most certainly not "the greatest war film ever", nor indeed is it the worst. It is the best Nolan has been capable so far to do as he desperately tries to find his cinematic signature, which here is somewhere near Spielberg’s equally hyped, but vacuous, "Saving Private Ryan" (1998).

There is no place for him yet in the pantheon of master visionaries like Eisenstein, Kurosawa, Lean, Kubrick, Malick, and a few others.

dormouse7 wrote:but my account somehow got deleted in June 2016

dormouse7 wrote:Bootleg photo but just the credits (in order of appearance). Apparently Miranda Nolan is the first one we meet after Alex. I wonder if she's the one that speaks.

ChristMAX wrote:

dormouse7 wrote:but my account somehow got deleted in June 2016

same