“...Dunkirk had some good scenes surrounded by a timeline that didn’t flow (planes flying day then night then day???)...really boring scenes on the small boats...Not to take away from the true events, it just could have been told better.” [Magnum44, post 25]
“I saw “Dunkirk’’. It stunk.” [jmacusa, post 27]
“I’m more of a non fiction book than novel kind of guy. That’s how I like my movies, too...Sometimes it seems these movie directors want to make stuff up in the name of art...” [lodi90, post 29]
I would submit that most us have seen so many of Steven Spielberg’s roller-coaster rides that films by others cannot help but seem boring.
Many think valor won the day during World War Two, but it mattered less to the Allies than an industrial base the Axis couldn’t reach, lavish supply lines, air and maritime dominance, and massive numbers of otherwise humble people toiling in obscurity, possessed of the grit, determination, and perseverance to not give up. Rather less glamorous than deeds of heroism, but easier to foster beforehand and produce on demand. Valor is less predictable and less likely to repeat when needed. Plus, it’s risky: odds of survival aren’t that good.
Those who yearn for verisimilitude over art would be even less happy had two major factors in the Allied evacuations been addressed on film in _Dunkirk_.
1. Terrain and soil structure inside the Allied perimeter. Shell and bomb craters created unusually good foxholes, greatly reducing exposure of retreating troops to German fire.
2. Low cloud cover prevailed during much of the evacuation. The weather greatly reduced the effectiveness of Luftwaffe in attacking retreating or surrounded Allied ground forces and the civilian vessels employed in the evacuation.
If Christopher Nolan and crew had insisted on depicting events at that level of fidelity, the film would have been even less appealing.
I dont know. I appreciate seeing as real a depiction of history as can be recreated. The lessons are in the history, not in the dramatization of it.