MovieChat Forums > Dunkirk (2017) Discussion > Complete lack of explanation of the over...

Complete lack of explanation of the overall picture

posted 3 years ago by Paedokiller (298)
19 replies | jump to latest

I know the history, but for those viewers unfamiliar with the era, they would be totally confused about the true, more active background to the Dunkirk event.

I overheard someone else in the cinema asking their partner why the army and RAF weren't fighting inland to stop the Germans reach the coast?
The British/French armies were, of course, fighting bitterly against even the Waffen SS units in a huge but shrinking perimeter to halt the inevitable tide.

But all we got at the beginning of this film was a brief inadequate note of a few sentences?

[–] Roguemail (1562) 3 years ago

Anyone unfamiliar with the events should read a book and study it.

This was not a documentary and people should never look to Hollywood to educate them on facts.

Movies are there to entertain, first and foremost.

[–] moviechatterer (13270) 3 years ago

It didnt really do that either though.

[–] Roguemail (1562) 3 years ago

It did entertain many people. But like all movies there will be those who didn't like it.

I will suggest that many of the people who didn't like it had an issue with the non-linear narrative.

Many expected a traditional war movie. But that's already been done, so this was a different take on the events.

And besides, Nolan has employed similar techniques of playing with timelines in his movies, so why anyone expected him to make a traditional movie is beyond me.

[–] DrRed (519) 3 years ago

Agreed. I knew nothing of the history and I still found the movie to be entertaining.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

If you have to read a book to know what's going on then the movie can't stand on its own.

[–] Roguemail (1562) 3 years ago

Complete rubbish. No movie gives you the full story and events are always changed to make an entertaining movie.

If you want to know what actually happened, you should not rely on a movie to educate you.

[–] Ldlamb (585) 3 years ago

Yeah...a movie doesn’t need to be a HS history text.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Not at all, the movie should stand on its own, the poster above said you had to read a book for the movie to make sense (I personally understood the move just fine) but if that’s the case then that proves the movie sucked

[–] partydjz (424) a year ago

"Movies are there to entertain, first and foremost."

What a terrible point of view. The medium of motion pictures is unlimited in it's ability to educate and entertain at the same time. Sorry for you that you have such a limited viewpoint.

Yes there are plenty of films that accurately depict historical individuals and events.

[–] FootOfDavros (6712) a year ago

One book cannot be taken as gospel and could well contain bias / unreliable information.

Therefore one should read several books and, ideally, in additional attempt to interview several first hand witnesses to events. This should allow an individual to pass judgement on whether they truly are in position of the facts.

[–] BourbonKing (5612) 3 years ago

the battles between the encroaching Nazis and the retreating Brits/French/Belgian troops was quite harrowing indeed, and would have worked IF this was a trilogy of sorts. They would have to rewrite the story to include a British and French character who survived the retreat and then followed up their story line into a subsequent two movies as the Allied Forces return to liberate the continent from the Nazis.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Nah, I'm not familiar with the history but had no problem following the narrative of this movie.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 3 years ago

It's true that not a lot of context is given, but Dunkirk is such a well-known historical event that I'm not sure how much context is really needed. I felt like the effort went into the characters, even though they mostly were anonymous. Just what it would have been like to be there, and how there were all of these people making sacrifices to rescue the men on the beach.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 3 years ago

This. All the context needed was to say the army was trapped, and if it was captured Britain (and the Allies) were in big trouble.

[–] TearofLys (2398) 3 years ago

Can always depend on a post like this whenever there is a dramatic film that covers a historic event. It isn't meant to be a historical documentary, and even if it was, it would be incredibly difficult to address all of the moving parts that influence a particular campaign. Easier just to enjoy the film for what it is.

[–] moviechatterer (13270) 3 years ago

without that context the film would just be a load of soldiers hanging around on a beach waiting for a lift home.
Which was all it turned out to be.

It could have been so much more if the reasons were explained.
The crushing defeat theyd just been through , the still imminent danger ,
the uncertainty of what that meant for the war in general

Maybe those extra details arnt needed for a specific exiting chapter with its own story , like "The Dambusters" ,
but for "Standing around on a beach" , a bit of background to fill out the picture would have helped.

[–] TearofLys (2398) 3 years ago

That is something that needs to be done for purely fictional efforts, but not necessarily for historical events. They made the assumption that most viewers would already know the historical context, and if they tried to spoon feed the simpletons, they would end up boring the film's core audience. The movie had a huge box office for what it was, so I think they make the right call.

[–] partydjz (424) a year ago

Absolutely, Nolan took an historic event and turned it into a drama filled action flick, disgusting !

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Stick to Transformers