How accurately does Chris Nolan's film Dunkirk reflect history?

Vixen

Penultimate Amazing
Vixen
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
40,975
Location
Varsinais-Suomi
Having seen the film 'Dunkirk' I was surprised to discover that it has been heavily criticised by critics. In particular, the French claim it fails to give adequate credit to their forces. The film was released in India, where disappointed film goers are upset that the Indian forces were not portrayed.

I myself thought it was an excellent film. However, I am aware history gets revised over time, depending on who's doing the storytelling.

However, as Sibelius once remarked, 'A critic has never had a statue erected in his honour.'
 
It's a small story about a big event. It's not attempting to be a documentary detailing ALL of the contributions of every participant. It focuses on three primary characters who see the evacuation from three different perspectives.

If something in the film could not have happened in the actual evacuation, then that might be reason for criticism. The fact that something might have been omitted seems inevitable.

As far as the French goes, one of the lead characters is rescued by the French at the very beginning of the film. It's pretty clear they're the ones who are holding the line against the German forces.
 
Ray Brady said:
It's a small story about a big event. It's not attempting to be a documentary detailing ALL of the contributions of every participant. It focuses on three primary characters who see the evacuation from three different perspectives.

If something in the film could not have happened in the actual evacuation, then that might be reason for criticism. The fact that something might have been omitted seems inevitable.

As far as the French goes, one of the lead characters is rescued by the French at the very beginning of the film. It's pretty clear they're the ones who are holding the line against the German forces.
Click to expand...

Exactly! The film tells the stories of a few specific individuals embedded within a massively larger event. It is clearly not meant to comprehensively document the entire story of Dunkirk. Near the beginning of the film some French troops are turned away from the mole where the British are evacuating by being told, "You have your own ships." I thought that this not only was meant to illustrate the unfairness of this refusal, but also I wondered if this was slyly meant to indicate that this movie was about the British- the French had best find their own movie...

I will note that I was not a huge fan of the film- it was okay and done in an interesting manner, but I do not understand why some people view it as among the very best films ever made.
 
Vixen said:
Having seen the film 'Dunkirk' I was surprised to discover that it has been heavily criticised by critics. In particular, the French claim it fails to give adequate credit to their forces. The film was released in India, where disappointed film goers are upset that the Indian forces were not portrayed.

I myself thought it was an excellent film. However, I am aware history gets revised over time, depending on who's doing the storytelling.

However, as Sibelius once remarked, 'A critic has never had a statue erected in his honour.'
Click to expand...


The BBC website had an article about the Indian controversy and it seems to have been nothing more than a few critics trying to stir up trouble. The Indian complement at Dunkirk seems to have been no more than a couple of companies and unfortunately there's no proper records of what happened to them.

As to the French, well they are in the film and it is made quite clear they are holding the line. The evacuation is however first and foremost a British story and if certain people are unhappy with that, well that's their problem.

Oh and I am firmly in the it was a brilliant move camp. :)
 
Giordano said:
Exactly! The film tells the stories of a few specific individuals embedded within a massively larger event. It is clearly not meant to comprehensively document the entire story of Dunkirk. Near the beginning of the film some French troops are turned away from the mole where the British are evacuating by being told, "You have your own ships." I thought that this not only was meant to illustrate the unfairness of this refusal, but also I wondered if this was slyly meant to indicate that this movie was about the British- the French had best find their own movie...

I will note that I was not a huge fan of the film- it was okay and done in an interesting manner, but I do not understand why some people view it as among the very best films ever made.
Click to expand...

I think Nolan meant to highlight the irony here, of Churchill (as quoted by the top brass in the film) saying the French and the Brits were to be evacuated 'arm in arm', the reality being different.
 
Here's an interesting take on the Indian Army contribution to the Dunkirk escape:

To be sure, more than 300,000 British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, and the number of troops of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps in Dunkirk amounted to a few hundred. But as John Broich, who teaches history at Case Western Reserve University in the US, pointed out recently in Slate: “There were also four (Indian) companies … on those beaches. Observers said they were particularly cool under fire and well organized during the retreat. They weren’t large in number … but their appearance in the film would have provided a good reminder of how utterly central the role of the Indian Army was in the war. Their service meant the difference between victory and defeat. In fact, while Britain and other allies were licking their wounds after Dunkirk, the Indian Army picked up the slack in North Africa and the Middle East.”

During the Dunkirk evacuation, John Ashdown, a British army officer, managed to get many of his Indian troops on the last ship before the jetty was bombed. In doing this, he disobeyed an order from one of his superiors to abandon his Indian troops.
Click to expand...

Like many people, I suspect, Dunkirk has always been a term one has heard of, but never given much thought.

It brought into terrifying perspective why so many of the older generation are vehmently pro-Brexit.

They haven't forgotten what Germany did.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Here's an interesting take on the Indian Army contribution to the Dunkirk escape:



Like many people, I suspect, Dunkirk has always been a term one has heard of, but never given much thought.

It brought into terrifying perspective why so many of the older generation are vehmently pro-Brexit.

They haven't forgotten what Germany did.
Click to expand...
What about France? If the Germans and the French can now work together not only after Dunkirk, but after the Fall of France and the subsequent Nazi occupation, with all its humiliations and atrocities; why should Dunkirk turn the older generation of Britons so vehemently pro Brexit? And why has this effect been much stronger in England than in Scotland?
 
Vixen said:
Here's an interesting take on the Indian Army contribution to the Dunkirk escape:
Click to expand...

I don't see that as a compelling reason to include a reference to the contribution from Indian troops in Dunkirk. Their major contribution, and that of troops from other parts of what was still the British Empire, came later, which would be the subject of a different film. A mention of them wouldn't have been out of place, but I don't think there are grounds to complain about the omission; I'm sure there are plenty of other units which were there who also don't get named in the film.
 
Vixen said:
Like many people, I suspect, Dunkirk has always been a term one has heard of, but never given much thought.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself.
It brought into terrifying perspective why so many of the older generation are vehmently pro-Brexit.

They haven't forgotten what Germany did.
Click to expand...

I'm not following this line of reasoning at all. Which generations do you think voted for the government that took us into the EEC (as it was) and then voted to stay there in the referendum in 1975?
 
Why do people think history should be learned from feature films? I think the role of films is to capture the experience of being their during a historical event. The accuracy of what it was like to be on the beach at Dunkirk is what the film is for.
 
I refuse to watch war movies, I don't believe it's entertainment or good for me, personally.

HOWEVER, I made an exception and so for me Dunkirk is my first war movie and quite possibly my last.

I can't say I enjoyed it (spent a fair bit of time with a portion of my face covered) BUT I think it was a superb movie. I am very glad I saw it
 
It depends on what you mean with reflecting history.

IMO Reflecting history would put the event in proportion to what scale hapenned. If you concentrate on a very small event and ignore the whole wide scale around, you are not accurately reflecting history anymore. You are accurately *may* reflecting that event but not history.

For example let us say you make a film on the dallas killing of the president, but never show :
1) the president
2) the killing
3) the killer
And only shows , I dunno the life before and after of one of the policement accompanying the president, that does not make it a bad film, but that certainly does not reflect history accurately as it ignores the bigger events. It is only a point of view mega zoomed in on a detail.

I think the problem I have with the film is it is not as such the film itself, it is OK, but the pretention it is reflecting history. There were , what 18000 dead french troop at that battle and about 3500 english commonwealth troop ? Then the event depicted are not reflecting history, they are reflecting a small subset of it, ignoring the whole at large.

As for the "french troop wanted to flee and were refused" the cynic in me think this is because most english/america expect the same old tired "french surrender drop rifle never used" stereotype with having french fleeing. From what I know of the battle , this really is not reflecting history at all in the slightiest.

But i was not expecting anything else. I just disagree that its reflecting history.
 
Aepervius said:
It depends on what you mean with reflecting history.

IMO Reflecting history would put the event in proportion to what scale hapenned. If you concentrate on a very small event and ignore the whole wide scale around, you are not accurately reflecting history anymore. You are accurately *may* reflecting that event but not history.

For example let us say you make a film on the dallas killing of the president, but never show :
1) the president
2) the killing
3) the killer
And only shows , I dunno the life before and after of one of the policement accompanying the president, that does not make it a bad film, but that certainly does not reflect history accurately as it ignores the bigger events. It is only a point of view mega zoomed in on a detail.

I think the problem I have with the film is it is not as such the film itself, it is OK, but the pretention it is reflecting history. There were , what 18000 dead french troop at that battle and about 3500 english commonwealth troop ? Then the event depicted are not reflecting history, they are reflecting a small subset of it, ignoring the whole at large.

As for the "french troop wanted to flee and were refused" the cynic in me think this is because most english/america expect the same old tired "french surrender drop rifle never used" stereotype with having french fleeing. From what I know of the battle , this really is not reflecting history at all in the slightiest.

But i was not expecting anything else. I just disagree that its reflecting history.
Click to expand...

This is like criticizing Saving Private Ryan for not showing any British troops or for having an atypical mortality rate compared to the allied forces overall. It's not a documentary, presenting a balanced view of the whole operation.
 
zooterkin said:
Speak for yourself.


I'm not following this line of reasoning at all. Which generations do you think voted for the government that took us into the EEC (as it was) and then voted to stay there in the referendum in 1975?
Click to expand...

Baby Boomers were by far the biggest supporters of leaving the EU. Older citizens tended to vote remain.
 
Giz said:
This is like criticizing Saving Private Ryan for not showing any British troops or for having an atypical mortality rate compared to the allied forces overall. It's not a documentary, presenting a balanced view of the whole operation.
Click to expand...

No it is not. If you pretend to reflect history then you should reflect the events in history proportional to their overall happenstance. The "battle of dunkirk" is not well represented by the film of "dunkirk" (what's up with not calling it with its real name of Dunkerques by the way ? We don't call new york "niou jork").

Saving private Ryan is not also reflecting history either, it is only at best reflecting some realities, some fictious part , on the normandy beach. But it does not pretend to be reflecting history on the retaking of France from the german troops.

See the difference ? When you concentrate on a detail, then admit it is that detail point of view, but do not pretend one reflect acurately the whole. It does not. it only reflects a small subset.
 
Aepervius said:
No it is not. If you pretend to reflect history then you should reflect the events in history proportional to their overall happenstance. The "battle of dunkirk" is not well represented by the film of "dunkirk" (what's up with not calling it with its real name of Dunkerques by the way ? We don't call new york "niou jork").

Saving private Ryan is not also reflecting history either, it is only at best reflecting some realities, some fictious part , on the normandy beach. But it does not pretend to be reflecting history on the retaking of France from the german troops.

See the difference ? When you concentrate on a detail, then admit it is that detail point of view, but do not pretend one reflect acurately the whole. It does not. it only reflects a small subset.
Click to expand...

So your complaint is that the movie title should have been:" [part of the battle of] Dunkirk"?

Maybe Nolan didn't think that was snappy enough?
 
I went to see Dunkirk today, but half way through the showing there was a power cut affecting the public electricity supply, and the Fire Brigade ordered the evacuation of the building.
 
Craig B said:
I went to see Dunkirk today, but half way through the showing there was a power cut affecting the public electricity supply, and the Fire Brigade ordered the evacuation of the building.
Click to expand...
Did they need to bring in small craft, to get everyone out in time?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
Craig B said:
I went to see Dunkirk today, but half way through the showing there was a power cut affecting the public electricity supply, and the Fire Brigade ordered the evacuation of the building.
Click to expand...

Were there enough big buses for the long lines of evacuatees, or was it necessary to call out a fleet of small ubers to bring everyone safely home?
 
Giz said:
Were there enough big buses for the long lines of evacuatees, or was it necessary to call out a fleet of small ubers to bring everyone safely home?
Click to expand...
People wandered off to the nearest pub.
 
Aepervius said:
(what's up with not calling it with its real name of Dunkerques by the way ? We don't call new york "niou jork").
Click to expand...

Well, that's what it happens to be called in English. In the same way that the French call the capital of the UK, Londres.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, that's what it happens to be called in English. In the same way that the French call the capital of the UK, Londres.
Click to expand...
The name is Flemish in origin anyway, not French.
The name of DunkirkWP derives from West Flemish dun(e) 'dune' or 'dun' and kerke 'church', which together means 'church in the dunes'. Until the middle of the 20th century the city was situated in the French Flemish area; today the local Flemish variety of the Dutch language can still be heard, but has largely been supplanted by French.​
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Near the beginning of the film some French troops are turned away from the mole where the British are evacuating by being told, "You have your own ships." I thought that this not only was meant to illustrate the unfairness of this refusal, but also I wondered if this was slyly meant to indicate that this movie was about the British- the French had best find their own movie...
Click to expand...


I assumed that . . .

. . . this scene was inserted to explain why "Gibson" had to disguise himself as a British soldier to attempt to board a British evacuation ship.

Absolutely loved the movie, BTW. It would probably make it onto my list of five war movies I'd take with me to a desert island.
 
Craig B said:
The name is Flemish in origin anyway, not French.
The name of DunkirkWP derives from West Flemish dun(e) 'dune' or 'dun' and kerke 'church', which together means 'church in the dunes'. Until the middle of the 20th century the city was situated in the French Flemish area; today the local Flemish variety of the Dutch language can still be heard, but has largely been supplanted by French.​
Click to expand...

Interesting, but I don't think it alters the validity of my point at all. It seems to be a fairly recent trend to use the name of the place in the local language, rather than a name in your own language (often, but not always, based on the original name). When visiting the place, or talking to people from that country, it is of course polite to use the local name, as it is to use the local language in general, if possible.
 
zooterkin said:
Interesting, but I don't think it alters the validity of my point at all. It seems to be a fairly recent trend to use the name of the place in the local language, rather than a name in your own language (often, but not always, based on the original name). When visiting the place, or talking to people from that country, it is of course polite to use the local name, as it is to use the local language in general, if possible.
Click to expand...
The French form is the result of putting a Dutch word into the rules of French orthography. I think it is perfectly proper to use "a name in your own language". Today is the centenary of the beginning of an important WW1 battle fought in a place called
Passendale or Passchendaele (obsolete spelling, retained in English)​
I really don't see anything wrong with these name variants.

Are the Francophone Belgians to be prevented from calling a particular city Anvers, because in that city the majority of people speak Dutch and call it Antwerpen? We call it Antwerp in English. So what?

Until recently Dunkirk was in a Flemish-speaking area, and the name is Flemish in origin, so let people refer to the place by whatever name they think best, if their own language has a particular form of the name.

When speaking or writing French we may well use the French term, as correct in the language we are using. But in speaking French it would be equally appropriate to call London Londres, and Edinburgh Édimbourg, because these are the French names for those cities.
 
mikado said:
I refuse to watch war movies, I don't believe it's entertainment or good for me, personally.

HOWEVER, I made an exception and so for me Dunkirk is my first war movie and quite possibly my last.

I can't say I enjoyed it (spent a fair bit of time with a portion of my face covered) BUT I think it was a superb movie. I am very glad I saw it
Click to expand...

Yeah its a great movie but it is not a fun movie. My mother who is her 70's said she was glad she went to see it but she wouldn't be able face watching it again.

ETA: And the point of the film was to try and convey some sense of what those involved went through, not prepare anyone for a history exam.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I don't see that as a compelling reason to include a reference to the contribution from Indian troops in Dunkirk. Their major contribution, and that of troops from other parts of what was still the British Empire, came later, which would be the subject of a different film. A mention of them wouldn't have been out of place, but I don't think there are grounds to complain about the omission; I'm sure there are plenty of other units which were there who also don't get named in the film.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you would be mistaken. According to an article in the GUARDIAN today by Sunny Singh, there were Indian army members on Dunkirk beach.

What a surprise that Nigel Farage has endorsed the new fantasy-disguised-as-historical war film, Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan’s movie is an inadvertently timely, thinly veiled Brexiteer fantasy in which plucky Britons heroically retreat from the dangerous shores of Europe. Most importantly, it pushes the narrative that it was Britain as it exists today – and not the one with a global empire – that stood alone against the “European peril”.

To do so, it erases the Royal Indian Army Services Corp companies, which were not only on the beach, but tasked with transporting supplies over terrain that was inaccessible for the British Expeditionary Force’s motorised transport companies. It also ignores the fact that by 1938, lascars – mostly from South Asia and East Africa – counted for one of four crewmen on British merchant vessels, and thus participated in large numbers in the evacuation.

But Nolan’s erasures are not limited to the British. The French army deployed at Dunkirk included soldiers from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and other colonies, and in substantial numbers. Some non-white faces are visible in one crowd scene, but that’s it. The film forgets the racialised pecking order that determined life and death for both British and French colonial troops at Dunkirk and after it.
Click to expand...


I did at first think this was a case of people taking offence when none was intended. However, had the role of the British Indian and French African troops not been mentioned by disgruntled critics, one might never have been aware of their contribution.
 
Nessie said:
Why do people think history should be learned from feature films? I think the role of films is to capture the experience of being their during a historical event. The accuracy of what it was like to be on the beach at Dunkirk is what the film is for.
Click to expand...

What I liked about the film was how Nolan miniaturised it. Like one of my favourite writers, Ishuguro Kazuo, he was able to take a day in the life of one small boat out of hundreds against a backdrop of three RAF airplanes out of many and show the bigger picture through the characters.

It was a little bit 'Boy's Own': lad goes on an adventure with Dad and helps saves dozens of drowning airmen, sailors and soilders, almost single-handedly, it seems.

This was clever casting IMO as before talk of 'the War' sends most of the younger generation into a glazed stare, and this film with its pin-up actors helps them understand what was at stake at the time.
 
Aepervius said:
It depends on what you mean with reflecting history.

IMO Reflecting history would put the event in proportion to what scale hapenned. If you concentrate on a very small event and ignore the whole wide scale around, you are not accurately reflecting history anymore. You are accurately *may* reflecting that event but not history.

For example let us say you make a film on the dallas killing of the president, but never show :
1) the president
2) the killing
3) the killer
And only shows , I dunno the life before and after of one of the policement accompanying the president, that does not make it a bad film, but that certainly does not reflect history accurately as it ignores the bigger events. It is only a point of view mega zoomed in on a detail.

I think the problem I have with the film is it is not as such the film itself, it is OK, but the pretention it is reflecting history. There were , what 18000 dead french troop at that battle and about 3500 english commonwealth troop ? Then the event depicted are not reflecting history, they are reflecting a small subset of it, ignoring the whole at large.

As for the "french troop wanted to flee and were refused" the cynic in me think this is because most english/america expect the same old tired "french surrender drop rifle never used" stereotype with having french fleeing. From what I know of the battle , this really is not reflecting history at all in the slightiest.

But i was not expecting anything else. I just disagree that its reflecting history.
Click to expand...


Probably because of my CoE education I felt the film to be a true reflection, whilst at the same time being fully aware of my inculcation at an early age with 'Britishness'.

Nolan presents the Brits almost as a caricature; but one that I recognised and resonated with strongly. The affirmation, 'English, I'm English' and expecting automatic respect (we never said 'British' then). Then on reaching the shore, finding hundreds of thousands of forces personnel lined up in orderly (British) queues; the strong class identification: the protaganist, on joining one random queue being told to scram with a shake of the head by the guy in front of him, 'Grenadiers, mate'; the endless cups of tea being offered the first rescuee on the boat, the rescue officials telling the guys in the water to 'Keep Calm' was almost a pisstake of polite British society. However, it is exactly what we do. For example the officer stopping the French getting past with a 'British only', was just so true to life IMV.

I found myself strongly hating the Germans (NB in the context of a warring nation), something that I have noticed others doing in the past (for example at football matches) so I was quite disconcerted by my reactions, and this got me wondering how much this was true to life, or just Nolan showing Brits how they see themselves.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Apparently, you would be mistaken. According to an article in the GUARDIAN today by Sunny Singh, there were Indian army members on Dunkirk beach.




I did at first think this was a case of people taking offence when none was intended. However, had the role of the British Indian and French African troops not been mentioned by disgruntled critics, one might never have been aware of their contribution.
Click to expand...

About one in a thousand. And there were a couple of non white faces in crowd shots, right? Sounds about right really.
 
Aepervius said:
(what's up with not calling it with its real name of Dunkerques by the way ? We don't call new york "niou jork").
Click to expand...
Really??? :rolleyes: You, as a native French speaker, must also be aware that Dunkerque is not a native French word. From wiki:
Dunkirk (/dʌnˈkɜːrk/ or /ˈdʌnkɜːrk/; French: Dunkerque, pronounced [dœ̃kɛʁk]; Dutch: Duinkerke(n)
[...]
The name of Dunkirk derives from West Flemish dun(e) 'dune' or 'dun' and kerke 'church', which together means 'church in the dunes'.[1] Until the middle of the 20th century the city was situated in the French Flemish area; today the local Flemish variety of the Dutch language can still be heard, but has largely been supplanted by French.
Click to expand...
Bloody French language imperialists. IMHO, the proper name of the city was and is Duinkerke. And its main claim to (in)fame are its pirates that on the wrong side of our war of independence. :)

That said, I don't have a problem at all with "translations" of geographic names, e.g., with English speakers saying/writing The Hague or Flushing, or French speakers saying/writing La Haye or Bois-le-Duc or Nimègue or Groningue (can you identify them? They're all Dutch cities).

ETA: I see I've been ninja'd on this point by CraigB with the very same wiki quote. ;)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Nolan presents the Brits almost as a caricature; but one that I recognised and resonated with strongly. The affirmation, 'English, I'm English'
Click to expand...

Yes, English. Because the 10,000 Scotsmen of 51st infantry division were still fighting, and even counter-attacking. Their story would have made a much more interesting film.
 
ddt said:
Duinkerke. And its main claim to (in)fame are its pirates that on the wrong side of our war of independence. :)
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Maerten Tromp had a merry old time on account of the Duinkerker kaapers (and not Duinkerker kappers as I once wrote :o).
 
ddt said:
Really??? :rolleyes: You, as a native French speaker, must also be aware that Dunkerque is not a native French word. From wiki:

Bloody French language imperialists. IMHO, the proper name of the city was and is Duinkerke. And its main claim to (in)fame are its pirates that on the wrong side of our war of independence. :)

That said, I don't have a problem at all with "translations" of geographic names, e.g., with English speakers saying/writing The Hague or Flushing, or French speakers saying/writing La Haye or Bois-le-Duc or Nimègue or Groningue (can you identify them? They're all Dutch cities).

ETA: I see I've been ninja'd on this point by CraigB with the very same wiki quote. ;)
Click to expand...

It does not matter as TODAY the name is Dunkerque. Heck you don't call city Lutecia, saint Petersbourg or Leningrad or whatever. You use the name they have now (ETA or that they had during WW2 with in parenthesis the modern name. Still Dunkerque). And today it is Dunkerque and not Dunkirk.

ETA : and saying it was in the middle of the french Flemish area is misleading it has been a french city since the 17th century or so, and with the official french name even during WW2. NOT using the correct name alone is already a rewrite of history.
 
Last edited:
TX50 said:
Ah yes, Maerten Tromp had a merry old time on account of the Duinkerker kaapers (and not Duinkerker kappers as I once wrote :o).
Click to expand...
I'm sure he didn't go there to get a haircut. :D
(Dutch "kapper" = hairdresser).

Aepervius said:
It does not matter as TODAY the name is Dunkerque. Heck you don't call city Lutecia, saint Petersbourg or Leningrad or whatever. You use the name they have now (ETA or that they had during WW2 with in parenthesis the modern name. Still Dunkerque). And today it is Dunkerque and not Dunkirk.

ETA : and saying it was in the middle of the french Flemish area is misleading it has been a french city since the 17th century or so, and with the official french name even during WW2. NOT using the correct name alone is already a rewrite of history.
Click to expand...
As the wiki quote I gave showed, even in the middle of the 20th Century the majority of the local population spoke a Dutch dialect and would have called their own city "Duinkerke" not "Dunkerque".

And this is not about a long-ago name like Lutetia (sp?) or a deliberate name change like Leningrad. It's about common translations in foreign languages - and the irony is that in this case, the French isn't even the original but a clumsy translation of the Dutch (even with a "k" which is otherwise conspicuously absent from native French words).

And really, do you really mean that you always use the native names? That you say Moskva and not Moscou, Sankt-Petersburg and not Saint-Pétersbourg, Warszawa and not Varsovie, London and not Londres, and 's-Gravenhage and not La Haye? I don't buy that for a moment. Nobody does. (and for the latter, I don't believe it without audio that proves you also pronounce it properly with a guttural "g").
 
Vixen said:
Probably because of my CoE education I felt the film to be a true reflection, whilst at the same time being fully aware of my inculcation at an early age with 'Britishness'.
Nolan presents the Brits almost as a caricature; but one that I recognised and resonated with strongly. The affirmation, 'English, I'm English' and expecting automatic respect (we never said 'British' then).
Click to expand...
So inculcated with Britishness that we never said British then? To expect automatic respect, we had to say "English".

Dear God, how much longer can this rubbish go on? Please, please, fellow Scots, have the courage to vote Yes next time.

We said English. That was right, on condition that we were in fact English. But what if we were something else, one of the "lesser breeds"? They were in the 1940 campaign too, as it happens. Is this not worth respect?
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
It does not matter as TODAY the name is Dunkerque. Heck you don't call city Lutecia, saint Petersbourg or Leningrad or whatever. You use the name they have now (ETA or that they had during WW2 with in parenthesis the modern name. Still Dunkerque). And today it is Dunkerque and not Dunkirk.

ETA : and saying it was in the middle of the french Flemish area is misleading it has been a french city since the 17th century or so, and with the official french name even during WW2. NOT using the correct name alone is already a rewrite of history.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. True, we all now call newly-named place Myanmar (Burma), Mumbai (Bombay) and Beijing (Peking) but Finland's real name is Suomi, but yet doesn't mind everybody else calling it something else. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom