Dunkirk

I thought the role of the small boats like Moonstone was to ferry men queuing up on the beach out to larger ships. I don't think she did any of that in the film. She took a dozen or so men all the way from Dunkirk to Weymouth. I wonder if there is any base in fact for that kind of thing happening.

 

Seems likely that Rylance"s part was based largely around Lightoller and 'Sundowner'. Dunkirk not my speciality, but her story sort of fits.

 

I got that vibe as well. The Sundowner even seems to resemble the Rylance's boat in the movie.

 

Again...That is not within the realm of the PLOT...There is only so much that you can do within 106 minutes. Nolan told his story, and he told it very well. He could fit more in, but that would come at a cost...What parts would have to be left out to add: Continuing to Dunkirk, loading more troops, returning to Britain. Then, you have to ask yourself: Would any of this add to the film or would it take away more than it added to?

It is a complex balance, which I think Nolan got just right.

 

Many have been making that comparison

 

Just saw it. Overall verdict: not 'arf bad. Here are some initial impressions of various sorts.

1. The kid at the beginning seems to run from the perimeter in a town (Dunkirk itself?) just a few hundred yards to the beach. The perimeter was not that close until the very end.
2. Didn't care at all for the kid or the other one he met up with. They had thrown their weapons away, lost or run away from their units, didn't seem to make any effort to find those units. Then they try to sneak on a hospital ship. I wouldn't have wanted a pair of ratbags like that in my outfit. Sorry, but after fifty years of watching them in the movies I am sick to death of anti-heroes.
3. Branagh was good. If he keeps on like this he might turn into the new Jack Hawkins.
4. I saw some rifles which either weren't SMLEs or were simply mock-ups. Shame shame. I saw only one Bren in the hands of the troops.
5. Nolan was quite proud of the fact that he avoided CGI. I approve of that on the whole, but a little bit here and there would have helped the authenticity. It would have helped with the the rifles, with some of the buildings which looked too modern to my eye, and very definitely with the modern warships.
6. I thought the portrayal of the French was pretty fair. It shows some of them manning the perimeter and fighting well (quite true) and also that some were getting the short end of the stick when it came to the evacuation.
7. I would have liked to see some of the real commanders--Ramsay, Gort, Brooke, Adam, Alex, Abrial, Tennant. If they hadn't done their jobs so well none of the troops would have gotten off at all.
8. Good to see the RAF there, of course, even if the one pilot did have a dream flight. (How many did he shoot down before he ran out of fuel and bullets?) And yes, I think that was Sir Mike as the fighter controller. He sounded very Churchillian, actually.
9. That bit about the Germans bombing clearly marked hospital ships was true. We had a veteran here whose dad saw that, and it made him absolutely hate the Germans. I know how he felt.
10. Did the RN really allow nursing sisters on the ships sailing to Dunkirk? I can't have any regard for an officer who allowed a woman to go into an absolute hell like that.
11. One thing this picture does convey very well is the many nasty ways men can die in combat. Getting struck by a projectile is bad enough, but at least it's usually a quick death. Drowning and burning are slower and worse. The film also brings home the terror of being under air attack, the near-helplessness of it. Speaking of which, I saw NO ack-ack coming from the beaches at all. I know there were army AA units there and I would have presumed they were belting out rounds as fast as they could go.
12. One thing this picture underlined for me was the importance of discipline and command in crisis. My God, those clods stuck in that trawler were just pathetic. Not a non-com in the bunch that I could see, I couldn't help but think that they deserved to get the chop. Contrast that with the REs, who had a Lance Corporal with a brain and a job to do. The naval officers all seemed to have kept a grip, and so did the army officer in the rowboat. When things fall apart, you stick to leaders like that and to your unit too. An army without leaders and discipline is a mob.

 

That's a few hundred men out of 400,000. You can't cover everyone in a 90 minute movie, let alone please them. What silliness.

 

The boy (George) who died was not Mark Rylance's son. His mate (the blond boy) was his youngest son. His eldest (a spitfire pilot) was killed in the opening three weeks of the war. What I got was that once he fished a large enough group out of the middle of the channel (survivors from the mine sweeper) he brought them back to England.

 

I loved the early scene where Mark Rylance's ship captain sneaks out of port before the navy can commandeer his boat. It's quickly done and not explained, but Nolan has said in interviews that over 90 percent of the small boats were taken over and manned by navy personnel. Nolan probably wanted to involve civilians in the action of his movie.

 

To me it seemed like a few hundred feet, not a few hundred yards.

Your presuming that the average theater viewer is going to know the difference. To the vast majority guns are guns, and ships with guns are ships with guns...

Not to mention the Stuka he shot down after he ran out of fuel...Which appeared to be nigh physically possible given the circumstances in the film.

Yes, nurses were aboard some of the larger ships, although I am not certain, but I do dount that, any were aboard RN warships - for the simple reason being that the warships would not be transporting wounded troops. Also, don't forget that there were about 1,300 nurses on the beach...

That's OK...From watching the film, one could easily come to the conclusion that the Luftwaffe hardly participated in bombing Dunkirk, giving the paucity of German aircraft. It appeared, to me, that the only Luftwaffe planes that bombed Dunkirk were wayward Luftwaffe planes that had gotten lost on their way to other targets. Such is the lack of CGI.

 

Yes, by having naval ratings instead of the father and his 2 boys would have destroyed the "Sea" storyline.

 

Is there anything wrong with this?


Facts

To the best of my knowledge the following is objectively true:

About 800 vessels took part in the Dunkirk operation. Roughly speaking, they were in these main categories:

1. Warships of the RN: destroyers and smaller, eg minesweepers, corvettes etc

2. Commercial passenger vessels; eg the Portsmouth-IOW ferries owned by the Southern Railway.

3. Small boats owned by private individuals; eg the motor yacht Sundowner, still to be seen at the maritime museum in Ramsgate.

4. Various other shallow-draft vessels, eg lifeboats, fishing boats, etc.

Of all the men rescued (circa 330,000) the great majority made the voyage to England in vessels of the first two categories.

The vessels of categories 3 and 4 were used to ferry men out from the beach to the larger vessels of categories 1 and 2 waiting in deeper water.

The vessels of categories 3 and 4 did carry some men back to England, but they were a small minority of the 330,000.


Film

One of the main threads of the film is the story of a category-3 vessel. It does not ferry men out from the beach to the larger vessels of categories 1 and 2 waiting in deeper water. It does take a load of men back all the way from Dunkirk to England.

The film features some category-1 but no category-2 vessels. It does not show any category-3 or category-4 vessels ferrying men out from the beach to the larger vessels.


Conclusion

From the above it seems fair to say that the film does not give its audience an accurate view of the fundamental features of the Dunkirk evacuation.


Now you may accept that conclusion but say that it doesn’t matter, and produce various arguments to support that point of view. Personally, I don’t want to get into that discussion. I’m just posting this to see whether anyone finds anything seriously mistaken in what I’ve written above.

 

Does it compare to the 1958 version with John Mills etc? That wasn't perfect either, but I've always thought it fairly accurate.

 

Please show me where it was said, by anyone involved with the film, that the film was intending to present an accurate view of the fundamental features of the Dunkirk evacuation? For that would be the only way that this would be a valid criticism. You cannot fault a film for not showing something that it never intended to show.

 

I saw it a few days ago in Hagerstown, Maryland. I found it to be one of the best War films that I have ever seen. I have heard some talk of awards. The cinematography was simply outstanding. It jumped from scene to scene quite often, but not to be distracting to me. The air combat was my favorite part. The last scene was a bit unbelievable, but it was reported on another forum that it was partially true. I cannot say for sure. It was not intended to have a story line like other war movies and not being an expert on this battle, I do not know how historically correct it was. But, to me, it is well worth your money, really keeps your interest for the whole movie. However, my favorite is still "Saving Private Ryan" as far as a WWII movie.

 

The more I think and reflect on this movie, the more I'm critical of the air combat sequences. For instance:

Entering combat at low altitudes, from what I know, is good way to walk or swim home. Not to mention that at low altitudes one ran the additional risk of being shot down by your own flak. This also goes for the He-111 which was a bomber not a strafe.

Only three spits, two 109s and one bomber? Perhaps using special-effects and putting more a/c in the background would have been more realistic.

The fighter vs fighter combat would have been mostly turning contests rather than just weaving back and forth.

The spit that eventually landed on the beach seem to have an inexhaustible supply of ammo.

To be fair, I thought that using real spits and the bomber getting away damaged were nice touches.

Still, if someone asks me if the movie was worth going to, my answer will be, "Hell yes!"

 

I would place historical accuracy in this movie around 85%. There is no way, even with military and WWII historians on hand, to be completely accurate. Historians are human and interpret things different on occasion. The movie had everything you would want in a war film. My father called me a day ago and agreed, the further removed from seeing the film we both appreciated it more.

 

Harolds, enjoyed your comments. I did enjoy the movie but as one who was a quail and dove hunter as well as skeet shooter I was amused in the aerial footage as in only one incident that I recall The pilot fired at where the plane was going to be and not directly at it. . If I recall correctly a Mk 3 Spitfire had about 14 seconds on firing time so great fighter pilots husbanded their ammunition. the whole nine yards, what ? But seriously the photography was beautiful, the gliding Spit included. . I notice little things too but this was right enough to pass muster to me. Not like the egregious Battle of the Bulge !!

I saw it as a rather artistic slice of a renown event in WW2, not your typical war movie which was fine.. Right up there with Das Boot, Band of Brothers, Come and See and a Bridge Too far. Others will no doubt differ.and I hope they do. why we have forums.

I got this strange feeling that this film was shot in Kodachrome, one shot at a time and magically linked together as a film.

Gaines