The problematic Dunkirk
Hannah Parker reviews this summer’s biggest film
The reviews have been some of the best for any war film in the history of cinema. Anyone who uses social media or watches TV will have seen the hype built around it. The cast is as impressive as it could be, with the likes of Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy and even that annoying lad from One Direction, Harry Styles.
I have to say, this film has completely torn my mind in two. On one hand, the film fanatic in me has to admit it is superb. It’s easily the best war movie to ever jump on the big screen — yes, I’ll say it, it’s even better than Saving Private Ryan (1998). The music is completely in sync with the film, the acting (on the most part) is fantastic, the sound effects are on another level, and the story itself is realistic, original and clever.
Unlike most war films, this one gives you no back stories to any characters. Each soldier, helper, sailor and pilot is as unknown as any stranger you walk past in the street. This was a risky move by director Christopher Nolan, but one that paid off. It meant the attention was solely on how the men dealt with, coped, and suffered through the Dunkirk tragedy. There was no distraction.
The real star of this film though, was the intensity. You are on the edge of your seat through the entire movie. Every gunshot makes you jump and you’re constantly looking out for the next bomb. In simple terms, you literally feel like you’re at Dunkirk experiencing the whole endeavour with each character.
“The real star of this film though, was the intensity”
So in film terms, it was almost perfect. The only criticism would be the lack of facts as the movie finishes. On a black screen as the film comes to an end, it always helps the tragedy to truly sink in when numbers are brought up. The number of men that died during the Dunkirk evacuation, the amount of boats that came to help those stranded soldiers, anything to help the real-life tragedy hit home. Without that, the ending was a little anti-climactic.
But what really let this film down is the complete white-washing and lack of diversity. Hollywood has used the false excuse of “only white men fought for Britain in the second world war” to get away with casting only white men. It’s 2017 now, and still no diversity is being shown.
The fact of the matter is, Hollywood is lying and a lot of men who weren’t white fought for Britain.
In a film showcasing young men, mature men, shell-shocked men, foreign men, and even kind middle-class men, it’s hard to believe it would’ve been such a difficult task to cast at least one non-white actor. One example would be casting Idris Elba to play Farrier instead of Tom Hardy. Another example would be to cast Chiwetel Ejiofor as Commander Bolton instead of Kenneth Branagh. Or even a young lad of colour that could have easily played one of the many young soldiers who stick together in solidarity.
“The fact of the matter is, Hollywood is lying and a lot of men who weren’t white fought for Britain”
What the film does well is it shows true comradery between the men and a sense of support in fighting together to defeat evil. But the Second World War came about with the aim to defeat discrimination, and yet Hollywood consistently creates war films with non-diverse casts.
It seems bizarre that in 2017, one of the richest and most influential industries in the world is still too scared to show diversity. It feels so backwards to think that a film with such brilliantly complex roles can only offer them to white actors.
When will Hollywood learn that people are crying out for better representation of any character that doesn’t fit into the “white man” box? When will they realise that they’re the ones leading, not following? But ultimately, when will Hollywood stop living in the past?
Written by Hannah Parker
Order your copy of the first edition of Stand Up here.
