|
Angepain posted:I didn't see much of the publicity for this so this is pretty much my own fault, but I was definitely expecting a different sort of movie, i.e. one about the entire battle as a whole with probably a bunch of speeches and a precise account of what exactly went on everywhere. (And was about to skip it for pretty much that reason until I heard some reviews that sounded like it was actually good.) So when I watched it I got the same feeling as a bunch of other people that it looked like the whole event consisted of two ships and three planes and about a thousand or so men, but yeah like I think others have also said thinking about it after I guess that was kind of the point? It wasn't about the battle but about the experience of being a person somewhere within it. You're in the middle of the channel, how many ships are there in any direction? No idea. You're in the sky, how many planes are there in the miles around you? No idea. You're some guy on a beach, how long down the beach do these endless lines of soldiers actually go on for? How many are elsewhere? Where are those people shooting at you? How many planes are there nearby waiting to bomb you? How far from shore even is this boat you're hiding in the lower deck of? Not a clue. You manage to hide under a pier for narrative convenience and overhear someone saying there are however many hundreds of thousands of men, but what does that mean to you? Can you even imagine that number? Wherever you are, there's just the place you're in and whatever you can see or hear when you're there, you're not going to get any swooping shots of the surroundings to figure out what the hell's going on or whether there's twenty planes over the horizon about to murder you. I can't tell whether it was a Great Movie or whatever but it seemed to do what it tried to do at least. There's a documentary on Dunkirk from the 60s or 70s, which is pretty educational on just how much of a clusterfuck it actually was, and how the allies picked up that turd and polished it to a blinding sheen over the last 70 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00snp3v
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Personally I think it's nice that things worked out so that the run of the mill British troops didn't get publicly blamed for mistakes made by generals and politicians. In a case lke this "survival is enough" is the right sentiment. For sure, losing all of those troops could've very possibly changed the course of the war to a massive extent - Britain would have essentially lost their entire standing military forces if they hadn't have been abel to rescue them, which would probably have meant they could've been invaded or at lest been forced to play turtle for the rest of the time.. The documentary I linked isn't too tough to find online and it's pretty interesting, they interview a few of the folks who piloted boats across the channel to try and pick up troops, and all of those guys were like, "the sea was black with destroyers etc, the beach had so many people standing in rows that they looked like ocean waves breaking on the shore from a distance", and that there were had nowhere near enough boats to pick folks up. The estimates are a bit weird as well, one boat captain said he thought he rescued like 300 people, but the official count says he picked up 900 or 1,000.. That's a really massive disparity for someone who you might think, would know the capacity of their own boat. I'm not necessarily saying that the numbers were made up, but there's a heck of a lot of disparity between the public image and what the people who were there, claim happened. Either way I am about due to watch a new WWII movie so I'm looking forward to this one. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 01:00
|
|