5 ms·
what's interesting is the faces they decided not to portray in the movie. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history
by darod 9y ago
what's interesting is the faces they decided not to portray in the movie.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian...
- barking 9y agoThe movie is a commercial enterprise not the agent of government policy, designed to direct public attitudes.
- oblio 9y agoIt would have been government policy if it had some sort of positive discrimination, let's say. But in this case we're talking about a plain lie, which doesn't seem justified from an artistic point of view...
- barking 9y agoHow likely was one to stumble upon a non-white British soldier on the beach at Dunkirk?
- oblio 9y agoDid you read the article? Based on their numbers, at least 10% odds.
- kyberias 9y agoWhat is the lie exactly?
- criddell 9y ago> in this case we're talking about a plain lie, which doesn't seem justified from an artistic point of view... It wasn't a documentary. The movie was a fantastic bit of story telling (IMHO) and I think it's one of the best movies I've seen this year.
- kyberias 9y agoWhat was the actual proportion of the faces on that beach missing from the movie? Was it 1:2, 1:10, 1:100, 1:1000 or 1:10000 or 1:100000?
- dagw 9y ago~1:250 - 1:500 depending on what sources you use.