3 ms·
1917 wasn't completely white. There were multiple black soldiers in the trenches here and there, which was obviously done just because someone was uncomfortable
by orloffm 6y ago
1917 wasn't completely white. There were multiple black soldiers in the trenches here and there, which was obviously done just because someone was uncomfortable with "completely white" cast. There is no other reason to do that. With the same logic there should be a white guy somewhere in the background in Wakanda, but there weren't any. That's what the parent comment wants to say.
- gamblor956 6y agoWith the same logic there should be a white guy somewhere in the background in Wakanda, but there weren't any. That's what the parent comment wants to say. He was complaining about a strawman that existed only in his head. There were multiple random white guys in the background in the city scenes (Wakanda and elsewhere), and multiple named and speaking white supporting characters in the foreground, including Bucky Barnes, and whatever characters Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis were playing. Re-watching 1917, I realized that there is exactly 1 minority character with a speaking role in the movie: a Sikh soldier during the caravan scene. I rewatched the trench scenes, and there are no black characters. There are white guys covered in ash and dirt that might look black but are clearly white when viewed in 4k, and can be confirmed during the battlefield run scene. (1917 was attempting to be historically accurate; Sikh soldiers made up a larger portion of the British army than did black soldiers.)