Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: warspite1

perhaps the point could have been made in a more obvious way?

its a more understated approach for better or worse, but it wasn't missed.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

its a more understated approach for better or worse, but it wasn't missed.

Mostly for the worse. Anything that leaves doubt as to the fate of England without an Army to defend it is counterproductive. Especially assuming that people ("average viewers") have some sense of the historical context of Britain's plight that a passing remark about its vulnerability is sufficient? "Understated" is itself an understatement.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

its a more understated approach for better or worse, but it wasn't missed.

Mostly for the worse. Anything that leaves doubt as to the fate of England without an Army to defend it is counterproductive. Especially assuming that people ("average viewers") have some sense of the historical context of Britain's plight that a passing remark about its vulnerability is sufficient? "Understated" is itself an understatement.

warspite1

Except of course the UK's fate would still have been in doubt. i.e. it was not a black and white situation - successful evacuation = Guaranteed survival - unsuccessful evacuation = Guaranteed surrender because there were of course various shades of unknown grey - the Battle of Britain for one thing, the political fall-out from a partial evacuation, does the lack of an army make Hitler grow a set and give the order for Sea Lion? etc.

But understandably that is for the grognards - not the average cinema goer who likes to keep things simple. So to make it more black and white Nolan would need Churchill or someone similar basically coming out with some dramatic (but false) line when addressing the cabinet: "We get our army back - or we must surrender". This works of course in terms of getting the seriousness of the situation over to the paying public - albeit at the cost of being a true representation.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Mostly for the worse. Anything that leaves doubt as to the fate of England without an Army to defend it is counterproductive. Especially assuming that people ("average viewers") have some sense of the historical context of Britain's plight that a passing remark about its vulnerability is sufficient? "Understated" is itself an understatement.

warspite1

Except of course the UK's fate would still have been in doubt. i.e. it was not a black and white situation - successful evacuation = Guaranteed survival - unsuccessful evacuation = Guaranteed surrender because there were of course various shades of unknown grey - the Battle of Britain for one thing, the political fall-out from a partial evacuation, does the lack of an army make Hitler grow a set and give the order for Sea Lion? etc.

But understandably that is for the grognards - not the average cinema goer who likes to keep things simple. So to make it more black and white Nolan would need Churchill or someone similar basically coming out with some dramatic (but false) line when addressing the cabinet: "We get our army back - or we must surrender". This works of course in terms of getting the seriousness of the situation over to the paying public - albeit at the cost of being a true representation.

Churchill had only been PM for a short time before Dunkirk, and he had many enemies in Parliament, plus a public that still remembered the fiasco at Gallipoli (few cared that it was not Churchill's fault that the operation was botched). Had the evacuation at Dunkirk not turned into a huge inspiration for the British people, and Churchill given a forum to wax eloquent, he would probably have been ousted by his own party. That would have been a disaster for Britain's morale.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Maybe. Against removing Churchill was that he had been Prime Minister for less than a month - and so blame for the defeat in France would be difficult to reasonably pin on him.

But moreover, who is going to replace him? I think there is a reasoned argument to be made for Halifax not wanting the job enough when Churchill took it - is he going to want it now?

I suppose it comes down to: would failure to get the army back mean the doves gained ascendancy - or would that trait (not exclusively peculiar to the British) come through - you know the one where the anger at what has happened courtesy of some big bully (in this case defeat of the army) actually makes the populace even more determined to stick it out?

Interesting question.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But understandably that is for the grognards - not the average cinema goer who likes to keep things simple. So to make it more black and white Nolan would need Churchill or someone similar basically coming out with some dramatic (but false) line when addressing the cabinet: "We get our army back - or we must surrender". This works of course in terms of getting the seriousness of the situation over to the paying public - albeit at the cost of being a true representation.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But understandably that is for the grognards - not the average cinema goer who likes to keep things simple. So to make it more black and white Nolan would need Churchill or someone similar basically coming out with some dramatic (but false) line when addressing the cabinet: "We get our army back - or we must surrender". This works of course in terms of getting the seriousness of the situation over to the paying public - albeit at the cost of being a true representation.

Something like that would have been absolutely warranted.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But understandably that is for the grognards - not the average cinema goer who likes to keep things simple. So to make it more black and white Nolan would need Churchill or someone similar basically coming out with some dramatic (but false) line when addressing the cabinet: "We get our army back - or we must surrender". This works of course in terms of getting the seriousness of the situation over to the paying public - albeit at the cost of being a true representation.

Something like that would have been absolutely warranted.

warspite1

Fair enough - I think we can agree to disagree on this. You think this aspect was underplayed and I think it was perfectly well done [:)].

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Something like that would have been absolutely warranted.

warspite1

Fair enough - I think we can agree to disagree on this. You think this aspect was underplayed and I think it was perfectly well done [:)].

I will say that I'm pleased-like stuman-that a WWII movie is still drawing solid international audiences. Hopefully this will grease the wheels of Hollywood (and other regional movie production conglomerates) for more such films in the future.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Here's a new wrinkle on the movie - some are claiming Kenneth Branaugh's naval officer character on the Mole was a Canadian. I am sure there was more than one naval officer on the Mole, so I think they are stretching to state such certainty. Here's the story:

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... treal-hero

I assumed that Branagh represented Cpt Wm. Tennant....same unlucky dude who ended up skipper of Repulse. What rank was Branagh?...I didn't note it.

ORIGINAL: spence

I assumed that Branagh represented Cpt Wm. Tennant....same unlucky dude who ended up skipper of Repulse. What rank was Branagh?...I didn't note it.

I assumed the same thing however he seems to be a Commander (three full sized strpes). I believe USN and RN rank insignia are equivalent except IIRC they use squiggly half stripes.

Not the RN. The squiggly stripes were the "Wavy Navy" - the Volunteer Reserve. The professional RN and commonwealth navy officers mostly looked down on the VR as amateur officers, but many were as good as the pros.

ORIGINAL: spence

Not the RN. The squiggly stripes were the "Wavy Navy" - the Volunteer Reserve. The professional RN and commonwealth navy officers mostly looked down on the VR as amateur officers, but many were as good as the pros.

I notice that you're in Canada.

The officer in the article from the Gazette has 'egg' on his cap so it would seem he could well be the unacknowledged Commander in the movie.

Just wondering: do or did they have "Wavy Navy" in Canada too or was that just in England?

I went to see Dunkirk today and I thought it was quite good.

Not your standard war movie but isn't that what cinema is all about. The three different story lines running at different time rates and constantly crossing over was an interesting story telling device and worked well.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

saw it last night, there was a preview of a "Churchill" movie I want to see, I thought Dunkirk was.......so.

warspite1

You mean this one? This has a quality cast and a half - really looking forward to this.

Darkest Hour
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/vid ... _=tt_ov_vi