OT: Dunkirk the Movie!

[KenchiSulla]

Interesting movie, interesting topic and well made...

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

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 that he was a composite character: Tennant and Wake-Walker. They worked hand-in-hand at Dunkirk, but in very different places (Tennant organising the evacuation on land and Wake-Walker the ships' flow). By creating a composite character, Nolan avoided unnecessary cuts to different scenes all over the place.

I mean, it is Kenneth Branagh, at Dunkirk, with a spiffy Navy Uniform and looking grim... it is just obvious who he portrays... [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

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 that he was a composite character: Tennant and Wake-Walker. They worked hand-in-hand at Dunkirk, but in very different places (Tennant organising the evacuation on land and Wake-Walker the ships' flow). By creating a composite character, Nolan avoided unnecessary cuts to different scenes all over the place.

I mean, it is Kenneth Branagh, at Dunkirk, with a spiffy Navy Uniform and looking grim... it is just obvious who he portrays... [:)]

warspite1

Remember Wake-Walker did not arrive until the last couple of days - and he commanded from aboard ship/boat.

I still think Branagh is supposed to represent Tenant (who stayed until the end) - although probably wasn't on the mole the whole time.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

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 that he was a composite character: Tennant and Wake-Walker. They worked hand-in-hand at Dunkirk, but in very different places (Tennant organising the evacuation on land and Wake-Walker the ships' flow). By creating a composite character, Nolan avoided unnecessary cuts to different scenes all over the place.

I mean, it is Kenneth Branagh, at Dunkirk, with a spiffy Navy Uniform and looking grim... it is just obvious who he portrays... [:)]

warspite1

Remember Wake-Walker did not arrive until the last couple of days - and he commanded from aboard ship/boat.

I still think Branagh is supposed to represent Tenant (who stayed until the end) - although probably wasn't on the mole the whole time.

Well, I'll yield to what Nolan actually showed us rather than what he 'intended'. Branaugh is listed as "Commander Bolton". So either Nolan dropped the ball in historical accuracy or this was yet another alliterative.

[BBfanboy]

Or, something we are familiar with: abstracted.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Remember Wake-Walker did not arrive until the last couple of days - and he commanded from aboard ship/boat.

I still think Branagh is supposed to represent Tenant (who stayed until the end) - although probably wasn't on the mole the whole time.

I know about the different contribution that the two gave to the evacuation. What I mean is that it is a classic cinematic "trick" to compose together different characters, if unity of time and space, and the need to tell the story in a limited time (like a movie) are more important that a precise historical reconstruction.

IMHO, Kenneth Branagh represents the officers of the Royal Navy who were at Dunkirk - the way Tom Hardy and his mates represent the many pilots who fought in the skies. The exact names/characters are not really important like, for example, in "The Longest Day" - because Dunkirk wants to tell his story in a different way.

I'm amazed by how many English/American reviewers, for example, think that the name of the character played by Fionn Whitehead is "Tommy". Even I know that "Tommy" was the name for any generic British soldier (like "Fritz" for the German ones).

Mark Rylance's character is based on Titanic's (yup, that one) Second Officer, who jumped on his ship along with his son and a sea scout. He had already lost another son who served in the RAF, again like Rylance's character - yet, the names and other details (not to mention what happened to them) are different. Nolan created characters for the purpose of telling his story, and then mixed in historical facts and figures to make them more believable. I think that the result was good.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Remember Wake-Walker did not arrive until the last couple of days - and he commanded from aboard ship/boat.

I still think Branagh is supposed to represent Tenant (who stayed until the end) - although probably wasn't on the mole the whole time.

Mark Rylance's character is based on Titanic's (yup, that one) Second Officer, who jumped on his ship along with his son and a sea scout. He had already lost another son who served in the RAF, again like Rylance's character - yet, the names and other details (not to mention what happened to them) are different. Nolan created characters for the purpose of telling his story, and then mixed in historical facts and figures to make them more believable. I think that the result was good.

warspite1

As per the attached.

https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/people ... orld-wars/

IMHO, Kenneth Branagh represents the officers of the Royal Navy who were at Dunkirk.

Yes I agree. I look at the character and 'see' Tennant - no doubt because I kind of got the idea that was who Branagh was supposed to be before seeing the film. But yes, I understand what you are saying - and in keeping with the way Nolan presents the film and the characters.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Or, something we are familiar with: abstracted.

Meh. Tom-ay-toe, tom-ah-toe.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla

Interesting movie, interesting topic and well made...

Finally saw it.

I cannot summarize any better.

Enjoyed - worth the admission.

That alone is something I cannot say about all too many of the "few movies" I actually go to see in a theater environment (or Drive in in this instance).

It will never make my top 10 list (war movies or otherwise) but then the older I get I do find I am harder to please...

[Kursk1943]

I enjoyed the movie, too. But as a former professional soldier and reading a lot about air war in WW II I was annoyed about two things. Firstly, the German air tactis was NOT to attack with a single Stuka or HE 111 bomber protected by one or two fighters, but the rule was to use a Staffel (Squadron) as manover unit. So 20-30 bombers protected by an equal number of fighters attacked, not single aircraft...Secondly, you don't coordinate an evacuation standing on a mole like Kenneth Bragnaugh, watching out for rescue ships with your glasses. You coordinate from a CP using radio and maps, graphics... and a specialized staff. It's more like running a logistics enterprise. So the air attacks and the evacuation coordination were from my point of view quite unrealistic and misleading. On the other hand the viewpoint of the common soldier, the situation of despair and fear were pictured outstandingly realistic! Just my two cents...

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla

Interesting movie, interesting topic and well made...

Finally saw it.

I cannot summarize any better.

Enjoyed - worth the admission.

That alone is something I cannot say about all too many of the "few movies" I actually go to see in a theater environment (or Drive in in this instance).

It will never make my top 10 list (war movies or otherwise) but then the older I get I do find I am harder to please...

Pretty sure I am quite a bit older than you and I enjoyed it simply because it wasn't about the explosions and military daring-do, it was about people and what they went through and how they coped. I have seen my fill of Hollywood gasoline-explosion filled war epics. Great when I was a kid but
now I am interested in the people more than the action. It's why 1725 PSI's AARs so captured the forum when he was able to write them.
I did pick up on a lot of phony stuff like ships immediately capsizing after a small bomb hit, but given the time and budget restraints the producers must have been under I forgive the details as long as the scene contributed to the narrative.