Questions? Looking for parts? Parts for sale? or just for a chat,

The WD Motorcycle forum

WD Motorcycle forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Dunkirk

bit of a coincidence this post because, today out for a bimble with the VMCC we went to Sandwich and were invited onto a 1952 German built, American crewed Rhine river patrol boat, apperntly this vessel had been used in the recent Dunkirk film, in the main I am with one of the previous postings, I also don't watch remakes, however I am told by one of the chaps with us it really is worth watching this one, we shall see.
as an aside this Coming Saturday I shall be taking the W/ng to Southern Ireland for the Irish rally, any one on here going? kind regards

email (option): woolnough@mchenry.plus.com

Re: Dunkirk

There is a massive problem with crap like this movie.
We all know it is historically garbage.
However unless there is a disclaimer stating that the movie is totally a work of fiction written around the Dunkirk event, 99% of the people who see it will believe it is 100% FACT and accurate in every detail.
"if it is on the web ( or big screen ) it must be true".
This is exactly how urban myths are born.
I have not seen it and do not have any intention of seeing it and hope it is a massive financial loss which with a bit of luck will prevent any one else trying to cash in on the current WW I & WW II craze.

There is no excuse for not making it historically accurate apart from penny pinching ( profiteering ), ignorance or bone lazyness.

I have been involved in a lot of movie & TV productions and in all of these cases, various cub members were more than happy enough to turn up for no more a reward than a feed and a credit to the various clubs.
Even better, they would generally turn up in correct period costume and I would imagine the same would apply in the UK & Europe.

Modern movie makers are so out of touch with reality it is not funny.
I recall once organizing 20 x 1950's bikes for a motorcycle scene .
The art director went ballistic when 20 British bikes turned up he wanted Harleys
When it was pointed out by one of the commercial vehicle providers that in the 50's less than 1% of bikes imported into Australia came from the USA he would not have a bar of it.
He abused me and all of the riders who volunteered to turn up on the day for coming on the wrong bikes , canned the whole days shoot then blamed me for blowing his budget, after all he "Knew" that HD was the most popular bike in Australia and he was also sure that the viewers would not associate these "things" as motorcycles.

email (option): bsansw1@tpg.com.au

Re: Dunkirk

I broadly agree with that...I would have thought he main criteria should be historical accuracy when making a film of an historical event. It's not like the real event wasn't a hell of a story!...

Other vomit inducing historical epics that come to mind are the appalling 'Pearl Harbour' remake , 'Titanic' and the highly amusing American version of how they cracked the Enigma codes ...

Can't wait for the Waterloo remake with Emanuel Macron as Napoleon.. and Brad Pitt as the Dook of Wellington....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: Dunkirk

I still haven't seen it, so I'll reserve judgement until I have. Some of my mates went without me 'the Bastards' but are quite willing to go again. Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: Dunkirk

If you have any knowledge at all about the history of British military uniforms in the first part of the twentieth century then just read this interview with the 'costume designer' and weep basically.

http://clothesonfilm.com/dunkirk-interview-with-costume-designer-jeffrey-kurland/36417/

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and try to believe that he said 'Irvin jacket' and not 'Urban jacket' and it is the interviewer's fault.

Re: Dunkirk

Ron Pier
I still haven't seen it, so I'll reserve judgement until I have. Some of my mates went without me 'the Bastards' but are quite willing to go again. Ron


I see your point Ron, we shouldn't make judgements without experiencing it for ourselves.

However I have never watched and never will watch Steve Martin thinking he can replace Phil Silvers and Peter Sellers on film.

Rob

email (option): robmiller11(a)yahoo.co.uk

Re: Dunkirk

We were invited to attend the first screenings in uniform to "Meet & greet" the audience prior to the film starting, so obviously we got free seats to watch it.

Over-all, it wasn't a 'bad' film, the general public wouldn't notice the glaring faults.

Two Royal Navy Lieutenant Commanders with 'Petty Officer' cap badges, the modern buildings in the backdrop of the beach scenes, including a satellite dish! The extra on the pier in 1950-60's cammo uniform, the lack of small boats, the 1960-70 RNLI boat, that all the spitfires shown had the exact same markings, The Spitfire 'gliding' over the beach (sure!) after constantly shooting the enemy for an hour, (The 9 yards of ammo lasted well!) Also note the modern town underneath, lastly the 1970's open plan train carriage.
These were just immediate glaring faults that we picked up on whilst watching it, how many could we find if we had it on DVD and could 'pause' it????

Re: Dunkirk

For those who enjoy a read, there is a companion book I spotted in W H Smith's today titled The History behind Dunkirk, which relates the real happenings at Dunkirk in relation to the events in the film. I can't remember the authors full name but the surname was Levine..... Maybe this will redress some of the errors and help some younger people understand the real Dunkirk.

Re: Dunkirk

I was asked to make some footwear for The Suffragette. I had a disagreement with the costumer who wanted something french from twenty years later. She's well regarded, apparently....

email (option): j@clogmaker.co.uk

Re: Dunkirk

The bit that annoyed me most of all was the last scene. The burning Spitfire on the beach. Its a shot of some duration of Tom Hardy looking on as his faithful steed goes up in flames...all I see is a scaffold pole holding the propeller in mid air and no damn engine !!
Rich

email (option): richardpurkiss@hotmail.com

Re: Dunkirk

Ah yes the broom handle holding the prop, that annoyed me too, almost as much as a Spitfire running out of petrol 1000' ASL, gliding a couple miles, turning around, shooting down a Stuka that was already on it's dive run, glide another couple miles, get ready to land, bothers trying to lower the gear which of course wont work, hand pumps it down and then lands. Crappy uniforms, modern buildings, modern ships, obnoxious impossibilities, Hispano 109's and on and on. I thought it was an abomination with little attention to detail and quite frankly a crappy attempt to capture the mood, the scope and the scale of such an event. There was very little use of special effects, with today's technology, they could have very convincingly recreated period ships, edited out modern buildings and just made it look as big as it was as an event. I rate it right up there with "The Battle of the Bulge" and "Pearl Harbor" You guessed it, I am not impressed, by hey it's a matter of opinion some may like it, but it sure wasn't for me. I was actually quite bored about 3/4's of the way through.

Re: Dunkirk

I have been reading these posts about the new Dunkirk film with interest and I am surprised that many feel qualified to run down a film that they have not seen. The people on this forum look through the eyes that very few people will and we are all historians with a deep interest in the subject. If you want to watch an account that is frame by frame accurate then I suggest you only watch documentaries on Dave or the History Chanel.

I went to see the film and whilst I noticed that the beaches were too empty and the poor shots of the Spitfire with the broom handle etc. I also noticed that there were many younger people in the cinema and also a lot of women who would never have watched a documentary and learned something of the tragedy that befell the BEF at Dunkirk. Many of the people who work for me went to see it including two female members of my team and most had not even heard of Dunkirk before they went. Films need to have drama, excitement and to captivate an audience and several of my team said it was emotionally draining.

Whilst the film was a long way from being 100% accurate it did at least not have the obligatory Americans in it or the overpowering use of CGI that we have seen in films like Pearl Harbor. It managed to capture the essence of what happened and has been the most successful film in the cinemas this summer and has even done well in USA.

In a Country where sadly many people including recent school leavers do not know who Churchill was it managed to give a fair representation and educate a few on the basics of what happened. One of the female members of my team is Spanish and she was enthralled by the film and now learning more about WW2 and the war that her Country did not take part in.



JT

Re: Dunkirk

I was disappointed, but my wife was impressed, so there you go. It could have been much better, I thought, with not much extra effort or expense......perhaps better (or any?) technical advisors? Could have been a wartime drama hung on the story of any of the major WW2 events. Ken Branagh does a great stiff upper lip, though......wonder if he has it insured?

Re: Dunkirk

peter vlietstra
It is an art film, not a documentary. It is about cinematography, special effects, sounds, feelings, emotions. It probably is historically correct except for the spitfires. They were mostly if not all hurricanes in the actual evacuation. The most dramatic scene in any documentary would be the shear magnitude of small craft taking part. This movie had no such scene! Also the beach was too tidy and orderly!

Just picking up on an earlier comment on Dunkirk - The 1st part of this I agree with it is a film not a documentry - It is about feelings emotions etc.
However no battle the length of the Dunkirk evacuation is mayhem at all times. In the same way a dogfight would be intense for a minute or 2 and then the participents could find themselves seemingly alone in a vast sky.
However, the point about Spitfires and Hurricanes is not correct. The Dunkirk evacuation was the 1st time Dowding had to use the Spitfire in numbers. Certainly up until this point the AAF in France was all Hurricanes but the evacuation was covered by fighter squadrons flying from 11 group airfields so consisted of Hurricanes and Spitfires. Obviously, there were more Hurricanes than Spitfires at this time so there were more of them at Dunkirk as indeed there were more Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain.
The scenes involving the flight of Spitfires was well observed and showed the problems for single seat fighters operating at extreme range over hostile territory. These problems were the same for Me109 pilots in the Battle of Britain and again for Allied pilots during the Circuses and Rhubarbs of the 'Lean Towards France' phase of the air war from 1941 to pretty much D-Day.
I enjoyed the film and accept the niggles because it is a film not real life. I don't mind if people didn't like the film after watching it. However I can not accept critisim from people who have not seen the film because if you have no 1st hand knowladge of someting you can not know whether you like it or not!

Re: Dunkirk

I have no intention of seeing it. I don't care if it works cinematically or not. As a reasonably serious student of the Fall of France in general and the BEF in particular, I can simply see too many howlers in the equipment, vehicles and backgrounds from the stills, trailers and photographs taken during filming. Furthermore, I very much respect the opinion of people such as Sam Cormier who I know has a similar eye for detail.

Quite frankly the standards of costume are low enough to make it unwatchable for me. 90% of the audience might like it but the starting point of the film - that costume, props and background don't matter show a complete lack of respect for those who are interested in these things.

I feel quite justified in criticising on that basis, whether others find it unacceptable for me to do so or not.

Re: Dunkirk

I must agree wit John T, above.
I saw the movie here in Leiden (NL) and was suprised to see the cinema filled with students (!) - at the age of my own children. But maybe they study historie.

Maybe on this website, we are watching a bit to much like rivet counters
I mean, who can see a broom stick in such a movie ? No one can.

Re: Dunkirk

There is a new book out in October about Dunkirk "Dunkirk 1940 through a German lens" by Alan Ranger,there are 200 photos in the book by MMP books,there is a preview on youtube showing every page,some of the photos show that the Germans rifled through a lot of the vehicles etc and left a lot of equipment and paper strewn around when they took the photos.

Re: Dunkirk

Oh I forgot to mention the huge, orange container cranes! LoL :-)

Re: Dunkirk

Rik
I have no intention of seeing it. I don't care if it works cinematically or not. As a reasonably serious student of the Fall of France in general and the BEF in particular, I can simply see too many howlers in the equipment, vehicles and backgrounds from the stills, trailers and photographs taken during filming. Furthermore, I very much respect the opinion of people such as Sam Cormier who I know has a similar eye for detail.

Quite frankly the standards of costume are low enough to make it unwatchable for me. 90% of the audience might like it but the starting point of the film - that costume, props and background don't matter show a complete lack of respect for those who are interested in these things.

I feel quite justified in criticising on that basis, whether others find it unacceptable for me to do so or not.


Rik, if you watch this, your head will explode! :-)

Re: Dunkirk

I don't think it is rivet counting to be appalled by the lack of authenticity in this film. My thoughts are that if you are going to appropriate an event like Dunkirk for the basis of a film, then you have an obligation to do it full justice at all levels. Otherwise base the film loosely on some undefined conflict. It looks to me just like lazy film making........."most of the punters will not know the difference.....". The filming appeared to cut many corners, presumably to save money.....eg lack of CGI, skimpy set dressing, not enough extras, lack of technical advice and apparently, filming rushed as the sea state seems to vary from a Force 8 gale to flat calm from scene to scene!

Re: Dunkirk

I too have found it really interesting reading all the comments. I can't disagree with people who fairly criticise the inaccuracies and failure to address detail. the worst bit for me was the railway carriage at the end. they could have gone to any heritage railway and done better. At the same time I can identify with those who talk about the complete lack of historical knowledge of many people and the benefits of getting people to go and see it who maybe haven't even heard of the evacuation or Mr Churchill.

I did go and see it. And i watched the John Mills film again afterwards too. I felt that there was much wrong with the new film but it was completely unlike any other modern action war film i have seen because it gave some impression of how awful it was rather than being all crash, bang wallop. The beginning and the sequences in the small boat and with the aircraft in the air I felt were almost unique in modern films in giving a real feel. I say this as someone lucky enough never to have been there of course. But I have spoken to people who either were or saw soldiers coming back. And it did seem to catch at least some of that.

I must be honest, although dated in some ways, I really love the John Mills film; the way they meet up with the DR; the terrible bit when the artillery unit is stukaed after letting them move on, knowing what was going to happen. That has always had an impact on me.

So I must be honest and say, yes do go and see the new film; yes a lot of reservations about it are justified but yes in this age when we have people like Trump talking crap about war and killing,and when so recently so many people died pointlessly in Afghanistan, it will probably on balance be a force for good rather than the opposite. hope people will take this in the spirit it is intended. I love riding my M20 it does make me feel a contact with that DR by the way although happily I'll never be in his lonely situation!!!

Re: Dunkirk

One final point that has just occured to me. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the final scene of the fim Dunkirk regarding the destruction of the Spitfire on the beach. As I have said before it is a film and not real but for the rivet counters out there what would you prefer? A scene where if you look very carefully you can see it is a mock up being burnt or take a priceless Mark 1 Spitfire, crash land it on a beach in France and then use a Very Pistol to torch it? I'm all for authenticity but perhaps this would be going a shade to far? Also the budget would be blown!
I remember The Eagle Has Landed where they blow up a genuine Austin Tilly and, I think a Bedford QL, does this make the film any better beacuse they were period props destroyed in a period film?
Put it this way. A film mogul turns up at a display where you have your bike on show and says he needs a Genuine M20 for his film. It must be genuine for the rivet counters have spoken. So all you have to do is hand over your pride and joy to be destroyed in a pivotal scene because 'it will make a nonsense of the film if we use a model'.
I hope I have made my point.

Re: Dunkirk

peter vlietstra
It is an art film, not a documentary. It is about cinematography, special effects, sounds, feelings, emotions. It probably is historically correct except for the spitfires. They were mostly if not all hurricanes in the actual evacuation. The most dramatic scene in any documentary would be the shear magnitude of small craft taking part. This movie had no such scene! Also the beach was too tidy and orderly!


Yes we know that and I have no objection to making "art" events around a real piece of history so long as it is done honestly and up front.
This movie is not marketed that way down here, it is being marketed as FACT with "meticulous dedication to detail".
But they are being 200% dishonest.
Call the film "The Evacuation" - feel the trauma of Dunkirk or some thing similar would make it a lot less obnoxious, but they are prentnding it is real right up to inviting real history buff to turn up in uniform to add an air of authenticy that is not there and in a few years, the film will become true & the actual history false .
A while back I did hire cars and there was a travel agent in the USA selling wedding holidays in Australia based on a few episodes of Bay Watch ( bad taste perv show )and brides would burst into tars when we rounded the corner into Campbel parade and they found there was no pier jutting out into the Pacific Ocean which was where they had planned to be married.
Once you commit something to film, it becomes real in peoples minds and reality becomes the imagined.
If they were jut trying to make an emotional tear jerker they could have abandoned all pretense of history , shot the film with people in plain cloths in colour with the odd flash back to newsreel B & W images

But they made a 1/2 hearted "we can't be bothered" attempt to be authentic which is quite frankly an insult to all who participated in the real event.

email (option): bsansw1@tpg.com.au

Re: Dunkirk

Clive.....no, you have not made your point. Of course it would be rediculous to burn a real Spitfire. It would not be rediculous to fabricate a mock-up of a burning Spitfire that appears real from the camera's angle, including an engine! Like most technical details in this film....it is third rate stuff. The extra cost involved in making this particular shot look real would have been piffling.....but it needed someone to care about it.

Nieuwe pagina 1