Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan's next film

not nearly as many as in The Great War, to be fair, and I remember being taught a lot more about that in school than WWII.

Ultimately we as a country weren't involved, and let's face it, Ireland has had enough of it's own problems over the years to cover.
There were thousands of Irish men involved in the war even if Ireland the country remained neutral
Around 5,000 Irish men who not only lost their rights of pensions and pay but also prevented from finding work for years, all for joining the British to fight Nazism. It was extremely shamefully period of Irish history.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211
 
Apparently not judging by some of the reactions in this thread!

But peoples experiences are different I guess, and a lot of it will come down to when people stopped doing history at school. I don't think we were really taught anything 'properly' (i.e. by an actual history teacher) until Year 7 and by Year 10 most schools give you the option of dropping history and not taking it to GCSE level, and by A Level you're lucky if a quarter of people are taking history in a given year group.

So a lot of people only get three years actually being taught history by a history teacher.

I was barely taught about WW2 in school, definitely not about Dunkirk. I had the option to drop History in year 10/11 so possibly they went through it then.
 

This is a story about average beaten joe looking to go home, not top gun. As i said bellow the technicalities faced by the raf is huge. They have to fly all the way from england and making sure they have enough fuel to get back or risk death and lost of plane which means they only have 10-20 minutes tops to fly around dunkirk. Not to mention engaging in dog fight isn't as simple as it sounds and more manuver means bigger fuel consumption.

I'm not sure, the dogfights over Dunkirk were the main battles following Hitler's halt order on the ground. The German planes were trying to take out the Allied ground troops and the RAF pilots sole job was the take out the German planes to protect their soldiers. So it was probably quite common for them.

During the course of the war, yeah, I reckon it would be considered very good to take out 2/3 opposition planes in one sitting.

I read that the long haul flight means the raf can't stay there for long, 10 minutes max (same as the german in battle of Britain), they go in 3s so its highly unlikely for the raf to be able to heroically shoot down multiple enemy plane, and this is the german we're talking about, asuming rather equal planes and pilots.

There are even eye witness saying downed pilot getting abused because they think the raf aren't helping them.

So i think nolan portayal is quite acceptable. And during the evacuation the weather is pretty bad which limits the lutwaffe bombing run.
 
I'm surprised that UK-based posters don't know about it considering how much your history lessons appear to only focus on the nation's successes and tends to airbrush everything else out (Ireland etc).
I just want to know how the majority were evacuated. I remember googling that a decade ago and not finding an answer.

Probably the internet has improved since then.

Edit - still cant see an answer
 
This is a story about average beaten joe looking to go home, not top gun. As i said bellow the technicalities faced by the raf is huge. They have to fly all the way from england and making sure they have enough fuel to get back or risk death and lost of plane which means they only have 10-20 minutes tops to fly around dunkirk. Not to mention engaging in dog fight isn't as simple as it sounds and more manuver means bigger fuel consumption.



I read that the long haul flight means the raf can't stay there for long, 10 minutes max (same as the german in battle of Britain), they go in 3s so its highly unlikely for the raf to be able to heroically shoot down multiple enemy plane, and this is the german we're talking about, asuming rather equal planes and pilots.

There are even eye witness saying downed pilot getting abused because they think the raf aren't helping them.

So i think nolan portayal is quite acceptable. And during the evacuation the weather is pretty bad which limits the lutwaffe bombing run.
Yeah Nolan's portrayal was perfectly acceptable, that's what I said. I'm just responding to that fella who says that multiple hits for an RAF pilot at Dunkirk would've been a great feat, but I reckon it would've been relatively common compared to other dog fights at other points in the war considering the fact that it was mainly fought in the skies.

Tom Hardy's character took down 3 or so pilots, and it was made out to be heroic not because of the number but because of the fact he turned back to save the boats and got the pilot attacking the beach when he had no fuel.

Read my first post on the matter and I think you'll see I agree :lol: I never said it should be like Top Gun I said he portrayed the heroic parts in a brilliant realistic and accurate way that wasn't over the top like a lot of war films.
 
Enemy of your enemy is you ally...
I wouldn't say so. As Ireland helped Britain in a number of ways

.Éire allowed British airmen who crashed on its territory to return home, but German pilots were interned

.In 1941 fire crews from Drogheda and Dundalk helped when Belfast was blitzed by the Luftwaffe.

.The RAF was allowed to fly over the Donegal Air Corridor in order to patrol the Western Approaches during the Battle of the Atlantic saving British planes a 100-mile detour

.In 1941 de Valera banned the German Ambassador, Dr Hempel, from using his radio to contact the Third Reich and in 1943 he confiscated the radio, thereby limiting the Ambassador's ability to communicate Allied manoeuvres to Berlin

.Weather reports were secretly transmitted to the Allies, and proved very valuable during the D-day landings in June 1944

.In February 1945 de Valera gave permission for the British to establish secret radar bases in Éire

.Plans were drawn up by both Britain and Éire officials for joint co-operation if Germany invaded and for the British army based in Northern Ireland to move into Éire.

It seemed more of a case being very worried of the fragility of a independence . It's worth saying that De Valera(The president at the time of WW2) was part of the 1916 Rising, an event which in part happened because of Irish men going off to fight for the British Emipre in WW1 and also when the rising took place it was rather unpopular with most people(Opinions only really changed after the executions), plus the man in charge of Britain was the same man who fought against Irish Independence and had actively starved the people of India.

So I can see why there might have been some hesitation during the lead up to the war but to not only remain neutral, to actively target Irishmen who went to fight Nazism is pretty pathetic although a lot of things in Irish History can be simply put down to Emond De Valera just being a cnut.
 
That's kind of the concept, though, to make it a very intimate and claustrophobic story where our perspective and knowledge is restricted to the soldiers we follow.

To not show a single German soldier is clearly a very deliberate choice with a clear effect.

I thought it worked really well in specific scenes, e.g. when the soldiers were being shot at in the boat. That really was an intimate and intense portrayal of events. It being the perspective of the film throughout certainly didn't take away from it either, for me. There's more than enough war films which show the conflict from multiple factions. I couldn't necessarily see what it added on the whole though.

What clear effect did you take away from it? It certainly didn't make me feel like we were on their side, and I agree with @Massive Spanner in that I don't think Nolan wanted the audience to be on their side. The only clear effect it had on the film as a whole was turning it from a war film into a survival film.
 
And to add to my previous post, this chap was a Dub
I know, both that he was Irish and about Irish involvement. But I was raised and educated in Ireland. There isn't much mention of the Irish who fought for the British, American or Australian Armies in our school history books.
 
This is a story about average beaten joe looking to go home, not top gun. As i said bellow the technicalities faced by the raf is huge. They have to fly all the way from england and making sure they have enough fuel to get back or risk death and lost of plane which means they only have 10-20 minutes tops to fly around dunkirk. Not to mention engaging in dog fight isn't as simple as it sounds and more manuver means bigger fuel consumption.



I read that the long haul flight means the raf can't stay there for long, 10 minutes max (same as the german in battle of Britain), they go in 3s so its highly unlikely for the raf to be able to heroically shoot down multiple enemy plane, and this is the german we're talking about, asuming rather equal planes and pilots.

There are even eye witness saying downed pilot getting abused because they think the raf aren't helping them.

So i think nolan portayal is quite acceptable. And during the evacuation the weather is pretty bad which limits the lutwaffe bombing run.
The director missed the opportunity to tell so many more dramatic stories, read this

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-col
3500 RAF sorties flown over Dunkirk in 7 days... That's way more action packed than Top Gun could ever be.

The story of the two ships, one doing 7 round trips... One plugging a hole in the hull with a mattress and saving 7000 people. Where was that stuff in the story?

Instead we see a spitfire doing three flybys above a beach with no engine running. WTF is that? Engineering magic!
 
Last edited:
The director missed the opportunity to tell so many more dramatic stories, read this

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-col
3500 RAF sorties flown over Dunkirk in 7 days... That's way more action packed than Top Gun could ever be.

The story of the two ships, one doing 7 round trips... One plugging a hole in the hull with a mattress and saving 7000 people. Where was that stuff in the story?

Instead we see a spitfire doing three flybys above a beach with no engine running. WTF is that? Engineering magic!

Good review from the Guardian, agree with most of it, especially this bit....

Film-makers usually instil interest in their protagonists by giving them backstories and meaningful dialogue, thereby creating characters who can be engaged in drama. In Dunkirk, these things don’t happen.

The film also denies filmgoers any context. We’re told little about how the army has come to be beached or the threat it faces. We never see a German soldier, let alone the generals and politicians of either side who are masterminding events. We don’t even get the customary three sentences of text at the end, explaining the outcome.
 
Good review from the Guardian, agree with most of it, especially this bit....

Film-makers usually instil interest in their protagonists by giving them backstories and meaningful dialogue, thereby creating characters who can be engaged in drama. In Dunkirk, these things don’t happen.

The film also denies filmgoers any context. We’re told little about how the army has come to be beached or the threat it faces. We never see a German soldier, let alone the generals and politicians of either side who are masterminding events. We don’t even get the customary three sentences of text at the end, explaining the outcome.

So they basically wanted him to make a run of the mill generic war film and something we have seen countless times. Good thing they are only paid to watch movies and not make them.

The bolded bit actually made me laugh.
 
The director missed the opportunity to tell so many more dramatic stories, read this

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-col
3500 RAF sorties flown over Dunkirk in 7 days... That's way more action packed than Top Gun could ever be.

The story of the two ships, one doing 7 round trips... One plugging a hole in the hull with a mattress and saving 7000 people. Where was that stuff in the story?

Instead we see a spitfire doing three flybys above a beach with no engine running. WTF is that? Engineering magic!
I'm absolutely delighted Nolan didn't choose this route. Dramatic, action packed war movies, I've seen plenty of those. He went with the less is more approach and I thought the movie was much better for it, a breath of fresh air really. And I wasn't bored at any point, it kept me on the edge of my seat throughout, more so than any action packed movie I've ever seen.

Basically, I disagree with just about everything in that article.
 
So I saw this last night, and I think overall it was just about a worthy trip to the cinema - ultimately this is a film that is an absolute technical marvel, with scenes that feel real and will often leave you wondering just how in the hell they got the shots that they did.

Problem is, that alone doesn't make a movie, and this film has way too many issues to make it a great piece of cinema.

Firstly, the one week, one hour, one day thing... you may have understood what that meant right away, but I sure as hell didn't, and I'd imagine a lot of other people didn't. The thing is though, even when you understand that that is how the "story" is playing out, it doesn't actually make the film better/more impressive in any way, and in fact kind of makes it a bit worse - as in no way do you feel like the guys on the beach have been stuck their for a whole week. It feels more like they too have been there for a day - maybe two max, and the only reason you feel it could even be this long is because, on screen, it gives you one day night cycle (which is kinda daft if you want to portray a full week lapse). The beach characters seem to go from one boat to the other, with not much time elapsing in between - so where exactly is the week of time?!

Another problem I have with everything that's actually at Dunkirk itself, is that we're following these 2/3 characters, but we're given no real rhyme or reason for doing so.What makes these people more interesting then anyone else at Dunkirk? Why should I be invested in their survival over anyone else's? I feel like the film wants me to care just because they're soliders - therefore I should care, which really isn't enough when the film is populated with other soliders that we hear nothing about. What is actually going on on the beach? What's it like for those people that are stuck waiting? Are the forces closing in? How time sensitive is their escape? When the actual evacuation does occur - despite being a nice moment - there was so little dramatic tension or relief in that moment because you have no idea what the state of the people on the beach actually is, nor how close they are to being wiped out by the Germans.

That's not to say the scenes involving the 2/3 guys aren't dramatic or are tense themselves, because some of them are, but I just wanted more - I think if there characters had been better/more interesting, at least I could have cared a bit more about their fate.

Another problem I had with the film was editing, which I think was quite jarring at times. Scenes were intersected together with no rhyme or reason. We're cutting from one thing to the next then back to the other thing - despite the scenes having very little connection to each other. It leads to it being a bit messy and sometimes robs the more interesting scene that could be played out in full to a more dramatic/interesting effect.

My final problem was the character work - which is basically non-existent, but I think that's probably been brought up to death already.

But yeah, as a piece of technical film-making, it's pretty exemplary... but as a piece of storytelling/cinema, it left me wanting.
 
I wouldn't say so. As Ireland helped Britain in a number of ways

.Éire allowed British airmen who crashed on its territory to return home, but German pilots were interned

.In 1941 fire crews from Drogheda and Dundalk helped when Belfast was blitzed by the Luftwaffe.

.The RAF was allowed to fly over the Donegal Air Corridor in order to patrol the Western Approaches during the Battle of the Atlantic saving British planes a 100-mile detour

.In 1941 de Valera banned the German Ambassador, Dr Hempel, from using his radio to contact the Third Reich and in 1943 he confiscated the radio, thereby limiting the Ambassador's ability to communicate Allied manoeuvres to Berlin

.Weather reports were secretly transmitted to the Allies, and proved very valuable during the D-day landings in June 1944

.In February 1945 de Valera gave permission for the British to establish secret radar bases in Éire

.Plans were drawn up by both Britain and Éire officials for joint co-operation if Germany invaded and for the British army based in Northern Ireland to move into Éire.

It seemed more of a case being very worried of the fragility of a independence . It's worth saying that De Valera(The president at the time of WW2) was part of the 1916 Rising, an event which in part happened because of Irish men going off to fight for the British Emipre in WW1 and also when the rising took place it was rather unpopular with most people(Opinions only really changed after the executions), plus the man in charge of Britain was the same man who fought against Irish Independence and had actively starved the people of India.

So I can see why there might have been some hesitation during the lead up to the war but to not only remain neutral, to actively target Irishmen who went to fight Nazism is pretty pathetic although a lot of things in Irish History can be simply put down to Emond De Valera just being a cnut.

Infact even in India there was a debate on why should Indians be fighting on behalf of the british in ww2. Some favoured that this be used as an opportune time to rise in revolt while others saw the nazis as more 'evil' and decided to bargain with the british.

Btw Indian soldiers were also killed in dunkirk but the movie chooses to ignore this.
 
I thought it worked really well in specific scenes, e.g. when the soldiers were being shot at in the boat. That really was an intimate and intense portrayal of events. It being the perspective of the film throughout certainly didn't take away from it either, for me. There's more than enough war films which show the conflict from multiple factions. I couldn't necessarily see what it added on the whole though.

What clear effect did you take away from it? It certainly didn't make me feel like we were on their side, and I agree with @Massive Spanner in that I don't think Nolan wanted the audience to be on their side. The only clear effect it had on the film as a whole was turning it from a war film into a survival film.
I think it helped make the enemy and the sense of immediate danger feel omnipresent, the fact the bullets and the missiles came from everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It made the POV perspective more intense for me because it highlighted the chaotic nature of being there on the film. You're right that it makes it more of a survival movie than a war movie but is that a criticism? That's clearly the film Nolan wanted to make.

I just saw this for the second time in the cinema and found it just as incredible this time round, which I wasn't sure I would. For me it's Nolan's best.
 
Last edited:
Infact even in India there was a debate on why should Indians be fighting on behalf of the british in ww2. Some favoured that this be used as an opportune time to rise in revolt while others saw the nazis as more 'evil' and decided to bargain with the british.

Btw Indian soldiers were also killed in dunkirk but the movie chooses to ignore this.
Didn't know that, cheers.

Btw Indian soldiers were also killed in dunkirk but the movie chooses to ignore this.
Oh thats disappointing. Had a quick google and it there doesn't seem to be many movies on India role in the war, so some recognition in a big blockbuster would have great.
 
Infact even in India there was a debate on why should Indians be fighting on behalf of the british in ww2. Some favoured that this be used as an opportune time to rise in revolt while others saw the nazis as more 'evil' and decided to bargain with the british.

Btw Indian soldiers were also killed in dunkirk but the movie chooses to ignore this.

I dont think the movie has that in mind, the indian being left out.

The rest alot of other nationalities taking part in dunkirk, if any the French should get the first spot due to their tenacity in holding the perimeter under heavy power buying the British enough time to evacuate. The poland pilot fighting along with raf, the french resistance, and there's probably an ethnic boat owner sailing towards dunkirk on their own free will.
 
The director missed the opportunity to tell so many more dramatic stories, read this

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-col
3500 RAF sorties flown over Dunkirk in 7 days... That's way more action packed than Top Gun could ever be.

The story of the two ships, one doing 7 round trips... One plugging a hole in the hull with a mattress and saving 7000 people. Where was that stuff in the story?

Instead we see a spitfire doing three flybys above a beach with no engine running. WTF is that? Engineering magic!
Yeah that's what I was wondering. I was sure I remember reading about small ships that did multiple passes.

And the 3500 RAF planes flying over Dunkirk.... they weren't actually over the beaches in most cases, because by the time an German plan had reached Dunkirk, it was too late.

Also, I feel like they should have explained how Dunkirk came about, even just with more words on title cards at the start

The initial plan for the German invasion of France called for an encirclement attack through the Netherlands and Belgium, avoiding the Maginot Line.[14] Erich von Manstein, then Chief of Staff of the German Army Group A, prepared the outline of a different plan and submitted it to the OKH (German High Command) via his superior, Generaloberst Gerd von Rundstedt.[15][16] Manstein's plan suggested that Panzer divisions should attack through the Ardennes, then establish bridgeheads on the Meuse River and rapidly drive to the English Channel. The Germans would thus cut off the Allied armies in Belgium. This part of the plan later became known as the Sichelschnitt ("sickle cut").[16][17] Adolf Hitler approved a modified version of Manstein's ideas, today known as the Manstein Plan, after meeting with him on 17 February.[18]

On 10 May, Germany invaded Belgium and the Netherlands.[19] Army Group B, under Generaloberst Fedor von Bock, attacked into Belgium, while the three Panzer corps of Army Group A under Rundstedt swung around to the south and drove for the Channel.[20] The BEF advanced from the Belgian border to positions along the River Dyle within Belgium, where they fought elements of Army Group B starting on 10 May.[21][22] They were ordered to begin a fighting withdrawal to the Scheldt River on 14 May when the Belgian and French positions on their flanks failed to hold.[23] During a visit to Paris on 17 May, Prime Minister Winston Churchill was astonished to learn from Gamelin that the French had committed all their troops to the ongoing engagements and had no strategic reserves.[24] On 19 May, Gort met with French General Gaston Billotte, commander of the French First Army and overall coordinator of the Allied forces. Billotte revealed that the French had no troops between the Germans and the sea. Gort immediately saw that evacuation across the Channel was the best course of action, and began planning a withdrawal to Dunkirk, the closest location with good port facilities.[25] Surrounded by marshes, Dunkirk boasted old fortifications and the longest sand beach in Europe, where large groups could assemble.[26] After continued engagements and a failed Allied attempt on 21 May at Arras to cut through the German spearhead,[27] the BEF was trapped, along with the remains of the Belgian forces and the three French armies, in an area along the coast of northern France and Belgium.[28][29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#Background

see also
674px-Maginot_Line_ln-en_svg.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
 
Btw Indian soldiers were also killed in dunkirk but the movie chooses to ignore this.
I think it would be unfair to focus on what Nolan chose to ignore in the movie. He elected to keep the scope of the movie very narrow. His intention was not to document the evacuation and give a complete picture, but to follow a very specific cast of characters and really zoom in on their struggles. Obviously, loads of events and people who were there were going to be left out. In my opinion the very nature of the movie absolves it of any criticism concerning what it shows and what it ignores. Had this been a war movie with a much broader scope, those would've been valid points of criticism.
 
I also loved that this movie wasn't centered around characters or character development.

Who gives a shit about that? It was completely irrelevant to the point of the movie. The movie was meant to portray the experience of the poor people involved in the operation - the sheer desperation, the fear and the constant sense of impending doom.
Which it doesn't do well imo. Of course this is hugely subjective, but I never got that sense of urgency or doom, which is why the film for me is just a technical tour-de-force. I'm sure that I would be raving about it if it had touched me on an emotional level.
 
Infact even in India there was a debate on why should Indians be fighting on behalf of the british in ww2. Some favoured that this be used as an opportune time to rise in revolt while others saw the nazis as more 'evil' and decided to bargain with the british.

Btw Indian soldiers were also killed in dunkirk but the movie chooses to ignore this.
Didn't know that, cheers.


Oh thats disappointing. Had a quick google and it there doesn't seem to be many movies on India role in the war, so some recognition in a big blockbuster would have great.

So what? The movie didn't try to be a war film or show the full picture. I wouldn't expect them to focus on the different nationalities there - it was about men trying to stay alive.

I'm Indian, and this seems like a weird criticism to me.

The movie isn't a masterpiece (imo) but this is strange
 
So what? The movie didn't try to be a war film or show the full picture. I wouldn't expect them to focus on the different nationalities there - it was about men trying to stay alive.

I'm Indian, and this seems like a weird criticism to me.

The movie isn't a masterpiece (imo) but this is strange
I didn't really say it was a criticism just that it would have interesting to seen.
 
Loved it. It kind of felt like i was right there, on the beach, on the boats and in the airplanes.

Nolan is a genius.
 
I'm not a very observant person but I can virtually always tell if something in a film is CGI, and this spoils the illusion of reality for me; so I'm happy Nolan didn't go for 400,000 troops.
 
I thought it was a bit disappointing really, though it had some very good scenes. I can see what Nolan was trying to do in portraying the event from the point of view of people there and the effect it has on them as people, and not wanting any factors to interfere with that (character building, enemy point of view, overall context/plot etc.). He did a really good of showing that, and how horrible the situation must have been for the people involved, but in doing so he's sacrificed telling any kind of story, about one of the most significant events of WWII. If you didn't know anything about Dunkirk before the film, you still wont know anything about Dunkirk after the film...you definitely wouldn't have any grasp on the enormity of it. Having a random general quote "over 400,000 men" in one line of the entire film is not a sufficient way to show that.

Also the school boy character on the boat was completely pointless given the above. What was he in the film for?

Also fair play on doing the proper research in regards to the RAF's involvement, German tactics etc...but then you go and ruin it by having a spitfire shoot down a German dive bomber despite not having a working engine, as if it's being piloted by some kind of physics defying Rambo or something.



I read that the long haul flight means the raf can't stay there for long, 10 minutes max (same as the german in battle of Britain), they go in 3s so its highly unlikely for the raf to be able to heroically shoot down multiple enemy plane, and this is the german we're talking about, asuming rather equal planes and pilots.

There are even eye witness saying downed pilot getting abused because they think the raf aren't helping them.

So i think nolan portayal is quite acceptable. And during the evacuation the weather is pretty bad which limits the lutwaffe bombing run.

Yeah...the RAF had limited fighting time and couldn't really do much other than fly about for a few minutes trying to pick off Luftwaffe planes.

Spitfires were superior to any of the German fighter planes I believe...the only comparable plane they had was the Messerschmitt fighters which were supposedly similar in performance.

Though a majority of our fighter planes in WWII were actually Hurricanes and not Spitfires, yet every war film you watch would make you think Hurricanes didn't even exist.

I just want to know how the majority were evacuated. I remember googling that a decade ago and not finding an answer.

Probably the internet has improved since then.

Edit - still cant see an answer

Basically how the film showed...civilian ships and smaller boats, a lot of whom made multiple trips, and could actually come close enough to the shore for the soldiers to get on board. The film didn't really dedicate any time or effort into making this clear though, but it was going on in the backround (the hassle at the start of trying to use one boat to ferry people to another boat via a pier while all three are being targeted...and then the smaller boats coming in towards the end and being able to rescue people or pick people up straight from the beach and just head straight back).
 
Basically how the film showed...civilian ships and smaller boats, a lot of whom made multiple trips, and could actually come close enough to the shore for the soldiers to get on board. The film didn't really dedicate any time or effort into making this clear though, but it was going on in the backround (the hassle at the start of trying to use one boat to ferry people to another boat via a pier while all three are being targeted...and then the smaller boats coming in towards the end and being able to rescue people or pick people up straight from the beach and just head straight back).
It certainly seems obvious in hindsight that small boats are a great idea. They would be so numerous as to be difficult to destroy in any great numbers, can load from the beach, and could a German u-boat destroy them?

I'd love to see some actual numbers though.

300,000 evacuations, 100 people per boat.. that only requires 1000 crossings of small boats. Obviously many ships didn't make it. And maybe the average small boat can only take 50, so let's call it 3000 crossings.

Seems plausible.
 
It certainly seems obvious in hindsight that small boats are a great idea. They would be so numerous as to be difficult to destroy in any great numbers, can load from the beach, and could a German u-boat destroy them?

I'd love to see some actual numbers though.

300,000 evacuations, 100 people per boat.. that only requires 1000 crossings of small boats. Obviously many ships didn't make it. And maybe the average small boat can only take 50, so let's call it 3000 crossings.

Seems plausible.

Yeah basically that. U-boats would have found it very difficult to target smaller boats that can manoeuvre easier. Same with bombers.

There'd have been all kinds of boats as well you'd imagine. Some probably only able to hold 10 or so, others not designed to cross the channel. You just can't imagine it being anything other than organised chaos and I think Nolan missed a trick in basically not showing it at all.

Although when you read accounts from soldiers, pilots etc. (of battle in general not specifically Dunkirk)..the way Nolan has shown it is maybe accurate. They only see the part of the battle they're involved in. So for a pilot for example, the bomber or fighter they're trying to shoot down is the only thing they are aware of. Whatever else is happening is either too far in the distance to take in, or they are just too pre-occupied to really notice.
 
It certainly seems obvious in hindsight that small boats are a great idea. They would be so numerous as to be difficult to destroy in any great numbers, can load from the beach, and could a German u-boat destroy them?

I'd love to see some actual numbers though.

300,000 evacuations, 100 people per boat.. that only requires 1000 crossings of small boats. Obviously many ships didn't make it. And maybe the average small boat can only take 50, so let's call it 3000 crossings.

Seems plausible.

They also deployed something a large flotilla of bigger boats who played a huge role too, and weren't quite the death sentence the film portrayed them as.

I think 100 people per boat is an over-estimate, destroyers could carry about 900 people. Would be surprised if you could get more than about 9 or 10 in some of the smaller boats.
 
I thought it was a bit disappointing really, though it had some very good scenes. I can see what Nolan was trying to do in portraying the event from the point of view of people there and the effect it has on them as people, and not wanting any factors to interfere with that (character building, enemy point of view, overall context/plot etc.). He did a really good of showing that, and how horrible the situation must have been for the people involved, but in doing so he's sacrificed telling any kind of story, about one of the most significant events of WWII. If you didn't know anything about Dunkirk before the film, you still wont know anything about Dunkirk after the film...you definitely wouldn't have any grasp on the enormity of it. Having a random general quote "over 400,000 men" in one line of the entire film is not a sufficient way to show that.

Also the school boy character on the boat was completely pointless given the above. What was he in the film for?

Also fair play on doing the proper research in regards to the RAF's involvement, German tactics etc...but then you go and ruin it by having a spitfire shoot down a German dive bomber despite not having a working engine, as if it's being piloted by some kind of physics defying Rambo or something.





Yeah...the RAF had limited fighting time and couldn't really do much other than fly about for a few minutes trying to pick off Luftwaffe planes.

Spitfires were superior to any of the German fighter planes I believe...the only comparable plane they had was the Messerschmitt fighters which were supposedly similar in performance.

Though a majority of our fighter planes in WWII were actually Hurricanes and not Spitfires, yet every war film you watch would make you think Hurricanes didn't even exist.



Basically how the film showed...civilian ships and smaller boats, a lot of whom made multiple trips, and could actually come close enough to the shore for the soldiers to get on board. The film didn't really dedicate any time or effort into making this clear though, but it was going on in the backround (the hassle at the start of trying to use one boat to ferry people to another boat via a pier while all three are being targeted...and then the smaller boats coming in towards the end and being able to rescue people or pick people up straight from the beach and just head straight back).

Tbf there are reports that a Spitfire can glide for 15 miles, even reports they have glided from Dunkirk to kent