- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 253
- Age
- 59
I am no grog on the Dunkirk evacuation and I may be wrong but I don't think the depicted event of the commonwealth officer killing a young lad that had come to rescue him actually happened. I also don't think it is abstractly representative of the actions of the brave people involved in the Dunkirk evacuation. I am open to being corrected if this event actually took place or if it is representative of how commonwealth soldiers conducted themselves during the evacuation. If the event did not happen and it is not representative of events that generally did happen then the movie "showed" a contrived scene which reflected very negatively on the heroes of the evacuation.
Unless you can factually correct me the question is why the makers of the movie decided to show a contrived scene which reflected negatively on the heroes of the evacuation. With all the drama involved in the evacuation was there no better more accurate way to "show" consequences of fear, how fragile humans really are, that death has no partiality, sacrifices just as valid as those in uniform and forgiveness? Just sticking to the facts with some reasonable artistic license to make it into a movie would have worked.
I am so tired of the factually inaccurate attacks on the real heroes of this world (many who are no longer able to defend themselves). I think it is fair to ask the question why the makers of this movie and other venues knowingly, intentionally, and unnecessarily decide to invent / contrive scenes that reflect negatively on our heroes.
As I said above it was overall a good movie and I recommend people go see it. Even with the invented scene it is about as good as we can currently expect.
No offense to you @Rambler. I consider you a brother in arms. When they make good movies we should say so. When they fabricate and insert negative scenes about the real heroes we are obligated to point out said fabrications and ask about their motives.
Unless you can factually correct me the question is why the makers of the movie decided to show a contrived scene which reflected negatively on the heroes of the evacuation. With all the drama involved in the evacuation was there no better more accurate way to "show" consequences of fear, how fragile humans really are, that death has no partiality, sacrifices just as valid as those in uniform and forgiveness? Just sticking to the facts with some reasonable artistic license to make it into a movie would have worked.
I am so tired of the factually inaccurate attacks on the real heroes of this world (many who are no longer able to defend themselves). I think it is fair to ask the question why the makers of this movie and other venues knowingly, intentionally, and unnecessarily decide to invent / contrive scenes that reflect negatively on our heroes.
As I said above it was overall a good movie and I recommend people go see it. Even with the invented scene it is about as good as we can currently expect.
No offense to you @Rambler. I consider you a brother in arms. When they make good movies we should say so. When they fabricate and insert negative scenes about the real heroes we are obligated to point out said fabrications and ask about their motives.
