It's really hard no to dissect a political movie politically... Given the timing the movie looks to me like a political commentary on Brexit, for instance. And we should be grateful that those silenced before now are beginning to be able to voice their opinions too.
I read this post three times and I am sorry to say I disagree. I think only you have these thoughts about a war film about a battle many years ago and try to make it about Brexit? It is about Dunkirk! Please why do you try to make political things out of this film and also seem very much disturbed that no black soldiers are in the film? I think this is not good to the memory of the soldiers who were at Dunkirk.
I ask a general question to everyone. Why must people think that black people are offended at everything if they are not shown on the films or television? This I cannot understand. I think it is white peoples trying to say what black people should or should not be offended at. If this is true then this is the most offensive thing of all! Please stop saying what me and my people should be offended at! We are not children and many of us know about real things not just films and television. If you want to be offended for the black man then please be offended at war and poverty and starvation under the dictators in Africa and how people have no freedom and are persecuted for trying to make things democratic. These are the real things to be offended at, not a film!
In a way, I am glad you disagree! We would not be having this discussion and exchanging views if we all had the same opinions. Whether it’s only me who sees the movie as a political commentary about Brexit is absolutely irrelevant. The movie had been made and released. The director and scriptwriters expressed whatever they wanted to. Now it’s up to the viewers to interpret it. Art, including movies, has always been inspired by current events. Take Shakespeare or Homer, and you will see how much symbolism and indirect reference to contemporary events there is there. I won’t argue about what came first, the movie or Brexit, but both took a long time, and even if it was just a coincidence, the coincidence would be highly significant.
I also have never said that anyone is, should or will be offended by anything in this movie. In fact, any movie can offend anyone, and people have the right to feel offended. The problem starts only if being offensive was the intention, and it would be crazy to claim that Nolan planned to offend whether Indians, Africans, or the French. so I hope your comment was not meant to say that I suggested any such thing.
Just wondering what people think of my father's opinion. He's 86 and at the age of nine listened to news of Dunkirk on the radio in a Kansas farmhouse. Anyway, he pronounced himself disappointed because the movie establishes very little historical context and hardly ever calls the enemy by name. He finds this confusing and thinks young people (anyone under 35) will be lost because they don't know who is being fought and why. What do you young folk think?
Very early on (in this thread, I think) there were speculations that the movie would not be a success in the US, because it's about an event Americans did not participate in and are often not familiar with. But (with reference to my post above), I do not think the producers' intention was to disappoint your father, but he's certainly entitled to his opinion!
Just watched the film. Wow - superb, I found myself very immersed, so much so that I prob would not be able to watch again for a very long time! I found it exhausting and some scenes gave me a tad feeling of motion sickness due to Nolan putting you straight into the action. It felt very unique in this aspect.
Not sure how it is doing in the US however it feels like it has Oscars written all over it.
The sound and score was immense, as mentioned before it was like a horror movie in some parts and really was something else with the planes diving and bombing. It kind of had a Trent Reznor vibe with the industrial drone sounds and chugging strings - i think the sound played a huge part and importance to the picture.
Even though it does not closely follow the overall event im sure it has educated a lot of youngsters to some extent.
I was expecting it to be a really long film, but it did not drag and was near enough a perfect running time for me personally.
Watching this in IMAX must be amazing.
Very strange to have loved a film but not wanting to see again. Is that a good thing lol?
Instagram - bondclothes007
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I have to watch it again. I sat next to an irritating couple who talked non-stop at full volume until I asked them to keep it down, but it was too late, I was far too unsettled internally to fully enjoy it. I think I'll bring my dad.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
It's really hard no to dissect a political movie politically... Given the timing the movie looks to me like a political commentary on Brexit, for instance. And we should be grateful that those silenced before now are beginning to be able to voice their opinions too.
I read this post three times and I am sorry to say I disagree. I think only you have these thoughts about a war film about a battle many years ago and try to make it about Brexit? It is about Dunkirk! Please why do you try to make political things out of this film and also seem very much disturbed that no black soldiers are in the film? I think this is not good to the memory of the soldiers who were at Dunkirk.
I ask a general question to everyone. Why must people think that black people are offended at everything if they are not shown on the films or television? This I cannot understand. I think it is white peoples trying to say what black people should or should not be offended at. If this is true then this is the most offensive thing of all! Please stop saying what me and my people should be offended at! We are not children and many of us know about real things not just films and television. If you want to be offended for the black man then please be offended at war and poverty and starvation under the dictators in Africa and how people have no freedom and are persecuted for trying to make things democratic. These are the real things to be offended at, not a film!
In a way, I am glad you disagree! We would not be having this discussion and exchanging views if we all had the same opinions. Whether it’s only me who sees the movie as a political commentary about Brexit is absolutely irrelevant. The movie had been made and released. The director and scriptwriters expressed whatever they wanted to. Now it’s up to the viewers to interpret it. Art, including movies, has always been inspired by current events. Take Shakespeare or Homer, and you will see how much symbolism and indirect reference to contemporary events there is there. I won’t argue about what came first, the movie or Brexit, but both took a long time, and even if it was just a coincidence, the coincidence would be highly significant.
I also have never said that anyone is, should or will be offended by anything in this movie. In fact, any movie can offend anyone, and people have the right to feel offended. The problem starts only if being offensive was the intention, and it would be crazy to claim that Nolan planned to offend whether Indians, Africans, or the French. so I hope your comment was not meant to say that I suggested any such thing.
To be honest, I have read this several times and cannot properly understand some of it, this is because I dont read English as good as what I would like.
I do understand this though. You did never said that anyone should be offended. I make this comment general to everyone and I said that in the post. I did say this to you that "Please why do you try to make political things out of this film and also seem very much disturbed that no black soldiers are in the film?" The truth is the truth and history is history. If we and I mean anyone tries to bend the truth to fit their politics or their politcials correctness this is totally wrong. The timing of this film and Brexit saying that it is about Brexit is highly wrong and to disrespect the soldiers. If the peoples who made this film made it such (but they didn't) about brexit then they should hang their heads in shame for disrespecting the soldiers and the history.
To end, people have the right to be offended but do not have the right to say what I as a black man is offended at. This is most offensive at all. Again I want to know if the writer of the reports is black or white. I say this before if he is black then he does not know the history, if he is white then he does not know the history or wants to change the history for the politcals correctness. Both are wrong.
I guess that from your posts you are anti brexit and even perhaps anti British for the brexit? Let me tell you what I think so you know. I am a political refugee in England. I came here because I am to be killed in my country. I came to England and was welcomed. I worked hard to be the good member of the British society and to make sure my children are the same. I pay taxes. In the brexit I respect the peoples vote as this is there will. I would respect it what ever the vote. You see I come from a place where you cannot vote free and that is why. I have much respect for the british peoples and Britian because they took me to their country. I have much respect for the soldiers because I read the history and was indeed a soldier once myself. I will stand for Britain and would fight for her in her army if I was called to do so.
My only wish is to return home where I can help my own peoples, and this I will do when my life is no longer in danger. Until then I am proud to be a citizen of Britain and thank every day that the British peoples allowed me and my family to escape persecution.
But Dunkirk film is about Dunkirk. no body else has said about the Brexit about this film so you must ask yourself why.
Am I offended that there are no black soldiers in the film NO! Should I or black peoples be offended that there are no black soldiers in the film NO! Should we have to suffer peoples who are ignorant of history writing in the newspapers what we should be offended at NO!
If I or other peoples are to be offended that no black soldiers in the film then we are offended only at the truth. Should we be offended at the truth?
Just wondering what people think of my father's opinion. He's 86 and at the age of nine listened to news of Dunkirk on the radio in a Kansas farmhouse. Anyway, he pronounced himself disappointed because the movie establishes very little historical context and hardly ever calls the enemy by name. He finds this confusing and thinks young people (anyone under 35) will be lost because they don't know who is being fought and why. What do you young folk think?
I think it is refreshing that it doesn't spoonfeed historical context to the audience. And arguably, the historical context is not that important for Nolan's vision of the film as a suspense thriller. But fair enough, some viewers may walk away confused about who the enemy was, and why they were fighting. Luckily they have access to Google and Wikipedia.
The superb build of tension and clever structure of the narrative make it a unique and interesting film creation as well. I thought that the film combined the suspense of a Hitchcock thriller with the large scale cinematographic mastery of a David Lean epic.
Exactly why I think Nolan would be perfect choice to make a Bond movie that has substance, as well as a strong, tight narrative structure. Let's be honest, some of the Craig movies have ended up being a patchwork, some of which works really well, some of which just looks like producer or studio interference. (Ending of Spectre anyone?)
Nolan understands story inside out and has immense visual flair.
Anyone who makes their living from writing commercial stories for mass consumption (and I do) can tell that Nolan has mastery over storytelling. The suspense/action sequences in that film are amongst the best I've seen in years. Perfectly executed. I loved that the backstory conflict was broken down into just a few lines at the start. "The enemy" was the unnamed antagonist. Then right into the suspense narrative with someone running for their life under sniper fire.
The audience I saw that movie with was small. But they were all affected by it. You could tell by their faces as they left the cinema.
Just wondering what people think of my father's opinion. He's 86 and at the age of nine listened to news of Dunkirk on the radio in a Kansas farmhouse. Anyway, he pronounced himself disappointed because the movie establishes very little historical context and hardly ever calls the enemy by name. He finds this confusing and thinks young people (anyone under 35) will be lost because they don't know who is being fought and why. What do you young folk think?
I think it is refreshing that it doesn't spoonfeed historical context to the audience. And arguably, the historical context is not that important for Nolan's vision of the film as a suspense thriller. But fair enough, some viewers may walk away confused about who the enemy was, and why they were fighting. Luckily they have access to Google and Wikipedia.
I think to younger audiences the historic facts are irrelevant, certainly younger generations are more and more oblivious to events like ww2, I'm of the where I had direct contact with grandparents who served, my kids havnt had that. Dunkirk the film for younger audiences is just a well made war movie, I know that when I first watched Kellys Heroes or bridge over the river kwai or even the longest day I was ignorant to actual war facts.
Must admit I had Bond on the brain a little watching Dunkirk due to all the Bond Director speculation.
I personally have no doubt he would make a stunning Bond movie, however I think there is a high chance it would be pretty dark and maybe not quite what some fans would like at this moment direction wise, particularly the fans who are looking forward to seeing the back of the DC era.
Funny. Sir Michael Caine in Batman begins..
" What's the point of doing all those sit ups. If you
Can't even lift a bloody bit of wood ?" ( or roughly
That )
Sexy, Cat woman in full leathers and high heels !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Must admit I had Bond on the brain a little watching Dunkirk due to all the Bond Director speculation.
I personally have no doubt he would make a stunning Bond movie, however I think there is a high chance it would be pretty dark and maybe not quite what some fans would like at this moment direction wise, particularly the fans who are looking forward to seeing the back of the DC era.
A few weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation, Fleming was sent on a mission to France primarily to liaise with Vichy French Admiral Jean Darlan to negotiate the surrender of the French fleet to the Royal Navy. However, while there, he assisted the British mission in evacuating, destroying secret papers, and helping British citizens of stature and certain allies of the British board ships bound for England, which included their valuables! In the books about Fleming's WWII service, the narrative of that mission had a very similar feel to the opening scenes of Dunkirk. I don't remember which book said it, but there's an account of Fleming, in the midst of evacuation, sitting calmly in a cafe of a deserted French village enjoying a meal with fine wine of a good vintage.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I'd like to thank Jag, Golrush, and Chriscoop for responding to my question. Hmmm--interesting how Americans are constantly being underestimated. The film wouldn't do well here because it has nothing to do with us (let's see--it's been #1 at the U.S. box office for two straight weekends), just like American men wouldn't want to see an action movie centered around a woman and directed by a woman. We know how that turned out. . .
If you want to be offended for the black man then please be offended at war and poverty and starvation under the dictators in Africa and how people have no freedom and are persecuted for trying to make things democratic. These are the real things to be offended at, not a film!
It's sad how rare this type of movie has become. A quality high-budget movie about real people having success at the box office. I don't mind a good superhero movie, but that type of movie seem to be almost half the movies at the cinema nowadays. I also can't believe I'm so old I use the word "nowadays'....
I think Nolan is enough of a creative artist to be able to do whatever is needed for the franchise. The variety of what he has done already has proven that. And don't forget he will have the guiding hand of the producers and the studio. Wink wink.
I would imagine that the lack of creative control that he would want will be the main reason he will not do it. I am pretty sure that he had total control over the final version of Dunkirk. At least, if the way he has talked about it in interviews is anything to go by.
I think it's strange that a couple of short comments from a few (two?) journalists about the lack of non-European actors get to dominate the talk about this movie. I think the main thing is that this is a very good movie about an important event in history.
I think Nolan is enough of a creative artist to be able to do whatever is needed for the franchise. The variety of what he has done already has proven that. And don't forget he will have the guiding hand of the producers and the studio. Wink wink.
I would imagine that the lack of creative control that he would want will be the main reason he will not do it. I am pretty sure that he had total control over the final version of Dunkirk. At least, if the way he has talked about it in interviews is anything to go by.
I don't know about Nolan having too little creative control? Mendes pretty much had full control.
I'd like to thank Jag, Golrush, and Chriscoop for responding to my question. Hmmm--interesting how Americans are constantly being underestimated. The film wouldn't do well here because it has nothing to do with us (let's see--it's been #1 at the U.S. box office for two straight weekends), just like American men wouldn't want to see an action movie centered around a woman and directed by a woman. We know how that turned out. . .
I believe I am the guilty party who questioned Dunkirk's success because of the lack of American involvement in the real event and the lack of American actors in the film. After seeing the box office numbers I am delighted to say that I was wrong! Alas, I have to admit I'm wrong about a lot of things with an ever increasing regularity, but rarely am I so happy to do so!
As for your father's opinions, I understand what Nolan was doing in making the film this way, but I too would have preferred a bit of historical context. His reasoning in not showing any Germans was that the overwhelming majority of people on the beach never saw any Germans, and that makes sense. But it would have been fairly easy to have thrown in an extra line or two to establish greater details about what was going on to put everything in context. This isn't a criticism but rather a preference.
I think it's strange that a couple of short comment from a few (two?) journalists about the lack of non-European actors get to dominate the talk about this movie. I think the main thing is that this is a very good movie about an important event in history.
I think it just shows how annoying and unnecessary many find such comments. Its a movie designed to show an historic event in a dramatic awe inspiring fashion at the end of the day its entertainment. I've heard a few comments from people disappointed that the film doesn't follow or show any of the little ships like the lady isabelle, a Thames day boat that made two trips to Dunkirk. But that's all the criticism I've actually heard, in these days of huge blockbuster hero movies and cgi extravaganzas I think it sounds like Nolan has done an impressive job. I completely agree with number 24
I saw it here in Boston last weekend in IMAX with my whole family. The 5:30 show was sold out - everyone LOVED it. Just when I get discouraged about the quality of movies these days I am pleasantly surprised. I wish they were all this good!
How well was the Dunkirk evacuated known in the US before the movie came out?
I think it was pretty well known--radio reports (again, my dad heard all about it as a little kid in Kansas), newsreel coverage, and newspapers were all on it, as they were on all aspects of the war until the U.S. entered. That said, there was still ignorance. Desmond Llewelyn claimed he wasn't fond of Americans because after he was liberated from being a prisoner of war a G.I. asked him how long he'd been held. Llewelyn told him "Since 1940" and the soldier replied that it was impossible since "we've only been at war since 1941."
The movie seems to be doing well over here in the States,,,at least in our area. I grew up in a family of Anglophiles,,,,that's all we are on both sides is English, Welsh, Scots or Irish...and I remember very well my mom and dad and grandmother telling us kids about listening to the radio about Dunkirk and other events before the US was involved in the war...Us baby boomers may be the last generation of Americans to truly appreciate what the other countries like Britain, France, Greece and Norway etc sacrificed before we got into the fight..
"I don't know if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or imbeciles who mean it."-Mark Twain
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I'd like to thank Jag, Golrush, and Chriscoop for responding to my question. Hmmm--interesting how Americans are constantly being underestimated. The film wouldn't do well here because it has nothing to do with us (let's see--it's been #1 at the U.S. box office for two straight weekends), just like American men wouldn't want to see an action movie centered around a woman and directed by a woman. We know how that turned out. . .
I believe I am the guilty party who questioned Dunkirk's success because of the lack of American involvement in the real event and the lack of American actors in the film. After seeing the box office numbers I am delighted to say that I was wrong! Alas, I have to admit I'm wrong about a lot of things with an ever increasing regularity, but rarely am I so happy to do so!
As for your father's opinions, I understand what Nolan was doing in making the film this way, but I too would have preferred a bit of historical context. His reasoning in not showing any Germans was that the overwhelming majority of people on the beach never saw any Germans, and that makes sense. But it would have been fairly easy to have thrown in an extra line or two to establish greater details about what was going on to put everything in context. This isn't a criticism but rather a preference.
My wild theory about Dunkirk's success in America is that it's due to the Emperor's New Clothes effect, in that key influencers among society are raving about the intensity of the movie and how they appreciate finally having a well-done movie about the Miracle of Dunkirk...then others following suit with, " ...uh, yeah, that's right, finally a proper movie about Done Kirk."
I'm cynical about America's youth, esp. watching those random interviews on YouTube in the mall, beach, etc., asking teenagers questions like, "Do you think the independence we won from the Japanese in 1776 was a decisive victory?" When my son was in high school, he had a classmate named Fidel Castro and he mentioned in class something about that novelty, then the popular girl asked, "Who's Fidel Castro?"
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I haven't seen the film yet, but is it possible that its success is due to being a well-made film by a leading director with several recognisable star names that is not a sequel, remake, part of a franchise, TV adaptation, etc? Perhaps audiences are finally tiring of such movies?
(Yes, it's ironic that this comes from a fan of one of the leading franchises, I know.)
Comments
In a way, I am glad you disagree! We would not be having this discussion and exchanging views if we all had the same opinions. Whether it’s only me who sees the movie as a political commentary about Brexit is absolutely irrelevant. The movie had been made and released. The director and scriptwriters expressed whatever they wanted to. Now it’s up to the viewers to interpret it. Art, including movies, has always been inspired by current events. Take Shakespeare or Homer, and you will see how much symbolism and indirect reference to contemporary events there is there. I won’t argue about what came first, the movie or Brexit, but both took a long time, and even if it was just a coincidence, the coincidence would be highly significant.
I also have never said that anyone is, should or will be offended by anything in this movie. In fact, any movie can offend anyone, and people have the right to feel offended. The problem starts only if being offensive was the intention, and it would be crazy to claim that Nolan planned to offend whether Indians, Africans, or the French. so I hope your comment was not meant to say that I suggested any such thing.
Very early on (in this thread, I think) there were speculations that the movie would not be a success in the US, because it's about an event Americans did not participate in and are often not familiar with. But (with reference to my post above), I do not think the producers' intention was to disappoint your father, but he's certainly entitled to his opinion!
Not sure how it is doing in the US however it feels like it has Oscars written all over it.
The sound and score was immense, as mentioned before it was like a horror movie in some parts and really was something else with the planes diving and bombing. It kind of had a Trent Reznor vibe with the industrial drone sounds and chugging strings - i think the sound played a huge part and importance to the picture.
Even though it does not closely follow the overall event im sure it has educated a lot of youngsters to some extent.
I was expecting it to be a really long film, but it did not drag and was near enough a perfect running time for me personally.
Watching this in IMAX must be amazing.
Very strange to have loved a film but not wanting to see again. Is that a good thing lol?
To be honest, I have read this several times and cannot properly understand some of it, this is because I dont read English as good as what I would like.
I do understand this though. You did never said that anyone should be offended. I make this comment general to everyone and I said that in the post. I did say this to you that "Please why do you try to make political things out of this film and also seem very much disturbed that no black soldiers are in the film?" The truth is the truth and history is history. If we and I mean anyone tries to bend the truth to fit their politics or their politcials correctness this is totally wrong. The timing of this film and Brexit saying that it is about Brexit is highly wrong and to disrespect the soldiers. If the peoples who made this film made it such (but they didn't) about brexit then they should hang their heads in shame for disrespecting the soldiers and the history.
To end, people have the right to be offended but do not have the right to say what I as a black man is offended at. This is most offensive at all. Again I want to know if the writer of the reports is black or white. I say this before if he is black then he does not know the history, if he is white then he does not know the history or wants to change the history for the politcals correctness. Both are wrong.
I guess that from your posts you are anti brexit and even perhaps anti British for the brexit? Let me tell you what I think so you know. I am a political refugee in England. I came here because I am to be killed in my country. I came to England and was welcomed. I worked hard to be the good member of the British society and to make sure my children are the same. I pay taxes. In the brexit I respect the peoples vote as this is there will. I would respect it what ever the vote. You see I come from a place where you cannot vote free and that is why. I have much respect for the british peoples and Britian because they took me to their country. I have much respect for the soldiers because I read the history and was indeed a soldier once myself. I will stand for Britain and would fight for her in her army if I was called to do so.
My only wish is to return home where I can help my own peoples, and this I will do when my life is no longer in danger. Until then I am proud to be a citizen of Britain and thank every day that the British peoples allowed me and my family to escape persecution.
But Dunkirk film is about Dunkirk. no body else has said about the Brexit about this film so you must ask yourself why.
Am I offended that there are no black soldiers in the film NO! Should I or black peoples be offended that there are no black soldiers in the film NO! Should we have to suffer peoples who are ignorant of history writing in the newspapers what we should be offended at NO!
If I or other peoples are to be offended that no black soldiers in the film then we are offended only at the truth. Should we be offended at the truth?
I think it is refreshing that it doesn't spoonfeed historical context to the audience. And arguably, the historical context is not that important for Nolan's vision of the film as a suspense thriller. But fair enough, some viewers may walk away confused about who the enemy was, and why they were fighting. Luckily they have access to Google and Wikipedia.
Exactly why I think Nolan would be perfect choice to make a Bond movie that has substance, as well as a strong, tight narrative structure. Let's be honest, some of the Craig movies have ended up being a patchwork, some of which works really well, some of which just looks like producer or studio interference. (Ending of Spectre anyone?)
Nolan understands story inside out and has immense visual flair.
Anyone who makes their living from writing commercial stories for mass consumption (and I do) can tell that Nolan has mastery over storytelling. The suspense/action sequences in that film are amongst the best I've seen in years. Perfectly executed. I loved that the backstory conflict was broken down into just a few lines at the start. "The enemy" was the unnamed antagonist. Then right into the suspense narrative with someone running for their life under sniper fire.
The audience I saw that movie with was small. But they were all affected by it. You could tell by their faces as they left the cinema.
I think to younger audiences the historic facts are irrelevant, certainly younger generations are more and more oblivious to events like ww2, I'm of the where I had direct contact with grandparents who served, my kids havnt had that. Dunkirk the film for younger audiences is just a well made war movie, I know that when I first watched Kellys Heroes or bridge over the river kwai or even the longest day I was ignorant to actual war facts.
I personally have no doubt he would make a stunning Bond movie, however I think there is a high chance it would be pretty dark and maybe not quite what some fans would like at this moment direction wise, particularly the fans who are looking forward to seeing the back of the DC era.
- What funny scenes can you think of in his movies?
- What hot/sexy scenes can you think of in his movies?
These aren't just rhetorical questions, I really want to know.
" What's the point of doing all those sit ups. If you
Can't even lift a bloody bit of wood ?" ( or roughly
That )
Sexy, Cat woman in full leathers and high heels !
A few weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation, Fleming was sent on a mission to France primarily to liaise with Vichy French Admiral Jean Darlan to negotiate the surrender of the French fleet to the Royal Navy. However, while there, he assisted the British mission in evacuating, destroying secret papers, and helping British citizens of stature and certain allies of the British board ships bound for England, which included their valuables! In the books about Fleming's WWII service, the narrative of that mission had a very similar feel to the opening scenes of Dunkirk. I don't remember which book said it, but there's an account of Fleming, in the midst of evacuation, sitting calmly in a cafe of a deserted French village enjoying a meal with fine wine of a good vintage.
+1
I would imagine that the lack of creative control that he would want will be the main reason he will not do it. I am pretty sure that he had total control over the final version of Dunkirk. At least, if the way he has talked about it in interviews is anything to go by.
I don't know about Nolan having too little creative control? Mendes pretty much had full control.
I believe I am the guilty party who questioned Dunkirk's success because of the lack of American involvement in the real event and the lack of American actors in the film. After seeing the box office numbers I am delighted to say that I was wrong! Alas, I have to admit I'm wrong about a lot of things with an ever increasing regularity, but rarely am I so happy to do so!
As for your father's opinions, I understand what Nolan was doing in making the film this way, but I too would have preferred a bit of historical context. His reasoning in not showing any Germans was that the overwhelming majority of people on the beach never saw any Germans, and that makes sense. But it would have been fairly easy to have thrown in an extra line or two to establish greater details about what was going on to put everything in context. This isn't a criticism but rather a preference.
I think it was pretty well known--radio reports (again, my dad heard all about it as a little kid in Kansas), newsreel coverage, and newspapers were all on it, as they were on all aspects of the war until the U.S. entered. That said, there was still ignorance. Desmond Llewelyn claimed he wasn't fond of Americans because after he was liberated from being a prisoner of war a G.I. asked him how long he'd been held. Llewelyn told him "Since 1940" and the soldier replied that it was impossible since "we've only been at war since 1941."
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
My wild theory about Dunkirk's success in America is that it's due to the Emperor's New Clothes effect, in that key influencers among society are raving about the intensity of the movie and how they appreciate finally having a well-done movie about the Miracle of Dunkirk...then others following suit with, " ...uh, yeah, that's right, finally a proper movie about Done Kirk."
I'm cynical about America's youth, esp. watching those random interviews on YouTube in the mall, beach, etc., asking teenagers questions like, "Do you think the independence we won from the Japanese in 1776 was a decisive victory?" When my son was in high school, he had a classmate named Fidel Castro and he mentioned in class something about that novelty, then the popular girl asked, "Who's Fidel Castro?"
(Yes, it's ironic that this comes from a fan of one of the leading franchises, I know.)