# Talk:Dunkirk (2017 film)

This seems highly unlikely, and given that there'sa lot of mentions of 60 ships being involved seems like confusion has crept in here.Pipsally (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

When I first saw the film at the cinema, I had the impression that some of the Dunkerque buildings depicted where anachronistic, they did not seem to date back to 1940 or earlier, but I told myself: "Maybe it's 1930s modernism".
However when I saw the film again I could not avoid noticing that many houses and port structures are clearly examples of postwar architecture. I made a quick research on the internet and my impression was confirmed. The scenes filmed in Dunkirk and Weymouth show several anachronisms:
1) Several buildings in Dunkirk could not have existed in 1940 (one can see some examples in the first scenes and at the end, when Farrier's plane glides on the beach);
2) Scenes from Weymouth depict modern buildings as well (for example the Sealife tower, completed in 2012);
3) Much of Dunkirk should have been on ruins by that time, while buildings all appear to be in a perfect state;
4) Historians have pointed out that window panes would have been shuttered by the gunfire from street fightings (like the one at the beginning) while there is not a single window damaged;
5) The train car that Tommy and Alex board at the end of the film has been recognised as a 1950s-1960s model.
I thought this could be included in the "Historical accuracy" section but I could not find reliable websites discussing all these issues. Still many of them are in plain sight.
How much of this can actually be included in the wikipedia article?
FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 11:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC+1)

The film is surprisingly slapdash and careless. There appear to be hardly any soldiers on the beach, compared to the reality or the 1958 film Dunkirk (which was made with the British Army's co-operation). The train carriage at the end is clearly of 1970s vintage and anyone old enough will recognise the seat fabric and the vinyl-and-aluminium walls, partitions and window frames, drastically different from anything seen on the old Southern Railway in 1940. And the Spitfires are for no good reason fooling about only three strong, when in fact they operated in squadron strength of at least twelve at a time, which would have looked and sounded very impressive on screen (adapted later-model Spitfires or digital ones could have been used to make up the numbers in the background, but the director couldn't be bothered), and are shown flying at sea level when in fact they always climbed out to 20,000 feet, where their engines used only half as much fuel as at low altitude. Unfortunately on Wikipedia you can only cite 'secondary sources', mass media articles or books, whose authors often don't know anything. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The page states there is a narrator to Dunkirk, and lists Ellen/Elliot Page in the box and Adam Driver in the cast section. At what point in this film is there even a narrator? I cannot find any sources and through personal viewing there is not a narrator. And if there is, is it Ellen Page or Adam Driver? This is very confusing - is it vandalism? Tobias Reiper (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it worth to mention that the character Mr. Dawson is following the historical character of Charles Lightoller, the most senior Titanic officer surviving, who insisted to sail himself with his private boat to Dunkirk with his son and another boy and particularly made the same trick to escape the Stuka, learned from another son, as Mr. Dawson? 5.146.144.34 (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC

It most certainly is. A splendid article on that very subject appeared in the Daily Mail a couple of years ago: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8341793/Hero-rescued-scores-Titanic-did-Dunkirk.html Unfortunately, the Daily Mail is deemed unreliable by Wikipedia and a contributor has removed the reference to the article. This is clearly preposterous. The content is not in any way contentious or objectionable or subject to political bias. It's a simple feature story, and an interesting one. There shouldn't be any objection to it. Unfortunately, Mark Rylance and Christopher Nolan stop just short of saying in so many words that Dawson is based on Lightoller - short enough for the Wikipedians to say it doesn't meet their criteria. Hengistmate (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User: Zawed says that Alan Deere wasn't the basis for the character of “Farrier” in the film. Some of the refs we have only say Farrier's experience "most closely resembles" that of Al Deere - this is not the same as based on. Also Levine does not say in his book that Farrier is based on Deere.  The History V Hollywood site says "the character Farrier is not directly based on an actual person". Perhaps we should try to figure out to resolve this mystery, depending on the variety of the sources.92.17.199.182 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that connecting Deere specifically to Farrier is somewhat speculative by HvH and shouldn't be given too much credibility. Other RAF fighter pilots also crashed on the Dunkirk beaches, e.g. Geoffrey D. Stephenson, who shot down a Stuka before he crashed his Spitfire. In fact there is an argument Farrier's experiences as depicted in the film more closely resembles those of Stephenson, who not only crashed on the beaches and was made a prisoner of war, but shot down a Stuka before doing so. Like Farrier, he was British (Deere was a New Zealander). Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
For that reason, a rewrite could say that while some outside commentators have compared the character with real people who have similar stories, it still isn't confirmed that this was intentional on the part of the filmmakers. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Why mention it at all? Zawed (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, some users have been adding in the name “Tommy Jensen” in the cast list; as far as I can look up, the “Jensen” name seems to have come out of nowhere; Nolan's script makes it explicit we only know his first name. For this reason, I think we should try to find where "Jensen" came from, and if we don't find any official confirmation, it should be removed.92.17.199.182 (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

At the time the film was released there was some public discussion about the lack of depiction of Black and Asian people (or what Americans call "people of colour"). It predictably lead to "culture wars" type comments at the time, but there was some discussion about this in mainstream media. For example people such as Paddy Ashdown making the point his father had commanded Indian Troops in the real battle at Dunkirk
Granted the issue touches upon "historical accuracy" issue, however the fact that there was controversy at the time the film was released around whether or not it had adequate depiction of non white people is worthy of inclusion in an article about the film. 91.84.189.190 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

MapReader (talk · contribs) has twice reverted editors who included the term "epic" in the lede, providing his opinion that "This film is clearly not an epic". Yet, I count 12 references in the article that calls the film "epic", and it is included in Category:Epic films based on actual events. Seems reasonable to me to include the term "epic" in the lede description. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim talk 15:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

By editor, you mean the IP that goes round inserting epic into pretty much every film article he or she comes across?  This film covers just a few days on a single stretch of beach, and the storyline is that most of the soldiers trapped on the beach get taken home.  Ben Hur, Gladiator or Lawrence of Arabia, it ain’t. MapReader (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Your opinion seems to be that an "epic" needs to span multiple days? Unclear why that's the case. And whether you think it rises to the level of these other films is entirely irrelevant. Multiple reliable sources calls it an epic. That's what matters, not our personal viewpoints. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I concur with ZimZalaBim. We need to follow reliable sources and not project our opinions. However, the first sentence is very bloated with "epic... historical war thriller film" which is not in line with MOS:FILMLEAD. What is the most common genre or subgenre that this film has been called? Possibly just "war film", if more reliable sources state that than anything else? The film being considered an epic film, a historical film, a thriller film, etc. can be discussed in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
As Erik says, the important thing here is sources and WP:FILMLEAD. Pick the main genre identified by sources and trim the rest. Realistically most films can be placed into multiple genres or subgenres, our job is to keep it simple and stick to the sources. Popcornfud (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)