At the end of a generally good review for the upcoming Dunkirk in USA Today, the reviewer writes (with emphasis added by yours truly):
The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. Still, Nolan’s feat is undeniable: He’s made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice.
Hm. In a war fought almost exclusively by men, in Northwestern Europe which was, in 1940, almost entirely white1, go figure.
[1] In fact a large part of France’s army was colonial troops – including many of their best and a significant part of the covering force that allowed the evacuation to happen at all,- were colonial troops from Chad, Morocco, Cameroon, Tunisia, Algeria, Vietnam and, especially, Senegal. It’ll be interesting to see if they turn up.
Well, you can’t enjoy the movies without your checklist. I’m surprised the reviewer didn’t sniff about there not being a gay subplot.
It’s like the folks dissing “Ghost in the Shell” because ScarJo wasn’t Japanese – even though the image of the Major in the original anime was quite Western looking. Or the folks that gave negative “reviews” to “Ender’s Game” because of Orson Scott Card’s religion even though this did not factor into the story at all. (I just watched this last movie again a couple weeks ago and was impressed again with how good it was.)