In her Guardian article Why the lack of Indian and African faces in Dunkirk matters, Sunny Singh does an amazing job describing the horrors of identity politics, especially considering the amount of concrete she carries around between her ears.
Historian John Broich says the Indian soldiers in Dunkirk were “particularly cool under fire and well organised during the retreat.”
“They weren’t large in number, maybe a few hundred among hundreds of thousands, but their appearance in the film would have provided a good reminder of how utterly central the role of the Indian Army was in the war,” he told Slate.
Singh suggests director Christopher Nolan is a racist bigot for only showing people of color in one shot. Given that, according to an actual historian, there were perhaps a few hundred Indian soldiers out of hundreds of thousands at Dunkirk, the one fleeting shot would seem to be historically accurate. Instead of comprehending how film narrative is built and tension and pacing is maintained, Singh’s racist radar detects sinister motives behind the film’s WHITEWASH.
Does this removal of those deemed “foreign” and “other” from narratives of the past express a discomfort with the same people in the present? More chillingly, does it also contain a wish to excise the same people from a utopian, national future?
In the fractured reality Sonny Singh lives in, white filmmakers not illustrating the deeds of non whites obviously are trying to create an all white England. She continues in the same manner for most of the article. Perhaps a film making class would be instructive. Could it be that Nolan chose to limit the characters to white British men because the vast majority of those at Dunkirk happened to be white British men? Was it a sinister racist plot to erase people of color from the past and the future, or was it a choice made to simplify a chaotic situation into a comprehensible narrative. What is more likely, Nolan and his racist minions are part of a not so secret cabal to annihilate and expunge the presence of non white participants in WWII in order to begin the process of racial purification in Europe, or that Nolan produced a stylized piece of entertainment with the hopes of kicking ass at the box office?
“Dunkirk is not a war movie, it’s a survival story, and foremost a suspense film,” claims Nolan. Is his claim a smokescreen for racist, white nationalist tendencies? A quick look into his bio seems to suggest he is a very successful director of commercial movies…most of which are suspense films.
To follow Singh’s logic, it is an act of racist aggression every time a film is made that does not represent exactly the racial component of any given place at any given time. To protect Singh’s sensibilities production companies will need to hire historians and demographics experts to meet her lofty demands of perfect racial historical representation, narrative be damned. Artistic expression should be limited to dressed up demographic studies to insure the inclusion of everyone and defeat the forces of the great WHITEWASH.
Singh could have written an article describing the heroism and sacrifices made by people of color in the British empire during WWII and called for the next up and coming young filmmaker to tell their story. What a fascinating film that could be. Instead, she chose to see racism. She chose to suggest that Nolan and his ilk are really making films to purify England of undesirables.
Could it be that Sunny Singh is a racist bigot?