Because there were so many women and minorities fighting in World War II, especially during the Dunkirk evacuation.
I reviewed #Dunkirk, which is pretty freaking amazing. Hans Zimmer score is magnificent & One Direction kid's good! https://t.co/FauAiBtis6 pic.twitter.com/lFJDg5MW87
— Brian Truitt (@briantruitt) July 17, 2017
From Truitt’s USA Today review:
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.
Huh? Truitt does realize this took place in 1940, right?
The bizarre need for "people of color" in a historical film that didn't include them is a mental illness.
— Lansford (@eserkes) July 20, 2017
Or it’s actually disrespectful to people of color and women to put them into historical movies just so you can pretend you’re diverse.
Perhaps a few history lessons might be of help.
— paul cooper (@pcoop2) July 20, 2017
If only these people would read something other than Harry Potter.
https://twitter.com/JacobosIsLife/status/887323333641089024
Diversity for diversity’s sake is all the rave in Hollywood these days.
Related:
WHOA: Even some SJWs think Teen Vogue’s Lauren Duca went too far with man-hating tweet
WHOA: Tariq Nasheed out-Tariq Nasheed’s himself with DERP-filled #OJSimpsonParole tweet
DUH: Alyssa Milano is SHOCKED Republican women, minorities and gays are treated like garbage
Join the conversation as a VIP Member