Do you agree with this interpretation of Dunkirk?
In this essay, I am going to explain a painting of Dunkirk, which was painted by a British painter in 1940. The artist, who painted the picture, was called Charles Cundall. He was sent by the British government to paint a picture about The Evacuation at Dunkirk. His main aim for painting this picture was to make Germany look bad and Britain look good. Therefore he had a reason to paint the picture as he was British himself. By looking at the picture I predict that he would not have been sitting in the battle field whilst the war is going of as we would have been exploded to pieces. He could have painted the picture from what he would have remembered whilst this battle was going on. Another way he could have painted his picture is from other people’s memories, which were present whilst the war was going on. Within this essay I am going to focus on three main parts of the picture; the land, the sea and they sky. I will use these three different parts to help me answer the question, so I can analyse what is happening in each part. For each part of the picture I will discuss how it is accurate it is and how it is in-accurate. For the first part of this essay I will discuss the different ways in which the land is accurate and in-accurate. The first point that is accurate about the land is that, we see some bombs in the picture which shows us that the battle field in a noisy and horrible place. Within the picture not many bombs are shown, as not all the sky is black. This is an in-accurate aspect as in a war, more than six or seven go of at a time which fills most of sky. Also we see soldiers in the painting, suggesting that they have gone there for a purpose.
Within this painting in-accurate information is also shown. The men are portrayed as calm and not bothered, about the fact that, bombs are exploding above their heads. I actual...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document