Well, I finally got around to seeing the new Winston
Churchill movie. You may have heard of
it – “Darkest Hour”. It is garnering
a lot of awards buzz and has already pocketed the Best Actor Golden Globe. The movie covers the first few weeks of
Churchill’s first tenure as Prime Minister.
The title alludes to the fact that those weeks coincided with the lowest
moment in the war for Great Britain. The
Norway debacle was underway and France was being pummeled by the
Wehrmacht. Dunkirk takes place during
the movie’s time frame. It is directed
by Joe Wright (“Atonement”) and written by Anthony McCarten (Oscar nominee for
“The Theory of Everything”). Gary Oldman
stars as Churchill. He spent over 200
hours in makeup. He smoked over 400
cigars during the filming at a cost of over $20,000. He was the sixth actor from the Harry Potter
movies to portray Churchill.
The movie opens with newsreel scenes to set the time
as May, 1940 with the Nazis on the rampage.
Parliament is looking for a replacement for the appeaser Neville
Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). In a
raucous Commons, a Labour Party Member makes a fiery speech demanding that
Chamberlain step down. Cries of “Go! Go!
Resign! Resign!” cascading upon Churchill’s empty seat. Chamberlain reads the mood and wants Lord
Halifax (Stephen Dillane) to replace him.
The only other choice is Winston.
Egads! When Halifax
declines, King George VI (Ben
Mendelsohn) summons Churchill to an awkward meeting at the Palace. Not a fan. We are introduced to Churchill’s
new secretary, a comely mousey Elizabeth Layton (Lily James) and we empathize
with her as she deals with the irascible Winny through the stress-laden next
few weeks. While the soldiers are facing
the stress of the Nazi juggernaut, Churchill is having to deal with cabinet
dysfunction. Chamberlain and Halifax are
plotting his demise based on his refusal to negotiate a peace deal with the
unbeatable foe. Will Winny cave to the
pacifists? Go see the movie or go back
to school to find out.
For those
hoping for a companion to the recent “Dunkirk”, “Darkest Hour” does not
really fill in the macro elements. As I
mentioned, it concentrates mostly on whether Churchill should negotiate
peace. This makes it more of a political
thriller than a war movie. It is also
something of a biopic, even though it covers only a few weeks in Churchill’s
life. We do get a vivid picture of his
personality and political talents. All
the famous quirks are here: the love of
whiskey and cigars, the dictating while in the bathtub, the late-night work
sessions, etc. Inclusion of the Layton
character (the stereotypical war correspondent equivalent from war movies) is
effective in depicting his speech writing style. She also acts as the foil for his curmudgeonry. Her first day on the job, he calls her a
“nincompoop”. Clementine (Kristin Scott
Thomas) takes us backstage to see the private “Winny” and we witness his mood
swings. The movie jumps around from the
private quarters to the political settings which are filmed in a “West Wing”
corridor-maneuvering style. The
highlights are the speeches, of course.
In a nod to current attention spans, they are edited to their rousing
parts. The “blood, toil, tears, and
sweat” speech is niftily intercut with its composition.
The reason to see the movie is Oldman’s
performance. He is magnificent and will
win a well-deserved Oscar come May.
However, let’s not go overboard on the accolades. Churchill is an actor-proof character. Can you name an actor who blew the role? He may be the best yet, but the others were
pretty darn good, too. The supporting
cast is fine and Thomas has gotten some Oscar buzz. Pickup and Dillane do a good job sliming the
reputations of Chamberlain and Halifax.
Movies need villains, right?
Mendelsohn does not attempt to out-stutter Colin Firth. Lily James is something of a weak-link in a
stock role, but you have to credit her agent with putting her in this film and
“Baby Driver” in the same year.
Wright does a nice job directing. The cinematography has some showiness to
it. He is fond of aerial views to
literally give the big picture. It
sometimes comes off as the only time he wants to depict the war is from a
plane. In fact, the movie does not
intercut to the boys on the beach. We do
witness a political battle and spend a lot of time following Churchill through
the corridors of power. Speaking of
which, someone needed to tell the person in charge of lighting that in the case
of the title “darkest” is not literal.
This is one dark movie, and I mean that literally. The dialogue is what you would expect,
especially when Churchill is talking. He
gets the bon mots, which is appropriate, but Clemmy gets to be charmingly
snarky. The music is of the Masterpiece
Theater variety.
The weakness is in the plot. The decision to concentrate on the peace
negotiation issue is a curious one. It
does allow for a standard biopic plot where the protagonist goes through an arc
of uncertainty, but for Churchill fans it leaves you wondering about the
veracity of his vacillating. He goes
from apparently being the only one against peace talks to almost becoming a
hippie. It just doesn’t ring true. The machinations of Chamberlain and Halifax
seem Snidely Whiplashish. I left the theater scratching my head about its
accuracy. See below to find out if I had
reason for concern.
“Darkest Hour” is a must-see for history
buffs. If you have never seen a
Churchill movie (and shame on you if you haven’t), you’ll get the gist of why
he was special. Oldman’s performance
alone makes it a must-see. In this it
reminds of “Lincoln”, but the latter picture is superior. Not because Day-Lewis did a better acting
job, but the plot was more interesting.
Lincoln had better enemies.
GRADE
= B
HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The
movie opens on May 8, 1940. Parliament
is in an uproar over the Norway debacle.
The movie does not make that clear, possibly because Churchill was a
major cause of that debacle. It was
basically his baby, but ironically he did not have to shoulder much of the
blame. The blowback squarely targeted
Chamberlain, as depicted in the opening speech by an opponent. The movie makes a point of Churchill being
conspicuously absent, but in reality he was there to support Chamberlain and
tried to take responsibility for Norway.
Chamberlain and the King did prefer Halifax and he did decline for
reasons not really explored in the movie.
It certainly implies his motives were shady, which is a shame because
some historians argue it was an act of statesmanship. Apparently, he felt it was not the right
moment for him and he modestly felt that being from the House of Lords would
make it uncomfortable for the Commons to have him in charge. He and Chamberlain did push the idea of
opening a peace channel through Mussolini, but I could find no evidence that
they were trying to bring down Churchill if he refused to toe their line. The movie has them absurdly trying to set up
Churchill. The King did not want
Churchill and the movie does mention his anger over Churchill siding with
Edward VIII in the Abdication Crisis.
Their first meeting was awkward.
The idea that
Churchill wavered on the peace issue is only loosely based on reality. He did toy with Halifax’s suggestion of
sending a message to Mussolini, but he did not go very far down that path. There was no tipping point moment where he
listened to the people in the Underground (note the movie’s inclusion of every
demographic in that scene). The subway
scene is pure artistic license and a trite moment in an otherwise serious
movie. The only time Churchill was ever
on a subway train was during the general strike of 1926. The bigger problem with the scene is I am
sure the screenwriter would argue that it reflected the mood of the
people. In reality, a typical subway
group at that time would have been divided over what to do. They would not have been unanimously and
enthusiastically in favor of never surrendering. The follow-up scene where Churchill addresses
the Outer Cabinet is more accurate, although it accepts Churchill’s memory of vocal
support from his peers. That scene
actually resulted not from mingling with the common people, but from an
exchange with Halifax in which his insistence on negotiation got Churchill’s
back up and this mood followed him into the meeting. Enough was enough. No more dilly-dallying. There was no moment where Churchill switched
from considering peace to no surrender.
As far as the
Dunkirk references, the movie is shaky here as well. It implies that Churchill defied the generals
in implementing Operation Dynamo. In
fact, Churchill was unrealistically aggressive-minded as the crisis developed. The
movie does not do a good job of showing how Churchill was brimming with ideas,
but most of them were ridiculous. He did
not order the Calais garrison to make a suicidal counterattack to buy time for
the evacuation. In reality, he ordered
the garrison to hold out where it was to buy time (which it really didn’t). His lack of strategic awareness was
exemplified by his wanting Gen. Gort to counterattack instead of retreating to
the port. It was Gort’s own initiative
that saved the army in the early stages.
Once the siege began, Churchill deserves credit for lighting a fire
under the navy to evacuate the army. He
is correctly given credit for encouraging the use of the little ships, but I do
not know if he can be credited with the idea itself. No matter the quibbles, no one better earned
the right to give the “we will fight on the beaches” speech.
The movie gets some minor details wrong. Layton did not actually come to work for him
until a month later, but that is excusable.
Churchill vetoed any talk of the royal family escaping to Canada. There was no direct phone hookup to the White
House at that time. The conversation between the two heads of
state is a composite of discussions.
Strangely, the movie gives the vibe that FDR’s proposal of using horses
to pull the fighters over the Canadian border was a silly one when in reality
it was a sneaky way to get around Congress and it was implemented. The movie is bad about implying that FDR did
not do enough to help Churchill in his hour of need. It also implies that FDR turned down the
opportunity to give England some destroyers.
The destroyers for bases deal may have come months later, but FDR
arranged it as soon as he could.
Haven't seen it yet, probably won't until it comes out on DVD. But I'm looking forward to it.
ReplyDeleteSome of the books I've read suggest that Churchill told Halifax to contact Mussolini just keep him out of his hair for a while, to push off the final "no peace" discussion until his cabinet was more in hand, so to speak. And Chamberlain did his best to support Churchill once Churchill took power. Churchill was very kind to Chamberlain and Chamberlain recognized and appreciated it. Well...so I've read. Chamberlain did appease Hitler, but he also did his best to get the armed forces ready for war. Spitfire and Hurricane production was ramped up under his administration, even though the country couldn't really afford it.
That pretty much conforms to what I have read. Although I found that Chamberlain leaned toward Halifax until it was nut-cutting time when he supported Churchill. The movie is weak on the Churchill/Chamberlain dynamic.
DeleteIn other words, Chamberlain undercutting Churchill made it more "dramatic."
DeletePerhaps a comparison of this film and the performances therein with the 2002 TV movie "The Gathering Storm" starring Albert Finney might be in order.
ReplyDeleteGood idea. I'll get on it.
DeleteHave you seen this Churchill website. https://richardlangworth.com/ Richard Langworth's site is amazing; not saying it has its issues, but it is interesting to look at. His site also addresses anti-Churchill writers and debunks the myths and criticism they have accused Churchill of in recent years
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Delete