Darkest Hour (2017)

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Lots of praise from many quarters for this movie.  Many have mentioned there are some invented characters and scenes which is quite common for historical biographics.  Add me to the list of admirers.

I read Churchill's epic autobiographical  multi-volume history this past year and was quite eager to see the movie.  I had not realized that he felt some warmth for Chamberlain, despite how wrongheaded Mr. "Peace In Our Time" was.  Would the movie portray something like this?  Well, no.  However, Neville was given a reasonably moderate treatment - especially from the time he took ill with cancer  (this part matches what Churchill wrote).   Halifax, quite rightly in my estimation, is seen as a menace.

Another major curiosity I had was how the King would be shown.   Churchill wrote with great affection and a significant amount of admiration for His Majesty.   I believe the movie shines in its nuanced presentation of him.  I'm not so certain of the enormous significance of King George as placed in the movie, but I will not deny the power of the scenes.  The movie also excels in its portrayal of Winston's wife, Clemmy (Clementine).  Excellent stuff.

I could watch Lily James read the proverbial telephone book and be glad.  Yet she may have been a bit too much of a stretch as a trusted and essential clerical secretary.  Having said this, the best scene for me was one between Oldman and James where a massive amount was unspoken (I LOVE the deep irony that the most quiet scene about the great orator is paradoxically the one in which the most  is communicated).

The movie follows roughly his first month in office and things are looking rather bleak (Dunkirk disaster, for example) for the West.  Everything depended upon the USA.  In that time, it was no sure thing that she would fully enter the fray, or even intervene to buy Britain some time.  Churchill had to hold things together and give hope where little was to be found.  This telling says the internal struggle(s) were much deeper than most histories relate.  I found Oldman to be brilliant in portraying near-despair, but not quite on point when he needed to exude power as Winston most certainly did.  Oscar award?  Works for me.

If you have an interest in WW II or of Churchill in particular, this is an essential movie.  If you would care to consider some eerie parallels to our current world situation, this movie could be revelatory.   One word of caution.  It is near-impossible to discern some of the words.  The thick British accents inherently make it difficult for an American to make out everything said.  Add to it some annoying swelling of music and it is indeed impossible to interpret some words and phrases.  Having said this, I love this movie and I urge everyone to seek it out.

[Blergh]

Thanks for your review, Lonesome!

I give it an A out of A Plus. Yes, Mr. Oldham captured the complexities of this intriguing, passionate yet often difficult person quite well and deserves at least an Oscar nom for it.

  Also, a plus that the movie pondered the good probability of the relationship between Churchill and King George VI going from mistrust and surface civility for protocols' sake to becoming a warm, sincere mutual friendship by the time of the former's famous speech!  I realize that they did NOT depict His Majesty's own speech challenge in this movie but, inasmuch as that might have distracted from the concept of how their friendship evolved, it's just as well.

 Oh, and I also liked how they depicted the bond between the parental Churchills. Yes, it's quite true that Lady Churchill understood his complexities and was very protective& supportive of him. However; Clementine Hozier Churchill herself also was plagued by the 'black dog' (depression) and one could even say she was high strung. Moreover, they had  been awkward children who   dealt with bombastic fathers (in her case, her legal father) as well as mothers who were 'belles of the ball' (Clemmie's mother Lady Blanche to the extent that there's serious evidence that Clemmie was NOT Sir Henry Hozier's actual daughter). 

   I also thought that how the senior Churchills related to their offspring and daughter-in-law were a bit sanitized. Yes, all the junior Churchills COULD be cheerleaders and were fans of the patriarch's brilliance. However; (with the pointed exception of the youngest daughter Mary who was the family peacekeeper and caregiver her entire long life ), though they loved their children (and weren't reticent in showing it), the bonds between parents and the son & elder daughters were often quite strained though never entirely broken. I realize that there was only so much the movie could depict in the time it had and the focus was more on how Churchill dealt with the fate of the nation than his family (and it was made with the co-operation of the Churchill survivors) but I think that somewhat took a little away from it.

 

 Also, while Churchill's trademark cigars were often in use, a large number of adults smoked in all public places save church in that time and place and would not have been put off by them.

  Yes, overall, I think it depicted him and the time and place quite well and there wasn't a false performance in the movie so I agree it's well worth seeking out.

[angora]

6 hours ago, Blergh said:

Also, a plus that the movie pondered the good probability of the relationship between Churchill and King George VI going from mistrust and surface civility for protocols' sake to becoming a warm, sincere mutual friendship by the time of the former's famous speech!  I realize that they did NOT depict His Majesty's own speech challenge in this movie but, inasmuch as that might have distracted from the concept of how their friendship evolved, it's just as well.

I thought Ben Mendelsohn's performance as King George VI was great, and probably quite a feat to step into those shoes after having seen Colin Firth (Mendelsohn and Matthew Macfadyen could start a club.)  I liked how his speech was inflected with these little pauses before certain words/sounds, like he was steeling himself before the word so as NOT to stammer - it was a nice little detail that gave a nod to that part of his life without making all his dialogue about that.

[choclatechip45]

I enjoyed it. Gary Oldman was fantastic.

[annzeepark914]

We thought it was good but the movie easily could've been a half hour shorter.  Had a hard time understanding "Churchill" w/ all the mumbling and British accent.  Wish they'd cast another actress to play the secretary's role instead of Lily James. I loved the initial V for Victory sign (until his secretary told him what was wrong with it).  I guess you could say that one was for the Nazis!

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 1/4/2018 at 9:12 PM, Lonesome Rhodes said:

One word of caution.  It is near-impossible to discern some of the words.  The thick British accents inherently make it difficult for an American to make out everything said.  Add to it some annoying swelling of music and it is indeed impossible to interpret some words and phrases. 

Thanks for reporting on this.  That's what I miss so much about the imdb forums--you could ask how thick the accents are, and people would answer, with only a few snide remarks about how Americans are inferior beings for not being able to understand them.  Very useful information.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On a more shallow, but important, note, I really appreciated the way they handled showing the date.  Whenever a date appears on a screen, I try to sear it into my mind because there will probably be another date shown and I know I will have forgotten the first one, so I'm not going to have the baseline.  But in this one, when they showed a new date, they showed the previous date and rolled it to the new one.  Thank you!!  I did forget the very first date they showed, but I knew we were going in increments of just a day or a few days.

 

On 1/4/2018 at 9:12 PM, Lonesome Rhodes said:

Having said this, the best scene for me was one between Oldman and James where a massive amount was unspoken (I LOVE the deep irony that the most quiet scene about the great orator is paradoxically the one in which the most  is communicated).

Because I read this before I saw the movie, I went in knowing there would be a quiet scene, but now I don't remember it.  What scene was it?

[SeanC]

One of the first non-fiction books I owned as a child was a (very picture-heavy) biography of Churchill, and as I went on to study history, I read and wrote a fair bit about him over the years, culminating in the use of Churchill's image by neoconservatives being the subject of my MA thesis.  So I'm definitely in the top target demographic for a movie like this, and I thought it was pretty good on the whole.

The main attraction here is, of course, Oldman, who's totally transformed here; the makeup work is really remarkable some of the best I can recall as far as turning an actor who doesn't especially look like the person they're playing into that person.  Absolutely should win the Oscar for that.

The rest of the cast is good, though largely in the shadows, as this is mostly the Oldman show.  James and Mendelsohn are probably the best in terms of getting their own moments; in the latter's case, he has probably the strongest resemblance to King George VI of any of the recent actors to play him (he's had a very good 2010s as far as pop culture presence goes).

Joe Wright has been one of my favourite directors as far as visual style goes since I first saw Pride & Prejudice, and he does a remarkable amount here with what is mostly a series of conversations in dark rooms.  And he works to get the most out of the few shots set away from the war cabinet room, etc., such as the cutaways to the frontlines (the one shot of the armada heading toward Dunkirk was probably bigger in scope than anything in the actual Dunkirk film from earlier this year).

I like the idea behind the (fictionalized) underground sequence (particularly a lot of Great Man biopics reduce historical events only to a few people, so the idea of showing Churchill drawing on the resolve of ordinary working people is a good one), but I think it could have been written a bit better.

Edited January 27, 2018 by SeanC

[thuganomics85]

First thing's first, I totally want to rewatch this back to back with Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, because they really serve as companion pieces with one another by following those events from both the frontlines and then behind the scenes.  Never would have predicted that 2017/2018 would be the year about learning that event!

As for this film itself, despite the boring, no fun part of my brain trying to be all "This is clearly Oscar-bait in the highest form" about it, I found myself enjoying it quite a bit, even if they did take some liberties and ignore a lot of Winston Churchill's negative aspects.  But I always enjoy seeing how British politics differ compare to the States (even if a lot of times, it just boils down to me thinking that Parliament is way more lively, theatric and fun then boring old Congress), and the conflicts and dilemmas that came with it, and how Churchill handled.  You can tell how much it hurt him and everyone to basically send 4,000 soldiers to their deaths, but if it meant saving 300,000, in his mind, it had to be done.  Situations like that is why I would never want that job.

Again, the no fun part of me wants to roll my eyes over how obviously Oscar-baity it is to have Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill, but damn, if he doesn't pull it off.  Honestly, they really did make me forget that it was the same guy who plays Jim Gordon, Sirus Black, or any of the various classic villains he has played.  Obviously, the make-up and prosthetics were fantastic, but he just embodied him in such a way that I really forgot it was Oldman and not the real Churchill.  I can totally see why he is getting the award love (there was at least five scenes where I was thinking "Oh, the voters are going to love that!"), and it is deserved.

The rest of the cast was good as well.  It was nice seeing Ben Mendelsohn play against time and I liked his interpretation of George VI, even if obviously wasn't as big (or iconic) as Colin Firth's in The King Speech.  Lily James is truly one of the most stunning women on the planet and also one of the most likable and charismatic ones as well.  Was just a little amused at seeing Stephen Dillane once again play a wannabe leader that has to contend with a more charismatic and outgoing one (also reminded me of his episode on The Crown that was very Churchill-centric.)  Ronald Pickup (awesome name) was solid as Chamberlain, although I will wonder how John Hurt's version would have been (he was apparently the original choice until has passing.)  I did think Kristen Scott Thomas was wasted as Clemmie.

While I don't think he's the best director of all time or anything, I do think Joe Wright has a certain theatrical style that I find myself digging in his films.  Even when the film's themselves don't fully work (oh, Pan!)

[snickers]

I thought this movie showed a good piece of history, had no idea England was losing that badly.....

I'm assuming Gary Oldman will win the oscar for this...and while it is deserved, overall i thought the movie was good, but not great....I was kind of hoping for more battle scenes thought i know the movie is supposed to be about churchill, not the war, but i thought the trailers made the movie look slightly deceiving regarding that

[Silver Raven]

Man, what a performance by Oldman.  He really blew me away.  And a big shout out to the makeup people. Even with all of the closeups, you couldn't discern the makeup.

My favorite scene was the one in the underground.  I doubt that it really happened, but still, quite the emotional scene.

[proserpina65]

Saw this over the weekend and loved it.  I didn't expect there to be so much humor, given the period covered.  The supporting performances were great, particularly those of Ben Mendelsohn and Stephen Dillane, but this was Gary Oldman's show.  Man, if you hadn't known going in that was him, you'd never have been able to figure it out.  Just give him that Oscar now.

[SlovakPrincess]

On February 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM, proserpina65 said:

Saw this over the weekend and loved it.  I didn't expect there to be so much humor, given the period covered.  

"Madam, all babies look like me."   And of course the scene where Miss Layton has to explain what his backwards victory sign really meant.   I LOL'ed.

 

The acting was superb - Gary Oldman completely disappeared into the role.  I really appreciated the portrayal of the king, the subtle pauses in his speech as a nod to his famous stammer, and the way you can see him starting to understand Churchill when Churchill talks openly about his distant parents over lunch.  Chamberlain got a more complex, and sympathetic, portrayal than I was expecting, and was actually a pretty compelling character.  The actress playing Miss Layton put a lot of heart into a character that could have ended up as one-note.  And Kristen Scott Thomas as Clemmie was fantastic.  

For a movie that was mostly speeches and people being incredibly stressed out and arguing, it was pretty intense and engrossing.  

If you rent it, I would recommend using the caption feature, for the mumbling issues others have mentioned.

 

If you ever get the chance and are in London, I highly recommend going to the museum they made out of the Winston Churchill underground tunnel war rooms, which are shown in the movie.  You can even see the map room!  

[supposebly]

I haven't seen it and I'm not planning to and a few of the reasons is pretty well written about in this piece in the Toronto Star. The glorification of Churchill in British pop culture.

Churchill the barbaric monster

[VCRTracking]

Saw this last month and thought it was a very well produced historical drama. Would make a great double feature with Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk! Gary Oldman deserved the Oscar. You really forget it's him under makeup. The other actors were also excellent: Kristen Scott Thomas as his wife, Ben Mendelsohn as King George VI, Steve Dillane as Halifax and Lily James as the young secretary.

Churchill certainly wasn't a saint IRL and his views about empire wouldn't fly today but as Ralph Ingersoll said in 1940 "He was simply the right man in the right job at the right time. The time being the time of a desperate war with Britain's enemies." He was a great war time leader and without him Britain would have made peace with Hitler which would have saved them in the short term but would have been calamitous for the world.

ETA: Fun to learn in the director's commentary that David Strathairn did the voice for FDR in that great scene where Churchill in desperation calls and asks him to lend Britain some warships. Originally it was planned to have an actor playing FDR on the other end of the phone but the director thought it worked better to not cut away from Oldman's performance.

Edited July 10, 2018 by VCRTracking