Skip to main content

The Hour of Churchill


Winston Churchill has been depicted on film and television numerous times, and portrayed by great actors giving great performances at that. And the focus has nearly always been on his career as Prime Minister during the Second World War, the defining point of his life. So director Joe Wright had to have confidence his interpretation Darkest Hour would stand out among the multitudes. The good news is it does, but only in a couple areas.
Taking place over the period of one month from May to June 1940, the film portrays Winston Churchill’s (Gary Oldman) appointment to Prime Minister of Great Britain following the Parliamentary lack of confidence in Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). As France becomes lost to the Germans, Britain is under threat of invasion and Churchill feels immense pressure as he attempts to strategize and protect the nation while rebuking notions of peace negotiations and harsh opposition within his very own War Cabinet.
How is it there have been two movies this year about Dunkirk? That’s kind of the main problem with Darkest Hour and it’s partially just down to poor luck. Though it’s focus in the last two acts is on the lead-up to Operation Dynamo from the perspective of someone far from the action rather than the evacuation itself, you can’t help be reminded constantly that this story was done a lot better in Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk. Not that Churchill’s life and actions were uninteresting by any means, but there’s not nearly as much investment when you’re not actually seeing the front lines of battle. It’s mostly political manoeuvring. And Wright doesn’t shoot the film all that uniquely, excepting a couple overhead shots and large-scale pan-outs meant to make the war feel close at hand. The film is also selective about how it portrays Churchill, not going as far into his personality as they could have, concentrating more on the event. There’s one scene late in the film that reeks of inauthenticity even if it may have roots in truth. Very little feels fresh.
The one area where the movie really shines is the character focus on Churchill, and to that, Oldman is fantastic. Gary Oldman remains one of the best actors never to have won an Oscar and this is another great chameleon performance of his. He’s unrecognisable, in part because of the heavy prosthetics, but the make-up is actually really good, you almost can’t tell these aren’t Oldman’s actual features. And he’s putting a good ton of effort into the part. Churchill is played as a tough, humourous, and resolute politician, but one who’s also struggling with the weight on his shoulders as well as his reputation. He can’t live down his role in the Galipoli disaster of the First World War and you get the sense he’s trying to prove himself, and that in this case, fighting to the end is the best option. This isn’t necessarily the films’ philosophy, as through Chamberlain and Viscount Halifax it makes good arguments to the contrary, but it feels true to Churchill. There does seem to be a genuine attempt to make the audience think about what they would do in his position. Oldman’s not the only actor giving a great performance though. Kristin Scott Thomas plays Clementine Churchill, and is wonderful as usual. Lily James plays Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton, through whom we see some of Churchill’s more unflattering character traits, some uncomfortable ways he conducts himself. And they may have warranted a little further discussion. Stephen Dillane is really good as Halifax, Churchill’s antagonist, and Ronald Pickup makes for a good Chamberlain -though I would have loved to have seen the late great John Hurt in the role he was originally cast for. Ben Mendelsohn is a serviceable George VI, who frequently meets with Churchill to discuss or criticize his policies.
The atmosphere of gloom at the impending British invasion is decently built, though the title cards indicating the passing days are very distracting. But while it’s all executed fine, it’s not entirely compelling. Had the film focussed on Churchill’s life in general, or his early career rarely seen on film, this movie would be more effective. That being said, this movie is carried by Oldman’s performance and a real human portrayal of Churchill. And his famous Parliamentary address of 4th June 1940 is delivered with stupendous fervour. It’s an incredible speech already, and Oldman really relates it with passion enough it can be moving.
It’s curious watching this film after Dunkirk, especially how the two fit together. You could stop Darkest Hour near the end and watch Dunkirk from that point on. But Nolan’s film is more skilfully made and more unconventional. Darkest Hour works well enough thanks to Oldmans’ performance and some of the performances around him, but it’s not as gripping or urgent as it should feel. It’s not a lot more than “another Churchill movie”.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more