Winston Churchill: one of the most hagiographic historical figures due to his efforts in WW2. When I decided to see The Darkest Hour, I was worried that this film would glorify his efforts. However, after watching this film with my dad (who is a WW2 enthusiast), I could say that this film was enjoyable, yet thought-provoking through the lens of a historiographer.
Note: this is a film review so there will be spoilers (and for any grammatical errors).
When I approach historical films, I don't usually view through the lens of historical accuracy. I believe that, despite the director's efforts to make these films as historically accurate as possible, they would have to delete events from the person’s life to increase entertainment value, yet include fictional elements that could enhance the person’s characteristics. So in my review, I won't be nitpicking on the historical accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the film, although, I do have a bone to pick with one of the scenes where Churchill goes to the London Underground and speak to the British citizens.
From my Major Work, I have learnt that as historiographers, our role isn't to nitpick the inaccuracies of historical films. One of the experts that I consulted with stated that it's justifiable for a director to alter some events as long as they claim that don't claim that this is a historical re-enactment. This film is classified as a war drama film, hence the reason why I'm not addressing the inaccuracies.
When I walked into the cinema, I was worried that this film would glorify Churchill as a hero. There are many historians who have published a hagiographic biography of Churchill. On the other side of the spectrum, Churchill has gone through extreme criticism. To be honest, I liked the way the film portrayed Churchill. Personally, I found it difficult to like his character at first. His pettiness and abrasiveness intertwined with witty banter with his wife made me constantly vacillate between liking him and disliking him. Throughout the film, Churchill was constantly under the scrutiny of the Members of Parliament and the public: from Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and King George VI. These three men, along with some gossiping from other minor characters, constantly reminded us of the political mistakes Churchill made prior to his time in office, including his reputation from the Gallipoli Campaign, opposition towards India's self-government and support for Edward VIII's during the Abdication Crisis. This causes him to have a strained relationship with the Members of Parliament, the generals and King George VI.
His mistakes came to bite him back when the British Expeditionary Force was trapped between Dunkirk and Calais. Many of the generals were reluctant to follow Churchill's commands- understandable due to his mistakes from the Gallipoli Campaign. And this was what I liked about the movie; they weren't afraid to criticise his past mistakes through the gossip amongst the Members of Parliament as well as his personality, especially through his wife's rebukes, reminding him of his role as the Prime Minister and ensuring him that his flaws make him wise. One of my favourite quotes from Clementine Churchill (from the movie) was: 'Your flaws is what makes you wise.' It reminds us that behind every parliamentarian are mistakes.
Speaking of Clementine Churchill, I loved her dynamic with her husband. Most of the film had her being his supportive wife, yet she was the only brave one to criticise her husband. When Churchill was crippling with self-doubt, his wife was there to encourage him and makes sure that he is confident with every decision he makes. It goes by the saying that behind every great man is a woman. She may not be considered empowering in the masculine sense, but she does embody empowerment in a feminine way, sacrificing her want of Churchill's attention in order to ensure that he succeeds in his political career.
I did mention previously about the fictional scene of Churchill going into the London Underground. I found it interesting for the scriptwriter to include this scene. A lot of fictional scenes don't go well with critics and historians. Yet I enjoyed it. One of the biggest problems Churchill faced was his desire to keep the public ignorant in terms of the number of casualties in Dunkirk. His conversation with secretary Elizabeth Layton- whose brother was stationed in Dunkirk- made him realise how important it was for him to ensure everyone was aware of the War Cabinet's decisions. Churchill's insistence that the Allies were not losing caused the French politicians to declare that 'he's delusional.' This was contrasted with his interactions with the British citizens, asking them about establishing a peace treaty with Germany. Of course, the citizens declared that they were willing to 'fight the Fascists,' and thus the formation of his infamous speech 'We shall fight on the beaches.' This allowed him to rally support from his party and the Opposition.
Although I did mention that the film constantly reminded us of Churchill's past mistakes, I was a bit iffy with the final shot of Churchill walking out of the chamber of the House of Commons, where he walked through a clear path with the Labour and Liberal party on both sides, cheering and throwing papers into the air. It kinda felt like a Biblical reference to Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey whilst people welcomed him, laying their clothes and waving their palm branches. Or maybe it's just me over-analysing the scene and me just going to a Catholic school.
Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Gary Oldman's performance as Winston Churchill was very believable- usually I'm very iffy with Golden Globe/Oscar nominations but I think Oldman's performance is well-deserving of an Oscar. I think this is a great film for any History Extension students, especially those who are doing Churchill as an elective or are just studying historical films as their Major Work. Throughout the film, I couldn't help but think about any historiographical issues involved in this film. And that's the greatest part of historical films. Sure, it may be irritating to see historical inaccuracies, but as historiographers, we should be questioning the artistic choices made by the director rather than treat it as a biographical film or a documentary.
Hopefully, there will be some people who will watch this film! Would love to have a discussion with you guys about the film
Home
Help
Search
Login
