Darkest Hour (2017)

I'm not sure why I didn't watch this sooner. It looked like one of the more promising Academy Best Picture nominees of the year. Maybe on some level, I thought I already had too good an idea of what it offered, so I gave it a lower priority.

This window on the life of Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman) covers about a month in 1940, starting with the resignation of Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and ending with Churchill's best-known speech, incidentally in connection with the retreat from Dunkirk. The main focus is on him contending with officials who would rather appease Hitler than keep fighting him, including Chamberlain and Lord Halifax (Stephen Dillane) -- who might be able to get Churchill deposed if they can prove that he won't consider peaceful options.

We get a few other interesting characters. Perhaps most relatable is Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), Churchill's new secretary, who gets a rude introduction to him. On the other hand, Clementine (Kristin Scott Thomas), his wife, has a rather good handle on how to put up with him and even love him. The next biggest male role goes to King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn), who bears little resemblance to the one in The King's Speech.

Of course, as you've probably heard, Oldman is the highlight. It's not just his impeccable transformation via makeup; he really acts. Whether he carries himself just like Churchill did, I can't say, but at least he clearly puts on a show. Once you see it, you know why he won multiple awards for it. (Funny how the actor of Commissioner Gordon once again plays a leader popular in wartime but not in peacetime.)

Alas, this acting may have been in the service of a dishonest cause. Complaints about DH's inaccuracies go far beyond anachronisms. In particular, Churchill is said not to have been half so steadfast or alone among officials in his pro-war sentiment; the Labour Party was a big help. Halifax may not have been so conspiratorial. And Churchill would not have had such a big impact on the people in his first month as prime minister.

Being rather detached from UK events, I can't evaluate how seriously to take the accusations of propaganda. I just take everything with a grain of salt, which is good policy in general when dealing with biopics. Reality rarely makes for ideal storytelling.

I will say that if the filmmakers meant to idolize Churchill, they were pretty subtle about it. Americans seem to know him best as a guy with a gift for words, not least in comebacks. But I read a few years ago that he was almost the George W. Bush of his day, getting a boost in approval thanks to a common enemy. That stayed in mind as I saw this rendition of Churchill as a mumbling, demanding, peevish, absent-minded toad who could "mobilize the English language" only after a lot of hard work. If that passes for hero worship, I'd hate to see the genuine article.

If you're looking for performance rather than a trustworthy history lesson or an action-heavy flick, check DH out. I found it worth the 125 minutes plus documentary supplements.