IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (G. Goldstein) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Cheshire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
The Guardian (D. Alberge) article
Churchill [2017] (directed by Jonathan Teplitzky, screenplay by Alex von Tunzelmann) is "a small film" that _perhaps_ tries to do _way too much_. I do believe that the film gets _a lot_ right (!) about Winston Churchill, its subject. It's just that it does so in a manner that would appall many / most students of history. How could that be?
Well, the film tries to express its thesis -- that Churchill (played both quite humanly and realistically in the film by Brian Cox) was very conflicted about the 1944 Normandy Invasion (for very personal reasons -- during World War I, he was the champion / chief architect of the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign, also an amphibious assault, on Turkey, that ended in utter failure and cost 200,000 British / Imperial lives) -- in the context of the final lead-up to D-Day.
Now Dear Readers, IT IS TRUE that Churchill HAD BEEN very opposed to the INITIAL PLANNING of the Normandy Invasion (and EVEN IN GOOD PART FOR THE REASON OF HIS PAST DISASTROUS EXPERIENCE WITH GALLIPOLI). However by the time of D-Day, HE WAS MORE-THAN-ON-BOARD WITH IT. IN FACT, HE WAS AGAIN ONE OF ITS PRIMARY ARCHITECTS.
Indeed, it just defies belief that the Normandy Invasion could have possibly been launched -- FROM ENGLAND -- without by then _living legend_ Churchill's blessing.
SO this film is essentially "a week in the life of Winston Churchill" that NEVER REALLY HAPPENED THAT WAY.
And yet, it does express a real truth: Go back a few years, and Churchill really was against a simple "frontal invasion" to liberate France because _he really thought_ it would end in slaughter. He really thought the Germans were better soldiers than either the Brits or the Americans and he looked for all kinds of alternatives -- invading Italy, invading perhaps even the Balkans, just BOMBING Germany into submission -- ANYTHING other than making a direct assault on the Germans.
And YES, he had to be convinced by (largely) the Americans (U.S. Gen. Eisenhower is again portrayed quite well / iconically in the current film by John Slattery) that (1) WW II really was a different war than WW I, and (2) that the Allies would have simply SO MANY MEN, ARMS and SUPPLIES that they would just overwhelm / "bury" the Germans -- NO MATTER WHAT the Allies' initial losses would be.
It's just that THOSE ARGUMENTS didn't happen "a week before the invasion." Instead those arguments were hashed out OVER THE TWO-THREE YEARS during which the Normandy Invasion was planned.
So Readers, please understand when you see this otherwise _quite excellent film_ (seriously), you're going to see "Shakespeare" not Documentary.
I would add that the presence of Winston Churchill's WIFE Clementine (played wonderfully / quite realistically by Miranda Richardson) adds another _humanizing_ dimension to the story that simple "pure history" generally has little space for.
So as much as I understand why a history purist would find oh _so many_ problems with this film, I do believe it is a quite good one, and that despite its _obvious (and at times appalling) simplifications_ it does (perhaps quite surprisingly) get "the true measure of the man."
So argh ... despite everything ... a pretty good job ;-)
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
No comments:
Post a Comment