Churchill Movie Is an Absolute Disgrace

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23257
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Churchill Movie Is an Absolute Disgrace

#1 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:28 am

Mrs. SSS and I went to see the new Churchill movie last night with Brian Cox as Churchill and I found it absolutely disgusting. I realize that a film about Churchill that plays the art house circuit isn't going to do much business no matter how good or bad it is, but the filmmakers played fast and loose with history seemingly for the sole purpose of turning one of the world's greatest leaders of all time into a doddering, misguided fool.

The film takes place in the week leading up to D-Day, and according to the movie, Churchill only learned about the plan at a meeting during that last week. The movie version of Churchill was shocked and determined to stop the invasion, which he felt would be a disaster, crippling the Allied war capacity. He spends most of the movie flying off the handle in a rage at his wife and various subordinates, except for the times where he seems shell shocked. While everyone from the King (well played by James Purefoy) to Eisenhower (John Slattery) to his wife (Miranda Richardson, who actually starts packing a bag to leave) to various subordinates try to talk sense into him the way you would address an elementary school student, it's only when his browbeaten secretary talks back to him and accuses him of destroying morale when the troops need it the most does he come to his senses.

None of this is true. In the earlier stages of the war (1942-3), Churchill did propose various alternatives, such as an attack in Greece, at a time when the Allies were too weak to mount an assault in France, but by the spring of 1944, he was a strong proponent of the Normandy assault (which he knew about months in advance). There's never been any sign that he was senile or demented or whatever the film makers think he is here (he served another term as Prime Minister in the 1950's). This version of Churchill actually prays for rain on the day before the invasion in the hopes it will be cancelled (the invasion was actually postponed one day from its original target date of June 5 due to bad weather).

What makes this even worse is the fact that the screenwriter of this movie is a historian who has defended her work (which she calls "telescoping" events rather than absolute lies and slurs) on the ground that it provides a true picture of the man. I have yet to see any suggestion in any historical source that Churchill was anything close to the doddering blustering nitwit shown in the movie (Churchill was haunted by the disastrous invasion of Gallipoli that he championed in World War I, but there's no sign that he had anything more than an understandable and valid concern about the risks of the D-Day invasion).

There are a number of better portrayals of Churchill around (I'm not talking about the acting; Cox does a good job, but rather an attempt at accuracy). It's hard for anyone who doesn't know the actual facts to see this movie and picture the man who essentially singlehandedly stood up to Hitler at the most dangerous moment in his country's history.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21640
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Churchill Movie Is an Absolute Disgrace

#2 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:41 am

So you're saying that how this movie was ever made is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Spock
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm

Re: Churchill Movie Is an Absolute Disgrace

#3 Post by Spock » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:40 am

>>>None of this is true. In the earlier stages of the war (1942-3), Churchill did propose various alternatives, such as an attack in Greece, at a time when the Allies were too weak to mount an assault in France, but by the spring of 1944, he was a strong proponent of the Normandy assault (which he knew about months in advance).<<<

It has been a long time since I read Churchill's series on WW2, and while one of the most interesting aspects of the series (and WW2 in general) is his various proposed "odd" attacks-ie Norway, Greeceand others, the main thing that has stuck with me from the series is that Churchill said many times the only way to win the war was to put large numbers of troops into northwest Europe (ie France) to kill lots and lots of Germans.

He certainly wasn't opposed to the invasion in principle, and to assert that he only learned of it a week ahead of time is simply asinine.

Post Reply