It is almost impossible to talk about Darkest Hour, the new British-American film about Winston Churchill’s first month as Prime Minister in May 1940, without recalling last year’s Churchill or Dunkirk. That three major films about World War II have been released in quick succession (with Dunkirk triumphing at the box office) indicates that there is a renewed appetite for the subject, amid the recent political upheaval in Britain and the United States.
World War II on film began as propaganda. A good example is London Can Take It! (1940), commissioned by the Ministry of Information and distributed by Warner Bros. In this short film (which you can find on YouTube), the narrator refers to the city’s civilians as “the people’s army”. It was intended to sway public opinion in favour of America joining the Allied effort.
Clearly, no contemporary film (or book or television series) exists in a vacuum; writers and directors respond to the events around them. That said, since 1945, there has never been a decade, or even a year, without World War II films being produced. They can act as a positive act of remembrance of those who gave their lives, or an interrogation of the conflict, rather than a dangerous foray into misty-eyed nostalgia. But this depends on a well-researched script and expert direction, and the story’s intentions must be honest. Gary Oldman’s performance in Darkest Hour has earned plaudits, but how accurate is it?
More than a decade after the Great War, Lord Beaverbrook, who later served in Churchill’s War Cabinet, wrote that “Churchill on top of the wave has in him the stuff of which tyrants are made”, and the colourful, quotable side of Churchill’s character is given full exposure in Darkest Hour.
Yet Churchill’s remarkable capacity for work and study, and his foresight (he had been warning about Germany’s increasing firepower for years before) is ignored. Young viewers, yet to learn about Churchill’s extraordinary achievements – or even strategic blunders – might be tempted to ask whether Churchill was an alcoholic, so ramshackle is his depiction. (If the question needs answering, author and journalist Sonia Purnell writes in her book First Lady: The Life and Wars of Clementine Churchill, that Churchill was “rarely a hard drinker by the standards of his day”).
Churchill is shown, variously, trembling, shouting, or seeking respite in the loo. In The Second World War, the wartime leader’s own account, he says of his appointment to the premiership: “I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour.” The book’s text was composed in retrospect and approved by the Cabinet Office before publication; still, the disparity between it and Darkest Hour is striking.
How to continue reading…
This article appears in the Catholic Herald magazine - to read it in full subscribe to our digital edition from just 30p a week
The Catholic Herald is your essential weekly guide to the Catholic world; latest news, incisive opinion, expert analysis and spiritual reflection