Darkest Hour: A Review

old-church IISome years ago, I read John Lukacs’, Five Days in London, based on the transcripts of the War Cabinet meetings from May 24 to May 28, 1940. In those critical five days, the Churchill led cabinet took the decision to fight on in the face of seemingly insurmountable military odds. This was indeed Winston Churchill’s finest “hour”. His greatest contribution to Western civilization was not that he “won” the war; rather, that he did not lose the war. And by refusing to enter into peace negotiations and thereby concede totalitarian control of all continental Europe, Churchill laid the basis for the later liberation of Western Europe.

The film Darkest Hour  is fine drama and well-acted. Yet one cannot escape the feeling that the film is melodrama rather than a strict rendition of the historical record. Leaving aside the obviously fictional tube ride by Churchill, where he gauges popular opinion, (as if the real Churchill needed to talk to ordinary commuters to assuage his self-doubts),  the main characters almost ring true, but do not entirely.

Gary Oldman as Churchill, well deserves the accolades for his portrayal. Of course, nobody could be better than the late Robert Hardy. Yet even leaving that aside, I had moments of doubt, not on account of the acting, I may say. Is there any evidence for the scene in which Churchill sits on his bed in a slough of misery and self-dought, needing to be propped up by his wife and the King? We do know that Churchill suffered from “black dog” depressions. But these occurred during periods of inactivity, not in periods of crisis and furious endeavour. All the historical evidence points to Churchill thriving during crises, and certainly, during this darkest hour. The film’s diversion into a form of psychodrama is nonsensical.

Paul Collits: Our Darkening Hour

Lord Halifax, portrayed by Stephen Dillane, is a steely eyed hectoring protagonist. One is left wondering why such a character would have passed up the opportunity to become Prime Minister when the position was his for the taking. After all, he was preferred by the Conservative Party establishment, Neville Chamberlain, and indeed, the King. We are told in the film that the Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, would only join a coalition under Winston Churchill and nobody else. But the historical record says otherwise. In fact, Halifax was acceptable. The film’s depiction of Halifax, and to a lesser extent, Neville Chamberlain, strays from the historic record.

Yes, Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, favoured the exploration of peace talks. Certainly, if he, not Churchill, had become Prime Minister, we might have seen a negotiated peace of some description — and a very different world today. Nor can we say that both parliament and the public would not have accepted a quasi-surrender in the face of impossible odds. In that sense, Halifax appeared as the man of reason and Churchill the hopeless romantic dreamer.

The real Lord Halifax was a far more tentative figure. He was quoted as saying, “Winston talks the most frightful rot”. On the other hand, he was no match for Winston Churchill in cabinet meetings and the shouting matches depicted in the film are dramatic license. He was a hesitant advocate. Certainly, he allowed his parliamentary understudy, Rab Butler, to pursue contacts with shadowy and, indeed, shady figures. But over those five critical days, Halifax became increasingly isolated in the cabinet and was quietly talked out of any thought of resignation. Churchill vetoed Butler’s nefarious diplomatic pursuits. Contrary to the film, Chamberlain expressed little or no support for Halifax’s position. Nor is there any evidence of plotting by Halifax and Chamberlain to bring down Churchill.

King George VI, as played by Ben Mendelsohn, is very close to the historic record. Initial doubts and prejudices are soon succeeded by an honourable support of and an increasing closeness to Churchill.

Gary Oldman’s rendition of Churchill’s famous “We will fight on the beaches” speech serves as both the climax of and conclusion to the film. His is a truly awe-inspiring performance which stirs emotions nearly 78 years after the darkest hour.

Finally, whilst one can quibble some of the dramatic license, we are left with the fundamental question: what might the British Government  have decided in that darkest hour in the absence of Winston Churchill?

I suspect the majority would have followed Lord Halifax, a decent and honourable man, in his quest for peace negotiations with Adolf Hitler. Prime Minister Halifax, with the support of a probable majority, would have pursued what he believed was a rational policy. Only an atypical romantic like Churchill could have rallied the nation and saved Western civilisation.

  • en passant

    Australia is fortunate to have its own Pauline Hanson …

  • Jody

    Oldman is absolutely fabulous, inspired actor. He inhabits the parts he plays in any film and his portrayal of Beethoven was just amazing. And who is that cadaverous individual sitting there at the table with Oldman and the others?

  • Mohsen

    It’s Willem Dafoe. If you mean the one with beard!?

  • prsmith14@gmail.com

    A good review of the film Chris but I don’t know whether the artistic licence you describe has not put me off seeing it.

  • Doc S

    Oldman’s study and appreciation of Churchill is unsurpassed. I love his intelligence and approach – he studied all the film record of Churchill to arrive at his own interpretation and I think he nailed it. Some previous performances focused on Churchill as a cantankerous chain-smoking alcoholic and completely missed just how incredible the real man was despite his obvious flaws (a recent BBC depiction is particularly execrable). Oldman himself says he came away with nothing but admiration for Churchill, saying that in his opinion, only Lincoln came close to Churchill in terms of achievement and being a truly great public figure. At a time when Western civilisation is under constant assault, particularly from within by the Left and cultural Marxists, it is essential that we have films like this in our popular culture that tell the true story of our history, rather than some of the garbage that is constantly put out by Hollywood et al.

  • sabena

    As Nicholas Shakespeare’s book Six Days in May shows,any analysis of Churchill’s conduct in relation to the Norway expedition logically disqualified him from becoming PM-yet it happened.The fact was a leader was needed who could inspire confidence in the general population as to resisting the serious threat to their liberty-and Churchill was that person, although he was far from the most competent to carry it out.Fortunately,as time went on the advice he was given and followed enabled the resistance to succeed and turn into victory.

    • ricbell@westnet.com.au

      One cannot let ‘logically disqualified him from becoming PM-yet it happened’ pass without referring to the advent of Trump in the US of A.
      If ever there was an establishment consensus against a maverick leader , it is in the USA.
      The internal fortitude of this man is a continual wonder to behold. To use a cricketing analogy, it is an innings without end. Eventually ( and I hope I’m wrong) the forces reigned against him will prevail, but in the meantime he keeps scoring. Tax before Christmas- a word again in current usage,thank you Trump – and maybe DACA in the New Year.
      Lincoln, Churchill, Trump ?

  • Christopher Saitta

    The capitulation of today’s leaders with their disastrous policies towards radical Islamic terrorism, within the borders of the United Kingdom, is quite remarkable in its reminiscence of the ‘Appeasement Trio’ of Ramsay MacDonald , Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain.

    If Churchill was confronted with such an issue today; he would begin to shutdown Islamic mosques and schools, and arrange for the deportation of Islamic extremists. Such a measured response by Churchill would remain in place until the radical Islamic threat is completely vanquished within the United Kingdom.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.