Churchill Movie

Discuss your favourite forms of entertainment; games, music, dvd's, films, TV, books, singers and songwriters, Exchange gossip about the stars and download your favourite music.

Moderators: DJKeefy, 4u Network

Post Reply
User avatar
Hafiz
V.I.P
V.I.P
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 632 times
Gender:
Australia

Churchill Movie

Post by Hafiz »

Saw the Churchill movie at the weekend starring Gary Oldham.

Its received near universal acclaim.

It presents a franker view of Churchill - the drinking, the mental instability - than is commonly the case.

The loathing of the Conservative party for him, the doubts of the appeasing king, the possible treason of Halifax (and hundreds of others) and Chamberlain, the sheer hopelessness of the French are new elements into the popular discussion - long overdue. There are hundreds of darker facts yet to be fed to the delusional great unwashed.

I thought it useful but overrated. The script is average, the camera work jilting or boring, the plot pacing either rapid or still etc.

Oldham is a very good possibly great actor - but this is not his best acting role.

Maybe 7/10 - which makes it better than most of the dross on the market at the moment.


newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by newcastle »

I'm looking forward to seeing it.

I gather the makeup artist is widely tipped for an Oscar.
FarleyFlavors
Member
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:33 am
Has thanked: 201 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by FarleyFlavors »

I'm looking forward to seeing it too, although it's hard to imagine anyone bettering John Lithgow's performance as Churchill in The Crown.
User avatar
Horus
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 7933
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:59 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 2431 times
Been thanked: 1870 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by Horus »

Pretty mediocre IMO, nothing really that new, I can’t think that there are many people who did not know that Churchill drank like a fish and as far as his mental state is concerned, well again he often refered to his ‘black dog’ that haunted him throughout life so nothing new there either. Oldman was very good in the role and the make up was excellent, but as a film it really just concentrated on one small aspect of the war and a single event. The acting was good, but I doubt if it will win any Oscars as there is little in it to appeal to a broader American audience and the fact that Churchill can be seen speaking to an American President who was heard offering little to nothing in help to Churchill during what were desperate days for this country, that itself will do little to endear the film to an American audience.
Image
User avatar
Dusak
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 2:29 pm
Location: LUXOR
Has thanked: 3241 times
Been thanked: 3812 times
Gender:
Thailand

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by Dusak »

I only know what history tells us concerning Churchill, but I always, and still do, think that he was a very good chap for the job. Don't think at the time anyone could of done better. I'm watching season two of the Crown at the mo, enjoying it, although far removed from being a Royalist supporter.
Life is your's to do with as you wish- do not let other's try to control it for you. Count Dusak- 1345.
User avatar
Hafiz
V.I.P
V.I.P
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 632 times
Gender:
Australia

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by Hafiz »

Dusak I agree. Out of the 500 members of the Commons anyone other than Churchill would have been a disaster. So many choices - so few real options. It tells you something about the shortage of talent in a time of crisis. Its a bit like 2018 with almost no one able to lead the UK through substantial change.

One of the points of the film is how loathed, not just hated, he was by the Establishment. Nowadays, in terms of his subsequent success, everyone loves him but at that time (when there was no success) the Great and the Good loathed him and wanted him out and wanted a deal with Hitler (as if Hitler had ever stuck to any of his previous deals). The bad bits about many wanting to do a deal with Hitler are now 'forgotten' together with the names so that eminent and aristocratic reputations can be preserved. How convenient.

His manic extremism and forcefulness which were thought his weaknesses by his many enemies were in fact his strengths at this dangerous moment in history. I look forward to a subsequent film about how widespread support for Hitler was in aristocratic and senior business and political circles.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by newcastle »

Talking of UK aristocratic support for Hitler, it's not without reason that the royal archives containing correspondence between the royal family and their German relatives remain closed to historians.

In 2015 The Sun (who else) did a little stirring by unearthing this photo :

Image

There was quite a hoo-haa at the time....although little acrimony attaches to the little girl.

It prompted historian Dr Karina Urbach to contribute the following to the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... yal-family

It makes interesting reading.

As she says, it was really only with the Blitz that royal sentiment (at least in Buckingham Palace) turned against the Nazis.
User avatar
Dusak
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 2:29 pm
Location: LUXOR
Has thanked: 3241 times
Been thanked: 3812 times
Gender:
Thailand

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by Dusak »

The British aristocracy where so far up themselves then, I think that they would of show support towards anyone that could grantee a ''life as normal'' for those that gave Hitler the nod of approval. I'm thankful the vast majority of the so called grand families have gone, they did much harm to the working classes and even more harm to the local populations concerning their involvements in their oversea's business interests. Yes, some did do good, but only a few.
Life is your's to do with as you wish- do not let other's try to control it for you. Count Dusak- 1345.
User avatar
carrie
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 4910
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:46 am
Location: luxor
Has thanked: 1860 times
Been thanked: 2885 times
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by carrie »

Why do you think he wasn't elected straight after the war maybe it was because the working classes remembered him ordering the troops to fire on them when demonstrating or the disasters in the Crimea.
He may have been a good war leader but in many other ways he was an incompetent vicious bully who cared nothing for the working people. A member of the landed aristocracy who refused to pay his bills.
User avatar
Hafiz
V.I.P
V.I.P
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 632 times
Gender:
Australia

Re: Churchill Movie

Post by Hafiz »

Carrie - your question is a good one. Few historians have a sensible answer except that his concentration on the war left him with few post war policies that would win votes. Attlee on the other hand had a picnic of attractive policies. Its also true that Churchill was an old style Conservative with unfashionable attitudes on social policies and half mad views on the maintenance of Empire - at all costs including insolvency. But the point is who was best to lead the war - the answer to which seems clear.

The list of pro-Nazi aristocrats and upper middle class would be too long to list. However lets be clear. Edward 8th was pro Nazi. After his French marriage his first move was a formal visit to Hitler. At the time of his abdication the government formally considered his authoritarian views. He was forced to be Governor of Bermuda during WW2 because this got him out of the way and in a place he could be observed - including by the FBI. There are allegations that he understood and accepted the notion that he would be appointed King following a Nazi invasion. He was a sick, stupid person with an entirely perverted sexual life and a small brain. His brothers Kent and Gloucester were little better. George 5th could really breed rotters.

Another example. At Elizabeth's wedding Phillip's decadent and depraved father (lots of alcohol and probably drugs and prostitutes possibly including young boys) was absent but also his three sisters. All sisters had joined the Nazi party (along with most German aristocrats) at a very early date and therefore they and their appalling husbands were bad publicity at that time. Phillip's certifiably mad mother was invited (she had been treated by many including Freud and had her ovaries removed to cure her madness - it didn't work).

An aside. A long time ago I met a rather sad old man who told me a story in his cups. During WW2 his job was to guard a woman in Cornwall. The woman had major injuries to her face and was a ranter but living in a comfortable house. It was Unity Mitford who had been a big supporter of Hitler, and possibly his mistress, and had injured her face in a suicide attempt. Her father was Lord Redesdale, she was a socialite of great beauty and her sister married the execrable Sir Oswald Mosley (who should have been executed for treason but lived a long life of luxury, style and poisonous values). There are speculations that she bore Hitlers child - she too should have been executed following a trial.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post