The scene were you shift the prime minister label is wrong. The man you first label Prime Minister is Anthony Eden, not Neville Chamberlain. Eden was Churchill's second in command and long time minister of foreign affairs. Eden became Prime Minister in 1955 (after Churchill) and resigned in 1957, thanks to the Suez Crisis. Thus the clip would be usefull if played in reverse, but only in 1955.
If you'd like to see other Churchill movies, HBO made two. One in 2002 called "The Gathering Storm" starring Albert Finney and one (the sequel) from 2009 called "Into the Storm" starring Brendan Gleeson.
Clement Atlee was arguably Churchill's second in command during the period of National Govt, though not officially Deputy PM until 1942, a role not held by Eden until Churchill's second term in 1951?
I find it interesting how this and Dunkirk came out in the same year and they both were about 2 different ways of looking at the same event. Idk if that was intentional but it definitely makes the moves more interesting back-to-back.
and in both cases, the French army defense of the Dunkirk perimeter is completely ignored. In this movie they even say 200 000 French have surrendered before the evacuation began, while it happened after the evacuation ENDED, and the French held the entire line for more than a week despite Belgian and British leaving their posts without waiting for reinforcements
I'm pretty sure Dunkirk has a scene in it early on of the only defenders at Dunkirk being French and fighting over sandbags, been a little while since i seen the film, but i swear that is the case
Favourite Churchill line, woman tells him”if you were my husband I’d poison your coffee!” Churchill replied “ madam if you were my wife I’d drink it!” You say he wasn’t a man of the people, when in fact he convinced everyone that WW2 could be won!!
Is it? I'm geuinely curious of how you came to think that? It's totally fine with me that you came that opinion, I'm not arguing, only countering. Because as I see it he was the absolute personification of discriminatory colonial oligarchy, who's single redeeming achievement was being the head of government of UK during the BoB (the only time UK alone dictated the progress of WW2). The rest of his life he was a relic of England's racist, sexist, classist* past and if it wasn't for the good work of USSR Intelligence he would of taken the world into a war possibly more murderous than WW2. question mark :)
I said I thought it was a good character study, as in a good look at the person, or at least parts of the person. That's different from saying he's a good person. He wasn't a good person, for all the reasons you mention. He did achieve great things during the war and was the leader the UK needed at the time, but that doesn't make him a good person. People tend to conflate greatness with goodness; assuming that if a person did great things they must be good, or assuming if they weren't a good person their achievements can't be that great.The truth is more complicated than that. Churchill was certainly more complicated; he embodied worst aspects of 20th century England, and also some of the best.
+Bluestocking Sara I completely agree with you on this. Same goes for Roosevelt who shot real bullits at striker blue workers during the 1930's, or for Charles de Gaulle who allowed a slaughter of Algerian soldiers that just asked to be paid for their service to France. Yet all those three were needed at that time and did great things. I for one, am glad we had them back then. Yet I'd even add about the movie that perhaps its inaccuracies made it a better movie for fault of being a good historical movie. For instance the scene in the subway is authentically moving, and despite it never had a chance to happen I'm glad they've filmed it.
@@Cancoillotteman No, Roosevelt did not order the Memorial Day massacre, he did not like the conflict between the workers and company and sought to alleviate that.
The "Iron Curtain" speech was given at Westminister College in Fulton Missouri. I grew up about 60 miles from their and played Fulton in high school football. My dad said that the smartest kids in his school was invited to go see Churchill at Westminister. He wasn't invited to go. LOL !!
It is also quite fascinating that Churchill was the mastermind behind Operation Gladius. The operation was intended to create European guerrilla organizations that would be prepared to fight against the dreaded Soviet invasion of the continent.
Wasn't a big fan of this movie. Everything felt so sanitized and cartoony. You hit the nail on the head when you said it focused on the popular perception of Churchill instead of the honest.
About the London Underground scene: “This is the kind of thing he did right through the war,” said McCarten of Churchill. “He would go AWOL, disappear and pop up somewhere in London with ordinary people, to find out what they were thinking. So that scene was drawn from deep research, but we have no record that it happened. “It’s a perfect example of how you’re trying to dramatize verifiable events that might have happened outside the time frame of your movie, but which are very, very valuable for the dramatist in showing critical aspects of your story.” -The wrap
You totally ignore the huge influence Churchill & his speeches had on the people in the UK?? He convinced everyone that we could & would win, even his speeches to the French were incredibly uplifting!! Extraordinarily petty & inaccurate to just imply he was just a piss head??
Please do My Way, a Korean film about the: forced conscription into the imperial Japanese army of a Korean who got sent to a gulag after being captured by the soviets who got drafted into their army and captured by the Germans, and again forced to fight in d-day. Now the actual plot of the protagonist about him being a runner, having a rivalry and dying is jack s###, but I’d like to know how how historically accurate it is
Churchill liked people to underestimate him, particularly people like Hitler and Stalin. He would be seen to drink brandy after brandy during the day. In fact, it would be the same or two brandies, successively topped up with water. Granted, he would pile it on after hours, but he was not a day-long drunkard.
It's fun to see the inaccuracies and it's kind of sad that they might be too severe for this film to even meet the criteria of a "lie that tells the truth." A concept I first discovered reading fiction in Metro 2034 where a character, appropriately nicknamed "Homer" is obsessed with gathering stories, every book and magazine from before ww3. He gathers it all desperate to metabolize it all into one great epic, a piece of fiction so great that it can have the truth woven within it so that people will tell it around the campfires for the centuries to come and thereby never forget the important truths from before the war. It struck me there that the real Homer concocted a lie so great that thousands of years later we still remember, some men fought a stupid bloody war, it lasted years and was so terrible that the victors were lost for years after the last shield was dropped and some, some never truly returned. Thousands of years ago Homer sung about the stupidity of war and the horror of PTSD... I think that's what the Darkest Hour hoped to be but I think it failed. In truth at this time there was a chance that things could have gone the other way, the peace terms would have been good. All the UK had to do was... walk away. And yet, it's quite possible that the single most decisive decision in the war was the UK refusing to form some sort of a peace. Their army was smashed but the British navy sat astride the international shipping lanes... Denying Germany the oil it was desperate for. The ultimate result was Germany *de-motorized* large sections of it's army and invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 because it was the last possible moment that they'd have the fuel for an operation like that. Their goal was an impossibility... seize the Caucasian oil fields before the year was out, which they failed to do and thereby lost all hope of victory as the war became one of grinding attrition. The entire future of Europe and possibly the world hinged on the British deciding not to take the easy path and simply walk away.
World War II is not overdone when it comes to the role of China and the Soviet Union in it! There are hardly any movies about Chiang Kai-shek and Stalin!
Kai-shek was a dictator, who started a war against the communist party even tho he didn't have to, and massacred people living on the Yangtze River by flooding it. Of course Mao ain't any better, but still. Stalin was also a dictator and murdered his rivals, and committed massive silencing of freedom of speech.
@@globial5329 Stalin still did more for the war than anyone else, though it's hard to accurately judge how much credit he as an individual deserves. Kai-shek is complicated.
@@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump Stalin didn’t do more for the war than anyone else. His soldiers did. Stalin was a genocidal monster who was only marginally better than Hitler, hence why historians don’t much enjoy looking at the guy. Throughout WW2, Stalin’s main contribution was learning to shut up and let his generals fight the war.
Weird thing to say, but to clarify something you said about the controversy around Edward 8ths attempt to marry a divorcee. For people that don't know, the major problem with it, enough to make him abdicate, wasn't the fact that he married someone who had been previously divorced. The American and legal systems back then were significantly different when it came to divorce. She divorced her husband in America because he abused and beat her regularly, something that has grounds for divorce in the US. In the U.K, that wasn't recognised as a legitimate reason for divorce, so under the British legal system she would have technically still been married. So the reason why it caused such a significant problem for both the legal and religious establishment wasn't that he was marrying a divorcee, but someone who was technically still married under British law.
Not sure how it was pre-50s/60s but during the 50s and 60s abuse was under the 4 a's of divorce so it was a viable reason (edit, I forgot to clarify that this was under the British system)
I feel that it is important to note that Churchill's suggestions of Gas attacks did not mean mustard gas, he wanted to use tear gas to subdue civilian unrest and military forces to reduce the number of casualties on both sides. This is a practice that is used in nearly every MP force in the world.
@@CynicalHistorian upon a second pass, you're right. It was only in Africa and the Middle East that he wanted to use teargas, the Moscow thing was, in fact, Mustard Gas.
Upper crust Brits had a tradition of ignoring their children. Using nannies, tutors, and boarding schools as proxy parents. Churchill was grief stricken when his parents fired the nanny who raised him.
For American Audiences, British First Lord of the Admiralty is the equivelant of the American Secretary of the Navy and Chancellor of the Exchequer is basically Secretary of the Treasury. Churchill also technically was not the first person to use the term "Iron Curtain" Joseph Gobbels used it in a broadcast in February 1945 about how the Soviet Union would cut off their conquered territories from the world.
Churchill got into a “cavalry college?” Wow, he got into something that doesn’t exist. He got into Sandhurst, Britain’s military college, and because his grades were poor, he was placed in the cavalry (it was a common thought that in the cavalry, the horses had all the brains).
The Cynical Historian my comment about horses having all the brains was what was said back then, and to be fair, in Britain it was where the put all the idiot sons of nobility because ... well, horses are smart.
Of course, “First Lord of the Admiralty”, despite its fancy name, really only means (well; meant, it’s no longer a thing) the government minister in charge of overseeing the Royal Navy, and likewise “Chancellor of the Exchequer” despite its lofty-sounding name, really just means what other countries would just call ‘the Finance Minister”.
Yes the "tube" scene was as rubbish as they come, forever the upper class snob. However as he complained to his valet for his rudeness which was reciprocal, "but I am a great man!" It's interesting how tobacco and spirits can consume so much of one's budget. Pity the readership who had to endure his bombastic know it all prose to support his indulgences!!!
I found you through a History Buffs vid. I have watched your stuff, and I am very impressed, because of that I will watch the Free State of Jones because of your review and the historical context on which you build your critiques and your review on the movies you review. I was in to minds to get the Darkest Hour but, but now thanks to your review I won't especially as he did unforgivable and brutal things to his former-allies in the post war period. Keep up the excellent work, I will be watching more.
I just watched this movie and then found your video. I was disgusted at the film. The guy doesn't have a presence like Churchill, doesn't have a personality like Churchill. I felt like the actor didn't truly understand Churchill. And he doesn't sound like him either. His cadence is all wrong. He made Churchill seem like a sheltered mama's boy. Working in bed, worried about what to say to Parliament. Churchill spoke with confidence, and brought confidence to the Island. But he spoke subtly and softly, but strongly. If you want a good representation of Churchill, or good account of history, watch something else. I regretted renting this. You are so right, I wish I had seen your video first, or maybe I was just too excited about seeing a movie about Winston.
And the vulgarity!!! He would never have taken a dump whilst speaking to his aid, and he certainly wouldn’t have appeared disrobed in front of a young female secretary.
That underground scene was what made me start doubting the entire veracity as well. I already was confused by the bunker prior to the blitz though. I saw it on a plane because that's one of the only times I have for movies and couldn't start looking up the history immediately, so this was helpful!
These may be falsely attributed but I gotta: "Mr Churchill sir, you are drunk!" "That is correct madam, and you're ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober" "Mr Churchill, if you were my husband I'd poison your tea" "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it"
Yeah I say everyone should give arms to anyone fighting communists, but I also dont know how British people would have viewed the Russo Polish War. It's possible it was unpopular at the time. The band Anthrax is awesome BTW.
Your exposition of this film is on point. This was a decent movie ( with some obvious flaws ). It was only elevated by Gary Oldman's performance. As a film, I much preferred Dunkirk.
Also, anyone else get the feeling that this movie beginning with the secretary's first day on the job is low-key ripping off Der Untergang's beginning? Except in Der Untergang, Hitler's secretary is the main POV throughout the movie, and it's important to early on establish what the nature of her relationship to the man was. Whereas in Darkest Hour, they use the secretary as a jumpoff point but pretty much drop her from any story relevance by the mid 2nd act.
BTW, if the idea of a WWII movie about Hitler's secretary sounds like a good idea; watch Der Untergang. It's matter-of-fact, brutal, historically accurate, and the best movie I have ever watched. Even having to read subtitles, the movie surpasses A Bridge Too Far and Band of Brothers IMO.
Late to the party with an unasked story:- Honestly as an English lad , whose paternal ancestors were most likely Churchill enthusiasts and whose maternal ancestors were freedom fighters from Bengal ,this movie was difficult for me to enjoy. I love Gary Oldman but other than the acting, everything else was buffoonish to me. Especially since the colonial history in British schools is already pretty let's say.. washed...to begin with .
Take too much space why dont I? The BIG inaccuracies Atlee first told Chamberlain in a private meeting Labour would only support Chamberlains request to join a coalition if it was under another Prime Minister (PM). It was not on the floor of the Commons. And theres no evidence of Labour indicating a the PM preference. Chamberlain held a meeting with Churchill and Halifax together rather than with his buddies to discuss who it should be. Halifax told them he might not be acceptable because the convention is the PM must be from the House of Commons not the Lords. The war cabinet met every day for 5 days discussing whether to seek peace talks. Churchill hoped to hold both Calais and Dunkirk and war cabinet were not informed Calais was about to fall. The film didnt mention the German tanks advance was stopped for a day so the infantry could catch up But (after speculating on what Germany might ask for) it was Neville Chamberlain who turned the debate telling them he knew from experience one cannot rely on Hitler to stick to terms first offered. He proposed they report to full cabinet they recommend not to seek peace talks. Churchills meeting with full cabinet in the Commons committee room was similar to the film. But not quoting those met on the underground journey (that never happened) The final "Fight them on the beaches" speech is slightly edited from the original and not broadcast live on the radio. Churchill afterwards read it again for a radio broadcast. [see the book "5 Days in London" by historian John Lukacs]
I think it's a bit misguided to vitriolise his election loss after the war. The opposition were planning the NHS (socialised healthcare), this was hugely supported by the people of which many were homeless from the blitz, injured and maimed from war, and suffering from little medical supplies reaching Britain due to German blockades. So it wasn't a kinda of 'oh he wasn't popular' but more a case of people wanted cheaper healthcare access.
even if it was fake I could still enjoy the story and connect with the characters where as in Dunkirk, it was hard to have any emotion in it, I felt like I was lying to myself trying to believe I enjoyed Dunkirk
As my cousin the Professor says to every freshman class, NEVER watch a Hollyweard production alleging to represent history or literature and expect to pass a test or write a report.
Heartless he was one of many. He had a good ride though, and done more than a handful of good things for his people. That being said, he was a terrible alcoholic and most likely used many other "drugs".
Thanks for the review, really. An insignificant sidenote caught my attention - You said that the Dresden firestorm was not planned, how could that be? The bombers were loaded with heavy bombs to blow the roofs out, followed by incindiary bombs to create a fire. And the old part of town was chosen because it was wooden and crowded. The raid was a successful beyond it's planners' hopes. Am I getting something wrong? Again - This is insignificant side note to this excellent video, I'm only asking because it sticks out and I'm curious.
My impression of Churchill is that he had some uh, spicy takes he took on the heavy responsibility of getting Britain through ww2 and succeeded, therefore fortifying himself as a idol figure. or at least thats how I took it
So am I the only one that thinks it is a little odd trying to paint Winston Churchill as the "everyman" and "one with the common man" Like this is not how the British (well English) tend to see their heroes, except for robin hood, (who is sometimes described to be a noble anyway) they are almost always people of the upper class, mostly kings. It feels like an American view being used where being one with the people is seen as a virtue.
I watched this entire video not realising I had a tiny Churchill staring at me on my desk. He's front and centre on the new five pound note, and its good to understand more about him. Thanks for this video!
Lots of information I didn't have in here, thanks for that. The surprises never seem to end with this colorful individual. We studied Churchill in high school of course, but there is no way my sheltered 17 year old mind at the time could have formed a solid perspective on such a layered figure.
I can remember my Nana who grew up in the Blitz referring to Churchill as "nothing but a warmonger" and even though I'm far from an expert, my reading up on him has shown that he was far from an admirable man. I knew everything I needed to from the trailer for this movie showing Churchill giving his speech in parliament with real gusto and fire in the belly instead of what really happened - Churchill drunkenly droning on through his speech. Brendan Gleeson's performance of Churchill absolutely annihilates Gary Oldman's in my opinion.
To take a paraphrase from a Bond flick I got this to say, getting Hollywood to do anything historically accurate is like finding a virgin in a maternity ward. I'm also reminded that when Field Marshal Montgomery remarked to Churchill that he didn't drink or smoke and he was a hundred percent fit Churchill replied that he "drank and smoked and was two hundred percent fit." It might not have been true but he did live into his early nineties which was an accomplishment considering everything he went through health wise.
I would greatly appreciate if you took a look at 2004's Der Untergang! (Downfall in English). Phenomenal movie that paints the enemy as human characters as opposed to glorified cinematic villains. I hope to say it is very accurate!
6 ปีที่แล้ว +9
I don’t get why you keep making a big deal of the title “prime minister”. Do you find it amusing or something? Because if you do; how does it sound anymore amusing than “secretary of state”.
At what point did I say he was non-factual? I did not say that. I know what you're saying but you can say it about all of the titles. He (near literally) trumpets in the titles of job positions in the desperate attempt to be edgy and funny, but it comes off as overblown and unnecessary - that is why you are confused about his emphasis on "prime minister". I would argue that all of them are unnecessarily mocked (and it is mockery lets be real about it here) He jabs at "British passive aggressiveness" and generally comes off as disrespectful to a culture far, far older than his. Literally none of the job roles he patronised are illogical or overly flamboyant; they were and are all functionally logical titles. He also made a mistake in the *First Sea Lord of the Admiralty* which he erroneously referred to as "First Lord of the Admiralty". Royal Navy terms, as all others, must be accurately recalled. Saying, "First Lord" or "First Lord of the Admiralty" is generally colloquial at best and while clearly close to the real title (bar an entire word missing) as well as close enough to be near interchangeable if one didn't care, is still inaccurate and simply wrong. It is not the proper title. Get it right.
If it really shouldn't have been based upon Churchill, it should have been based on General Alan Brooke (and Air Vice Marshall Keith Park, & Admiral Ramsey) who whilst in France was doing his best to fight the Germans, who had a bit of the problem with the Belgians collapsing and some of the French units not doing anything to prepare for the German onslaught. After evacuating from Dunkirk, the British resent him to Cherbourg to try and keep the French in the war. Sadly despite his best efforts it was hopeless and he had not insisted in the troops being evacuated 100,000 British and French would have been captured. Constantly General Alan Brooke during the whole of the war had to restrain Churchill from some mad idea, Churchill thought he was the famous British General, the Duke of Marlborough his ancestor. Churchill was good at rallying the British people but he was a poor strategist. I was surprised that General Alan Brooke had turned down to take over from Auchinleck in the desert and rather stay & keep Churchill from losing the war. Can't wait till I get to the end of Alan Brooke's unabridged War diary that upset a lot of people when it was published as he had to set the record straight due what he saw as a lot of injustices done to the few good British Generals in particularly Field Marshall John Dill.
One thing about Winston Churchill is that it's extremely difficult to find anything that accurately depicts the man. In all reality, you it the nail on the head. Outside of WWII he was NOT a good person. He was an extremely conservative, anti-working class, imperialist. Interestingly enough, what ultimately brought me to question his character was a BBC documentary, pertaining to Churchill's Funeral. In particular, when the host begins talking about the cranes bowing to him, as the boat carrying his coffin, floated by and he interviews one of the dock workers, who pointed out that none of them had a liking for Chuchill, not even the workers who were paid to come in on their off day, to operate the cranes, etc. I found the video here, if anyone is interested... th-cam.com/video/6ybeYQ3vTOw/w-d-xo.html Heads up, I've linked it to the exact part that I mentioned above.
~5:30 Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty for the second time in 1939 just when war came, the "our time" for peace having lasted about 11 months, and didn't become Prime Minister until May 10, 1940, So it was more like eight months rather than a few days later.
What historical movie do you want to see? I write screenplays and could use an idea for some historical event or person to write a movie about just for fun.
Sounds expensive but quite interesting. Don't know if I want to write something about Russia as I am from there myself and am a bit tired of all stuff Russia related. But I totally would watch such a movie.
Where Churchill and FDR’s policy differed was over the economic Imperial System where raw materials went to Britain and the colonies had to import manufactured from Britain. Rather than from the USA.
The worst one for me is changing the number of dead from Gallipoli from 302,000 casualties on the allied side alone and rewrote that to 25,000, to make Churchill sound "better". Just so disrespectful to the casualties of Gallipoli.
It's funny how almost every actor portraying Churchill, gives him this low toned, slow paced voice all the time. He only did that on a few occasions in Parliament, after the conclusion of Operation Dynamo and in a speech thanking the RAF fighterpilots for winning the Battle of Britain. When he was in America in 1942, his voice sounded very different. A bit higher in pitch, possibly because he thought Americans would doze off if he used his "We shall fight them…" voice mode. Anyway, he could 'do' different voices depending on the historical situation.
i think Margret thatcher was given a state funeral at her death in 2013 the ceremony around her funeral was a very contentious issue in and of its self given her deceive ledership
I disagree that the underground scene is meant to show him as a man of the people. In fact, his whole impetus for leaving the taxi and going on the underground was because he felt disconnected from the people. That said, the scene is hokey and undermines the whole film.
Great, just what historical films needed - more mythologizing. I sigh. EDIT: Wait, the firestorm was accidental? I thought that was a legitimate bombing technique. Flatten an area to rubble with conventional bombs and then hit it with the incendiary stuff to ignite all of that fresh kindling. I'm not trying to make a moral judgement call or anything, I just had always read that it was intentional and not exactly unheard of, though not on such a scale. The same thing happened - though much worse - in the Firebombing of Tokyo. I wonder if there are any old handbooks or whatever from the time period that might shed light on this.
Why is it that no one seems to be able to pronounce "boer"? The correct pronunciation sounds like saying boo, but then you append an 'R'. Quite simple.
Churchill: Not even in the ballpark of being a nice or even decent person half the time. But Britain in her darkest hour didn't need a gentleman, it needed a diehard patriot and cutthroat warrior And thankfully that's what they got
Once again film makers show they are too simplistic to make good historical films. Having Chamberlain incorrectly plotting against Churchill so they have a 'baddy'.
@The Cynical Historian-I love your content, would you consider doing the film United 93, directed by Paul Greengrass or the film Rosewood, directed by John Singleton or Anthropoid by Sean Ellis. Also, have you ever consider doing video of shows based on actual events such as Paramount Networks WACO or Hulu's The Looming Tower?
Thank you so much, I enjoy your work. I'm honored you are, may I suggest watching the documentary of Waco: Rules of Engagement. I found it hard when researching it and found this one to be the most credible and the book by David Thibodeau Waco: A Survivor Story a good and objective book on the Waco Siege. I wish you the best of luck because this is the most Controversial and most complex incident I have ever researched and Learned and even went to the site in Waco, Tx. I wish you success in the future.
Gotta say that "rules of engagement" is riddled with problems, but i have seen it (the show is a better depiction than the documentary). The memoir was an important part of the show, since the author was on set.
I have to agree with you that you are correct in comparing the documentary to the show. Also for the show, the use the memoir of FBI Negotiator, Gary Noesner's book, Stalling for Time, My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiator. Hopefully, this will help with your research as well and he was also on set as well. Also, I would like to mention that Paramount Network made a video for each episode explaining the background of the material present though they seem have taken most of the videos away except for the last two. th-cam.com/video/8MMj7f3uoUY/w-d-xo.html Hope this helps.
Also here's one of the video's of David Thibedeau talking of his book and the events in the Waco siege, it's not the only one but I found it really interesting, perhaps you'll see why. th-cam.com/video/yfoT6WTA57I/w-d-xo.html
"[Churchill managed to secure lend-lease...which helped sustain Britain's war effort during the blitz" Sorry Cypher, but the Lend-Lease Act wasn't passed until March of 1941 and the very first Lend-Lease shipments didn't arrive in Britain until late April. The Blitz was all but over at that point.
Churchill was a racist and a defender of the empire, not of freedom. This has to be remembered offsetting his good works. This movie plays up the fake history written of and by Churchill and used thereafter. It tries to paint Churchill as one against the world, the underdog. It's simple propoganda. The tube scene didn't happen either as he was also a class snob.
The scene were you shift the prime minister label is wrong. The man you first label Prime Minister is Anthony Eden, not Neville Chamberlain. Eden was Churchill's second in command and long time minister of foreign affairs. Eden became Prime Minister in 1955 (after Churchill) and resigned in 1957, thanks to the Suez Crisis. Thus the clip would be usefull if played in reverse, but only in 1955.
ah dammit, I was wondering why he looked so young. Picture had him labeled Chamberlain. Gotta make a mistake somewhere, good catch
If you'd like to see other Churchill movies, HBO made two. One in 2002 called "The Gathering Storm" starring Albert Finney and one (the sequel) from 2009 called "Into the Storm" starring Brendan Gleeson.
This is what I like to see. No arrogance or insults, just facts.
Clement Atlee was arguably Churchill's second in command during the period of National Govt, though not officially Deputy PM until 1942, a role not held by Eden until Churchill's second term in 1951?
I find it interesting how this and Dunkirk came out in the same year and they both were about 2 different ways of looking at the same event. Idk if that was intentional but it definitely makes the moves more interesting back-to-back.
and in both cases, the French army defense of the Dunkirk perimeter is completely ignored. In this movie they even say 200 000 French have surrendered before the evacuation began, while it happened after the evacuation ENDED, and the French held the entire line for more than a week despite Belgian and British leaving their posts without waiting for reinforcements
I'm pretty sure Dunkirk has a scene in it early on of the only defenders at Dunkirk being French and fighting over sandbags, been a little while since i seen the film, but i swear that is the case
"stop writing biographies" he says, just having wrapped up a ten-minute biography.
"...and resigned shortly thereafter".
If you call two years "short".
Why the fedora bro no
Favourite Churchill line, woman tells him”if you were my husband I’d poison your coffee!”
Churchill replied
“ madam if you were my wife I’d drink it!”
You say he wasn’t a man of the people, when in fact he convinced everyone that WW2 could be won!!
As a character study, it's a good film; as a representation of history, not so much.
Is it?
I'm geuinely curious of how you came to think that?
It's totally fine with me that you came that opinion, I'm not arguing, only countering. Because as I see it he was the absolute personification of discriminatory colonial oligarchy, who's single redeeming achievement was being the head of government of UK during the BoB (the only time UK alone dictated the progress of WW2).
The rest of his life he was a relic of England's racist, sexist, classist* past and if it wasn't for the good work of USSR Intelligence he would of taken the world into a war possibly more murderous than WW2.
question mark :)
I said I thought it was a good character study, as in a good look at the person, or at least parts of the person. That's different from saying he's a good person. He wasn't a good person, for all the reasons you mention. He did achieve great things during the war and was the leader the UK needed at the time, but that doesn't make him a good person. People tend to conflate greatness with goodness; assuming that if a person did great things they must be good, or assuming if they weren't a good person their achievements can't be that great.The truth is more complicated than that. Churchill was certainly more complicated; he embodied worst aspects of 20th century England, and also some of the best.
Yes. I can see your point
+Bluestocking Sara
I completely agree with you on this. Same goes for Roosevelt who shot real bullits at striker blue workers during the 1930's, or for Charles de Gaulle who allowed a slaughter of Algerian soldiers that just asked to be paid for their service to France. Yet all those three were needed at that time and did great things. I for one, am glad we had them back then.
Yet I'd even add about the movie that perhaps its inaccuracies made it a better movie for fault of being a good historical movie. For instance the scene in the subway is authentically moving, and despite it never had a chance to happen I'm glad they've filmed it.
@@Cancoillotteman No, Roosevelt did not order the Memorial Day massacre, he did not like the conflict between the workers and company and sought to alleviate that.
The "Iron Curtain" speech was given at Westminister College in Fulton Missouri. I grew up about 60 miles from their and played Fulton in high school football. My dad said that the smartest kids in his school was invited to go see Churchill at Westminister. He wasn't invited to go. LOL !!
ehrldawg my debate partner is from Fulton
Their = there
Is there a Westminster in Missouri? The Americans should stop taking our names. Name your own town.
@@BoraCM i suppose we just felt your country doesn't do those names justice or that we could do better with thone names
"And Stalin wanted to jump on Churchill's belly" wtf
Spagooti Spaghett Stalin just wanted to make Roosevelt jealous of the fact he had working legs and could jump.
It was a very *Nasty* *playtime* Stalin and Churchill had in the *bed* *alone* .
It is also quite fascinating that Churchill was the mastermind behind Operation Gladius. The operation was intended to create European guerrilla organizations that would be prepared to fight against the dreaded Soviet invasion of the continent.
Matthew Kuchinski don’t you mean gladio?
You kind of look like a young Winston Churchill. #justsayin
Young Winston
omg hi Mr. Beat. I love your videos
Wasn't a big fan of this movie. Everything felt so sanitized and cartoony. You hit the nail on the head when you said it focused on the popular perception of Churchill instead of the honest.
Basically blah blah I’m Winston church hill blah blah
Glad I caught your comment, just finished the Imitation Game and wanted another similar era movie on Netflix then saw this one lol.
About the London Underground scene: “This is the kind of thing he did right through the war,” said McCarten of Churchill. “He would go AWOL, disappear and pop up somewhere in London with ordinary people, to find out what they were thinking. So that scene was drawn from deep research, but we have no record that it happened.
“It’s a perfect example of how you’re trying to dramatize verifiable events that might have happened outside the time frame of your movie, but which are very, very valuable for the dramatist in showing critical aspects of your story.” -The wrap
You totally ignore the huge influence Churchill & his speeches had on the people in the UK??
He convinced everyone that we could & would win, even his speeches to the French were incredibly uplifting!!
Extraordinarily petty & inaccurate to just imply he was just a piss head??
@@julielevinge266Yeah, but he’s American.🤷
"will you stop interrupting me while I am interrupting you" I'm gonna have to use that
Please do My Way, a Korean film about the: forced conscription into the imperial Japanese army of a Korean who got sent to a gulag after being captured by the soviets who got drafted into their army and captured by the Germans, and again forced to fight in d-day. Now the actual plot of the protagonist about him being a runner, having a rivalry and dying is jack s###, but I’d like to know how how historically accurate it is
A drinking game about historical inaccuracies with that would be suicide.
I got an ad for Bud Light right after you fell out of your chair.
Oh the irony. If only they showed whiskey
Admit it. You had way too much fun with those trumpets.
heck yeah
Churchill liked people to underestimate him, particularly people like Hitler and Stalin. He would be seen to drink brandy after brandy during the day. In fact, it would be the same or two brandies, successively topped up with water. Granted, he would pile it on after hours, but he was not a day-long drunkard.
It's fun to see the inaccuracies and it's kind of sad that they might be too severe for this film to even meet the criteria of a "lie that tells the truth." A concept I first discovered reading fiction in Metro 2034 where a character, appropriately nicknamed "Homer" is obsessed with gathering stories, every book and magazine from before ww3. He gathers it all desperate to metabolize it all into one great epic, a piece of fiction so great that it can have the truth woven within it so that people will tell it around the campfires for the centuries to come and thereby never forget the important truths from before the war. It struck me there that the real Homer concocted a lie so great that thousands of years later we still remember, some men fought a stupid bloody war, it lasted years and was so terrible that the victors were lost for years after the last shield was dropped and some, some never truly returned. Thousands of years ago Homer sung about the stupidity of war and the horror of PTSD...
I think that's what the Darkest Hour hoped to be but I think it failed. In truth at this time there was a chance that things could have gone the other way, the peace terms would have been good. All the UK had to do was... walk away. And yet, it's quite possible that the single most decisive decision in the war was the UK refusing to form some sort of a peace. Their army was smashed but the British navy sat astride the international shipping lanes... Denying Germany the oil it was desperate for. The ultimate result was Germany *de-motorized* large sections of it's army and invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 because it was the last possible moment that they'd have the fuel for an operation like that. Their goal was an impossibility... seize the Caucasian oil fields before the year was out, which they failed to do and thereby lost all hope of victory as the war became one of grinding attrition. The entire future of Europe and possibly the world hinged on the British deciding not to take the easy path and simply walk away.
World War II is not overdone when it comes to the role of China and the Soviet Union in it! There are hardly any movies about Chiang Kai-shek and Stalin!
Kai-shek was a dictator, who started a war against the communist party even tho he didn't have to, and massacred people living on the Yangtze River by flooding it. Of course Mao ain't any better, but still. Stalin was also a dictator and murdered his rivals, and committed massive silencing of freedom of speech.
@@globial5329 Stalin still did more for the war than anyone else, though it's hard to accurately judge how much credit he as an individual deserves. Kai-shek is complicated.
@@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump Stalin didn’t do more for the war than anyone else. His soldiers did. Stalin was a genocidal monster who was only marginally better than Hitler, hence why historians don’t much enjoy looking at the guy. Throughout WW2, Stalin’s main contribution was learning to shut up and let his generals fight the war.
@@Cailus3542 True enough.
Darkest Hour is an historical fiction. Damn good historic fiction.
Yeh but it was obvious oscar bait lol
It’s not all fiction, how could it be?
You need a cigar
Churchill was the embodiment of rolling a chaotic good bard in d&d.
As a child he shared cocaine laced chewing gum with Queen Victoria...
Cheers indeed!!
Weird thing to say, but to clarify something you said about the controversy around Edward 8ths attempt to marry a divorcee.
For people that don't know, the major problem with it, enough to make him abdicate, wasn't the fact that he married someone who had been previously divorced. The American and legal systems back then were significantly different when it came to divorce. She divorced her husband in America because he abused and beat her regularly, something that has grounds for divorce in the US. In the U.K, that wasn't recognised as a legitimate reason for divorce, so under the British legal system she would have technically still been married.
So the reason why it caused such a significant problem for both the legal and religious establishment wasn't that he was marrying a divorcee, but someone who was technically still married under British law.
Not sure how it was pre-50s/60s but during the 50s and 60s abuse was under the 4 a's of divorce so it was a viable reason (edit, I forgot to clarify that this was under the British system)
I feel that it is important to note that Churchill's suggestions of Gas attacks did not mean mustard gas, he wanted to use tear gas to subdue civilian unrest and military forces to reduce the number of casualties on both sides. This is a practice that is used in nearly every MP force in the world.
he actually advocated mustard gas on Moscow in 1919, not tear gas
@@CynicalHistorian upon a second pass, you're right. It was only in Africa and the Middle East that he wanted to use teargas, the Moscow thing was, in fact, Mustard Gas.
Upper crust Brits had a tradition of ignoring their children. Using nannies, tutors, and boarding schools as proxy parents. Churchill was grief stricken when his parents fired the nanny who raised him.
For American Audiences, British First Lord of the Admiralty is the equivelant of the American Secretary of the Navy and Chancellor of the Exchequer is basically Secretary of the Treasury. Churchill also technically was not the first person to use the term "Iron Curtain" Joseph Gobbels used it in a broadcast in February 1945 about how the Soviet Union would cut off their conquered territories from the world.
The first usage of the term to refer to the soviets was Vasily Rozanov _The Apocalypse of Our Time_ in 1918. So that's likely where Churchill got it
@@CynicalHistorian Very true.
Churchill got into a “cavalry college?” Wow, he got into something that doesn’t exist. He got into Sandhurst, Britain’s military college, and because his grades were poor, he was placed in the cavalry (it was a common thought that in the cavalry, the horses had all the brains).
I just wanted emphasize the cavalry part (i was cavalry myself 😉)
The Cynical Historian my comment about horses having all the brains was what was said back then, and to be fair, in Britain it was where the put all the idiot sons of nobility because ... well, horses are smart.
@@Sammyandbobsdad It was also more expensive for a cavalry officer to kit himself out than an infantry officer
You forgot about that time he fought Teddy Roosevelt in an Epic Rap battle.
And won honestly its hard to tell who did i love churchill but teddy roosevelt is also hard as fuck
And arm wrestled Eleanor Roosevelt…. and lost!
4:44: Money spent on booze and cigars is no "waste".
I blew most of it on booze and cigars - the rest I wasted.
Damn you beat me too this quote from George Best but you missed Fast Women....
Of course, “First Lord of the Admiralty”, despite its fancy name, really only means (well; meant, it’s no longer a thing) the government minister in charge of overseeing the Royal Navy, and likewise “Chancellor of the Exchequer” despite its lofty-sounding name, really just means what other countries would just call ‘the Finance Minister”.
Yes the "tube" scene was as rubbish as they come, forever the upper class snob. However as he complained to his valet for his rudeness which was reciprocal, "but I am a great man!" It's interesting how tobacco and spirits can consume so much of one's budget. Pity the readership who had to endure his bombastic know it all prose to support his indulgences!!!
I found you through a History Buffs vid. I have watched your stuff, and I am very impressed, because of that I will watch the Free State of Jones because of your review and the historical context on which you build your critiques and your review on the movies you review. I was in to minds to get the Darkest Hour but, but now thanks to your review I won't especially as he did unforgivable and brutal things to his former-allies in the post war period.
Keep up the excellent work, I will be watching more.
I just watched this movie and then found your video. I was disgusted at the film. The guy doesn't have a presence like Churchill, doesn't have a personality like Churchill. I felt like the actor didn't truly understand Churchill. And he doesn't sound like him either. His cadence is all wrong. He made Churchill seem like a sheltered mama's boy. Working in bed, worried about what to say to Parliament. Churchill spoke with confidence, and brought confidence to the Island. But he spoke subtly and softly, but strongly. If you want a good representation of Churchill, or good account of history, watch something else. I regretted renting this. You are so right, I wish I had seen your video first, or maybe I was just too excited about seeing a movie about Winston.
And the vulgarity!!! He would never have taken a dump whilst speaking to his aid, and he certainly wouldn’t have appeared disrobed in front of a young female secretary.
" I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered ". George Best. Footballer, man about town and natural philosopher.
Churchill definitely did inherit quite a mess at Dunkirk, 3,000 men against 5.000.000!!
That underground scene was what made me start doubting the entire veracity as well. I already was confused by the bunker prior to the blitz though. I saw it on a plane because that's one of the only times I have for movies and couldn't start looking up the history immediately, so this was helpful!
These may be falsely attributed but I gotta:
"Mr Churchill sir, you are drunk!"
"That is correct madam, and you're ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober"
"Mr Churchill, if you were my husband I'd poison your tea"
"Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it"
First one was said to the [ and yes, she was ugly ] Labour MP Bessie Braddock, the second was said to Nancy , Lady Astor.
3:31 you make it sound like giving arms so Poles can fight commies was a bad thing
Yeah I say everyone should give arms to anyone fighting communists, but I also dont know how British people would have viewed the Russo Polish War. It's possible it was unpopular at the time. The band Anthrax is awesome BTW.
@@markcurtis4465 Bolsheviks, please. We're not all authoritarian. Technically speaking, none of us are
@@Scroteydada Are you saying you're a bolshevik?
@@markcurtis4465 no, a communist. Frustrated with how few people know what that means
@@Scroteydada Please tell me you cant vote in The United States.
Your exposition of this film is on point. This was a decent movie ( with some obvious flaws ). It was only elevated by Gary Oldman's performance. As a film, I much preferred Dunkirk.
Yep, the English loved Churchill so much they immediately voted him out after the war.
Also, anyone else get the feeling that this movie beginning with the secretary's first day on the job is low-key ripping off Der Untergang's beginning? Except in Der Untergang, Hitler's secretary is the main POV throughout the movie, and it's important to early on establish what the nature of her relationship to the man was. Whereas in Darkest Hour, they use the secretary as a jumpoff point but pretty much drop her from any story relevance by the mid 2nd act.
BTW, if the idea of a WWII movie about Hitler's secretary sounds like a good idea; watch Der Untergang. It's matter-of-fact, brutal, historically accurate, and the best movie I have ever watched. Even having to read subtitles, the movie surpasses A Bridge Too Far and Band of Brothers IMO.
Late to the party with an unasked story:-
Honestly as an English lad , whose paternal ancestors were most likely Churchill enthusiasts and whose maternal ancestors were freedom fighters from Bengal ,this movie was difficult for me to enjoy.
I love Gary Oldman but other than the acting, everything else was buffoonish to me.
Especially since the colonial history in British schools is already pretty let's say.. washed...to begin with .
Well I'm from Bengal and there's comparatively little attention being paid to his role in the famine here too!
A huge thank you to everyone who has supported Cypher's Patreon.
I'm just a fan and TCHs Patreons are feeding my habbit. THANK YOU!
As someone who has an interest in WWII I couldn’t even get through half the movie. The inaccuracies were driving me mad
Take too much space why dont I? The BIG inaccuracies
Atlee first told Chamberlain in a private meeting Labour would only support Chamberlains request to join a coalition if it was under another Prime Minister (PM). It was not on the floor of the Commons. And theres no evidence of Labour indicating a the PM preference.
Chamberlain held a meeting with Churchill and Halifax together rather than with his buddies to discuss who it should be. Halifax told them he might not be acceptable because the convention is the PM must be from the House of Commons not the Lords.
The war cabinet met every day for 5 days discussing whether to seek peace talks. Churchill hoped to hold both Calais and Dunkirk and war cabinet were not informed Calais was about to fall. The film didnt mention the German tanks advance was stopped for a day so the infantry could catch up
But (after speculating on what Germany might ask for) it was Neville Chamberlain who turned the debate telling them he knew from experience one cannot rely on Hitler to stick to terms first offered. He proposed they report to full cabinet they recommend not to seek peace talks. Churchills meeting with full cabinet in the Commons committee room was similar to the film. But not quoting those met on the underground journey (that never happened) The final "Fight them on the beaches" speech is slightly edited from the original and not broadcast live on the radio. Churchill afterwards read it again for a radio broadcast.
[see the book "5 Days in London" by historian John Lukacs]
I think it's a bit misguided to vitriolise his election loss after the war. The opposition were planning the NHS (socialised healthcare), this was hugely supported by the people of which many were homeless from the blitz, injured and maimed from war, and suffering from little medical supplies reaching Britain due to German blockades. So it wasn't a kinda of 'oh he wasn't popular' but more a case of people wanted cheaper healthcare access.
Solid "Animaniacs" reference.
even if it was fake I could still enjoy the story and connect with the characters where as in Dunkirk, it was hard to have any emotion in it, I felt like I was lying to myself trying to believe I enjoyed Dunkirk
As my cousin the Professor says to every freshman class,
NEVER watch a Hollyweard production alleging to represent history or literature and expect to pass a test or write a report.
Wait, the firestorm of Dresden was accidental? I thought they threw hundreds of firebombs on the city. If that true, it must be on purpose
It's war. They bombed Coventry. We should feel bad because?
I love your work and enjoy your personality but that hat is a no no, cringe
Churchill planned brilliant military victories such as gallipoli
*y e s*
He's the most successful junkie that ever lived!
What about Sherlock Holmes???????
wait
In case you didn't know alcohol is a hard drug and very destructive to your body when it's consumed on a daily basis.
Heartless he was one of many. He had a good ride though, and done more than a handful of good things for his people.
That being said, he was a terrible alcoholic and most likely used many other "drugs".
Thanks for the review, really.
An insignificant sidenote caught my attention -
You said that the Dresden firestorm was not planned, how could that be?
The bombers were loaded with heavy bombs to blow the roofs out, followed by incindiary bombs to create a fire. And the old part of town was chosen because it was wooden and crowded. The raid was a successful beyond it's planners' hopes.
Am I getting something wrong?
Again -
This is insignificant side note to this excellent video, I'm only asking because it sticks out and I'm curious.
My impression of Churchill is that he had some uh, spicy takes he took on the heavy responsibility of getting Britain through ww2 and succeeded, therefore fortifying himself as a idol figure.
or at least thats how I took it
this video brought to you by Winchester Rye. The official drink of hardcore historians everywhere!
Note to self try Winchester rye.
So am I the only one that thinks it is a little odd trying to paint Winston Churchill as the "everyman" and "one with the common man" Like this is not how the British (well English) tend to see their heroes, except for robin hood, (who is sometimes described to be a noble anyway) they are almost always people of the upper class, mostly kings. It feels like an American view being used where being one with the people is seen as a virtue.
I watched this entire video not realising I had a tiny Churchill staring at me on my desk. He's front and centre on the new five pound note, and its good to understand more about him. Thanks for this video!
Excellent video, I certainly think you captured his essence mate.
Lots of information I didn't have in here, thanks for that. The surprises never seem to end with this colorful individual. We studied Churchill in high school of course, but there is no way my sheltered 17 year old mind at the time could have formed a solid perspective on such a layered figure.
I can remember my Nana who grew up in the Blitz referring to Churchill as "nothing but a warmonger" and even though I'm far from an expert, my reading up on him has shown that he was far from an admirable man. I knew everything I needed to from the trailer for this movie showing Churchill giving his speech in parliament with real gusto and fire in the belly instead of what really happened - Churchill drunkenly droning on through his speech. Brendan Gleeson's performance of Churchill absolutely annihilates Gary Oldman's in my opinion.
The speech WAS a plea to fight and a plea never to surrender. Which was certainly not a notion unique to Churchill
Well there goes my King/ Churchill fanfiction
Cheers my dude, cheers, lol. I think everyone needs more trumpets in life announcing their grandiose titles.
To take a paraphrase from a Bond flick I got this to say, getting Hollywood to do anything historically accurate is like finding a virgin in a maternity ward. I'm also reminded that when Field Marshal Montgomery remarked to Churchill that he didn't drink or smoke and he was a hundred percent fit Churchill replied that he "drank and smoked and was two hundred percent fit." It might not have been true but he did live into his early nineties which was an accomplishment considering everything he went through health wise.
It remind me of "The Kings Speech" except it Was "The Prime Minister's Speech".
I would greatly appreciate if you took a look at 2004's Der Untergang! (Downfall in English). Phenomenal movie that paints the enemy as human characters as opposed to glorified cinematic villains. I hope to say it is very accurate!
I don’t get why you keep making a big deal of the title “prime minister”. Do you find it amusing or something?
Because if you do; how does it sound anymore amusing than “secretary of state”.
He is clearly anti-British and a fedora tipping edge-lord.
At what point did I say he was non-factual? I did not say that. I know what you're saying but you can say it about all of the titles. He (near literally) trumpets in the titles of job positions in the desperate attempt to be edgy and funny, but it comes off as overblown and unnecessary - that is why you are confused about his emphasis on "prime minister". I would argue that all of them are unnecessarily mocked (and it is mockery lets be real about it here)
He jabs at "British passive aggressiveness" and generally comes off as disrespectful to a culture far, far older than his. Literally none of the job roles he patronised are illogical or overly flamboyant; they were and are all functionally logical titles. He also made a mistake in the *First Sea Lord of the Admiralty* which he erroneously referred to as "First Lord of the Admiralty". Royal Navy terms, as all others, must be accurately recalled. Saying, "First Lord" or "First Lord of the Admiralty" is generally colloquial at best and while clearly close to the real title (bar an entire word missing) as well as close enough to be near interchangeable if one didn't care, is still inaccurate and simply wrong. It is not the proper title. Get it right.
ThePalaeontologist As much as I hate the British I can say he's not antibritish even though he should be
If it really shouldn't have been based upon Churchill, it should have been based on General Alan Brooke (and Air Vice Marshall Keith Park, & Admiral Ramsey) who whilst in France was doing his best to fight the Germans, who had a bit of the problem with the Belgians collapsing and some of the French units not doing anything to prepare for the German onslaught. After evacuating from Dunkirk, the British resent him to Cherbourg to try and keep the French in the war. Sadly despite his best efforts it was hopeless and he had not insisted in the troops being evacuated 100,000 British and French would have been captured. Constantly General Alan Brooke during the whole of the war had to restrain Churchill from some mad idea, Churchill thought he was the famous British General, the Duke of Marlborough his ancestor. Churchill was good at rallying the British people but he was a poor strategist. I was surprised that General Alan Brooke had turned down to take over from Auchinleck in the desert and rather stay & keep Churchill from losing the war. Can't wait till I get to the end of Alan Brooke's unabridged War diary that upset a lot of people when it was published as he had to set the record straight due what he saw as a lot of injustices done to the few good British Generals in particularly Field Marshall John Dill.
One thing about Winston Churchill is that it's extremely difficult to find anything that accurately depicts the man. In all reality, you it the nail on the head. Outside of WWII he was NOT a good person. He was an extremely conservative, anti-working class, imperialist. Interestingly enough, what ultimately brought me to question his character was a BBC documentary, pertaining to Churchill's Funeral. In particular, when the host begins talking about the cranes bowing to him, as the boat carrying his coffin, floated by and he interviews one of the dock workers, who pointed out that none of them had a liking for Chuchill, not even the workers who were paid to come in on their off day, to operate the cranes, etc.
I found the video here, if anyone is interested... th-cam.com/video/6ybeYQ3vTOw/w-d-xo.html
Heads up, I've linked it to the exact part that I mentioned above.
History has always been a passion of mine, glad I found your channel!
The language is called English you are spelling it the wrong way.
...English *, so* you are...
You've gotta write a proper English sentence to correct someone else, m8
LOL
The Cynical Historian The thing you think is most wrong with the sentence is the point it was making.
He didn't just secretly help loyalist paramilitaries in Ireland , he established the dreaded black and tans
~5:30 Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty for the second time in 1939 just when war came, the "our time" for peace having lasted about 11 months, and didn't become Prime Minister until May 10, 1940, So it was more like eight months rather than a few days later.
At least Gary Oldman gave a hell of a performance.
Its baffling how he drank and smoked till 1965.
Didn’t Churchill go to and graduate from sandhurst? His rank during WW1 as a unit commander. Was Lt. Colonel.
What historical movie do you want to see? I write screenplays and could use an idea for some historical event or person to write a movie about just for fun.
I would love to finally get a movie about the Russian Intervention (1918-1920)
Sounds expensive but quite interesting. Don't know if I want to write something about Russia as I am from there myself and am a bit tired of all stuff Russia related. But I totally would watch such a movie.
Where Churchill and FDR’s policy differed was over the economic Imperial System where raw materials went to Britain and the colonies had to import manufactured from Britain. Rather than from the USA.
The worst one for me is changing the number of dead from Gallipoli from 302,000 casualties on the allied side alone and rewrote that to 25,000, to make Churchill sound "better". Just so disrespectful to the casualties of Gallipoli.
12:37 I knew Stannis didn’t die, he just got transported to Second World War era Britain.
It's funny how almost every actor portraying Churchill, gives him this low toned, slow paced voice all the time. He only did that on a few occasions in Parliament, after the conclusion of Operation Dynamo and in a speech thanking the RAF fighterpilots for winning the Battle of Britain. When he was in America in 1942, his voice sounded very different. A bit higher in pitch, possibly because he thought Americans would doze off if he used his "We shall fight them…" voice mode. Anyway, he could 'do' different voices depending on the historical situation.
i think Margret thatcher was given a state funeral at her death in 2013 the ceremony around her funeral was a very contentious issue in and of its self given her deceive ledership
Actually it was a ceremonial funeral.
its still simmler in sentiment and even a ceremonial funeral was contentions a state funral would have probably caused Liverpool to riot or something
Liverpool, Wales, Scotland and much of Northern Ireland would be in flames if there was a state funeral for her (and I’d join them)
This movie stunk. One of most bizarre, least accurate portrayals of Churchill ever created.
I disagree that the underground scene is meant to show him as a man of the people. In fact, his whole impetus for leaving the taxi and going on the underground was because he felt disconnected from the people. That said, the scene is hokey and undermines the whole film.
Nitpicker here. Person in 5:35 isn't Neville Chamberlain, but Anthony Eden!
Great, just what historical films needed - more mythologizing. I sigh. EDIT: Wait, the firestorm was accidental? I thought that was a legitimate bombing technique. Flatten an area to rubble with conventional bombs and then hit it with the incendiary stuff to ignite all of that fresh kindling. I'm not trying to make a moral judgement call or anything, I just had always read that it was intentional and not exactly unheard of, though not on such a scale. The same thing happened - though much worse - in the Firebombing of Tokyo. I wonder if there are any old handbooks or whatever from the time period that might shed light on this.
Why is it that no one seems to be able to pronounce "boer"? The correct pronunciation sounds like saying boo, but then you append an 'R'. Quite simple.
Yeah, half of my family is Anglo South African and they pronounce it similar to that too. Guess it isn't heard by non-South Africans
Would you ever do Catch Me if You Can?
Churchill: Not even in the ballpark of being a nice or even decent person half the time. But Britain in her darkest hour didn't need a gentleman, it needed a diehard patriot and cutthroat warrior And thankfully that's what they got
I saw some TH-camr say Churchill was lord of the “Ad-morality “ I was so pissed!
Got a book for you as well to look into: All the Shah's Men
Churchill was heavily involved as well.
Regardless of the movie as a whole, Gary Oldman really earned that Oscar IMHO.
Once again film makers show they are too simplistic to make good historical films. Having Chamberlain incorrectly plotting against Churchill so they have a 'baddy'.
@The Cynical Historian-I love your content, would you consider doing the film United 93, directed by Paul Greengrass or the film Rosewood, directed by John Singleton or Anthropoid by Sean Ellis.
Also, have you ever consider doing video of shows based on actual events such as Paramount Networks WACO or Hulu's The Looming Tower?
I'm writing and researching Waco right now
Thank you so much, I enjoy your work. I'm honored you are, may I suggest watching the documentary of Waco: Rules of Engagement. I found it hard when researching it and found this one to be the most credible and the book by David Thibodeau Waco: A Survivor Story a good and objective book on the Waco Siege. I wish you the best of luck because this is the most Controversial and most complex incident I have ever researched and Learned and even went to the site in Waco, Tx. I wish you success in the future.
Gotta say that "rules of engagement" is riddled with problems, but i have seen it (the show is a better depiction than the documentary). The memoir was an important part of the show, since the author was on set.
I have to agree with you that you are correct in comparing the documentary to the show. Also for the show, the use the memoir of FBI Negotiator, Gary Noesner's book, Stalling for Time, My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiator. Hopefully, this will help with your research as well and he was also on set as well. Also, I would like to mention that Paramount Network made a video for each episode explaining the background of the material present though they seem have taken most of the videos away except for the last two. th-cam.com/video/8MMj7f3uoUY/w-d-xo.html Hope this helps.
Also here's one of the video's of David Thibedeau talking of his book and the events in the Waco siege, it's not the only one but I found it really interesting, perhaps you'll see why. th-cam.com/video/yfoT6WTA57I/w-d-xo.html
"[Churchill managed to secure lend-lease...which helped sustain Britain's war effort during the blitz"
Sorry Cypher, but the Lend-Lease Act wasn't passed until March of 1941 and the very first Lend-Lease shipments didn't arrive in Britain until late April. The Blitz was all but over at that point.
Churchill was a racist and a defender of the empire, not of freedom. This has to be remembered offsetting his good works.
This movie plays up the fake history written of and by Churchill and used thereafter. It tries to paint Churchill as one against the world, the underdog. It's simple propoganda.
The tube scene didn't happen either as he was also a class snob.
Margret thatcher was granted a state funeral. Yes the irony was not lost on the British public.
ceremonial =/= state funerals
A real shame how inaccurate this film is. I enjoyed it greatly, and Gary Oldman's performance was excellent.