Brian Cox plays the eponymous titular figure although facially he looks quite unlike the original, and doesn't sound much like him either - but what an actor! This putting aside of resemblances, apart from some very feeble attempts, also occurs with other members of the cast, most notably with both John Slattery as Eisenhower and James Purefoy as King George VI , the two of them looking very little like the figures they are portraying. Miranda Richardson as Churchill's steely wife, Clem, who wishes she could have her own life back, does bear a passing resemblance to the woman some of us can recall. One has to make a mental effort to stop these distractions getting in the way of enjoying the film - though, of course, younger audience members won't be as troubled as I was.
The film shows a side of Churchill that is rarely, if ever seen. Naturally I can't vouch for any veracity on that part, but it's quite different from the politician as he's usually played - here more of a fast-talking, petulant, short-tempered, yelling combative rather than the reflective and measured, brooding growler we've grown used to.
I wasn't aware of the extent to which he'd been cut out of decision-making regarding the D-day landings after he'd vociferously expressed his disapproval of the plan, and was subsequently reduced to watching and grunting from the sidelines while Eisenhower issued the vital instructions. Even Field-Marshal Montgomery had more influence than Churchill.
Churchill's attitude and animosity arises from his being haunted by the appalling loss of life in the Dardanelles landings thirty years before in the First World War, for which he feels he bore some responsibility, and is afraid that history might be repeating itself, with his name being vilified. (We are spared of any warfare scenes).
Director Jonathan Teplitzky's probably best know for his 2013 film 'The Railway Man' with Colin Firth, which was fair enough without being a exceptional recommendation.
This one is a patchy film, interesting in sections but never quite taking off enough to keep one gripped despite our knowing how events turned out. I kept looking for things I hadn't known before, and I suppose that there's enough of them to keep the mind occupied. But as for making a satisfying whole (sensibly coming in at just a little over 90 minutes) I think it left something to be desired...............6.
The prof wants to see this one , i want to see the film HEAL THE LIVING, hope i win
ReplyDeleteDidn't know about 'Heal the Living', J.G. On looking it up looks like it might be more interesting than this one.
DeleteThis sounds good, mostly because I loathe it when the actor looks and sounds so much like the ral person, because I keep staring at them trying to find the actor.
ReplyDeleteYou'll have no trouble in finding the actor in this, Bob. The original character we are familiar with is barely recognisable.
DeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteI prefer historical figures who are represented in films to at least passably look like the individual they are portraying. There are just too many actors out there to not adhere to this common sense approach to film making. I'm surprised the producers of this film didn't have a black man perform the Churchill character. In today's politically correct environment we have come to accept such normalization of ridiculousness.
Ron
It does require a constant mental effort not to be distracted by the dissimilarity in this film, Ron - and, as I say above, it doesn't only apply to the title character. Very curious, though for a younger audience not so familiar with originals it won't be quite as troubling. Though how many younger people would want to see this anyway?
Delete