“Darkest Hour,” the movie: an interview with The Australian
For The Australian …
Troy Bramston of The Australian newspaper had pertinent questions about the new movie Darkest Hour, starring Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. With the thought that Troy’s queries might be of interest, I append the text of the interview.
The Australian : Of all the things Winston Churchill is purported to have said and done, the myths and misconceptions, which are the most prevalent and frustrating for scholars?
None of these appear in the film, but there are three things that rankle: 1) The lies—that he was anxious to use poison gas; that he firebombed Dresden in revenge for Coventry; that he exacerbated the Bengal famine, etc. 2) The personal nonsense—that he was an alcoholic, that he had an unhappy marriage, and so on. 3) The many one liners he never said: “poison in your coffee,” the phony “success” quotes. I’ve spent forty years researching and exploding those canards.
Politics of 1940
Australian : Darkest Hour shows Churchill under enormous political pressure and somewhat hesitant in the war cabinet about confronting Adolf Hitler. In truth, did he have any moments of self-doubt?
Doubt about the outcome, yes. Doubt in himself, never. It was not in his make-up. In the past his self-confidence had done him harm—as over his support for the Dardanelles naval action (1915) without plenary authority to direct it. In the main, he’d learned to avoid this by 1940. The two chief misconceptions in an otherwise very good film involve its suggestions of self-doubt: The scene where the King tells him to take his cue from the people, and the Underground scene where he does just that. Actually, he knew what the people wanted. He said of them later:
Their will was resolute and remorseless, and as it proved unconquerable. It fell to me to express it, and if I found the right words you must remember that I have always earned my living by my pen and by my tongue. It was the nation and the race dwelling all round the globe that had the lion heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.
It is true about the tremendous political pressure. He got the job on 10 May 1940 only because nobody else wanted it. His predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, and the only other likely candidate, Lord Halifax, had powerful support. He needed to acknowledge their views, to go through the motion of considering their proposals. But in his soul, Churchill knew there was no compromising with Hitler. “We should become a slave state,” he said about any peace deal. Thus his game-changing speech to the wider cabinet on 28 May 1940, so ably dramatized by the film, and by John Lukacs’ Five Days in London: May 1940: “If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”
What if?
Australian : Is it accurate to conclude that without Churchill rising to power at that moment, May 1940, with Nazi Germany on the warpath in Europe, that Britain could well have ended up suing for peace? Without Churchill—one man—would history have been very different?
Probably. No one can know the outcome if things had been otherwise. The odds against victory were high. The case for a peace deal was credible. But Churchill had two unique qualities: supreme confidence and the skill to communicate. With these he inspired the nation—and the Commonwealth. That included the efforts of Australia, which made powerful contributions under its wartime prime ministers, Menzies and Curtin.
Australian : How tenuous was Churchill’s position as PM in his early months? Were Lord Halifax and Neville Chamberlain really contemplating Churchill losing Tory support or facing a vote of no confidence in the Commons?
Remember it was a coalition government—he needed Labour and Liberal as well as Tory support. There was never a threat of a no confidence vote at that time. But on 10 May 1940, Churchill was politically vulnerable. There was huge residual good will for Chamberlain, who had tried to save the peace. By May 28th, encouraged by the ongoing evacuation at Dunkirk, Churchill knew the bulk of the army was safe. Britain had a chance. His speeches did the rest. An old RAF flyer, briefly his Scotland Yard bodyguard after the war, told me: “After one of those speeches, we wanted the Germans to come.”
Oldman’s portrayal
Australian : We are presented in the movie with a Churchill who puts a lot of effort into his speeches, writing and rewriting, to make them compelling. Do the documents and the testimony of those who worked with him show this?
Yes. He used to say, “One hour of prep for each minute of delivery.” That was an exaggeration—or was it? It didn’t take that long to compose his “Finest Hour” speech of 18 June 1940. But we should consider that he’d been mulling over those ideas—a valiant Britain resisting a continental tyrant—since writing the life of Marlborough—which took him ten years. Read Marlborough and you can see those speeches forming. It was his greatest work—far more than a biography. The scholar Leo Strauss called it “an inexhaustible mine of political wisdom and understanding.”
Australian : Some things are, obviously, invented, such as the scene in the London Underground. Churchill did not use the subterranean War Rooms often. And I don’t think he had a direct line to Franklin Roosevelt until later. But does any of this really matter in dramatizing this story?
Not a lot. True, he disliked the War Rooms, slept there only a handful of nights. (Among other things, the place stank—sanitation was rudimentary.) The Underground scene is unfortunate because it misrepresents his resolution. Hollywood likes to reduce great figures to the ordinary. They aren’t. That is not to say Churchill didn’t harbor serious doubts. His bodyguard, Inspector Thompson, recalled May 10th with moving emotion. When Thompson offered his congratulations, observing that the task was enormous…
Tears came into his eyes as he answered gravely: “God alone knows how great it is. I hope that it is not too late. I am very much afraid that it is. We can only do our best.” As he turned away he muttered something—to himself. Then he set his jaw and with a look of determination, mastering all emotion, he began to climb the stairs of the Admiralty. It was the greatest privilege of my life to have shared those few moments with him.
* * *
One can only imagine what he muttered to himself, but I’ll hazard a guess. It is from Marvell’s Horatian Ode to King Charles I—a phrase Churchill frequently repeated. He said it about the British people in 1940, about Roosevelt in 1941 and, improbably, about the abdicated King Edward VIII. Why wouldn’t he have said it about himself, in that hour? “He nothing common did or mean, Upon that memorable scene…”
Australian : Churchill is seen drinking and smoking to excess, being cranky and barking orders, working in bed etc. Did you find this portrayal close to the real Churchill?
Yes, and in some versions the producers thought it necessary to say smoking, which is naughty, is only there for artistic purposes. Oh dear!
My new book, Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality, addresses these canards. Inspector Thompson wrote: “He likes to smoke a cigar, but he realises that the public like to see him doing so even more. He, therefore, takes good care to ensure that a cigar is in his mouth on all special occasions!” His sipped or drank alcohol most all of the day, every day, but it was spaced out. Contrary to the film, he never drank whisky neat. He warned those who did that they would not enjoy a long life. His heaviest consumption was at mealtimes, when it was easier to absorb without effect. In his single-minded intensity, he did bark and become obstreperous—his wife successfully got him to back off. But his staff was devoted to him, for the most part. They understood the pressure he was under.
Setting a mark
Australian : Overall, how does Gary Oldman’s portrayal of Churchill compare to the many other small and large screen treatments of his life? Do you have a favourite?
For me, nobody will ever replace Robert Hardy in The Wilderness Years. But that was a sustained performance, an eight-part mini-series, pinpoint accurate and perfectly cast. Robert followed with many separate performances. However, most everyone agrees that Gary Oldman is masterful. It is a real treat after all the many recent movie misrepresentations. I’d rank Oldman very high. He is marvelous. And his make-up artist is a magician.
14 thoughts on ““Darkest Hour,” the movie: an interview with The Australian”
Thanks so much. RL
Richard, As always your comments and insights are golden and invaluable. Andrew Ness
Pursuing sins of omission is endless and leads nowhere. Darkest Hour is about British leadership and politics. It is perfectly understandable that British sacrifices at Calais would be mentioned. (Let’s also note that many brave Frenchmen defended the Dunkirk perimeter, as well as Belgians, Canadians and others.) But on June 4th, Belgium was out of the war, and Churchill trying to keep France in it. It beggars belief that he would have challenged Reynaud on anything at that moment. It is rather narrow to credit Churchill for doing his best for his country. He did his best for the world. He promised the French, “we will win all back for you.” Meanwhile, for a year Britain and the Empire stood alone, until as Churchill said, “those who hitherto had been half-blind were half-ready.”
2) Baldwin’s refusal to support Flandin, who wanted only tacit support to demand that France resist the Rhineland occupation—and the logic of Belgium’s “armed neutrality” in the Chamberlain era—are discussed at length in my book, Churchill and the Avoidable War.
3) Baldwin’s and Chamberlain’s failures to comprehend the storm about to engulf them are also part of that book. Alas it seemed that they found a reason to spurn every friendly foreign hand stretched toward them, including one from across the Atlantic.
While Darkest Hour highlights the heroic defense of Calais, it could have just as easily highlighted the Belgian Army’s last four days’ stand on the river Lei (Lys). But, that would have tainted the “fight on the beaches” ending. The audience is not made aware told that Churchill, in his zeal to keep France in the fight, used King Leopold III as scapegoat to appease the French, who also needed someone to blame. There is no doubt that Churchill inherited this mess and he did his best for his country and people. We will always be grateful his contributions to our liberation and peace.
2) The Baldwin and Chamberlain governments (1935-39) had a major effect on earlier Belgian policy, especially in 1936 when they and the French did not oppose Hitler reoccupying the Rhineland. This left Belgium without its protective buffer zone. Thus King Leopold III and his foreign minister Spaak declared Belgium’s armed neutrality, which was guaranteed by Britain France and Germany. The King explained Belgium’s position in October 1939.
3) On 10 January 1940, when a German plane crashed in Belgium, Belgians learned of German war plans to attack the west. At some risk, King Leopold through Sir Roger Keyes offered Britain staff conversations and free passage to Anglo-French troops, provided the Allies guarantee to restore any lost Belgian territory after a war, and include Belgium in peace negotiations. Prime Minister Chamberlain spurned this offer, denying the Allies an opportunity to enter Belgium before the attack.
Daniel, thank-you for your further note below. I gladly recommend Joshua Levine’s book on the basis of your approval. I am relieved however that the offending statement in Churchill’s 4 June 1940 speech was edited out of Darkest Hour. A movie can’t be expected to tell the whole story, and to include it would require a lengthy explanation to correct it. It’s well that it was omitted. Dunkirk, in which heroes go unmentioned wholesale, is another story. At the same time it is unfortunate that Lord Keyes maintains that Churchill stuck to the lie “for the rest of his days.” He certainly did not, and made haste to correct himself. He and his son had prodigious rows, many in later life when he was aged and his powers were fading. That incident alone is not dispositive, and two wrongs don’t make a right. Thanks for your persistence in defending King Leopold.
Richard, we truly appreciate your fairness and completely respect your defense of Churchill. Although Darkest Hour is ends with his June 4th speech, his comment, “Suddenly, without prior consultation, with the least possible notice” is not included. It is this I refer to in my statement that movie makers disregard this very germane incident. In regard to Reynaud and the stance taken by the Belgian government of the time, you are right to say I should hold them equally or more culpable for their actions. Unfortunately, the lie is broadly believed in the English-speaking world, and we had hoped the film makers would have vindicated the honour of our King and Army. We did find an ally in Josuha Levine, who interviewed our President, Col. Louis Van Leemput, for his book, Dunkirk: The History Behind the Major Motion Picture Levine goes to great lengths to vindicate our King and our Army. We thank you for your genuine support in bringing the facts of what really happened to the English-speaking world.
Daniel A. Wybo, London, Ontario
Royal League of Veterans of His Majesty King Leopold III
Daniel, I’m surprised you would say that, without reference to my articles establishing King Leopold’s honor and innocence—considering that you helped me write them. The latest version is here.
Lord Keyes is quite right the the “great lie” about Leopold originated with French Premier Reynaud. Churchill’s speech of 4 June 1940, in support of Reynaud, was the act of an ally in desperate times. As Lord Keyes says, lies are excusable “in a great emergency.” But Keyes is dead wrong that Churchill blamed Leopold “to the end of his days.” Only seven months later, Churchill expressed “a good deal of sympathy with Leopold” to Roosevelt. In 1949 in his draft memoirs, Churchill softened his words about the Belgian surrender. And, refusing to placate French opinion, he omitted the Belgian material from his second French edition.
Rather than Churchill, blame the hysterical Reynaud (who after all was about to lose his country). Blame the scurrilous Belgian politicians, who not only vilified their King but court-martialed in absentia Belgian pilots who had flown to Britain or North Africa rather than surrender. While we’re at it, let’s not omit King George VI, for refusing to invite King Leopold to Princess Elizabeth’s wedding in 1947—apparently he was not quite so pro-Leopold as Lord Keyes would have us believe.
I don’t know about Darkest Hour, but you are right to criticize Dunkirk. That movie never mentions the valiant Belgians, fighting to hold the line so the evacuation could proceed. Viewers wouldn’t know they existed. Indeed, one hardly knows who the enemy was in this vaguely PC film, determined not to offend anybody. Belgian and Canadian evacuees from Dunkirk go unmentioned. See: “Don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans.”
The movies Darkest Hour and Dunkirk fail to tell the truth about Churchill and his lying or deliberate untruthfulness in blaming the Belgian King and the Belgian army for the British Expeditionary Force’s defeat in 1940, when in truth it was the Belgian King and the Belgian army that sacrificed themselves to allow the BEF to escape. Listen to Lord Keyes as he speaks to the BBC on “the great lie.”
Thanks for the kind words. But you don’t have the latest! Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality
As always your comments about “Darkest Hour” are extremely useful.I haven’t seen the movie yet. But I can’t wait. Your expertise regarding Sir Winston is so appreciated. That is why I am glad to have your books, like Churchill By Himself and Churchill and the Avoidable War.
All eight episodes are on YouTube, and if you have a Roku you can spool it on a television. Hillsdale College offers video excerpts of five key episodes. See: https://richardlangworth.com/hardy2015
Richard, is there a way to get a decent copy of Wilderness Years? I bought a DVD set on eBay but the quality was so poor I couldn’t watch it. BTW, your writings on WSC are most valuable.
Fair comment. Still, compared to The Crown, Viceroy’s House and Brian Cox, we can be grateful for this one. See “The Trouble with the Movies.”
I have rewritten the post, put more meat on the bones.
Churchill did not SHOUT or SCREAM as Oldman does. He did NOT speak from his throat, he spoke from his tummy—more of a “lispy” growl. It seems to me it was more the fault of the director not doing his job than Oldman. Oscar performance? Maybe, since he has more or less led a squeaky clean life and carries no “sexual luggage”—they might give him one for that reason, but for his performance? No.