Marcus Peters (Adé Dee Haastrup) is a neatly dressed West Indian riding the London Underground on 28 May 1940. Whom should he meet but Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman)! The scene (fiction) forms a dramatic moment in Darkest Hour, Joe Wright’s great film on Churchill in 1940.

Churchill, per the movie, has entered the Underground for the second time in his life. (The first was in the 1920s, when he couldn’t find his way out and had to be rescued.) He goes there as the Germans are rolling up Europe. He wishes to ask “the British people” whether they should fight on or make peace. After all, he tells them: “We might, if we ask very nicely, get very favorable terms from Mr. Hitler.”

To a man and woman they shout defiance. “Never surrender!” Their response brings tears to the Prime Minister’s eyes, and he begins reciting from Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome. “Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the gate: To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can men die better, than facing fearful odds….”

Marcus Peters then completes the verse: “For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods.”

Grown men and women tell me they wept over that scene. Me too. Macaulay’s words, I wrote, were so commonly taught in British schools then that even West Indians knew them. I thought it a deft touch, hauntingly moving. Not everybody agreed.

Oh dear, can’t have that

In “Brexit Mythmaking and Imperial Legacies in ‘Darkest Hour,’” Robert Knight links my review of the film, writing:

Macaulay’s Lays became standard fodder for several generations of public school boys, in Britain and the Empire. But the optimistic claim by Richard M. Langworth of The Churchill Project, in his review of Darkest Hour, that they were part of “an education British subjects of all stations once received” merely reinforces the myth of multicultural British equality…. drawing a line from Macaulay’s Whig imperialism to Churchill’s heroic wartime resolve to the current moment of Brexit…. Marcus Peters is an improbable creation [who] not only transforms Churchill into a purported multiculturalist, but also mutates Europe’s role from Britain’s ally against Nazi Germany into an obstacle or irrelevance to British victory.

* * *

I read all this in some perplexity. What European allies against Nazi Germany? None were left. My review said nothing about Brexit or “Imperial Legacies” or multiculturalism. In fact, in the film, neither did Winston Churchill—nor the subway rider, Marcus Peters.

Why can’t that scene be accepted without reference to skin color—representing the spirit of the people at that time? Two reasons: 1) Some of us simply cannot stop thinking in terms of racial stereotypes. 2) Some always have to think the worst of Western civilization.

Does Mr. Knight know for a fact that Macaulay was taught only in upper class British prep schools? Of course not. What is the evidence? I have some.

I bicycled for many years with a dear friend on Eleuthera, Arrington McCardy. He attended only island schools—yet he knew Macaulay. Marcus Peters (and indeed his actor Adé Haastrup) is Jamaican. Were young Jamaicans taught Macaulay, like young Bahamians back then? I wouldn’t bet against it.

So much for counterfactuals. More serious is Knight’s charge that Marcus Peters is “improbable.” Surely no black person then in Britain, he implies, would care whether the Nazis won. Why not? Because they’d been exploited for generations by the rapacious British Empire?

Much has been published to support that theme, which is “too easy to be good.” From the Bengal Famine to World War II ardor, the peoples of the Empire have been badly misrepresented.

Sheer Artistry: The Underground scene

Of course, Churchill in 1940 never had to ask average Britons whether to fight on. He knew their sentiments from their cheers in the streets—later shouting from their shattered homes, “Give it ’em back!” He knew from letters, newspapers, radio—if not from polls, which he ignored.

Carping historians have quoted unrepresentative surveys known for malcontents. Churchill’s Gallup approval rating in August 1940 was 88%. “It was a nation and race dwelling all round the globe that had the lion heart,” he said later. “I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.” (N.B.: When Churchill said “race” in such contexts he meant the English-speaking peoples, not white folk.)

Why is the fictitious Underground scene important? Because, I think, it conveys in a few minutes the national mood that backlit Churchill’s leadership. It is admirably played by gifted actors, but Mr. Haastrup’s Marcus Peters is in a class by himself.

Alone among the subway car’s occupants when the Prime Minister enters, Marcus Peters is amused. The others respectfully rise. Marcus chuckles, conveying the improbable humor of it all. As each passenger tells Churchill to fight on, Peters chimes in: “They’ll never take Piccadilly!” Finally, he completes Churchill’s recitation of Horatius at the Gate.

The train pulls up at Westminster station, and Churchill exclaims, “It’s my stop.” He leaves to address his outer cabinet—and that event did happen. “If this long island story of ours is to end at last,” he told them, “let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”

That was it. Britain would fight on. Darkest Hour reminds us of the words of Charles Krauthammer. “Victory required one man without whom the fight would have been lost at the beginning.”

Don’t mess with Marcus Peters

There are other things wrong with Mr. Knight’s article. He equates Macaulay’s 19th century racism to that of Churchill. He cites “Churchill’s indifference to Indian suffering” in the Bengal Famine, and suggests the film is an ad for Brexit. That may be Mr. Knight’s schtick, but it’s not mine. And plenty has been said in defense of Churchill to those charges.

For example: This is the same Winston Churchill who in 1899 argued with his Boer jailer in Pretoria about equal rights for black Africans. This is the Churchill remembered kindly by Gandhi for his efforts to ease inequalities for Indians in South Africa. The same Churchill during WW2 said Americans could segregate their black soldiers if they liked, but not the British. It’s the Churchill without whom the Bengal famine would have been worse. And the Churchill who wrote of the 2.5 million-volunteer Indian Army: “the response of the Indian peoples, no less than the conduct of their soldiers, makes a glorious final page in the story of our Indian Empire.” Read the evidence. If you still want to call Churchill a racist, by all means do. But first “dig a little deeper.”

In the meantime, isn’t it possible for fair-minded adults to view the Underground scene the way Darkest Hour intends us to? As exemplary of a nation that never despaired, no matter how bad the news? As a people who stayed in the fight until, as Churchill said, “those who hitherto had been half blind were half ready”?

I hope so. In the meantime: don’t mess with Marcus Peters.

Video (click here)

Aside from the links above, here is an insightful Hillsdale College discussion of Darkest Hour between actor Gary Oldman, producer Douglas Urbanski and Hillsdale President Larry Arnn.

In 1927, Winston Churchill wrote to his wife Clementine, “I am becoming a film fan.” He had projection equipment installed at Chequers, the country home of British prime ministers, in 1943, and at his family home Chartwell in 1946. “Churchill and the Movies” is the fourth and final event of the Center for Constructive Alternatives in the 2018-19 academic year. We will view and discuss two films widely regarded as Churchill’s favorites, and two Churchill biographic movies in their historical context.

Hillsdale’s Center for Constructive Alternatives (CCA) is the sponsor of one of the largest college lecture series in America. CCA seminars are held four times each year. Students are required to complete one CCA seminar during their undergraduate years. They may elect to enroll in more. Lectures are open to the public, and out-of-town guests are welcomed. There is no registration fee and the program includes dinners and lunches. “Churchill and the Movies” is now sold out, and up to 400 guests are expected plus students. Watch this space for the web stream video locations.

Partial Schedule:

Sunday 24 March

4:00pm Showing of That Hamilton Woman (1941, 125 minutes). Produced and directed by Alexander Korda, this was Winston Churchill’s clear favorite among movies. It stars two actors he vastly admired, Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier.

8:00 p.m. Filmmaker John Fleet: “Churchill and Alexander Korda.”  Mr. Fleet has made a study of their long and fruitful relationship might have produced several more epic movies, had not World War II intervened.

Monday 25 March

10:00 a.m. “Assault on Churchill”: John Miller interviews Richard Langworth on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 fm. The station will offer an audio stream.

4:00 p.m. Showing of Henry V (1944, 137 mins.) Arguably runner-up in Churchill’s affections was the 1944 British Technicolor adaptation of William Shakespeare’s “Henry V.” The on-screen title is “The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agin Court in France” (derived from the title of the 1600 quarto edition). It stars WSC’s longtime friend Laurence Olivier, who also directed.

“The Play’s the Thing…”

8:00 p.m. Richard Langworth: “Churchill, Shakespeare, and Henry V.”  Excerpt:

How well did Churchill know Shakespeare? Well enough, I think, to ace a Hillsdale Shakespeare course. Both by formal quotations, and by well-known phrases almost hidden in his text, Churchill draws allusions and understanding from sixteen Shakespeare plays, from Macbeth to A Midsummer Night’s Dream—though not, surprisingly, the sonnets.

The producer Marlo Lewis says Henry V introduces us “to urgent problems of statesmanship and, through them, to questions of political philosophy….the delicate matters of legitimacy and the founding of regimes.” I think that is an aspect, but not the most important aspect. Above that and first, the importance of Henry V is what it teaches about leadership.

Churchill wrote in his History of the English-Speaking Peoples that when one of Henry’s officers “deplored the fact that they had ‘but one ten thousand of those men in England that do no work to-day,’ the King rebuked him and revived his spirits in a speech to which Shakespeare has given an immortal form: ‘If we are marked to die, we are enough To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour.’” Compare that to Churchill’s greatest speech, 18 June 1940: “If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”

Tuesday 26 March

4:00 p.m. Showing of Young Winston (1972, 143 mins.)

8:00 p.m. “Young Winston and My Early Life,” with James W. Muller, University of Alaska Anchorage. An expert on Churchill’s autobiography, Professor Muller is well qualified to survey of this remarkable 1972 biopic, starring Simon Ward as Young Winston. The cast was sensational. Anne Bancroft as Lady Randolph, is leered at by Lloyd George (Anthony Hopkins). Robert Shaw is Lord Randolph (remember “Quint” in Jaws?). Young Winston’s evil headmaster at St. George’s School is the great Robert Hardy, who would memorably play Churchill many times in later years.

Wednesday 27 March

2:00 p.m. Richard Langworth: “Current Contentions- Winston Churchill and the Invasion of the Idiots.” A review of the virulent attacks on Churchill in the wake of Gary Oldman’s Oscar for his role as WSC in Darkest Hour. We will discuss four slanders in detail: Fake history in the television series The Crown. Churchill’s alleged 1930s “secret affair” with Lady Castlerosse. The continuing fable that Churchill exacerbated the 1943-44 Bengal Famine. And a renewed “golden oldie” beloved of socialists for a century: the Tonypandy riots of 1910. Excerpt:

Netflix’s The Crown is a not-so-crowning-achievement about the present Queen’s ascent to the throne and her first years as monarch. It starts off well enough. Claire Foy is an honest Elizabeth II.  Matt Smith is a gaudy Prince Philip, acting the foolish playboy. Dame Harriet Walter plays a graceful Clementine Churchill.

John Lithgow as Churchill is good on the voice and mannerisms, minimizing his 6-foot-4 stature with a stoop, and by sitting down a lot. But the script gives him a cartoonish image, far from reality. All too quickly, Lithgow becomes a wheezing old gaffer, clinging stubbornly to power. Productions like The Crown suggest that truth and accuracy matter less than style and perception; that reality must bend to fit the creator’s mindset.

* * *

4:00 p.m. Showing of The Gathering Storm (2002, 96 mins.) Stars the late Albert Finney as Churchill and Vanessa Redgrave as Clementine. This is one of the better World War II biographical movies. Even in a cynical and anti-hero age, filmmakers still can avoid reducing Churchill to a flawed burlesque or a godlike caricature. Except for huge gap in the story line, The Gathering Storm is outstanding. (The gap is Munich, because the film skips it in the rush to war.)

8:00 p.m. Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arnn: “Churchill as War Leader.” Dr. Arnn is co-editor with Martin Gilbert of The Churchill Documents. Few scholars have devoted more time over the years to studying Churchill’s statesmanship; his remarks stand to be the outstanding feature of this event.

Thursday 28 March

4:00 p.m. Faculty Round Table: Daniel Coupland, James Brandon, Darryl Hart, David Stewart

Update for 2019

Assault and battery…

* * *

* * *

Nearly forty years ago an equally great Churchill performance, Robert Hardy in The Wilderness Years,  was received with equal acclaim by press and public. Most importantly, there was no chorus of hate, no trumped-up charges, no hint that Churchill’s overall record was in anything except positive. Alas times have changed.

Hour of trial and triumph

Darkest Hour, a film by Focus Features, directed by Joe Wright, starring Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill,and Kristin Scott Thomas as Clementine Churchill, 2hrs 5 min, December 2017.

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods…”
—Thomas Babington Macaulay

 I finally saw Darkest Hour on February 16th. The delay had not stopped me from cheekily pontificating to The Australian, weeks earlier when they asked about certain scenarios. I have no changes of opinion, but an important elaboration. Unexpectedly, I found the fictitious scene of Churchill in the London Underground tremendously moving.

Star of the show is Gary Oldman, who deserves every accolade. Heretofore I thought Robert Hardy unmatchable as a Churchill actor. I believe now there is a tie. Robert himself was confident, before he died, that Oldman would make a superb WSC. He was right. Equal praise to the ingenious make-up artist Kazuhiro Tsuji, who came out of retirement to bring Churchill back to life. Kristin Scott Thomas plays an excellent Clementine.

The late Elizabeth Layton, a faithful wartime secretary, would love her portrayal by Lily James. A minor clanger: Elizabeth was not present in May 1940; she did not join Churchill’s staff until May 1941. I feel sure she was selected because of her vivid impressions of WSC, repeated in the movie, from her book, Winston Churchill by His Personal Secretary.

Convincing and fun

The script adds depth to the character by weaving in quips. (“All babies look like me” … “Stop interrupting me when I am interrupting” … “I can boil an egg. I’ve seen it done”). The rest of the cast is fine. I feel sure Lord Halifax, “The Holy Fox,” was not the lowlife portrayed by talented Stephen Dillane. The scenes of wartime London are convincing (though by 1940 vehicles had blinkered headlights).

Churchillians will find nits to pick over certain facts, a few misquotes, and various shortcuts made to set a scene or conduct the narrative in the rapid way movies must. This has not detracted from the film’s impact on the public, which has been positive. As I wrote, Mr. Oldman hasdwon the BAFTA Award for Best Actor. His eloquent acceptance speech honored many, but did not omit his own hero, Sir Winston. He later won the  2017 Best Actor Award from the Motion Picture Academy.

Grand climacteric

In Darkest Hour the action builds like a symphony. As the situation grows ever more desperate, the Prime Minister falls into lassitude (as in fact he did), thinking he may have to seek peace with “That Man.” King George VI tells him to ask the people and take his cue accordingly. So he does—abandoning his limousine and darting into the London Underground!

In reality, of course, while Churchill had respect for the people, he needed no prompting. If he had led a government of one, he would have gone down fighting. Nevertheless, Darkest Hour takes us into the Underground. The result is electric. Tears come to the eyes. Churchill would call it “a grand climacteric.”

In a rushing subway car, the Prime Minister confronts his public. One of them, “Marcus Peters” (Ade Haastrup), might be from the Caribbean. Churchill begins to recite Macaulay (top of this article). He hesitates, and Peters completes the stanza: “…For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods…”

Marcus would know Macaulay

What stunned me was the thought of Churchill’s Macaulay being known to and memorized by a man from the distant reaches of the Empire—a shared heritage, from an education British subjects of all stations once received. It’s akin to Churchill’s broadcast reply to Roosevelt in 1941, quoting a poet he didn’t have to name, since every English schoolchild knew: “Westward Look, the Land is Bright.”

Cynics have a different take. “It was just political correctness, since there are no other minorities in the film…. Dunkirk was criticized for its lack of minorities or women. Darkest Hour is avoiding that mistake.” Well, if that was Darkest Hour’s intent, it is all right.

The tube scene is marvelous fiction. It perfectly symbolizes the courage of Londoners, as Churchill described them later…. “ Their will was resolute and remorseless and, as it proved, unconquerable…. It was a nation and race dwelling all round the globe that had the lion heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar. ”

“Genius exacts its high price”

My impression continued through the theatrical but effective way Churchill scribbles the tube people’s names on a matchbook, then blends them into his May 28th speech to the outer cabinet. That oration clinched his support to fight on, whatever the outcome.

It was not recorded; nobody knows exactly what he said. It leads us to Darkest Hour’s final scene, in the House of Commons six days later—the greatest speech of his life, until then. “Fight on the beaches…fight in the fields, and in the streets…Never surrender.”

In an introduction to a volume of Churchill’s 1931 speeches on India, the scholar Manfred Weidhorn captured the message Darkest Hour in its own way conveys:

If Churchill had been amenable to prudence in 1931, he would have spared everyone embarrassment, but that same prudence would have dictated in 1940 negotiations with Hitler. Only the pugnacious mule of 1931 could see his way through the impossibilities of 1940. A more civilized, common-sensical soul like Halifax did negotiate with Gandhi. And, had Halifax rather than Churchill been made prime minister on 10 May 1940, he would have certainly negotiated with Hitler. Genius exacts its high price. If we like the way 1940 turned out, we have to comprehend 1931.

After more than our share of historical clangers recently, Churchill admirers can welcome all this movie offers. Unlike any recent production, it genuinely honors the heroic memory. And that’s a special thing these days. Give Gary Oldman, the cast and producers a tip of the hat.

Politics of 1940

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.

What if?

Oldman’s portrayal

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.

Setting a mark

David Franco, reviewing the film Churchill, starring Brian Cox, raises questions he says everyone should be asking. “Isn’t the ability to accept one’s mistakes part of what makes a man a good leader? …. To what extent should we rely [on] past experiences in order to minimize mistakes in the future? These are the questions that make a bad movie like Churchill worth seeing.”

Well, I won’t be seeing this bad movie. Described as “perverse fantasy” by historian Andrew Roberts, it joins a recent spate of sloppy Churchill bio-pics that favor skewed caricatures over historical fact.

Revisionism: A Thriving Industry

Makers of movies might think it novel to criticize Churchill, but this is far from the case. Attacks on his leadership began early after World War II and have continued ever since. There’s a thriving mini-industry in “Churchill revisionism.” But it started with books, not movies.

In 1963, R.W. Thompson’s The Yankee Marlborough portrayed Churchill as a man of flesh and blood, who made mistakes, like anybody else. In his 1970 study, Churchill: A Study in Failure 1900-1939, Robert Rhodes James focused on Churchill’s political gaffes, such as his dogged support of King Edward VIII in the 1936 Abdication crisis. Edward, later Duke of Windsor, gave up the throne to marry an American divorcee. The Duke’s tepid admiration of Hitler, and dismal performance as Governor of the Bahamas, caused Churchill to reflect: “I’m glad I was wrong.”

In 1993, John Charmley’s Churchill: The End of Glory rocked Churchill’s supporters by claiming that he should have backed away from the Hitler war to preserve Britain’s wealth, power, and empire. More recently, Max Hastings criticized Churchill’s war leadership on multiple issues in both World Wars: Catastrophe 1914, on the opening months of WW1, and Winston’s War, 1940-45.

Whatever we make of their assessments, these historians were qualified critics whose thoroughly researched theses merit consideration. Alas, we cannot say the same about the recent round of Churchill movies.

Movies Faithful to Reality

Churchill movies started off well and were honest for decades. Young Winston (1972), starring Simon Ward as WSC and Anne Bancroft as his mother, was a vivid presentation based on Churchill’s own account of his first twenty-five years. Its inaccuracies stemmed from Churchill himself in his autobiography. (In it, Anthony Hopkins played David Lloyd George. Lady Randolph says: “He has the most disconcerting way of looking at women.”)

In 1974, Lee Remick brilliantly reprised the role of Lady Randolph the television series Jennie: as accurate a portrayal as ever existed. We Churchlllians gave her an award for it—the dying Lee’s last public appearance. It was attended by Gregory Peck, who co-starred with her in The Omen, who praised her “depth of womanliness.”

That same year, Richard Burton played a believable Churchill in The Gathering Storm, about the years leading up to World War II. Again, it didn’t deviate from fact, although Burton spoiled the effect by denouncing Churchill for fictitious acts against Welsh miners, including Burton’s father. Privately, Burton had expressed his admiration for “the old boy”.…but later, the cameras were on.

The 1981 TV series Churchill: The Wilderness Years, remains the model Churchill bio-pic. Herein Robert Hardy showed us both Churchill’s human frailties and his greatness. Hardy and his writers partnered with Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert to portray the anxious politician of the 1930s, out of power, vainly warning of the Nazi menace. Brilliantly cast, the result was a masterpiece.

More Recently…

Albert Finney was a solid Churchill in the second Gathering Storm (2002), a 90-minute film for television. As skillfully cast as The Wilderness Years, it featured Vanessa Redgrave in a bavura performance as Clementine Churchill. The story line, while not uncritical, did not deviate from fact. Even in the cynical, anti-heroic 21st century, it seemed, filmmakers could still tell his story without reducing Churchill to a flawed burlesque or godlike caricature. Then came “Into the Storm,” a 2009 television drama broadcast by the BBC and HBO. Here in a series set in 1945 with 1940 flashbacks, Brendan Gleeson gave us the most accurate Churchill since Robert Hardy. Things were looking good.

Or so I thought. Alas, in the last couple of years, we’ve had three films which can only be described as “fake history,” and a one-dimensional documentary that fails to tell the full story.

A Turn to the Worse

The Crown, a 2016 Netflix series covering the early reign of Queen Elizabeth II, was well acted. But John Lithgow portrayed a senile prime minister who hides his 1953 stroke from the Queen and repeatedly paints his goldfish pond in a muddle of depression. Factually, the Queen knew of Churchill’s stroke three days after it happened—and he was never so dotty as to make repeated paintings of his fish pond. The Duke of Windsor resurfaces here, promising that he will get the new Queen to move into Buckingham Palace if Churchill restores his royal allowance. Where do they think of this stuff?

Viceroy’s House has not been seen yet in the US, and we’re missing nothing. A visually elaborate production, it covers the end of British rule in India, under the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, whitewashing the latter at Churchill’s expense. Mountbatten’s insistence that Britain leave before the India-Pakistan boundaries were settled led to violent strife and the massacre of millions. Somehow, the film manages to blame this on Churchill, who was not even in power at the time.

* * *

Churchill starring Brian Cox is built around the myth that Churchill opposed D-Day virtually to the moment of the Normandy landings. In reality, Churchill had sought “a lodgment on the continent” since the British were thrown out of Dunkirk in 1940. His concept of floating “Mulberry Harbors” for landing tanks and equipment dated back to 1917. This hasn’t prevented Mr. Cox from flaunting his ignorance in interviews repeating a host of canards, including the notion that Churchill wanted to invade Germany over the Alps.

I held my breath when the film Dunkirk appeared, hoping it would not be another dose of lame propaganda. Churchill doesn’t appear in it. But his absence, along with other heroes of the Dunkirk evacuation, reduces the film to a one-dimensional portrait. It’s war on a beach, with moving scenes of heroism and survival. Who was the enemy? A viewer has no idea why Churchill said after Dunkirk, “We shall never surrender”—though his words are read movingly by a soldier in the final scenes.

Hope Ahead? We’ll See

There’s no question that fictitious scenes and conversations are legitimate devices in bio-pics. But they must not depart from what we know. And thanks to historians like Martin Gilbert and the Hillsdale College Churchill Project, we know a lot.

There is cause for hope. This autumn, Gary Oldman will star as Churchill in another bio-pic, Darkest Hour, about facing Hitler’s armies in 1940. Promisingly, Oldman has consulted with qualified historians, striving to find “a way in” to the real Churchill. Colleagues who’ve seen previews say he has Churchill down perfectly. But his script contains some bizarre counterfactuals.

One can only wish him success. Perhaps this film will answer David Franco’s questions. Yes, accepting one’s mistakes does make a person a good leader. Yes, Churchill did learn from his mistakes. He was a man of quality—a good guide for our troubled decade. And after a long lapse, he deserves a film that does him justice.