A Treat Instead of a Treatment

We always begin watching any new film about Churchill with trepidation. After the skewed portraits in the television series The Crown, the fake history about postwar India in Viceroy’s House, and the absurdities of Churchill played by Brian Cox, we are fearful of having sit through another slapdash, ill-researched portrait. With certain exceptions, Churchill documentaries have gone from faithful reporting to imaginary fantasizing. It’s not unique to Churchill. It’s “The Trouble with the Movies.”

Happily, as John Fleet’s production unfolded, we can relax with this one. It is an honest look at a little-known aspect of Churchill, his career as a screenwriter. There are no fashionably dishonest critiques, so popular in the media today. Fleet delves deeply into the best sources, interviewing the right people, who know what they’ve talking about. We hope John is successful in its production. “Churchill and the Movie Mogul” is a treat, instead of a treatment.

Churchill and Korda, by John Fleet (Excerpts)

Herewith brief excerpts from Mr. Fleet’s remarks at the Hillsdale Conference, “Churchill and the Movies” in March 2019. The last of four 2018-19 seminars by the Center for Constructive Alternatives. For a video or transcript (the latter is the original text with added passages), click here.

You might ask though, why should these two men be brought together? Well, first and foremost, they shared love of history, and more importantly the parallels that can be drawn from it.  The Private Life of Henry VIII was a comedy film but it didn’t miss an opportunity to make a contemporary parallel. In one scene, King Henry VIII turns to his advisor, Thomas Cromwell, and says that “if those French and Germans don’t stop cutting each other’s throats what’s to stop ‘em cutting ours…”.

The first signifiant project that Korda asks Churchill to work on is a documentary-drama about the last twenty-five years of the reign of the monarch, George V, to coincide with his upcoming jubilee celebration. Churchill thought this was fantastic and he said to Korda, “I will side-track everything else.” He was already very far behind on the next volume of his biography of Marlborough at that stage.

But Churchill saw this film as an opportunity to deliver, what he described as a “serious, massive appreciation of England and her Empire.” And within a week or ten days, he had written an epic screenplay. I must preface this by saying that the film, sadly, was never made, but I would like to take a moment just to explore its underlying politics, which I think are very revealing.

“An Idea of Britain”

Korda and Churchill remain in contact now throughout the decade…. What Churchill becomes for Korda in a sense now is a historical advisor and what’s revealing is that his next big hit is another period epic, called Fire Over England. This film depicts Henry VIII’s daughter, Queen Elizabeth I, and her fight against the Spanish Armada. It is another excellent bit of England-building.

The central character, Queen Elizabeth, is no comedy figure like her father, Henry. She is a powerful and inspiring war leader.  And she is presented as the embodiment of Britain, played by Flora Robson. She even says at one point “I am England.” in a wonderful bit of screenplay dialogue. The film then conveniently presents England as the underdog. It’s seen as this small island standing alone against an aggressive dictator, who in this case was King Philip of Spain—who is standing in for Hitler at this point. It was made in 1937. So, this is another bit of England-building that Korda made.

* * *

After the war, Churchill and Korda remained in touch. Korda gave Churchill the gift of a home cinema at his house at Chartwell—as a sign of his admiration. And they would spend evenings together smoking cigars, drinking brandy and watching movies. There are varying reports but I think Churchill notched up seventeen viewings of That Hamilton Woman in all.

The two remained friends for the rest of their lives and when Churchill was being inundated with offers for film projects from all over the world, he decided that what he would really like to do was to make a film with Korda. They started a plan to make a documentary about his life, but sadly only the first page of the outline survives, as Korda died a few months later. But I can tell you this, the film was to begin with his ancestor Marlborough.

And so ends the story of these two men, who in a uniquely 20th century, cinematic sense – imparted to us an “idea of Britain” – and by extension, the western world, at an extremely important time.

So, I take my hat off to them in deep gratitude and hope that their legacy and the lessons that they imparted to us will continue to endure.

Q: Another new movie, A United Kingdom,  saddles Churchill with racism. It’s the story of Seretse Khama of the Bechuanaland royal family and heir to the throne. After studying in England, he meets and marries a British woman, Ruth Williams. The South African government, which is adopting Apartheid, is troubled by the interracial marriage. It presses the Attlee government in Britain to exile Khama, which they do. Churchill is not a character in the film, but we are told that he supports Khama and will restore him if Churchill’s party wins the 1951 election. Churchill does win, but now we are told he has exiled Khama for life. The movie as usual compresses history and tells us at best a version of the truth. I am wondering if the Churchill part of the story is accurate. —P.L., Richmond, Va.

______

A: It is not. I heard about this and bounced it off others, because I am a bit busy fending off nonsense about Churchill in “Viceroy’s House,” “The Crown,” and other Drama that Goes Bump in the Night. A colleague replies: 

The Labour government exiled Khama in 1951, when he returned to England where he had been a Law student. In 1956 he was allowed to return as a private citizen before entering politics in 1961. As for the charge of racism, you can’t compare today with the 1950s. It was a different world.

Contrary to the film, Churchill did not promise to end Khama’s exile if elected, then withdraw it and exile him for life. Commonwealth Relations Minister Lord Ismay warned the incoming Churchill cabinet that his return would provoke South Africa’s racist government. They would resort to economic sanctions and demand annexation of Bechuanaland, kept out of their hands since the Union of South Africa in 1910. (The Churchill Documents, Vol. 23, 34.) Khama and Ruth returned home in 1956. In 1966 he was elected first president of independent Botswana. Under Khama (1966-80), Botswana developed one of the world’s fastest growing economies. It boasts a record of uninterrupted democracy. Their son Ian was Botswana’s fourth president, serving 2008-18.

Racism?

Another Churchill scholar, author of a recent book on Churchill’s thought, challenges even the “different world” excuse. by responding as follows. This is certainly something to think about. Anyone reading this may do so. Note particularly the bold face:

Of course, and you can quote Abraham Lincoln in precisely the same sense, and also most of America’s founders (who abolished slavery in two-thirds of the Union during their lifetimes). The remarkable thing is not that any of them, or Churchill, had the standard view of questions like intermarriage. There was almost no experience with that and the prejudice against it was universal or nearly so.

The remarkable thing is that Lincoln, for the slaves, and Churchill, for the Empire, believed that people of all colors should enjoy the same rights, and that it was the mission of their country to protect those rights.

Therefore to say that Winston Churchill was “a man of his time,” or that “everyone back then was a racist,” is to miss the singular feature.

We spend a lot of time arguing that Churchill was remarkable. Then when something comes along that we do not like, we excuse it or explain it as typical of the age. I do not think Churchill was typical of the age on this question, if the age was racist.

Another thing to remember was that Lincoln and Churchill were political men. Also they were democratic men. They needed, and thought it was right that they needed, the votes of a majority. If they lived in an age of prejudice (and every age is that) then of course they would be careful how they offended those prejudices.

See also “Churchill as Racist: A Hard Sell”