"He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."
History does not need hypotheses, but facts. I do not remember which ancient philosopher has said this thought, but given the obviousness of this sentence, I am sure that he hardly needed apple and gravity to reproduce it. Unfortunately, however much we want, history is not exact, but humanitarian science. You will not find charts, complex formulas and equations that prove irrefutably a natural or mathematical law, and the closest to a fact you can find are the written and printed information reproducing the stories of eyewitnesses who have witnessed a particular historical event. The latter, however large it seems to be an argument, can not exclude the subjective human factor and the possibility of unintentional or deliberate mistakes, especially in view of the tendency to exercise power mechanisms to impose a certain political correct interpretation and, accordingly, gradually and elegantly distorting the story. That is why history has always provoked and will continue to dispute, simply because its methodology, as well as almost everything related to the study of man, is subordinated to a variety of points of view and the reality distorting subjective interpretation.
And when it comes to viewpoints, imagine that I'm going to make you write in the search engine the phrase "different points of view". Sooner or later you will encounter the well-known graphic illustration, on which on both sides of the figure 9 on the floor are depicted two disputants. Given their position, each of the two cartoon images claims to be right about the numerical expression he sees. One insists he sees 9, the other - 6, but the truth is that each of the two opponents is right for himself. This is also the nature of their drama that pits them into an eternal dispute, at least until they dare change their position and do not question the credibility of their limited viewpoint by looking at the case on a different scale. Such an analytical approach is applicable to everything but the reason to mention it within this text is that, after the "Darkest Hour" screening, I myself, quite surprisingly, saw myself as one of these wicked men found that there was a pretty decent dose of reason in the other. But before I rush to explain why, I wish to put a little of a historical fact that I believe will help me justify a bit better my own catharsis, and at the same time will make a parallel between the characters of the main actors in "Darkest Hour" and the consequences of their actions in a historical context.
CHAMBERLAIN
After the end of World War I, peacemaking policy became the norm of a number of European governments, but since Adolf Hitler was in power in Germany, few realize that such a policy is becoming dangerous. The economic downturn forces the UK to seriously cut its defense spending, and at the same time much of its armed forces are in the far reaches of the British Empire, which at the time is the largest state formation ever to have territories of more than 33 million square kilometers and a total population of about 458 million (or nearly one-fifth of the total population of the Earth).
The need for rearmament in the UK comes at a time when the country is experiencing serious financial difficulties, trying to recover from the wounds it suffers during the World War I, and so for the British Government leaded by Neville Chamberlain the most acceptable policy at the moment seems satisfying Hitler. England does not pay much attention to the numerous violations of the Versailles treaty signed after World War I, also does not pay attention to the calls for the formation of an anti-Hitler coalition by Stalin. Encouraged by the sluggish and timid reactions of his main opponents in Western Europe, Hitler initially joined Austria in the Reich, and later that year forced Chamberlain and Prime Minister of France to sign the unfortunate Munich Agreement, which led to the disgraceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia. In the enviroment of Western leaders, only Winston Churchill perceived Hitler's plans and furiously opposed the agreement, noting his dissatisfaction with his notorious prophetic reply to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain:
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
In order to clarify what fundamental significance for Hitler's plans was the signing of the Munich Agreement, and in what fatal mistake Neville Chamberlain's "peacemaking" policy is, it should be noted that at that time the Czechoslovakian industry, including the military, was among the most developed in Europe. From the time of the occupation from Germany to the beginning of the war with Poland, Škoda's factories produce almost as much military output as the entire UK military industry produced at the same time, and in the hands of Germany there are also significant stocks of former Czechoslovakian weapons army, which allow Hitler to arm 9 infantry divisions. In this way, the "covenant" between the four big ones (Germany, Britain, France and Italy) became the first serious step towards the start of World War II, because, in addition to significantly strengthening the military potential of Nazi Germany, the signing of the agreement actually put the USSR into frank isolation, which eventually led to the conclusion of the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which was also the second major step leading to the beginning of the war.
CONSEQUENCES
n May 1940, the war against Nazi Germany, which began in September last year, is going very badly for the UK, which, after the fall of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium, appears to be militarily exposed and dangerously surrounded by a 3000 km long coastline, controlled by the opponent. After the attack on France, the British expeditionary corps in the country is in a deadlock in Dunkirk on the Normandy Coast and it takes a tremendous effort to evacuate as many soldiers as possible before being killed or captured. It should be noted that the British army is only able to save itself thanks to Hitler's strange decision to stop the tank's offensive for two days when it is only 15 km from the last port, from which the British can escape. This order to stop the offensive is caused by complex motives. On the one hand, the archives testify to Hitler's reluctance at this stage to destroy the British Empire, which he then regarded as a stabilizing element, still hoping to make it a partner. On the other hand, it must be admitted that Hitler and his warlords were not prepared to invade England, and even had no plans for such an important step after the defeat of France, although in all likelihood if the Germans had carried out a landing in England, the resistance of the British would be really negligible.
Winston Churchill was elected for prime minister just three days before the German invasion of France, and on May 28 he convened a cabinet meeting to discuss the catastrophic situation the country is in. Churchill formed a nationally responsible government from the three major political parties. He also appoints a much smaller Military Cabinet to make the decisions relating to warfare as effective as possible. The cabinet includes five members: two conservative ministers - the notorious former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Foreign Minister Lord Halifax, two Labor ministers - Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood, and Churchill himself. During the meeting on May 28th, a question was discussed that will remain secret some time after the end of the war: the two-day earlier proposal by Benito Mussolini to mediate in the negotiations between the UK and Germany. Chamberlain and Halifax are backing talks with Germany because they believe that Britain would at this time receive much more favorable terms for a peace accord than if it waited for France to fall. Quite expecting, Churchill is angry and furiously opposes the idea of negotiating with Hitler. Countries that fall farther stand up again, while those who humblly surrender disappear forever.
"Darkest Hour"
The above is the schematically overturned pre-history of the events that Joe Wright is about to tell, because that's where his film begins, tracking the critical month of sharpened ideological struggle between the two fiercely contradictory camps, the outcome of which largely predetermines the direction and the development of the war. For many, perhaps, the logical question arises as to why this month was chosen to be the basis of a film titled so eloquently and loudly, given that the Battle for Britain (1940) and the Landing in Normandy (1944) are no less dramatic and inspirational events from the history of the UK, which would also provide a much larger cinematic view from the top?
First, at the risk of making some criticism, I will allow myself to say that neither the so-called Battle for Britain nor the Normandy landings (given the already successful turn of the Eastern Front) are of such immense importance for the final outcome of World War II as the choice made by Winston Churchill during this first month of his rule.
And secondly, one should answer the question of what audience is intended and what the purpose of such a film should be - to provide a spectacle or to look for a completely different, much deeper and far more comprehensive message. Wright's film is definitely not a spectacle, it does not allow for free interpretations in the reproduction of images, nor does it allow a deviation from the well-known historical framework. It is logical to conclude that one of the main priorities for film makers is to give a lesson on the history of the new, technology-addicted generation trained to perceive the past and any other type of information in the first place, primarily through the intensive audio-visual presentation. The same young generation in the UK (and across Western Europe), provoked by the disunity surrounding Brexit and the uncertain socio-political atmosphere as a whole, is also experiencing its momentary identity crisis, trying to find a personal cause and an inspiring role model. I admit the gambling of this thesis, but I still can not completely ignore it, all the more that three more films have been filmed on the same subject in the past year - Dunkirk, Their Finest and Churchill.
CHURCHILL
Here comes the most delicate part, because in order to determine whether it is adequate as a historical adaptation and as a film, "Darkest Hour", it must be appreciated how much Joe Wright has managed to accurately recreate the image of one of the most dramatic, emblematic and contradictory politicians in human history. It was not a coincidence that I started this text with an introduction about the subjective and versatile interpretation of historical events and personalities, because I really dare say that given the many points of view, the task of the creators was extremely complex.
On the one hand, Winston Churchill's personality has acquired icon status not only for the United Kingdom but also for the whole of United Europe. A person who embodied in himself the aristocracy, the irreconcilability, the freedom and the unshakable determination not only of the centuries-old British Empire but of the whole Western civilization. Churchill is actually a contemporary of the Old World sunset and a witness of the birth of the New, painfully born of the ruins of the World War II.
And since nothing in the world is black or white, there is always a totally opposite point of view. Arrogant, cynical and addicted to alcohol Churchill attributed the main blame for the bloody failure of the British in the Battle of Gallipoli in World War I and the launch of its governance policies in the colonies make Roosevelt twice publicly criticize him because of "unfair and inhumane attitude of the colonists to their subordinate population. " Especially devastating is the policy of Churchill in India, Bengal province, where diverted food supplies on the orders of Prime Minister became the reason for famine killed nearly 4 million people. History remembers and the planes sent by Churchill to turn into ashes a number of German cities, including the notorious Dresden.
You see how difficult it is to make an objective historical assessment of the personality of Winston Churchill, because against any argument in favor of his positive historical role can immediately be positioned two opposites. It seems like this is Joe Wright's terribly difficult task - to find a compromise solution that puts a strong emphasis on the unifying role played by Churchill's personality through World War II, and at the same time being sufficiently respectful of the existing controversy.
I dare to say, however, that Joe Wright does a great job and here I want to plead to everyone who will enjoy the pleasure of watching the movie, to pay attention to how elegantly the director has solved this problem, with only one specially inserted scene in which in a dialogue between King George and Chamberlain the controversial events of Churchill's biography are spontaneously revealed. At least that was enough for me, and believe me, I'm one of Churchill's critics.
Cynical and arrogant in certain moments, humble and comical in others, the image of the British prime minister in the particular historical period has indeed been built very cleverly, so there is no place for criticism in this respect. Moreover, even Churchill's passion for alcohol is presented in a fun way so as to leave no opportunity for the biased spectator to afford a bileful comment, which is great and shows how much the film's authors think about the balance.
GARY OLDMAN
I spent a lot of time on the story, paid attention to the personality of Winston Churchill, I briefly commented on the wonderful work of the team in conceptualizing the image of the main character, and now I inevitably get to the person without whom this film would not have been as good as it is - Gary Oldman. Everyone who watched the trailer is aware of another transformation of Gary, but no one can imagine what a picture-making is about before he looks at the movie. Oldman not just plays Winston Churchill, he's Winston Churchill. Here we are talking not only about the physical resemblance, but about the acting range that covers every motor and articulating imperfection that has become a trademark of the British Prime Minister. The intonation, the puffy blur, the gentle, purposeful gait. It's really an outstanding work for Oldman, which will surely guarantee him the long-awaited Oscar.
In fact, the main reason not to be among the people who fall apart on Winston Churchill's personality is rooted in the dimensions of his cynical pragmatism, denying any notion of morality and values in the name of some strictly individual and distorted notion of purpose. The pragmatism, which forces Churchill to add to his hatred of Bolshevism at a time when some historians have shown his desire through the blood of Russian soldiers to weaken the military pressure against England. In support of this statement, it is argued that for nearly three years, Churchill virtuously avoided the opening of a "second front" in Europe, preferring to retain its forces, awaiting the outcome of the Battle of the Eastern Front. It also speculates what would have happened if the Allied troops had carried out the landing in Normandy in 1942 or 1943 rather than in 1944, with the utterly logical assumptions that such a move would save the lives of millions of Europeans. This is also the reason I personally dislike such a highly hypocritical approach, but I admit that for others this would probably be the only rational policy, so I will not go into unnecessary disputes about who is right and who is wrong. A question of "different points of view". Ultimately, obviously, the goal justifies the means because, for the British, Winston Churchill is indeed the ideal prime minister for war time. Still, until the landing in Normandy, the British rarely faced more than ten German divisions (as opposed to more than 200 focusing on the Eastern Front), which in fact allowed the United Kingdom to give nearly 50 times less casualties than the USSR.
Churchill's decision to assert Britain's independence during this first month of his government, his animal vigor, his determination and his oratory talent enabled the UK to mobilize all its forces to fight tyranny, which also serves as a signal to the rest of the world that the battle has just begun and will be led by seas and oceans, streets and mountains ... to full exhaustion and at all costs.
