Darkest Hour

Western Europe crippled by Nazi aggression.

The entire British army almost lost.

Homeland resistance overwhelmed yet fierce.

Bitter negotiations clad in distraught whimper.

A controversial figure emerges, as respected and envied as he was distrusted and maligned, as equally capable of blundering as he was of succeeding, audaciously exemplifying both defeat and triumph, yet always ready to make difficult decisions, finding bold solutions when faced with formidable opposition, branded bullish bellicose resolve, suddenly called upon, to lead throughout times most wrathful.

Joe Wright's Darkest Hour presents a well-rounded examination of Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman) near the beginning of World War II, when he was tasked with leading the United Kingdom.

It appeared as if the British army would indeed be lost, which led many politicians to reasonably consider capitulating to Germany.

Although after seeing how cavalierly Hitler had disregarded deals he had struck with independent nations in recent years, negotiating with him under any circumstances must have made one feel extremely vulnerable.

Churchill seemed to understand the latter better than Halifax (Stephen Dillane) or Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup), as suggested by Darkest Hour, and even if the loss of Britain's army may have compelled him to agree to direst terms, he was still courageous enough to do anything he could to avoid such a disastrous situation.

Call on the civilian fleet to save the troops surrounded at Dunkirk.

Brilliance.

Joe Wright's Churchill was a fighter who knew how to lose but would do anything he could to win during a conflict.

And he wanted to save Britain from Nazi tyranny.

He wanted to fight them until all was lost.

Others within the government assumed they had already lost, so Churchill had to fight them along with the Nazis.

In fact, Darkest Hour showcases a politician who had to fight powerful personalities throughout the entire course of each and every day after he was sworn in as prime minister, a non-stop internal and external battle which he was stubborn enough to keep fighting yet malleable enough to know when to back down.

Staying one step ahead of alcoholic ruin the whole time.

He was broke too.

His unpredictable nature even frightened the King (Ben Mendelsohn), unpredictable inasmuch as people never knew what he was going to say or do, never knew what improvised comment or action would support his determined passionate argument.

It was like he handled the most stressful circumstances Britain had faced since the Roman Empire invaded with the resolute calm of a massive grizzly bear defending its kill from both other bears and a pack of wolves, always ready to fight on, thoughtfully working within an emotional tempest which he had the foresight to bravely ride and the composure to resist unbridled.

It is a movie after all, I don't know if he was really such an admirable person, but it's still a good movie that's well worth seeing, if not to praise the person who led the UK through its darkest hours, then to uphold a multidimensional inspirational caricature which could practically imagine a concrete solution for any theoretical problem, without overlooking lessons taught by chance and spontaneity, irrepressible spirit, always struggling on.

Reanimated by Gary Oldman.

I was almost clapping near the end.

Churchill

Qualifying the identity of a charismatic colossus with definitive ambient converging characteristics can be as politically crafty as the individual under observation, if sober rhetoric is to be biographically evidenced, the resultant identity less of a fiction than an interpretive constellation/polemic/homage/impression, narrative arguments creatively distilling personality inasmuch as their propositions are culturally elevated, for a time, for a fissure, for a season, skilfully situating themselves within broader agitations depending on the motivations of their supporting cast, like strategic serendipity, or a bit of provocative horseplay.

The wonderful thing about In Search of Lost Time is that it follows the same characters for thousands of pages throughout their lives, Proust intricately demonstrating how different ages and relationships and fashions and successes/failures privately shape mass marketed caricatures, a book about someone's life seeming more like a resonant aspect within such a frame, even if the press may still play the Ignatieff card if it so chooses.

So much diversity condensed into stereotypical miniatures which guide light yet edgy conversations with the playful wit of meaningless escapades.

Unless they're about Trump.

Monster.

Jonathan Teplitzky's Churchill sympathetically examines the great orator's rational wish to not repeat World War I's Gallipoli disaster.

His criticisms of Operation Overlord, as logical and sound as they appear, were countered by alternative evaluations which were rather unappreciative of his sustained opposition.

The realization that his viewpoints weren't militaristically cherished briefly derailed his confident locomotion, the film humanistically yet melodramatically suggesting that this was the moment he completely transformed from military strategist to political exponent.

Chruchill (Brian Cox) the man figures more prominently in Teplitzky's film than the immutable godlike figurehead I've encountered in books at times, a compelling cinematic feature considering how respectfully leadership at the highest levels is depicted within.

Cognizant of the great unknown, the approach of less critical engagements, he strove on regardless, cultivating tidal pride.

James Purefoy (King George VI) delivers a brilliant supporting performance.

Brian Cox also excels.

*Forgot to mention the ways in which Churchill's editing process is dramatized: fantastic. At least when he's searching for the right word.