(Image from http://www.hardwoodandhollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Darkest-Hour-.jpg)
I feel like it's only fair to preface this with a little bit of background from me. I don't like Winston Churchill. Now, I never knew the man personally, and he undeniably did great things in the name of national (and international) security in World War Two, but otherwise, his political opinions tend to rub me the wrong way. In all honesty, I didn't really intend on seeing the film at all, but I thought I should give it a go anyways, for the sake of... branching out.
Joe Wright sets out on an endeavour to draw you in to Churchill's world at the start of the Second World War, and the complex politics surrounding Britain and Europe at the time, and personally, the story telling aspect of the film was quite compelling. Rather than the slow paced political drama I'd prepared myself for, I found myself (contrary to my personal opinions), rooting for Winston. I must give credit where credit is due - I could not tell where Gary Oldman was in the film, seemingly having been taken over by the spirit of Churchill himself. I am no expert on Churchill's demeanour and mannerisms (although I did study his governments quite intensely for my A-Levels), but Oldman appeared to have his role spot on, and for that I can only congratulate him.
To be honest, if there was one thing to point out that brought the film down for me, it would be the complete lack of diversity. A warning to all, this is a film about old, white, men, therefore the main cast is primarily made up of... old, white, men. Which I guess is understandable... but how many films do we really need about the same people in history, shown from the same perspective? There are obvious attempts at 'diversity', Lily James' role as Churchill's secretary is one such moment. Although she does help to drag out a kinder, more 'human' side to Oldman's character, she does not, in and of herself, actually have her own story line to be followed, and appears to be the only woman with a purpose in the film (alongside Kristin Scott Thomas as Churchill's wife 'Clemmie'). After watching I do not believe that there is any way in which this film could pass the Bechdel Test, due to its lack of female presence. Another such attempt made was in the scene wherein Churchill visits the London Underground and talks to the civilians on the train. One such civilian is Marcus Peters, who appeared to be the only named Character of Colour featured in the film. To go on a tangent for a second - I myself am white. I noticed this almost 'forced' diversity, and it stood out to me, but take my stance on this with a grain of salt, as I cannot truly give comments bearing weight on the ethnic diversity in film without being condescending, and totally overstepping with my privilege. Anyways.
That aside, visually, the film was stunning. Truth be told, that is what swayed me to watch the film - I genuinely think Bruno Delbonnel did a fantastic job in creating a war-time atmosphere, what with the serious and grey-toned colour palette. However, what caught my eye the most was the interesting camera angles used throughout the film. A variety of shots form a bird's eye view really helped to give us, the audience, not only a sense of perspective on the scenes as a whole, but also created an illusion of being omnipotent in this cinematic world. As Churchill leaves his underground War Rooms in a lift, the opportunity is seized to create some really striking shots of him ascending alone, the darkness around him swallowing him whole. I left the cinema feeling ultimately very impressed by the visual interpretation of those few weeks in 1940.
All in all, I was surprisingly impressed by this film, despite finding a few flaws. If you do find Biopics to be to your taste, then I would definitely give Darkest Hour a go, but I do believe that if you are looking for a well rounded, and innovative film, this might not be your cup of tea.
Comments