Darkest Hour

Score:  B+

Directed by Joe Wright
Starring Gary Oldman, Lily James, Ben Mendelsohn
Running time:  125 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Darkest Hour is a historical drama with Oscar aspirations, and similarities to other recent films in structure (Lincoln, Selma) and time period/topic (Dunkirk).  The highlight by far is Gary Oldman's performance as Winston Churchill, undergoing not only a complete physical transformation but also bringing him to life in multiple ways.  Unfortunately, the filmmakers seemed to take the narrative and themes of this well-known chapter of history for granted, and so underneath the sparkling performances it feels undercooked.  Good, but not essential theater viewing.


In May 1940, with the fate of all of Europe - and perhaps the world - on the precipice, the British Parliament demanded that its leader prepare the nation for war.  Having done little to stop Hitler to that point, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Pickup) was forced to resign.  The popular choice for his successor, Lord Halifax (Dillane), declined, leaving the Conservative party to hold its nose and name Winston Churchill (Oldman).  Stepping into the role immediately yet warily, Churchill was faced with a skeptical King (Mendelsohn), fractured government, and frightened nation.  Germany soon invaded the Low Countries and threatened France with imminent conquest.  Determined to resist Hitler under any circumstances - yet finding fewer and fewer options to do so - Churchill became pressed on nearly all sides to consider a (hopefully) peaceful surrender.  Yet even at such a military disadvantage, Churchill willed himself, his colleagues and the nation to fight anyway, no matter the cost.

Darkest Hour has a fine cast, although the lead gets extra emphasis - and delivers.  One of the most famous figures of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, is played by Gary Oldman, and his performance is an early Oscar favorite.  Part of this is sheerly physical: if you're not familiar with him, Google "Gary Oldman" and then "Oldman+Churchill", and you will be astonished.  Yet if you didn't know about that transformation while watching, you'd be forgiven for thinking Oldman was himself a plump, wrinkly old dude, too.  With the camera almost always focused squarely on him, Oldman not only had to constantly maintain Churchill's basic physical posture and mannerisms (one small criticism is that his slurred, mumbled speech is at times hard to understand), but more importantly, also communicate his internal workings.  Here, Oldman recreated an extraordinary yet still very real and flawed man.  He had the necessary confidence and drive, yet his ego often gives him trouble and worsened divisions with critical allies and colleagues.  He had a sharp wit and genuine compassion for others, yet struggled mightily not only to address Britain's strategic crisis but also to be fair to both those in his private life (at home) as well as the nation (via radio and the papers).  Others deserve recognition, too.  Kristin Scott Thomas makes for a strong, vivid Mrs. Clementine Churchill, and Ben Mendelsohn captures a regal tone as King George, while also grounding him in his limited screen time.  Ronald Pickup and Stephen Dillane, as Churchill's biggest rivals, Chamberlain and Halifax, are also great - effective opposition, yet not villainous.  Lily James also has a significant role as Churchill's secretary, though the role itself and her performance are among the weaker elements in the film, as they're both a bit cliche, forced, and at times just not very well done.

Darkest Hour fits the recent, trendy style of historical drama and while it succeeds in "nearsighted" terms, via its characters, it falls short in the "farsighted", or narrative and thematic, areas.  First and foremost, the film is an acting showcase, and within that space, of course, the emphasis is on Oldman as Churchill.  As described above, he does do fantastic work; whether it's the physical mannerisms, his sense of humor, or just watching his mind work, Oldman is great and interesting to watch whether by himself or playing with/screaming at others.  The supporting cast (mostly) fits in perfectly around him, too.  Scene to scene, you want to see what he does next.  The main "action" points of the film are Churchill's speeches, and the filmmakers (and of course Oldman) deserve credit for making these dramatic, stirring, and creative - without the use of an overbearing score! - though it starts to become a bit much in the final act.  However, taken as a whole - and even while I was watching it - the film comes off as incomplete when considering the broader narrative, and even just Churchill's role in it.  The film begins right as Parliament calls for Chamberlain's ouster, and then Churchill soon materializes and off we go.  We do get a bit of back story, and the history is well-known by many (in the audience), but narratively it's ineffective, especially frustrating precisely for those who do know a bit more: why Churchill?  Why does he feel as he does, and is so driven to stand up to Hitler?  While more questions spring from those, the film's ignoring or minimally addressing these critical points is both bizarre and undermining of its foundation.  The film also underplays and/or wastes some of the adjacent historical events, particularly the Dunkirk evacuation. I understand that not everything can (or should be - they don't call it the fog of war for nothing) be explained, but a better alignment of information/presentation with characters' various decisions and feelings was needed.

***

Darkest Hour is a good historical drama with some considerable strengths, but one that ultimately left me underwhelmed and a bit disappointed.  Again, Oldman's performance as Churchill is brilliant and deserving of the accolades he is receiving (and is sure to continue to).  I still like the general idea of following closely one pivotal historical figure and, perhaps even more importantly, a limited chronological and thematic focus.  However, I think the overall narrative isn't as effective.  I may simply not have been in the right mind set when I watched it.  Also, I have a particular interest in WWII history, so this may have given me certain expectations that I wouldn't have with another topic.  But the way I feel right now, with those caveats, is that the film treated the context and narrative as an afterthought (perhaps feeling that was the "easy" part?), hurting the overall experience of the film.  It's still good, and I recommend it be seen for Oldman's performance if nothing else, but it can wait for Netflix/DVD.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55363331