Darkest Hour: Dunkirk's Political Counterpart

Rating: 7/10 (17 January 2018)

Director Joe Wright's award winning Darkest Hour not only met my expectations - it exceeded them. Here is why:
The narrative of Darkest Hour is set forth with flair, drama and comedy. As in some of the best stories, the movie dives deep into the protagonist's character, demoting the subject of the war to second place. The story's result is no secret - instead, it deals with a lesser-known, more personal subject. The million-dollar question is not so much - will the troops at Dunkirk escape the beaches - as - will Churchill prove to be a competent leader of Britan? Some people may roll their eyes at dramas so apparently predictable (though many dramas are more riveting than actions), and indeed the film does use a rather formulaic plot strategy; yet it doesn't feel so. It is engaging, unique and fresh, though a bit talky by the end. The unobtrusive humour meshes naturally with a generally serious mood. I would be remiss in omitting a few brow-raising details addressing the relations between fact and fiction. Cinema, sadly, very often finds reason to warp a previously established premise into any shape or form considered necessary for the "adapting" from history or book or play to the screen. In this case, Churchill's notorious reputation in the film seems a mere conjecture - certainly by 1940, the man was famous for his poor military stratagems in Gallipoli, ect - yet it seemed hardly an obstacle to his national leadership. Common opinion at the time may be assessed by an American visitor to Britain at the time, as quoted on Wikipedia: "Everywhere I went in London people admired [Churchill's] energy, his courage, his singleness of purpose. People said they didn't know what Britain would do without him. He was obviously respected. But no one felt he would be Prime Minister after the war. He was simply the right man in the right job at the right time." Evidently, the movie plays rather heavily on a fictional antagonism generated by the British citizens and parliament and directed towards Churchill. I wish it could be otherwise - the story the way it is presented in the film is quite charming.
Need I praise Gary Oldman's performance? I think yes: I shall unite with most other reviewers, and uphold Darkest Hour's Winston Churchill as (though historically false) altogether a joy to behold, and a unique protagonist, I think - in that, for the first ten minutes, you identify more with his fresh-faced typist (Lily James) than with the sour old crosspatch who debuts as something of a nobody and a failure in life. Without spoiling the movie, I certainly can't agree Churchill's temper was justified, and despite the burden laid on the man's shoulders, he was largely a crusty, selfish person; at the same time, I admire his perseverance, his can-do attitude, and his ultimately selfless intention. Oldman makes the film worth your ticket with arguably his best performance to date. A sort of veritable towering mass of quivering prosthetics, Oldman underwent a nigh on incredible transformation in turning Churchill - a feat deserving of the ready incredulity of millions. This dominating character is juxtaposed nicely with that of his typist - a fervent soul who is in a way caught up in the tragedy that is war as much as her superior. The cast is rounded out with a collection of politicians of varying rank - Ronald Pickup played Neville Chamberlain well, yet I should liked to have seen the late John Hurt in the role.
If the acting is great, the visuals are superb. From the opening scene, I was blown away by the style, class and the drama arising from the creative lighting, cinematography and editing decisions. Where recent films have only partly succeeded, Darkest Hour remains a consistent film for the whole duration in looks and mood. It pleased me no end, and I'd love to lay eyes on the Blu Ray edition. I noticed the general brightness felt very subdued, not due to shadows, but rather as though everything was submerged in a dull half-light, which lent the film the sensation of being forever in the thick, murky shade of something titanic - whether it was the dread of war, the drab London buildings overshadowing the lives of all, or something else altogether, I cannot say. For all that, the movie remained fresh; fresh, only, not in the sense of brightly coloured greenery. The mood described above brings to mind a sort of modern noir - again, not because of clearly cut shadows, but of dramatic lighting.
Too many blockbusters rely on grandiose light shows and immense scale to impress audiences without necessarily giving them much (if any) food for thought - a sort of wow-factor competition among the elites. Don't get me wrong - I love effects as much as the next man. Only, I find mediocre narratives driven by millions of dollars worth of explosions an entire waste of ability, time and money. Oscar contenders, on the other hand, tend to be more character-based, more artistic, usually not relying too heavily on effects, I find. This most often leads to immoral, revolting movies which audaciously broadcast the current agenda to the American and international audiences. All right, both ways you lose? Not necessarily. The films of both categories that excel at their art are a joy to behold, and I hold that Darkest Hour delivers a solidly entertaining, visual effects-minimal drama of very high quality. It is mature, amusing, and beautiful to watch. If you see it, make sure you pair it with its partner, Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, as they harmonize so well anyone would think they were made purposefully to belong together.