Approved by the Academy...

Rating: 7/10 (25 July 2019)

The year is 1940, war is raging all over Europe. Poland is occupied, Holland and Belgium surrendered and France is undergoing the Nazi rollercoaster. All democracies are defeated.... All of them? No, an isle commanded by a stubborn Prime Minster won't stop to put up resistance. Yes, I'm an Asterix fan, in case you haven't noticed... and not much a fan of Joe Wright's "Darkest Hour", a movie whose very merit draws an interesting parallel with Churchill himself, a man whose heroism could only be unveiled by a dramatic opportunity, a matter of timing. Churchill was overdue a biopic and Gary Oldman an Oscar, and that's that.
There's nothing more satisfying than a movie tailor-made to win Oscars and that fail... it's fun to see them stumble and fall and remind a few producers that having movies based on true stories, involving a real-life larger-than-it figure, slightly more eccentric than the average schmuck, with actors who've proved to be bankable, isn't a guarantee for gold. In the same vein, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing the Academy biting the bait. By no means, am I implying that "The Darkest Hour" is a bad film, but is it anything new after "The King's Speech" or "Lincoln". Again, we have a historical figure facing a moral dilemma in the midst of a war on which the future of a country hinges, countless discussions between Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and Hallifax (Stephen Dilane) to decide if one should discuss peace and two patriotic and rousing speeches that seal the country's fate. On the paper, it's terrific but on the screen, it doesn't demand more than what a simple play could have provided.
Indeed, having Gary Oldman, the actor who made a specialty out of playing original and/or slightly disturbed characters, play the most iconic British figure was an offer fans and movie lovers couldn't refuse but how on Earth did the film, good but never great, garner six nominations including Best Picture. The film isn't a war movie but a huis-clos centering on the month of May 1940 where Europe surrendered to the Blitzkrieg and the British isle became the next target. The conflict is simple: should Britain listen to the terms of Hitler or fight... we all know surrendering won't be an option (so much for the suspense) but the thrills rely on the way Churchill is never totally approved even after his nomination at the head of the country, it's as if he was embodying the country's own insulation. In a way, it's a good premise for a film but I suspect its existence was to be more of a vehicle for Oldman than any attempt to inspire a new interest on the British Bulldog.
If you're going to have a movie about Churchill, why not go straight ahead with it, and call it the "Darkest Hours", why making it on the cheap and not have anything about the Blitz attacks and the magnificent way the Royal Air Force counterattacked... the film only exists to show the way Churchill win the battle of opinions, while real battles are either won and lost, having glimpses of hesitation at times and be the histrionic chap we expect. On that level, Oldman never disappoints but don't count on me to consider his performance deserving, here's why: Churchill is a living icon, he's hot-heated, hot-tempered, gross and vulgar in a sophisticated way, all you've got to do is chomp on your cigar and chew the scenery anyone would get away with it. A character like Churchill provides so many constraints that it's easier for an actor to depend on them and then let the inspiration take a life of its own. That's why I believe it's easier to play characters like Stephen Hawkins than the role that earned Casey Affleck his much deserved Oscar the year before.
Speaking of Hawkins, I called "The Theory of Everything" one of the most Oscar-baity films I've seen and "The Darkest Hour" reminded me of it, I didn't expect there would be a connection. Screenwriter Anthony MCarten seems to adore crowd-pleasing tear-jerking Oscar darlings, he's not a bad writer but I'm afraid he's diluting his talents in heavy-handed projects that might sometimes end with failed melodramas and he won't make quite a name for himself following that trend, though he did better with "Bohemian Rhapsody", a film with a greater scope than Wright's war drama. Now, I didn't want to enter that turf about bait or not bait but when I got to the tube scene, I couldn't help but feel that the film was trying too hard, much to hard to pay tribute to a certain vision of London that would appeal to a 2010's audience and give Churchill a sort of sacred halo Ã la Gandhi (a man he despised by the way) watching that scene, I thought the real Churchill would roll over his grave.
There were enough good biopics lately and it's unfair to make critics on the basis of comparisons but I wish we could have more movies like "Patton" or "Lawrence of Arabia" making biopic rhyming with epic, and not limiting itself to a timeline where FDR is inexistent and De Gaulle not a name yet, there's a lot of talk in "The Darkest Hour", I just wished the film could walk the walk. Rumor has it they're planning a sequel, maybe it's a recognition of how limited for such a grand figure the original was.