The film Churchill, by Jonathan Teplitzky, has just been released in theaters.
Leading the cast, actor Brian Cox, who plays the old bulldog, is literally dazzling; he fits the role perfectly, growling, storming, pontificating, barking, and roaring just like the original, and nothing has been overlooked to perfect the illusion: a slightly stooped posture, blue bow tie, “siren suit,” and oversized cigar.
His supporting cast has also been carefully selected: his wife Clementine (Miranda Richardson) is remarkably classy, poised, and sincere, and her dialogues – often delightful – with her husband are among the film’s most moving moments.
It should therefore come as no surprise if one, the other, or both are awarded an Oscar in the future. The loyal advisor Jan Smuts is also more lifelike, even perfectly mimicking the guttural accent of the illustrious South African marshal and statesman.
Of course, there are also some shortcomings: the actor who plays Eisenhower is not lacking in talent, but he bears no resemblance to the supreme commander, the ally of 1944; similarly, viewers will also struggle to recognize King George VI and Marshal Montgomery, both rather slender and modestly sized in reality.
The screenplay is initially based on a solid historical foundation: during the months leading up to June 6, 1944, Winston Churchill intervened repeatedly to try to alter the objective, strategy, tactics, and logistics of the largest landing in world history.
However, the screenplay’s weakness lies in its attempt to compress into two days in June 1944 events that occurred over two years and two months earlier.
Thus, what can easily be understood at a distance from D-Day becomes laughable on the eve of its initiation: Churchill was indeed an erratic strategist, but not to the point of wanting to completely alter the Allied objectives and strategy when the invasion force had already embarked.
Ultimately, the plot of Churchill seems somewhat inspired by that of The King’s Speech, and it ends in the same way – with a speech. But the king’s was authentic, while Churchill’s is purely imaginary.
