By Denis Bright

The portrayal of Winston Churchill’s political counter-offensive to Hitler’s blitzkrieg in May 1940 has attracted good cinema audiences. Rolling Stone magazine describes the lead actor, Gary Oldham, as one of the most outstanding contemporary performers. He has an acclaimed profile from previous roles including Sid Vicious (In Sid and Nancy) and Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK).

Credits must be extended to the English director Joe Wright with a record of weighty productions such as Pride and Prejudice, Hanna, Anna Karenina and Pan.

For Universal Studios, the distribution of Darkest Hour was a financial risk. It has paid off well. Even the official trailer from Universal Studios has attracted numerous and largely favourable comments.

From the Movie to the Politics of Imperial Survival

Despite the threat of imminent invasion of Britain in May 1940, the War Cabinet’s temporary dalliance with peace overtures to Hitler through Mussolini came at the right moment to permit the tactical withdrawal of over 300,000 British and allied troops.

In her secondary role of Lisa Bruce as Churchill’s private secretary, Elizabeth Layton, adds an empathetic extension to the historical drama. Elizabeth’s brother is killed near Dunkirk. She continues to type on regardless to support a quite demanding Winston Churchill.

As a stalwart of the British Empire in a civilizing force for humanity, Winston Churchill (1874-1965) is capably portrayed as the essential leader in the Darkest Hour of the British Empire. The rhetorical flourishes of Churchill’s Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat Speech to the Commons on 13 May and the rallying cry of the Fight Them on the Beaches Commitment are incorporated into the movie script. Audiences are free to evaluate the appeal of populist rhetoric in emergency wartime situations.

The movie script claims that absolute commitment to the survival of Empire had strong grassroots support despite some hesitation from royal and elite political circles in Britain as the prospect of a German occupation became more likely.

Churchill tests out public opinion in an impromptu journey on the London Underground. Could this sounding of public opinion really have happened on the way to a meeting of the Outer Cabinet and an oration in the House of Commons that had not been cleared by a scheduled meeting of the War Cabinet?

How did Britain find itself in this desperate situation in May 1940 when some of Churchill’s own colleagues and military advisors sought a peace deal with Hitler?

Historically, it was this Empire First Strategy which prevented British statesmen from warming to a more inclusive role for Germany in international relations prior to 1914. Churchill was a part of the rallying cries to strengthen the Empire during his early years as a colonial military officer. Such broader biographical and historical issues are of course inappropriate for a movie that focuses on the events of May 1940.

Like our contemporary Donald Trump, Winston Churchill was always steadfast in commitment to an Empire First outlook. American author Gore Vidal (1925-2012) also traced the long saga of an evolving American Empire in a series of seven novels from the earliest phases of nation-building to the Cold War Period. Britain itself would become an integral part of this global strategic empire in the post-1945 era as the financial burden of maintaining an independent nuclear arsenal became too overwhelming. These strategic ties with the U.S. had the complete endorsement of Churchill himself during the Cold War era.

Churchill’s own advocacy of Empire First Strategies was acted out in his own military career in the late nineteenth century. Even more than Donald Trump, Churchill’s family background had prepared him for conservative leadership roles.

As the son of a Conservative MP and Viceroy to Ireland, Churchill was prepared for political leadership through military service in India, Sudan and the Boer War with the ongoing emotional support of his wife Clementine, as capably portrayed by Kristen Scott Thomas.

Churchill’s aristocratic family roots as the second son of a Duke from Blenheim Palace was topped up by this early military career. These stars aligned themselves at the Khaki election of 1900 when Churchill became the second successful candidate in the multi-member constituency of Oldham in Lancashire at a time when young veterans from the Boer War had an added appeal.

Churchill displayed very little liberalism in his own decision-making as a Liberal Cabinet Minister. This is shown in his handling of the Cambrian Colliery Dispute, the crackdown on the Suffragette Movement and Britain’s support for the White Army in Russia after the 1917 Revolution.

Churchill also spent a hundred days on the Western Front in 1916 as Lieutenant Colonel of the Royal Scottish Fusiliers. This practical demonstration of patriotism by example assisted with a 78.2 per cent mandate at the Dundee by-election in 1917.

To his credit, Churchill was an astute opponent of aspects of the harsh peace settlement imposed upon Germany at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 which his own Coalition Liberal Party strongly endorsed. Churchill was Secretary for War and Secretary of State for Air but outside the War Cabinet where he may have achieved greater influence over the final drafts of the Treaty of Versailles.

Electoral defeat in Dundee followed in 1922. However, Churchill was back in the House of Commons at the general election on 29 October 1924 for the constituency of Epping closer to London. Churchill’s quest for a new constituency encouraged him to stand as an unsuccessful candidate for the by-election in Westminster Abbey on 19 March 1924. This involved a change in political colours from Liberal to Constitutionalist then Unionist and Conservative, all in the space of decade.

A change in constituencies to Woodford in Essex became necessary for Churchill in 1945 when Epping had become too marginal. It was held by Labour for one term. In the leafy Woodford as a Conservative member, Churchill continued to represent his constituents until his ninetieth year. He did not contest the 1964 general election when Wanstead and Woodford were combined due to population changes and his own political exhaustion as the British electorate tilted to the Left under Harold Wilson as Prime Minister (1964-70).

Significance of Darkest Hour

Darkest Hour is the product of New Zealand’s filmmaker and playwright, Anthony McCarten (born 1961). He received acclaim for script-writing in Ladies Night and The Theory of Everything.

Just what motivated Anthony McCarten’s interest in Winston Churchill in Britain’s Darkest Hour invites further speculation. In a YouTube Interview with Anthony McCarten for Hollywood Reporter, there is discussion of his attitudes towards cinematography. Anthony McCarten acknowledges his commitment to the fine-line between the enactment of history, public education and popular entertainment.

David Smith of The Guardian notes that The Darkest Hour reflects the new-found interest in political leadership which has been generated in the American psyche by the rise of Donald Trump (The Guardian Online 26 November 2017).

Nostalgia for the Churchillian style of international relations reconstruction of history is still alive and well in the Trump White House:

On his first full day in the White House, Donald Trump returned a now infamous bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. He subsequently told Theresa May: “It’s a great honour to have Winston Churchill back.”

The finely tuned mind-set of Anthony McCarten is unlikely to be Churchillian in political style

Darkest Hour is perhaps a subtle warning against following Empires that are on a downward spiral but there is substance in the script for all shades of political persuasion.