Churchill's Secret

I scarcely ever like biopics, and as it turned out I wasn't going to start with "Churchill's Secret". The main reason is that they nearly always take a lend of a famous personality to provide audience motivation and engagement, rather than relying on the merits of the story and the screenplay. The Churchill legend is tapped here and it turns out to be a weak basis for a rather dull and slow movie. In some ways I didn't mind spending a couple of hours in this world, mainly because of the Chartwell setting which brought recollections of a past visit. The character actors do well with what material they have, and are well-costumed and coiffed. I think it's a weakness that the film focuses on family drama rather than evoking national and global tensions, which are referred to, but not effectively exploited. Lindsay Duncan is beautiful to look at as Clemmie, but she is rather unlikeable, which is a pity. Michael Gambon ticks a familiar box as a senior British male actor in portraying Churchill, but his depiction didn't especially evoke Churchill for me. It's a tough call, but it's one of the weaknesses making this film an "also ran".

Churchill (Gambone) was fantastic acting. Others too. This was a slightly fictionalized account of the turmoil that presented post WWII. I was very impressed with the sets and the settings, ...a valuable look at political influence and the fine wine of older relationships. The young girl mentioned was far more than a young girlfriend and I don't believe that reviewer was paying the movie much attention at all!

The cast for this film was amazing. It's hard to have a declared spoiler as we generally know how the story ends from the history books. The movie allows a little glimpse into the internal family conflicts of the most famous Prime Minister in British history. I'll say that not enough explanation is given regarding concerns for Eden, who is barely visible in the film though he was arguably a major rival for the PM and trying to trip up the aging Churchill to make a name for himself. There's another movie that treats this aspect of Churchill's life more thoroughly. This film is more homey.

It is one film who must see it. first - for a form of admirable grace to tell a story in inspird manner. for the images and atmosphere and Michael Gambon work. not the last, for the virtue to not be usefull to compare it with the others films about Churchill. because, scene by scene, it becomes a personal story. about politics, family, duty and time. it has the virtues of a confesion . because it brokes the problems of phsical resemblance, historical accuracy, comparaisons between history book and the vision of Charles Sturrige. it is easy to define as a beautiful TV film. but, if you are real honest, you admit than is more than a beautiful film.

Surprisingly I enjoyed this more than some of the other movies about Churchill recently. Probably because it doesn't go over familiar ground that has been done to death. This movie concerns a stroke he had. His party's attempted to cover it up. Another interesting aspect is his children's reactions to his illness and recovery. It's not a flattering portrayal of his family life but as we do know there were some alcohol problems with his children. Michael Gambon acts very well even if he isn't physically like Churchill as much as some of the other portrayals. Michael Macfayden steals some scenes as the belligerent drunk son. Lindsay Duncan is the most elegant looking Clementine of recent screen portrayals. Worth a watch even if you think you have seen too many biopics about him.

In the summer of 1953 Churchill (Michael Gambon) suffered a stroke. With Anthony Eden (Alex Jennings) in the US having a gall bladder operation (outpatient surgery today) it was decided to hide his ailment from the press, the world , and the opposition party. The film also looks at Millie Appleyard (Romola Garai) a fictional nurse who has headed to Australia with her fiance to "put his dreams before mine." The dry martini family is called home and their bickering continue. The performances were outstanding. The theme of the film was to show us how the dreams and aspirations of great people affect the lives of everyone around them. As stated, "There is a price to pay for greatness, but the great seldom pay it." We see the price his family had to pay, and "the rock" his wife had to be to stand by his side, realizing that it was all about him. The fictional and slightly anachronistic nurse, a woman who (plot spoiler) follows her own dreams was placed there as an alternative to living your life for your own dreams instead of your spouse as Lady Churchill (Lindsay Duncan) gallantly did.

There is very little that is factual or worthwhile about this film. Churchill was not only a key architect of D-Day, he was central to its success. He was not the dithering, raving fool relegated to the sidelines of launching Operation Overlord as portrayed here. The story of an angst-ridden Churchill, hysterically raving against the Normandy invasion and being soundly chastised by Eisenhower and Montgomery, is pure fiction posing egregiously as "history". There is little to commend this film as it laboriously drags itself through one of the most momentous periods in true history. The characters do not reveal their true nature but are simple, badly drawn (and highly erroneous) caricatures, the story telling is pure torture and its irrelevance to a meaningful interpretation of history and the men who made it cannot be understated. I cannot help but find it offensive that this movie could ever have been made under the title of Churchill, as if this is the definitive interpretation of the man. It is a travesty, adding nothing of value to the volumes of historical analyses that have taken him as their subject.