Somehow the Albert Finney film got deeper into the man, the image of Finney going for a pee was just so Churchill - with a complete lack of concern about anything else when he had an idea in his head (particularly a speech in the forming), including his own nudity. Finney also looked more physically like Churchill.
Other reviewers have commented on the licence with history taken and this is a good point, but given that this man so centred his success on the spoken word, really there should have been greater use of his speeches to parliament or the repeats he subsequently made on the BBC. These speeches really were "tour-de-force" and the amount of effort that went into just one speech was truly incredible - perhaps a week or two of solid work - particularly his address to Congress.
One element that pleased me particularly was the reporting of the ==Gestapo speech==. This caused real controversy at the time, and maybe contributed to his defeat in 1945.
Perhaps the film makers used this speech as a device to highlight an apparently more unreasonable part of his nature (Churchill is still hated by some sections of the Left for his actions as Chancellor before and during the General Strike). So while it is valuable to show that he was a complex character, it reflected for me more other people's opinion of him rather than his real character as a man.
Indeed, by contrast, some on the Right in Britain today see a real degree of prescience in what he said, in that the police forces which were widely supported by the middle classes in the 80s and 90s have, in the naughties (and particularly post 9/11) lost that support through just such heavy-handed support for a socialist government, chasing tractor production figures - just as Churchill envisaged - "no longer civil and no longer servants".
Certainly in comparison with his other speeches the Gestapo speech was of minor importance and its impact in 1945 was probably very small (he was going to lose anyway) the film would have done better to concentrate on his other speeches - perhaps the Iron Curtain speech. Indeed there would have been better ways to show that in 45 he was out of touch with a nation tired of war
In all this, the Gleeson portrayal is still well worth watching and sheds light on the ability of a single man to shape history.
BTW for those interested in learning more about this flawed but truly great man, you could do worse than to read Roy Jenkin's biography of Churchill - perhaps the best - and very readable.
Other reviewers have commented on the licence with history taken and this is a good point, but given that this man so centred his success on the spoken word, really there should have been greater use of his speeches to parliament or the repeats he subsequently made on the BBC. These speeches really were "tour-de-force" and the amount of effort that went into just one speech was truly incredible - perhaps a week or two of solid work - particularly his address to Congress.
One element that pleased me particularly was the reporting of the ==Gestapo speech==. This caused real controversy at the time, and maybe contributed to his defeat in 1945.
Perhaps the film makers used this speech as a device to highlight an apparently more unreasonable part of his nature (Churchill is still hated by some sections of the Left for his actions as Chancellor before and during the General Strike). So while it is valuable to show that he was a complex character, it reflected for me more other people's opinion of him rather than his real character as a man.
Indeed, by contrast, some on the Right in Britain today see a real degree of prescience in what he said, in that the police forces which were widely supported by the middle classes in the 80s and 90s have, in the naughties (and particularly post 9/11) lost that support through just such heavy-handed support for a socialist government, chasing tractor production figures - just as Churchill envisaged - "no longer civil and no longer servants".
Certainly in comparison with his other speeches the Gestapo speech was of minor importance and its impact in 1945 was probably very small (he was going to lose anyway) the film would have done better to concentrate on his other speeches - perhaps the Iron Curtain speech. Indeed there would have been better ways to show that in 45 he was out of touch with a nation tired of war
In all this, the Gleeson portrayal is still well worth watching and sheds light on the ability of a single man to shape history.
BTW for those interested in learning more about this flawed but truly great man, you could do worse than to read Roy Jenkin's biography of Churchill - perhaps the best - and very readable.