For whatever reason, the story of Operation Dynamo and the Dunkirk evacuation has become immensely popular with writers and directors in 2017. First, there was Lone Scherfig's Their Finest, a genial and odd romantic comedy that centered on the making of a propaganda piece about Dunkirk. Just a few months later, Christopher Nolan delivered the definitive take on the "colossal military disaster" with Dunkirk, his survival epic and my favorite movie of the year. Of course, this is without mentioning Churchill, the Brian Cox-starred flick that focused on the days before the D-Day invasion, or The Crown, the popular Netflix show about the British royals that features John Lithgow as Churchill. And after all of that, Joe Wright's Darkest Hour is roaring into theaters, a Winston Churchill biopic that details the behind-the-scenes political battles that occurred in the days days before the British troops were set to meet their fate at Dunkirk. It's an interesting companion piece to Nolan's film, and many suspect that we'll eventually see a fan cut where the two movies are spliced together.
The big sell with Darkest Hour is Gary Oldman, who is the current Best Actor favorite (though Timothee Chalamet is breathing down his neck) for his performance as the beloved British Prime Minister. He's very good, and under the guidance of Wright, Darkest Hour is a well-made film. But despite the craft and acting caliber on display, this classic piece of Oscar bait gleans little new insight from these characters or scenarios, going for big moments and unearned emotional crescendos where there should be nuance and depth. It's a film that is lacking severely in tension, devoid of any real stakes that could contextualize the story of this evacuation in the greater history of the war. And while it's moderately entertaining with some dynamic scenes, it never builds up a head of steam as it moves to its conclusion, never engaging the audience the way it should. Simply put- Darkest Hour is fine, just lower those expectations a few notches.
With Hitler marching across Europe, Parliament decides that a change in leadership is necessary for the country. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) reluctantly steps aside, and while the Conservative party desperately wants Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) to take the reigns, they knew that their political opponents will only accept one man- Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). Faced with resistance from King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) and forced to deal with the continued influence of Chamberlain, Churchill is tasked with making decisions that will shape the future of the United Kingdom. With support from his wife Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas), typist Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), and the British citizenry, Churchill will decide whether to engage in peace talks with Hitler or move forward with the evacuation at Dunkirk. And in the process, the fearless leader will set the course for one of humanity's greatest conflicts.
From a technical perspective, Darkest Hour is a finely tuned machine, a handsome and gloriously old-fashioned drama. It's talky and theatrical, more fit to be a stage adaptation than a big-screen experience. But director Joe Wright delivers just enough to make it work, bringing Anthony McCarten's smart, complex screenplay to life with a steady hand and a mastery of composition. Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography seemingly captures the backroom politicizing with a kind of grey filter, making the constant cigar smoking feel that much more tangible. Dario Marianelli's music underscores some crucial moments, but Wright is content to let silence do the heavy lifting in many of the scenes, a peculiar and welcome choice for such a big and boisterous biopic. Of course, the interludes of quiet are in stark contrast to Gary Oldman's show-stopping performance as Winston Churchill, which dominates every scene of the film. However, Oldman's turn as the PM has its moments of sensitivity and feeling- there's not nearly as much shouting as indicated by the trailers. A sequence on the tube in London has already been described as a highlight of the film, and I couldn't agree more.
But even with Oldman's attention-grabbing, thoroughly impressive performance as Churchill, Darkest Hour is a film of shockingly little depth. With all of the descriptions coming out of TIFF and Venice, I expected to find a biopic that would depict the intense deals and military strategy that occurred in the days leading up to the evacuation at Dunkirk. But that's not really the case at all. Like everything else in Darkest Hour, the narrative is reduced to a series of simplistic binary opposites that ignore the nuance of the situation. It's either fight or surrender, strength or cowardice, leadership or fear- Wright captures the big picture but ignores the gritty details of the situation. Darkest Hour is a movie that is simply about Churchill deciding whether to negotiate with Hitler or press on with the war. The entire film builds up to his famous speech praising the virtue of the British spirit, which, in reality, happened after the Dunkirk evacuation. Darkest Hour messes around with the facts of history in order to service a rather simple story that does little to generate suspense or tension, moving forward to a supposedly rousing conclusion that isn't nearly as emotional or wrenching as the filmmakers believe it to be.
This would all be slightly more tolerable if we gained any insight into the mind of Churchill, or if we knew anything compelling about any of the supporting characters. In our strange, Trump-led times, Darkest Hour has been praised for its depiction of leadership in a desperate moment. However, Wright and McCarten portray Churchill as a cantankerous, unpredictable politician, someone with a few good ideas mixed in with a million bad ones- not exactly the kind of leadership we need today. Essentially, Churchill is elevated but not humanized, with Darkest Hour functioning as a portrait of a leader, not a human being. There are hints of a movie that digs deeper into Churchill's heart and soul, such as a brief scene towards the beginning of the film where Clemmie discusses the family sacrifices made to get him to the top of British politics. But that's never mentioned again, and like all of the other supporting characters, Clemmie fades to the background. Perhaps the best (and most noticeable) example of the film's inconsistent approach comes in the form of Lily James' Elizabeth Layton. It's a fine performance from a rising star, but Layton's character is defined by her brother's position in the war. Does she do anything else? Do we know anything else about her? Nope.
When you buy a ticket something like Darkest Hour, you know what kind of movie you're going to see. All of these "Oscar" movies feature sweeping scores, big, bombastic moments, and a pompous, overblown sense of importance. Make no mistake- something like Darkest Hour is designed and manufactured to win awards. But it's a question of execution, and some of these movies execute their pre-ordained beats and some do not. It's why I liked The King's Speech and The Imitation Game despite the backlash and the simplicity of the material- those are familiar dramas executed in a satisfying, crowd-pleasing fashion. For all of its solid performances and uplifting moments, Darkest Hour is ultimately a middle-of-the-road drama. It's handsome and crafted with care, holding the kind of dramatic weight and gravitas that older audiences crave. But if you're looking for genuine emotion or thrilling storytelling, there's little to be found in this reverent tribute to a 20th century icon.
THE FINAL GRADE: C+ (6.3/10)
Images courtesy of Focus Features
The big sell with Darkest Hour is Gary Oldman, who is the current Best Actor favorite (though Timothee Chalamet is breathing down his neck) for his performance as the beloved British Prime Minister. He's very good, and under the guidance of Wright, Darkest Hour is a well-made film. But despite the craft and acting caliber on display, this classic piece of Oscar bait gleans little new insight from these characters or scenarios, going for big moments and unearned emotional crescendos where there should be nuance and depth. It's a film that is lacking severely in tension, devoid of any real stakes that could contextualize the story of this evacuation in the greater history of the war. And while it's moderately entertaining with some dynamic scenes, it never builds up a head of steam as it moves to its conclusion, never engaging the audience the way it should. Simply put- Darkest Hour is fine, just lower those expectations a few notches.
From a technical perspective, Darkest Hour is a finely tuned machine, a handsome and gloriously old-fashioned drama. It's talky and theatrical, more fit to be a stage adaptation than a big-screen experience. But director Joe Wright delivers just enough to make it work, bringing Anthony McCarten's smart, complex screenplay to life with a steady hand and a mastery of composition. Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography seemingly captures the backroom politicizing with a kind of grey filter, making the constant cigar smoking feel that much more tangible. Dario Marianelli's music underscores some crucial moments, but Wright is content to let silence do the heavy lifting in many of the scenes, a peculiar and welcome choice for such a big and boisterous biopic. Of course, the interludes of quiet are in stark contrast to Gary Oldman's show-stopping performance as Winston Churchill, which dominates every scene of the film. However, Oldman's turn as the PM has its moments of sensitivity and feeling- there's not nearly as much shouting as indicated by the trailers. A sequence on the tube in London has already been described as a highlight of the film, and I couldn't agree more.
But even with Oldman's attention-grabbing, thoroughly impressive performance as Churchill, Darkest Hour is a film of shockingly little depth. With all of the descriptions coming out of TIFF and Venice, I expected to find a biopic that would depict the intense deals and military strategy that occurred in the days leading up to the evacuation at Dunkirk. But that's not really the case at all. Like everything else in Darkest Hour, the narrative is reduced to a series of simplistic binary opposites that ignore the nuance of the situation. It's either fight or surrender, strength or cowardice, leadership or fear- Wright captures the big picture but ignores the gritty details of the situation. Darkest Hour is a movie that is simply about Churchill deciding whether to negotiate with Hitler or press on with the war. The entire film builds up to his famous speech praising the virtue of the British spirit, which, in reality, happened after the Dunkirk evacuation. Darkest Hour messes around with the facts of history in order to service a rather simple story that does little to generate suspense or tension, moving forward to a supposedly rousing conclusion that isn't nearly as emotional or wrenching as the filmmakers believe it to be.
This would all be slightly more tolerable if we gained any insight into the mind of Churchill, or if we knew anything compelling about any of the supporting characters. In our strange, Trump-led times, Darkest Hour has been praised for its depiction of leadership in a desperate moment. However, Wright and McCarten portray Churchill as a cantankerous, unpredictable politician, someone with a few good ideas mixed in with a million bad ones- not exactly the kind of leadership we need today. Essentially, Churchill is elevated but not humanized, with Darkest Hour functioning as a portrait of a leader, not a human being. There are hints of a movie that digs deeper into Churchill's heart and soul, such as a brief scene towards the beginning of the film where Clemmie discusses the family sacrifices made to get him to the top of British politics. But that's never mentioned again, and like all of the other supporting characters, Clemmie fades to the background. Perhaps the best (and most noticeable) example of the film's inconsistent approach comes in the form of Lily James' Elizabeth Layton. It's a fine performance from a rising star, but Layton's character is defined by her brother's position in the war. Does she do anything else? Do we know anything else about her? Nope.
When you buy a ticket something like Darkest Hour, you know what kind of movie you're going to see. All of these "Oscar" movies feature sweeping scores, big, bombastic moments, and a pompous, overblown sense of importance. Make no mistake- something like Darkest Hour is designed and manufactured to win awards. But it's a question of execution, and some of these movies execute their pre-ordained beats and some do not. It's why I liked The King's Speech and The Imitation Game despite the backlash and the simplicity of the material- those are familiar dramas executed in a satisfying, crowd-pleasing fashion. For all of its solid performances and uplifting moments, Darkest Hour is ultimately a middle-of-the-road drama. It's handsome and crafted with care, holding the kind of dramatic weight and gravitas that older audiences crave. But if you're looking for genuine emotion or thrilling storytelling, there's little to be found in this reverent tribute to a 20th century icon.
THE FINAL GRADE: C+ (6.3/10)
Images courtesy of Focus Features
Comments
Post a Comment