Churchill's Secret

The Brits do television so well. This is a classic example of that. The film covers the last years of Churchill's last term as prime minister after he had suffered a stroke. It's interesting that the filmmakers would focus on a bad period in the life of a national icon yet still pay great tribute to him while also staying historically accurate. (Can you imagine, for example, Hollywood doing a film based on Ronald Reagan's last years with Alzheimer's?) Nor did they sugarcoat Churchill's dysfunctional family. Randolph comes off as an arrogant, drunken jerk, which he was. There are superb performances all around. This is a very British and a very good motion picture!

Set in 1953, Charles Sturridge's drama concentrates on one of the major political secrets of the Fifties - the stroke experienced by Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Michael Gambon), the news of which was kept from the public sphere through the machinations of his private secretary Jock Colville (Patrick Kennedy) and the powerful media barons led by Max Aitken, aka Lord Beaverbrook (Matthew Marsh).

There is a good story to tell here about politics, and the concept of releasing information on a "need to know" basis, something beloved of Sir Humphrey Appleby and his fellow civil servants in YES MINISTER. Concepts of "truth" and the public interest really do not matter; so long as the wheels of government keep running in the way they have always done, then everyone is happy. It was one of the lessons of this incident that the Conservatives and their civil servants realized that they could govern without Churchill, or his deputy Sir Anthony Eden (Alex Jennings).

Unfortunately this production misses just about every opportunity to reflect on past history. Instead Sturridge transforms it into a soupy family melodrama with echoes of THE KING'S SPEECH. Gambon makes a fair stab at Churchill, even though he looks nothing like the Old Man; but Lindsay Duncan, as Clemmie, looks to be impersonating Vanessa Redgrave (who memorably played the same role in THE GATHERING STORM (2002)) rather than developing a performance of her own. Although she protests a lot about her love for Winston, she seems more preoccupied with keeping her errant offspring under control, led by Randolph (Matthew Macfadyen) and Diana (Tara Fitzgerald). None of them, it seems, are very happy with their lives, and take every opportunity to voice their discontents. In the end we feel rather sorry for the old boy, not just because of his desire to continue in power, but because he has to contend with such an appalling family.

Stewart Harcourt's script doesn't really know whether to sympathize with Churchill or to criticize him for his self-absorption. Great man he might have been; but he seems to have been neglectful of his family. In the end Harcourt abandons this issue and opts instead for the traditional happy ending where Churchill makes a great recovery from his illness and gives a speech to the party conference in Margate.

The script is full of anachronisms; and although Sturridge makes strenuous efforts to hold our interest by using heritage film conventions such as cutaway shots of old vehicles, interior scenes with orange lights focusing on the characters' faces, and exteriors of Chartwell (where much of the production as filmed), the drama as a whole fails to come to life.

If viewers want to find out more about Churchill's life from recent films, they would be better advised to dig out THE GATHERING STORM (2002) and its sequel INTO THE STORM (2009).

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.

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.

The movie has some pretty good picture and landscapes and beautiful shots, actors all are stunning , romola wasnt at her best but was good, churchill himself , michel gambon has played so profissionaly and well, the mother of the family , linsay duncan was awesome and really acted well , like a strong mother and wife trying to hold the family and keep everyone calm and not to show any signs of weakness to upset or worry her dear ones, as i said in the title Matthew Macfadyen really killed it with a 10-15 min performance, churchil daughters i didnt get them , nor by acting nor the story speaking of story , well, didnt got me , i watched it for the actors , and even after finishing the movie , story never interested me.