Genre - celebrity biography, period background - World War II, theme - anti-fascism, without watching the trailer, you can guess that this is probably another "Austria" movie, in other words, "a propositional essay-style movie made to win an Oscar" . The characteristic of propositional composition is that it is stable and precise, and it is often lacking in surprises. "Darkest Hour" is also generally within this stable framework. But it has two striking points that make this propositional composition bloom with different colors.
The first is naturally the protagonist Churchill, and the actor Gary Oldman. Churchill's name is also a household name in the country, but most of the details stop at the Allied leader, the fat man with a cigar. There is also a lot of controversy about this character. He is a person who is very temperamental and difficult to get along with. Even the king is afraid of him. As a Conservative MP, he has an open history of anti-Party. The sanctioned attack on Turkey's Dardanelles failed miserably; in World War II, his personal, reckless resistance to the Nazis was also seen as a reckless gambler's mentality; His hostility also made him have a bad image in many places... It can be seen that this is a multi-faceted character, and he has a completely different image in the hearts of different people. Although Churchill is a household name, the movie has a lot of room to play in Churchill's image.
However, this is an Austrian film after all. Churchill in the film must be tall, righteous, and firm. The above black histories can only be used to slander him. In order to set off his tallness, the villain in the film can only be further vilified. Hitler is just an illusory background board, and the real villain of this movie is the Lord and faction represented by Chamberlain.
When it comes to Chamberlain, the first word that pops into our minds is appeasement. The Nazis massively expanded their army and tore up the Treaty of Versailles, but Britain and France did not respond; the Nazis annexed Austria, but Chamberlain did not protest; the Nazis claimed the Sudetenland, and Chamberlain flew to Munich to offer them up; Sitting behind the bunker, watching ally Poland fall. From today's point of view, he is synonymous with incompetence and traitorousness, and everyone must get rid of him and then hurry up. However, why is such a person still in the cabinet by Churchill? Because Churchill needed Chamberlain's popularity and appeal in the Conservative Party. In other words, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, at least among the Conservatives at the time, was not that unpopular. The devastating losses of the First World War made everyone want to see no more war, and striving for peace was the mainstream trend of thought for a long time; at the same time as appeasement, the Chamberlain government also vigorously expanded its armaments to prepare for the subsequent struggle. At the same time, it can be seen from the appearance and appearance that Chamberlain was an English gentleman of the last era, and his political thinking was still in the nineteenth century. The kings and prime ministers divided the sphere of influence after each war, and used The honor of the nobility guarantees compliance with the agreement, and Chamberlain mistakenly regarded Hitler as a man of his word.
But in any case, his appeasement policy objectively greatly contributed to the arrogance of the Nazis and made the situation in the early days of World War II precarious. Churchill was the first to see through Hitler's wolf ambitions and was pushed to the fore. The vilification of Chamberlain in this film is that after Churchill came to power, he was still obstructing it. In order to seek peace, he did not hesitate to conspire to bring down Churchill's cabinet. Historically, after Churchill came to power, Chamberlain did his best to support it. Churchill came to power because of the support of the opposition, and the hearts of the Conservatives are still with Chamberlain. Despite his previous humiliation and resignation, Chamberlain has repeatedly encouraged Conservatives to support Churchill on various occasions, which is also in line with his old-fashioned gentleman's style. Churchill's inaugural speech of "Victory at all costs" in the film, because Chamberlain did not express his position, in exchange for the silence of the Parliament; and this speech in history received absolute support from 381 votes to 0.
After talking about Chamberlain for so long, what I want to say is that this movie still uses various routines to create conflicts and highlight Churchill. The image is bigger, but that doesn't make it easier for actor Gary Oldman. It is not an easy task to make a great and bright image believable and moving. Gary Oldman, who is famous as a perverted villain (“This Killer Is Not Too Cold”, which is particularly popular in China, also gave him a kind of special treatment similar to Xiao Li in China), doesn’t look like Churchill at all, It doesn't look like it with makeup on, nor does he have that typical Churchill smile.
Compared with Eddie Redmayne's shocking physical imitation of Hawking a few years ago, Gary Oldman chose another path: under the premise of cigars, fat people, and toughness, according to his own Understand, deduce a believable Churchill. This credibility is not only the aura he exudes in those famous speeches, but also his low-pitchedness when he asked for help from the United States, his fiery temper towards his colleagues and subordinates, and behind this is his private hesitation and anxiety about the prospect of confrontation. . This is also the only room for a great and upright biography of the Olympics, but fortunately Gary Oldman firmly grasped it. We saw an old man who was on the cusp of the storm and was under great pressure. When he was constrained above the temple, we found the determination and confidence to resist to the end through the photos of relatives on the secretary's desk and the sincere interviews on the subway. No matter how tall Churchill is, he is also a revered distant image. However, when his arrogance passed through the mouths of ordinary people and firmly said Never to the Nazis, he really crossed the screen and passed the barrier of 70 years. Hit my heart. I think that's why the plot on the subway is obviously made up, but it moved me.
At the beginning of the article, I said that this film has two points that are different from ordinary Olympic films. So what is the other? The film recreates many of the debates in the House of Commons. How does it compare to today's debate in the House of Commons?
Look at the title again, "Darkest Hour", yeah, the tone of the whole movie is very dark, but there is a bright light coming from nowhere, shining behind Churchill. This distinctive lighting is called high-contrast lighting, similar to Rembrandt's style in painting, which can give characters or objects greater tension and create a sense of visual anxiety.
In this film, it sets off the image of a leader who walks out of the darkness and runs towards the light.
And this ray of light in the darkness seems to be Churchill's own state of mind, in a repressed darkness, the distant hope that he believes in.
To express pride through the mouths of the people familiar to the audience, to reflect the state of mind through high-contrast lighting, and to experience natural performances through personal experience, this Churchill will definitely leave his place in the history of film.
WeChat public account: feiduduzaemon (feidudumovie)
View more about Darkest Hour reviews
