Churchill at War

The letters and speeches by Churchill are interesting. But crowbarring in actors and scripted segments takes away from this series. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if I want to watch a fictionalized movie/play about Churchill, I can do that. But I don't want a supposed documentary to include fictionalized scenes (especially badly acted ones).

There is so much to learn about Churchill and his motives from his speeches, letters, notes, etc, but it's completely worthless if you are including acted conversations based on a bad screenplay. I just don't understand why that is necessary.

Just give me the facts in an interesting way and make a bad movie with the other parts.

This is a brisk and thoroughly enjoyable summary of Churchill's achievements and failings, principally from the late 1930s to the end of the Second World War. The series doesn't shy away from Churchill's disastrous Gallipoli campaign, his enduring belief in the importance of the British Empire, his sidelining by Stalin and FDR and his controversial tactical decisions around the French naval fleet, but the overriding gist of the series is just how important the man was at a crucial point in world history.

We are left under no doubt about how different, were it not for Churchill's tenacity [stubbornness?], sense of duty and extraordinary level of self-belief, the outcome of the war might have been. A failure on the part of the UK to withstand the Nazi invasion of Europe, could have led to permanent widespread European fascism. The talking heads who focus on Churchill's racism, never manage to outweigh the arguments for the good that he did.

The format follows that of the BBC's superb (and superior) "The Rise of the Nazis", with a combination of reenactment and expert opinion. There are observations by a few big names like David Petraeus and George W Bush (...and Boris, obvs.), but where "The Rise of the Nazis" had insightful contributions by some of the world's leading academic experts on the subject, "Churchill at War" has generic telly-historian Dan Snow making points that could be picked up in a GCSE history book. We should be glad it wasn't Tony Robinson, I suppose.

One of the strangest aspects of the series is the use of AI to generate Churchill's written comments into his spoken voice. I'm still undecided how convincing I found this.

A shout-out really needs to go to actor Christian McKay, for playing Churchill in the reenactments; a perfectly judged performance mimicking the sound and behaviour of Churchill, without ever stepping over into pastiche.

Churchill at War is a near perfect documentary about the Winston Churchill and the challenges of his time. Told through video news footage, archives, interviews, and theatrical recreations, this four part series is very well done. There is much we know about Churchill as the man who rose to become the arch-nemesis of Adolf Hitler in World War II and the face of Great Britain. I find many documentaries to be way too long and filled with unnecessary information. Even at four parts that is not the case here. This is as engaging as any motion picture. The actor who plays Churchill does not really look like him but the sound is uncanny.

Until the line "UK gave time, USA gave money, Russia gave blood," I was quite fond of the series. The timeline of events was very new to me, and it's a very insightful way to think about such historical events.

In the documentary "Churchill at War," Russia is used interchangeably with the Soviet Union; it's equivalent to the other 14 republics.

It's 2024, and people who ignore 14 other republics and their sacrifices should not make documentaries.

Look at their Wikipedia numbers - World War II casualties of the Soviet Union, 16.3% of the Ukrainian population, 25.3% of Belarus - these are not Russian sacrifices, and joining them under the "Russia" umbrella is similar to declaring that New York State won civil war.

This is a Netflix documentary so we get that treatment; talking heads and experts and, more unpalatable to me, staged re-enactments with actors on 'probable' scenes. It's high budget cable television.

The prewar portion may be the most informative in how it shapes the famous wartime Winston. Bullish, spectacular escape fueled by drive to tell the story about it in his South African adventure. Doggedly independent as he switches parties.

The wartime Churchill of valiant speeches, Dunkirk, and the Blitz, is well covered in inumerable films and TV. He really was the man of the hour, a bullish man insisting on a story of resistance against all odds. Fancied himself a strategist but bangled Gallipolli, Sicily was a mistake, and storytelling was really his strong suit.

We also do see several of his faults. His prewar defence of empire at all costs. Even in passing, his disastrous indifference to Bengal and the famine. And his ensuing sidelining, post Casablanca, as bigger men on the room took charge of the war.

It is very much a cinematic life he lived. Adept at both re-invention and stubborn independence. And of course a natural storyteller. He could have been a great filmmaker, and I can imagine him a figure like Welles or Hitchcock around set (and vice versa, Welles and Hitchcock may have been great wartime prime mnisters).

It was a matter of the world outside aligning with the man's story of who he views himself to be, to create the sense of destiny, and that was true of both FDR and Hitler.