I think we're all a bunch of Churchillosnobs. We are standing too close to our boy, and know too much about him, to appreciate that there's only so much a producer can do in 90 minutes. And, given today's level of education—when more English-speaking people know Madonna than their Congressman or MP, 90 minutes is a generous allotment. The best editor I ever worked for always said, "A bore is somebody who tells everything."
As some have pointed out, "Into the Storm" is about CHURCHILL—not Stalin or FDR or Poland or Jock Colville or Yalta—and it is more effective than anything since Robert Hardy's multi-part "Wilderness Years" in honestly portraying Churchill's true persona. It resists many opportunities for cheap political hackery, as over the bombing of Germany, "poison gas," and all the stuff so beloved of media ignoramuses. We should be glad Ridley Scott is not one of them, that Hugh Whitemore stuck so well to facts, and that Brendan Gleeson made such a good WSC. My review of "Into the Storm" is posted at http://richardlangworth.com/2009/06/into-the-storm-the-end-of-glory The same review will run more or less as in the summer number of FINEST HOUR. I will gladly publish any interesting ripostes and have already gathered in Tony's questions above, on whether certain scenes actually happened. PLEASE EMAIL OFFLINE. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ChurchillChat?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
