It is apparent that many of you did not like this show and those that did still did not rave about its portrayal of WSC. I am not going to wade into this argument except to say that any show that is made for TV (especially HBO) needs to have the potential for a serious audience in order for the network to provide the needed funds so as to make it a first class production. Band of Brothers was put together by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks and based upon a best selling book after the very successful film Saving Private Ryan demonstrated that there is indeed a market interested in WWII films if produced with high standards and realism.
Unfortunately, no such team got behind this TV production. Therefore the much needed budget properly cast and to create the series of shows that are needed in order to properly delve into the details and drama surrounding Winston Churchill and those with whom he worked with (and against) just was not there. There is no question that given WSC's central personality and central role in shaping the history of the time that there is more than enough material with which to create a series with the dramatic impact to hold an audience. I hope that a producer with the taste and craftsmanship required takes up the challenge to create a show worthy of the subject. QB ----- Original Message ----- From: Glenn Flickinger<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:37 PM Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Into the Storm broadcast Richard, Ok, this time I read your review before posting this note. You do make some good points about the qualities of "Into the Storm". However, in your review you say that this movie lacked the depth of "The Gathering Storm" because it lacked the "Wigram" type of sidebars because the scope of WWII is so large. My argument is that is precisely those sidebars that provide the context in which to view the character of Winston Churchill. They define him as a human being, even he surrounded himself with humans who were fallible, who did not have the same fervor, imagination and vision that he possessed. I cannot see why the pace of this movie could not have been slowed down and the time taken to develop the other people around Winston that helps put his life and times into context. No they could not make a 5 hour movie, but yes they could have broken it up into 2 or 3 "episodes". What were they thinking? Since "The Gathering Storm" came out 5 or 6 years ago we have been anticipating the next installment with great expectations. Why couldn't "Into the Storm" have stopped at Pearl Harbor, anticipation be built until the next "episode" that could have been ":And now the really bad part of the Storm" followed by "The Storm finally Blows itself Out". Seriously, I would think such a tactic would have built overall viewership. (Maybe we should introduce the producers to the tactics used by Harry the Wizard and the multi-episode marketing of that phenom!) A multi episode series of "Winston in the Storm" could have had just as much in depth quality plot and character development as "The Gathering Storm". Even the economics of such a series can be addressed by shooting all the movies at the same time, but editing polishing and releasing them in a series as was done with "Lord of the Rings" and "Band of Brothers". I believe there is a viable market for well done historical movies. Unfortunately, it is the primary vehicle to teach my children's generation any history (unless they are mine who have been dragged around from battlefield to battlefield since they could toddle!) But to develop and nourish that market the movies have to appeal to a wider audience than us Churchill "snobs". I can't tell you how many friends/business associates, etc. have told me they have become WWII buffs because they watched "Band of Brothers" and its now numerous reruns. Do they really understand WWII the way those who read every book that comes into print? No, but they at least have been motivated to Google WWII, to read a book or two. That same phenonmon could have been realized regarding Winston Churchill had the producers taken a different tack. Respectfully, Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Editor/Finest Hour" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "ChurchillChat" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:11 PM Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Into the Storm broadcast Arrgh! You're not reading my review because I mentioned the Wigram episode in "Gathering Storm" and why there was less time for sub-plots in this film; and I mentioned the problem with insufficiently defined transitions in the past-to-present transitions. I am so chuffed to read my words repeated! :-) I am not a filmmaker but I should think that producing films, like publishing, is the art of the possible. In 2009, to have 90 minutes to explore Churchill the man is a minor miracle. Do we know how many docu- dramas, beginning with Jack Le Vien's multi-part "The Valiant Years" in the 1960s, there have been? Dozens. Simon Ward in 1974 played "Young Winston." Old Winston was portrayed by Richard Burton in the "first" Gathering Storm, Timothy West in a film about the WW2 generals, somebody else in one about the Big Three, Timothy Robert Hardy in the 1982 multi-part "Wilderness Years," Hardy again in a 1986 David Susskind one-man production, Hardy again in a stage play, Albert Finney in the 2002 "Gathering Storm II" (I reviewed last three at http://xrl.us/bevckq<http://xrl.us/bevckq>). Then there were all the films in which WSC had more of a bit part, about Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, Yalta, the Blitz, "Danger UXB." And then there are the historical fiction-thrillers, like "The Eagle Has Landed." Most of them are available on CD. There are so many that a Churchill Centre film buff, Glynne Jenkins, has given lectures about them. Perhaps somebody on this list can offer a compilation—if even close to complete, FINEST HOUR would publish it. Producers have missed a great drama in the middle-aged Winston of 1914-15, but World War II has been done to death. What hasn't been done, not even in Ridley Scott's first effort, and not since Tim Hardy's 1982 epic (and that was multiple parts in different period) is to document of Churchill's true character. We all know how badly he's been represented by the likes of Irving, Ponting and Buchanan. Scott and Whitemore could easily have followed suit. But they did it right, and did it well. It's the age of the Internet, after all. The wider context of WW2 is hardly obscure. As Casey Stengel said, "You can look it up." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
