Stan.. I am surprised to hear that the author made any attempt to refer to 'concern for historical accuracy' when referring to a work of fiction.
One thing I can reliably comment on, whilst trusting I'm not saying something I shouldn't, is that if a glass case containing butterflies was featured, then it wasn't, and isn't actually at Chartwell!! The truth of the matter is that the film was shot, if I recall correctly in July 2015. The House was not closed to visitors during the three or four days over which the location shots were taken, meaning that there was no opportunity to set up rooms for filming between the hours of 10 and 5, so the only filming of the front of the House and internally that could be fitted in was carried out in the late afternoon and early evening. As a consequence, the only internal shots that are actually of Chartwell itself are of the entrance hall. All the rest were carefully and, in my view, very accurately constructed sets. I was certainly taken in myself by the general accuracy of the Study, where it is claimed his bed was moved to. As some may know it was the case that Sir Winston originally had his bed in the Study when the 'Nursery Wing' was being used for that purpose. At some point in the mid-30s, we think, by which time Mary had moved to her second-floor teenage bedroom, Sir Winston decided to knock through the right-hand side of the Study in to what was originally the Nursery Day Room and convert that in to a proper bedroom, together with an en-suite bathroom located in the gable-end section at the front of the House. I hope this is of interest. David Riddle Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Sep 2016, at 22:10, Stan A. Orchard <bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > There are many little things to quibble about in the broadcast version of > this work of fiction. Such as when Churchill presents his nurse with only > one volume of a four-volume set of his History of the English-speaking > Peoples. Would anyone actually do that? I noted a glass case on the wall in > one of the Chartwell rooms containing pinned butterflies. However, when I > was putting together a talk about Churchill and Insects a few years ago I > communicated with people at Chartwell and at the British Museum who assured > me that none of the insects that Churchill collected early in life were > either recorded or displayed in any institutional collection. Of greater > concern to me was when Churchill's nurse tells him that he was not highly > regarded by her father after Churchill had sent troops in to crush striking > Welsh miners and Churchill says nothing in response. This is where injecting > a bit of historical accuracy could have helpfully clarified a persistent > slander against Churchill that still routinely crops up in the media. In the > background piece that followed the production the author spoke of his concern > for historical accuracy which simply reinforces the notion that this slander > is accurate as presented. > > Stan > >> On 2016-09-13 1:18 PM, David Riddle wrote: >> I think everyone who has commented to date on this film is treating this >> film far too seriously. >> >> It is freely based on a work of fiction 'The Churchill Secret KBO' by >> Jonathan Smith. The critical word here is 'fiction'. There is no point in >> trying to relate it to the actual facts of the situation, even if anyone, >> living or otherwise, believes they know what they really were. After all, >> the whole event was kept secret, so the real truth is pretty difficult to >> ascertain. >> >> The character of the nurse is freely admitted to be fictional, as are some >> of the other situations portrayed in the film. >> >> Fundamentally, the piece should be viewed as a largely fictional drama, and >> in my view, as well as that of several of my fellow volunteer House Stewards >> at Chartwell at least, it was well produced with some good performances and >> enjoyable in its own right. >> >> David Riddle >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 13 Sep 2016, at 18:11, Cita Stelzer <c...@irwinstelzer.com> wrote: >> >>> Whether “Churchill‘s Secret”, broadcast in the USA last night, was riveting >>> television I leave to the critics. But that it was historically inaccurate >>> at one important point there is no doubt. Lindsay Duncan’s beautifully >>> acted television version of Clemmie as a wife competing with his political >>> career for his time and attention has no relation to the real-life version. >>> Clementine Churchill, as I point out in my review of Sonia Purnell’s >>> biography of Clementine Churchill, was no whining woman at odds with her >>> husband’s political life. In fact, Clemmie was a full partner in his >>> political career, entertaining politicians and military figures when he was >>> away in the trenches in WWI. And as any fair reading of their voluminous >>> correspondence shows, offering wise advice to the often impetuous-Winston, >>> advice that prolonged his career. Not only was she a full partner in his >>> work, she had a full and rich life of her own, witness her fund-raising >>> work for the Red Cross’s Aid to the Soviet Union. Kudos to Ms. Duncan, and >>> don’t blame her for being asked to portray the fiction of a novelist’s >>> imagination. >>> >>> Cita Stelzer >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cita Stelzer >>> >>> Please note new email address: >>> c...@irwinstelzer.com >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "ChurchillChat" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "ChurchillChat" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > *************************************** > BullfrogControl.com Inc. > 69A Burnside Road West > Victoria, British Columbia > CANADA V9A 1B6 > > 250-858-3764 (FROG) > bullfrogcont...@shaw.ca > www.bullfrogcontrol.com > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ChurchillChat" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillchat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to churchillchat@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
