"Overwrought". Amazing vilification of those who have some sense that 'historical fiction' has a real responsibility to comport itself somewhat close to the factual base. Unfortunately this production does a significant disservice to the current younger generation. Maybe a professor who is doing a course on WSC could assign a term paper that has to identify and provide details on the many inaccuracies by both commission and omission. At least then there is a chance that this is not "gospel" fiction for a new younger generation who might yet come to greatly admire the savior of Western democracy. Oh you think that is an 'overwrought' conclusion on my part! Goodness gracious me. John H. Mather MD FACPE
Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 14, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Smith, James M <jamesmsm...@dwt.com> wrote: > > Well put, Mr. Riddle. This is avowedly a work of FICTION; accordingly, it > does not need to adhere to fact. As fiction, it was well acted, beautifully > filmed and very entertaining; and indeed it reflects well on WSC. It shows > new and young audiences the greatness and inner strength of the man. > Overwrought complaints over factual inaccuracy are, well, overwrought. > > James M. Smith | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP > 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 | Washington, DC 20006 > Tel: (202) 973-4288 | Fax: (202) 973-4488 > Email: jamesmsm...@dwt.com | Website: www.dwt.com > > Anchorage | Bellevue | Los Angeles | New York | Portland | San Francisco | > Seattle | Shanghai | Washington, D.C. > > From: churchillchat@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] > On Behalf Of David Riddle > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:19 PM > To: churchillchat@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] USA TV Broadcast of Churchill's Secret > > 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. > -- > 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.
