It’s odd that Darkest Hour and Dunkirk were released in the same year because they are perfect companion pieces for each other. Essentially recounting the same period of time, both films portray the early stages of World War II and culminate in the evacuation of British forces at Dunkirk. But while Dunkirk (the film) focused on the military conflict itself, Darkest Hour focuses on the political happenings behind the scenes that enabled that evacuation to take place. While I think that they are both fine films, I actually think that Darkest Hour is superior.
Taking place during May 1940, Darkest Hour shows the rise of Winston Churchill to the role of Prime Minister of England during one of the key moments in all of history. Although it is short on plot and tells a story that we should all know already, Darkest Hour recounts just how bleak of a situation this was in a way that I don’t think Dunkirk quite communicated. Germany has already conquered much of Europe; Holland and Belgium have fallen and France is running like a Frenchman in a rainstorm (whatever, it works). This is before the United States joined the fray and before Stalin realized that Europe is only big enough for one genocidal madman, leaving Britain as (temporarily) the only legitimate opponent for Hitler’s Germany. Facing internal pressure to negotiate a surrender to Germany, Churchill must decide if the nation would relent or fight on. He, of course, chooses the latter, setting the stage for the Dunkirk evacuation and, ultimately, the defeat of the Axis Powers.
My biggest criticism of Dunkirk is that it lacked noteworthy characters and instead featured an ensemble of minor characters. Darkest Hour is the complete opposite and focuses entirely on Churchill. I appreciated this for two reasons. First, I greatly admire Churchill as a historical figure and, therefore, found the film to be naturally interesting. I have always thought that mankind is mighty lucky that Churchill and FDR lived at the same time, and this film shows just how much turmoil Churchill went through. The weight of his decisions, and the opposition from those that would rather negotiate with madmen, is palpable in this film in a way that’s lacking in other WW2 films. Secondly, Gary Oldman is absolutely amazing as Churchill. I frequently forgot that it even was Oldman and would, upon remembrance, try to find some recognizable piece of the man in the role on the screen. I could find none. He simply disappears into the role and one can almost feel the weight of the world on Churchill’s shoulders in his performance. Oldman is truly spectacular in this.
I suppose that the biggest criticism that I have here is an inevitable one. There is little plot and I spent some time wondering when the film would decide to end. I predicted that it would end with Churchill’s famous speech (“We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans….”) and I was right. It actually ends the same way that Dunkirk ends, with the successful implementation of Operation Dynamo (the evacuation of Dunkirk with civilian ships). But the path to that end is a fascinating character study of a man facing nearly insurmountable odds and making decisions that would literally shape the word.
This is somewhat difficult to review because your enjoyment of it will correlate with your interest in the material. But the themes of the film are much larger than the specific topic. It is ultimately a film about the honor of fighting to the end and the lunacy of making concessions to psychopaths. Regardless of your interest in World War II or Churchill himself, those are worthy topics and are wrapped around one of the best performances of the year. I highly recommend this.
Image By: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkest_Hour_(film)#/media/File:Darkest_Hour_poster.png
