Churchill y la guerra

Heavy on awkward recreations with actors but regrettably light on interesting historical detail. The main draw of this series is mainly some newly refreshed and colourized archival footage.

The four episodes lean heavily on British and American political figures, including an Obama speech writer, President George W Bush and Prime Minister Boris Johnson - rather than on historical experts. Of course, this is consistent with the tone of an "approachable" and "greatest hits" approach to history documents. It's a decent introduction to Churchill and the period, but there's little to chew on.

In just one example, the series correctly focuses on Churchill's obsessive quest to get the "New World" - America - fighting in the war. However, after showing Pearl Harbour, there's no mention that Herr Hitler foolishly declared war on the United States first - a key footnote that enabled Roosevelt to bypass Congressional wrangling.

All too typically, with a laser focus on FDR and America, the series doesn't even mention the valuable support of Canada, Australia, India and other Commonwealth countries in helping keep the British Isles afloat.

Also, it would have been fascinating to see some of Churchill's military interactions with his senior generals and commanders - and the kind of expectations he had on them - but this is out of the scope of this series.

So while watchable, and crediting star Christian McKay for a solid job recreating Churchill's oratory, this offers a rather lightweight overview of what can be a very meaty subject.

I enjoyed the series while also recognising that it isn't everything that it could have been.

In terms of narrative, it faithfully hits all the major plot points of the Second World War. Though the pundits and 'live action recreations' are sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss.

The recolourised archival footage is truly spectacular. It brings the war from the myth of history to a lived human experience.

This is particularly relevant now. Democratic decline is a rising tide. One that we are only beginning to wrestle with (even outside obvious examples). Appeasement in the face of imperialist aggression is spoken of as the lesser evil. These are dangerous waters and they are not new. History must be understood if it is not to be repeated.

This is why I forgive the show for it's inclusion of politicians. Even those who probably have no right to be there.

The link that it makes from the past to the present (aided through colour footage) is enough for me to view their inclusion as having value.

Is the show a masterpiece? No. Did I enjoy it as someone with an interest in history. I did indeed.

I'm interested in the real footage of the War and hearing the details of how Churchill lead Britain. I can do totally without the talking heads interrupting and giving completely pointless opinions, especially Boris Johnson and George W. Bush. Who thought that was a good idea?

Neither of those belong in any piece about Churchill.

I could do without any extras making statements about the obvious, it's a distraction and annoying. They should have had one narrator, seldom seen and it would have been much more tolerable. There are better documentaries but I would have found this one interesting if they'd left off the bad acting bits.

Until the line "UK gave time, USA gave money, Russia gave blood," I was quite fond of the series. The timeline of events was very new to me, and it's a very insightful way to think about such historical events.

In the documentary "Churchill at War," Russia is used interchangeably with the Soviet Union; it's equivalent to the other 14 republics.

It's 2024, and people who ignore 14 other republics and their sacrifices should not make documentaries.

Look at their Wikipedia numbers - World War II casualties of the Soviet Union, 16.3% of the Ukrainian population, 25.3% of Belarus - these are not Russian sacrifices, and joining them under the "Russia" umbrella is similar to declaring that New York State won civil war.

This is a Netflix documentary so we get that treatment; talking heads and experts and, more unpalatable to me, staged re-enactments with actors on 'probable' scenes. It's high budget cable television.

The prewar portion may be the most informative in how it shapes the famous wartime Winston. Bullish, spectacular escape fueled by drive to tell the story about it in his South African adventure. Doggedly independent as he switches parties.

The wartime Churchill of valiant speeches, Dunkirk, and the Blitz, is well covered in inumerable films and TV. He really was the man of the hour, a bullish man insisting on a story of resistance against all odds. Fancied himself a strategist but bangled Gallipolli, Sicily was a mistake, and storytelling was really his strong suit.

We also do see several of his faults. His prewar defence of empire at all costs. Even in passing, his disastrous indifference to Bengal and the famine. And his ensuing sidelining, post Casablanca, as bigger men on the room took charge of the war.

It is very much a cinematic life he lived. Adept at both re-invention and stubborn independence. And of course a natural storyteller. He could have been a great filmmaker, and I can imagine him a figure like Welles or Hitchcock around set (and vice versa, Welles and Hitchcock may have been great wartime prime mnisters).

It was a matter of the world outside aligning with the man's story of who he views himself to be, to create the sense of destiny, and that was true of both FDR and Hitler.