Churchill

"you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" -- bob dylan And, you don't have to be an historian to see the main problem with this series. It's mostly based on interpretation and not evidence. For instance, throughout they rely on pictures and portraits to tell the story. Each time they're taking the context and then interpreting what the picture means. It's just nonsense, even if it's correct, and it's not just the images but facts and context as well. Drawing conclusions without reviewing all the evidence first. I can't imagine going to a conference and somebody showed this series, and they wouldn't be laughed at. So, why isn't the media held to the same scholarly integrity? Is it because history has to be entertaining not accurate so it can be spoon fed to the masses? How many times have I heard pop culture celebrities complain about being plagued by misinformation and misinterpretation based on the same kind of non-fact based as in this so called historical documentary. Never seen anything like this in ken burn's documentaries because he has integrity and trust in the viewers.

I'm no expert on churchill. From all I can tell, it's the same biography I've read and seen before, without the juicy parts of churchill. I mean if everything was revealed, americans in particular would be surprised and a bit uncomfortable. I often wonder what sucess he would have today, if no one remembered what made him a celebrity. I don't want to discount his value to britain guiding the country thru the war and his speeches were tremendous but he wasn't a superhero and he didn't win the war entirely to himself and he didn't deserve the supersillious hollywood movie that came out recently that reflects the level of education in america. Take out the silly psychic interpretations of photos and portraits and I'd rate this a 6 for interesting but not enough to hold my attention for 5 hrs.

Although the filmmakers may have set out to give us the "real" Churchill, it ended up a series of vignettes. This allowed them to concentrate on events they felt were central in understanding Churchill, but seem also chosen for dramatic effect.

The danger of this approach is what happened here, that Churchill comes across as somewhat lightweight. Yes, some of it is interesting, but much of it is shallow analysis; it also has unchecked errors, gobsmackers, the series has a problem with dates.

In just the first two episodes we get Churchill sent to the Royal Military College, Sandhurst in 1899 (it was in 1893, he'd been on the Northwest Frontier by 1899), the landings at Gallipoli on 22 April 1915 (it was famously 25 April) and the most ridiculous, Churchill in France as an officer after Gallipoli in January 1915 (it was 1916). Sadly, there are others.

I get the feeling that the series was inspired by David Reynolds' style of documentaries, which deal with its subjects in an intimate way giving the feeling that we are inside the story. But this series falls short with easy conclusions and the elimination of key events. In Episode 4 "Path to Victory", the commentators are at pains to attribute Churchill's trips to D-Day and then the crossing of the Rhine to his boyish notions of adventure and trill seeking. They seem pleased with this analysis and too much time is devoted to it.

The leap from North Africa to D-day robs the series of the chance to acknowledge Churchill's ability to see a bigger picture before anyone else. Where is Sicily and Italy, and Churchill's prescience about Soviet intentions in Eastern Europe? The war with Japan, which occasioned some of his toughest and most controversial decisions, receives scant mention.

Episode 5, "Fallen Hero", seems a good summing up as to why he lost an "unlosable" election straight after the war; the point is fairly made that his judgement, so pivotal during the war, failed him here. From there though, in Episode 6, "Curtain Call", we get his "playboy" lifestyle in the South of France, 17 years after the end of the war. For anyone new to Churchill you could be forgiven for wondering how he was ever taken seriously.

But the filmmakers were too selective. There seems a whole episode missing. What happened to the Iron Curtain speech and his second stint as PM?

The commentators vary. Some have great affection for him, while others are noticeably strident. Through the series I feel the temptation to settle for zingers downplayed Churchill's formidable intellect and his insights into history and politics uncomfortable as some of them may seem to an audience today.

Sadly, this could have been a great series. The transitions, which are many and often, feels and plays like an amateur screensaver or DIY anniversary celebration video for your parents or grandparents.

At times, the video scenes the director and videographer recreates literally will make you dizzy. For example, episode one's running scene when Churchill's father is on his death bed.

What a terrible waste of a good script.

This was a very goof series about Churchill but strangely episode 5 ended with Churchill losing the 1945 election and episode 6 opening with him in retirement in the South of France. No mention of him winning the 1951 election, being given a knighthood and standing down as PM.