h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Winston Churchill - Film Adaptations of his Life - A87932497
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

From nodding to Hollywood superstar.

<BB<

This will be a useful Entry, as there isn't much about Churchill in the Edited Guide already

There are some links about tanks, for example A30561013

"Since 1940 every Caucasian baby born in Britain has looked like Winston Churchill."

I vaguely think I know what that means, but I'm not quite sure - is it saying that in Britain, Caucasian babies who are born without hair are often said to resemble Winston Churchill from the 1940s? (I was much more handsome than that when I was born, of course as I had dark hair like my dad)

The British War Films paragraph has some repetition in it. Does the paragraph about accuracy contradict the British War Films Entry, that indicates the films are accurate up to a point? or is it saying there is a line that it is acceptable to stray up to, but going beyond the line is the insult? or is it saying something about 'accuracy' being equivalent to 'positive light' so films with negative light are an insult?

The summary of Young Winston is a bit difficult to read, being so many paragraphs in a table... It is slightly easier in Pliny than in my Brunel layout, but if you can make sure it is as concise as possible, that will be helpful. Could you maybe bring out some of the things into the paragraphs below the table, such as the 'looking at a horse and talking about Winston' dramatic technique? Sounds like a slow and ponderous film, being more than 2½ hours long and only covering his youth! And yet you watched it and found it jumped along quite quickly! Is there a way you can give a flavour of that in the summary?

"Though British war films are expected to the highest levels of accuracy obtainable" *cough*Enigma*cough* The section seems to make too many generalisations - need to be more specific about what is what. I see from synopses that 'U-571' attempted to be a fictional account of a fictional U-boat capture, but didn't get away with it (was there actual codebreaking in it?), and that 'Pearl Harbor' didn't pay the most attention to detail, either, to put it mildly... "implied that America won the Battle of Britain " - did you get that impression because the hero was supposed to be one of the nine US pilots who flew in the Eagle Squadron?

Need to clarify when you first mention Dardanelles that that is also Gallipoli. Monty is Montgomery? It would help in the section about 'Churchill' to mention that 'Darkest Hour' was released in the same year. Says something that a portrayal of the genuine side of Churchill that was his 'black dog' didn't do well with critics or audiences even though it was arty...

There is an Operation Overlord link A1006606

"biographies" - biopics

"The film is certainly dramatic, though as with historical dramas as a whole is a more accurate representation historically for the year it was made than the year it depicts" - good point

"Though it has no basis in fact and did not happen" - I like the connection with the Isle of Wight trains

Good mention of John Hurt, too

"every story has at least two sides and every person is a complicated being"

excellent conclusion

Strange but true - even if you are Winston Churchill making a major change that affects everyone on Britain's lives on a daily basis, people won't notice.
Usually once a week as I cycle to work and back, someone will shout, 'Pay road tax!' Winston Churchill abolished road tax in 1937, replacing it with Vehicle Excise Duty. This means that no-one in the UK born after 1920 has ever paid road tax, yet the majority of motorists are convinced that they do.

I've added more information about the Dardanelles campaign and a link about tanks too. Every Caucasian baby born in the UK looks like Winston Churchill did in the 1940s – even babies born with hair look just like Winston Churchill, only with hair.

The paragraph about accuracy doesn't contradict the British War Film entry. Total accuracy is of course an unachievable ideal. Most British war films hold that ideal and inevitably fall short of it. Others uphold that ideal in completely different ways, such as 'Enigma'. Just because the entire plot is a complete fabrication from start to finish doesn't mean it automatically doesn't adhere to the ideal of exactness. The DVD comes with a booklet that devotes pages to describing how accurate it is, using genuine engima machines and, when it was impossible to film at Bletchley Park due to modern buildings surrounding the original site, exact recreations of Bletchley Park's huts and outbuildings were constructed elsewhere. The producers deliberately defined how accurate the film is, which shows that even in a work of fiction verisimilitude is still an important goal.
So I would say the question of accuracy is one of approach. Films such as 'U-571' or 'Pearl Harbor' are also complete fabrications and fictional fables, but were made as action films with a historical setting rather than historical dramas, and therefore belong to a different genre. It is widely acknowledged that 'Pearl Harbor' as a film was sloppily made and 'U-571' is similarly slapdash. I've rephrased the bit in 'Churchill: The Hollywood Years' slightly, as that film is a reaction about the perception of Hollywood war films. Made in 2004, it is as much a reaction against the media portrayal of 'U-571' and 'Pearl Harbor' as the films themselves. Remember, those two films were made just when campaigning groups were beginning to use the internet as a tool to heavily criticise films that they hadn't actually seen.

<BB<

I finally managed to read this. To be honest, this wasn't my kind of topic, I didn't find it very interesting, sorry. But I'm sure there are people who like this topic.

Please take all the plots out of the tables. Having them in tables only makes them difficult to read and expands your Entry by at least 50% in page length.

In my opinion the casts lists are a bit excessive, but maybe that's mainly because I have no idea who these people are. On the other hand most international readers probably feel the same?

Your last few sentences made me think the newest films were rather for and against Brexit than anything about Churchill.

Thanks for your honesty – no-one's going to really enjoy everything, so there's nothing wrong with not finding a topic interesting because you're not going to find every topic interesting. I imagine this entry is likely to be one of those ones that sinks to the bottom of Peer Review and hangs around for a few years, c'est la vie.

Still, I made a couple of tweaks with regards the plot sections. It's a plot, I tell you, it’s a plot!

<BB<

I think that's a lot better to read.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congratulations!