Gary Oldman wins Oscar

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, History. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Gary Oldman wins Oscar

  1. feelthebern

    Oldman’s best roles were in:
    The 5th Element &
    The Professional.

  2. Myrddin Seren

    The character puffed cigars and drank booze like no tomorrow in the movie.

    I am sure we will never see a Churchill represented in such a way again.

    Next film Churchill must be played as a vegan, teetotalling, non-smoking, Afro-Caribbean lesbian Muslim with Churchill’s girth.

  3. Rococo Liberal

    Who cares?
    Really.

    The only reason to care is that this makes it clear that even the fascist left in Holloywood recognise that we on the right have all the good stories.

  4. Dave in Marybrook

    Don’t forget Coppola’s Dracula. Magnificent.

  5. Infidel Tiger

    Of course he should have won for his starring role as Drexl Spivey.

    Oldman is fantastic.

  6. Marcus

    Good for him.

    It was refreshing that Darkest Hour by and large gave a great historical character his due. Brian Cox’s Churchill movie, by contrast, looked garbage.

  7. feelthebern

    Brian Cox’s Churchill movie, by contrast, looked garbage.

    Oh it was.
    So bad, so wrong, they gave Ike a full head of hair.

  8. Judith Sloan

    Hated it. That tube scene – OMG. And the thesis that Churchill was equivocal in May 1940 – just wrong.

  9. Myrddin Seren

    And the thesis that Churchill was equivocal in May 1940 – just wrong.

    I think that might have been an allusion to the ‘Black Dog’. Art, metaphor etc etc

    The Afro-Caribbean lesbian Muslim Churchill will nail it 😉

  10. Real Deal

    Oldman was also a dab hand at potraying Dr Zachary Smith in the movie version of Lost in Space. Not a patch on the original show’s Jonathan Harris, but pretty impressive. Oldman can make the most mediocre movie look good with his performance.

  11. Caveman

    Is Gary Old Man blick?

  12. Jannie

    I watched it on the plane and enjoyed it, though it takes some liberties with historical fact. Oldman was pretty good. They may have overdone the drinking and smoking bit. The Tube Scene, as Judith notes, was execrable postmodern rewriting of history.

    The focus on attempts by Chamberlain and Halifax to broker a peace through the Italians was very interesting. But like Churchill’s vices, they overstated it. Churchill only assumed power because of Attlee’s support, true, but there was never a moment that Churchill considered surrender. They also made it seem as if it was the Labour party that insisted on fighting, and the Conservatives had to get dragged along unwillingly.

    But a lot better than that other effort by Brian Cox, with the hairyheaded Eisenhower.

  13. lotocoti

    He was great as Rosencranz.
    Or was he Guildenstern?

  14. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Next film Churchill must be played as a vegan, teetotalling, non-smoking, Afro-Caribbean lesbian Muslim with Churchill’s girth.

    you got Testicles salivating

  15. Infidel Tiger

    Hated it. That tube scene – OMG. And the thesis that Churchill was equivocal in May 1940 – just wrong.

    Peggy noonan write a brilliant column about those historical inaccuracies and the galling inaccuracies in The Crown.

    Unfortunately it will now be accepted as lore.

  16. Leigh Lowe

    Isn’t it Gary Oldperson?

  17. vr

    Peggy noonan write a brilliant column about those historical inaccuracies and the galling inaccuracies in The Crown.

    Here you go, IT. Some it it is quoted here.

    We often write of the urgent need for more truth in politics. A hope for 2018 is more truth in art and entertainment, too.

    The past week I watched the Netflix series “The Crown” and Steven Spielberg’s movie “The Post.” Each is enjoyable, yet fails in the same significant way.

    There’s dramatic license, which is necessary or nothing’s fun, and historical truth, which is necessary or nothing’s understood. Ideally in any work they more or less coexist, however imperfectly. But in “The Crown” and “The Post” the balance is far off. A cheap historical mindlessness marks much of the first, and there’s a lie at the heart of the second.

    I couldn’t help like “The Crown”: it was so beautiful to me. The acting, the stillness, all the money and thought that went into making the rooms look right, the period clothing, right down to the cuff links—in these matters the creators are deeply faithful to reality. In its treatment of history, however, there’s a deep, clueless carelessness.

    Example: The treatment of future Prime Minister Harold Macmillan is churlish and unknowing. He was not a sallow, furtive weasel of a man, which is how he is portrayed; he was a politician whose humanity, courage and wit even his adversaries acknowledged. He did not deviously scheme, during the Suez crisis, to unseat Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who did not throw a pen at him and call him a liar in a cabinet meeting.

    As prime minister his weekly meetings with the queen were not testy, marked by condescension on his side and strained patience on hers. He respected and admired her; she became his confidante. In his diaries he called her “a great support because she is the one person you can talk to.” He would not have taunted her with the glamour and intelligence of her supposed rival, Jackie Kennedy. He would not have taunted her at all.

    As for what is said of his private life, he realized early in his marriage that his wife, Dorothy, had fallen “irrevocably in love” (in the words of biographer Alistair Horne), with Robert Boothby, a brilliant member of Parliament who was a bit unstable in the way of bright English politicians. Their relationship continued almost 40 years.

    Everyone knew of it. It was the great wound of Macmillan’s life. He considered divorce, but stayed. “I had everything from her, owed everything to her,” he explained in a late-in-life interview. “I told her I’d never let her go.”

    He was not a man who, as “The Crown” has it, would drive her to her assignations like a pimp.

    More absurd is the series’ treatment of President and Mrs. Kennedy. JFK was not, as “The Crown” asserts, enraged with his wife for dazzling Paris on their first state trip to Europe. He was thrilled at her success; it elevated him on the world stage. Suddenly he saw her as what she was, a political asset to be deployed. She transfixed Charles de Gaulle, that stern and starchy old man who was always mad at America, often with good reason. Biographer Richard Reeves quotes JFK to his wife: “ ‘Well,’ he told her, ‘I’m dazzled.’ ”

  18. PB

    A White man? Permitted to win an Oscar? Oh G-D, he’s even criticized the Chosen Ones, and he was still permitted to win an Oscar?

  19. Sir Red Robbo of Leyland

    All those who are unsure about who took what stance in the war cabinet discussions, in which Halifax played a key role, re a potential route to armistice/agreement/capitulation to the Germans (which last is what Churchill believed any formal approach to the Italians to explore a ‘settlement’ must inevitably lead to) should read a short but excellent book titled ‘Five Days in London, May 1940’, by Paul Lukacs. WSC never wavered, but had to manage the result.

  20. Dan Dare

    LL
    Just imagine in the brave new world if your name was Cunningham, for example.
    Mr Cunninghalal thank you very much.

  21. jupes

    And the award for best virtue signalling at an awards ceremony goes to … Frances McDormand:

    She encouraged people to discuss future women-centric projects seriously during meetings, rather than during drinks tonight. “I have two words to leave with you tonight: ‘inclusion rider,’” she said. The words refer to actors putting diversity requirements into their contracts about the other crew and actors’ positions for a film they choose to act in.

  22. jupes

    She transfixed Charles de Gaulle, that stern and starchy old man who was always mad at America, often with good reason.

    No.

    A lot of Americans died so he could lead his country again.

  23. Marcus

    And the award for best virtue signalling at an awards ceremony goes to … Frances McDormand:

    When she won the Golden Globe she said that she usually kept her politics to herself. I wish she’d stick to that.

    Still a great actress, though.

  24. Nerblnob

    actors putting diversity requirements into their contracts about the other crew and actors’ positions for a film they choose to act in.

    “Choose” my arse.

    In a “profession” with normally 90%+ unemployment, they are crawling over broken glass , or Harvey’s arse, and begging for the big-money jobs that will make them stars. And the big money films that pay the cats big money aren’t usually the Oscar winners these days.

    One thing about Weinstein, he could rustle up investors to put up big $$$ for second-rate Britflic costume dramas that made some of these actresses rich. But it seems they don’t want that any more.

  25. Sinclair Davidson

    I haven’t seen the Darkest Hour yet (but I have several long flights coming up so I will see it at some stage) but I do think it interesting that we’ve had a Churchill movie and Dunkirk in the last few months.

    On Dunkirk let me I really, really loved it.

    I did read the Peggy Noonan piece in the WSJ and I do have some sympathy for her argument, but in other respects does it really matter? A whole bunch of people will be exposed to historical characters that they otherwise wouldn’t have been exposed to. After watching Elizabeth (the movie took great liberties) I went and read a biography. Now that may a rare response to a movie, but I learned lots from the movie and the book and for most people just having some historical knowledge is fine.

  26. Steve trickler.

    Just checked the TV guide on the box. Bugger all worthy watching tonight.

    Jerome Bixby’s The Man from Earth. Check it out. Worthy of watching, again.



  27. notafan

    I took my adult sons to see Dunkirk, neither would open a book but the movie, well, it gave them a tiny taste of what their grandfather experienced during the war.
    I think I’ll take them to this one too.

  28. Paul Farmer

    I am with Judith . The subway scene was simply ridiculous with even the token African American thrown in so as to keep favour with the political correctness lobby . This scene actually does a disservice to churchills legacy because it was his recognition of the need to fight and not to appease hitler when most people didn’t want to fight both political classes and the mainstream public alike , that was churchills source of greatness .
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11157482/The-day-Churchill-saved-Britain-from-the-Nazis.html ;
    for anyone who wants a true account of what happened the link has a reference to Boris johnstons write up of those famous events from his book on Churchill . Worth the read if you don’t won’t to take your history from the garbage in Hollywood movies .

    The timeline is also important in understanding public reaction to hitler and the nazis . Churchills speech happened in early June 40 just after the withdrawal from Dunkirk . The Battle of Britain commenced in July 40 which soon after initially focusing on raf airfields resulted in the bombings of London and major cities like Coventry . It was at this juncture the attitudes to nazis and hitler really turned and a lot of the sympathies many people had for the nazis as a bulwark against communism finally dissolved . So if that subway scene had really happened in June 40 you can bet the answer he would of got was no way mr Churchill , there is no sense in fighting the nazis .
    It was that Churchill went against mainstream opinion was why history recognises his greatness because he stood on principle not on the sentiment of the moment . For this reason alone the movie went from being ok to fail in my view in one scene .

  29. Ubique

    The underground scene was politically correct to the max, excruciating and patently false, but I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the Darkest Hour. Well worth the price of a ticket.

  30. Dr Faustus

    For this reason alone the movie went from being ok to fail in my view in one scene .

    Could not agree more.
    As ahistorical as having Churchill meet up for a motivational chat with Thor and Han Solo.

    Given the effort put into achieving realism elsewhere, there must have been some spirited debate about why exactly it was necessary to include a garden gnome moment as a central feature.

Comments are closed.