Film Review: Churchill, 2015

A friend loaned us this DVD (thanks Pat!), which we watched this evening. About 15 minutes into it I was perplexed. About 30 minutes in I was annoyed. By the end, I was mostly just bemused. The first thing was that we both - Teresa (my wife) and I - remarked how much better Gary Oldman was in Darkest Hour, (a much better film).

I also found myself comparing it with Ike, in which Tom Selleck portrays Eisenhower over the same period - the days running up to D-Day - a film that shares some commonalities in terms of scale of production. Both films were, in Hollywood terms, low-budget affairs. But whereas Selleck's movie, if not entirely devoid of factual mistakes, gets the basic tenor spot on, Churchill is a bizarre ahistorical travesty.

Historian and Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts makes a number of acerbic observations in a review of the film entitled Fake History in Churchill, starring Brian Cox, describing the latter's portrayal as "a depiction that Dr. Goebbels would have been delighted with"! Roberts lays the blame squarely at the feet of Alex von Tunzelmann, who wrote the script/screenplay.

With rather staggering irony, von Tunzelmann authored a column for the Guardian for a period, Reel History, whose subject is the relationship cinema has with historical truth! One has to wonder how and why someone who regularly dissects films to see how accurate they are could then go and commit such blatant calumny. Especially at a time - the 70th anniversary of the war's end - when both the man and the times and events depicted were being celebrated and remembered.

Brian Cox is a decent actor, and he plays his role with, er... well, if not gusto, then something similar. But the Churchill we see here is petulant, contrarian and ill-informed. The issue for me isn't really about how this portrayal undermines the celebrated image of Churchill, which it certainly does. It's about the implausibility of so many moments, from the more personal and mundane level, like his secretaries' emotional outburst over her spouse, to grand strategy; the idea that Monty only let Churchill in on his plans for D-Day the day before the invasion is utterly preposterous.

We did watch the film all the way through; the acting and production made it watchable. But I did find it beyond the pale, in terms of attempting to pass itself off as an exposé of the 'man behind the myth' (a tag-line for the movie was "the icon you know, the man you don't"). In the parlance of our times this might be described as a historical 'reboot'. But that would play down what is, frankly, a shockingly poor, slanderous even, rendering of history.

By all means watch it. But be sure to check it against real history.

Misc: Bugger! Researching, or not...

Atmospheric image of Churchill AVRE deploying its bridge.

Hmmm!? Having been putting quite a bit of effort into building hinges for the SBG (small box girder) bridge on my Matchbox Churchill AVRE kit I decided I'd do a bit of research on the subject. I'm wishing I had done so before embarking on this aspect of the model now.

An odd but interesting image.*

It turns out that I can find no documentary evidence at all of this particular Churchill AVRE variant being a folding or 'scissor' type bridge. Indeed, in the Tank Chat video by David Fletcher for the Bovington tank museum he makes the point that skippers of vessels transporting these mechanical monsters disliked them precisely because the bridge acted like a sail, interfering with their ability to control the boats navigation.

In country road traffic.

And all the photographs or very brief clips of film I've seen (the latter hard to find and usually embedded within longer YouTube videos) show the bridge as one long object. Unfortunately for me I'd assumed, from the construction - two more or less identical mirror image halves - and possibly from vague memories of images of the Valentine tank-based scissor type bridgelayer, that the enormous bridge would, logically and obviously, fold away. Well, it seems not.

What a whopper!

Loaded on a transport, along with a fascine carrying AVRE.

Having said all this, I did find one or two sources of information hinting that either they could/did fold, or that there were some variants that might've done so. Witness the two images below. The first of these is an illustration, however, not a contemporary wartime photo. I don't know what the provenance of this is, or its basis in fact, if any. And then below that there's an example of a model built in that basis. Note that both have extra elelemrnts on the furthest part of the bridge. These look a bit spurious or dubious, as then look like the get in the way of deployment. 

What info is this illustration based on?

Likewise this model/diorama?

I reckon I'll post about this on some other fora, and see if I can get some input on this issue, and hopefully clarify it. As mentioned above, I may have seen image at some point, such as that directly below, of a Valentine 'scissor' type bridgelayer. And perhaps subconscious memories of this prompted my assumption that the Churchill AVRE bridgelayer would deploy in the same manner? 

A Valentine bridgelayer deploying its scissor type folding bridge.

But not so the Churchill.

But without exception the wartime photos of the Churchill AVRE bridgelayer show the bridge as if it doesn't hinge in the centre. I'm surprised, as this makes it very front-heavy, unwieldy, and no doubt tricky to manoeuvre. Imagine trying to negotiate combat damaged towns with that enormous thing on the front! And one suspects that destroyed river crossings would, as often as not, be found in built up areas.

The fascine and bridge-laying Churchill AVREs often operated in tandem.

This photo shows how huge and cumbersome an attachment the bridge was.

For now I reckon I'll have to set aside the build, until such time as I resolve this issue to my own satisfaction. I'm guessing I'll wind up building it in line with the historical evidence. In which case I could proceed right away. But part of me hopes that a folding version might have existed, and I'd certainly love to successfully build such a type, as I've enjoyed trying to scratch-build the bridge with working hinges. 

The frustrating thing with this is that I've been trying to improve on my tendency to leave projects unfinished, and see them through to completion. And this discovery kind of temporarily derails that process. At least in respect of this build. But I guess it also means I can either return to older projects and get them done, or embark on something new.

Kit Build/Review: Matchbox 1/76 Churchill AVRE Bridge-Layer, Pt. III

Making tubular bits of sprue for my scratch-built hinges.

This 1/76 Churchill AVRE is bound to take a bit longer than a normal build, on account of the bridge. Particularly so as I'm trying to make it deployable. To do this I decided to build two little hinges on the underside of the bridge. This has been both challenging and fun. I probably should've tried to rig some sort of reliably accurate vertically aligned drill-press. But I felt that'd be too time-consuming, so I just pressed on - boom, boom! - with freehand attempts. 

Parts prepped, ready for assembly. Note angled notches in bridge-ends

After a lot of fiddly freehand drilling, and many failed off-centre bits of sprue, I finally got six pieces I felt were good enough to use. Gluing these to the bridge required shaving off some bits of the structure where the hinges would sit. Then I had to glue them in place accurately positioned enough that the 0.6mm central hole would align through all the segments. This wasn't easy! Especially as the holes weren't perfectly central on any of the parts to start with.

Hinge elements being glued in place.

Another view.

I then made two pins, approx' 0.5mm in diameter, and roughly 6mm long. These go through the little tubular sprue sections, forming the hinges. Getting these in was tricky, as the central holes weren't perfectly aligned. But with a little gentle persuasion I managed it. This first attempt resulted in one fully functional hinge, and one which failed. 

Sliding the pins into the hinges.

The hinge that failed is on the right in the above picture (and is the upper hinge in the photo below). What happened was the central tubular piece got glued to the outer two pieces, resulting in one big block, which then sheared off from the bridge when I attempted to test the moving parts.

I decided to try and keep the successful hinge, and remove the central part of the failed one, and work on it - reducing the width a fraction and widening the central hole by 0.1mm - before re-assembling it. I also reinforced the central tubular parts on both sides of the bridge, as these are the weakest, and most likely to fail.

The hinges, glued, ready for testing.

Below is the dis-assembled hinging mechanism. The two hinges have been very slightly worked on, in particular the upper of the two, i.e. the one that failed. I'll give that a good few hours to cement. And then I'll re-insert the metal pins, and hope that the hinges won't break! I'm thinking I may add end-caps to either one or most likely both sides of the hinges as well, to prevent the pins from working their way out.

Dis-assembled, working on fixing the failed upper hinge.

Patience is paramount! I must give the repaired hinge time to really set. It's not easy to leave it alone! If I'm successful, the next thing is either mounting the whole bridge to the tank, or painting both tank and bridge before attempting to do so. Hmm!? I reckon the latter is probably the more sensible option... but... 

Kit Build/Review: Matchbox 1/76 Churchill AVRE Bridge-Layer, Pt. II

Prepping bridge parts.

The instructions for this venerable aulde Matchbox model start with assembling the bridge. I saved this part for after I'd made the tank. It's a rather lovely thing! You need to pay attention at this stage, as the components are quite siecifjc in how they go together. 

Oops! I forgot to add a weight to the inner rear of the tank.

Having assembled the bridge, whilst casting my eye over the instructions I spotted an important step in the construction of the tank that I'd omitted; adding a counterweight, so the attached bridge won't topple the model forwards! 

I used a hacksaw to remove the head of a latte heavy hex-headed bolt. I then had to bar God the resulting nut bybreming about 1mm from opposite sides, so it'd fit in the very narrow Churchill tank body. As ur forgotten to do thus at the construction stage, it meant I had to perform fairly drastic surgery to the rear underside of the rank body to get the weight in.

The instructions called for 20g of weight. Miraculously that's exactly what the nut weighed initially. It lost a gram in the process of dancing the two sides, winding up weighing 19 grams. I superglued it into the base of the tank, and 'stitched' the patient back up with surgical glue!

The nut part of a large bolt, sawn off by hand.

It also required a small amount of narrowing to fit...

... on two opposite facets.

Bridge and winch assembled.

By end of play last night I had all the kit assembled, bar actually attaching the bridge. Oh, and the mudguards (are these what Americans call the fenders?). The winch assembly is a fun thing to assemble. Fiddly but satisfying! 

I may be mad. And/or it may prove impossible. But I have a yen to build the bridge in such a way that it actually folds, so it can be shown both stowed and deployed. Hence saving this part of this build to the end. I'll need to fabricate some mini-moving joints!

Winch assembly in place.

So, that's it for part two of this very enjoyable build. Today is friday, the tubal teaching day of this half-term. Once the work's out of the way, I can return to the conundrum of building the bridge. I also need to source some crew figures, to populate my now open-hatched vehicle. What fun!

Kit Build/Review: Matchbox 1/76 Churchill AVRE Bridge-Layer, Pt. I

 

I recently built a 1/72 Churchill, which I wound up modifying with a scratch-built spigot mortar. I then read about and got interested in Churchill AVRE types of all sorts, including these bridge-layers. I posted about wanting this kit on a few sites, and a fellow member of Wisbech IPMS kindly got me one at a show. Thanks Darren!

Inside the box...

In the box, which was still wrapped in its original cellophane, was a kit potentially as old as me. The sprues are in three different colours, green, beige and brown. The decals, which I assumed would be fossilised, look like they might be ok. Which, in a kit of this vintage, is pretty amazing. There's even a tube of ancient glue!

The rubber-band tracks are of a more plastic than rubber material.

Beige and brown sprues... nice!

The instructions start with the bridge. I decided to skip that, and start with the turret. I'll probably do the bridge last. In part because I want to make the bridge workable. The petard mortar is not as nice, in mine 'umble opinion, as my scratch-built one. I've built it as is. But I might want to redo the gun at some stage.

Will the ancient glue still work?

Assembling the running gear, pt. I.

I like the running gear assembly on this kit. Having all the road wheels in a single piece makes it easier to assemble. And the rubber-band tracks in this kit seem to be more plastic than rubber, meaning they actually glue together! 

Running-gear, pt. II.

Tracks on, turret with modified hatches.

Tonight I'm stopping at this point, having assembled the bulk of the Churchill body. I already left the two stowed blankets, or tarpaulins , off the turret. I'm not sure whether or not to put the mudguards on over the tracks either. Quite a few AVRE I've seen don't have the upper track guards

Mostly assembled. Do I add the upper track-guards?

Film Review: Ike, Countdown to D-Day, 2004

I watched this again, for the second time now, and with a friend this time. We both really enjoyed it. Indeed, we both thought it was really very good.

This almost has the feel of a stage play, as it's mostly focussed on just a few characters in just a few locations. Filmed in New Zealand in an incredibly short time for almost no money (by Hollywood standards), this punches well above its weight. And it makes no real concessions at all to trends in modern mainstream cinema. Instead it's a quietly serious and studious depiction of a very interesting period of history, and how a huge amount of responsibility devolves on one man, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Ike himself.

Selleck re-enacts the famous visit to the 101st Airborne, Greenham Common.

Tom Selleck plays Ike very well indeed. Perhaps the overall portrayal is a tad overly reverential? Well, yes, perhaps it is. But it's quite clearly as much a celebration, as well as a dramatic depiction of Eisenhower, in his role as 'Supreme Commander' of the Allied Expeditionary Forces for Overlord. If you've only seen Selleck as Magnum, P.I. this might be something of a revelation.

The roles of the Englishmen in the film are played by New Zealanders, but you wouldn't know it. And they're played very well, from Churchill to Monty, Stagg (the weatherman!), and even the Royal family. Americans play Americans and, aside from Selleck, there are a few faces I recognise from other films, including a much aged Timothy Bottoms (who I first encountered alongside the mesmerising young Cybil Shepherd in The Last Picture Show), as Bedell Smith.

A lot of the 'action' is in conference, like this scene with weather man Stagg.

Ian Mune is great as Churchill.

There are some historical errors here - one I noticed was in reference to DD as if they were LCT - but there's also a lot they got right. The hagiographical aspect means they leave out any reference to Ike's possible relationship with his driver, Kay Summersby. Her character does appear briefly, but is not develop. She went on to be one his personal secretary, and he wangled rank in the US armed forces and US citizenship for her.

But the main drama revolves around Ike's deliberations over giving the go-ahead for D-day, particularly re his desire to have sole command, due not to egotism so much, at least as portrayed here, but a realisation of the need for clarity and simplicity in the chain of comman. And, perhaps most decisively and importantly, his ability to get competing egos to pull together. It's great to see a serious drama handled so well, and characters like Omar Bradley and Leigh Mallory portrayed in some depth, as opposed to the usual suspects, such as Churchill, Monty and Patton.

Gerald McRaney as Patton, reckons he's played Ike 'like a violin'!

Monty's legendary ego needs assuaging. Ike handles him well.

That said, those three are particularly charismatic, as no doubt they were in real life. And their relations with Ike as portrayed by Selleck are very believable. Monty comes off here better than he often does in books on WWII, perhaps especially books by Americans (mind you, Beevor gives him a panning). De Gaulle on the other hand is portrayed as something of a pompous egotist.

Although 'only' a made for TV film, I absolutely love this movie, and will certainly watch it again. It's good enough to bear repeated viewing. Quietly and seriously reverential about both its human and its historical subjects, whilst not a wham-bam action war-film - indeed, far from it - it is both deeply engaging and even moving. Definitely highly recommended.

Book Review: D-Day, Philip Warner

Philip Warner's superb book is in fact mostly a compendium of accounts by men who took part in the manifold aspects of D-Day. The quality of these correspondent's writings is variable. But the best stuff is absolute gold.

Warner opts to deploy his sources in a chronological-cum-thematic manner, which is good, as we can concentrate on one strand of action at a time, such as airborne drops, or the naval contribution, tanks, infantry, and so on, and thereby see how the bigger picture unfolds through multiple colourful facets, adding up to an exciting kaleidoscopic view of the whole.

Here's a list of the chapter headings:
I  Invasion from the Air: The RAF, the Gliders and the Parachutists
II  The Navies
III  On The Beach - The Sappers and others
IV  The Armoured Corps
V  The Infantry
VI  Marines and Commandos
VII  Intelligence and Signals
VIII  The Medical Services
IX  The Royal Army Service Corps
X  The Canadians
XI  The Royal Artillery
XII  The Chaplains
The French Viewpoint

The above list conveys both the arrangement of the books contents, and the scale and scope of Overlord itself. One thing that consistently emerges from the many vivid and moving testimonies that appear here is awe at the scale of it all. The book appears under a banner for The Telegraph newspaper, as it was in their pages that Warner published a letter asking for survivors of D-Day to contact him.

Philip Warner's own part in the content is quite minimal, consisting of brief introductory remarks for each chapter, and the selection and arrangement of the firsthand testimonies. These are, unsurprisingly having been collected in the U.K., very much weighted towards the British perspective. Americans and Canadians are mentioned in passing (the latter even having their own very brief chapter), but this is an avowedly and unashamedly Anglo-centric account.

What makes this particular book really enjoyable - thrilling, I would say - is the patchwork quilt of very personal stories. These range from the drily formal 'At 06:00 hours, we...' etc, to the very colourfully anecdotal ('we breakfasted on whisky and Mars bars'!). But, whilst none are Pulitzer Prize winning professional journos, the quality is, by and large, superb. Sometimes poignant, often funny, filled with both pride and humility, and replete with fascinating detail, they bring this gargantuan operation vividly to life in a way little else can.

I absolutely loved this book, and highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in this most momentous day. In one word: brilliant!

Book Review: D-Day, The Battle for Normandy, Antony Beevor

This is my third Beevor WWII book (the others were Stalingrad, and Ardennes, 1944), and I have to say that, for my money, he's arguably the best and most seductively exciting author currently writing, in a very crowded field. For once, we have here a book that really does live up to the dust-jacket hype. As Dominic Sandbrook puts it, Beevor undoubtedly is 'a master of narrative, expertly blending the grand sweep with the telling anecdote'.

British troops in action during Operation Goodwood. [1]

The title D-Day is a bit misleading, but is thankfully made good by the subtitle: yes, this book covers the D-Day landings - and does so very well - but it's given over more to the ensuing campaign, the Battle for Normandy, in north-western France. The relationship between the Allies is interesting, and Montgomery doesn't come off too well in Beevor's accounts. There's some tension and communication failures, leading to bogging down, particulalry, it would seem, in Monty's sector, where he often put an overly positive gloss in events, such that the gap between his reports and reality created tension with the American and Canadian allies, and even many of his own British colleagues and subordinates.

A P-47 Thunderbolt...

An RAF pilot scrambles to his Typhoon, during the Normandy campaign.

A pilots eye view, as a Typhoon fired its rocket(s) at what one hopes is a German column.

What an aerial bombardment looks like from above the bombers and their target, in this instance, the unhappy Villers Bocage.

And the devastation wrought by aerial bombing. [2]

Allied aerial dominance is a very strong theme in their victory. But, as ever, bombing proved to be a very inefficient blunt instrument, often causing collateral damage, sometimes aiding the German defenders (although also damaging them materially and traumatising them psychologically) and hampering the Allied advance, and certainly never delivering what it's apologists claimed for it.

With military histories such as this, which cover an immense amount of activity, any one of which myriad elements might merit a sizeable book itself, condensing events into a brief, readable synthesis, it can be bewildering trying to follow the numerous parallel threads. I feel Beevor handles this aspect as well, perhaps better, than most. 

Whilst the Allies feared Tigers and Panthers, Beevor argues the 88mm was one of Germany's most effective weapons.

Yes, despite the numerous maps included, it can be rather confusing. But this is as clear an account in one reasonably sized book as you're likely to find. And the scope is huge, from the landings themselves, to the numerous follow up operations, with such extras as Stauffenberg's bomb plot and attempted coup, and the Paris Uprising, all succinctly and adroitly told in an exciting, compellingly spare prose. 

After covering the landings, beach by beach, we follow the numerous operations, such as the British Epsom and Goodwood (both of which proved to be, as Beevor notes with irony, anything but 'a day at the races'), the Canadian Operation Totalise, and the most vigorous and successful breakthrough and breakout, that of Patton's forces in Operation Cobra.

It's the 'mass of unfamiliar sources, fresh voices and untold anecdotes', as fellow military historian Max Hastings pithily puts it, that really make this such an exciting read. Beevor does this sort of thing with such an easy fluency that it belies the great skill needed to write military (or indeed any) history with such verve. And his sources range from the top brass to the grunts. Beevor has always been notable for his ability to effortlessly shift gear from the higher echelons to the mud and blood of ground level conflict. And I have to say I love his books all the more for it.

A knocked out Cromwell amidst the ruins of Villers Bocage.

Tiger Ace Michael Wittman, Allied Nemesis of Villers Bocage. [3]

Whilst it's definitely good to have author's like Beevor not banging the nationalist drum - indeed, for some native readers he's overly critical of the British part, and Monty in particular - some might suspect him of sucking up to his prospective American readership. All things considered, the more I read Beevor on WWII, the more I admire his skill as an historian and storyteller. If you want military history writing that excites, informs and inspires, his books - and this one is a peach - are a good place to start.

The author.

----------

NOTES:

[1] Except for the cover image, this is the only photo on this review that also appears in this book. The rest are harvested from the interweb at large, with many sourced from Wikipedia.

[2] I forgot to note where this image depicts, but I don't think it's the same as the one above, which is Villers Bocage.

[3] Veteran 'Tiger Ace' and, for the Germans at least, hero of the Ostfront, Wittman was eventually  ambushed and killed during this campaign, by Shermas such as he had hitherto been so effective in destroying.