The Gathering Storm (2002) and Into the Storm (2009) are the first and second parts of an HBO-produced made-for-television movie series on the life of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. While they’re two very separate movies, with entirely different casts, produced seven years apart I think a review of them, in contrast and comparison, is the best approach to take.

The first movie, The Gathering Storm, is set in the years leading up to the Second World War. Churchill is an embattled MP fighting to keep India as a British colony, immediately recognizable as an outsider, a political outcast and an isolated man. He seems slow, very, very old and stubborn. When he begins to recognize a threat in Nazi Germany he acts, like a bulldog (it is said), to gather as much intelligence as he can on the Germans. Realizing that the threat is a real one, we see Churchill muster up all of his strength to throw behind his public debates, radio addresses, and lobbying, working tirelessly to elicit a government response to the German question.

In this first film, Churchill is played brilliantly by Albert Finney; his wife, portrayed by Vanessa Redgrave.

The second movie, Into the Storm, takes place during the war years. Churchill is now an embattled Prime Minister, fighting what seems like a very difficult, nearly impossible battle against the German war machine. Still, he “buggers on” and with help from the Americans and later the Russians, manages to pull Britain through the war.

In this film, the cast is entirely different with Brendan Gleeson as Churchill and Janet McTeer as Clementine Churchill.

Both of these films are incredibly strong. Both received a number of awards and honours and, for me, rank up there as far as bio-pics go. The difference in casting and direction though makes for two very different films, despite being sequels.

The first film is a straight narrative. The attention paid to Churchill acquiring enemy intelligence and fighting against public opinion to endorse a war against Germany was interesting, but I found it to be a bit boring, too. It seemed to me, disjointed at times. It’s clear that the director wanted to focus on Winston and Winston alone but even for a larger-than-life figure, the lens, to me, was a bit too narrow. During the lead up to the war there were lots of interesting things happening and focusing on only a very narrow range of those things, things immediately pertinent to Churchill’s life makes it difficult to really understand and appreciate their impact. At times, going from speech, to bathtub, to speech, without being given a glimpse of what’s happened in the interim is difficult. Maybe, as a History Major, I wanted more context than we were given but maybe that’s just me.

The second film, in contrast, was set as a series of flashbacks. In the present-day timeline, Churchill is, as always, a beleagured Prime Minister. Having just one the war, he’s faced with an election which threatens to unseat him. Through the flashbacks, we learn about some of his prouder moments as a war-time Prime Minister. To me, Into the Storm seems like the more well-rounded and well-produced film. But, then again, there is much more context. There’s still a clear directoral decision to focus very tightly on Churchill and not make it into a war film but there’s a little more explaining, a little more context to be got from this second installment.

But, it’s not exactly a tit for tat situation.

A large part of both of these films is intended to be the interaction between Churchill and his Mrs. As much as these films focus on the war, they focus on the deterioration, and survival, of their marriage. In the first film, this chemistry is incredible. Winston is portrayed as a very old man, almost feeble at times, who is at the same time bitter, chastened and stubborn, but very much in love with “his” Clementine. In the second film, despite playing an older Churchill, Gleeson plays him as a much more able-bodied, much younger, and yet more estranged from his wife. The chemistry of the first film, in my opinion, is much more developed and interesting to watch.

A lot can be said, lastly, about the portrayal of Churchill himself and I’m still on the fence, even now, as to which portrayal I prefer. Finney’s Churchill is much older, much more feeble, and nearly impossible to understand at times. That said, he’s got Churchill’s infamous bulldog growl down to a tee. It’s brilliant. On the other hand, the long side-shot of Gleeson, as Churchill, standing at a window, or waiting for a meeting with the King, is utterly epic.

If I had to choose a movie I prefered, I probably couldn’t. No, I can’t. There are merits, and drawbacks, for both films. Instead, I suggest that you see them both but if you want an even better HBO-produced bio-pic watch John Adams, my personal favourite.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 5th, 2010 at 7:00 am and is filed under Television. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.