So this history [link below] is missing from Darkest Hour’s hagiography, which, I admit, I loved (fell for?). The film reduces the internal conflict to Churchill vs. Halifax-Chamberlain-George VI, with the former advocating war at whatever cost and the latter an ostensibly well-stipulated treaty (both sides acting in the nation’s best interests, of course). Jacobin is no doubt correct in its account of Churchill, his personal ambitions, English nationalism, imperialism, racism, and antisemitism. But if it was Churchill and not Halifax et al. who stood up to Hitler’s Germany, is the film then excused for its “portrait of leadership,” its Ciceronian Great Man, even if Churchill in the end fell far short? I think it’s an important question for film. Darkest Hour would be the historical supplement to the beautiful, terrifying, and ultimately vapid Dunkirk, a Cloverfield for war buffs, unless Darkest Hour, too, merely serves the Brexit nation-state and the fiery, white palatines who launch those dreamy Spitfires.

“The Real Winston Churchill”