That was my favorite scene. It was funny and endearing. To boot, it made a statement about populism, which is relevant today.

@rudely_murray said:

Perhaps the most ridiculous sequence I have seen in any film in the past year or so. Utterly, mind-bogglingly misguided, offensive and awful. The film as a whole was a by the numbers, dumbed-down affair with a notably weak script that felt the need to spell out plot points or historical details as if explaining things to schoolchildren - but this late in the game scene completely sank it. Not a good film, and I shall groan loudly when Gary Oldman wins the Oscar.

completely agree. it was at that point that the film fell apart completely. what a cheesy, unconvincing and embarrassing scene. i don't get all the fuss. this is a very overrated film.

Churchill used to sneak out to get the opinions of the people, so it is not that farfetched.

@rudely_murray said:

Perhaps the most ridiculous sequence I have seen in any film in the past year or so. Utterly, mind-bogglingly misguided, offensive and awful. The film as a whole was a by the numbers, dumbed-down affair with a notably weak script that felt the need to spell out plot points or historical details as if explaining things to schoolchildren - but this late in the game scene completely sank it. Not a good film, and I shall groan loudly when Gary Oldman wins the Oscar.

The script wasn't that good and I agree to this, but I didn't manage to see either anywhere in the film Gary Oldman. All I was able to see was Winston Churchill. So even if the movie doesn't deserve an oscar for its script, Gary Oldman definitely deserves and Oscar for his performance.

Churchill is a devilishly hard 'character' to portray, not the least because of his peculiar appearance and distinctive manner of speech. It is nearly impossible for an actor to pull off a convincing portrayal, and movies and TV shows are littered with pisspoor depictions. Oldman doesn't nail it, but he comes closer than anyone I have ever seen, or I suspect am likely to see, in my lifetime. It is the best acting performance I have seen this year. He deserves the accolades.

I agree the scene on the tube was cringeworthy writing. There are many historical mistakes in this movie. But it isn't a documentary. It isn't a fanciful conceit that throws light on a historical figure in the way Insignificance does either. I'm not sure the writer quite got the balance right, but it worked for me if I didn't think too hard. It is, after all, a mere entertainment.

While I'm here, the casting was brilliant, as were costumes and sets. The cinematography was ordinary, made no better by some cheap tricks that would have been better suited to a TV commercial. It had a cheap look to it, not I hasten to add, reflective of the austere times depicted, but of a less than technically polished movie. It has what I like to think of as SFX from the Dr Who school. With a 30 million budget it isn't a blockbuster, but it isn't guerilla film making either. The result should have been something better.

This is a good film, but nowhere near good enough that there isn't room for other film makers to take on the same subject matter again.

The subway scene is one of the worst and most heavy-handed scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Everyone involved in concocting this scene should be blacklisted from the film industry. When the little girl shouted, "Never!" I just burst out laughing. Then I paused the movie, and came here to see if anyone else was talking about this scene. And of course it's the most replied to thread. The absurdity of this scene, especially in an otherwise decent movie, is a rare feat of awfulness.

Also, the token black guy added another layer of lulz to this scene. Who comes up with this garbage?

As an added note, Churchill had a fear of railway platforms, or rather, a fear that he would be overcome with the desire to hurl himself in front of a train. This odd fact adds further absurdity to Churchill 'finding hope' on a tube train.

@mitsuko_soma said:

Also, the token black guy added another layer of lulz to this scene. Who comes up with this garbage?

Absolutely. In England in the 1940s, sad to say, even if this man were travelling on the Tube and Churchill happened to be on board in such a situation, the overwhelming acceptance of the black guy - including everybody laughing heartily at his 'joke' - would never, ever have happened. The film as a whole was poorly conceived, naive and dumbed down, but this sequence truly sank it. Painful stuff.

@rudely_murray said:

@mitsuko_soma said:

Also, the token black guy added another layer of lulz to this scene. Who comes up with this garbage?

Absolutely. In England in the 1940s, sad to say, even if this man were travelling on the Tube and Churchill happened to be on board in such a situation, the overwhelming acceptance of the black guy - including everybody laughing heartily at his 'joke' - would never, ever have happened. The film as a whole was poorly conceived, naive and dumbed down, but this sequence truly sank it. Painful stuff.

Altho I have a small problem with the 'why' of this sort of inclusion, it is a misconception that England was devoid entirely of black or coloured people prior to the Windrush generation. A black person would have been a novelty for sure, but a single depiction of a black man isn't untoward.

As for the English being bigots at the time, I find that difficult to accept. From the same period we have accounts of black US soldiers describing how their time in England during WW2 was the first time they had been treated as equals. There are instances of white US soldiers going ballistic because their black countrymen were accepted, and popular, at dances and similar. I am not suggesting for a second that 'soft racism' didn't exist, but the point about soft racism is that it wouldn't have been as 'in your face' as shunning a black person on a train. Projection our own generation's social problems onto previous generations is, in my opinion, as artless as filling Elizabethan period dramas with coloured people as tho this were perfectly normal.

i don't know what "soft racism" is.

my dad arrived in the uk in the 1960s. he was verbally attacked and physically threatened by white men, and got into many a fight to avoid getting his head kicked in.

i don't know if you define that as "soft racism".

i feel very confident in saying that the english have been bigoted against black people from the minute they set eyes on us.

@MrsBuckyBarnes said:

i don't know what "soft racism" is.

my dad arrived in the uk in the 1960s. he was verbally attacked and physically threatened by white men, and got into many a fight to avoid getting his head kicked in.

i don't know if you define that as "soft racism".

i feel very confident in saying that the english have been bigoted against black people from the minute they set eyes on us.

Broadly, 'soft racism' is racism that doesn't start out trying to cause injury but nonetheless reveals a sense of otherness about the recipient, often with an implication of inferiority. Asking a black man if he has ever met his Dad for example.

I never said racism didn't exist in England in 1940, 1960 or now. I specifically spelled that out. The issue is whether it was the default position for Londoners in 1940 to the extent that a black guy wouldn't have been on a train and if he were no one would talk to him or laugh at his joke. If your father was getting into 'many fights' in the 1960s you might want to consider the possibility he might have been the problem.

All English people bigoted against all black people for all time? Two immediate problems with your statement. Firstly, not all English people are white. (Where are you living now that you describe the English in the third person? Doesn't that undermine your claim to privileged insight? ) Secondly, it's a gross generalisation to think all white (or black or yellow or whatever) people think and behave the same on a given issue because of their skin colour. That, somewhat ironically, is itself an example of soft racism.

@MrsBuckyBarnes said:

i don't know what "soft racism" is.

my dad arrived in the uk in the 1960s. he was verbally attacked and physically threatened by white men, and got into many a fight to avoid getting his head kicked in.

i don't know if you define that as "soft racism".

i feel very confident in saying that the english have been bigoted against black people from the minute they set eyes on us.

The perpetual victim attitude isn't going to get you far in life.

If white people are so awful, why is it that 3rd world immigrants flood into white majority countries in droves?

@mitsuko_soma said:

@MrsBuckyBarnes said:

i don't know what "soft racism" is.

my dad arrived in the uk in the 1960s. he was verbally attacked and physically threatened by white men, and got into many a fight to avoid getting his head kicked in.

i don't know if you define that as "soft racism".

i feel very confident in saying that the english have been bigoted against black people from the minute they set eyes on us.

The perpetual victim attitude isn't going to get you far in life.

If white people are so awful, why is it that 3rd world immigrants flood into white majority countries in droves?

cause they are stupid enough to believe in the results of there history. Maybe I should say they are desperate enough to disbelieve it and take a leap of faith.

Having been raised in Edinburgh and moved to Canada , I relate some experiences to you. When my Polish dad met Glaswegian mom they were ostracized on the street by other British people for stealing there woman. As kids we always made fun of the Pakistani bus conductors, completely ignorant of what it meant , but my conscious never let me forget it. As kids we always were given "gollywogs". It was not until much later I recognized the racism embedded in that....again my conscious never let me forget it. I'm sure there were many more.

I have no problem believing they were that racist. Is it not true that Churchill promised not to ration bread and in doing so condemned 3 million Indi people to starvation in 1943?