Beyond Gary Oldman: Unmasking the Real Churchill in Darkest Hour 

Thank you so much!!

Thank you! Furman's Churchill book should be out later this year, and I'll be sure to update links once it is! You can follow his Amazon page and I think they notify you when there are new publications, too. I'll take a stab at your questions, but I'll preface this all by saying it's my own personal speculation and I have no further facts nor can I speak for Furman Daniel or the filmmakers. 1) I have a feeling the filmmakers were really centering the movie around Churchill, so they didn't want to have a lot of outside characters. So, even though Furman pointed out that Miss Layton didn't become Churchill's typist until 1941, I am guessing the filmmakers decided they needed to pick one person to be his secretary for the film instead of having multiple people. Movies often have composite characters, which is why I think it's what we're getting in this film, too. 2) I can't speak for Furman. I got the impression with that scene he was referring to the uncanny valley sort of history because right after saying it was a dangerous lie, he talked about Macaulay's poems of Ancient Rome that Churchill was a fan of. But the train station scene itself didn't happen, even though there are details like the mention of Macaulay was a real thing. 3) My theory on this is because of something Furman mentioned: Dunkirk. The Christopher Nolan film. Both Dunkirk and Darkest Hour came out in 2017, so I am certain both filmmakers knew the other film was being made. Quite honestly, there was a lot more hype around Nolan's Dunkirk film than there was for Darkest Hour. I have no facts to back this up but my personal speculation is the filmmakers behind Darkest Hour wanted to add the little boats into their movie because they knew people would see them in Nolan's Dunkirk, too. So, to answer your question...why would they make such an obvious lie? Well, because it's what the movie-going audience expects when they see the little boats in Nolan's Dunkirk they expect to see them in another World War II movie that also mentions Dunkirk. I'm often reminded of something that Dr. Stephen Hardin told me about his time as the historical consultant on the movie The Alamo. He kept telling the director what really happened, but the director pointed out that at the end of the day it doesn't matter if a movie is historically accurate if no one goes to watch the movie. He went on to point out that history is complex, but movies have to be simple. And while that's a very different movie, it's something that always stuck with me about the reality of the filmmaking business. So I think that's what we're seeing for a lot of your questions. You and I would both love to see a movie that's entirely historically accurate. But that doesn't seem to be what most people want to see in a movie.

What in the world does this nasty comment accomplish? Strange thought process. My mom taught me: “If you can’t say something nice about someone, then keep your mouth shut!” Where is my mom’s advice incorrect?

@@alcoholfree6381 Just an inside joke with Furman. We served together. Rest assured I have nothing but respect for him.