by Sam Juliano
Despite its distinguished cast and reverent subject, Richard Attenborough’s Young Winston fared poorly at the box-office, while dividing the critics, and it quickly disappeared after a brief run in USA theatres. The film did win a most prestigious honor though, and that was the Best Picture prize from the London Film Critics Association. Decades later, the film’s reputation has risen, and is now seen for what it is: a superbly-acted, splendidly-mounted and poignant examination of the early years of Sir Winston Churchill, that is as enriching as it is inspiring.
Winston Churchill has been the subject of many television biographies, and has appeared as a minor character in numerous feature films, but Young Winston was the only theatrically released film where the iconic figure was the protagonist. Of course there have been several successful television series that have focused in on the twentieth century’s most famous single person, including Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years starring Robert Hardy and Sian Phillips and the 2002 British television drama The Gathering Storm starring Albert Finney and Vanessa Redgrave. But a comprehensive portrait of the most-quoted of figures always seemed so prohibitive in scope that filmmakers always balked on pulling the trigger on such a project. However, noted producer Carl Foreman managed to secure right’s to Churchill’s own My Early Life and The World in Crisis, from which he crafted his own screenplay. Rumor has it that Churchill himself suggested that Foreman adapt his early books, as he was a big admirer of the producer’s 1961 film, The Guns of Navarone. As displaced in the onscreen credits, (I just re-viewed the Region 2 DVD I own in preparation for this review) interiors for this British-American co-production were shot at Shepperton Studios, London, with exteriors shot in London, at various locations throughout England, in Swansea, Wales and in the Atlas Mountains and other areas of Morocco, where the Indian, Sudanese and south American scenes were filmed. Cinematographer Gerry Turpin asserted that the film’s period hues and transient landscapes were shot with the Colorflex camera process that he developed to create layers of color and light. Voice-over narration recurs throughout the film, with central actor Simon Ward (who plays Churchill from ages 17 to 27) and other actors portraying Churchill’s voice at different ages, from early childhood through the time period when the books were written. At various intervals actual letters, news reports, portions of speeches or passages from My Early Life are recited, sometimes by Churchill at different ages, other times by his mother, the American Jennie Jerome Churchill (Anne Bancroft), his father, Lord Randolph Churchill (Robert Shaw), or other minor characters. A number of speeches, newspaper reports and letters are recreated, sometimes verbatim, from actual speeches, such as the “tattered flag” speech that was delivered before the House of Commons and other noted historical documents.
The action seems to stop at one point in the film when Bancroft is shown playing the piano in a drawing room where she as Jennie, is being questioned by an offscreen interviewer, presumably a reporter, who comments on recent and past events, raising pointed questions about her behavior. In that scene, Bancroft speaks in direct address, responding to Jennie critics, but some time later a similar scene shows Ward as the young adult Churchill being questioned by the same interviewer. Ward at first gives answers in direct address, then moves back, assuming a familiar Churchillian pose and delivers one of the future prime minister’s actual speeches. As he does so, Ward alters the cadence of his voice to more closely mimic that of the real Churchill. Some of the film’s action does not advance the plot Per se, but rather evokes characterizations and the historical era in which Churchill’s early life took place.For example, at one point Jennie visits a butcher (Colin Blakely) to seek the man’s vote for her husband, and the butcher’s reaction to a woman trying to influence him on politics, as well as his reaction to her beauty and charm, and establish her character in addition to the social life of the time.
Although some critics charged that the film idealized or glossed over various aspects of Churchill’s life, it briefly touches upon many actual incidents, including his imprisonment and escape during the Boer War, and his father’s resignation as Chancellor of the Exchequer and eventual death from syphilis. Although much of Churchill’s international fame as a statesman and writer came years after the events of the film, there are allusions to some of them, including the beginning of his temporary break from the conservative (Tory) party in 1904, his stand against Fascism in the 1930’s, and the clips of what, arguably, was the highpoint of his political life, VE day in 1945. Shortly after VE Day, Churchill was ousted from office, but again became prime minister from 1951 to 1955.
The film opens with actual black-and-white newsreel footage of cheering crowds outside Buckingham Palace in London on May 8, 1945, the aforementioned “VE Day,” which marked the end of European hostilities during World War II. The credits then roll over shots of Churchill’s study in his home, Chartwell, followed by still photographs and intermittant archival footage of events throughout his life. It should not at all be underestimated that the film’s score, composed and conducted by Alfred Ralston, sets the proper archival mode, with a lovely, nostalgic and inspirational title theme, one of the best of its kind ever written for a film. It it a fitting aural testament to the military heroism and political ascendency present in Churchill’s early years, and it is altogether stirring. Ralston also uses various pieces from Edward Elgar to wonderful effect throughout the film. From the point in the film at which Churchill reaches early adulthood, the action proceds in chronological order.
The last lines of dialogue are spoken in voice-over by Ward as an older Churchill are are apparently very close to the final words of My Early Life, (a book I read years ago, but can’t remember all of the specifics of) in which Churchill wrote of his future marriage to Clementine Hozier in 1908, approximately seven years after the action of the book and film ends: “and I lived happily ever afterward.” The final shots of the film return to historical footage of VE Day, in which the real Churchill is seen with King George V and Queen Elizabeth, waving to cheering crowds from the balcony at Buckingham Palace.
Simon Ward, whose profile has been favorably compared to the young Churchill, gives a well-rounded and appealing performance which lies at the film’s center, but he’s superbly complimented by Robert Shaw and Anne Bancroft as Churchill’s parents, and a veritable English stock company of superstar actors that include Jack Hawkins, Ian Holm, Edward Woodward, Patrick Magee, William Dexter and John Mills, all of whom give distinguished portrayals.
As expected, the film was much more popular in its own country than the United States since Churchill was recognized as one of England’s greatest statesmen. Critic Felix Barker of the Evening News proclaimed it “An Even Greater Film Than Lawrence of Arabia,” adding, “In a production so full of subleties, I have only space to praise one aspect of Richard Attenborough’s brilliant unobtrusive direction. The man who displayed so much virtuosity in Oh! What a Lovely War is here content to paint his canvas with modest delicacy and a perfect sense of period.”
The critical response in the U.S. was as stated earlier in the review, mixed, but the favorable responses were most enthusiastic, even if the boxoffice receipts were not overly impressive. Richard Cuskelly of The Los Angeles Herald Examiner wrote, “Director Richard Attenborough has recreated with great skill the final halcyon days of the British Empire – a time of rigid morality, ultra-conscientious self-discipline and unsurpassed elegance.”
Using admirable restraint, Attenborough wrings as much emotion out of his subject as he can without becoming sacharine or manipulative, but much of the credit much go to writer Foreman, whose writing here is economical and direct. Young Winston manages that rarest of feats: it doesn’t shame its subject.
A very interesting review – I’ve just added this one to my DVD rental list! I remember this being very successful in the UK when it was released, and think I saw it on TV a few years later, but it has now completely faded in my memory. ‘The Wilderness Years’ and ‘The Gathering Storm’ were both fine productions.
As regards your comment about Churchill’s reputation in England, bearing that out, when I was a child in the early 1970s, we once had a poll at my school where people had to pick their greatest hero – Churchill came top; Jesus came second.
“we once had a poll at my school where people had to pick their greatest hero – Churchill came top; Jesus came second.”
Interesting Judy, Am I correct to assume many folks, like John Winston Lennon ended with his name as a middle name.
Interesting question, John – to be honest I think that might have been quite unusual — John Lennon is the only white person born around wartime I’ve heard of with Winston as his middle name, anyway. Winston is a popular first name among black Britons, but I’m not sure if this is after Churchill or if the name was already popular – I’ve just done a bit of Googling to see if I can find out anything about the history of the name’s popularity but haven’t got anywhere.
Thanks very much Judy! That poll is a telling one for sure! Oddly, Churchill was ousted right after the war, as Brits were far more concerned about the economy. I am optimistic you will find much good in this film.
Interesting and in depth review Sam. I was certainly one of the many Americans who unfortunately bypassed this film at the time of its release. This has been a great series so far bringing to our attention, and it such depth, many films that have slipped through the cracks. thanks!!
Thanks very much for that John! Actually this particular film seems to fit within th eguidelines of this series better than any of the others, as it disappeared very fast and was very difficult to find.
Actually.. I’ve never been able to understand why this film has laid in obscurity for so long and take on the status of FORSAKEN cinema. Its a dazzling adventure movie, keeps with the details of Churchills early life and the period. The performances are all ranging from solid to terrific. Attenborough was no fly-by-night director, all of his films are well thought out and professionally made. Matter of fact, of the Attenborough films I have seen I cannot name a dud. SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON is a terrific flick. I am still admired of his nifty horror film MAGIC (with an astounding central performance by Anthony Hopkins as the ventriloquist). GANDHI, no matter the backlash it has suffered for besting Speilbergs E.T. at the Oscars, is a brilliant biography. CHAPLIN, while uneven, is a wonderful look at one of early films great figures. I don’t know, perhaps this film was too small for such a huge life? I never understood why this film is so forgotten. I don’t think its the directors fault. Curious.
Yep, I do agree Dennis, with what you say here about Attenborough. His track record is distinguished.
Looks like you’ve uncovered something special here Sam, and wow, what a fantastic review. I love the part where you describe Ralston’s music. I will need to seek this out.
Thanks Fred! Yes, Ralston’s music is one of the film’s finest components.
Great piece here Sam on a film I am unfamiliar with.
Thanks very much Kaleem. This one is only available on Region 2.
This is an informed and exquisitely-written essay, that brings to light a film that may have fallen through the cracks. I just checked, and there doesn’t seem to be a DVD of this available. Some of Britain’s greatest actors are on display.
As I stated above Frank, this is only available on a Region 2 presently. Thanks.
This was one of the films as I recall that you tirelessly promoted in the early 70’s. It seemed to have some dull patches, but there were also some great moments. I agree that the actor Simon Ward was exceptional. Outstanding review.
You have quite a memory Steve. Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for the informative piece, Sam. I’m going by my possibly flawed recollections, but my impression is that Churchill, during his time, enjoyed more popularity in the USA than he did in England. Also as I recall, wasn’t one of his parents (mother?) an American?
Thanks very much Pierre! Methinks you’re “flawed” recollections aren’t flawed at all. Churchill was definitely far more beloved here than in the U.K., where they unceremoniously tossed him from office immediately after the war, despite his being the central figure of inspiration for the Allies. And yes, his mother Jennie, who herself is the subject of a wonderful mini-series, was American.
The statement about being more popular in the US needs analysing why, so as not to make us Brits out as the ingrates Sam perhaps is suggesting. Churchill came to power at the head of a coalition as they needed a war leader, but as a forward-thinking Prime Minister he wasn’t the man for the postwar rebuild. Besides, you have to remember, prior to the war, Churchill’s record wasn’t too great (check his record in World War I in charge of the Admiralty, the Siege of Sidney Street, etc) and the family was never far from scandal.
He was voted back as PM later, but he was a man for that time 1939-1945, not for after. A great war prime minister does not necessarily mean a great prime minister. Just as there are generals who can only be of use in war and not in politics. I’ll wager the average American had never heard of him pre 1940 so they won’t know the rest of the issues that we, here, are aware of.
Young Winston, quite frankly, is the sort of movie that sent the British cinema down the plughole in the late sixties early seventies. Antique cinema for antique people. No disrespect to Dickie Attenborough, but he was always a better producer and galvaniser than a director and the drama is inert and stale, Anne Bancroft is given short shrift as Jennie Jerome, Ward does an excellent impersonation of Churchill, while Robert Shaw is very good as Randolph and Tony Hopkins great in a cameo as Lloyd George. But there’s nothing else to get excited about.
For those interested in his mother, Jennie, then I’ll direct you to the literally just released – on Region 2 by Network DVD after years of legal wrangling – JENNIE: LADY RANDOLPH CHURCHILL with an excellent Churchill from Warren Clarke, an even better Randolph from Ronald Pickup and a magnificent, career-best turn from Lee Remick as Jennie.
Allan’s disclaimer here is most informed and historically defensible. I cannot argue with that. Neither, was I suggesting that the Brits were any kind of ingrates, but I was only corroborating what was a fact: that Churchill was more beloved in the USA for whatever reason.
However, I want to point out that Allan’s indifference to YOUNG WINSTON is in the extreme minority within British intellectual circles. The prestigious London Film Critics Circle voted the film Best Picture in 1972, which is just about as conclusive an annointment of its excellence as you’ll ever get. For the reasons I spelled out in my review, I must completely concur with the Londoners in assessing this film’s consumate excellence both as a fascinating examination of Churchill’s early years, and as a work of exceeding inspiration.
Barry Norman and Phillip French, among others were big fans of the film.
That’s a relief, Sam. So I guess it’s also safe for me to remind everyone that Kate and Audrey Hepburn were cousins and that the U.S. capital was named after Denzel Washington’s great-great-great-great grandfather!
Hahahahahahaha!! Good one there Pierre!!!!!
Thanks, Sam — Pierre did digress.
Allan’s comments are appreciated, as well, and expand upon what I’ve read about Churchill and his waxing/waning popularity here and there.
It’s not always easy living in the US and trying to remain fully informed at the same time.
Does Allan wake up on the wrong side of the bed EVERY day? Just curious. I read through this entire thread and I find nothing in what Sam said to allude to the Brits being ingrates. Seems you can’t say a word these days on these threads without fearing our esteemed head-writer is gonna bite your head off, chew it up and spit it in the cat dish. Even praise for his writing or enthusiasm for a film he has reviewed doesn’t guard an individual from getting tongue whipped. Personally, I find it funny. But, to the passing visitor it could come off as a misanthropic, nasty and insulting ball-breaking. Lol! If I didn’t understand Allan as well as I do, I would have been insulted by that comment. Try prozac or zanax, they worked wonders on me! LOLOLOL!
It’s just the natural British response to undeserved praise. I’ll accept it when I feel it is merited, but not from people who praise anything and everything, that praise is worthless. As for the tongue-whippings, only when thoughtless comments are made.
And yes, and I am naturally contrary, Dennis, but by no means do you understand me, not by a longshot.
Well Mr. Fish, that is a sensible and mature answer. But know something about me. I neither give praise or insult unless it’s warranted. I also do not make statements unless background study or absolute certainty is behind me. I do admit we have a bit of a blast taking it out on Sam from time to time, but even then I fear that our bantering with Schmulee might give visitors the wrong impression. I know I’m as much to blame at times for some of the tom-foolery that goes on here, but I”l never be conciously mean spirited or downright nasty. I, and I’m sure others here as well, believe, “if you can’t say something nice-don’t say anything at all.”
That’s fair enough, Dennis, and understand my natural gravitas and cynicism comes from living in cold climes where we don’t have any of that flowery nonsense Sam is so fond of…we’re complete opposites…I’m a misanthrope, he’s a sycophant, can’t get more opposite than that.
LOLOLOL! You can’t get more honest than that! Be well my friend!
Sam, Sue and I love this film, and I am delighted you decided to include it in this series. I don’t blame you for making reference to that theme music, and Ward makes for a perfect young Churchill. As I fondly recall the use of speeches was most effective and was interwoven with the narrative, which was sometimes stately, but never boring. The cast is a veritable Who’s Who of great British thespians. Your review is simply marvelous. What passion.
That’s an excellent comment there Peter, much appreciated!
I have read the two companion William Manchester volumes on Churchill, and was more impressed with the early one. I’d love to see this film at some point, as it apparently covers that period.
Those two books are treasures Joe! I hav ealso read them, and own them in HC.