UKC

Michael Gambon, Brian Cox, John Lithgow - we've seen several actors take on the role of Winston Churchill in recent years. Could Gary Oldman's portrayal land him an Academy Award? On the evening of 11 September, as the credits rolled on wartime drama Darkest Hour, the audience in Toronto's Roy Thomson Hall rose to their feet to applaud Gary Oldman and the film's cast and crew.

The Toronto International Film Festival prides itself on picking out potential awards winners. And in the days following the screening it was Oldman's astonishing Churchill that dominated conversation after conversation - with many declaring him the clear frontrunner for the best actor Oscar.

A couple of months later, Gary Oldman, sitting in a London hotel, remains the odds-on favourite, but is understandably reluctant to talk his Academy Award chances, instead offering: "I feel very lucky, very privileged to have been offered it, and to have actually played it. "So I think I've got out of it what I wanted to get out of it. Anything else beyond that is a cherry on the cake." When pressed he does concede: "If I had an Oscar that said on it Gary Oldman, best actor for Darkest Hour, if I was going to get an Oscar, I can't think of a better part to get it for, let's put it that way."

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42108731

Having seen Oldman's Smiley, (not as good as Alec Guinness, but still impressive,) I think this one could be a good chance for him.

In reply to Big Ger:

I always think that the late Robert Hardy was the definitive Churchill.

In reply to The New NickB:

I don't disagree. Tim Spall was good, if brief, in "The King's Speech.'

In reply to Big Ger:


It's one thing to present a caricature for a few minutes, when the audience is more interested in the physical resemblance. Something else to embody that character for two hours.

In reply to BnB:

I think Robert Hardy was the best because he embodied the whole character; Timothy Spall seemed more of a caricature.

In reply to Big Ger:

Albert Finney did a good job I thought.

In reply to Big Ger:

I appreciate he was a leader of country so is revered by segment of population I don't understand why him so much as he was the murderous to British working communities exemplary racist of high degrees who will fight other nations who want keep British from the theft of land and resource British want to take.He seems terrible example to be pride of nation for children to hold as guide of behaviour.More the someone to hide from national history would be the better?

In reply to Tanke:

There, there, dear, you go have a nice lie down and a cup of tea....

In reply to Tanke:

Have a read about Churchill. Theres plenty of biographies. Interesting, nuanced character and no point judging from todays 'moral' and historical standpoint; actually impossible.

D

In reply to BnB:


Indeed, but that's not what I claimed he did.

We may never know if Spall could carry that off. I believe he could going on his past acting.

In reply to Dauphin:

Yea gods, Satan must be going to work on a sleigh, we agree on something!!!

In reply to Big Ger:
Tea or lie down does not change fact Churchill was extreme racist who hates worker collective representaives of British worker that he sent guns to kill. Perhaps British who hate British worker class happy to worship racist of ruling class who also hates worker? Perhaps racist happy to worship racist or does tea lie down help make uncomfortable racist data go away?I continue without tea in the case thank you for advice snowflake.

In reply to Tanke:

Do you just pull random words out of a hat?

If not you should try it, it would make far more sense that the cretinous tripe you normally post.

In reply to Tanke:

Just curious: is there an particular 1914-1945 national leader you feel is more deserving of admiration?