Oscars 2018: Churchill role gives Oscar win a 'special significance', says Gary Oldman

Nurul Azliah
Senior Lifestyle Reporter
  • c
    carlos
    The 3rd paragraph is confusing. A movie about a decision to send 4000 men to death? Wrong. The movie is about the difficult decision of whether to continue the war in view of such a devastating German victory in northern France. Had Britain given up, there would be no aid later to the Soviets, no US involvement, no will among smaller nations to fight back, no global united front, no mastery of the sealanes and the air, and thus no final Allied victory in 45. History could have gone badly if Chrchill hadn't made a stand at that dark hour in 1940 when so many wanted to surrender.
    Perhaps the author of this feature meant the 4000 men sent to Calais to distract the Germans and thus enable the sea rescue in Dunkirk of 300,000 soldiers (not civilians, dear author!). Get your details right.
  • J
    Joven
    With all due respect Mr. Goldman, Lithgow's portrayal is of Sir Churchill is way beyond your acting. If he had the role, I am in no position to complain. Chalamet should have won.
  • j
    james
    As I grow older I realise history is really depressing. People forget within 2 generations. There will be another Great War, another holocaust, another nuclear bomb dropped...this is life.
  • k
    karathi
    CHURCHCHILL IS A RACIST AND IDIOT