Both recent films on Churchill have something to say about the man and times

Why has Gary Oldman’s portrayalofchurchillindarkest Hour gained more publicity than Brian Cox’s version last year? Kirsty Gunn may think it hasalottodowiththedifferent ways both actors were ‘glamourised’(perspective, 12 March) but it might have more to do with the subject matter than she thinks. Both films tried to portray the way the wartime leader dealt with two major events – the decision whether to prosecute the war at all in the summer of 1940, and the run-up to D-day in 1944. Although he played an important role in the latter, the main decisions on whether and when the invasion of Normandy should proceed rested with General Eisenhower and the United States. Four years earlier Churchill had to fight a battle with some of his own Cabinet colleagues, who were anxious to sue for peace. In terms of drama and the future of freedom, I think this one certainly has the edge in terms of importance.

Where I think Ms Gunn is on stronger ground is her view that we should look at historic events and the careers of individual men in the round. These two films depict Churchill at two critical points in the Second World War. But there are other events – military and political – which might show a different side to his character. They include his impetuous style as Home Secretary over Tonypandy and the shots in Sidney Street; the campaign in Gallipoli in the First World War; how he reacted to defeat as MP for Dundee in 1922 (he had to fight another three elections to get back into the House of Commons two years later), and, of course, his defeat in the 1945 election. We should all be eternally grateful that Churchill was around in 1940, but that should not blind us to other aspects of his long career, and how he dealt with the social and economic issues of his time. Perhaps another film and another actor will come to the fore on this too.

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes