MovieChat Forums > The Gathering Storm (2002) Discussion > What Is With The Brits!!!

What Is With The Brits!!!

posted 17 years ago by schlomolipchitz
32 replies | jump to latest

First of all, Albert Finney looks like *beep* for being only 65 when this movie was made! I suspect too much booze! Now, what exactly is the point of the BBC producers showing Finney's ugly, fat, and naked ass and ruining an otherwise excellent film? Did it add anything of significance to the film? No! The film would have been just fine without this obscenity. Are these same people who had an issue with the final fully clothed love scene of the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice that had to be cut from the Brit audience. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would much rather see Keira Knightly's ass than Finney's anytime.

[–] sdr-1 15 years ago

I just thought it was about time that somebody pointed out who actually made this show.
It was HBO (New York, NY) and Scott Free Productions (Los Angeles, CA). The Brits were involved but only so far as "in association with the BBC".
The question should really be "What is it with the Yanks!!!".

[–] helen_elizabeth22 15 years ago

In relation to P&P, it isnt the ''love'' in the scene that would have annoyed Brits (hence the cut) It's the fact that it is a totally pointless 'happy .ending' scene missing from the book, We had an almost perfect TV adaptaton of P&P in 1995 and the filmakers proably realised we wouldnt like the schlokey ending!

[–] tommy_angelo38 15 years ago

The scene with a naked Churchill was done deliberately so that the filmmakers would have something to contrast to the end of the film.

If you listen to the DVD commentary, they say that the naked Churchill shows him when he's vulnerable, weak, a nobody in British parliament. Just a middle-aged, balding, drifting fat-ass. By the end of the film, he's regained his position as First Lord of the Admiralty, his wife has returned to him, he has work to do, he's happy, and he strides into the Admiralty building dressed in his finest suit, hat, walking-stick, shoes, watch-chain and a big smile on his face, ready to face anything in the world.

[–] helen_elizabeth22 15 years ago

Exactly, people forget now how unpopular and powerless Winston was in the 1930's.

[–] Danusha_Goska 15 years ago

I'm with Shlomo.

Amazed at how wretched Finney looks. And was put off by the scene, early on, of naked, fat, old Finney urinating.

Yeah, I get it that we were shown a naked, disgusting looking old man urinate to emphasize a couple of things:

Even great men use the bathroom

Even someone who wasn't in a strapping, physical prime can make history.

But, you know what? I'm not so dense that I need to watch a naked, disgusting looking old man pee to understand those two points.

In fact, i came into this movie knowing those two things already.

The scene didn't ruin the movie for me. The movie's lack of substance and artistry did that.

Be nice to me. I'm on the death panel.

[–] Flanged 13 years ago

I'm with Shlomo.

Amazed at how wretched Finney looks.

Do you think it's possible that he was making himself look in worse shape than he actually is, in order to portray a famously fat and dissolute man? I mean, do you think he could've been acting, playing a part, "putting it on"? I wouldn't put it past Albert Finney to sneakily make himself look more like Winston Churchill in a film where he's being paid to make himself look like Winston Churchill!

But, you know what? I'm not so dense that I need to watch a naked, disgusting looking old man pee to understand those two points.

Baw! I saw a man's bum, and then pee came out of his wee wee!

Seriouly, you're the reason that most films are safe, boring, predictable, and all the bloody same. Bet you wouldn't complain about Jason Statham taking a piss.

.

[–] glenn-299 14 years ago

Quite apart from all the excellent comments listed above, it should be pointed out to the original poster that Keira Knightley, as an Englishwoman, does not, in fact, have an 'ass' at all. She has an arse. Or a bum.

[–] peterm1 14 years ago

Although somewhat belated, this response seeks to lay this issue to rest. The simple fact is that Churchill was somewhat eccentric in such matters, often wandering around naked or with his bathrobe open when in his private quarters (I have read several biographies on the man and quite admired him, warts and all.) He was not, I am sure, a "flasher" in the sexual sense - just quite unconcerned about showing what he had. And I am sure this is what these scenes in this movie are about - depicting the man as he indeed was in life.

[–] lakelucid 13 years ago

one word: nonsense!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Phydeaux50 11 years ago

This reply isn't for the OP- in the years since that post I would hope they have moved on. This is for the sake of art. :)

When I saw that scene, I was informed by the writers that this was to be a 'warts and all' portrayal of Churchill. It was shocking and humorous, humanising the public figure and telling us-the-viewers that we should expect churchill in the raw from the first frame to the last. It was excellent writing, as was every line in the movie. It's no wonder the Scotts wanted to produce- a script of that quality is rare.

[–] DigIt 11 years ago

Not only that!
Here the King is naked! and still he's the most powerful.

I loved to see Sir W.C. as a natural man in his nakedness, sleeping in his bed as he was born out of his mother's womb (I trust this should be accurate) and taking his bath, or cleaning up in his closet and still wording his (and ours) destiny!

It's a wonderful choice: compare his nemesis naked talking to himself with those loud and possessed tones he used in front of the Nazi masses. Impossible!

Mr. H. was just an unnatural (against human nature) character, playing his part just for the show he intended to put on: the brutal end to civilization and compassion for the sake of a sterile ideal.

Winston Is Back!