The Falklands Play

This is a highly watchable political drama which gives a true insight into the anguish brought about by the totally unexpected war in the South Atlantic.

The actor selection is excellent and the writer has put together an excellent script which lends clarity to some of the decisions made at the time.

The direction is crisp and the interweaving of News clips highlights the historical events.

Particularly emphasised are the outstanding efforts made by the American administration led by Ronald Regan and efforted by Secretary Haig to stop the downhill slide into war.

A truly tragic and unnecessary war - but an excellent play.

Can't wait for the DVD to be issued.

In this day and age of cynicism it's refreshing for a film (tele-play?) to tell it how it was. At the end of the day a militaristic dictatorship invaded a peaceful little Island, watched over by a democratic nation. Sorry but those are the facts. This is how it's told. You then throw in a strong, charismatic leader and you've also got a damn good story. Patricia Hodge (I would never have cast her) was marvellous. Anyone wishing to see a balanced view of the conflict should watch this and An Ungentlemanly Act and this presentation.

I think there were serious omissions from the historical truth.

As noted by a reviewer above, Thatcher's political position was very weak at the time. She was seen by the country and many of her "wet" cabinet ministers as being a right wing liability who would sink the Tories at the next election because she had worsened, not improved, Britain's economy. Unemployment had sky-rocketed.

The decision to withdraw HMS Endeavour from the South Atlantic (the supply ship for the Falklands) was made by her right wing Defence Minister John Nott on grounds of cost- cutting. Both the Foreign Office under Carrington and I believe the Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Services opposed it on the grounds that the Argentinians would interpret the withdrawal as a sign that the UK was not serious about maintaining its Falklands colony and this would greatly encourage them to invade. Thatcher overruled them and backed Nott. She therefore had direct responsibility for this mistaken decision and should, on the Argentinian invasion, have resigned.

This was known at the time of the Saturday House of Commons debate by many people, especially on the Conservative back benches. There was great unease on them, and talk of replacing her. What saved her probably was Michael Foot's highly patriotic support of her in his speech and the fact that the debate only lasted 4 hours rather than the more usual 8. (Clever work probably by the Whips). If it had been 8, it is very likely that this unease about Thatcher would have surfaced from both wets and right wingers who suspected she was an incompetent woman who had blundered into a war.

Then, had she been replaced - probably by a wet ("wets" by and large were of an older generation than the supporters of Thatcher and had fought in the 2nd War and would have been thought "reliable" to fight another war) - the war would have gone ahead, Britain would again probably have won, and a "wet" rather than Thatcher would have been in charge of Britain and subsequent history would have been radically different. But it is through ironies like this that history operates. As it was, it was those who had been originally been right on "Endeavour" who were forced to resign like Carrington, and Thatcher, the British politician (along with Nott) most responsible for allowing the war to break out, the person who went on to be lionised as a great Churchillian war leader.

The Saturday Commons debate was the great turning point. Curteis presents the debate falsely as a straight patriotic piece of Churchillian stiff upper-lip tub thumping. (This is understandable, the Left had been and was caricaturing Thatcher mercilessly in their propaganda and Curteis's play is his right-wing propaganda blast back). But it would have been far more interesting - and dramatic - to go for neither villains or heroes, but what history really consists of - human beings. And by showing complexities and ironies, rather than pieties and propaganda.

The Falklands Play has got to be one of the most controversial plays never produced of the 1980s.

Originally written by Ian Curteis shortly after the war ended but the BBC declined to produce it, officially because it wasn't good enough, but widely believed to be because it was too pro-Conservative just before a General Election in the UK. Watching it now it's even harder to believe that it wasn't good enough to make years ago.

Telling the story of the British politics immediately before and during the conflict Patricia Hodge is brilliant in her role as Mrs. Thatcher. So scarily like her that during the recreated news clips it's hard to remember which one is the actress. Although some of the other lead characters look and sound nothing like their alter-egos, they still manage to recreate the right atmosphere.

Deliberately supposed to show the conflict from `our side' I'm not sure if the emotional side of Margaret Thatcher isn't over played slightly.

To state that this is a 'political drama', would fail to transfer an understanding of the feast of entertainment, excitement (even though we know the conclusion), and insight, into how the 'powers' interact, during an escalation to war.

The acting is of the highest order...... you truly believe that these are the people, and this is how they behaved (Hodges Thatcher is remarkable). Add this to a plot that fiction could never match, and you are likely to be hooked from the opening scene.

With caution, I would also suggest that this drama does bring history to the viewer, in a way the BBC seems to constantly excel at. Much of the script is taken from hansard (parliamentary transcripts), contemporary diaries, and news reports..... the drama didn't need to be invented.

One or two earlier reviewers felt that it was a historical distortion, however, in my opinion, they are still grinding axes.

So yes.... do bear in mind that in the years running up to the crisis, perhaps the Brits took their eye off the Falklands (though this is outside the remit of this play).

Also yes.... there was the major incident 'sinking of the Belgrano', that in real life, was controversial. However, I believe the play portrayed the genuine view of the decision makers: 'destroy it, before it destroys us'.... a view held by the majority of the UK population (I would suggest).

As for the suggestion that 'Thatcher would never have ranted against Argentina to the US', I find beyond belief. That's exactly how she behaved, and she was famous for it AND by the way, it is portrayed marvelously in this play, with the joy of historical posturing so well done.

If you get the chance...... watch it!