War Book

Periodically governments play games, exercises where a scenario is postulated and civil servants will discuss what to do - sort of like a murder mystery party, except that the subject might be nuclear war. Such a game is the subject of 'War Book'; which is well-acted and intelligently-enough scripted at the micro-level, but whose ultimate purpose is unclear. There's one story here about colleagues letting their personal stuff intrude upon their working relationships: this is quite plausible, but also quite uninteresting. But probably the main theme here is reminiscent of the Stanford Prison Experiment: give people power, even in role-play, and they become intoxicated with it, even to the point of bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. The problem is, because it's all game-play, and (unlike at Stanford) there's no opportunity for the infliction of actual harm, it's hard to feel too invested in the story (or to see why its participants should feel invested either); and the eventual outcome (the decision to launch the warhead) is both cheap (because, of course, it's not a real decision to launch a warhead) but also effectively determined by the script (because, at each point in the plot, the group basically just follow the advice of their briefs). Ultimately this feels like writing around a theme, but for no ultimate purpose; or like one half of a potentially interesting story whose other half has not been conceived.

I've just watched the BBC4 showing of this remarkable film. I wasn't too sure I would like it after reading the synopsis but after viewing I feel moved to review it (and only the second one to do so, I see).

You would think that a film that mainly takes place in a conference room would be dry, dull and stagy, but nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, the direction and cinematography turn what would be an ordinary meeting of suits into a pressure pot of disparate views, agreements, scenarios and personalities. Add to that a script that doesn't waste a single word and is powerful and intelligent. A fantastic cast (a reverential nod to Antony Sher) who are completely believable delivering some juicy lines. Add to that the doomsday scenario they discuss from the viewpoints of their own departments. And what you have here is probably the quickest 90 minutes in the history of cinema.

Yes, I liked it, I liked it a lot. Not only that, I'll be thinking about this film for days to come. Highly recommended if you want your intellect and your ideologies examined and tested.

WAR BOOK is an economical piece of work in more ways than one. Set in one room of an (unspecified) government office (although the exterior shot of the building is actually Senate House, University of London), it focuses on a group of politicians and civil servants playing a series of war games detailing how they would react in the event of nuclear war.

Chaired by Philippa (Sophie Okonedo) a no-nonsense civil servant, the group includes a Tory MP (Nicholas Burns), a whiz-kid who assumes the role of Prime Minister (Ben Chaplin), a time server with a penchant for seeking "clarity" on others' pronouncements (Antony Sher) and an idealist pacifist (Shaun Evans).

The action is set over three days. On the first, the group largely come to a series of consensual opinions through a majority decision. On the second and third days, however, as the (fictional) news worsens from India and Pakistan, and as major decisions have to be made concerning Britain's food, medicines and other vital supplies, so the group's cohesion falls into pieces. Tom's pacifism is shouted down; while long-serving Maria (Kerry Fox), responsible for defense, finds herself unable to communicate her point of view. The action reaches a tense climax: nothing actually happens, but we have discovered just how unprepared any government would be for a doomsday scenario.

Tom Harper's production vividly uncovers the prejudices lurking at the seat of power. The Tory MP is a closet racist with a sublimely blinkered view of life; the hotshot playing the Prime Minister is more interested in getting off with the secretary (Phoebe Fox) and spinning a series of lies about his privileged role in government; while Tom remains as blinkered as the Tory MP, despite the passion of his arguments. No one, it seems, is prepared to listen to anyone else, even in extreme situations.

In truth Jack Thorne's drama is a little manipulative in structure: the characters embody certain types - even down to the obligatory Asian and African Caribbean characters. And the time-serving civil servant's climactic speech provides Sher with an opportunity to show off his acting skills, honed on Shakespeare as well as a raft of contemporary dramas. But nonetheless WAR BOOK is a salutary piece, an update of John Badham's film WAR GAMES (1983) for the post- nuclear age.

I found myself disbelieving it from the start. Also, while there are a lot of dramatic moments, it ends up with nothing in particular happening.

The final debate wasn't plausible at all.

We have a crowd of people expressing strong emotions. But it does not do justice to an extremely serious issue.

It seems very unlikely that a country that had organized a covert nuclear attack would stay silent rather than denying it, which is the norm.

Even less likely that people would allow a drift towards war for no particular reason.

Well, this film surprised me! I wasn't sure what I would make of it, and only watched it because it's my day off and I had nothing else to do. What a gem I would have missed. The acting is superb. The subject is emotive. It leaves you with a profound sense of disquiet and unease that will catch you for a long time afterwards. I have learnt a lot about situations that I had no idea could happen, and I learnt a lot about myself. As the film moves forward to its conclusion, and one that is by no means foregone, I found myself agreeing with certain characters, and then changing my mind continually.

Certain incidents in the film may cause you to wonder why they were included, but I felt it only added to the force of the characters. Each person had their strengths and weaknesses, and that was admirably portrayed by the wonderful actors. Did I agree with the conclusion? No I didn't, but then maybe that makes me an idealistic person and maybe I don't have the strength to do the right thing? After all, the right thing to do is individual to each person, and is based on not just facts, but also their life experiences.