Darren Petts
The title of this review is aimed squarely at those who object to certain omissions from the film. If you want 100% historical accuracy watch a documentary. If you want world class acting with a riveting plot watch this. Frankly though the film is sufficiently accurate that all but those with a political axe to grind against Mrs. Thatcher ought to be satisfied. Having watched numerous documentaries on the subject myself I found nothing to complain about in the film. For sure there's a spin to it - the vast majority of war films have one.The film is simply top notch entertainment. The cast is a who's who of the cream of English talent and that shows through in spades. You'll go a long way to see a better cast do a better job.I called this a war film though in reality it's about the background to and political side of a war rather than the military side. Does it favour Mrs. Thatcher? - certainly it does. Then again the actual war favoured her too. She got the calls right and the people voted for her because of it, so in such a respect the film reflects reality. If you hate Mrs. Thatcher, and there are many who do, then that hatred will likely be strong enough to obscure the film so don't bother with it. Such a hate that's sufficient to rejoice at her death will certainly beat a few actors no matter how good their efforts. If you're a supporter or a neutral then put this in your must watch list of British films.
commingle
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.
MartynGryphon
I write this review, 25 years to the day of the liberation of The Falkland Islands. It is a review, I feel compelled to write in honour of all British servicemen killed in that brief conflict in 1982. I'm sure the Argentines have different views and feelings about the events which occurred between 2nd April - 14 June 1982, but just like The Falklands Play, my review intends to give a solely British perspective.The Falklands War, (or 'conflict' to give it's correct suffix), was the first war Britain had fought in my lifetime. It occurred shortly before my 9th birthday, but I remember it all as if it were yesterday. My father rushing into the garden to tell my brother and I that 'Were going down to give the Argie's some stick', the immense pride we all felt watching HMS Invincible setting sail with great pomp and circumstance, with all those brave lads aboard and the sadness and horror we all felt when the news of our Naval and Military loses started to filter through to the UK news services. It was awful when we heard HMS Coventry was sunk, not only was it the ship of our city, but one of our relatives was serving on the ship at the time and thankfully was not one of the 19 servicemen lost on the ship that day.As I said earlier, 'The Falklands Play' gives a British ONLY viewpoint of the Argentine invasion of British Sovereign Territory and our Governments subsequent yet fruitless attempts to negotiate and defuse the situation by diplomatic means.Patricia Hodge gives a truly fantastic performance as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who seeing an act of aggression committed against British subjects, refuses to concede to the appeasement demands made by The Argentines, The Americans mediators and even members of her own Cabinet.In some scenes, Hodge shows us the softer side to the 'Iron Lady', like her obvious frustration about having to order the sinking of the Argentine Cruiser 'General Belgrano', (formerly the American Cruiser USS Phoenix CL-46, a ship that had actually survived the Pearl Harbor attack 40 years earlier). We see her openly weeping when she first hears news of HMS Sheffield being hit by an Exocet anti-ship missile, and the sleepless night she experiences while worried about the stranded Marines, trapped on the unforgiving snow covered rocks of South Georgia. However, most of these instances occurred behind closed doors. In public 'Maggie' remained unwavering in her support for the besieged islanders and resolute in her stance.Other cast members are also outstanding, James Fox, as Lord Carrington, John Standing as William 'Willie' Whitelaw and Clive Merrison as John Nott. However, it is Colin Stinton who plays US Secretary Of State Alexander Haig that gives one of my favourite performances. My favourite character, (apart from Patricia Hodge as Thatcher), is John Woodvine's performance as Former 1st Sea Lord, Admiral of The Fleet and Chief Of Defence Staff, the late Sir Terence Lewin. He's the guy Maggie could not do without, and Woodvine plays his part magnificently, a great actor, playing and even greater man. Bob Sherman's portrayal of President Ronald Reagan, is sadly one of the weakest performances here, turning the 'Great Communicator' into a stuttering, indecisive bumbler instead of the great man he was.The Falklands Play, even boasts some subtle humour in parts, but due to it's serious subject matter, it's kept to a minimum because when you're making a film about war, especially one so fresh in some people's minds, to include laughs would be treading a very dangerous tightrope indeed.Whether any of the things we see in 'The Falklands Play' actually happened verbatim, we will never know as the play comes straight out of writer Ian Cureais's head. All I know is that 'The Falklands Play' is an enjoyable piece of screen work.There are some that says it glorifies 'Thatcherism', maybe it does, but it's a movie made in one time, about events that occurred in another. There was a war, people died, and thanks to both Maragret Thatchers truculence, and the UK armed forces, (still the best fighting force in the world), Britain won it, but not without price.25 years on, I would like to pay my tribute to all who died and praise the courage of all the Falkland Islanders who were effected by those events 25 years ago. To them, I quote their own Island's motto .... "Desire The Right" We certainly didn't let them down.
