Robert J. Maxwell A brief war was fought in 1982 over the sovereignty of a few small barren islands in the icy southern pacific. The combatants were Argentina, which had invaded the Falklands, and Britain, which had ruled since 1832.Britain won the little but costly war and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher emerged he winner. She was a hard charger and much admired for it. Of course if the victory had been the other way round, a lot of people would be dead for little reason and she would be thrashed. As it was, there was no stopping her in her determination. One American consultant muses, "I wish there were more like her. You always know exactly where you stand." "In the corner," replies another.There is very little footage of the war itself. The script seems to jump from the landings of the British SAS to the surrender of the Argentinian soldiers. But that's okay because this is, after all, a play, not a big budget feature film. Besides, the general outline of the war's progress is already familiar to some viewers, although by no means all of them. Anyone interested in the engagements should be directed to the concise documentary, "20th-Century battlefields: 1982 The Falkland Islands War." It can be viewed free on YouTube.The script has sufficient continuity so that we can follow events as they unfold, even though we're confined mostly to a few rooms and a handful of other sets. As Thatcher, Patricia Hodge is quite good, if lacking in heft. And there isn't a dull bulb among the supporting actors. There are a few moments of humor. Someone tells the Defence Minister, Clive Merrison, that this is the first time a British fleet has set sail for an attack since Suez. Merrison replies slowly and deliberately. "Can we keep Suez out of this conversation? Those are two little words that -- irk." The well-meaning Americans provide some ludic relief as well. Thatcher invites the American consultants to dinner and takes aside Alexander Haig, the Defense Secretary before they sit down. Thatcher shows him a large painting of two men -- the Duke of Wellington and Lord Nelson, saying that they were two heroes who put an end to willful aggression by dictators. "I thought you might want to look at them during dinner." Haig mutters into his drink, "Gee, thanks." The role of the Americans is that of a nation full of good will, anxious to avoid bloodshed, and apparently oblivious to the fact that Argentina is under the thumb of a brutal military junta who has invaded the Falklands -- which they (still) insist on calling Las Malvinas -- in order to distract the population from the catastrophic conditions at home. Haig is a good guy, although ineffective. President Reagan's attitude was that "both of them are our friends," even after the British ambassador reminds him that Britain didn't hesitate for a moment to aid in the extraction of 52 hostages after the embassy takeover in Iran. Reagan apparently listened less to Haig than to his UN ambassador, Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick was a pragmatic and ardent anti-communist. As Wikipedia puts it, "She was known for the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine", which advocated supporting authoritarian regimes around the world if they went along with Washington's aims. She believed that they could be led into democracy by example." Argentina fell into that category.Reagan himself thought it a minor matter, calling them "bleak little islands" and never quite remembering their name. After the British victory, Reagan called on Thatcher to be "magnanimous," and Thatcher blew him off. By the time the war had begun, however, the US came around and placed an embargo on shipments to Argentina and agreed to supply Britain with whatever materiél it required.Whatever else this fine program does, it illustrates the way that democracy is supposed to work, and of course it will be informative to those whose memories don't extend very far into history.

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.

simon-king376 This is a deeply flawed portrayal of the Falklands crisis, though arguably it's no more flawed than portrayals which unthinkingly demonise the Thatcher government. Propaganda is still propaganda, regardless of which side it comes from.The Falklands Play makes many errors and omissions which undermines its relevance: It ignores the prevailing British domestic political situation. Thatcher was struggling in the polls, there was disquiet over the wisdom of choosing such a right-wing leader both within the Conservative party and in the country as a whole, and the economy showed no sign of sustained recovery from the problems of the late 1970s.Thatcher is rightly portrayed as someone who had delusions of Churchillian leadership, however, as the play portrays her as focused and eloquent in the way Churchill was, she was in reality as desperate to retain the idea of British international power and empire as Churchill was. And just as wrong. Such irrational motives will always be wrong.The idea that Thatcher would cite Argentina's human rights record as a reason to act aggressively is unlikely given the US support for Latin America's quasi-fascist dictators (Operation Condor and more). The international fight against Communism was far more important, especially in the US, than a petty squabble over some desolate rocks filled with little Englanders. Thatcher would know that Argentina's dictatorship was US-backed, just as was Chile's and a handful of others, and their unethical methods were tolerated in order to prevent the spread of Communism.The play shows Argentina to be exclusively aggressive, intransigent and scheming. Appeasers or doubters are portrayed as woolly-minded, weak or foolish (especially Francis Pym). Another reviewer suggested this was a 'love letter' to Thatcher, in that it portrayed her in almost exclusively positive light: deliberate, strong, decisive, thoughtful. All of these two dimensional portrayals serve only undermine the writer's intention (whatever that might be) and makes the whole easy to dismiss.There are comments here that suggest a black and white version of events suggesting Argentina, in order to quell internal disquiet about the ruling dictatorship, invaded Las Malvinas, a long-standing dispute with Britain, to unite their nation and distract from domestic problems. Whilst this is true, the play's wilful ignorance of Britain's readiness to pay only token and cursory attention to US diplomatic efforts gives an unbalanced picture.The Falklands conflict was, like most international disputes, very complicated, shrouded in doubt and manipulation. It was the product of both domestic realpolitik, international image, and personal ego. The Falklands Play prefers to give the impression that it was some brave, patriotic, moral battle of good (Britain) against evil (Argentina). Writers and film-makers have learned that you can't even portray the Second World War in such simplistic terms any more.Thatcher was a shrewd political operator who saw an opportunity to depict Britain as the injured party in a minor dispute. She and her government undoubtedly played their part in amplifying and escalating a situation which could have been resolved without the loss of life which the dispute ultimately cost, for domestic reasons. Anyone who can remember the tub-thumbing, jingoistic nonsense which accompanied much of the coverage of the conflict will know just how well it played for the struggling Thatcher government. Ultimately, both Thatcher and Galtieri used the islands as a pawn for domestic political reasons. In reality, it should never have been allowed to get to the stage of armed conflict, and Britain, as much as Argentina, must share the blame for it doing so.

richardw-11 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.