Awesome Movie

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Much has been written about alleged "pro-Thatcher" approach of The Falklands Play, and it certainly was well acted. It would have been interested seeing it performed on stage rather than in a studio like here.I think though a follow-up play is necessary where it details what motivated the British Government to exclude their amputee soldiers (who lost their limbs in the Falklands) from the victory parades.I think a follow-up play is necessary where it details how Mrs Thatcher could support the totalitarian Pinochet regime who were hardly democratic, even though Mrs Thatcher fought to restore democracy in the Falklands.I think a follow-up play is necessary explain why this script wasn't shopped to ITV or Channel 4 when the BBC weren't so keen on it.I think a follow-up play is necessary to debunk the myth that the 1983 general election was an endorsement of Britain's involvement in the Falklands War, given the Conservative Party's national vote actually decreased from its 1979 share.I think such a follow-up play might be too much and too politically incorrect for the champagne conservatives. A follow-up play would be way too politically incorrect.

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.

What is with the world, The Falklands Play is great viewing or what I would call "Great TV" I was lucky to be at home the night this was aired on TV.Within minutes I knew this is great TV. Who cares if shows the Rt Hon Margaret Thatcher as a great PM or not. The acting is what I was watching Patricia Hodge is just so good at Playing Maggie & as for Shaughan Seymour as Adm Sir Henry Leach is he a good actor or is Carrie Hilton, Casting Director one of the greats or maybe Michael Samuels the Director who knows how to get the best out of the actors or just maybe all three.I am waiting for this to come out on DVD. I will buy it, great viewing great acting.Ohh how lucky was I again, this was on on Friday 8 th March 2006 & this time I had the VRC ready. It was just as good as the 1 st time I watched it, no that is wrong, it was better, I have seen it twice since Friday, there are bits I never noticed the 1 st time & not even the 2 nd time. I can only say again what great TV & so well acted. Thank you BBC 4 for showing this.Update March 2007 now on DVD & yes i have bought a copy. I have since bought "An Ungentlemanly Act" on DVD, great well worth the £4.99p from Play.com.

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.