For most of the twentieth century the BBC enjoyed a reputation as the finest broadcasting organisation on earth — an institution that did more than any other to define what public service television was supposed to be, and which exported its own house style of sober, well-spoken competence to the rest of the world. Yet the same corporation, across that same glorious century, accumulated a fair few chapters it would rather nobody reread, and a recurring theme of those chapters is censorship. The most famous casualty was a man of the left: Peter Watkins, whose Oscar-winning The War Game, made for the BBC in 1965, was judged too bleak, too strident and too expensive in its imagining of nuclear annihilation to be put before the British public, and was accordingly kept off the nation's television screens until 1985 — by which time a good deal of its audience had lived through the years it was warning them about. What is less often acknowledged is that the axe swung with equal vigour in the other direction. Ian Curteis, a dramatist who had made a speciality of the televised reconstruction of recent history, was commissioned in 1983 to dramatise the Falklands conflict, delivered a script, watched it killed by BBC management, and then waited the better part of two decades to see it transmitted. The Falklands Play finally aired on BBC Four on 10 April 2002, preceded by a Radio 4 version four days earlier, and accompanied on the night by a half-hour documentary about the row and a studio debate about what the row had meant. It arrived as an artefact: a curio, and a quiet indictment of the people who had kept it in a drawer.
The drama itself covers the collapse of diplomacy and the descent into war over the Falkland Islands, told almost entirely from the British side of the desk, and focused on Margaret Thatcher, played with considerable assurance by Patricia Hodge. It opens in December 1980, when the centuries-old sovereignty dispute looks like a fixture of the diplomatic furniture, and Foreign Office career men are more or less resigned to Argentina winning the argument eventually, by attrition, at the United Nations. Then, early in 1982, a right-wing military junta in Buenos Aires — desperate to distract its public from a wrecked economy — starts rattling its sabre, and on 2 April seizes the archipelago by force. Thatcher refuses to accept the fait accompli. Against misgivings in her own Cabinet she pursues two tracks at once: an intensive diplomatic offensive, gravely complicated by the split inside Ronald Reagan's administration over which of two Cold War allies to favour; and a military option that means staking virtually the whole of the Royal Navy on a difficult amphibious operation eight thousand miles from home. The diplomacy fails, the fleet sails, and the film ends with the Prime Minister formally announcing victory to the House of Commons in June 1982.
As piece of television, it is solid, professional and almost entirely without surprise. Shot cheaply, largely in studios, with a thin sprinkle of stock footage and an over-reliance on men in suits standing near maps, it succeeds chiefly through the quality of its cast — a deep bench of the sort of traditionally capable British actors who can make a committee room feel like a battlefield. Hodge is genuinely persuasive as one of the defining figures of the century, playing the Iron Lady as firm, unsentimental and clear-eyed, but also as a woman visibly aware of the terrible human arithmetic her resolve may require. Outside her, James Fox is the only performer who really breaks the surface, as Peter Carrington, the unfortunate Foreign Secretary who resigns to take responsibility for the diplomatic fumbles that let the war start. It is competent television. It is not exciting television.
What the film is actually best known for, however, is a controversy two decades older than the film itself. The plan had been to mark the fifth anniversary in 1987 with a dramatic reconstruction. Curteis, already well regarded for Churchill and the Generals and Suez 1956, was commissioned, produced a fourth draft, saw a £1 million budget approved and studio time booked at Television Centre — and then, in July 1986, was cancelled. The official reason was the imminent general election; the accompanying whisper was that the script was simply not good enough. Both cannot comfortably be true, and Curteis certainly did not think either was. He made a considerable fuss, accusing BBC executives of a left-wing, anti-Thatcher animus, and the corporation went ahead instead with Charles Wood's Tumbledown, a piece notably less flattering to the government. The script was published in paperback with a combative introduction, and there it sat. The project was revived for the twentieth anniversary, abridged to ninety minutes, with the Buenos Aires deliberations of the Junta and the mediation attempts of Pope John Paul II stripped out entirely. Cynics noted that a Labour government busy conditioning the public for a war against Iraq had found a reminder of past military glory convenient, and that a BBC which had loathed Thatcher and adored Blair was, for once, happy to play along.
Many critics reached for the word propaganda, largely because the film takes a deeply contentious figure and renders her as a Churchillian heroine. They are probably right, but propaganda is no sin if it is done properly. Michael Samuels directs for a very particular audience — the British public old enough to remember the events as news — and the result is a script with almost no exposition at all, in which the real historical figures are barely named on screen and are identified only in the closing credits. Those who know their Haig from their Parsons, or who can place the Belgrano and Sheffield without assistance, will find a rare pleasure here: a dramatisation of a half-forgotten, ideologically awkward war. Everyone else will be lost within twenty minutes.
There is a final irony worth noting. In 2026 the same sort of right-wing opinion that once cheered Thatcher, applauded the Task Force and treated the Argentine claim as a clerical irrelevance now leans decidedly towards Buenos Aires. Javier Milei has taken Argentina's case to the UN, threatened legal action over British oil exploration near the islands, and drawn encouragement from a Washington that is openly reviewing its position; the same national-conservative circles that once rallied to the Union Flag now find Milei's Argentina more congenial than a Labour London, and the UK's surrender of the Chagos Islands has handed them a useful rhetorical stick. Curteis's script — a besieged British Prime Minister, a hostile world, a lonely stand and a clean victory — reads rather differently in that light. It is a decent film, but its real value lies elsewhere: as evidence of how long an unfashionable script can be made to wait, and how easily a great broadcaster can mistake its own political reflexes for quality control.
RATING: 5/10 (++)
==
Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo Substack https://draxster.substack.com/
InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Leodex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e
BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9
