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.

In this day and age of cynicism it's refreshing for a film (tele-play?) to tell it how it was. At the end of the day a militaristic dictatorship invaded a peaceful little Island, watched over by a democratic nation. Sorry but those are the facts. This is how it's told. You then throw in a strong, charismatic leader and you've also got a damn good story. Patricia Hodge (I would never have cast her) was marvellous. Anyone wishing to see a balanced view of the conflict should watch this and An Ungentlemanly Act and this presentation.

I hear that this play was not originally broadcast by the BBC either as: it was politically sensitive, or; it was simply not up to scratch. I would say there was validity to both propositions.It is definitely politically sensitive material, and surely it was quite right that the original production was not broadcast in the run-up to what, if I remember correctly, was the 1987 General Election. The BBC had the utmost sense not to broadcast such an unbalanced, politically-slanted piece. One could understand such a play if it was written to sure up people's support for the State in a time of crisis, but inherently it was ready long after the Falklands conflict. One would expect a balanced, realistic perspective from such a play as this, but instead you get a whitewashing of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's character. In readings about her, from Hugo Young to Julian Critchley to any number of Cabinet colleagues, I can tell this is not the real Thatcher. True, the Falklands conflict may have shown her at her best, but this play is practically adulatory, portraying the "Great She Elephant" as a very balanced, pragmatic and acutely sensitive and emotional person. She was roundly not these things, and indeed, a cursory reading of the Falklands saga shows she was at odds with many of the people involved, not just the odd stray American who doesn't quite grasp the situation.One clearly gets the sense, with use of archive news reports and the general slanted tone, that the writer had no personal experience of what went on within the higher echelons of British Government at the time. That is not to say, of course, that someone like this shouldn't be allowed to write a play about the Falklands; just that they should have tried to craft a drama with far more adherence to what really happened. Thinking about it, this drama really is lacking in dramatics. Where is the real insight as to Thatcher's tensions with Messrs. Carrington and Pym? A capable, veteran cast of British stalwarts act it out reasonably, but it does no good really. Patricia Hodge does a good job at acting a Prime Minister who really is no Margaret Thatcher. She does not attempt to capture virtually any of the mannerisms or tones of Thatcher. An ill-advised performance, but surely the result of Curteis' slanted perspective. It really could be a Party Political Broadcast for the Right Hon. Member for Finchley and the Conservative Government of the time. The handling of the historical sequence of events is plodding and really quite banal. And what to say about certain political figures' portrayal? A Denis Healey who looks absolutely nothing like him, a Ronald Reagan who is sent up as a hapless, clueless charlatan. Well, maybe there's some validity to *that*...!So, certainly a mistaken choice for BBC4 to revive this project, a project that frankly had little merit; the original decision on it was quite justified on both counts.Rating:- **/*****