Talk:The War Game

Cold War Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: British / War Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

BBC Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television Unassessed

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

YouTube/Google Video links

Someone added external links to what seem to be full copies of the movie in English and French. Sorry, I don't think we can do that. It's too bad that Watkins has no rights to the film, but the BBC does. People looking for bootleg copies (though it's not hard to get on DVD now) can easily find them without us providing the links. ←Hob 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ĩ[reply]

ooops. Didn't see this before I did the same. Will remove. AlanD 00:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're still there. Additionally, isn't posting the script also some form of copyright infringement? 61.88.43.91 02:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC's real reasons for banning

The intro gives the BBC's stated reasons for refusing to air this film as scheduled. However, the production is highly critical of the UK government's preparations in the event of nuclear attack, and it must be remembered that the BBC is an agency of the British government. Does anyone know of some film historian/commentator/critic/whatever who pointed this out in a citable statement that we can add to this article? --Ted Watson (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like original research on your part. Or are you saying that you've heard such thing but reliable sources, but just can't remember it at the moment? Xihr 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that this was blatantly obvious to me when I viewed the film, and figured that somewhere, sometime somebody in one of the previously listed categories pointed it out and am asking if someone here knows of such a statement that can be properly cited in the article. That is, of course, the only way it could be included, and I don't see that what I wrote is open to being interpreted as suggesting otherwise. --Ted Watson (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Check out the newly added external link. Peter Watkins himself is now on the record that the BBC indeed had the hiddenn agenda I suggested, and that documents back him up. That goes in. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the real reason the BBC banned the film was because of the request of the Government, as the film made it quite plain that any all-out nuclear war was un-winnable, and that any Civil Defence 'precautions' taken by the Government were effectively futile. This was perceived as 'defeatist' by the then-Government, and the film was banned for this 'morale' reason rather than any fear of upsetting the public due to its distressing scenes. As I mentioned somewhere else, in the 1950/60's the Government's then Chief Scientific Adviser, Solly Zuckermann, was asked how many nuclear warheads it would take to completely knock Britain out of any nuclear war. He replied something like; Five - or seven to be on the safe side, so considering the size of the-then Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal, the likely number of warheads that would have been used against the UK would have been in the twenty-or-thirties, with plenty to spare for overkill. It's likely the SU would have used more.

The general impression put out by the UK (and US's) government and Civil Defence organisations was that a nuclear war's effect on the civil populations would be somewhat akin to that which had been experienced in the UK during The Blitz, however, Watkins' film showed a much more realistic and honest picture of what the results would be, basically everyone overground would die, be blinded, or seriously affected in one way or another, even those at some distance from the targeted sites. Those in shelters underground would need to remain there for some time, and when they did emerge from the shelters they would find that all the water would be contaminated, all livestock slowly dying, and crops contaminated, and they would face a generally dismal outlook for their immediate future. Although the physical effects of the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Japan were less than some people had predicted, these were 'only' two bombs dropped in isolation, and the rest of Japan had been available to absorb the effects, in treating the wounded, taking in refugees, etc. In an all-out attack the effects would be cumulative, overwhelming completely the organisations and systems needed for normal life countrywide. In short, the whole outlook was pretty grim, and Watkins' film pulled no punches.

I sometimes think that the REAL reason there was no nuclear war in the Cold War period was because the people in charge on both sides knew that when they did eventually come out of their palatial underground shelters there'd be no-one left alive outside to do any work for them, supporting them in the lifestyle to which they had until recently been accustomed-to. They'd then have to get used to doing everything for themselves. Perhaps though, that's me being a bit cynical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.216 (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's posted the film to YouTube if anyone wants to use it for the article: [1] - the initial opening titles refer to the dispersal of the V bomber force to their dispersal bases in times of crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the official reason for the ban was revealed in a letter by Lord Normanbrook, then Chairman of the BBC Governors, who stated that broadcasting the film on television "might well have a significant effect on public attitudes towards the policy of the nuclear deterrent" - see here: [2] at around 1:08:08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Documentary"?

The article's first paragraph states that this film is a documentary. At least in American English, a "documentary" is a film depicitng actual events. It may be strongly POV, like a Michael Moore documentary, but it depicts real people and actual occurences. Things that use a similar style to dramatize fictional events are better calleda "documentary-style" or, perhaps by using the portmanteau term "docudrama". I won't edit this yet, because I think I should wait for someone more conversant with British usage, but don't think that this should stand any longer without comment. 75.201.81.213 (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Recent edits and Mockumentary description

Basically, like the issue the above editor in 2011 raised, the War Game is not a documentary and is quite clearly a mockumentary, in the similar manner to modern Michael Moore style "documentaries", we have a referenced film critic stating The War Game is a mockumentary, yet some highly motivated vandals continue to remove this reference and insert other demonstrable nonsense into the article.