User Reviews

This was the opening of the Rotterdam film festival 2015 (IFFR). I admit being a bit prejudiced prior to the screening, due to the synopsis describing a typical meeting room as the main playground. I envisioned a long and boring 95 minutes of talking heads, but I was proved wrong. The "stage" is occupied by two handful's of people thrown together from various ministries, with very different backgrounds and all imaginable sorts of attitudes. Add to the mix some unresolved personal problems left over from past encounters, plus some family problems unrelated to the issues at hand. Finally, it became clear that several participants had a hidden agenda and dirty politics behind their sleeves to achieve their goals. We are not confirmed in the naive theory that civil servants lead unimaginative lives, and are clearly not used to hide their own opinions in favor of the current political line.

After all, it proved to be a very useful format to create some thought provoking situations and dilemma's, for which there are no easy answers. A varied collection of civil servants meet to prepare plans to cope with all sorts of disasters, especially those that become more prevalent lately, like various types of terrorism. A daunting task indeed, when considering the spectrum of possibilities. Yet, the decisions passed by in a very fast pace, thereby expressly ignoring the fine details and statistical (im)possibilities. Some were of the obvious category, always suggested by The Powers That Be (TPTB), like "close all airports". A positive element in the script was that we heard some rebuttals during the meeting, thereby making clear that not all decisions were made in the autopilot mode. Luckily, participants seemed very well documented on prevailing issues, supported by lists and underlying plans prepared earlier. Also, they showcased an abundance of personal expertise on the matters at hand.

Of course, given the situation at hand, there is no alternative than to make some hard choices within a limited time period. All in all, we saw a well constructed script and the writers for this film did a fine job. It all looked very realistic, albeit somewhat frightening that some of the decisions took only 1 or 2 minutes, regardless of their potential impact and possible consequences when it would become real in some unwanted future. We can expect that many present at the meeting have some form of professional deformation, and are easily inclined to drastic measures that ignore the people who it is all about. Would we have made other decisions in their place??

The realistic impression left with us viewers was much improved by mixing in personal problems and mutual differences in attitude, these also being prevalent in reality when decisions are being made. Such external aspects may cloud the real issues at hand and even lead to incorrect decisions, but that happens in the real world too. That is the discouraging part of this movie, leaving us with an ambivalent feeling about aforementioned TPTB. Nevertheless, it provides for an inside view in the way our government and civil service will think and act as of today, when the need arises. We can only hope that these plans will be covered with dust, and never need to be used in practice.

Other countries often refer to the British as the 'best technocrats in the world' and when you see this film the audience will understand why. From the very first moment this movie has the viewer on the edge of their seat, that is just astonishing considering that the dry subject matter should really send us all to sleep. Essentially, the viewer is a fly on the wall to what seems to be an everyday, peacetime policy unit responding to a fictional geopolitical situation that involves the release of strategic nuclear weapons in a conflict between Pakistan and India. The most incredible thing of all....the guidelines were 100% real, in that what the cast's guidelines and decisions was (is?) the actual policy the British created to deal with regional and global nuclear war.

I cannot recommend this movie enough, everyone must try and grab a copy, sit down and wait to be enthralled. A word of warning, this is not a Michael bay movie with huge, shiny control panels, levers, knobs and buttons, War Book is the real deal, where highly-skilled civil servants role the dice on nuclear annihilation in an desperate attempt to save mankind.

Another interesting aspect of the film is the interaction between the various members of the unit which plays out very well indeed and should be recommended watching for anyone fascinated by intense social interaction, which, by example, shines through the dreadful mediocrity we often see in contemporary drama.

In closing, I've saved the best part for last, unbeknown to the majority of the policy unit, the situation they are war-gaming might not be so fictional after all.............

Periodically governments play games, exercises where a scenario is postulated and civil servants will discuss what to do - sort of like a murder mystery party, except that the subject might be nuclear war. Such a game is the subject of 'War Book'; which is well-acted and intelligently-enough scripted at the micro-level, but whose ultimate purpose is unclear. There's one story here about colleagues letting their personal stuff intrude upon their working relationships: this is quite plausible, but also quite uninteresting. But probably the main theme here is reminiscent of the Stanford Prison Experiment: give people power, even in role-play, and they become intoxicated with it, even to the point of bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. The problem is, because it's all game-play, and (unlike at Stanford) there's no opportunity for the infliction of actual harm, it's hard to feel too invested in the story (or to see why its participants should feel invested either); and the eventual outcome (the decision to launch the warhead) is both cheap (because, of course, it's not a real decision to launch a warhead) but also effectively determined by the script (because, at each point in the plot, the group basically just follow the advice of their briefs). Ultimately this feels like writing around a theme, but for no ultimate purpose; or like one half of a potentially interesting story whose other half has not been conceived.

WAR BOOK is an economical piece of work in more ways than one. Set in one room of an (unspecified) government office (although the exterior shot of the building is actually Senate House, University of London), it focuses on a group of politicians and civil servants playing a series of war games detailing how they would react in the event of nuclear war.

Chaired by Philippa (Sophie Okonedo) a no-nonsense civil servant, the group includes a Tory MP (Nicholas Burns), a whiz-kid who assumes the role of Prime Minister (Ben Chaplin), a time server with a penchant for seeking "clarity" on others' pronouncements (Antony Sher) and an idealist pacifist (Shaun Evans).

The action is set over three days. On the first, the group largely come to a series of consensual opinions through a majority decision. On the second and third days, however, as the (fictional) news worsens from India and Pakistan, and as major decisions have to be made concerning Britain's food, medicines and other vital supplies, so the group's cohesion falls into pieces. Tom's pacifism is shouted down; while long-serving Maria (Kerry Fox), responsible for defense, finds herself unable to communicate her point of view. The action reaches a tense climax: nothing actually happens, but we have discovered just how unprepared any government would be for a doomsday scenario.

Tom Harper's production vividly uncovers the prejudices lurking at the seat of power. The Tory MP is a closet racist with a sublimely blinkered view of life; the hotshot playing the Prime Minister is more interested in getting off with the secretary (Phoebe Fox) and spinning a series of lies about his privileged role in government; while Tom remains as blinkered as the Tory MP, despite the passion of his arguments. No one, it seems, is prepared to listen to anyone else, even in extreme situations.

In truth Jack Thorne's drama is a little manipulative in structure: the characters embody certain types - even down to the obligatory Asian and African Caribbean characters. And the time-serving civil servant's climactic speech provides Sher with an opportunity to show off his acting skills, honed on Shakespeare as well as a raft of contemporary dramas. But nonetheless WAR BOOK is a salutary piece, an update of John Badham's film WAR GAMES (1983) for the post- nuclear age.

I've just watched the BBC4 showing of this remarkable film. I wasn't too sure I would like it after reading the synopsis but after viewing I feel moved to review it (and only the second one to do so, I see).

You would think that a film that mainly takes place in a conference room would be dry, dull and stagy, but nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, the direction and cinematography turn what would be an ordinary meeting of suits into a pressure pot of disparate views, agreements, scenarios and personalities. Add to that a script that doesn't waste a single word and is powerful and intelligent. A fantastic cast (a reverential nod to Antony Sher) who are completely believable delivering some juicy lines. Add to that the doomsday scenario they discuss from the viewpoints of their own departments. And what you have here is probably the quickest 90 minutes in the history of cinema.

Yes, I liked it, I liked it a lot. Not only that, I'll be thinking about this film for days to come. Highly recommended if you want your intellect and your ideologies examined and tested.

Well, this film surprised me! I wasn't sure what I would make of it, and only watched it because it's my day off and I had nothing else to do. What a gem I would have missed. The acting is superb. The subject is emotive. It leaves you with a profound sense of disquiet and unease that will catch you for a long time afterwards. I have learnt a lot about situations that I had no idea could happen, and I learnt a lot about myself. As the film moves forward to its conclusion, and one that is by no means foregone, I found myself agreeing with certain characters, and then changing my mind continually.

Certain incidents in the film may cause you to wonder why they were included, but I felt it only added to the force of the characters. Each person had their strengths and weaknesses, and that was admirably portrayed by the wonderful actors. Did I agree with the conclusion? No I didn't, but then maybe that makes me an idealistic person and maybe I don't have the strength to do the right thing? After all, the right thing to do is individual to each person, and is based on not just facts, but also their life experiences.

I found myself disbelieving it from the start. Also, while there are a lot of dramatic moments, it ends up with nothing in particular happening.

The final debate wasn't plausible at all.

We have a crowd of people expressing strong emotions. But it does not do justice to an extremely serious issue.

It seems very unlikely that a country that had organized a covert nuclear attack would stay silent rather than denying it, which is the norm.

Even less likely that people would allow a drift towards war for no particular reason.