Talk:The War Game

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

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


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Someone's posted the film to YouTube if anyone wants to use it for the article: - 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)


 * 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: at around 1:08:08  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically the BBC is not "an agency of the British Government". That is not the same as saying that in this case it didn't do exactly what the then British Government wanted it to do, after taking into account the veiled threats in the Cabinet Office memo: https://images.theconversation.com/files/83524/original/image-20150601-6976-ji45hk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip and https://images.theconversation.com/files/83526/original/image-20150601-6967-uvh9zh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip  Thomas Peardew (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"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)
 * The Oscar it won in 1966 was for "Best Documentary Feature", despite its entirely fictional content. I imagine even the Academy knew that a nuclear war hadn't actually taken place.Thomas Peardew (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:3O 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 a similar vein to modern Michael Moore style "documentaries". We have a referenced film critic( Dan Schneider (writer) stating The War Game is technically a mockumentary, yet some highly motivated vandals continue to remove this reference and insert other demonstrable nonsense into the article. This nonsense of the other editor can be seen in the article's edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.232.17 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Talk:The War Game. Disagreement about referenced Mockumentary description and assorted dates. 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no thorough discussion (read more at the instructions on the WP:3O main page) has taken place between both the editors, I had to decline this Third Opinion request. When it does take place, feel free to re-post it. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not only is the term 'mockumentary' anachronistic for 1965, but it is more appropriate for humourous films like The Rutles (aka, All You Need Is Cash). What one film critic considers an appropriate description is unacceptable because the opening summary is meant to be entirely non-contentious. In British terms it is a drama-documentary about the consequences of a nuclear strike on Britain using source material available in the mid-1960s. It is not wholly a work of the imagination. 'Docudrama' is a colloquialism for what is meant to be an encyclopedic article. Philip Cross (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets get to the crux of the issue, shall we? Do you, or do you not recognize The War Game to be an effort on behalf of it's creators to Mock/satirize the contemporary civil defence advice? Yes/No? The answer is quite clearly Yes, that is the intent, and if you disagree I'd be more than willing to provide examples from the actual film. To now move on to your appeals to have the referenced "mockumentary" description stricken from the article -
 * (1)The mockumentary description is not quite anachronistic, as the term is at least as old as The War Game, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the etymology of the term? | Oxford dictionary "mockumentary" origins in the "1960s"
 * (2)Mockumentary's are not exclusively intended to be humorous films, Dark Side of the Moon (mockumentary) is, as the title suggests, a mockumentary and there are no comedic "laughs", not scripted ones anyhow. William Karel the creator of that Mockumentary even cites the creator of The War Game, Peter Watkins as 1 of 2 people who gave him the inspiration Here. Both docs/mocks use out of context interview recordings to further the directors agenda/narrative etc.
 * (3)WP:LEDE actually states that the introduction should include all controversial viewpoints about the subject. This would include British feelings that the label "mockumentary" for the film is controversial, no?
 * (4)If I am to understand what you're getting at with - "It is not wholly a work of the imagination", you recognize the film is not what would be regarded as Hard science fiction, meaning it doesn't simply portray a nuclear war scenario that stays within the realm of the laws of nature whilst the actions of players stay within the domain of plausibility, as a real nuclear war game would. No, instead the film attempts to satirize and mock civil defence advice and ends with the Social problem film trope of "Things are getting worse. only you can change that current".
 * (5) & lastly, Docudrama and Drama-documentary mean the same thing, both articles are one and the same, per WP:COMMON we are to use the common name, not the most long winded. By the way, personally I'm more of the opinion that the film is a pseudo-documentary rather than a Mockumentary, although there is considerable overlap.


 * In any event, in an effort to compromise with your staunch British feelings on the matter, I already put forth the following, yet for some reason you and your kin removed this. Can you explicitly state where I am misleading readers with the following description?
 * The War Game is a 1965 television docudrama, or described by film critic Dan Schneider as technically a mockumentary, that depicts a nuclear war and mocks the contemporary British Civil defense and continuity of Government plans.
 * 12:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is still no reason to mention Dan Schneider in the article at all. He writes for his own website, Cosmoetica, not a major publications like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Washington Post. It is doubted if Cosmoetica, the cited source, meets the reliability requirements as the editorial 'staff' seems to consist of Schneider, plus one or two family members. As has been said before, it would be WP:UNDUE to give his opinions such prominence at the start of the article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 92.251.173.247, in the first instance, the fact that you state "Mock/satirize" demonstrates where you are wrong. The play certainly mocks in the critical sense, in that it shows how inadequate contemporary civil defence planning and advice was, but it does not satirise, because it clearly isn't playing the scenario for laughs.
 * Secondly, it is the Wikpedia convention to use the English language dialect appropriate to the subject of the page, in this case British-English. "Mockumentary" is not a commonly used in british-English except for purely humourous examples. In the UK, The War Game would simply not be refered to as a "mockumentary," but rather - as has been pointed out to you - a drama-documentary or dramatised documentary.
 * Lastly, and as Philip says, it is simply not appropriate to tortuously mention Dan Schneider at all, let alone give him the massive undupe prominance of a mention in the lead, and especially not before identifying the actual writer/director! Nick Cooper (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Spurious claims/connections
I would note that apart from the above "mockumentary" nonsense, 178.167.232.17 has spuriously tried to connect the 1965 play with the late-1970s/early-1980s Protect and Survive campaign, as well as claim that the 6 to 9 days between the first screening of the play and the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively constitutes "a few weeks," which in colloquial use would imply three or more. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All of your accusations are in error, yet again:
 * (1) My last edit | on May 14th 2014 states "...in the week prior to the beginning of the fortieth anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings", there is literally not a single use of the phrase "a few weeks" in the entirety of that last revision.
 * (2) I linked to the origins of the protect and survive campaign, which include 1960s documents such as the Advising the Householder on Protection against Nuclear Attack pamphlet, which is referenced in The War Game.
 * Furthermore, as it stands now, the article once again incorrectly suggests that the then unreleased 1964 Civil Defence Information Bulletin was referenced in The War Game, it was not. Do you even have any evidence that these bulletin films were referenced? Nope, you have zilch.
 * I'll correct that last error, for what seems to be the millionth time.
 * You're welcome.
 * 92.251.173.247 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) You did previously claim it, so the point stands.
 * (2) Protect & Survive post-dates the making of the play, so any reference or linkage to it is inappropriate.
 * (3) I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "referenced." Various bits of civil defence advice are either quoted or alluded to, and it has been suggested that they come from the Civil Defence Information Bulletin films. It does not mean that they are identified by name or actually used as footage in the play.
 * You also seem to be having trouble differentiating the film causing "dismay in government," and the contemporaneous claim that there was no government pressure on the BBC not to broadcast play, which are not the same thing. Nor, in fact, does that contemporaneous disavowal of intervention actually prove that none such took place. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wednesday Play
The intro to this page states that it was "commissioned for the BBC's Wednesday Play anthology series", but the article cited as evidence does not support this claim; it shows that the programme was commissioned by Huw Wheldon, head of documentary, whereas the Wednesday Plays were overseen by Sydney Newman. I've not found any evidence to confirm the Wednesday Play link so I have removed but if anyone has any clear sources let me know as I'd like to clear up the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocnowt (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

--- This matter is actually addressed in the Wikipedia entry for Peter Watkins, where it is described as having been commissioned "for The Wednesday Play series". 31.125.76.2 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the synopsis
Wikipedia articles on movies, books, tv series &c run a serious risk of becoming blow-by-blow recounts of every single thing that happens. These are inordinately hard for readers to keep track of, and fail abjectly in summarizing the important parts. (Which parts are the important ones are another argument or 5000.) All the same, it goes too far in the other direction to summarize events on the lines of "Later, society collapses" for a film that won the Oscar for best documentary despite not being a documentary. (I don't want to insult the editor who wrote that summary: it was still good to have the summary and hey, this whole damn encyclopedia is a WIP.) I expanded the synopsis into a hopefully reasonably-sized overview of the film's events. I moved background information into footnotes. --Kiz o r  17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)