Sink the Belgrano!
Written by Steven Berkhoff
SCENA Theater
H Street Playhouse
August 25-September 12
Wednesday-Saturday 8pm, Sunday 3pm
Sink the Belgrano! is a comedy-drama, first performed in 1986, about the British decision-making process that led to the destruction of ARA General Belgrano. In structure and tone the play resembles Henry V, invoking the patriotic interpretation of that work in service of the argument that Thatcher ordered the sinking of Belgrano for domestic political purposes. We decided to go because we usually try to see a play while in DC, and seriously, how often can you really expect to get Falkland's War theater?
On the whole, the production and performances were solid enough, if nothing to write home about. Nanna Ingvarsson was good as Thatcher, but a British friend of mine confessed that he had a lot of trouble with the fake British accents. The scene shifted between 10 Downing and what I believe was intended to be HMS Conqueror, although we were also apparently supposed to have been on surface ships from time to time. The contrast of Shakespearean tone with working class slang was well conceived. Moreover, the basic premise of the play (that Thatcher was motivated primarily by domestic politics) has some resonance; while scholarship on the war has concentrated on the "diversionary" aspects of Argentina's decision to invade, more attention has been paid recently to the domestic context of the British decision to engage. It's quite sound to suggest that Thatcher expected a political boost from a victorious war, but this is far from saying that Thatcher undertook the war for domestic political gain.
In the play, Thatcher rejects an Argentine withdrawal offer and waives the "exclusion zone" in order to sink Belgrano, escalate the war, and defeat Labour. And here's the problem; not only the political point, but the entire dramatic impact of Sink the Belgrano! hinges on two claims of fact that are simply false. The first is that Argentina had agreed to withdraw from the Falklands prior to the sinking of Belgrano, and the second is that the two hundred mile "exclusion zone" provided legal protection for Belgrano from Royal Navy attack. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the Falklands War will know that neither of these things is true. A peace plan had been floated shortly before the sinking, but Argentina had given no indication of willingness to withdraw. Similarly, both the British and Argentine navies understood that the exclusion zone no longer applied to Argentinian military vessels.
I appreciate the need for artistic license. Small errors of fact, such as suggesting that the Belgrano carried 8" guns rather than 6", would be irritating but could be overlooked (although I should note that the play gets this particular detail right, just as it correctly identifies the Mark 8 torpedoes that sank Belgrano). Any literary reproduction of a historical event requires the telescoping of events and the amalgamation of characters. In this case, however, correction of the historical errors would obviate the need to have a play; if the Argentines aren't willing to withdraw, and if sinking Belgrano is a legally acceptable act of war, then there's no dramatic conflict. It's not unlike watching a play that claimed that the North ought not have initiated the Civil War in response to John Wilkes Boothe's assassination of President Lincoln. I should add that trying to pin the "militarist" tag to the British government in the Falklands War is a bit rich, given that hostilities were initiated by the Argentine military junta.
If you don't know anything about the Falklands War and don't really want to know anything, you may well enjoy Sink the Belgrano. If not (and I suspect that very few ID readers will fall into that category), I would stay away; I found myself angrily squirming for the last twenty minutes, and have spent much of the last three days ranting about the inaccuracies to anyone who I could browbeat into listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment