MovieChat Forums > A Very British Coup (1988) Discussion > a REAL coup at the end?

a REAL coup at the end?

posted 19 years ago by zooeyhall
17 replies | jump to latest

I remember well this excellent political drama when it aired on American PBS. Very much a Brit version of "Seven Days in May".

Just a question for others who have seen this movie. At the end, Perkins makes his defiant speech on the BBC--where, instead of announcing his expected resignation, he says that he is staying on. While he is doing this, we are shown a shot where someone is watching the speech on television. We only see the back of this person, but he reaches out and picks up a telephone. I'm not sure, but he appears to be wearing a military uniform. In the final moments of the movie, the soundtrack seems to have the "whap whap" sound of helicopters; that gradually increases in volume.

I may be mistaken, as it has been a few years since I last saw it. But am I correct in assuming that the implication in the story is that the "very British" coup was followed by a genuine military coup?

[–] rjn-5 19 years ago

Yes, that is implied in the televesion series although the ending in the book is quite different. I think the author mentions this in the interview included with the UK DVD release.

[–] neilschroeder2004 18 years ago

Very much a military coup.

The final scenes are of the morning of the new election. Harry Perkins is confident of a landslide. Then we cut to pictures of a city skyline and a voice over of the BBC World Sevice news: no mention of the election but of a statement from Buckingham Palace (ie the King) and references to constitutional turbulence being resolved. The real clincher is the closing image of a polling station in focus with, in the foreground, an out of focus part image of, at least to my mind, someone (presumably a soldier) holding a gun: part of the shape appears to match the outline of the magazine for a British SLR rifle - standard issue at the time (I know, what a nerd this makes me sound like). All the while the sound of a helicopter gets louder as it fades to black.

I remember watching this series the first time it was shown on television and loved it. I saw it last night (the three episodes shown back to back) and still enjoyed it but recognised the flaws (some serious). The ending, however, seemed as powerful and cleverly ambiguous as when it was originally shown.

[–] pjmulholland 17 years ago

Clearly a milary coup.

Not sure if that was the sound of the helicopter coming to take out Perkin's flat, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Keeping it all understated at the end though I think very much gives you a flavour of the underhand malevolence of the British establishment. They're very much an iron fist in a velvet glove.

[–] dodrade 17 years ago

There is a mention of a suspension of Parliament. I believe the last few seconds are set three weeks after the election, which perkins presumably won, but after which the military immediately took over.

[–] neilschroeder2004 17 years ago

In UK elections the result is usually know on the night of the polling and the new PM installed the next day - no long drawn out US style "transistion". As the final seconds shows what seems to be a soldier in front of a polling booth, and just beforehand Harry Perkins is seen shaving and looking pretty happy, my guess is that the coup happens on or just after polling day rather than 3 weeks afterwards.

[–] youngian67 17 years ago

Author Chris Mullin liked it better than his ending in the book. In the book Perkin retires through ill health and is replaced by a pliant pro-US pro-estblishment Labour leader.

Ironically Chris Mullin served for a short term in Blair's cabinet.

[–] Colkitto 15 years ago

I think the previous poster was slightly confused - the three weeks' gap mentioned was between Perkins' announcement and polling day. So yes, the coup happens on the day of the election - but three weeks after the dissolution of Parliament and the mysterious military figure's phone call.

For the benefit of non-Brits, the dissolution of Parliament is nothing sinister in itself - we do that when an election is called. Though in this case, obviously, the Powers That Be intend to make sure Parliament isn't recalled after the election!

The phone call is presumably to set in motion preparations for the coup, so that they'll be ready on election day in case Perkins wins; then the coup is launched when it's clear he has won.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

[–] ngaio62 17 years ago

definite shades of Chile 9/11...1973

Kiwiboy62
"Real power in this country resides not in parliament..."
Harry Perkins

[–] mindstar 17 years ago

Got it in one. My view is that Perkins would be grabbed by SAS and shot/jailed and Percy Brown and the army would sieze power in a blatant dictatorship.

Course, it might have gone wrong, like the failed anti-chavez coup.

[–] farmerne 14 years ago

As an American, I am curious about a few things brought up in this series about the British Political system:

Can anyone tell me what situations and under what conditions allow suspension of parliamentary government and martial law can be implemented?

I had British friend tell me that, at the time of this series, there had been secret lists drawn-up with the names of every union leader, community activist, leftist leaders, journalists, authors, and anyone else considered "unreliable". To be made available for instant arrest or detention by the military.

If the British Establishment was faced with the prospect of a genuine socialist revolution in Britain, would they react the same as the military did in Chile 1973?

[–] Colkitto 14 years ago

Short answer? No circumstances.

Slightly longer answer: the dissolution of Parliament in preparation for the general election was mentioned above - in the context of the show, the campaign, and therefore the dissolution, last three weeks. A typical campaign is maybe four weeks; the machinery of government rumbles on, just as it does when Parliament is in recess. However, theoretically a dissolution can last much longer.

Moves are afoot to change all this and give us fixed terms at last, instead of a system where the Government of the day has the huge advantage of being able to determine the date of elections at their own convenience, so this answer may soon be obsolete; but for what it's worth, here it is.

The term of a Parliament is limited to five years - but, within that period, a general election can be called whenever the Govt wants it. The PM just "asks" (i.e. tells) the Queen to dissolve Parliament. The period of dissolution has a time limit on it as well... THREE YEARS. This was set centuries ago, during the birth pains of our system, and has never been reformed. So technically, the maximum period between general elections isn't five years - it's eight!

Interestingly, there's another time limit *within* that three-year-maximum-dissolution: if, after dissolution, a new Parliament is not elected within ONE year, no taxes can be collected until one is. So far as I'm aware, neither of these limits has ever actually been put to the test. As I said above, dissolution in fact runs for the length of an election campaign, so just a few weeks.

But then, nobody who's seized power in a military coup would be concerned with constitutional niceties! I can't imagine a fascist junta suddenly saying "Oh, Parliament hasn't sat in a year, we'll have to stop collecting taxes."

[–] tgrrrsss 14 years ago

A coup is perfectly possible anywhere in the world, things got a bit funny here with the Hung Parliament situation back in May.
Watching Brown desperately hanging on whilst Lib Dems fiddled and fudged between a rock and a hard place, fascinating stuff.

[–] fanaticita 14 years ago

hmmmmmmmmmm, I'm going to have to watch the ending again I think. I remember a black figure of some sort moving from left to right until the screen was finally black. I couldn't figure out what the black figure was. What was it?

[–] ContinentalOp 11 years ago

Yes, the British establishment/USA would stage a military coup if they needed too - if a real socialist was elected. The situation in Chile before the coup was not so different to that of the UK, even if they were a bit poorer, as Chile was seen as stable and not the kind of place which would ever have a military coup.

''What fear is provoked by the face of fascism!'' - Víctor Jara, murdered in Pinochet's coup.

[–] safenoe 8 years ago

When I first watched A Very British Coup in the late 80s, I was intrigued by the somewhat ambiguous ending, so intrigued that I wrote to Alan Plater, one of the writers of the mini-series. I was hoping he would explain and I was thrilled that he took the time to write to me and explain (letter dated 7 Feb 1990):

Spoiler alert:

"We had long hours of talks along the way but essentially it was my idea that Perkins shouldn't resign but should go to the country and tell the truth; and Mick Jackson's idea that the election should be held in the shadow of a possible military takeover.

The ending was deliberately ambiguous and I have no idea what happens next!"

So that explains it - from the writer himself.

I also wrote to co-writer Chris Mullin (he also wrote the book on which the mini-series is based) and in his letter dated 19 February 1990 he kindly explained:

Spoiler alert:

"You ask about the hint at the end of the film of a possible military coup. The end of the film is deliberately vague in order to leave open a number of possibilities, of which a military coup is one. You will recall that there is also a line from a BBC World Service news bulletin, which says, 'A statement is expected today from Buckingham Palace.....' In other words, the Queen is not necessarily obliged to call the leader of the largest party after an election. She could, for example, call Wainwright in the hope that he could put together a Government comprising right-wing Labour rebels, with the support of other parties, including Conservatives."

Mr Mullin also wrote he preferred Mr Plater's ending in the film to the one in his book. Wainwright is Perkin's arch-rival and the one whom Perkins fired from the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[–] zooeyhall 8 years ago

Thank you for sharing this fascinating information!

[–] safenoe 8 years ago

You're welcome!