Witnessing the London Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980 producer Euan Lloyd rushed to call his lawyer so he could buy the rights to the title ‘Who Dares Wins’. The title being the moto of SAS regiment who stormed the embassy after 5 days of stalemate. The SAS had until this point been mysterious figures, live TV coverage of the siege had shown the regiment in all their glory and brought about a tidal wave of pride for “our daring boys “. Lloyd cunningly assembled an action thriller which could capitalise and utilise the surge in interest in the SAS. The result of which is Who Dares Wins.
The plot revolves around Captain Peter Skellen (Lewis Collins) who is dismissed from his regiment for torturing and bullying fellow officers. This is merely a clever cover story though to allow him to infiltrate The People’s Lobby; a militant group who’s goal is to end nuclear war. He begins an affair with the head of the group Frankie Leith (Judy Davis). After seeing some of the inner workings of both the intelligence service and the radical group the films final act takes the form of a siege on the U.S. Embassy. Secretary of State Arthur Currie (Richard Widmark) along with other prominent officials are held hostage, which also allows time for discussion with the militants about the notion of nuclear superiority, disarmament and deterrents. This good natured debate is interrupted though as the SAS try to make the climax a more gun totting affair.
Before it was even released Who Dares Wins had already been branded as a nationalistic, right-wing led enterprise. The overall message seemed to be: nuclear weapons = good. Authorities getting results, no matter how = good. On the other hand. Left wing politically minded folk = bad. People who don’t like nuclear weapons/power = idiots. Squint hard enough and you can see cause for this argument. Lewis Collins Captain Skellen is a no-nonsense badass who’s eyes are solely focused on the mission. He’s not adverse to kicking the shit out of someone for information of even just to play along in a ruse – witnessed at the start as he tortures two American officers. In a James Bond world we sort of forgive this because we know it’s fantasy. Who Dares Wins though tries to deal too much with real, politically charged subjects. This gives Skellen an almost unsavoury air making him hard to like. Which is a shame as he is our hero. Reading up on Collins he had apparently auditioned for James Bond but was considered too intense. Watching Who Dares Wins you can see what they meant.
Judy Davis, who would go on to be wonderful in A Passage to India and Barton Fink, puts in a committed performance as one of the heads of the militant group. Always coming across as someone who truly believes in her cause she toes the line between insanity and reasoned argument. Skellen first meets her at an “arty” show in London. You know the type of place where men are dressed as women, people wear lamp shades and people read slam poetry with melons on their feet. It does almost feel like the producers are screaming “look she must be the villain look at how crazy her world is!”. It does also provide an amusing contrast to see Skellen – the crop head and suited gent flirting the Laith – the ragged hair, spike wearing punk. The film never fully makes their romantic relationship believable. Yes opposites attract but other than that there’s no real reason for her to go to bed with him. Unless we should just assume that he’s such a charming devil, who wouldn’t want to sleep with him? Laith is also presented as being from an underground world which is different and unusual to “normal” society. In Who Dares Wins‘ case though this is something that should be feared rather than celebrated.
Despite the plot promise of action and Edward Woodward we get very little of both for the first half of the film. Instead we have covert meetings with secret agents. Political rallies and talk of “action”. All of which can be incredibly interesting subjects but they are dealt with so workmanlike. It’s almost as if director Ian Sharp shot the non-action scenes whilst petulantly bouncing up and down on his chair crying “but I wanna go blow something up now!”. As for Woodward presence as an intelligence Commander – he only appear in about three scenes in the entire film.
The film does pick up steam though as the militant group hijack a bus of musicians who are driving to the US embassy. In quite a cold blooded moment Laith guns down a woman who tries to escape. It’s a great character moment where you realise that she is committed enough to do something very drastic to get her point across. After the initial siege takes places the film slows down again to allow time between Laith and the Secretary of State to engage in a discussion on the pros and cons of nuclear armament. It’s a surprisingly gripping scene. Davis plays her side with anger verging on lunacy. Widmark, quite literally an elder statesman of acting, is cool and not without reason. In what could essentially boil down to a radio show phone in discussion actually becomes the highlight of the film. Down mostly to the two great actors. By this point Collins’ Skellen has faded into the background. Until the SAS infiltrate the embassy. As a climax to a two hour plus action thriller it disappoints on spectacle but there is enough shoot, shoot, bang, bang to keep you entertained.
A surprisingly muted action film with moments of very good acting and dialogue fails to fully utilise the exciting underbelly of the SAS. It’s a much more politically minded affair which gives compelling arguments for both sides. But it has to be said that those early criticisms of the films right-wing leanings are not entirely without merit. Collins is a uncompromising and compelling, if hard to love lead. Davis passionate. Widmark great and Woodward sorely missed.
We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell your friends. BRWC is short for battleroyalewithcheese.
Trending on BRWC:
Nosferatu: Review
It All Comes With The Cold Water: Review
Gladiator II: The BRWC Review
CB 28th November 2013
I watched this as a child and enjoyed it, and I was recently walking down Upper Street when I noticed the church which was both the head quarters of Frankie’s organisation, and the place where there’s a staged riot half way through. I rewatched the film, and took note of the characters routes and the buses he takes, and what impressed me is that the film really gets the geography right. Skellen and co. are moving about London in believable ways.
I enjoyed your review. Two Quibbles: 1/ Why should the right-wing leanings of the film be a BAD thing? Surely that just makes it provocative, and isn’t ‘provocative’ usually used as a positive adjective?
Would one say a film was poor simply because its message was ‘left-wing’?
As a matter of face the ‘message’ of the film remains relevant. As is the case within the film, security forces are still criticised for killing terrorists, and when watching the film I was reminded of the response of the politicians on Question Time to the death of Bin Laden. They condemned the celebratory mood outside the White House, as barbaric, just as the liberal politician, the real ‘Bad Guy’, does at the end of Who Dares Wins. Whether the film is right or wrong, then, it is clearly relevant.
I googled the film today because the actor who played Skellen has just died. He had barely any work after that film came out, despite having put in quite a good performance, It has been suggested to me today, that the entertainment industry was biased against him because of his choosing to take part in a right wing film – I have no idea whether this is true, though.
2./ I didn’t find, on rewatching the film, that the portrayal of the nightlife enjoyed by the “villain” was pejorative at all. The characters, whatever their social politics and dress sense, were essentially quite normal in that scene, and were treated as such by the “hero” character, and I actually feel it’s quite a believable portrayal of that sort of agit-prop nightlife. Besides, in wandering around Soho I’ve seen people dressed in all sorts of ways, so why shouldn’t that be the case in the film. Also, it captures a certain sub-strata of trendiness in the 1980’s, so it’s historically interesting, too.