I gave Munich: Edge of War a 6 mostly because it is a fictional drama as opposed to a true historical record of the events in and around the Munich Peace Conference in 1938. The broad outline of the events are well covered and are accurate, the sets, costumes and street scenes are wonderfully intricate and authentic. But the story of the key participants, Hugh Legat (George MacKay) as Private Secretary to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Jeremy Irons) and Paul van Hartmann (Jannis Niewhöner) as a part of the German diplomatic delegation, who draw on their college years together at Oxford to collude in trying to reign in Hitler's rampant ambition, is an improbable fictional fantasy.
As a gripping fictional drama, it was good theatre but there were a series of quite implausible plot lines. In 1930's Whitehall (the heart of Britain's bureaucracy), there is no way a mid/late 20's recent graduate who read (majored in) German at Oxford would be a PM's Private Secretary. A role like that would go to a significantly older experienced civil servant. Ditto for the character of van Hartmann. The likelihood of Chamberlain agreeing to meet a young, low level German diplomat over a document that did not come through official intelligence channels was slim to none.
Running the risk of down votes, I want to express frustration at the modern trend of ploughing over historical accuracy to create roles for people of colour. In 1930's Britain, there was a minute (as in fractions of 1%) percentage of the population that was black or south Asian and yet Chamberlain's butler and valet in No. 10 Downing St is a black man. Similarly, fictional MI6 operative Colonel Menzies' daughter Joan, planted in the typing pool to protect Legat's mission, is an equally improbable character. First off, despite her crucial undercover role, no lowly typist in WW2 era Britain would ever challenge a senior ranked Downing St official in the manner she does and the likelihood of a senior MI6 officer being married to a migrant from India producing a daughter of south Asian descent, zero. Such affectations make the producers of the movie look like virtue signalers extraordinaire especially given the superb attention to detail and authenticity everywhere else in the movie.
As a gripping fictional drama, it was good theatre but there were a series of quite implausible plot lines. In 1930's Whitehall (the heart of Britain's bureaucracy), there is no way a mid/late 20's recent graduate who read (majored in) German at Oxford would be a PM's Private Secretary. A role like that would go to a significantly older experienced civil servant. Ditto for the character of van Hartmann. The likelihood of Chamberlain agreeing to meet a young, low level German diplomat over a document that did not come through official intelligence channels was slim to none.
Running the risk of down votes, I want to express frustration at the modern trend of ploughing over historical accuracy to create roles for people of colour. In 1930's Britain, there was a minute (as in fractions of 1%) percentage of the population that was black or south Asian and yet Chamberlain's butler and valet in No. 10 Downing St is a black man. Similarly, fictional MI6 operative Colonel Menzies' daughter Joan, planted in the typing pool to protect Legat's mission, is an equally improbable character. First off, despite her crucial undercover role, no lowly typist in WW2 era Britain would ever challenge a senior ranked Downing St official in the manner she does and the likelihood of a senior MI6 officer being married to a migrant from India producing a daughter of south Asian descent, zero. Such affectations make the producers of the movie look like virtue signalers extraordinaire especially given the superb attention to detail and authenticity everywhere else in the movie.