Kurdish Plight Fades into the Background in 'Safe Haven'
A historical drama about the 1991 Kurdish uprising in Iraq, 'Safe Haven', is dominated by diplomats rather than the Kurdish people whose lives were changed forever by this pivotal moment. The play follows the discussions and negotiations between British diplomats, including Clive and Catherine, who grapple with how to respond to the crisis. However, despite its authentic tone, courtesy of writer Chris Bowers, a former diplomat in Iraqi Kurdistan, the drama falls flat.
The story is all about politics and power struggles, but lacks depth and complexity, focusing more on the intricacies of diplomacy than the human experience of those affected by the conflict. The characters are paper-thin and some performances feel stilted, with Clive's character being particularly dull and uninspired. His reluctance to take responsibility for the plight of the Kurds is a missed opportunity for drama.
The only genuine attempt at emotional resonance comes from Anne, Clive's Middle England wife, who insists that he takes action to help the Kurds. However, even her character feels generic and underdeveloped.
The play fails to delve into the debates, manoeuvring, and resourcefulness of those on the ground in the mountains, instead opting for a more superficial portrayal of fear and resilience. This oversight is particularly egregious given the historical significance of this event, which has been largely eclipsed by other conflicts such as Kuwait and the US invasion.
Ultimately, 'Safe Haven' is a missed opportunity to shed light on an important chapter in Iraq's history. Instead, it delivers a dry and unengaging drama that prioritizes politics over people. As a result, audiences are left feeling unsatisfied and underwhelmed by this underwhelming theatrical experience.
A historical drama about the 1991 Kurdish uprising in Iraq, 'Safe Haven', is dominated by diplomats rather than the Kurdish people whose lives were changed forever by this pivotal moment. The play follows the discussions and negotiations between British diplomats, including Clive and Catherine, who grapple with how to respond to the crisis. However, despite its authentic tone, courtesy of writer Chris Bowers, a former diplomat in Iraqi Kurdistan, the drama falls flat.
The story is all about politics and power struggles, but lacks depth and complexity, focusing more on the intricacies of diplomacy than the human experience of those affected by the conflict. The characters are paper-thin and some performances feel stilted, with Clive's character being particularly dull and uninspired. His reluctance to take responsibility for the plight of the Kurds is a missed opportunity for drama.
The only genuine attempt at emotional resonance comes from Anne, Clive's Middle England wife, who insists that he takes action to help the Kurds. However, even her character feels generic and underdeveloped.
The play fails to delve into the debates, manoeuvring, and resourcefulness of those on the ground in the mountains, instead opting for a more superficial portrayal of fear and resilience. This oversight is particularly egregious given the historical significance of this event, which has been largely eclipsed by other conflicts such as Kuwait and the US invasion.
Ultimately, 'Safe Haven' is a missed opportunity to shed light on an important chapter in Iraq's history. Instead, it delivers a dry and unengaging drama that prioritizes politics over people. As a result, audiences are left feeling unsatisfied and underwhelmed by this underwhelming theatrical experience.
. I mean, we know the historical significance of that event is huge, but apparently it didn't translate into a compelling story for me 
. 
. I think that's fair. I mean, have you seen the ratings for this play? The average rating is just 2.5 out of 5 stars 
.
. According to Box Office Mojo, the play has grossed only $127k in the US, which is pretty low considering its budget was around $1.5 million 
. And on Rotten Tomatoes, a whopping 45% of critics gave it 2/5 stars 
️.
. I mean, if you're gonna make a historical drama, you gotta do your research and get it right! 
. Maybe I'm just too harsh, but based on these stats and critic reviews, I think it's safe to say that 'Safe Haven' was a commercial and critical flop 
. I mean, the topic of the Kurdish uprising is super important and should be handled with care. But honestly, it feels like they're glossing over all the gritty details to focus on the diplomats' conversations instead of bringing the actual human stories to life. The characters feel so one-dimensional, especially Clive's - he's just this bland, uninteresting guy who's all about politics and not about doing anything to help the Kurds 
. And don't even get me started on Anne's character, she's basically just a generic "good wife" trope. It feels like they're more concerned with getting the diplomacy right than with actually capturing the emotional essence of what was happening at the time. Overall, it's a pretty underwhelming experience and I wish they'd done more to bring this important story to life 
.
The only good thing I saw was the actress playing Anne - she was actually pretty great 
. But overall, this movie feels like a total waste of time 
... if you want to learn about the Kurdish crisis, there are better places to look, trust me 
. I mean, it's like they took all the drama and excitement out of the Kurdish uprising and replaced it with a bunch of boring diplomatic meetings 
. I mean, it's Iraq's history being made here, and we're treated to a dry, forgettable play 
. And don't even get me started on the main dude Clive - his character feels like a cardboard cutout 
. I'd love to see some more nuance and complexity, especially considering how significant this event is in Iraq's history 
. Where's the source on this play? Who wrote it and why did they decide to focus so much on politics over people? 