CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY Post Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY Post Release

post #1 of 119
Thread Starter 

This is on general release over in the UK, so I thought I’d start up a thread.

 

This is the sort of film that thaws over time, which takes a while to find any kind of emotional or humane core. That’s not a disparagement against the film, it is just something you have to accept about the film and it’s plotting.

 

It is actually a function of the narrative; the film’s main protagonist is largely dispassionate about the plot himself largely due to the circumstances he finds himself. George Smiley is a man who has been removed from his position and is just settling into forced retirement when he is called upon to lead an investigation into his former colleagues in the British Intelligence Agency. Smiley is a frosty kind of character, analytical and shutdown, and the plotting largely follows this characterisation with the first act told in very precise, very detailed, and emotionally fleeting terms.

 

It’s the sort of opening that makes you pore over the entire frame and every bit of dialogue because every scene is loaded with information.  Even divorced from the central mystery the narrative of Smiley dredging up the past and coming to terms with a new vanguard of colleagues he can’t connect with is really well done and Oldman sells it completely and effortlessly.  It’s kind of amazing how old and tired Oldman comes across in this film, especially considering the youth and vigour in both his Commissioner Gordon and Sirius Black. But whilst Oldman plays Smiley as old he definitely doesn’t play Smiley as infirm, in fact there’s a quiet energy and intensity to Smiley which is kind of amazing the few times that Oldman reveals it. The supporting cast are all absolute aces as well despite their limited screen time. In fact out of a cast that includes Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Gary Oldman, Mark Strong, John Hurt, Ciaran Hinds it’s the three younger actors (Hardy, Strong and Cumberbatch) who flesh out their characters the most.

 

Hardy is great as a mercenary intelligence agent who has been on the run for an almost a year after a botched operation, bringing a world weary edge and agitated intensity to the film. Strong has limited screen time but quickly constructs a great, forlorn, presence. Benedict Cumberbatch however is the real standout. Whilst he isn’t a protagonist he gets a lion’s share of screen time and some of the real honestly emotional moments of the film. He’s also something of an audience identification figure as Smiley is a little too removed and opaque for us to really get into his mind and Cumberbatch makes his few suspense scenes work brilliantly. What makes Cumberbatch work is that he’s a very human figure in the film surrounded by characters who trade in icy indifference, because of this his concern for his own well-being becomes an almost character trait.

 

Tomas Alfredson, aside from a scene involving a gull which reminded me a little of the CGI cats from his earlier effort LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, directs the film with an amazing sense of aplomb. Whilst there’s nothing particularly flashy about his direction his longer cuts, sense of rhythm, and dispassionate depiction of the fleeting moments of violence, really pulls the whole thing together. At times the frame almost feels a little claustrophobically tight, but his use of composition and just the general pacing of his editing and periods between cuts really helps to give a studious feel to the film. It’s the sort of film where its denouement feels oddly muted largely because Alfredson is more interested in the construction of a trap than the springing of a trap and it just feels to maintain the adult, intelligent, feel of the whole enterprise.  It also means that the moments of genuine emotional revelation actually feel earned and actually feel powerful for it, because the film is so frosty and intellectual for the majority of its running time the moments when it breaks to examine the actual impact it is having on its characters are kind of astounding.

 

And for the TL;DR people, it’s fucking great.

post #2 of 119
Thread Starter 

I really can't wait for some more people to see this because there's a bunch of stuff I want to talk about which will completely spoil the film.

post #3 of 119

You know, even knowing the story, I'm trying hard to avoid reading too much about the film, and I'm ducking the avalanche of clips, interviews, and articles that are online, not to avoid spoilers, but to avoid burnout before it even opens over here!

 

I look forward to checking back into the thread in a few months.

post #4 of 119
Thread Starter 

I've tried to avoid spoilers as much as possible. I read the book about a decade ago and as far as I can tell it's a decent adaptation but it very much feels like its own beast with vastly different emphasies. But if you're fan of the source material you'll love this, and Oldman nails Smiley.

post #5 of 119

Will add more later but Spike's thoughts on this are on the money. It's an elegant piece of work, utterly involving and stealthily moving and funny by turns. Oldman heads up an ideal cast, and I was very taken with Colin Firth's work here. 

post #6 of 119
Thread Starter 

Yeah Firth does a lot with very little. I was actually surprised at how little screentime the majority of the cast actually gets, but Firth and Jones really do excellent work whenever they are on screen, Ciaran Hinds less so (which is odd because he's usually a very effective background performer).

post #7 of 119

Wow, John Le Carre speaks!

 

Quote:

 

The spy fiction icon calls the new film the best adaptation of his work ever

 

Once in a lifetime, if a novelist is very lucky, he gets a movie made of one of his books that has its own life and truth. This is the achievement of Tomas Alfredson and his team.

 

This is a movie that entertains superbly and thrillingly at its own pace and rhythm — a hypnotic movie that takes you over completely. I don’t believe that any audience, once introduced to it, will be able to take its eyes off the screen.

 

From here:  http://www.awardsdaily.com/2011/12/bret-easton-ellis-is-confused-john-le-carre-is-honored/

 

 

I haven't seen this yet but am dying to.  It's at the top of my list of most anticipated.

post #8 of 119

I kinda hate myself for saying this but... I was pretty bored by this.

 

It's GORGEOUS. The sheer detail in each scene is immaculate. Layers upon layers of detail in set design, props, shot composition, camera movements. It gets pretty intoxicating, particularly during certainly fairly claustrophobic scenes. And the score is one of the year's best, and there are plenty of professional actors disappearing into their roles.

 

But the story is secondary to that, a bit like small fries, kind of free-forming, without underlying suspense. I wasn't really interested where anything was going. It's plenty cold, which normally I think is a pretty dumb critique, but the story goes in so many directions that I found it hard to figure out what exactly I should be hoping would happen. The spy stuff felt pretty small scale, which was accurate, I suppose, but not altogether involving.

 

It reminded me a lot of when I took my father to see Breach. He had worked in the FBI, and had multiple interactions with the character in that film played by Chris Cooper. I thought it was a pretty engaging movie, and I asked my father what he thought. He said, "Yep, that's a lot like what FBI work was like," he said, adding, "fucking boring."

 

I wouldn't say this was "fucking boring," but the only really hot-blooded character is Tom Hardy. Everyone else is so tight-lipped, so cloak-and-dagger, and so mysterrrrrious that I wanted to know exactly I was looking for in this.

post #9 of 119

No prob, Gabe. I feel no shame or self-hate in saying I thought this was much ado about nothing. Like you, I recognize the work that went into the textures and detail here. Incredibly well-shot, scored, and put together all-around.

 

But I simply wasn't moved in the least by the story, and I barely saw any genuine characters. Russ Fischer put it best when he said he wanted to see a movie ABOUT the spy game, not be IN the spy game. It's so distant, I genuinely didn't give a shit. It's an optical illusion of a film.

post #10 of 119

I actually tackled the book. It's a tough, tough read as far as the amount of mundane details and all the background info that in many cases don't have relevance to the central plot. This is the first instance where I'm sure the movie will be better than the book. I at least hope the movie can help me understand what happened in the book better.

post #11 of 119

I haven't read the book but the film is a lot more focused than what you described Starlet. Tommy Five tone described it as elegant and that's a perfect description.

It's a drama not a thriller, beautifully made and bursting at the seams with talent.

 

I have to be honest, and I don't consider myself a dunce, but it requires a fair bit of patience and concentration to follow who is who and what they do but like all good films it all clicks together come the (understated) climax.

 

And Oldman just fucking owns. He really is getting better and better.

 

Getting into spoiler territory -

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I thought Benedict Cumberpatch was fantastic and the scene he tells his partner to leave was heartbreaking

 

 

post #12 of 119

newb alert.

 

The book is one of my favouritest things in the whole world.  It's one of those books I pick up and read a couple of lines and before I know it I've cleared the schedule and stayed until the end.  The amount of texture to the characters and dialogue amazes me no end.  It's trite to say it but it is as though you are dropped into this most rarified world and have to fend for yourself.  I can see why people don't like it, I guess.  But the density is definitely what it is all about.  He manages to make you feel like you've seen what it is to be Smiley, or one of those guys.  Every detail matters, or could.  Everything about a person, a people, a nation could tell you how they might behave or what they have done.  Everything someone does or says carries with it all their experiences. And likewise any of these things could give you away to the opposition (or a political rival).

In that is the great irony: to observe so acutely the meaning of things to people in a useful way you often need extraordinary empathy and sympathy.  Sympathy that is ultimately to be used to destroy them.

 

There's so much going on it really underscores just how simple most of our even most admired and clever arts generally are.  Really keen to see how the film turned out.  It's done amazingly well in the UK already.  The rep of the book is one thing, but it probably helps being closer to the culture for understanding what's going on.  That sort of establishment loyalty and secrecy is deep in British culture like nowhere else, I think.

post #13 of 119

I've actually seen the 80s miniseries with Alec Guiness, and yeah, it was the way people are describing it--a lot of exposition and confusing dialogue covering a fairly intensive backstory for the first bit, then slowly the layers peel back and by about the halfway mark you start to glimpse the human story lying underneath. Which I personally found to be a fascinating technique, but I can see why people can be frustrated by it. Heck, I was kind of frustrated by it. The revelation of a certain character's personal connection to Smiley might have been more impactful if it had been spelled out at the beginning...but it also would have made the story more predictable in a way. The whole miniseries is like that--opaque, incomprehensible, and then slowly the pieces start to drop into place. Rather than introducing the characters and letting the plot unfold around them, it introduces the plot and lets the characters come into focus, from a bunch of grey-suited bureaucratic nobodies (and Guiness's Smiley is the biggest nobody of them all at first) to a bunch of human beings with their own (sometimes petty) motivations. It's pretty clearly a major element of this story, so the movie has done right in keeping that, but obviously the results aren't going to be for everyone.

 

Interested to see how much the movie has sheared off--it sounds like they haven't lost the complexity, at least. Anyone else seen the miniseries?

post #14 of 119

Sounds like critically this is going to fall in the same spectrum as 'The Good Shepherd.'  The spy business is this cold, methodical, plodding thing which isn't particularly cinematic.

post #15 of 119

The thing about it is that one of its most interesting themes is so buried and subtle that it barely registers, and that's just how impotent this agency and these people are. They're all spinning these very secretive plates that--unlike in the glory war days--really don't have all that much affect on the world anymore. When you look at it from a modern perspective this is even more potent, and then the tragic edge of the whole thing becomes a little sharper. I don't know what it is about this and the Good Shepherd, but I do so love impenetrable movies about white people talking about shit they think is important even though, really, they've just build their own little well-funded sandbox to play inside.

post #16 of 119


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post
I don't know what it is about this and the Good Shepherd, but I do so love impenetrable movies about white people talking about shit they think is important even though, really, they've just build their own little well-funded sandbox to play inside.


God willing there will be a remake with Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan and Martin Lawrence.

 

post #17 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

Sounds like critically this is going to fall in the same spectrum as 'The Good Shepherd.'  The spy business is this cold, methodical, plodding thing which isn't particularly cinematic.

 

At some point, I definitely intend to return to Tinker Tailor, maybe even watch the miniseries. But that's solely due to the fact that I feel that Alfredson is the real deal as a director. This is a beautiful, tight, sometimes fascinating picture. I like how Renn says they're all in their own "sandbox" because to me it's something like an ant farm in its detail and nuance.

 

I think The Good Shepherd was kind of all over the place, and I don't think DeNiro the director has a strong enough eye to tie together such an expansive narrative. But "Tinker Tailor" is clearly the work of a skilled, focused filmmaker, and even though I was cold on this, I would be highly anticipating his next film.

post #18 of 119

Damn, I was so lost by this film.  Whenever I felt like I was starting to get a handle on it, something else would be revealed showing me to be many steps behind.  I had a rough time of it at the beginning in trying to maintain my interest, but it got better as the film went on (even as I was utterly lost). 

 

I'm generally a fan of OPERATIC and it takes slow burn/quiet/underplayed films something really specific for me to connect to it.  This film didn't really connect with me, though I was certainly intrigued all the way to the end.

 

As it is, it feels like the final montage of the film leading up to the final shot kinda comes out of nowhere for the character. 

 

But I loved the texture of the film and the filmmaking that felt like something we just don't see anymore.  The score was great, being somewhat reminiscent of OLDBOY at times.

 

My showing of the film had a Q&A with Gary Oldman afterwards.  What an awesome man, though the moderator and the questions were not so great.  But listening to Oldman's answers, you'd be fooled into thinking they were.

post #19 of 119

I'm about 60% of the way through the book, and I'm definitely feeling like the movie improved on its source material. I'd call neither iteration "incredible," but while the prose version is pretty cool, the addition of amazing acting, some timeline tinkering, and spiced up character dynamics certainly puts the film version within spitting distance of being great.

 

It's fucking crazy that this may very well be franchised.

post #20 of 119

I tried reading the book a few months back, and couldn't finish it. I gave up after 100 pages since I felt my understanding of the story was no better than when I started it. In those 100 pages we get two long stories, told by characters to other characters, which I hated. They just act as big info dumps and that type of storytelling isn't very compelling to me. I'd much rather see these scenes unfold as they happened, not have a character sit and talk for ten minutes. And so much information is thrown at you, and you're just sort of thrust into the world of espionage without much set up or explanation.

post #21 of 119

I loved it.  But I could see how people could have found it cold and a bit plodding.  The level of detail in every frame is exquisite.

 

I, unfortunately, came in late to the movie because Sunset Boulevard was closed on all sides, making entry into the Arclight a bit difficult.  I missed maybe 3-5 minutes of the movie.  I came in just about the time when everyone started speaking Russian and Prideaux is in the cafe.  He gets up, some waiter busts out of a restaurant, and shoots him in the back.

 

Does anyone mind telling me what happened before that?  My guess is Control tells Prideaux about the mission, which is ostensibly to recruit a general who knows about a mole inside Circus.  What does the rest of the group know?  Do they know that Control thinks there's a mole (I think only Prideaux knew, given a later scene)?  What's the stated purpose of the mission?  Did Control stake his reputation on this, thus why he gets fired when the mission goes sideways?

 

 

post #22 of 119

A slow-burner, yes. But with a cast like that and a solid story, couldn't go wrong. Loved it

post #23 of 119


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post

The thing about it is that one of its most interesting themes is so buried and subtle that it barely registers, and that's just how impotent this agency and these people are. They're all spinning these very secretive plates that--unlike in the glory war days--really don't have all that much affect on the world anymore. When you look at it from a modern perspective this is even more potent, and then the tragic edge of the whole thing becomes a little sharper. I don't know what it is about this and the Good Shepherd, but I do so love impenetrable movies about white people talking about shit they think is important even though, really, they've just build their own little well-funded sandbox to play inside.


 

I don't know how you can say this stuff doesn't matter when you look at events like the the Berlin Airlift, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, etc.  That shit WAS real and had massive real world implications.  This movie, along with the Good Shepherd and others, depict men on the front lines fighting the cold war.  To deny the importance of intelligence collection and analysis in war and geopolitics is naive. 

post #24 of 119

Just got back from watching this, and I have to say I was a bit disappointed. But that may be because I watched the BBC Miniseries a few months ago, so that older version was maybe still too "fresh".

 

It is totally unfair to compare the two, but I couldn't help it. At first Oldman's performance reminded me too much of Sir Alec Guinness, to the point where I thought Oldman was doing an imitation. But, as the film progressed I was drawn in completely. George Smiley is such a closed character, and in the movie has little to do (compared to the miniseries), and Oldman minimizes his dialog and actions even further. In the miniseries you are let in rather early that George Smiley has a keen and formidable intellect, in a scene where he interrogates Ricki Tarr.

 

I was also struck by how

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

the Political and Philosophical concerns of the Cold War in the 70's are replaced in the film version with much more personal questions of sexual identity and loyalty. An interesting new interpretation of the story.

 

post #25 of 119

A fucking master class in film direction. From a guy doing his second feature, and his first in a foreign language.

 

I don't know that it necessarily tops Attack The Block as my favorite film of 2011, but as someone who knows both book and miniseries pretty well, I was riveted the entire time. And a decently packed theatre (filled with people even older than myself) was pin-drop quiet, which is not to be taken for granted these days. I'd have gladly stayed for a second viewing if I'd had time.

 

I was amazed how much of the story stayed intact, and the few tweaks and additions worked perfectly (evidently the Christmas party was loosely based on an incident during Le Carre's tenure with the Service). I missed the character of Westerby (though they gave his name to the communications officer), and thought Cumberbatch's Guillam superior to Jayston's. Apart from that, the "act-off" between miniseries and movie was pretty much a wash.

 

And, Spook, yeah, that was what you missed.

post #26 of 119


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe View Post


 

I don't know how you can say this stuff doesn't matter when you look at events like the the Berlin Airlift, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, etc.  That shit WAS real and had massive real world implications.  This movie, along with the Good Shepherd and others, depict men on the front lines fighting the cold war.  To deny the importance of intelligence collection and analysis in war and geopolitics is naive. 



Obviously intelligence communities are and have been a big deal, but these specific 70s-era Brits dealing with their dwindling relevance in a time when two superpowers were growing larger and larger is definitely a theme here. You mention Good Shepherd, which shows the Americans trying to build an espionage community and dealing with British Intelligence at its height, when these guys were on the cutting edge of the most important shit in the world. By the time Tinker, Tailor takes places they've barely got a place at the table both because the stage of conflict has grown past them, and then because they're assumed to have a "leaky boat" so to speak. I mean, the entire scheme the movie revolves around was ultimately a Russian move to dig at the Americans, and was really only investigated deeper because the Brits wanted to get back on level with their Yank cousins.

 

And at the end of the day, neither the book nor the movie do much to paint a picture of anything but an isolated, self-important department of backstabbing egos playing their own games with each other. Perhaps the idea is that we should simply be taking the importance of their work for granted, but the thematic meat here comes from the presentation that suggests these dudes are largely spinning plates. Doesn't necessarily have to mean that's the case in real life.

post #27 of 119

Well stated Renn. I think this is where the movie departs from the Miniseries. The movie argues much more strongly that all the activities by this group matter very little. In the miniseries it's more ambivalent.

 

Now that I'm a few days out from seeing this I'm revising my opinion upward. The actor's performances really stick out more in memory (maybe because of the couple behind me in the theater who insisted on discussing the film while in progress and my irritation with them as faded from my memory.)


Edited by Cylon Baby - 12/24/11 at 4:37pm
post #28 of 119

I'm really going to need to see this again.

 

Too sophisticated for this rube.

post #29 of 119
Originally Posted by Jeb View Post

A fucking master class in film direction. From a guy doing his second feature, and his first in a foreign language.


Actually, he did a few features before Let the Right One In, and comedies at that.

 

I loved this. I loved this a lot. I think the central mystery is sort of weak (a fact kind of obfuscated in the act of viewing by the convoluted chronology), but otherwise the acting, tone, and music (Lordy, the music!) are all top-notch. I want to see this be a series.

post #30 of 119

Yeah, I liked it a lot, and an admirable lack of explosions.  I don't accept the criticism from some (not necessarily in this thread but in general) that the film is too cold, or dry, restrained, hard to care about, etc, etc.  There's an undercurrent of emotion all throughout the film, Smiley's relationship to the mole, Mark Strong's life as a teacher, Tom Hardy's lovestruck agent, that bald dude who got deported, even the 'climax' has one dude shooting his best buddy, come on!

 

Then again, I also reject the criticism when it's applied to Michael Mann films too.  I guess it's not so much the characters or performances the critics are having trouble with, or even the story, but the way it's told, namely the director's vision.  Mann, like Soderbergh, tends to just let things play out without judgement, and not point a finger with the help of the composer and editor, and go "look at this!  Focus!" and Alfredson's Tinker Tailor is in that vein.  It's cool and calm; doesn't try to forcefully enhance characters to make them accessible, or even likeable.

 

I have to say though, the trailers for this made me think Cumberbatch was going to play a silent killing machine.  Oh how I was mistaken.

post #31 of 119

I think the sense of detachment some feel is deliberate.  It's the nature of the business these people are in, and, as underlined by the scene were Cumberbatch has to send his partner away for his own safety, getting close to someone is a recipe for disaster.  It can compromise you, as in Hardy's case, or lead to their death (again, in Hardy's case).  Add in Oldman's marital issues, and we have a group of people who can't truly be close to anyone.  Even the Christmas party that gets frequently flashed back to feels more like people forcing themselves to have a good time than an actual celebration.  The film keeps us at a distance from the characters because the characters are doing the same thing among themselves.

 

And there were times when I could have sworn Oldman was doing a Guinness impersonation.  I don't know if he was consciously riffing on Guinness' version of Smiley, but there were moments where the resemblance was uncanny.

 

Oddly enough, for a film that keeps its emotional distance, the finale was surprisingly affecting.

post #32 of 119

According to a panel I watched of Oldman, he remembers the miniseries, but deliberately did not re-view it so that Guinness' performance wouldn't influence his own. So any similarities arise purely from the nature of the character.

post #33 of 119

Interesting.  It's not an imitation, but there are moments where he sounds just like a late-80s Guinness.

post #34 of 119


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Interesting.  It's not an imitation, but there are moments where he sounds just like a late-80s Guinness.



I thought so too. His voice inflections are exactly like Guinness is some scenes.

post #35 of 119

I don't see it.

 

 

Oldman's more like Bowie in Susan Sarandon's waiting room in THE HUNGER.

post #36 of 119

Wow. I just realized I was completely confused during the film's climax in regards to the big reveal of the mole.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I'd seen the Alec Guinness miniseries so I knew who the mole was, but I had no clue how the audience was supposed to figure it out in the movie. After some thinking, I just realized the mistake I made. The scene where Benedict Cumberbatch races to the safe house to see who turned up is so darkly lit that I mistook Oldman sitting in the chair with the gun for Toby Jones! Now things make sense. :)

 

post #37 of 119

Oldman is great as always, but I got so lost during this, and not in a good way.

post #38 of 119

Okay, am I the only one that took the ending shot as (highlight to read)Smilie was Karla and used an intricate plot of deceit to orchestrate his way into Control's position?

post #39 of 119

I was wondering something like that too.  For a movie that played so secretively, the final moments of the film felt uncharacteristically 'cool' and 'triumphant.'  

post #40 of 119

It sort of makes sense if you consider that (highlight to read) Smilie is a disgruntled forced-out-of-the-job spy who had every motive in the world to conceive of this plan. Control fires him and Bill is fucking his wife. It also fits within the themes everyone in here is talking about. That all these guys are in this little world of theirs where there is no threat from the outside world anymore. The threat is made within. They're all basically after each others jobs.

post #41 of 119

That's good stuff!

post #42 of 119

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I kinda hate myself for saying this but... I was pretty bored by this.

 

It's GORGEOUS. The sheer detail in each scene is immaculate. Layers upon layers of detail in set design, props, shot composition, camera movements. It gets pretty intoxicating, particularly during certainly fairly claustrophobic scenes. And the score is one of the year's best, and there are plenty of professional actors disappearing into their roles.

 

But the story is secondary to that, a bit like small fries, kind of free-forming, without underlying suspense. I wasn't really interested where anything was going. It's plenty cold, which normally I think is a pretty dumb critique, but the story goes in so many directions that I found it hard to figure out what exactly I should be hoping would happen. The spy stuff felt pretty small scale, which was accurate, I suppose, but not altogether involving.

 

It reminded me a lot of when I took my father to see Breach. He had worked in the FBI, and had multiple interactions with the character in that film played by Chris Cooper. I thought it was a pretty engaging movie, and I asked my father what he thought. He said, "Yep, that's a lot like what FBI work was like," he said, adding, "fucking boring."

 

I wouldn't say this was "fucking boring," but the only really hot-blooded character is Tom Hardy. Everyone else is so tight-lipped, so cloak-and-dagger, and so mysterrrrrious that I wanted to know exactly I was looking for in this.


We can wallow in our hatred together! I caught it yesterday and, admittedly, knew nothing and my interest was initially piqued by the ensemble and when Nick started posting articles about his anticipation for it. I was warned that it started off slow, which is fine, but I expected it to pick up more than it did. I didn't hate it, but would say I mildly liked it (and thoroughly enjoyed Oldman's performance, which is pretty much a guarantee). To somewhat echo what my wife said afterwards, "by the time we got to the end to find out who the spy was, it/everyone was so dull that I didn't really even care." Needless to say, I'm a bit surprised to find this in so many peoples' top 10's this year.


Edited by Shaun H - 1/9/12 at 1:48pm
post #43 of 119

The Karla interpretation is... odd? That'd be some deeply hidden subtext.

 

The triumphant end is probably in large part due to the fact that they want to franchise this, oddly enough.

post #44 of 119

Um.  Smiley is decidedly not Karla.

post #45 of 119

But why not? Why is it the story he tells about running into Karla isn't ever seen in flashback when the whole film deals with nothing but flashbacks and flash forwards?

post #46 of 119

Wasn't Karla around before Smiley got let go?

post #47 of 119

That's one LONG CON!

post #48 of 119

Yes to Dickson.  Also, Karla's hand (with the lighter) is even seen at the beginning of the movie during the Hungary operation while everyone is at the Circus.  This film may have twists and turns, but it doesn't lie to the viewer.

 

Plus, in the Smiley books, Karla is an actual character who Smiley eventually brings to the West.  I think the triumphant tone at the end is just a bit of whimsy and playfulness that also plays into the theme other people have pointed out: this is a story of men who think they run the world but are in fact quite impotent at influencing global events (especially the UK, deep into its Imperial decline at this point).  All that these men control are their small little lives (and barely that).

post #49 of 119


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

Yes to Dickson.  Also, Karla's hand (with the lighter) is even seen at the beginning of the movie during the Hungary operation while everyone is at the Circus.  This film may have twists and turns, but it doesn't lie to the viewer.

 

Plus, in the Smiley books, Karla is an actual character who Smiley eventually brings to the West.  I think the triumphant tone at the end is just a bit of whimsy and playfulness that also plays into the theme other people have pointed out: this is a story of men who think they run the world but are in fact quite impotent at influencing global events (especially the UK, deep into its Imperial decline at this point).  All that these men control are their small little lives (and barely that).

That's true that someone's hand was in a shot and the lighter was seen but it's also Smilie's lighter, so that doesn't really verify it being REALLY Karla.
 

 

post #50 of 119

I think the joyful tone of the ending represents the triumph of emotion over the cold, sterile distance of the rest of the film.  Smiley and Guillam are clearly guided by emotion -- Smiley longs for his estranged wife, Guillam is genuinely distraught over having to turn his lover away -- so that smile Guillam gives Smiley on his return plays all the stronger after the reserved nature of everything that's gone before.  Even Prideaux shooting Haydon is a victory of passion over restraint, since it's done to atone for the betrayal Prideaux suffered.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY Post Release