Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Discussion
I struggle to find anything wrong with it at all. it was a couple of hours of cinematic delight.
I think that those who found it obscure, were simply not approaching it in the right frame of mind. You have to sit back and take it in, scene by scene, like you would one of the french classics. It isn't and never should have been one of those tramline sequential plots or a shoot'em up style of film.
Le Carre's book is a masterpiece, nothing wrong with the plot then.
Period atmosphere, including cars, buildings, clothes, decor, technology and excessive consumption of whisky and cigarettes, was perfect. I even had a schoolmaster in the 70's who had a rented flat and an old Delage. I preferred the older Alvis in the TV series, if that is a criticism. In the early 70's you could have picked one of those up for the price of a beer, whereas the later model Prideaux had would still have been a pricy little asset. It should however be said that if you were watching the TV adaptation in 1979, you were still in the Cold War, Blunt had only just been outed, MI5 were watching Harold Wilson (or recently had been). Some MP's (like Tom Driberg) were suspected of being in the pay of the Soviet Union. The paranoia, mistrust and fear of the time was ever present, and TTSS had a sharper edge as a result. Also, you initially half expected James Bond, by contrast to which this is very gritty reality indeed.
Acting was of a very high calibre. Colin Firth has been criticised, but I don't see why. Like Alec Guinness in the 70's, every expression was made to count. He was up there with Ian Richardson, maybe even better if that is possible. Perhaps Mark Strong was less true to the period than Ian Bannen had been. Still terrific. Gary Oldman could not other than have started by doing an Alec Guinness tribute. At times I would have sworn that Alec Guinness was on the screen. But Oldman grew into the part as the film went on.
Every scene made its point. Every second mattered, if not in developing the story, then in enhancing the atmosphere. So I would not fault the direction.
If you haven't seen it, do. What matters now, of course is what they do with the remaining books.
I think that those who found it obscure, were simply not approaching it in the right frame of mind. You have to sit back and take it in, scene by scene, like you would one of the french classics. It isn't and never should have been one of those tramline sequential plots or a shoot'em up style of film.
Le Carre's book is a masterpiece, nothing wrong with the plot then.
Period atmosphere, including cars, buildings, clothes, decor, technology and excessive consumption of whisky and cigarettes, was perfect. I even had a schoolmaster in the 70's who had a rented flat and an old Delage. I preferred the older Alvis in the TV series, if that is a criticism. In the early 70's you could have picked one of those up for the price of a beer, whereas the later model Prideaux had would still have been a pricy little asset. It should however be said that if you were watching the TV adaptation in 1979, you were still in the Cold War, Blunt had only just been outed, MI5 were watching Harold Wilson (or recently had been). Some MP's (like Tom Driberg) were suspected of being in the pay of the Soviet Union. The paranoia, mistrust and fear of the time was ever present, and TTSS had a sharper edge as a result. Also, you initially half expected James Bond, by contrast to which this is very gritty reality indeed.
Acting was of a very high calibre. Colin Firth has been criticised, but I don't see why. Like Alec Guinness in the 70's, every expression was made to count. He was up there with Ian Richardson, maybe even better if that is possible. Perhaps Mark Strong was less true to the period than Ian Bannen had been. Still terrific. Gary Oldman could not other than have started by doing an Alec Guinness tribute. At times I would have sworn that Alec Guinness was on the screen. But Oldman grew into the part as the film went on.
Every scene made its point. Every second mattered, if not in developing the story, then in enhancing the atmosphere. So I would not fault the direction.
If you haven't seen it, do. What matters now, of course is what they do with the remaining books.
Well I watched this last night and I was very impressed.
Possibly the most realistic spy film for a long long time, very well acted, beautifully shot, the music was fantastic in it, the story is of course brilliant and as for how obvious the traitor was? Those I went to see it with thought it could have been any of them. What went on in the witchcraft house wasn't too clear to me, but I'm sure it will be fine when I watch it again.
Every scene mattered, if a scene left you confused, it made sense as the story progressed. The acting as fantastic as were the sets. One scene in particular I thought was shocking in the truest sense of the word, I didnt really expect what happened.
Slow paced but it was never going to be anything but.
The move from Czechoslovakia to Hungary didnt damage the story nor the move to Turkey from Hong Kong. Worked perfectly.
Makes me want a DS though, that is pure style and sophistication.
Possibly the most realistic spy film for a long long time, very well acted, beautifully shot, the music was fantastic in it, the story is of course brilliant and as for how obvious the traitor was? Those I went to see it with thought it could have been any of them. What went on in the witchcraft house wasn't too clear to me, but I'm sure it will be fine when I watch it again.
Every scene mattered, if a scene left you confused, it made sense as the story progressed. The acting as fantastic as were the sets. One scene in particular I thought was shocking in the truest sense of the word, I didnt really expect what happened.
Slow paced but it was never going to be anything but.
The move from Czechoslovakia to Hungary didnt damage the story nor the move to Turkey from Hong Kong. Worked perfectly.
Makes me want a DS though, that is pure style and sophistication.
not seen the film yet but he does the same in the series. i just took it as him wanting to remain stone facd in front of smiley, would smoke the cigs back in his cell, and just stole the lighter as a trophy of the encounter.
later, the mole tries to nick his pen in the same manner, which he doesn't allow to happen.
PS - looking back on the series, there's a dead giveaway who the mole is, but i didn't want to believe it as it was so glaring.
later, the mole tries to nick his pen in the same manner, which he doesn't allow to happen.
PS - looking back on the series, there's a dead giveaway who the mole is, but i didn't want to believe it as it was so glaring.
It's got a few connotations ,that one:
1) Cigarettes could be easily drugged/poisoned. A Spy under interrogation would want to be very careful about what he ingested.
2) He is a hard arsed, die hard communist who despises the West. He won't accept a gift from the West, but he WILL steal from them. The accepting of a gift also demands reciprocity. Theft doesn't - you're disrespecting the victim in taking advantage of them
3) It's a personal memento for him. Cigarettes are disposable, but it's clear Karla cherishes the lighter as a token that he has survived the best efforts of the West to break him. He is ,after all, using it years later.
Put it this way, If you had a chance to get one over your biggest rival in the world ,to stare him in the eye ,beat him, and walk away to continue making his life hell, wouldn't you want a permanent reminder of that moment?
1) Cigarettes could be easily drugged/poisoned. A Spy under interrogation would want to be very careful about what he ingested.
2) He is a hard arsed, die hard communist who despises the West. He won't accept a gift from the West, but he WILL steal from them. The accepting of a gift also demands reciprocity. Theft doesn't - you're disrespecting the victim in taking advantage of them
3) It's a personal memento for him. Cigarettes are disposable, but it's clear Karla cherishes the lighter as a token that he has survived the best efforts of the West to break him. He is ,after all, using it years later.
Put it this way, If you had a chance to get one over your biggest rival in the world ,to stare him in the eye ,beat him, and walk away to continue making his life hell, wouldn't you want a permanent reminder of that moment?
Halb said:
shirt said:
PS - looking back on the series, there's a dead giveaway who the mole is, but i didn't want to believe it as it was so glaring.
What's that?cardigankid said:
I struggle to find anything wrong with it at all. it was a couple of hours of cinematic delight.
I think that those who found it obscure, were simply not approaching it in the right frame of mind. You have to sit back and take it in, scene by scene, like you would one of the french classics. It isn't and never should have been one of those tramline sequential plots or a shoot'em up style of film.
Le Carre's book is a masterpiece, nothing wrong with the plot then.
Period atmosphere, including cars, buildings, clothes, decor, technology and excessive consumption of whisky and cigarettes, was perfect. I even had a schoolmaster in the 70's who had a rented flat and an old Delage. I preferred the older Alvis in the TV series, if that is a criticism. In the early 70's you could have picked one of those up for the price of a beer, whereas the later model Prideaux had would still have been a pricy little asset. It should however be said that if you were watching the TV adaptation in 1979, you were still in the Cold War, Blunt had only just been outed, MI5 were watching Harold Wilson (or recently had been). Some MP's (like Tom Driberg) were suspected of being in the pay of the Soviet Union. The paranoia, mistrust and fear of the time was ever present, and TTSS had a sharper edge as a result. Also, you initially half expected James Bond, by contrast to which this is very gritty reality indeed.
Acting was of a very high calibre. Colin Firth has been criticised, but I don't see why. Like Alec Guinness in the 70's, every expression was made to count. He was up there with Ian Richardson, maybe even better if that is possible. Perhaps Mark Strong was less true to the period than Ian Bannen had been. Still terrific. Gary Oldman could not other than have started by doing an Alec Guinness tribute. At times I would have sworn that Alec Guinness was on the screen. But Oldman grew into the part as the film went on.
Every scene made its point. Every second mattered, if not in developing the story, then in enhancing the atmosphere. So I would not fault the direction.
If you haven't seen it, do. What matters now, of course is what they do with the remaining books.
I agree totally. Couldn't say it any better. Great movie. Go see.I think that those who found it obscure, were simply not approaching it in the right frame of mind. You have to sit back and take it in, scene by scene, like you would one of the french classics. It isn't and never should have been one of those tramline sequential plots or a shoot'em up style of film.
Le Carre's book is a masterpiece, nothing wrong with the plot then.
Period atmosphere, including cars, buildings, clothes, decor, technology and excessive consumption of whisky and cigarettes, was perfect. I even had a schoolmaster in the 70's who had a rented flat and an old Delage. I preferred the older Alvis in the TV series, if that is a criticism. In the early 70's you could have picked one of those up for the price of a beer, whereas the later model Prideaux had would still have been a pricy little asset. It should however be said that if you were watching the TV adaptation in 1979, you were still in the Cold War, Blunt had only just been outed, MI5 were watching Harold Wilson (or recently had been). Some MP's (like Tom Driberg) were suspected of being in the pay of the Soviet Union. The paranoia, mistrust and fear of the time was ever present, and TTSS had a sharper edge as a result. Also, you initially half expected James Bond, by contrast to which this is very gritty reality indeed.
Acting was of a very high calibre. Colin Firth has been criticised, but I don't see why. Like Alec Guinness in the 70's, every expression was made to count. He was up there with Ian Richardson, maybe even better if that is possible. Perhaps Mark Strong was less true to the period than Ian Bannen had been. Still terrific. Gary Oldman could not other than have started by doing an Alec Guinness tribute. At times I would have sworn that Alec Guinness was on the screen. But Oldman grew into the part as the film went on.
Every scene made its point. Every second mattered, if not in developing the story, then in enhancing the atmosphere. So I would not fault the direction.
If you haven't seen it, do. What matters now, of course is what they do with the remaining books.
tonym911 said:
Must say I found it impenetrable. Admittedly I was pretty tired after a 400-mile drive, and I haven't read the book, but I only had the most tenuous grasp as to what was going on. My 20yr old daughter (studying at Edinburgh Uni) was concentrating throughout but confessed to being lost. The emotionless school of acting is all very well but as a viewer I could have done with a few more visual leg-ups to know what one character was thinking, either about another character or the situation they were in. Suspect reading the book might have helped but that shouldn't be a pre-requisite for enjoying the movie. Having said that, the attention to period detail was extraordinary.
Likewise. My dad raved about it, I've never read the books or seen the TV drama and I just couldn't get into it. Couldn't make sense of the story, didn't care about any of the characters, got irritated by the frequent use of shallow DoF, was checking my watch from 20 mins in which is always a bad sign. Maybe seeing it less tired would have helped, I might read the book and give it another go. It really shouldn't be a prerequisite to following/enjoying the film though - I suspect all involved in the production (and those praising it) are too familiar with the source material to judge it as a standalone work.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff