El topo

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

*** (out of 4)

Gary Oldman plays George Smiley, a retired British agent who is placed back into the field to try and uncover the identity a mole within the ranks of the M16's who is giving information to Russia. TINKER TAYLOR SOLDIER SPY, adapted from John le Carre's novel, is certainly a very well-made movie and it features some terrific performances but I must admit that I got lost several times. It seems most people are commenting that they can't figure out the story and it seems many people are hating the movie for this and I can't blame them. However, even though I couldn't figure out all of the plot points, this type of confusion reminded me of THE BIG SLEEP with Humphrey Bogart, another movie where you couldn't follow the story but that didn't take away from the entertainment. Director Tomas Alfredson (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) does a marvelous job at keeping the film moving at a good pace even though it's deliberately a very slow one. It seems like the director wants to get every bit of detail within the frame so there are very slow, drawn out sequences where not much happens but you can look around and just about everything will grab your attention because you never know if it's a clue or not. I really loved the cold atmosphere that he brought to the film and it's almost identical to his vampire movie. The other very strong point is that you got some terrific actors doing strong work. Oldman is so great here that I'm surprised he's gotten as much attention as he has. This isn't James Bond and there's not a single bit of flash to his character but that's what makes the performance so great. I'm sure most actors would have wanted to add more flair to the part and this is something that Oldman did in many of his early great performances. He doesn't do that here and instead he really gives such a low-key performance that you just sit there riveted because his eyes tell you everything you need to know. What also impressed me was the way he came off to be constantly thinking about everything he's taking in. Several actors have talked that it's important to listen and think while on camera and Oldman does that brilliantly here. It certainly doesn't hurt that you have impressive support by Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds, David Hencik, John Hurt and Tom Hardy. Again, the story makes very little sense or at least to me, someone who hasn't read the novel but everything else is just so perfectly done that the film remains entertaining.

If you like intricate plots, this is a good flick to watch. To catch all the details, though, I recommend watching it twice. Surprising how much more sense the story makes the second time around. The details fit together like a find Swiss watch. To catch all the heavy British accent dialog, consider enabling subtitles.

You know. When you are dealing with a complex writer like LeCarre, you are going to get a complex movie. Unfortunately, to the casual viewer, there's an awful lot that is going on that is grounded in the long dark past. While the story of the search for a mole in the network is a valid pivot point, there are so many intricacies that you are left to guess. Perhaps I am not that bright, but I need a bit more. I guess the question is, do I need a George Smiley playbook or a stack of books to follow this film. If that's the case, how many people can appreciate this? The time period in issue is really in the fairly distant past. I have to agree that so much of what we see is really dumbed down, but when the plots are so slowly developed and depend on so much inside stuff, even the astute viewer is left in the lurch. It isn't that I didn't like it. But I may have to give it another shot to really appreciate it.

Jazz music comes from musicians "playing around the notes". In other words, instead of playing the root notes on the downbeat, they deliberately omit the obvious melody, and fill in the spaces with embellishments that suggest the primary structure. For the educated ear, the way the musician artfully colours between the lines is the source of entertainment. As a moviegoer, I don't mind being presented a puzzle, where you have to think a bit at how the movie is playing around the more conventional spy thriller notes. Strangely, this well heeled story may have become more of a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing purely because of the running time. Reportedly the running time was much longer in the original cut, so these holes in the story may have been cut out of necessity.

I am writing this review after watching it a second time, and can say that all the motives and activities are accounted for. I have to commend screenwriters as well as the editor for patching together a complex but intricately told tale. Part of the fun is being aware of the ride you are being taken on. For instance, George Smiley, our main character, is seen a great deal of time without every actually speaking. And when he does speak, it is very calculated, since he doesn't know quite who to trust. There is a subtext about secret sexual relationships, where Smiley's wife appears in a couple scenes but you never see her face. The main group of suspects are a who's who of familiar faces from some of the best films in the last decade. The supporting cast delivers poignant exposition and avoids stereotype dialogue. I could easily see how someone may not like the longer gaps in explanation as to why a certain character appears to be dead and suddenly is alive in an unexpected way. But a similar type of mystery surrounds each of the main characters, and is eventually played out as part of the larger payoff, who is the traitor in the British intelligence service? The greatest appreciation one can have is the ability of the filmmakers to tell a story this complex using visual cues as much as possible. Key moments in the story are told with spare conversation, allowing the audience to mentally piece together what is implied. The stone faced hero played by Gary Oldman, is akin the quiet hero, such as the tight lipped vigilante gunslinger, who carefully carries out justice.

It really is interesting to read the above reviews. I've just come back from seeing it and thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wondered if for people who hadn't read the book or seen the TV series it would make sense, and obviously it doesn't. It also doesn't fit the change in perception that the current generation have needing an edit at least every 5 seconds and a linear storyline, that's not ageist, just what we in a much older generation have left as our inheritance, sadly. I really enjoyed the film references whether they are intentional or not, they range from Rear Window to La Nuit Americaine to Mr Bean's Holiday to Godard. Gary Oldman as Smiley is very good, much colder that AG and as in the book a bit younger. It is also less of the feel of a group of Oxbridge Dons in charge rather ex servicemen as MI5 was in those days. I was in my 20's in the early 1970's and the general dullness of everything during that time comes through very well. I would think that after they edited it they wished they hadn't had some rather crass graffiti so prominent, but I remember it was all over London at that time. Good film with a plot that makes you concentrate and you have to use your brain, well worth seeing, but don't go if you want thrills and spills.