Cambridge Spies

The BBC has once again shown that they can still create top quality drama. While there may be some historical issues with the script, one has to admire the fact that the characters are portrayed accurately and convincingly. Having just seen the last of the four-part series, I can comment that for entertainment value it is top notch.

Sure, some may argue the historical facts are inaccurate, or that the light spun upon the situation is somewhat different to how it was at the time, but much information about the infamous Cambridge spies is uncertain at best - in particular Kim Philby (Toby Stephens) is somewhat a mystery even today. Do not be fooled into thinking that this series is a documentary, it isn't. However, you will be forgiven for thinking that you are watching the actual events, with the locations, pieces and acting all first class.

Watch it with an open mind, as if it is fictional. You will be greatly rewarded, excited and even humoured at how four masterminds underplayed the archaic MI6 for their principals. I'd certainly recommend it.

Overall: 9/10 - Losing the ultimate 1 mark for seeming rushed in parts and sometimes making it hard to understand the relationships between the very complex characters - particularly at the start of the series.

Well made and acted but I'm afraid it didn't have the guts to show the reality of the result of their treason. Why did we not see the suffering and death of the agents whom the Cambridge spies betrayed? Why did they never confront the hypocrisy of helping a regime which sides with Hitler, imprisons its' population and regularly executes their KGB contact agents? It tries to be sympathetic to men who put their loyalty to their friends above their loyalty to their country, their colleagues and those they're supposed to be protecting. What's more even that is incredibly flawed, Blunt abandons the rest of the group to their fate, Philby sleeps with McClean's wife and sends Burgess to accompany him into exile behind the Iron Curtain unaware that he's never coming back to the UK (and will quickly drink himself to death in Moscow).

What's more it only seems to tell half the story, concentrating disproportionately on the recruitment process and the influence of the Spanish civil war on the group. We get none of the fallout from the defection which was a revelation in Britain at the time or Philby's infamous press conference which is still cited today as a classic example of how to lie, we never get Philby's flight from Beruit or McClean and Caincross' plea bargain. Perhaps the most sympathetic character in the whole story is James Jesus Angleton who appears to be the lone voice in the wilderness.

So all told a great series but do some research first.

I had heard and read about Kim Philby, of course, but not of the other ones, plus I was not aware of their past and story of formation. Realistic atmosphere, motives well explained and logical, vices and virtues of the protagonists, etc. - everything depicted in a skilful manner. And, of course, the performances, particularly Tom Hollander as Guy Burgess, but also the others - convincing, stylish, but also showing dangers of "elite" and closed communities where depravities are so easy to emerge and develop.

In retrospect, one may ponder on and over how the British authorities were so naive, but, on the other hand, it was an era without much technology and funding to deal with "the own"...

A very highly fictionalised account - but why did it need to be? The story of the Cambridge Five really did deserve better than this.

As drama it can't be faulted, but as a depiction of historical events it left much to be desired. We British are prone to look down upon the American TV movie, and for all the same reasons that were evident in the Cambridge Spies.

The story of the Five is well known enough for me not to have to point out the inaccuracies involved in this production, but beyond that I had no real sense of time and place, and certainly no sense of the evil these men did and the horrors and tragedies that came about as a result of their activities. In four hours there was room enough to get it right.

Some events were tick-boxed in glib exchanges, others rendered risible - the horror of Guernica reduced to one aged aeroplane with German markings, a mother, her son, the rattle of gunfire, the inevitable priest who rushes to the aid of the dead boy.

Philby lost his stammer, MacLean's bisexuality was never hinted at, Burgess became almost a paragon of virtue compared with the reality of the man, and Blunt...

The appeal of this series was, whatever the BBC might say, that it was based around real events. In that case I feel the viewer has a right to expect factual accuracy, otherwise the fictionalisation may as well have extended to the substitution of fictional names for the characters, and the excising of the "what happened next" text before the end-credits.

As BBC drama this was well up to standard, as BBC factual drama it took a long step in the wrong direction.

Since no one has said so yet, it seems necessary to add this.

The series is an excellent drama, in every way - no doubt about that. Well worth watching.

BUT.

And that is the point: The subject of this drama is politics, international affairs, government, intelligence - and these are largely absent from the drama.

So if you are prepared to enjoy a view of the events from the perspective of the personal lives of the main characters, then all is fine. But if you were looking for more than tenuous references to the events and forces at play in the world, and an account of how the characters of the story were involved in those events and forces, you will miss something...

This is not to say that it's a bad drama - it's still excellent. And lavishly designed and produced.

But those political events and forces were of historic importance. At a time where the world was still strongly driven by ideological currents, and there was a ruthless struggle for world domination.

In my view, that is even higher drama, and I missed those connections.