Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

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.

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.

There is a certain snobbery with films that require more than a small amount of attention – an opinion that if you even ask about a small detail that you missed that you should then go watch Transformers and leave real films to the grownups. It is unpleasant superiority and it is mostly undeserved because to be honest this is a hard film to follow and it does demand attention. Those wishing to insult me via private message can do so, but I did struggle several times to understand how things fitted together and what relevance certain scenes had. This didn't limit my enjoyment of the film though and mostly I still followed the broad stroke of the plot, even if some bits of it did lose me.

I've not read the tome of a book or seen the BBC mini-series, so I can't comment how well it compresses down to this two-hour film, but for me it did at times seem to be cramming a lot into a small time and occasionally it felt like it was unnecessarily convoluted or confusing. If you stay with it as best you can, it is intriguing and rather dramatic considering that much of the film is people talking to one another as opposed to chases and gun fights. The success of this is mostly down to the atmosphere and tone created by director Alfredson, because there is a constant tension to the film – cold perhaps, but very tense at times, certainly not bored even if it can look that way from a distance.

This is not what he does best though, because to there was an aspect to the film that was excellent and this was the feeling of outdatedness, of an unnecessary function and a pointless "war". This feeling is in the characters, in the set-decoration and in every shot. The men we follow had the height of their import many years ago – now it appears they are mainly fighting their equal numbers on the other side simply because they exist. I really liked this overarching sense of smallness that sat across the film and I enjoyed finding it being employed in even the smallest detail – in the attitude of a minor character through to the cheap "do not unplug" text scrawled on the wall (those that work in older offices will know this feeling). Alfredson is bang on the money with this feeling, it is part of the story and it is brilliantly delivered throughout.

Speaking of brilliant delivery, the cast is deep in British talent and unsurprisingly they deliver. Oldman may not have won the Oscar but he is great here – working with restraint and doing so much. He does so much with minor reactions and movements and he is a great character. He is the lead here but alongside him is a cast that is hard not to just list – Cumberbach, Hurt, Jones, Firth, Burke, Graham, Hardy and so on; British all perhaps but it says a lot that almost all of the supporting players here will be recognised internationally. Everyone gives strong performances and everyone seems to understand what Alfredson is doing.

Overall, this is a great film albeit one that is not as easy to follow as those impatient snobs would have you believe. It is OK to struggle with some aspects and it is still easy to enjoy the film. The plot engaged me but what stayed with me more than anything else was how it all seemed so unimportant, how those involved were all working to ignore the irrelevance of their work and how very tired this world seemed – this aspect was very well done and made the film as much as Oldman's strong central performance.

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.

Fans of mystery writer John LeCarre will be delighted with this artistic "film noir" style interpretation of his best selling spy novel "Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy". Performances by Gary Oldman as the quietly brilliant George Smiley and Colin Firth as a mysterious leading character create all the viewer should need to enjoy this movie; but, having read LeCarre's book helps, as watching the artistry of the film goes only so far. Eventually, the viewer must come to an understanding of the plot- a story about the way clandestine operations were executed, figuratively and otherwise, in the days post Cold War. Lots of Sherlock Holmes ponder- thinking goes into Smiley's ultimate conclusions, which makes this story a classic. Oldman is the perfect Smiley, so he kept the often confusing script together, simply by bringing LeCarre's lead spy to life. I recommend this movie but also suggest the viewer enjoy LeCarre's book prior to viewing. Wonderful performances throughout the film.