Cambridge Spies

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.

High production values and a great story drive this excellent show along at just the right pace. Never rushed or drawn-out. A few oddities with the script - some things don't seem to flow right but minor. Perhaps the editor put a few bits of film in the wrong place! David Higgs' photography is a joy to watch - it would almost be worth watching without any sound! Aspiring DPs (directors of photography)should look at his lighting, framing and camera movement. Lovely use of long lenses to separate the characters from the background. Older DPs should start to worry!

While not unhistorical, this is a very garbled and misleading presentation of the spies in question. Presumably, historical truth is sacrificed for dramatic reasons. But Cambridge Spies doesn't manage to rise to the level of drama. It's melodrama. There are moments when, if you turn off the sound, you'd swear you were watching a not very good silent movie: sentimental and over-wrought. The Guernica scene is a case in point; Guy Burgess, emoting in the rain, lamenting the death of Julian Bell is another. Rather a waste of acting talent. The main characters in this effort have each done other work that displays their talents to much better effect.

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.

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"...