Sign in to follow this  
Patrick R

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Recommended Posts

I watched Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for a second time and it opened up for me a little bit. I'll re-post my Letterboxd review here:

-----------------

My second time seeing this, though my first time maybe qualifies more as an "attempt". It's clear Alfredson wants to formally evoke the nebulous world of spycraft, a world where nothing is for certain and honesty can never be assumed. He jumps around in time, space and perspective a little too quickly, cutting from establishing shots a little too soon, obscuring the subjects with foreground objects a little too much. There's a moment where we see a form being signed and at the very moment focus is racked to the point where we can make out what the form is he cuts away. If you can define Spielberg's work by narrative clarity, you can define Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy by the opposite. It's only on this second viewing, knowing the story going in, that I was able to make head or tails of anything.

 

And, in some ways, Alfredson's gambit pays off beautifully. Watching this really does feel like being suspended in amber, never quite getting enough air, never really able to grasp the whole picture. It doesn't exactly make us empathize with Smiley, the calm in the middle of the storm, but it does successfully get across the feeling that national intelligence is a gross and unappealing existential nightmare. The appropriate response to being in most situations in this film is to have a panic attack. Everyone wants to be James Bond, kissing a beautiful woman on the beach. I wouldn't trade lives with a single person here.

 

However, all this discomfort and confusion cuts both ways. With a narrative that's near impossible to follow on a cause-effect level, and characters who are impossible to connect to on an emotional level, the best thing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy actually has going for it is it's weirdly fetishistic 70's Brit-drab aesthetic. Alfredson worships industrial tans and greys the way Winding-Refn worships neon reds, and somehow the result is nearly as striking. But Alfredson cuts too fast, shows too little of his sets, and makes the audience ask "Where and when am I?" on the arrival of too many new scenes.

 

What does the Circus actually look like in this film? How is the office arranged? Where does who work and why? What does it all look like, their decor and equipment? In a film strictly concerned with narrative, all these could be shrugged off as irrelevant. In this film it feels like missed opportunity. In refusing to stop and take a breath, Alfredson teases us with his carefully cultivated aesthetic but never lets us enjoy it. Then again, this film is anti-enjoyment, anti-pleasure. Still, I prefer the narrative clarity and moral ambiguity of The Spy Who Came In From the Cold to the moral clarity and narrative ambiguity on display here.

-----------------

 

I certainly liked it much more the second time around, but I know a lot of folks here (at the very least, the hosts of Idle Thumbs) like it even more than that. I wonder if, like the Harry Potter movies, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a film that works best when you've read the book, when you already know these characters and their inner lives (assuming Le Carré depicts their inner lives), and don't need to work out what's going on through the film itself. I would be curious to know if there's anyone who didn't read the book and had no problem following the story here.

 

Also, Alfredson finally returns with a new film, The Snowman, this year and I wonder if his style in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (which feels like an escalation of his style in Let The Right One In) will continue to refine itself there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick R said:

I certainly liked it much more the second time around, but I know a lot of folks here (at the very least, the hosts of Idle Thumbs) like it even more than that. I wonder if, like the Harry Potter movies, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a film that works best when you've read the book, when you already know these characters and their inner lives (assuming Le Carré depicts their inner lives), and don't need to work out what's going on through the film itself. I would be curious to know if there's anyone who didn't read the book and had no problem following the story here.

 

I had never read the book (or any of Le Carré's books) and enjoyed the movie immensely, particularly its hyper-austere direction. I had the final twist spoiled for me (although, honestly, I feel like it was already spoiled for me by casting) but nothing else, and I only had a mildly pleasant amount of difficulty following the plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the book is required to enjoy the film at all. They share plot/characters/setting/theme - in that way it's obviously a very faithful sounding adaptation - but it communicates them in ways wholly different from the book. The Harry Potter films at their worst feel like visual companions to the film, like the set of color photographs bound into the middle of a biography or historical story book for children to give them something tangible to picture as they read along.* 

 

I think the Tinker Tailor film is an exercise in giving the bare minimum pieces needed to see the shape of the puzzle and trusting the audience (and Smiley) to see the rest for themselves in their minds eye (and to be saddened and frustrated that what they see can never be objectively shown and made plain in the light of day). If that sort of thing isn't satisfying to you, you probably won't be very satisfied with the movie (or the book, or most of Le Carre's other writing from that era).

 

 

 

* I find this super disappointing in the case of the Harry Potter movies because the books are so visually evocative on their own! The aesthetic and tone they pump out infect kids dreams and imaginations so potently, a pure visual rendering on film is totally not needed. Those movies are a huge quandering of opportunity 95% of the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jake said:

I don't think the book is required to enjoy the film at all. They share plot/characters/setting/theme - in that way it's obviously a very faithful sounding adaptation - but it communicates them in ways wholly different from the book. The Harry Potter films at their worst feel like visual companions to the film, like the set of color photographs bound into the middle of a biography or historical story book for children to give them something tangible to picture as they read along.* 

 

I think the Tinker Tailor film is an exercise in giving the bare minimum pieces needed to see the shape of the puzzle and trusting the audience (and Smiley) to see the rest for themselves in their minds eye (and to be saddened and frustrated that what they see can never be objectively shown and made plain in the light of day). If that sort of thing isn't satisfying to you, you probably won't be very satisfied with the movie (or the book, or most of Le Carre's other writing from that era).

 

 

 

* I find this super disappointing in the case of the Harry Potter movies because the books are so visually evocative on their own! The aesthetic and tone they pump out infect kids dreams and imaginations so potently, a pure visual rendering on film is totally not needed. Those movies are a huge quandering of opportunity 95% of the time.  

I have seen the film three or four times now and actually just finished the book today. There are definitely a few scenes that make more sense with the more fleshed out info in the book, but I feel like the film does stand up on its own overall.

Has anyone here seen the 1979 miniseries version? I saw it a long time ago and barely remember it. I am interested in re-watching both now that I have read all the books leading up to and including Tinker Tailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the Alec Guinness tv series and liked it, but its long enough ago that I don't have much to say about it. It's on youtube if anyone's curious: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third viewing in (a while back), and Tinker Tailor has grown to be one of my favorite movies of all time. I have also never read the book, though I did read The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and really enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cordeos said:

I have seen the film three or four times now and actually just finished the book today. There are definitely a few scenes that make more sense with the more fleshed out info in the book, but I feel like the film does stand up on its own overall.

Has anyone here seen the 1979 miniseries version? I saw it a long time ago and barely remember it. I am interested in re-watching both now that I have read all the books leading up to and including Tinker Tailor.

Yeah, fair enough - for instance, the scenes with Anne are an example of scenes which have more specific meaning and which your brain can apply knowledge of backstory if you have read the book, but it seemed like a super deliberate choice by the director to not include that storyline in the film. If one considers "it contains more information about the plot" an improvement by default, reading the book would be an additive experience that might "improve" the movie for you, but I definitely don't hold an opinion like that* and think the film did a great job at choosing which scenes to include, which plot to include, and had its own good reasons for it. For their purposes, I think having less worked in their favor.

 

 

*I'm not saying you do either, Cordeos! This post is a thought that is an offshoot from what you said, not intended to be at odds with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jake said:

Yeah, fair enough - for instance, the scenes with Anne are an example of scenes which have more specific meaning and which your brain can apply knowledge of backstory if you have read the book, but it seemed like a super deliberate choice by the director to not include that storyline in the film. If one considers "it contains more information about the plot" an improvement by default, reading the book would be an additive experience that might "improve" the movie for you, but I definitely don't hold an opinion like that* and think the film did a great job at choosing which scenes to include, which plot to include, and had its own good reasons for it. For their purposes, I think having less worked in their favor.

 

 

*I'm not saying you do either, Cordeos! This post is a thought that is an offshoot from what you said, not intended to be at odds with it.

No worries :)

I do have a distinct memory of being confused about many details of the film, they were mostly cleared up by watching it again later, but I do prefer to have confusing elements explained. I am currently watching the miniseries, its a much more direct translation of the book into film. Although it did make some changes to the order in which the story was told. I will probably always prefer books to films because they are not as limited by run time or budget, but I can see how a more succinct or stylized version can be more appealing.

Side note, I found that of the Smiley books I have read so far I enjoyed Tinker the most, I wonder if its because I already had a relationship with it through the film and miniseries. I also want to check out the film version of The Spy Who Came in From the Cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should be clear: I also don't think reading the book is required to enjoy the film. I, in fact, enjoyed* the film. 

 

Clearly my theory that those who really love this movie are bringing knowledge of the book into it has been disproven (at least anecdotally). 

 

I like that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy trusts it's audience. I like films that are very impressionistic and only give you just enough info to make connections. The Blue Room is a really fascinating movie in this way (it has a highly typical romantic thriller plot, just fractured and approached from oblique angles and time-jumping), as are the films of Claire Denis. In fact, my favorite movie of all-time is Upstream Color for this very reason (among others). I've specifically been trying to think why that film (which is arguably more confusing and hard to piece together) speaks to me so much while Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy doesn't, and I've come up with a two things.

 

  1. Upstream Color is, for me, an emotionally driven experience. You may not know what's going on from time to time, but everything has a certain surreal emotional logic to it. I'm deeply invested in the characters, even if I don't know exactly what they're going through.
  2. While the big picture of Upstream Color is ambiguous, surreal and operates on a metaphysical level, on a scene-by-scene, shot-by-shot level, you almost always know what's happening. Why Amy Seimetz is piling rocks on the side of the pool is open to interpretation, but that she is doing it is never in question.

I think the lack of emotional core can be just a taste thing (certainly not every movie needs to have one, and maybe you found Smiley's character moving in some way), but I think we may disagree on the clarity angle. I agree that all the info you need to follow the story is in the film. I think all the info you need is in the script. But, for me, the way Alfredson shoots it often seems intent not on giving the audience only what they need, but making it hard for the audience to get what they need. Unfortunately, to really show you what I mean I'd have sit down and take it shot by shot, edit by edit. But that's the way it felt for me, and I believe it was Alfredson's intent to do so. I just think that choice, matched with the already complex narrative told quickly and glancingly, was a counter-productive one. 

 

Which is to say, I found it's depressing tone and oppressive atmosphere compelling, and liked the performances when scenes went on long enough to appreciate them. I called the film itself anti-enjoyment because of it's particular disinterest in providing the audience with levity and simple aesthetic pleasures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2017 at 11:44 AM, juv3nal said:

I've seen the Alec Guinness tv series and liked it, but its long enough ago that I don't have much to say about it. It's on youtube if anyone's curious: 

 

 

As a piece of film I prefer the 2011 adaptation (unsurprisingly, as it's one of my favorite movies). However, I think Alec Guinness is a significantly better Smiley. Oldman as Smiley is almost a cipher working as the engine at the heart of the dismal machinery of the film; I think it works extremely well. Guinness as Smiley, on the other hand, is actually playing the character of George Smiley, elder spymaster, and he's fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

As a piece of film I prefer the 2011 adaptation (unsurprisingly, as it's one of my favorite movies). However, I think Alec Guinness is a significantly better Smiley. Oldman as Smiley is almost a cipher working as the engine at the heart of the dismal machinery of the film; I think it works extremely well. Guinness as Smiley, on the other hand, is actually playing the character of George Smiley, elder spymaster, and he's fantastic.

He is definitely a perfect old British man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the book and seen the movie three times (read the book first) and I'd actually argue that the book does make it easier to appreciate the movie, but not because it makes the plot clearer. In fact, the book presents the plot in just as opaque a method as the movie (although, interestingly, the two reveal their secrets in almost an opposite order). But having read the book first, the disjointedness and opacity of the movie were much more tolerable for me. I knew that they weren't due to my failing to understand something or the director failing to communicate it. Rather, that was the deliberate aesthetic of the story.

 

I also think it helps a lot for the big spoiler. I'll just pop that whole part out:

Spoiler

I've often heard people say (as Gormongous alluded to earlier) that the casting of Colin Firth ruins the reveal at the end of the movie, because obviously the biggest name actor is going to be the bad guy. But that's the entire point. In the book, Bill Haydon (Firth's character) is the obvious number one suspect for the whole thing. He occupies a much bigger space in the story than anybody else. Even when suspicion swerves elsewhere, you're always thinking in the back of your head "okay, but still, it's gotta be Haydon, right?" And that's exactly what Smiley's thinking and exactly why Smiley doesn't suspect him. He's too obvious a choice - it would have to be somebody smaller, somebody less directly connected to Smiley. And that's why the twist works and why Firth's casting works. When it's revealed that Haydon's the spy, it's supposed to be deflating. You didn't want it to be him, because it was too obvious and that's what made him such a good spy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UHNN, that is exactly what I loved about reading The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. It shows this inscrutible game where the spy's objective is to make themselves seem like a worthless, low-value target that couldn't possibly be relevant/dangerous/interesting. And how utterly deep and all-consuming the act is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the 2011 film last night so I now have the book, miniseries and film all fresh in my mind.

 

Some thoughts below

Spoiler

I found it interesting that the mini-series totally dropped the scenes with Jim and Roach at the school. It's probably the least critical part in terms of the broader story so it makes sense. Interesting that the film spends some of its more limited time with it.

The one thing I really miss in the 2011 film is the sub-plot from the book where characters keep thinking they are being followed, but then deciding or pretending they weren't. The miniseries makes it pretty clear that Jim is the one following them. The book makes it more obscure, but since I had seen the movie first I knew who it was. I wonder what I would have thought had I read the book first. I like the being followed subplot because it pairs well with the self deception where everyone knew Haydon was a mole but no one is willing to admit it.

 

Overall I liked the book the most and thought the mini-series was the weakest, since it doesn't really do anything the book doesn't. I like the style of the 2011 film, but still prefer the more robust story told in the book.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this