Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (movie)

Muzman on 1/7/2011 at 17:15

A poison tipped umbrella in the cold war on mega threads, I post

(http://youtu.be/UTrMc4bRcu0)

Interesting.
Interesting to see how they're going to cram all that into two hours. The miniseries had trouble at 6.
Interesting choice in Garry Oldman for Smiley. He can do just about anything though. And playing over his age like that maybe means they want to do all the Smiley stories, which is cool. And the rest of the cast is nuts. John Hurt as Control by the looks. Giving it all the gravel. Bennedict Cumberbatch seems to be Peter Guillam. Quite young, but probably a good thing.
What jazzes me most, as a fan, is that quick shot of Oldman pulling out a pistol. They didn't do that bit in the miniseries. But when George finally has to pick up a gun it's awesome and that's, like, exactly how I pictured it. Eeeee!

The book, despite being probably the best cold war thriller ever written, is basically a long series of conversations about a single evening (the disasterous Czech Operation) and many knotty flashbacks. Done well it could work as a Rashomon or Usual Suspects sort of thing.
The public don't seem to be drama averse as much these days. So if it was awesome and did well I'd be pretty pleased.

henke on 1/7/2011 at 17:42

That trailer didn't really give a good idea of what the story is. There's a mole? There's political intrigue and spy stuff? Ok. Good cast though. I'll start getting hyped about this when it comes out and gets great reviews.

Muzman on 1/7/2011 at 20:32

Yeah, it's kinda better for fans. But it sets the mood and says 'look at our shit hot cast', which is about as much as any first trailer does (except it sometimes explosions instead of cast)

Aerothorn on 1/7/2011 at 20:59

As a friend pointed out to me, the miniseries is essentially unknown in the USA - and yet, judging from the trailer, this seems as based off of that as the book. Gary Oldman is doing his best Alec Guiness impression rather than remaking the character (I don't know if this is a good or bad thing).

Commercially, it seems like this could do well, and makes a lot of sense (as long as it is proper Cold War and they don't do something silly like modernize it). Artistically, I don't really see how it's going to top the miniseries outside of having better production values (and, as noted, this isn't a story that really needs good production values) and therefore don't see the point.

scumble on 2/7/2011 at 07:38

By the way, a seven part series of programmes is not "mini" in the UK. Most series tend to have six episodes here, as opposed to the typical 20 or so for the US.

The adaptation with Alec Guiness looks interesting. I have shamefully seen very little of Alec Guiness beyond Star Wars, which would probably make him very unhappy. At least I've seen the Ladykillers, and Kind Hearts and Coronets should be on my list.

On the whole I think I'd be more interested in reading the novel - I've not read John le Carré at all. I suppose the film might work for many people who've not seen the series, if it's well made. I can see Aerothorn's point though - it looks like a very character/dialogue driven story. It'll be down to the acting to determine whether it was really worth doing.

Scots Taffer on 2/7/2011 at 08:15

It's really more of teaser, isn't it, but it's good. Without knowing the director I thought it looked shot in a particular cold manner, so it proved no surprise when I found out who he was. Oldman looks solid but I was more surprised by the general roundedness of the cast, having Strong, Hardy, Hurt and Firth is a hell of a support.

The only Le Carre story I know - and love - is The Tailor of Panama adaptation. I adore the irreverent tone of that movie.

Muzman on 2/7/2011 at 11:12

It's one of those situations where you know it's not going to have the same nuance as the book and it couldn't, so you might as well relax.
The one thing it'll lack is the language. There's so much of the minutiae of interrogation in there as George uses various tactics to try and get people who lie, mistrust and conceal for a living to speak the truth (because of trust or because he's completely corralled them and they can't say anything else). What goes into that is the entire personality of the individuals doing the talking; all their case history, childhood experiences, schooling, war record etc. Le Carre's great skill is making it all matter.

You couldn't get it all in the film, so it's really a matter of how well they manage to imply it. There's going to be more getting to the point (like "There's a mole at the top of the circus") and that's just the way it's going to be. Some of the chats with guys like Jim Prideaux and Jerry Westerby consist of almost impenetrable public school jargon too. I suspect most of that'll all go for the sake of the audience.
Even Smiley himself is a completely uncinematic character. How do you accurately portray someone who gives nothing away and could vanish into the wallpaper? It's like the opposite of acting. So yeah, Alec Guinness did it about as small as you'd want to. All the private moments and internal monologues just have to show on the surface where they otherwise would not, if you were being strictly realistic.
Where they want to put the focus is making the little gestures mean a hell of a lot. When George finally turns all his attention on someone it's a big deal. It's almost a litmus test as anyone with any brains at all is terrified of him.
So, yeah, I see a lot of promise in these small grabs. But it tells you nothing about the script, of course.

Quote:

The only Le Carre story I know - and love - is The Tailor of Panama adaptation. I adore the irreverent tone of that movie.

The book is great too, although quite different in some respects. It is his most comedic and satirical effort. Made more blackly funny when you consider the Iraq war got started in a broadly similar fashion. He seems to have had the inside story on where the moods and habits of the intelligence services were going years in advance.

Aerothorn on 3/7/2011 at 02:00

I actually had Le Carre next on my reading list, but was going to read The Spy who Came In From The Cold rather than Tinker, Tailor, simply because I had already seen the series, though I'm sure lots is left out of that. Do people think they are of comparable quality?

Also, it occured to me that one reason this is getting funding is that Hollywood loves adapting the first part of trilogies. If it makes money, then they have a guaranteed sale with adaptations of the next two (and they will do it, for good or ill).

Thirith on 4/7/2011 at 06:47

I have to say I didn't particularly enjoy the novel when I first read it, but I'm putting that down to not having had enough patience at the time. It's very slow and pretty much the polar opposite of your average James Bond story.

The BBC adaptation is also slow and you have to bring a lot of time and patience, but the acting is brilliant. To some extent it's the exact opposite of "show, don't tell" but once you accept that, it can be immensely enjoyable sitting there and listening to those ageing men telling Cold War stories.

I honestly can't see how the plot can be compressed into 2 1/2 hours, but the director and cast make me think they've at least got a fighting chance - even if there's something very disconcerting about Alec Guinness' voice coming out of Gary Oldman's mouth.

Muzman on 13/7/2011 at 05:36

Quote Posted by Aerothorn

Hard to say really. They're very different. Spy- is a very spare, linear sort of thriller really. Just enough detail to direct and misdirect. It's all about forward motion. Basically like a crime novel but with spies.
Tinker Tailor is geometrically more complicated, just throwing you into this world and expecting you to keep up. It renders its characters and situations in great detail. Every line is just about loaded with backstory, asides and subtext. Le Carre has basically turned himself into something like the Charles Dickens of the cold war by this stage.
Spy- is a pretty breezy read. You'll be through it in no time. So put them both on.