I saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy yesterday and enjoyed it a lot. One of things that impressed me (but not as much as Gary Oldman’s magnificent performance) was the atmosphere present in virtually every scene. And, in some sense, I mean atmosphere literally - the Christmas party scenes were suffused in smoke (and you could almost smell the gin).
In any case (and this is surely no spoiler), I have a question about the café scene in Budapest. There was something about it that made the scene, and the set, seem almost hyper-real. It’s very difficult to put into words, but everything seemed very stark, very focused, truly like you were there with the actors - you (or at least, I) felt like you were there with them. Now obviously, that’s the goal of many scenes and many films; but this was different.
Did anyone else get the same sense? Am I alone in that sense of hyper-realism (and, again, I’m referring only to the Budapest café scene)?
And, if you, too, feel this way, any ideas how it was pulled off? Was it the lighting? Something else?
The movie hasn’t been fully released yet and won’t be for another week. Just a quick heads-up in case you start wondering why you’re not getting any replies.
And if this was mentioned in the OP, I apologize, I pretty much avoided the OP to avoid spoilers because I do want to see this movie when it comes to a theater near me.
I saw it the other night, and I wasn’t quite as struck by the cafe scene as you were. But there is a technique where the film is shot with a huge amount of light that reduces the motion blur in the scene. I first saw it in Gladiator, during the fight scenes. It has become a bit of a cliche in fight scenes.
We saw it this evening and thought that it was, other than the acting, poorly done. It seemed that the screenwriter and director were going on the assumption that everybody has either a) read the book, b) seen the TV series, c) had a personal explanation from John le Carre, or d) all of the above. It was a muddled mess, storywise, and neither of us could make much sense of the story arc, other than that it’s about spies and they were looking for a mole. I would suggest that if you are not thoroughly familiar with the plot, don’t bother going.
Huh? I’ve never read the book, and I understood the admittedly complex plot. But I went in knowing that people had complained about that and paid close attention. All the information is there.
I didn’t think it was muddled at all. Like gaffa, I’ve never read the book or seen the earlier movie and I followed it just fine. There were a couple of points here and there which had me scratching my head and I assume the book described the reasoning in more detail, such as when at the Christmas party they all started singing the Russian National Anthem, but I just assumed it was an in-joke among the spies and staff, since their whole lives were devoted to keeping an eye on Russia. The main plot and the characters were not hard to follow if you paid attention and your concentration didn’t wander.
This is how adapting a book is a no-win situation: Try to cram everything in, and people complain that it’s hard to follow. Simplify or streamline the plot, and folks start bitching that stuff gets left out.
But the atmosphere IS something that I was really impressed by. The only thing I can tell you is that there must have been tons and tons of work on the lighting; because that’s the best way to change the look and mood of a scene.
As for it being hard to follow; I think I must’ve overlooked some details here and there, but I didn’t mind much because the film is such a gorgeous recreation of the period’s look.
If I missed anything, I can easily watch it again on DVD. In the same way that directors no longer have to recap the previous film knowing the audience watched it preparing for the new one, they can engage in more complex storytelling, knowing that audience members who really care can watch it again. This is one that will reward multiple viewings.
And, beyond the ‘period’ aspect of it, the ‘look’ and feel of the characters’ homes, as well as the various rooms and offices in MI6, are sublime. Just one example: Control’s flat - books and papers piled high, jammed into overcrowded bookcases, everywhere a clutter, stinking of stale smoke; but you just know that Control knew where everything was and exactly where to look if he needed something (and they way he’d shuffle over to get it).
I’ve never read the book, and understood it perfectly well. I really rather enjoyed it.
I definitely recommend this movie, including to those who, like, me, have not read the book, seen the TV series, or had an explanation from the author. Admittedly, it’s not like a Michael Bay film - it does have a plot, and the existence of a plot might be hard to get used to in this day and age.
Perhaps neither of us were in the proper mood for the film. We’re both educated people with reasonable attention spans, and while we appreciated the cinematography and performances, the film just didn’t work for us. I’m not sure I can gin up the necessary patience to see it again, but perhaps when it’s available without cost I’ll give it another try.
I’ve heard plenty of perfectly smart people say they were confused by the film or didn’t understand certain things. I didn’t have that problem but then maybe I think I understand something I don’t.
One common point of confusion I’ve seen is:
[spoiler]They think they missed something that revealed how Smiley knew who the mole was. When they didn’t miss anything. Smiley didn’t know who the mole was, he just figured out how the mole was operating and was able to set up a trap that caught him. Smiley learned who it was at the same time we did.
I had been operating on the Law & Order principal that the mole would be the most famous actor. Sadly that turned out to be correct.[/spoiler]
Who was the kid with the glasses? His alcoholic instructor of course
Was the spy who was caught in Hungry.
Who shot
The mole while he was in detention? I presume it was the young man “Peter” who broke with his unseen male lover in the hotel room. I further presume the mole was his lover. (As well as Smiley’s wife’s lover, the guy got around.
How did Control die? Natural causes? Does it matter?
Who were the two “inseparable” guys in the photo? I know I should know, but my facial recognition is not what it should be. Why are they important?
Gary Oldman’s performance, as well as that of Colin Firth, make this film worth the effort it takes to follow the “Oliver Stone-esque” story sequence. We stopped at Barnes and Noble before the movie and I had just enough time to read the book’s introduction for free on the Nook my husband just gave me (thanks honey!). That was just the heads-up I needed to know I had to really pay attention to all the little details in the movie.
I wish I remember the name of the film that I just barely remember where John Hurt was the young spy/main character.
Random outsider student who he saw some of himself in, hence at the end he angrily pushed him away and told him to go fit in so he wouldn’t become a miserable loner like himself.
The aformentioned instructor/field agent Jim Prideaux who had been shot in Hungary, bestest buddy and probably lover of Hayden the mole and who had been betrayed by him on multiple levels.
It doesn’t matter, no. The implication is that being forced out may have hastened his end, but in the end the details are unimportant. He was an old man.
Hayden and Prideaux. The mole and the man he betrayed who would eventually kill him.
That was indeed Peter left crying as he told his gay lover he was not wanted around anymore ( to protect him in case Peter was hit ). But it was just a scene added for pathos and to make you connect to Peter’s character. Otherwise it has no relevance at all to the plot other than to show that Peter was under extreme threat if he were to be exposed.
[spoiler]We never see the lover other than that scene. As noted it was Prideaux who kills Hayden. Prideaux and Hayden had been inseperable friends, perhaps lovers if we are to read a bit into the scene in the office party where they share a smile but Hayden then regretfully goes to do his job and seduce Smiley’s wife, while Prideaux is left sitting alone, rejected and miserable.
When Control informs Prideaux about his mole theory, it is strongly implied that Prideaux went straight to Hayden to warn him he was being investigated ( at least he doesn’t deny it when Smiley suggests that is what he did ). But Hayden betrayed Prideaux and made sure the Hungarian episode was a fiasco - remember Prideaux wasn’t supposed to be shot, that was just a nervous Czech agent making a mistake. Hayden obviously still cared, but the job came first - he made sure Prideaux was brought back out intact and pensioned off, but not before he was extensively tortured.
When Prideaux finally realizes that what he dismissed as Control’s senility was true and that Hayden, a man he knew well and may have subconsciously believed was capable of such a betrayal actually WAS a traitor and had set HIM up, he was devastated. The young schoolkid he had befriended because he saw an intelligent outsider like he had likely been he pushed away so he wouldn’t end like him, incredibly capable but lonely and broken. And he then goes and regretfully gets his revenge by killing his one time closest companion.[/spoiler]
By the way in the book Peter was straight. The gay angle was added for the film, who knows why.
