[spoiler]But I thought they all showed up. I thought I recalled a spotter calling out, in order, Tinker, Tailor, and Soldier. Or were Tinker and Soldier showing up at a different place? Or did they all show up at place one but only Tailor then went to place two? Or did the spotter identify all three leaving the Circus, but only Hayden showed up at the safe house?
I don’t need an answer; I figure it’s one of these possibilities and that’s OK. I just didn’t quite follow.[/spoiler]
They all four showed up at the Circus. The spotter was telling Smiley over the phone while Smiley waited at the safe house. Once they all four left the Circus, then Smiley heard the arrival of the mole at the safe house via the recording system.
I didn’t think I had a terribly hard time following the movie, but I did notice one technique that made it harder. Sometimes a short scene would drop into the movie almost out of nowhere, oftentimes not appearing to add to the plot at all. But then I would start thinking this scene must be important because it’s breaking up the narrative, and I can see where that could really get viewers confused in a hurry. Of course I can’t think of any obvious examples right now, although the swimming scenes kind of fit.
The flashbacks were sometimes confusing as well. It was a good thing Smiley got new eyeglass frames during the opening credits, because the frames he was wearing were sometimes the only way to tell you were watching a flashback. That’s why I was also momentarily confused by Prideaux’s appearance at the school … I figured it was a flashback since we saw him shot earlier. When the kids started making fun of him because of his gait and the way he stood, that’s when I realized he had only been wounded in Budapest and this scene wasn’t a flashback.
[spoiler]No, when it was being called out that they were all arriving it was them arriving at the Circus, not the safe house. Remember, except for the real mole, the management team all believed that Tarr really had turned and killed the Istanbul station chief. And that if he had information about a mole in the circus he was trying to use to save his skin, it was the information that they were all giving secrets (which they believe to be minor secrets to grease the skids for important secrets coming back) and that he couldn’t be allowed to breach that operation (Operation Witchcraft).
So when Paris reported that they knew where Tarr was, the management team met to formulate the response, including how to protect Project Witchcraft.
So they do that then break up. The real mole then goes to the safe house to pass the information on to the Soviets (who know that Tarr has something much more significant to reveal). Who will make sure that Tarr is killed and not just captured.
Only Hayden showed up at the safe house.
[/spoiler]
In the books Smiley’s glasses are a distinct personal prop during discussions or interviews - sometimes he pauses and cleans them with his tie (revealing his vulnerable face), sometimes he looks sharply down over them, and sometimes he looks owlishly (or donnishly) through them.
The movie poster almost seemed like a nod to that, the specs are so big, so I’m not surprised that he swam in them as well.
I haven’t seen the movie, but am looking forward to it…I’ve seen the BBC version a couple of times.
The secrets fed to Polyakov by Alleline, Bland and Esterhase were minor, and that was understood as MI6’s plan all along. Once you have a double agent, you have to make them appear still legit to whoever they were originally working for, so the play of giving them intel you don’t really mind giving up is par for the course. Hayden, of course, was giving up real secrets that damaged British interests. Polyakov was doing the same thing, feeding minor Russian secrets to the British to appear legit … that’s why “the top floor of Russian intelligence was laughing and everything the British thought was gold was actually shit,” in the taped quote Smiley was listening to over and over again late in the film.
Just wanted to add, Oldman’s scene where he describes meeting Karla in 1955 was riveting. That one scene there, I think, got him his Oscar nomination. Oh, he’s fantastic in the role throughout, but Smiley is such a quiet, steady character, you admire the performance, but it doesn’t really make you notice (except in contrast to some of Oldman’s other roles - Air Force One was just on TV the other night, and that terrorist is no way close to Smiley as a character). But that scene where he’s talking to Peter about meeting Karla … wow. That’s outstanding acting.
In case I misspoke, that was all clear to me. Apologies if I didn’t convey it clearly.
When in this thread have I ever said I “love” this movie? I liked it, sure, but I’ve only seen it once and right now it’s not in my Top 10 favorites (though it would be if I were foolish enough to try and make up a Top 10 “best of” list).
The post you condemn me for wasn’t made because I was angry that someone didn’t like the movie. Someone not liking it hardly matters to me. I was reacting to HennaDancer’s silly hyperbole about it being the “worst movie” she’s ever seen, calling it “truly awful” when she wasn’t even paying attention and missed chunks of it because she was talking to her husband and falling asleep. I’d react that way to any well-made, highly-rated, critically-acclaimed movie.
I didn’t condemn you for a post. I just explained why people would think you’re horrible to see a movie with in real life. It’s more of a global thing than prompted by any single post.
I don’t even disagree with you most of the time and think you’re insufferable and I’d be worried if ever the prospect arose of seeing a movie with you in real life.
But I’ll retire now to spend the evening pondering the zen-like statement of a movie not being in your top 10 list but it would be if you made top 10 lists. I assume that is like peanut butter is not my favorite food, but only because I’ve given no thought at all to what my favorite food is, which would be peanut butter if I gave it some thought.
If I made a Top 10 "Favorites of 2011" list it would look very different from a Top 10 “Best of 2011” list. Sorry if I was unclear. I don’t tend to make “Best” lists because who am I to say what’s best? Favorites are very personal though, they’re favorites because they’re special to me for very specific reasons.
And no one here needs to worry. In the first place, there’s only one Doper I see movies with and not only does he loves me, we agree on 98% of the movies we see together. Second, I don’t like to talk about movies after I’ve seen them so I am usually very very quiet after I see them. That’s why for me going to see movies isn’t a social thing. Third, I’m the mousiest, meekest, most non-confrontational person you could possibly imagine in real life. I would never argue with someone about a movie in real life. The most I’d say if someone said they didn’t like a movie I like is “Aw, that’s too bad” and drop/change the subject.
It finally came close to me and I saw it today. I had not read the book, and sometimes I was a bit confused, but I could understand enough to follow it, and I loved it.
As we left I said to my husband, “No comparison between that performance and George Clooney’s.” I haven’t seen The Artist, but I can’t imagine a better performance than Gary Oldman’s.
[quote=“obfusciatrist, post:88, topic:607784”]
I didn’t condemn you for a post. I just explained why people would think you’re horrible to see a movie with in real life. It’s more of a global thing than prompted by any single post.
I don’t even disagree with you most of the time and think you’re insufferable and I’d be worried if ever the prospect arose of seeing a movie with you in real life…/QUOTE]
Well, I vote for more “insufferable” folks like that in the theatres. Because they probably keep their mouths shut during the film!
When I saw TTSS, a whippersnapper a row ahead of me was texting through the whole thing. Correction: not the whole thing; he left halfway through. Probably after texting that he just couldn’t follow it…
(My Blu-Ray probably arrives today!)
I enjoyed the movie. I was slightly thrown because I didn’t immediately realize it was a period piece, and never established the actual timeframe. Somewhere in the '70s. Also, it might make more sense if you know things like the actual role of Budapest in the Cold War politics and British interests.
Overall I managed to follow it, but can see how some of it was slightly confusing. Like the part with the teacher and not realizing immediately that wasn’t a flashback.
Ultimately, though, the thing that disappointed me was
the title of the movie is a give away. When Control assigns the names, he calls them tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor. Turns out, the spy was sailor. Doh!
But I suppose we have La Carre to blame for that.
No, it wasn’t.
There was no sailor. The spy was tailor.
Haven’t seen the movie yet. But from the OP’s description:
I’m wondering if maybe the cinematographer was enhancing the depth of field.
A camera normally has a single depth of field. You focus on the subject that’s a certain distance away and everything that’s at a different distance is going to be slightly blurry. So if you’re shooting a scene where two people are talking in a restaurant, you focus the camera on the two people and the crowd in the background will be out of focus. Not normally a problem because the people who are talking are the narrative focus as well.
There are technological ways to get around this and keep everything in clear focus. However they’re complicated and most filmmakers don’t bother. But from the OP’s description, I’m thinking the scene he described might have been shot in deep focus to create a “hyper-real” effect.
Thank you for your thoughtful answer. Indeed, I think you may have nailed it! Although it’s now been three months since I saw the movie, what you’re saying does seem to describe what I was unable to (and, of course, what I noticed). Thanks!
I will be getting the movie in a few hours from Amazon, I can’t wait!
I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the names of all the characters as of of the more common complaints is that sometimes characters are referred to by their last name and other times by their first name. It’s somewhat confusing.
Enjoy the film. I did.
Well crap. I guess I got the names all confused.
I’ve read the book many times, and watched the BBC TV series many times.
Ah, no problem then. As someone who also read the novel and seen the series, I thought the screenplay did a masterful job at condensing the story without making it feel rushes. And Oldman is fantastic.