Why was this film made?
All art exists within an historical context, a bundle of occurrences and conditions which, like a woman in labor, gives birth to art as an expression of those conditions, a mirror by which to understand what's going on in our society and the world and, even, within ourselves. Thomas Alfredson's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a direct answer to all the turmoil within England and Great Britain right now, and a direct response to those suggesting that mistakes have been made and wide-sweeping changes need to be implemented.
John le Carre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was a best-selling novel, . . . in 1974; so why would it be resurrected today? What could a Cold War era spy novel possibly communicate to us about the world in which we are living? Why does a "mole" at the top of British Intelligence concern us? It's not a mole in British Intelligence, it's the mole within some of us, when times get hard the doubts start swelling up: maybe the free market system isn't the best way to go, with pension plans being altered and Occupy Wall Street and Occupy London trying to take over, with riots and marches going on everywhere, factories and stores closing and unheard of unemployment rates, . . . maybe, we choose the wrong model, and we should have become communists.
1911).
George Smiley (Gary Oldman) doesn't say a word until his third or fourth scene; rather unusual, a major star like him, just sitting there and taking up oxygen? But this fits in with contemporary trends of silence, for example, the critically acclaimed silent film The Artist and little Hannah in Take Shelter; these trends, not adding Gary Oldman to their ranks, assures us that silence is a legitimate method of communicating, just as Soderbergh taught us in Contagion that noise is a legitimate means of communication.
Towards the end, as Rickey as made the phone call and the heads of MI6 are meeting and the bait in the trap sit, Smiley does two things: first, while listening on the phone, he takes off his shoes, then he takes out a roll of mints from his pockets and sucks on that while he's about to make the biggest bust in MI6 history. Why? Smiley is being careful to lay a trap for the culprit, not as an act of revenge. Removing his shoes is a sign of removing obstacles to his will, that he's going to let the cards fall where they may (in addition to not making noise as he walks across the floor), but since Haydon had been having an affair with his wife, Ann, this is an important act of "removing" his personal life from the situation.
Removing the pack of mints from his pocket means that he is "pulling from within himself" what he needs to do, and that is keep himself clean (not let loose his personal anger and feelings, but remain "fresh" and "clean"); it's also important that, when the mole is revealed, he doesn't say something he's going to regret. It's a very simple device that reveals to us aspects of a spymaster who is not used to revealing things about himself.
The role of Ann, Smiley's wife, is limited yet imperative (there is the book and a previous film I am mentally comparing her role to and it's quite different); we never see her face because she's quite symbolic of MI6 itself, rather, England itself, and we can't see through Smiley's glasses how he sees whom he's married to. Ann having left him in the beginning of the film corresponds to MI6 leaving him (firing him) and Ann returning corresponds to Smiley returning to MI6 (in Control's position). Bill Haydon's affair with Ann corresponds to Bill Haydon . . . Well, I won't use the vulgar word I think the film supplies, but instead will say "having intercourse with" MI6. Ricky, and his affair with the wife of Boris, a Soviet agent, (isn't right but in artistic terms) balances out what Bill Haydon is doing to Smiley's wife and what Irina supplies for Ricky is the mirror image of what Ann does to George: Bill was trying to bring down George through Ann, but Ricky brings down Bill through Irina. (Connie is important, yet I would rather discuss her if there is going to be the two sequels).
In context of what was spoken above, Ann returning to Smiley can be taken that the future will be solid and stable, a united effort, a marriage of love and fidelity. But there is the murdered Irina, and her death foreshadows the death of the Communist Party (which le Carre did not know, writing in the 1970's), but there is also the mother, feeding her baby at the Hungarian cafe where Prideaux is shot, and the baby left without a mother. The last we see of them, a policeman has taken the baby and holds it, as Smiley would be holding the new, infant MI6 after "the great betrayal." If "the future is female," (and there are many ways to interpret that), it might be a future that is more nourishing, more loving, but I think that's one of the things we can't know because we are in the present, not in the future.
1979 version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy with Alec Guinness clearly manifested what a crime Bill committed with serving the Soviets. In today's version, Bill tells Smiley, "It was an aesthetic choice as well as moral. The west has become so ugly," and this is the real lesson for us, today: what is it that has become ugly in capitalism that we want to abandon it for? We cannot mix the "aesthetic" and "moral" questions of our future, we must insure they remain different questions and, as we move forward into the future, we don't throw away all the sacrifices that have been made to preserve the freedom of being free market economies.
All art exists within an historical context, a bundle of occurrences and conditions which, like a woman in labor, gives birth to art as an expression of those conditions, a mirror by which to understand what's going on in our society and the world and, even, within ourselves. Thomas Alfredson's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a direct answer to all the turmoil within England and Great Britain right now, and a direct response to those suggesting that mistakes have been made and wide-sweeping changes need to be implemented.
John le Carre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was a best-selling novel, . . . in 1974; so why would it be resurrected today? What could a Cold War era spy novel possibly communicate to us about the world in which we are living? Why does a "mole" at the top of British Intelligence concern us? It's not a mole in British Intelligence, it's the mole within some of us, when times get hard the doubts start swelling up: maybe the free market system isn't the best way to go, with pension plans being altered and Occupy Wall Street and Occupy London trying to take over, with riots and marches going on everywhere, factories and stores closing and unheard of unemployment rates, . . . maybe, we choose the wrong model, and we should have become communists.
1911).
George Smiley (Gary Oldman) doesn't say a word until his third or fourth scene; rather unusual, a major star like him, just sitting there and taking up oxygen? But this fits in with contemporary trends of silence, for example, the critically acclaimed silent film The Artist and little Hannah in Take Shelter; these trends, not adding Gary Oldman to their ranks, assures us that silence is a legitimate method of communicating, just as Soderbergh taught us in Contagion that noise is a legitimate means of communication.
Towards the end, as Rickey as made the phone call and the heads of MI6 are meeting and the bait in the trap sit, Smiley does two things: first, while listening on the phone, he takes off his shoes, then he takes out a roll of mints from his pockets and sucks on that while he's about to make the biggest bust in MI6 history. Why? Smiley is being careful to lay a trap for the culprit, not as an act of revenge. Removing his shoes is a sign of removing obstacles to his will, that he's going to let the cards fall where they may (in addition to not making noise as he walks across the floor), but since Haydon had been having an affair with his wife, Ann, this is an important act of "removing" his personal life from the situation.
Removing the pack of mints from his pocket means that he is "pulling from within himself" what he needs to do, and that is keep himself clean (not let loose his personal anger and feelings, but remain "fresh" and "clean"); it's also important that, when the mole is revealed, he doesn't say something he's going to regret. It's a very simple device that reveals to us aspects of a spymaster who is not used to revealing things about himself.
The role of Ann, Smiley's wife, is limited yet imperative (there is the book and a previous film I am mentally comparing her role to and it's quite different); we never see her face because she's quite symbolic of MI6 itself, rather, England itself, and we can't see through Smiley's glasses how he sees whom he's married to. Ann having left him in the beginning of the film corresponds to MI6 leaving him (firing him) and Ann returning corresponds to Smiley returning to MI6 (in Control's position). Bill Haydon's affair with Ann corresponds to Bill Haydon . . . Well, I won't use the vulgar word I think the film supplies, but instead will say "having intercourse with" MI6. Ricky, and his affair with the wife of Boris, a Soviet agent, (isn't right but in artistic terms) balances out what Bill Haydon is doing to Smiley's wife and what Irina supplies for Ricky is the mirror image of what Ann does to George: Bill was trying to bring down George through Ann, but Ricky brings down Bill through Irina. (Connie is important, yet I would rather discuss her if there is going to be the two sequels).
In context of what was spoken above, Ann returning to Smiley can be taken that the future will be solid and stable, a united effort, a marriage of love and fidelity. But there is the murdered Irina, and her death foreshadows the death of the Communist Party (which le Carre did not know, writing in the 1970's), but there is also the mother, feeding her baby at the Hungarian cafe where Prideaux is shot, and the baby left without a mother. The last we see of them, a policeman has taken the baby and holds it, as Smiley would be holding the new, infant MI6 after "the great betrayal." If "the future is female," (and there are many ways to interpret that), it might be a future that is more nourishing, more loving, but I think that's one of the things we can't know because we are in the present, not in the future.
1979 version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy with Alec Guinness clearly manifested what a crime Bill committed with serving the Soviets. In today's version, Bill tells Smiley, "It was an aesthetic choice as well as moral. The west has become so ugly," and this is the real lesson for us, today: what is it that has become ugly in capitalism that we want to abandon it for? We cannot mix the "aesthetic" and "moral" questions of our future, we must insure they remain different questions and, as we move forward into the future, we don't throw away all the sacrifices that have been made to preserve the freedom of being free market economies.













14 comments:
Thanks for putting this up. I just finished watching the movie and had a few questions which you answered for me.
So glad that I could help!
Who is dead in the leaves? If it is Ricki Tarr, who killed him? Why did he go to the home of the fat necked woman who worked for the Brits?
Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) is the one who is shot in the face, just below the eye, by Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) and left dead in the leaves in the high-security prison where Haydon is awaiting to be deported to Moscow.
The "woman with the neck" is Connie (Kathy Burke) and Smiley (Gary Oldman) went to see her because Connie has photographic memory (this is really just a point made in the books, not the film) but Connie and Smiley were friends in the MI6 and she was forced out after Smiley was forced out; Rickey Tarr (Tom Hardy) does not go and see Connie in the film at any time. Hope this helps!
Bill Haydon was behind the fence when he was shot by Jim Prideaux. Jim was in the forest, using a rifle. It cannot be Haydon dead in the leaves. it seems like it is Prideaux dead in the leaves. But was is suicide? Or was he shot by another agent?
Yes, Haydon was behind in the fence, in the security ("jail") area while Prideaux is in the forest area with the rifle; Haydon sees Prideaux in the woods but Haydon makes no attempt at taking cover or alerting authorities to protect him; Prideaux shots once, hitting Haydon in the face, just below the eye, Haydon falls dead in a small pile of dead leaves on his side of the fence and Prideaux leaves. Prideaux is off the grid and we don't hear from him again. Why does he do it? As explained above, Prideaux "lost face" when Haydon or the Circus circulated rumors that Prideaux told all to save his own skin when in fact Prideaux held out as long as he could to save other agents. Additionally, a point the film intentionally does not cover but is important in the book is that Prideaux was recruited to the Circus by Haydon, and that bond of their friendship is what made them "the inseparables." Haydon knew Control would set up Prideaux to find out who was the mole (Haydon) but Haydon didn't really do anything to protect his old friend. Thirdly, the reason why Prideaux shots Haydon is so he won't have a hero's welcome in Moscow and reap any of the rewards of his betrayal, but die as a traitor.
It MAY BE (but I don't remember clearly) in the 1979 film version starring Alec Guinness that Prideaux kills himself but he doesn't in the Gary Oldman version nor in the book.
I hope this helps!
Are you suggesting that the gulag and the hidiousness that supported its existence was somehow aesthetic and moral?
Dear dustbunny,
HOW ON EARTH DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT? What on earth are you talking about? Could you please be more specific because under absolutely no circumstances would I say anything remotely close to that.
Is Ricky left out in the rain in Paris because he tried to go it alone? Also Connie won't be coming back because George is starting fresh?
Dear Anonymous (Feb 17),
Yes, but Ricky's situation is even more dire than that: the Circus believes that Ricky, at best, is irresponsible and can't be trusted, at worse, that Ricky has defected. Because George was the one who recruited him, Ricky goes to George's because Ricky trusts George not only with his life and well-being, but also with the info he has gained from Irinia (wife of Boris, the Soviet spy). Because Haydon had a hand in Ricky's "disappearance" (this is a bit clearer in the book than in the film, but Haydon wanted to keep himself clear, because Irinia had info on Haydon) Haydon uses Rickey's "disappearance" to sully George's reputation.
About Connie: Connie stays in retirement. IF there is a follow-up picture done (and there is info that another script is being done, but uncertain whether it's based on Smiley's People--in which Connie does appear--or The Honorable Schoolboy), it's possible that George will go visit her (the books never says so directly, but it's like she has photographic memory, so talking to Connie is like going through all the original files before they were purged) and that's how she would "appear" in a future film, not an official member of The Circus, rather, an old friend of George's who could help him out.
Hope this helps!
Thank you for your observations, I'm writing a BA thesis on the book T T S S and I found your post on the movie VERY helpful!
regards
Li Z,
HOW TOTALLY AWESOME! Very best luck on that, so jealous (glad my post helps!), what a fab project you picked! Best wishes!
TFAD
This is great; many thanx, it clears up lots of questions. A couple things I wonder about ~ is Mendel the mechanic who calls Guillam while Guillam's trying to steal that log book?
And Ricky Tarr, why is he just left standing in the rain at the end of the movie? And is he still in Paris, then?
Dear Roxanne,
Yes about Mendel--to the best of my memory--I believe that is accurate. About Tarr still being in Paris: Ricky had always been on the "outside" in the Circus because he hadn't ever done anything "big" and was one of Smiley's agents, that was one of the reasons it was easy for Haydon to cast so much doubt on Ricky's story and his "defection." Ricky being outside in Paris symbolizes Ricky still being "outside" the Circus, in spite of the incredible job he did! It's part of a general theme of sacrifice so many people in the Circus made and all for a cause so much greater than themselves, they might have asked, was it worth it, but of course it was (Smiley loses Ann in the book and in the original TV series with Alec Guinness, but there is the pain of the affair Ann has with Haydon; there is Guillam breaking up with his boyfriend, Irina's death, the death of Control, Prideaux losing his standing in MI6 as well as his friendship with Haydon, etc.). In my estimation, Roxanne, highlighting these victories that had such high personal costs, like Ricky Tarr's, was to remind people of the incredible price that was paid to defeat socialism and that socialism costs far more emotional and psychologically than it ever gives to anyone.
I hope this helps and so glad you enjoyed the film!
Post a Comment