Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Movie Review
"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C+
Rating: R
Released: Friday, December 9, 2011
Directed by:
Cast:
About two-thirds of the way through "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," I jotted in my notes: I don't know what's going on. I'd been struggling to keep my head above water the whole time, and it was here that I resigned myself to drowning. I didn't miss a second of the film, yet when it was over I felt disoriented, as if I'd dozed off for several minutes in the middle and was never able to catch up again.
It's not easy to admit that you just flat-out didn't understand a movie, especially when it's your job to understand movies. But here we are. I take some solace in knowing that "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" is based on a famously dense John le Carré novel that was previously adapted into a seven-hour BBC miniseries -- there's a lot of ground to cover, in other words. What's more, it takes place in the halls of British Intelligence in the early 1970s, and I have little familiarity with that world and that time. A person could be smart and attentive and still be hopelessly lost in this thick labyrinth of espionage. Right? I mean, it's not like I failed to grasp "Mr. Popper's Penguins."
There's a character in here named Control. He's played by John Hurt. The movie was half over before I realized that when people referred to "Control," they were talking about a man, not an organization. My notes even had it in all-caps -- CONTROL -- because I assumed it was an acronym. But nope, it was a guy. A guy named Control.
I don't cite that as a fault of the film, only as an example of a seemingly basic piece of information -- a character's name -- that instead added to the confusion. But never mind the people's names: the really tricky part is keeping track of what they're doing, and why.
The essence of it is that a recently retired intelligence agent, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), is called back into duty when another operative, Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy), alleges that someone high up in the operation is acting as a mole for the Soviets. The mission is to determine whether this is true, and if it is, who the double agent is.
This sort of story lends itself to a certain amount of confusion, of course. Often we're supposed to be as much in the dark as the characters are. But this particular tale, directed by Tomas Alfredson ("Let the Right One In"), is made all the more dizzying by frequent flashbacks, many of which are not readily identifiable as such, and by the characters all existing in a closed-off world where they can use professional jargon freely without having to explain themselves. This is realistic, no doubt, but hard for an outsider to follow. The story itself moves slowly, fueled by suspicions more than adrenaline.
I wish I'd understood what was happening better, because I really liked most of the performances. Gary Oldman's weary, reserved old spy is captivating, and there are terrific appearances by the likes of Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hardy, Simon McBurney, and Toby Jones as other agents and operatives.
The question is this: Would additional viewings of the film bring the pieces together? Or is the information simply not there? My hunch is it's the former, and I may indeed watch it again at some point. So do we blame the movie for being impenetrable, or do we blame the viewer for being unable to penetrate it? Let's split the difference and call it a C+.
Grade: C+
Rated R, some harsh profanity, a little nudity and sexuality, some strong violence
2 hrs., 7 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 13 comments
December 9, 2011 at 4:04 am
Who's on first? Control's on second. I don't know what the heck is going on (third base).
December 9, 2011 at 9:40 am
I think this is a difficulty of trying to adapt a dense novel to screen faithfully. When you read the novel, you can reread passages as often as needed to figure out what is going on and what people are actually saying. Or with Lord of the Rings, I could check the map every time I needed to figure out where the characters were relative to Middle Earth. (I still think they should've provided maps for LOTR moviegoers.) Anyway, it does create a lot of frustration when a film just keeps barreling along and you know you've failed to grasp some crucial information, especially when you know you've been paying close attention.
December 9, 2011 at 11:30 am
If you thought Control was an acronym for a spy organization, you're probably remembering the old show Get Smart.
December 9, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Miniseries starring Alec Guinness is compelling, but I felt much the same way as you did about this movie for about an equal amount of time - 2 hours - and then thoroughly enjoyed the rest. I still didn't understand how he had parsed through all of the clues to come to the conclusion he did, but the character studies were absolutely wonderful and needed the extra exposition.
December 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm
The initial reviews out of the UK (where the film topped the box office charts for weeks -- unlikely to happen in the USA) all said it was better to have read the book or see the mini-series before seeing this film. So I've done both (and the book can be equally hard to follow, by the way). I'm really looking forward to seeing the film -- which won't open here in Pittsburgh until January...
December 10, 2011 at 11:19 pm
I also felt that it was hard to understand what was going on... but i suddenly realized it wasn't because it was so complicated. They simplified the story to be "who's the mole?". The reason I couldn't understand what was happening was because I didn't Care who the mole was. Everything is relayed in past tense as people tell each other in dialogue that so and so was killed etc., so the audience rarely gets to see anything actually happening. The pacing of the film remains the same all the way through with ponderous suspense music towing the scenes along ... beautifully blue-toned 70s film look and gorgeous suit fabrics only make the film even more musty and oppressive.
it's beautifully shot and probably very clever but tortuous for those of us who prefer to be carried through a film emotionally.
December 12, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I had a hard time following Mr. Popper's Penguins, actually.
December 20, 2011 at 11:07 pm
I couldn't agree with your review more!!! I came out of a screening tonight saying "maybe I was tired or just plain dense, or both, but I was lost during most of that movie!"
January 1, 2012 at 6:58 am
I recommend you read the Wikipedia plot synopsis and then watch it again. I read it before watching the film (I stopped just before it revealed the mole) and had a much easier time. Did you also catch that the ex-spy French teacher (who shot the mole at the end) had been the mole's lover? Somehow I missed that but it was pointed out to me.
January 15, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I wish I had checked these reviews before we went to this movie today - I agree with all of the above and would have hunted down a synopsis. It was very hard to follow but we loved the acting and the great early 80's looks. Re the flashback scenes - my husband noticed that Smiley's glasses changed so that was how he kept track of the decades. All in all, STTS held our interest simply because we didn't want to give up on trying to figure out what was going on! I felt throughout that I was an outsider, listening to a conversation among a clique of friends who had been together all their lives and spoke in terms only they knew.
January 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for not jumping on the "TTSP is so cool" bandwagon.
I also review film, though not at your level, it was something to do with an incomplete film minor and has persisted over 20 years. Same as you, I saw intense performances, top skills at work: but I didn't know what was going on.
Furthermore, every time the pot started to boil, it was stopped. I was left with the cinematic equivalent of "blue balls" and I'm still annoyed about it.
The film might gather a lot of awards, but only because people have read the book or seen the previous miniseries or are too dang scared to admit what you did at the top of your review.
Your reviews have always been enjoyable and often we see eye-to-eye, but now I have new respect for you as a FEARLESS writer, able to say "I don't know what's going on."
February 12, 2012 at 7:17 pm
The film is incomprehensible. I too didn't know "Control" was a person until I read this. For that matter I didn't know who most of the characters were. Others are described in great detail and you never meet them (the guy who steals the lighter). The flashback scenes just confused you further like the Chistmas party flashback scenes where they all sing Soviet anthems? Was there an affair in their somewhere? Who knows. I want 2 hours of my life back.
May 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Nice review. It had good production values but right up until the end I couldn't understand why anything was happening. The flashbacks were a big part of the problem; they look the same throughout so you don't know when a scene is taking place.
A lot of names thrown around, but the characters were rarely addressed by them directly, so you don't know who's who!
7/10 movie.