review by Julie Patron
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 2011
Watched Apr 22, 2012
Julie’s review:
Sometimes it's hard to understand why you love a film when others do not; with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, it's not difficult at all. I'd like to pretend that I would have completely understood the plot had I not read the book first, but I'm not sure that's true. I read The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and TTSS a few years ago, and was a little lost with both. Based on that experience, I thought that the writing was excellent and distilled the best parts of the book down to the most essential elements, but I know that there was plenty of room for confusion.
With that said, while I didn't love the book, it did give me a good basis of understanding for the movie. And I LOVED the movie. I found it to be a supremely enjoyable experience, and I really appreciated the subtlety. I suspect that if you did not like the movie, you might enjoy it the second time around, if you're willing to give it another chance.
Ultimately for me, this film is primarily atmosphere, the plot is not so important. All elements of the film, narrative included, serve to underline the nature of spying - obscuring truth, not knowing, attributing meaning to memories, understanding motivations. Atmosphere is created not just through the mise-en-scene, although that is the most often noted, but also through editing and through the use of The Look as a motif. While watching TTSS, I actually took note of the editing, which is not something I can honestly say I do most of the time. For a slow-paced film, the editing created tension and perfect pacing. The looks from the characters in the Circus also create a stifling and suspicion-filled atmosphere. As Smiley considers the suspects, he remembers them as they look at him. As Smiley or Guillam walk through the Circus, the background characters also turn to look. While these looks seem to affect Guillam, Smiley's glasses serve almost to reflect the looks. His eyes are obscured.
Gary Oldman is, of course, excellent. For a story that is basically about him thinking and assessing, Oldman keeps you (or at least he kept me) interested. Mark Strong also really stood out to me, playing a character against type. I thought he really captured the quiet of Jim Prideaux in a way I had not expected. Toby Jones as Percy Alleline is also perfect.
TTSS has the best ending of any film I have seen in ages. From the moment that that perfect song starts, I had the biggest smile on my face. Absolutely wonderful.
Also of note, Tom Hardy still looks fly, even with that godawful hair. I'd totally trade state secrets to kick it with him.
I saw it in the cinema when it came out, and I was really looking forward to it. As you say, having a vague understanding of the story beforehand might have made it easier to get into, as I didn't find it as engrossing as I wanted it to. I plan to have another run at it in a couple of weeks, as I've heard that like some other films, it really is better the second time round.
I'd be interested to hear what you think when you re-watch. Let me know, if you remember =)
I really like your idea of re-watching this. I think I'll give it some time and put it on my list for a fresh viewing. I'm curious how it will appear to my eyes when I haven't spent a week watching the miniseries which preceded it.
Can't disagree with you on the acting, as everyone is truly superb. I'll even grant you that Tom Hardy, as always, exudes a magnetism that belies the fact that he does not have the stereotypical "hot look" of Hollywood.....there's something about him that really pulls you in. I also can't deny anything you say about the mood the movie sets, and there are many scenes in this film where the director could have cut (or the editor could have edited them) about 10-30 seconds before they actually end, and those extra bits do help to set a very interesting mood.
Great point about Smiley's glasses.
I wonder if the circumstances under which one views the movie help to determine whether one is drawn in by the mood and the character touches, or whether one is distanced by them. I would hazard a guess that seeing this in the cinema, I would have become engrossed in the movie. Seeing it at home, I was more inclined to be distracted.
Your words have certainly inclined me to be more charitable to this film. I definitely will re-watch.
I'm not sure that a re-watch would help in your case - the basic assumption that I had made was that people who did not like the film were kinda lost and therefore it made for an un-enjoyable experience, but having watched the mini-series, you clearly knew what was going on. But having had more time to think and reflect, I think you pointed out a lot of the actual problems that it did have. I think it comes down to personal taste maybe on whether we found it to be exciting, but there were definitely omissions that had to be made, and maybe they weren't always the right ones. What if on a re-watch you like it more and I like it less? =)
omg I can't even talk about Tom Hardy intelligibly, I have a truly awkward obsession with him. And he's so against my "type" too... hahaha I'm blushing even typing this. I don't get it. ugh.
Re: mood, I do wonder if on a re-watch I would feel like some other critics did, that this film really was all mood and nothing else. Maybe that's still OK with me =)
And I wish that I had seen it in the theatre, although we have a ridiculous television that we sit entirely too close to... I was pretty engrossed =)
We're going to have to revisit the Tom Hardy subject at some time, but not if it's going to make you blush. :) I find him fascinating, and can't wait to see him in the new Dark Knight film.
I'll say this about this film....it's generated this much discussion. Any film that can get people talking is a success, in my opinion.
Have you seen RocknRolla? Overall not a great movie, but if you don't fall in love with him after seeing him in even just that bit role...geez. I am excited to see him in everything (except This Means War, which I don't know if I can even force myself to watch just for him).
But yes, I think TTSS definitely warrants discussion =)
I've seen very mixed reviews for this pretty much everywhere I've looked. I gave it 2 1/2 stars because it just didn't draw me it like I thought it would, and I found myself bored more often than not. I understood everything that was going on and I tried to care about the characters, but by the end I just didn't.
I was so going to bring up "This Means War", which I can not watch because the previews made my brain start oozing from my ears. Just when I thought the concepts for romantic comedies couldn't be more asinine, they decide that two professional government agents will use all the resources at their command to woo a woman (and what woman would stand for that nonsense?). That being said, when I originally saw the preview I thought, "Who would choose Tom Hardy over Chris Pine? Pine is much more attractive!" Yet the more I see of Hardy, the more I begin to understand why the choice is not so clear cut.
RocknRolla goes on my watch list!
I definitely understand that, Ron. I'm coming around to seeing that people have other reasons for not liking this film other than not following the plot. I guess, ugh ;) I still think it had its reasons for being "boring" and anti-climactic, but I can see that that's not what everyone would prefer =)
Yeah for me with a film that's a slow burn like this it just comes down to do I find it interesting. Unfortunately in this case I did not. Slow pacing isn't a issue as long as I find the subject matter interesting for example I watched Zodiac the other day which is a very slow paced film, and I really enjoyed it because I was interested in the subject matter.
@jdetrick ugh haha don't blame me for watching RocknRolla =) (although it also has Idris Elba, mmmm)
Chris Pine, psh =P but yea, I really can't when it comes to modern romance movies/rom-coms. They make me start to internally hemorrhage. I think they're more harmful to society than violent action movies =) (an actual opinion of mine, though)
I 4-star'd it after seeing it in the theater. I was unsure about how much I liked it but it was masterfully done. I definitely agree that it's relatively easy to understand why some people love it, others not. And don't beat yourself up, I have the same unexplainable intrigue of Hardy.
To go slightly off topic, I recently saw The Lives of Others(no one seemed to have the desire to counter-argue my feelings on it) and found myself comparing it to Tinker Tailor. I feel like they are very contrasting examples on how to properly make a spy film(TTSS) and how not to do it(Lives of Others), and unlike the differences of opinion with Tinker Tailor(preferences based on genre or pacing) I don't understand the love for The Lives of Others(predictable, generic and plot driven).
Oblige me with a bit of explanation?
ugh Rick, why u gotta be so reasonable =) I saw your review of The Lives of Others, and saw your request for comment, and honestly, I was a bit flummoxed because it's been a long time since I've watched it. I remember liking it a lot at the time, and somehow I've held onto it as a film that I thought was really good (like I even recently put it on my canon list), but I can no longer support that opinion rationally at this point. I would have to re-watch. I think that at the time it did hit me emotionally though, but whether I would read that now as being manipulative...
Julie, I completely agree with you on romantic comedies. I recently rewatched My Best Friend's Wedding, which I liked when I was younger, and was seriously aghast at how that movie perpetuates such horrible stereotypes of women. When Nora Ephron died, there was such an outpouring of love for some of her movies, including Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail. I'm sorry she died (as I'm sorry when anyone dies), but her death doesn't make those movies any less atrocious. And as much as I like Channing Tatum, and he's impressed the hell out of me this year as an actor, I'd rather pluck my own eyebrows, one hair at a time, then watch Dear John.
Not only do these movies cement certain ideas in their viewers (usually that women are irrational), they also build unrealistic expectations about what love in the real world is like. Soulmates, love at first sight, love triumphing over people acting like complete and total idiots....I'm as romantic as the next person and very happily in an 11-year relationship at the moment, but at no time has this relationship mirrored anything I've seen in a romantic comedy.
Fair enough :)
I'd be interested to see what you think on a re-watch but it's not something I'd rush to. I think there could be a certain "cool" factor that I might have liked a couple years ago, but I think I'm spoiled by other things I've seen.
@jdetrick HAH I almost lost my drink at your Dear John response. I know that everyone has their escapist outlets, but it would be nice if the common women's one wasn't so harmful. I think that escapism also tends to be aspirational (when I watch a terrible action movie, I want to kick ass), which makes these modern romance movies even more terrible - not only bad depictions of women, but also perpetuating unrealistic, overwhelmingly white, upper-middle class, heterosexual relationships as the only norm. BLARGH.
I think that's why I like Drive so much - I really read it as the logical extreme of what the normal type of movie romance would actually look like, the love-at-first-sight, guy who would do anything for love.
@Rick Man that makes me so nervous, you know. I used to think that I was fairly safe in trusting my judgment for anything watched post-high school, but now I'm second-guessing myself - I saw that post-college =) I guess an interesting sign is that I don't particularly feel like re-watching it. Time to make some edits to my list, perhaps...
There's no shame in that. I think my cutoff for trusting myself is something like 2 years ago? But there are plenty of others who rave about that particular movie to a much more extreme level than your uncertain 5 stars, so who knows, but it confuses me :x