inarduisfidelis (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
inarduisfidelis) wrote2011-09-22 07:15 pm
inarduisfidelis) wrote2011-09-22 07:15 pm
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor
Please read responsibly, especially if you liked the film. Also, there be spoilers.
Well, I haven't read the book but I've seen the BBC adaptation and listened to the audio dramatisation, and am reliably informed that these are super close to the book. Which I have been listening to since this morning. So.
My main point of criticism is that Smiley and Guillam are supposed to be a team, Guillam is Smiley's right-hand man and, in the BBC adaptation, he was the second lead. Also Peter is the most likeable character and, to an extent, the audience identification figure. To rehash a tired phrase, he is in many ways "the Watson to Smiley's Holmes", and given Cumberbatch's standing, that was what I was hoping for. Especially since he'd talked so much about it being the ultimate experience for an actor.
Well, I'm not going to lie, I don't like at all what this adaptation did to the character. He's little more than a bit part, and completely different from what he's supposed to be. I got the feeling he wasn't really not up to the job, to the extent where I wondered why exactly Smiley trusted him as much as he did. Which, granted, is a fault of the script and direction more than the acting. Either way, I really wasn't impressed. He seemed too nervous, too insecure, and too young to be in the position he was in. He was supposed to be in charge of the scalp-hunters after all, and that was a demotion from another position in the Circus. He seemed more inexperienced than Ricki Tarr, and that was where it ended for me, really. I could not take him seriously. If they were going to give him a background that was that different from the source material, it needed explaining.
I also thought there was zero reason to make him gay, especially in the way it was done. In the source material he's the only one who gets out with his spine and heart still intact, and I felt that breaking him in this way was unnecessary.
I liked that Karla wasn't actually shown, but I didn't like that they had to take a shortcut with so many plot points (Bill Haydon being involved with Smiley's wife and the lighter being the two examples that spring to mind). Obviously, to fit this much story into a two-hour film, you have to take a hatchet somewhere. As a result, many things were underdeveloped or not shown at all, like Control's deteriorating mental state or the characterisation of pretty much any of the suspects apart from Bill. Or the massive massive backstory of Smiley's retirement and the reorganisation of the Circus, which is sort of important. By contrast, others were overdone past the point of painful obviousness (Bill/Jim, anyone?). And don't tell me you didn't twig who the mole was within the first ten minutes. So yes, I do find it ironic that all the reviews say what an intelligent film it is, because when you compare it to how complicated the story originally was, it is hugely simplified.
As for the performances: Gary Oldman and Tom Hardy are the ones who really stand out, I was surprised at how good Mark Strong was, and Colin Firth completely nailed Bill Haydon. And obviously, gorgeous cinematography and all the rest of it, so yes, it was easy on the eye. And I liked the use of Smiley's glasses to indicate the switch in time period. But that's mostly because I am usually atrocious at following that sort of thing and that simple device just made it so easy. Visual clues, film-makers, take note.
But I think the main issue I have with it is that it pretends to be something it isn't.
Let me explain by a similar case: State of Play. The original TV series is fantastic so I really wasn't sure about the film version. What the film version did was, essentially, work as a different interpretation of the same theme. The characters' names and essential characteristics were kept, the plot was similar, but it was transposed to a different setting and time and updated/adapted accordingly. The result was that film and series had enough in common but were at the same time sufficiently different from one another. You could accept them as separate entities and enjoy each on its own merits. They don't take away from each other.
By contrast, I don't think many people who like the BBC adaptation will like this one. It tries to be too many things. The main point they were trying to make was that being a spy messes you up for any kind of normal life, but if you try and do that with source material that's as plotty as this, it's pretty much destined to fail. The same point is much more explicit in another le Carré novel, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, which is also very much focussed on one character. And let's face it, this adaptation of TTSS was very focussed on Smiley. And here's another way in which the film pretends to be something it isn't: The advertising tempted me with the promise of an ensemble cast, but instead I got to watch Gary Oldman. Which really isn't bad, but not what I had expected either.
In short, I fail to be hugely impressed. I'm glad I went to see it because it was still a good film, but I think it was too overhyped and I'm too invested in the source material to appreciate it. I just didn't feel like it added anything essential or new to the story, which is what a good remake or reimagining should do, imho.
So, if you'd like to sell it to me or explain where I failed to appreciate it, do feel free to drop me a line :) I'm especially curious to hear what people who don't know the source material think of the film.
This entry was originally posted at http://morelindo.dreamwidth.org/458893.html. You can comment here or there (OpenID comments are enabled).
Well, I haven't read the book but I've seen the BBC adaptation and listened to the audio dramatisation, and am reliably informed that these are super close to the book. Which I have been listening to since this morning. So.
My main point of criticism is that Smiley and Guillam are supposed to be a team, Guillam is Smiley's right-hand man and, in the BBC adaptation, he was the second lead. Also Peter is the most likeable character and, to an extent, the audience identification figure. To rehash a tired phrase, he is in many ways "the Watson to Smiley's Holmes", and given Cumberbatch's standing, that was what I was hoping for. Especially since he'd talked so much about it being the ultimate experience for an actor.
Well, I'm not going to lie, I don't like at all what this adaptation did to the character. He's little more than a bit part, and completely different from what he's supposed to be. I got the feeling he wasn't really not up to the job, to the extent where I wondered why exactly Smiley trusted him as much as he did. Which, granted, is a fault of the script and direction more than the acting. Either way, I really wasn't impressed. He seemed too nervous, too insecure, and too young to be in the position he was in. He was supposed to be in charge of the scalp-hunters after all, and that was a demotion from another position in the Circus. He seemed more inexperienced than Ricki Tarr, and that was where it ended for me, really. I could not take him seriously. If they were going to give him a background that was that different from the source material, it needed explaining.
I also thought there was zero reason to make him gay, especially in the way it was done. In the source material he's the only one who gets out with his spine and heart still intact, and I felt that breaking him in this way was unnecessary.
I liked that Karla wasn't actually shown, but I didn't like that they had to take a shortcut with so many plot points (Bill Haydon being involved with Smiley's wife and the lighter being the two examples that spring to mind). Obviously, to fit this much story into a two-hour film, you have to take a hatchet somewhere. As a result, many things were underdeveloped or not shown at all, like Control's deteriorating mental state or the characterisation of pretty much any of the suspects apart from Bill. Or the massive massive backstory of Smiley's retirement and the reorganisation of the Circus, which is sort of important. By contrast, others were overdone past the point of painful obviousness (Bill/Jim, anyone?). And don't tell me you didn't twig who the mole was within the first ten minutes. So yes, I do find it ironic that all the reviews say what an intelligent film it is, because when you compare it to how complicated the story originally was, it is hugely simplified.
As for the performances: Gary Oldman and Tom Hardy are the ones who really stand out, I was surprised at how good Mark Strong was, and Colin Firth completely nailed Bill Haydon. And obviously, gorgeous cinematography and all the rest of it, so yes, it was easy on the eye. And I liked the use of Smiley's glasses to indicate the switch in time period. But that's mostly because I am usually atrocious at following that sort of thing and that simple device just made it so easy. Visual clues, film-makers, take note.
But I think the main issue I have with it is that it pretends to be something it isn't.
Let me explain by a similar case: State of Play. The original TV series is fantastic so I really wasn't sure about the film version. What the film version did was, essentially, work as a different interpretation of the same theme. The characters' names and essential characteristics were kept, the plot was similar, but it was transposed to a different setting and time and updated/adapted accordingly. The result was that film and series had enough in common but were at the same time sufficiently different from one another. You could accept them as separate entities and enjoy each on its own merits. They don't take away from each other.
By contrast, I don't think many people who like the BBC adaptation will like this one. It tries to be too many things. The main point they were trying to make was that being a spy messes you up for any kind of normal life, but if you try and do that with source material that's as plotty as this, it's pretty much destined to fail. The same point is much more explicit in another le Carré novel, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, which is also very much focussed on one character. And let's face it, this adaptation of TTSS was very focussed on Smiley. And here's another way in which the film pretends to be something it isn't: The advertising tempted me with the promise of an ensemble cast, but instead I got to watch Gary Oldman. Which really isn't bad, but not what I had expected either.
In short, I fail to be hugely impressed. I'm glad I went to see it because it was still a good film, but I think it was too overhyped and I'm too invested in the source material to appreciate it. I just didn't feel like it added anything essential or new to the story, which is what a good remake or reimagining should do, imho.
So, if you'd like to sell it to me or explain where I failed to appreciate it, do feel free to drop me a line :) I'm especially curious to hear what people who don't know the source material think of the film.
This entry was originally posted at http://morelindo.dreamwidth.org/458893.html. You can comment here or there (OpenID comments are enabled).
no subject
so - I've seen the film and am now halfway through the book, I've read a couple of JLC's other novels before but not TTSS and I'm not familiar with the Alec Guinness version or the radio/audio adaptation, though they are on my list of things to get hold of! I'd actually read the first 80 or so pages of the novel before I saw the film, which was just enough to be confused and not quite enough to be helpful. Anyway: will try to respond to your points.
- Guillam: I thought he got a lot of screen time considering that he's not a suspect and not really part of the generation of spies that the story is about. He had far more to do than Ciaran Hinds as Roy Bland, for example. And I think his nervousness is explained by the unusual situation of his having to spy on his own people; as he says to Ricki Tarr, 'Do you know how that made me feel?' - i.e. it made him feel awful. And he gets considerably less nervous as the film goes on - the business with the combination-locked cupboard is the first thing he has to do in the office itself, by the time he steals the file he's dealing with it much better, and by the time he picks up Esterhase he seems pretty much to have just terrified him into getting into that car.
There is actually an inconsistency within the novels regarding Guillam - in JLC's first few books Guillam was a near-contemporary of Smiley. Then - realising he wanted to write more books about Smiley - he revised a few things, made Guillam younger (and gave him more to do), and made Smiley younger as well so that the novels could continue being set in the then-present day.
You mention in the comments that Guillam ran a team of agents in North Africa and that this wasn't mentioned - so far in the book it has been just that, mentioned, and no more. I think it would be tricky to work in due to it being fairly tangential to the main plot. I also think that for purposes of realism you can't have people - who in the story supposedly know each other very well - and who moreover are trained not to tell anyone anything unless they have to - mentioning at length things that they have no need to or which are mutually already known. (Which is why Smiley unburdening himself about Karla to Guillam is so powerful.)
- e.g. Smiley knows Guillam is gay, he's worked it out, and would never, ever let on that he knew, unless he had to, and here he does - incredibly tactfully - because he knows that if the Circus can make things difficult for Guillam they will.
regarding Guillam being gay in the film and not in the book: I think that basically all the changes made from the book (e.g. Guillam's homosexuality, Ricki and Irina having far more genuine affection than in the book, the reordering of events) were done to heighten the themes of loyalty and betrayal. Everyone in the film betrays in some way someone on a personal level - Smiley's difficulty is in seeing past the web of quite ordinarily unpleasant human betrayal to the single betrayal that is not personal at all. The paradox being that the minor betrayals are relevant to the big ones. I don't think that they were trying to show that being a spy messes you up - when Ricki Tarr says, "I don't want to end up like you," I think what he really means is not messed-up but lonely
no subject
There is nervousness in the book as well, agreed, but not to the level where you think he can't do the job.
I'm aware of the inconsistency in between JLC's books, but it doesn't really matter that much for the adaptation. It's a continuity error in the source material, and yes, it's annoying.
The reason I mentioned North Africa was because Cumberbatch talked so much in interviews about going to Morocco, to the city where Guillam was stationed, and wandering around to get in character. I know actors do all sorts of weird things that never make it onto the screen. The point is, I never got the sense that this is a man who, at one point, was running his own network of agents, who has substantial experience of the spy game. My coworkers, who saw the film a couple of days before me, all thought he seemed like a work experience guy more than anything else.
Re: the gayness, one reviewer pointed out that homosexuals in those days had to be good at double-think, at acting a part pretty much 24/7. Like I said, if I had got the impression that Peter was any good at his job, I would happily accept this as the reason for the change, but as it was, it didn't convince me.