If you find yourself asking “What happened?” at the end
of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, don’t
assume you’re alone. This is not because it’s confounding to the point of being
indecipherable, but rather for its insistence on avoiding the clichés of spy thrillers
that we’ve grown so accustomed to.
To summarize the plot could take all day. Based on the
John le Carré novel, the story is set at the upper echelons of British
Intelligence in the thick of the Cold War, when Britain and Russia each had
spies working to subvert the other and each likely had moles working in the
other’s foreign office. Le Carré knows something about British Intelligence,
having worked there for many years before retiring and devoting himself full
time to writing spy thrillers. His work is the antithesis to Ian Fleming’s
James Bond series, which rely heavily on action and thrills, where Bond’s moral
clarity is rarely, if ever, questioned. The characters that le Carré creates
live in a world of moral ambiguity. Their conflicts are within their own
offices and directed internally much more than toward any foreign power. That
this story involves the presence of a well-placed mole at the top of British
Intelligence is just par for the course.
The sense I got watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (the novel remains unread by me) is that
the novel’s plotting is deliberate, intricately well-constructed, and designed
to induce more brain than heart exercise from the pounding you might experience
from other spy thrillers. Directed by Tomas Alfredson and written by Bridget
O’Connor and Peter Straughan, it is an exercise in precision – of character
development, plotting, scripting, framing, and editing. The more time that
passes after having seen it (and as I write this it’s already been more than
two weeks), the more impressed I am with its ability to insinuate itself into
my thoughts. This is a movie that not only requires, but demands, multiple
viewings. Deep concentration during the first viewing may be enough to give you
the gist, but to appreciate how well-constructed it is, my instinct tells me
you need to return to it.
This is not a spy thriller for anyone expecting a kind of
Bourne Identity or even Manchurian Candidate suspense. The whole
of the movie is pitched more or less at the same level. There are few action
beats, and those that are interspersed are low-key enough to recede into the
background. The beautiful, fluid and sometimes haunting score by Alberto
Iglesias doesn’t swell to telegraph to the audience when something dramatic or
important is happening. There are no thumping and thudding notes to pump up the
adrenaline levels during tense scenes (probably because the whole movie rides
on high tension). It functions very much like I imagine the real business of
espionage works – with a lot of time spent trolling through paperwork and
interviewing people and very little running, jumping and shooting. Because of
le Carré’s background, we can guess that he writes his novels from the
perspective of someone who knows the life. He builds the tension around
character and mystery rather than thrills.
Alfredson, who previously directed the wonderful Let the Right One In (the original
Swedish version), gives this film a similarly stark look. That film was
visually marked by the white winter snow against dark nighttime settings with
uncomfortably long lingering shots. He brings similar techniques to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but instead
of the white snow to level out the palette, the film is bathed in beiges,
browns and ambers giving the London of the film a downtrodden feel, a city that
still seethes from the effects of WWII. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema keeps
the camera distanced from most of the action, using close-ups sparingly giving
the sense that we are observing the action from afar.
The film is studded with fantastic actors who have the
ability to play their parts with severity, maintaining stone-cold expressions
that depict the long slog of their jobs. There’s John Hurt as Control, the head
of Intelligence forced into retirement after a botched operation involving an
agent (Mark Strong) who is gunned down in Budapest at the beginning of the
film. Gary Oldman is George Smiley, Control’s right-hand man also forced out,
but then brought back for a surreptitious investigation to discover the
identity of the mole. Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) takes over operations after that.
His close-knit group of confidantes – all of them suspects – are Toby Esterhase
(David Dencik), Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds), and Bill Haydon (Colin Firth). Benedict
Cumberbatch plays Peter Guillam, a lower-level officer who assists Smiley. Tom
Hardy is the final major player as Ricki Tarr, the field agent who originally
brought the possibility of a mole to “The Circus,” the nickname for the
intelligence headquarters used in the story. The unfortunate drawback to having
so many first-rate actors is that many of them simply aren’t given sufficient
screen time to enjoy their presence. But then that’s always going to be one of
the sacrifices made in adapting a complex novel for the screen.
Oldman’s performance, however, stands out as a thing of
beauty. It’s a performance so inward that not only does Oldman disappear into
Smiley, but Smiley almost disappears from scenes. Subdued and understated are
almost too strong for what he does. Smiley is one of the most interesting spy
characters I’ve seen. He exudes melancholy from a lifetime dealing with sordid
material and losing his wife in the process. Most everything is in the eyes,
and so little in what he says and does.
The plot is so intricately woven and structured it takes
deep concentration to puzzle it all out. It operates in two different timelines
as Smiley interviews various former employees of The Circus and learns new
facts from each encounter. I mentioned earlier that the film isn’t crafted as
most conventional spy thrillers are. The result is a film that leaves you
feeling uneasy primarily because we’ve been conditioned to expect a particular
set of formulaic plot developments and results from thrillers. When the big
reveal occurs and we learn who the mole is, it’s downplayed so much so that I
wasn’t sure I was actually being told the answer to the mystery. Then I
questioned whether or not some additional plot twist was on the way. The movie
got me. It’s a straightforward mystery that doesn’t rely on surprise endings,
shoot-outs, chases or talking killers. Ultimately the film ends with a mild
bang, but the effect in keeping with the tone of the whole film is that it goes
out with a whimper – one that you’re likely to puzzle over for some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment