Review: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Set in the 70s, Gary Oldman is George Smiley, a retired British secret agent hired by Undersecretary Simon McBurney to find a mole in the Service (AKA ‘The Circus’), after the death of Control (John Hurt). The culprit is likely to be one of the four heads of The Circus (Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Ciaran Hinds, and David Dencik), and Smiley, aided by a small band of helpers (including Benedict Cumberbatch to do the grunt work), must be very, very careful in not arousing any of their suspicions. No one is to be trusted. Mark Strong plays agent Jim Prideaux, who had been dispatched by Control to Budapest to get some critical information, in a mission that went pear-shaped. Tom Hardy turns up as Ricki Tarr, a possible deserter who played part in a bungled operation.

 

This is a strange one. Directed by Tomas Alfredson (the overrated “Let the Right One In”), this 2011 adaptation of the classic John Le Carre novel is a perfectly admirable film, I suppose. Some people will absolutely love it and proclaim it to be a five-star classic. I have no doubt about that. There’s certainly not much wrong with it, per se (obvious casting does make the spy stand out like a sore thumb, though), and it’s kinda pointless criticising the film for being the way it is, because for the type of film it is, it rather has to be this way. It needs to be chilly, detached, and dense. However, I still think I can legitimately say that being the way it is, it’s not an especially lively film nor is it filmed with especially charismatic people, and criticise the film in that sense. Look at “The Spy Who Came in From the Cold”, another Le Carre adaptation that was nonetheless gripping and fascinating entertainment. But this? I can’t say I especially enjoyed it, being somewhat distanced from it, due to tone, character, and plot. I wasn’t as confused by it as some people, I mean it’s basically just Gary Oldman looking for a mole, how is that hard to follow, really? But the film certainly seems a lot more complicated than that, whether the fault of Le Carre, the director, or screenwriters Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan (the latter having written the awful “The Men Who Stare at Goats”. O’Connor was his wife, who sadly died of cancer after this film). It’s strange that a story so dense and demanding of one’s attention should also be emotionally detached. And the combination doesn’t come off, at least not for me.

 

The sense of loneliness and sadness certainly appealed to me at first, but the passivity of the main character in particular really makes it hard to stay invested in it outside of fits and starts. Oldman’s Smiley is like the reporter from “Citizen Kane”, except he’s seen on screen and is the main character. Oldman’s fine, I suppose, but it’s a minimalist and not very interesting performance, perhaps deliberately. Personally, I think one of his co-stars, Ciaran Hinds would’ve made for a better Smiley than Oldman does. That said, Oldman is still a lot better than Daniel Craig was in “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. The cast is full of interesting names and faces, with Toby Jones and John Hurt (sounding like he’s either lived a thousand lives or smoked a thousand packs of cigarettes a day) especially good here. Tom Hardy is also good, but saddled with a terrible wig that has him looking like Jamie Oliver. There’s a nice small turn by the underrated Simon McBurney too, who looks a bit like a young Ralph Richardson. Benedict Cumberbatch is OK too, though I bet he got his arse kicked at school for that name. I couldn’t help thinking throughout that Paul Bettany should’ve had his role, and perhaps Cumberbatch was cast so that they didn’t entirely alienate the youth demographic or something (Hardy too, I suppose). It’s a shame the terrific Mark Strong isn’t around much, because he’s usually a welcome presence on screen. Colin Firth, meanwhile, continues to remind me of the late Robert Donat. I can’t shake it from my mind. His performance is fine, but the role isn’t especially large.

 

I also think the cast and the very British scenery and overall look of the film give it an interesting texture, even if it’s not enough to make the film particularly enjoyable. The choice of locales do deserve praise, however, and you can’t tell that the director is Swedish. It seems a very British film to me.

 

This is a bloody hard film to grade, though unlike “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (which was even more detached and frankly awful), at least here I feel like the book might be worth a read. I’m sure it reads better than it appears on screen, though apparently the TV series was excellent too. Le Carre seems to make spy work appear like accounting, and whilst this is intentional, it doesn’t for me make for much fun. Le Carre fans will likely disagree and that’s fine. But the film didn’t do much for me, and not because I was too dumb to understand it, more because it didn’t keep me interested enough to want to get into it.

 

Rating: C+