Interesting item about Bill Haydon. In every scene, where he attends a formal sit-down meeting in the Circus conference room, he has no papers or folder in front of him. In two scenes, he arrives last with his tea-ballancing act...but next time you watch it, you'll see: no papers of any kind. It's like he's Buddah and can remember everything that's discussed.
share[deleted]
Good point...I remember that scene!!! Is he bored because he has to wait for his collegues to "catch-up" or it it....?
CmdrCody
I believe that he is on red-alert at all times but makes a profession out of appearing to be disinterested. How could he possibly be considered to be a threat of any kind with his Hail-Fellow-Well-Met facade?
shareThere is another pretty little cameo scene around the conference table with Control sitting sideways at its head, looking out the window. Bill Haydon is the last to arrive with a cheerful, "Oh Lor', I thought it would be half over by now." And then addressing Percy Alleline he continues, "Got a rabbit to pull out of your hat Percy? You've got that Britain-can-make-it look!"(an expression from the Harold Wilson era, as I remember). "It's very intimidating."
The conference gets underway and Percy Alleline introduces the subject of "Witchcraft" and the very special security measures that will have to be adopted in order to preserve secrecy. He mentions the AWP Room and the need for a janitor of "this Service" to envigilate as to who has access and readership. At which point Control chimes in, "Wouldn't you prefer to have Securicor?" Bill Haydon comments ironically, "Well, he already has his own personal wizard. The odd commissionaire seems modest enough staff."
I rather like this scene for its humour as well as its tension. Until Bill Haydon speaks, he has been sitting next to Percy Alleline, wreathed in his pipe tobacco smoke with his eyes closed - rather like the Cheshire Cat in Alice.
Bill Haydon....traitor. That's what he was on account for. I figure he as a charcater was probably modelled off of those Cambridge spies(Philby, Burgess etc) who looked to the East for their pursuit of "happiness". But in a way I thought his reason for going over to the other side weren't really given extensive expression in the series. Was it to most?
shareIn his interview with George at Sarat (after Bill was exposed as the traitor) he mentioned his deep disappointment of what Britain had become after World War II. "We had already become America's streetwalkers!"
He was ashamed of what England had become and had a deep hatred of America. His initial gifts of intelligence to the Soviets were designed to hurt America, not so much to hurt Britain. I think he decided to betray his home country because he came to see Britain as irredeemable.
Before he was exposed, and even afterwards, his plan was to abandon Britain and flee to Russia, his adopted country. His homeland disgusted him and he wanted nothing further to do with it. The only reason it didn't happen was Jim Prideaux quietly ended him.
Haydon mentions he was recruited at Oxford in the 1930's.
Obviously the famous Four including Philby are the model for Haydon (LeCarre has said as much)
David Cornwall was forced to resign because his cover was blown, this is a personal thing for him. 'Bill Haydon' destroyed his career. I get the feeling there is a lot of David Cornwall in George Smiley - a way for LeCarre to imagine his career playing out.
a way for LeCarre to imagine his career playing out.
Yes, I could see that as well. And in the series, Prideaux does kill Haydon but if he didn't I'd wonder what would've happened to Haydon. Would he have been executed? Sent to Russia for a trade? Or maybe life imprisonment? or maybe even a 25 years..for good behavior????
Yes, I could see that as well. And in the series, Prideaux does kill Haydon but if he didn't I'd wonder what would've happened to Haydon. Would he have been executed? Sent to Russia for a trade? Or maybe life imprisonment? or maybe even a 25 years..for good behavior????
[deleted]
You have a definite future in television ahead of you, my son.
share
Did anyone find the casting of Ian Richardson too obvious a giveaway that Haydon was the baddie?
I haven't read the book, nor had I seen this miniseries until this year, so I watched it with post-House of Cards eyes, so to me Richardson was the obvious baddie and that spoiled the suspense for me. Of course, the series kind of builds up to the point it can only be Haydon or Percy or Toby, but still, I would have preferred not knowing all along it was Haydon.
I must say, though, Haydon/Richardson does give a very good act from the beginning with that silly tea-cup balancing thing. lol.
.
I must say, though, Haydon/Richardson does give a very good act from the beginning with that silly tea-cup balancing thing. lol.
Yes, he was doing a good job there wasn't he? To me it looked a nice visual metaphor for his activities in the Circus.
The first Le Carré book I read was Smiley’s People, so I’ve never gone into Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy not knowing that it was Haydon. Even in the book, I really don’t think that Le Carré really intended to keep the reader in the dark until the end, or if he did, he didn’t really try very hard. In a not-quite-meta moment near the end of the book, Smiley observes that pretty much everyone—Control, Jim, Connie, etc.—knew deep down that it was Haydon, but “all of them had tacitly shared that unexpressed half-knowledge which like an illness they hoped would go away if it was never owned to, never diagnosed.”
share
Yeah, I think you're right, dylan. It doesn't spoil the story knowing who the mole is. The fun is in the chase, and how things unfold, and the interrelatonships and the strategies and tactics, etc.
I wonder if the same can be said of the Cambridge 5 (Philby, etc.). Did MI6 people know subconsciously who the mole(s) was/were?
.
You know I think London was onto all of them. The fact that Philby got recalled to London after being in Washington said something and Maclean I think was checked on even in the late 40's. Maybe the fact that they went to a name school helped them a bit in the early period to keep them "under the radar". Interested to know how these guys are held nowadays in Britain today.
shareI wonder if the same can be said of the Cambridge 5 (Philby, etc.). Did MI6 people know subconsciously who the mole(s) was/were?
Haydon is actually the most charming of the characters around the Circus table, in both the TV series and the book (I haven't seen the film). Alleline is a boor, Bland a brilliant academic but with a history of nervous breakdowns, and Esterhase a snob.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
He becomes slightly less likeable in the novel, when we get a glimpse of his rather unsavory lifestyle through Smiley's eyes, but that part was pretty much left out of the series. We know he's bisexual, and apparently quite a hit with the women (whether as an actual lover or simply because of his charisma is never really made clear, except in Ann's case), but he's still obviously the most magnetic personality. His portrayal makes it believable that Karla would want him to be high up, but not at the very top of the heap as such a strong personality could have distinct disadvantages in such a highly prominent position.
shareThat is through Smiley's eyes, but jealousy perhaps plays a part in that, since Haydon is cuckolding Smiley.
This is more visible in the book, but Guillam seems to have hero-worshipped Haydon to a degree and is as I recall, enraged and a little distraught when the mole turns out to be Haydon. I got the feeling that if it had been Alleline, Bland or Esterhase he would have been less distraught.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
Well, in the novel we do know that among other things, Haydon is living with a girl whom he's likely fathered a child by, and whom he pretty cavalierly writes off...doubtful he cares too much for her or anyone else, for that matter; and we know that he's a frustrated artist-manqué who likely enough uses the excuse of his unappreciated 'genius' as something of a rationale for his actions--unspoken, but that probability comes through in the depiction of the character. A good bit of this is lost in the teleplay, which doesn't delve quite so much into Haydon's personal existence (most likely because the screenwriter recognized that to focus on Haydon to that extent would have caused the viewer to spot his identity as the mole too early on), but enough remains for us to realize that although Smiley has legitimate reason for taking a rather jaundiced and biased view of Bill, there's also a good bit extraneous to Bill's affair with Ann which indicates that beneath the charm there is a personality that's blighted in some real way.
shareYes, Smiley goes to see her and hands over a cheque from Haydon. She can tell that Smiley doesn't like Haydon.
Haydon does seem to have had feelings for Prideaux, but it didn't stop him betraying him.
An additional thought - none of the suspects is exactly filled with warm regard for other people. I don't think that is to be found in that world of espionage. Not so much in this but in the other novel The Looking Glass War Smiley rather casually sends Leiser to his death in East Germany.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
There's a distinct feeling in the novel's delineation of Haydon that he gets his kicks purely from the fact that he can rack up sexual conquests on both sides of the fence due to the force of his looks and personality. He doesn't really care for anyone, male or female; certainly there's no love involved in his bedding of Ann, though we can guess that she feels some towards him, despite her denials to Smiley. Haydon seems pretty cold emotionally, though he has some feeling for Jim as a bit of a protege and talent he's discovered and developed, and was likely lovers with him for at least some period of time. (Judging by the way the 'execution scene' was handled in the teleplay--with Jim giving Haydon that small kiss just prior to ending his life--we can guess that Jim's feelings, as Ann's, were much greater for Haydon than Haydon's for him: which in turn suggests that the reasons for Jim's single-minded drive towards that final act are driven possibly more by a sense of emotional betrayal, than the betrayal of his person into the hands of the enemy. Jim may have been physically tortured by his captors, but the worse torture is in knowing that this came about as a result of the completely cynical actions of the man he loved and worshipped.)
shareAs it happens, Prideaux is my favourite character in both the novel and the TV series. He has a certain integrity somewhat out of place in a spy environment.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
Ian Bannen's playing of Prideaux is a marvel. The final glimpse we get of him, as he sits back silently with that look on his face is completely haunting and hard to forget.
shareThere's a distinct feeling in the novel's delineation of Haydon that he gets his kicks purely from the fact that he can rack up sexual conquests on both sides of the fence due to the force of his looks and personality. He doesn't really care for anyone, male or female;
He definitely does that. You get the feeling that's always his main goad--being able to lead on, to cheat. The idea of being a successful mole for so many years would have appealed enormously, no doubt. His pleasure in leading Smiley is certainly physically evidenced in a rather devastating way by his affair with Ann--that aspect of it is probably more pleasurable to him than the actual act would have been: sex is simply another way of leading on, of cheating others. To someone of his essentially cold personality, it would simply be another means of exercising his superiority over the quotidian, just another means of bending people and situations to his own uses.
shareThe book merely hints at how Haydon is killed, though the hint is a heavy one. The TV series spells it out - Prideaux invited him to a rendezvous at the detention centre (whose security is notably lax), Haydon obviously agreed to meet, and then Prideaux killed him. I wonder why Haydon agreed to go and see him, since the possibility that he might take revenge must have occurred to him. Haydon looks a little remorseful about what Prideaux went through when the latter tells him.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
I've read that the chief reason Haydon's killing is depicted is because at that time there was no certainty of a sequel's being filmed, and the series' makers didn't want the viewing audience to be uncertain as to what happened. As you say, Jim isn't explicitly named in the novel, but there's little enough room for doubt--and in the series, we can feel pretty certain that Smiley knows exactly who was responsible. (In any case, in Smiley's People, there is never a mention of who killed Haydon, either, book or series.)
I've always thought that Haydon goes out to meet Jim precisely because, on some level, he wants to die. Perhaps he's had time to think in captivity, and it could be he's begun to doubt that his future in Russia will be all that bright.
While I don't think he would have been executed, he was probably too English to settle down all that easily in the USSR. Also I think some lingering affection/guilt towards Prideaux made him meet him. And certainly someone determined to live at all costs wouldn't have gone alone and unarmed to meet another person that he had betrayed.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
Does he feel any guilt at all, I wonder? Is he capable of that?
shareI thought I detected just a trace in his expression and voice before Prideaux killed him.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
He seems also to express just a trace of it in the series when writing out the check for Smiley to give to the girlfriend he's about to desert, remarking as he writes a quick letter to her, that it's so "she can forget me". As he hands it to Smiley he says "Well, I can't take her. Anyway she'd be a bloody millstone", but as he's saying it, there's a quick expression on Richardson's face which could be taken as feeling some shame or at least embarrassment at Smiley's witnessing this piece of callousness on his part (he also seems to be on the verge of expressing some slight bit of sadness as he's penning the letter). Not certain he really feels any regret at leaving her behind, but there seems to be some small hint that even he knows his actions are pretty reprehensible where she's concerned.
shareHe's probably a bit of a psychopath, though perhaps not a full-blown one. Then again most of the characters, not just Haydon, inhabit a world of espionage, that is, among other things, false identities, the necessary (or unnecessary) lie and people being expendable.
In the book, Prideaux tells Smiley something which the latter is not sure about, reflecting that in his view, after a lifetime as an agent, Prideaux is still a rather poor liar. This suggests Prideaux has as much personal integrity as someone can have in that world, but it may have made it easier to victimise him.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
Little doubt that it's Haydon's own characteristics which make him such a perfect fit in that world, and such a successful mole for so long. A case of precisely the right sort for the right job. Prideaux, as you note, has perhaps a bit too much of a conscience to slot in quite so well; or perhaps not so much conscience as a rather basic view of right and wrong which even all of the intrigue he must deal in regularly can't completely corrupt.
sharePrideaux shows concern in both the book and the TV series about the fate of the espionage network, which is also out of place in that world where blown agents are apt to be regarded as expendable. Whereas in the book The Looking-Glass War, Smiley himself brings the word that Fred Leiser, the agent sent into East Germany, is to be left to his fate, and is casual bordering on callous about it.
Considering his concern, there is a tragic irony in Prideaux killing Haydon: it means that if there are any surviving members of the networks, they will not be exchanged for Haydon now that he is dead.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
which is also out of place in that world where blown agents are apt to be regarded as expendable.While this is a common—not to say clichéd—view of spy fiction in general and le Carré’s writing in particular, I don’t think there’s much actual textual evidence of this in his books or in this series.
Whereas in the book The Looking-Glass War, Smiley himself brings the word that Fred Leiser, the agent sent into East Germany, is to be left to his fate, and is casual bordering on callous about it.I disagree with this characterization of Smiley’s appearance at the end of The Looking Glass War. At this point in the book, Leiser is beyond help, and his arrest is imminent. Smiley’s tone is, if anything, conciliatory and apologetic, but he criticizes Haldane for letting his concern with “technique” override his good judgment in mounting the operation in the first place. share
Recall that he (Smiley) advises Alleline to recover what are left of the networks 'for humanitarian reasons' after Haydon's capture, when, from a pragmatic point of view, it might be better simply to leave them to their fate. Smiley can certainly be a pragmatist, maybe even to the point of coldness, if the situation absolutely demands it, but I think overall he prefers the humane solution if it's at all feasible. It's more properly Haydon who would be seen as the sort to find agents utterly expendable even if another way out might be available; and Smiley, we know, is meant to be the complete antithesis of Haydon in more ways than one.
shareI read The Looking Glass War in German translation but Smiley certainly brings the message that Leiser is to be left to his fate and if I recall rightly, he advises on damage limitation, ie. we never had anything to do with Leiser etc. etc. One of them present, Avery, is broken by the experience, including the abandonment of Leiser, and is weeping at the end of the chapter. Nobody looks at him, including Smiley. Avery bonded somewhat with Leiser during the latter's training and you are left to conclude that Avery is not tough/ruthless enough for this world - but Smiley certainly is.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
The career of Anthony Blunt suggests that British intelligence's knowledge was probably a bit more than subconscious; while it's doubtful anyone in the organization ever flatly came out and said "these men are spies, but for reasons of saving face we aren't going to uncover them as such", it seems very likely there was a climate of 'knowing without knowing' that surrounded the Cambridge spies and a definite measure of tacit agreement amongst the upper echelons that nothing was going to really be done in the way of investigating them, or at least conducted in such a dilatory manner that, as in Blunt's case, nothing was really revealed/done/made public until decades later.
share