Watched all the episodes on BBC4. Never got the chance in 1979 as my childhood portable TV was a year away, which would open up the world to me, unlike the family TV stuck on ITV.
With more time to give to the narrative I understood the series better than the film.
The killing of Bill Haydon was better as his assailant got to speak to him aforehand.
Now BBC4 needs to show Smiley's People.
The killing of Bill Haydon was better as his assailant got to speak to him aforehand.I agree with this.
I agree too, but you could also argue that they did speak in the film also, albeit without words. Haydon saw Bill, but did not try to run away. That exhange of looks obviously said a lot between them.
One thing the TV series could have done better was the scene where Smiley meets Karla for the first and only time. I know people love that scene and I love it too, many people even think it's the highlight of the whole series. But in the book, that part is ten times more exciting and interesting. In fact, the movie was closer to the tone of the book in that particular scene. Although it's told through Smiley's recollection and without ever showing Karla, you can feel the atmosphere of the book right there. I prefer the TV series to the movie in most aspects, except that particular scene.
Never be complete.
Downloaded and viewed Smiley's People over the past 4 days. That was great too.
Nice to see Bernard Hepton again.
Most of the first episode had me wondering what was going to happen but after the killing of the general the story built into a great climax.
Another talkative performance by Patrick Stewart just 5 years before STNG.
Barry Foster was maybe a little over the top as Saul Enderby.
And Michael Lonsdale as Grigoriev who I recognised after awhile from The Day of Jackal and having his bare bottom spanked in Bunuel's The Phantom of Liberty.
The only thing that had left me wondering at the end of it all was the chap on the motorbike telling Smiley that he'd done enough. Who wanted that? Another mole?
The acting in the tv series was awful and wooden. Oldman et al knocked spots off them and the style of the movie me was more sophisticated. Le Carre said about how Gary Oldman captured the emotional pain, whereas Guinness just worried about whether the glasses made him look like Smiley.
shareFunny then, that Le Carre has said that Guinness was so perfect as Smiley that he modeled his subsequent written version of Smiley after Guinness' interpretation of the character.
I'll agree Oldman was good (though not really the physical Smiley of the novels), but the rest of the cast of the tv version 'awful and wooden'? Christ, you must be joking--they were the characters of the book come to life, whereas the cast of the film, with the exception of Oldman (and maybe Toby Jones) was mainly forgettable.
(BTW, if you prefer the film so greatly to the mini, whyn't you go over to the board for the film and discuss it with fellow enthusiasts, rather than spending your time over here bitching about how bad the mini was compared to the film?)
Le Carre wouldn't have been able adapt his portrayal of Smiley on Oldman as he played him decades later. Guinness was simply an overrated actor playing Guinness in a different costume The movie made me curious about Le Carre and the story. The series had more time to tells the story but the acting all round was embarrassing. I can go where I like on the boards thank you very much.
shareAnd thankfully the rest of us can simply ignore you--thanks very much .
shareI have to agree. The film was well done to be sure but the whole story condensed into 2 hours just doesn't compare to the 7×50 minute episode narrative afforded by this version.
"I don't think there's anything extraordinary about me except this passion for the truth."