MovieChat Forums > Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2012) Discussion > I just didn't understand ANYTHING

I just didn't understand ANYTHING


I go to the movies a lot, watched some Godard movies which left me less puzzled than this.
I came out of the cinema, without understanding anything that had happened from beginning to end...
I was lost after 10 minutes. Too many names, very few explanations.
I remember it's the first and only movie who ever made me feel like this.
I always wanted to watch it again to see if I was just on a bad day back then, but haven't found the courage yet.
Very frustrating

reply

I know ,it's quite a complicated story but ive found that if you get to know who's names are who's and keep in mind all the time that Gary Oldmans character 'George Smiley' is looking for just one traitor out of the spys whos names are in the films title then it gets much much simpler to understand in repeated viewings.

Lucca Brasi sleeps with the fishes!!!

reply

Laffitte, here's access to a relevant file "from a new secret source of mine":

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubyfhxyptnzwmqd/ttss-guide.pdf?dl=0

- a brief rundown of the characters which would have helped me on first viewing. We're thrown in medias res and if you usually give scant attention to names expecting recaps (as I do) it's easy to get very lost.

The early screenplay is online too - very useful for clarifying points (especially with some actor directions included) and interesting to compare with the final product. Currently available here:

http://academy.filminfocus.com/scripts/ttss_screenplay.pdf


There's some good online explanations too - particularly two David Bordwell pieces.

Finally, the 1979 TV mini-series (on You Tube) and ultimately the book itself offer more expansive treatments if the curiosity takes you as it has a good few of us. Just don't expect everything to be neatly resolved by any version, they all stand on their own terms with character motivations very open to interpretation.

reply


I always wanted to watch it again to see if I was just on a bad day back then, but haven't found the courage yet.


Do not torture yourself. It is not worth it. If you want a challenge for your brain, watch the BBC version or read the book. This version was made deliberately to be incomprehensible. Come back to this version ONLY after you understand the story from other sources; and even then only to laugh at how awful it is.

reply

Come on, seriously?

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply


Come on, seriously?


Sure. I mean, it's just my opinion, but yeah. It is indeed my opinion.

reply

In order to get an idea of the torment the poor OP experienced, I have summarized the events of the first 22 minutes of this film. I have not tried to include all details of course, but I'm fairly sure I've included everything that might possibly help explain what is going on.

In order to simulate the experience of watching this film cold, without knowledge of the book, or the underlying characters and concepts, I have changed all the names and unique spy-jargon.

###################################################

Oldy admits Baldy to a dingy room for a secret meeting. Oldy tells him: trust nobody; they are after my head; nobody else knows; go to Budapest to meet a Hungarian general who wants to come over; he will tell the name of a gopher the Russians have planted in British Intelligence at the top of the carousel; we have to find a rotten apple.

Now we see Baldy walking in a crowded foreign city. It must be Budapest.

Now Baldy sits at a café table in the hall of an atrium with a lanky Hungarian. Lanky says porkolts beat goulash but you can’t get them because Moscow took the pigs. The waiter is sweaty. Baldy wants to meet Lanky’s friend. He’s coming any moment now, says Lanky. Baldy notices others are watching him. He excuses himself and starts walking away. Sweaty Waiter runs out and shoots at Baldy’s back from 20 feet away. He misses. Baldy freezes. A Russian yells “Stop, put your gun away”. Sweaty shoots again. Baldy now lies bleeding and inert. A young mom nursing a baby is slumped with a bullet in her head. The Russian curses Hungarian idiots: “we wanted him alive”.

Now we see another city. London?

Now Oldy sits in a room lined in orange foam. He signs, with a purple "H", some British Intelligence Document. Sitting with him, at a large table are 5 mid-aged men: Peevish, Chuckles, Shorty, Tweedy and Muggs. Peevish wishes he could have done more, but Oldy says Peevish did all he could. Oldy is drinking, and not sharing his liquor. He says its time he left the party. Shorty asks about Chuckles and Oldy says “Chuckles is leaving with me”. Everyone seems glum, especially Chuckles.

Now Tweedy and Shorty are in a hallway. Peevish and others walk by. Shorty waves at them after they pass. Tweedy says “You little prick, Shorty”.

Now we follow Oldy as he walks out of a gloomy office building, followed by Chuckles. Various people watch them as they go, including Young Chap, Fuzzface, Greta, Muggs & Peevish. They pass Walrus the doorkeeper; then an iron gate. On the street, Oldy and Chuckles stare at each other blankly. Then Oldy turns his back to Chuckles and walks away.

A succession of scenes: Now someone puts a file in a dumbwaiter; we follow it as it ascends. Now an alarm goes up & Chuckles wakes up in bed with bad hair. Now back to the still-ascending dumbwaiter. Now Peevish pokes his head out of the orange-foamed room & says “shall we start” to Tweedy and Muggs while Dolly walks by with a trolley. Now Chuckles is swimming in a pond with an old guy. Now Dolly unlocks a cabinet & puts a file in. Now Chuckles is walking beside a pond. Now Oldy lies slumped & inert over the edge of a hospital bed. Now Chuckles is at the eye-doctor, getting new glasses. Now Chuckles is walking in the rain; now in the snow; now in the fog.

Now Chuckles arrives at the front of a city house, removes wedges from the door, and enters. He sorts the mail & lays some on a counter: it is addressed to Joy Chuckles, in London. Now he stares at a dreary piece of modern art, hanging framed on the wall.

Now Peevish and Muggs arrive at a grand building to see Weasel, the undersecretary. Weasel says Treasury wants Intelligence Service to account for its operation. Peevish says Operation Voodoo must remain secret because it’s a fiefdom. Weasel is concerned because nobody knows the address of the London house. Peevish says it’s necessary; and Muggs says we can’t meet in a café. Weasel complains that its rents have doubled, but Muggs says it still costs less than an H-bomb and bets that Zorro does not have such trouble with the Kremlin treasury. Weasel admits the work is imporant, but says Budapest was a disaster. Muggs says, hey, it wasn’t your guy got killed – we’re the ones standing between Zorro, Moscow and World War III. Weasel says Minister is pleased with their progress, but unhappy because the Yanks think we’re a leaky ship.

Later, Weasel gets a call: “I’m Mopy Max and I need to see you. To confirm who I am, talk to my boss Scarecrow at the carousel.”

Now Young Chap arrives to work at the Gloomy building. He sees Tweedy rolling a bike and asks he has clearance for it. Tweedy says no, but he doesn’t care because the bike will get stolen even if he brings it inside. Tweedy wants to ogle the New Girl before Muggs sees her. Young Chap says Muggs already saw her. They ogle her anyway.

Now Young Chap is at his desk. The phone rings and he answer it: “This is Scarecrow”.

Now Scarecrow is driving Chuckles in a car. He says: “I was sorry to hear about handle, Chuckles”. They pull up to a large house. “He said Mopy Max called him” says Scarecrow.

Inside: “He said there’s been a gopher at the top of the carousel for years, so you’re well placed to look into it,” says Weasel. “You fired me”, says Chuckles. “Before handle died he also said there was a gopher,” says Weasel. “He never told me”, says Chuckles. “But you were his right-hand man,” says Weasel. Silence. “Anyway I thought he was going to pull his house down - that Budapest fiasco; it’s your legacy, so please do it”, says Weasel. As Chuckles considers we flashback to faces of Muggs, Shorty, Tweedy & Peevish. Chuckles says, “I’ll keep Scarecrow, & I want Gumbo”.

Chuckles and Scarecrow walk out of a house and past a beehive. Now they’re in a car with another man. They are menaced by a bee, but Chuckles gets rid of it. The man says he knows a hotel in Liverpool.

Now Chuckles and Scarecrow arrive at a hotel. A woman says be careful with her Georgian table. A man says “Mrs. Oreo-Cookie, my friend wants quiet and no disturbances”, and then says “her real name is Cookie, but she added the Oreo for a touch of class”. Chuckles, staring out the window at trains, says “Scarecrow, did you get the key to handle’s flat.”

Now we see Scarecrow and Chuckles enter a dark smelly cluttered room. (It looks familiar. Is this where Oldy & Baldy met?). Chuckles looks at papers. Chuckles and Scarecrow stare at each other. Chuckles walks toward Scarecrow, & finds chess pieces with tiny photos taped to them. An alert viewer may recognize the photos as Muggs, Peevish, Shorty and Tweedy. We also see a black queen.

Chuckles drifts into a flashback ...

######################################################

The reader is now 22 minutes in the film. Needlness to say, he is totally lost.

reply

"The reader is now 22 minutes in the film. Needlness to say, he is totally lost." - nystulc


No, that's just you.

If you failed to spot the sign with the legend "Budapest", that was clearly visible for ten seconds, then there is no hope for you. Or do you need the camera to come to a stop staring right at the sign before you will notice it?

As for the rest of your venting, I didn't read it, so I can't comment. It's a little rule I have now when reading your posts, I stop reading at the first lie. So, naturally, I don't ever finish anything you post, I just scoot down to your inevitably false conclusion. I find it helps to keep my hope in humanity higher than it otherwise would be.

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

reply


No, that's just you.


Are you are calling the OP a liar? He says he was completely lost. As for me, it's not really me at all. I was already familiar with the book and the BBC version, and never had a chance to be put in the OP's shoes.


If you failed to spot the sign with the legend "Budapest", that was clearly visible for ten seconds, then there is no hope for you. Or do you need the camera to come to a stop staring right at the sign before you will notice it?


WTF? It's only a summary. It's not meant to include every detail. And I identify the city as Budapest.

So what is your problem with this? Do you mean to insult EVERYONE who failed to notice that sign you're talking about? Because that is what you are doing. And nothing turns on this. It simply does not matter. My summary assumes the viewer will realize it is Budapest regardless of whether he sees this sign you are talking about.

And it's dark lettering against a dark wall in a crowded city scene; at a point where the viewer has already stopped reading signs because he realizes they are all in a foreign language; and where the viewer's attention is drawn to Mark Strong, and not the passing scenery. Not to mention, that when I see the letters "Kansas" or "Chicago" on some random wall, I do not normally assume I am no longer in New York.

But I'll be honest with you about something. I did not even notice Mark Strong among the crowds of pedestrians on my first viewing. There were too many people, and I was too unfamiliar with Mark Strong's face. So you see, with this, as with many things, my summary actually gives the benefit of multiple viewings.


As for the rest of your venting, I didn't read it, so I can't comment. It's a little rule I have now when reading your posts, I stop reading at the first lie.


What was the "lie"? Where I say "It must be Budapest"? You don't even disagree that it's Budapest, and you're still scolding my for saying it's Budapest. That's insane!

I guess my summary was pretty accurate, if this is the best you can come up with as a basis for attack.

reply

nystuic: Hilarious, made me laugh out loud.

reply

That is where I am right now.

Oldman got an Oscar nomination for this movie, so I thought it might be good and worth watching, plus it was streaming for free. I am totally lost. This makes no sense at all.

reply

Perhaps the miniseries with Alec Guinness would be easier to digest, since it's spread over several episodes instead of having everything crammed into a two-hour movie, which is a recipe for mental indigestion with a story like this.

reply

Simon23 has already given the most helpful links. Just in case, the Bordwell pieces can be found here:

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/01/23/tinker-tailor-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

(http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/02/20/tinker-tailor-once-more-tradecraft/ is more thorough and best read afterwards)

On a more mundane level, not understanding the plot on the first viewing has most to do with lacking a very good memory for names and faces. This varies with the person. One of my brightest PhD students who watched the film at my recommendation confessed that she "just could not tell the difference between all those old men" (sic!), whereas another student got nearly everything on the first viewing, including the nature of the relationship between Jim and Bill ... Personally, I have a very bad memory for names and faces but went to the cinema having read the novel and watched the BBC series - and enjoyed every bit of the film from the very first. Which I definitely would not have done without foreknowledge. This is not to say that the members of the "Holy Trinity" correspond to each other one-to-one, in fact there are quite a number of plot differences, let alone other kinds of differences - but once one knows who the basic characters are, the plot is not difficult to follow.

That said, it is a strangely compelling film even for those who are initially baffled. Back when it came out, there were people on this board who persisted in viewing it as many as five times to finally get it - and who grew to love the film in the process. Or rather, who loved the film even as it baffled them, hence the need for multiple viewings. There must, after all, be some genuine magic in an art-house film for it to also have considerable box-office success.

Also, the film (very much like the book itself), even when the basics are clear, leaves a lot of room for different interpretations - quite consciously so, as appears from interviews with the makers.

BTW, Bordwell (whose views, may I dare to brag, I was the first, several years ago, to cite on this board) is fairly unique in providing genuine insights into the film, as opposed to the rather empty eulogies offered up by most of the other critics. TTSS is absolutely, as Bordwell also points out, a film meant to be viewed several times, so if one has to come up with a review for the morning after the première, it not likely to be too perspicuous.

reply


One of my brightest PhD students who watched the film at my recommendation confessed that she "just could not tell the difference between all those old men" (sic!), whereas another student got nearly everything on the first viewing, including the nature of the relationship between Jim and Bill ...


Your brightest PhD student was secure enough in herself to call it as she saw it. Too many others will praise what they don't understand. Your other student, of course, probably got his information from online "explanations", as students so often do.

The irony about "the nature of the relationship between Jim and Bill" is that there is nothing to get. The film tells us very little, and what little it tells us, it tells us directly. We are told directly that Jim and Bill were very close friends ("the inseparables"). It is easy to miss this (or immediately forget it after hearing it) because you are bored out of your skull, but that isn't because it is hard to understand.

Anything beyond this (such as "they were gay lovers") is simply what the viewer wants or chooses to read onto an almost-blank slate or a formless inkblot. Are we supposed to read gay subtext into Bill and Jim smirking at each other during "La Mer"?

reply

you are not alone in finding the story difficult. I have watched the 1979 BBC version more than once, and still don't really understand waht was happening.

reply

I have watched the 1979 BBC version more than once, and still don't really understand waht was happening.


Now that is strange: I understand that you did get the plot in the BBC version and still do not get the TTSS as a film? Perhaps you are just not into art-house films? I had the book and the BBC version behind me when I understood the plot of the film version, but I am fairly sure multiple views of the series would have been enough as well.

Actually, the book is much less linear/straightforward than the series. This is how it begins:

"CHAPTER ONE

The truth is, if old Major Dover hadn't dropped dead at Taunton races Jim would never have come to Thursgood's at all. He came in mid-term without an interview, late May it was though no one would have thought it from the weather, employed through one of the shiftier agencies specialising in supply teachers for prep schools, to hold down old Dover's teaching till someone suitable could be found. 'A linguist,' Thursgood told the common room, 'a temporary measure,' and brushed away his forelock in self-defence. Priddo.' He gave the spelling P-R-I-D' - French was not Thursgood's subject so he consulted the slip of paper - 'E-A-U-X, first name James. I think he'll do us very well till July.' The staff had no difficulty in reading the signals. Jim Prideaux was a poor white of the teaching community. He belonged to the same sad bunch as the late Mrs Loveday who had a Persian lamb coat and stood in for junior divinity until her cheques bounced, or the late Mr Maltby, the pianist who had been called from choir practice to help the police with their enquiries, and for all anyone knew was helping them to this day, for Maltby's trunk still lay in the cellar awaiting instructions. Several of the staff, but chiefly Marjoribanks, were in favour of opening that trunk. They said it contained notorious missing treasures: Aprahamian's silver-framed picture of his Lebanese mother, for instance; Best-Ingram's Swiss army penknife and Matron's watch. But Thursgood set his creaseless face resolutely against their entreaties. Only five years had passed since he had inherited the school from his father, but they had taught him already that some things are best locked away."


Now, "old Major Dover" never appears in the book again, nor is the fact that he "dropped dead at Taunton races" in the least relevant to the plot (or to anything else that follows, for that matter). The same applies to Mr Maltby and his trunk or the efforts, successful or otherwise, of opening it. We never get to anything more about Aprahamian or his Lebanese mother, or Best-Inghrams's Swiss army penknife, either.

Indeed, most of the paragraph contains information wholly irrelevant, at least on a superficial level, to the plot or anything to come. The novel begins as if we were suddenly thrust into a conversation among strangers, and the very first phrase is a refutation of something we have not heard ("The truth is ...", as opposed to whatever whoever believed otherwise).

Bordwell gives a very interesting analysis of the structure of the novel, and, once more, it is nothing if not deviously complex on all levels, delightfully so, I would add.

But back to the point: it cannot have been reading the novel as opposed to watching the BBC version that made the crucial difference to me: and I can assure you I absolutely did not have any problem with the plot on my very first viewing.

Well anyway, I would like to tell the OP that those who do really understand what is happening in the film are quite numerous, as also testified by many discussions on this board (most of them erased by now, but the board was highly active as early as 2011, with many substantial discussions on the finer points of interpretation).

reply

i haven't watched the 2011 film. possibly never will, I am too attached to Alec guiness as Smiley, not sure i could warm to anyone else in the role. but although i have watched the 1979 series twice (after a gap of about 35 years). I still find the story extremely complicated. And there are an awful lot of different men who come and go without my ever clearly grasping who they are or what they are doing.

reply

Thanks for clarification! Your post should then be interesting for some on this thread who hold up the BBC version as a paragon of logic and clarity, as opposed to the TTSS film😃

Nystulc is one of these - or was, when I still read his posts. Probably still is. I do not read his posts, not even take a peek at them, any more, on principle, to preserve my sanity. I am adding this simply as an explanation of why I do not deal with any of his "arguments" here: judging by the number of his posts on this thread, he must be presenting quite a few. But I remember him juxtaposing the BBC version as, inherently, wholly understandable and logical and the TTSS film version as an absolute mess. Personally, I am a fan of all three versions, though the book and the film version a little bit more than the BBC one.



reply

kristavogelberg wrote:


But I remember him juxtaposing the BBC version as, inherently, wholly understandable and logical and the TTSS film version as an absolute mess.


The BBC version IS understandable and logical. The film version not so much, to put it mildly.

However I never said the BBC version was EASY to understand; nor that it is understandable for everyone. It's merely that if you try hard enough, there is something there to be understood. It is not an emperor with no clothes, deliberately hiding behind its incomprehensibility.

The BBC version certainly TRIED to make itself understood. Only just the other day on this board, someone was scolding it for all its exposition info dumps, and praising this film in contrast for withholding such annoyances from the reader. The problem is, if you don't tell the viewer what is going on, there is no story -- at least not one the viewer can follow.

The fact that many people find the BBC version hard to understand does not prove it is the same as this one. It merely explains the origin of the "TINKER TAILOR" mystique. The makers of this film realized that many many people, including top critics, praised the BBC version to the heavens rather than admitting that they did not understand it. They therefore deliberately designed a film to capitalize on this phenomenon.

Making an incomprehensible spy thriller, after all, was easier than making an intricate, challenging, and intelligent spy thriller. And for a great many critics, it effectively amounted to the same thing, as the reviews have shown.


reply

kristavogelberg wrote:


But back to the point: it cannot have been reading the novel as opposed to watching the BBC version that made the crucial difference to me: and I can assure you I absolutely did not have any problem with the plot on my very first viewing.


This is a statement that no honest person can make. Kristavogelberg is simply posturing. He/she is trying to prove he/she is smarter than you (whoever you may be). He/she knows you did not understand this film on first viewing (without prior knowledge of the books), because nobody does. But there is still a way you can be as smart as kristavogelberg, and that is to be as big a liar as he/she is. Do you want to join the super-smart person's club? Here's your chance.

reply


Actually, the book is much less linear/straightforward than the series. This is how it begins:

"CHAPTER ONE

The truth is, if old Major Dover hadn't dropped dead at Taunton races Jim would never have come to Thursgood's at all. He came in mid-term without an interview, late May it was though no one would have thought it from the weather, employed through one of the shiftier agencies specialising in supply teachers for prep schools, to hold down old Dover's teaching till someone suitable could be found. 'A linguist,' Thursgood told the common room, 'a temporary measure,' and brushed away his forelock in self-defence. Priddo.' He gave the spelling P-R-I-D' - French was not Thursgood's subject so he consulted the slip of paper - 'E-A-U-X, first name James. I think he'll do us very well till July.' The staff had no difficulty in reading the signals. Jim Prideaux was a poor white of the teaching community. He belonged to the same sad bunch as the late Mrs Loveday who had a Persian lamb coat and stood in for junior divinity until her cheques bounced, or the late Mr Maltby, the pianist who had been called from choir practice to help the police with their enquiries, and for all anyone knew was helping them to this day, for Maltby's trunk still lay in the cellar awaiting instructions. Several of the staff, but chiefly Marjoribanks, were in favour of opening that trunk. They said it contained notorious missing treasures: Aprahamian's silver-framed picture of his Lebanese mother, for instance; Best-Ingram's Swiss army penknife and Matron's watch. But Thursgood set his creaseless face resolutely against their entreaties. Only five years had passed since he had inherited the school from his father, but they had taught him already that some things are best locked away."



The paragraph sets up the introduction of Jim: Why he was hired sight unseen, and what the expectations were about him, just prior to his arrival. In the next paragraph, he actually arrives. Seems pretty straightforward and linear to me.


Now, "old Major Dover" never appears in the book again, nor is the fact that he "dropped dead at Taunton races" in the least relevant to the plot (or to anything else that follows, for that matter).


The plot relevance of Dover is fully explained in the quoted paragraph: Dover died suddenly, therefore Jim came. If Dover had not died, or had died less suddenly, Jim would not have come.

The point is obviously to introduce the mysterious Jim. Why would you expect more information about Dover?


The same applies to Mr Maltby and his trunk or the efforts, successful or otherwise, of opening it. We never get to anything more about Aprahamian or his Lebanese mother, or Best-Inghrams's Swiss army penknife, either.


Maltby is merely an example illustrating the low expectations for temporary hires like Jim.

The mystery trunk illustrates Thursgood's ostrich attitude towards such people. Thursgood assumes Jim is a low-life, to be replaced as soon as possible, but figures the less Thursgood knows about him the better. He does not want to know Jim's dirty secrets, any more than he wants to know what is hidden in Maltby's trunk.

This also sets up Thursgood's later surprise upon realizing that Jim is alot more competent than one would expect from this sort of temporary hire. This surprise jolts him out of his head-in-the-sand policy, and provokes him to try to find out more about Jim from the "shiftier" agency, which stonewalls him.

Still later, we find out this agency has connections with the intelligence community.

One would not expect to find out more about Maltby. Like Dover, he passes out of the story before it begins. Maltby is only an example who is compared to Jim in order to demonstrate what the expectations were for Jim. Later, he is mentioned one more time in precisely that context: "The ghost of Maltby died hard."

The reader (if he understands the paragraph) keeps reading, not to find out more about Maltby and Dover, but to find out more about the mysterious Jim.


Indeed, most of the paragraph contains information wholly irrelevant, at least on a superficial level, to the plot or anything to come.


I just explained its relevance. It's minor, but pretty straightforward. What are you trying to prove here?

Of course, this is more detail than one would find room for in a movie adaptation. Even the BBC version left these details out. But what do you expect? The novel takes about 12 hours to read aloud. Even the BBC version was only 6 hours long.

reply


Of course, this is more detail than one would find room for in a movie adaptation. Even the BBC version left these details out. But what do you expect? The novel takes about 12 hours to read aloud. Even the BBC version was only 6 hours long.


So why even contemplate making comparisons between any of them, never mind devote yourself to expressing amazement and confusion at anyone's expressed appreciation for them on their own merits by asking them to explain it in context of your appreciation of information provided in the book?

"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."

reply


> Of course, this is more detail than one would find room for in a movie adaptation.
> Even the BBC version left these details out. But what do you expect? The novel
> takes about 12 hours to read aloud. Even the BBC version was only 6 hours long.

So why even contemplate making comparisons between any of them, never mind devote yourself to expressing amazement and confusion at anyone's expressed appreciation for them on their own merits by asking them to explain it in context of your appreciation of information provided in the book?



Wow! That's some loaded question, there, Mr. Marmadukebagelhole a/k/a Gorchbrother. It sounds less like you are asking me a question, and more like you are trying to speak for me.

Firstly, your question is a non-sequitur. Just because a 2-hour film cannot have all the detail of a novel does not mean you can never make any comparisons at all.

Secondly, your question is addressed to the wrong person. It was kristavogelberg who made the comparison, not me. I'm not sure what kristavogelberg's point was. It seems as though she found the opening paragraph of the novel confusing for some reason. Her general point seems to be that since she finds the novel confusing, then it is okay for the movie to be confusing too. But regardless of what her point was, my response is to explain the passage of the novel.

Thirdly, what's the point of doubting me, when I say I am not criticizing the movie for not having this particular detail? I have consistently praised the BBC version, which does not mention Dover and Maltby either.

The main criticism, for purposes of this thread at least, is not that the movie omits details, but rather that it is confusing to the point of being incomprehensible; especially to those not already familiar with some version of the story. In response kristavogelberg has accused the novel of being rather confusing as well (as if that, even if true, were a defense of the film).

However, the passage she quotes from the novel is perfectly clear. Maybe some do find it confusing, but nonetheless ... it is readily explained by those who understand it. By the same token, a better defense of the film would be to explain it (preferably based on the evidence actually in the film), and not to play "tu quoque" and accuse other works of also being confusing.

reply

I always wanted to watch it again to see if I was just on a bad day back then, but haven't found the courage yet.
Very frustrating
One hopes you are able to gird your loins for a second attempt, as the pay off is well worth the challenge you feel you face.🐭

reply

Indeed, this movie has its problems, concerning how easy it is to understand. A small list of said problems would include, but not be limited to, inclusion of more than 4 names, assigning a female name ("Karla") to an obvious male character, complete lack of explosions/alien robots/bold US troops who save the world/insert anything I may forgot here, a TWISTED plot (remember, these are TOP spies, bend on confusing each other) with at least 2 as twisted sub-plots, two speaking female "leads" one of whom we could do without...the list can go on.

For those whose education (both formal and film-wise) didnot come from between the oceans, this movie needs two viewings, to say the least, BUT makes some sense, for its most basic plot. Yes, if you want to get everything, a second viewing is required, perhaps even a third. If, after three viewings, your stance is still "I did not understand anything", give up! You'll never get it. Go watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles instead, that's your movie!

For those who will attack this post, for various reasons (intellectual, patriotic, fiscal, whatever), please note that I have not read the book and only saw the BBC mini when I was about 12 years old and cannot, for the life of me, remember anything from that. Also, please forgive any grammar and/or spelling mistakes that make this post more difficult to understand, English is not my native tongue so it tends to fail me, more often than not.



Cute and cuddly boyz!!

reply

To summarise: “I liked this movie because I am smart. You did not like this movie, so you are dumb."

reply