What happened to Toby Esterhase ?

"If that were true you would be demonstrating your superior knowledge by discussing the film, not by insulting me." - nystulc

It is true.

I feel no urge to discuss a film with someone as disingenuous as yourself because it would be a fruitless task.

.

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

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Trying to constantly discredit the movie through lies and disingenuous distortive comparison with other versions of TTSS is one thing - attempting to do the same with history is something else entirely:

Yes. Really! That's exactly what happened in comparable real life examples. That's exactly what happened to Kim Philby, the real life mole on whom Bill Haydon was loosely based (except no-one murdered Philby before he could be traded). When an enemy soldier got captured, he would get traded for the return of one's own captured agents.

Unless your grasp of reality is that readily fabricated, tenuous and clueless too?

Philby defected from Beirut to Moscow in 1963 - without capture never mind being "traded".

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I was locked out of of the discussion board for a few days so couldn’t send my response.
Incidentally - this will be my final contribution to this discussion (after which I think I’ve said enough). Rest assured – not an attempt to have the last word: I’ll happily read any further response you or others wish to make.

Correcting your factual error re. Philby has already been addressed so I don't need to go there (and as others point out - the same applies to Maclean and Burgess). Are you perhaps thinking of Anthony Blunt - who confessed and was granted immunity from prosecution? I’m not sure how he managed to swing that (see my comment below re. Le Carré’s documented disdain for the excessive privilege of a certain ‘elite’). Yeah – perhaps it makes my version ‘fanciful’ (a little too Fleming perhaps?). But do understand that I’m not especially precious about my version - this is after all speculation on a work of fiction - not an attempt to ascertain the full and true facts of the 'Cambridge 5'. I just found the other versions unsatisfactory/unconvincing. It’s just my mind’s inclination toward filling out certain blanks in a story with versions I can live with – or enjoy more. That is both the beauty and danger of ambiguity in writing (or rather ’openness’ in writing. see Umberto Eco’s ‘The Open Work’). From what I can gather - Le Carré deliberately left some matters open to interpretation, so aren't some of the things you cite as issues with the film – actually attributable to the book? I note too that whilst you express unease with the various interpretations - you give no indication of what you believe. At least I took a punt - however fanciful.

The ambiguities which seem to frustrate you most are on the fringes of the story. Embellishments. I am not convinced that the opacity of these elements in any way undermines the excellent central story. Personally I rather like the ambiguity of the killing. This is a story set in a clandestine world - a world clouded in secrecy where answers are not always satisfactory – and where peoples profiles are equally unclear. Injecting some degree of doubt seems fitting. Surely the filmmakers were left with only two choices: choose a specific version (or combination) to run with (which would, I’m sure, displease/alienate too many Le Carré fans) - or retain, even enhance its ambiguity. Perhaps they too were equally uneasy with some elements of the story - but I don't think that's the reason. Since these ambiguities appear largely deliberate and a long-standing discussion point – one could argue that they are necessary enigmatic nuances which further enhance people’s enjoyment of the book. As such, I think the filmmakers would have been rather foolish to ‘choose a side’. (hehe - do you like what I did there?).

Now, maybe you will start to understand my sarcastic reference to 5 traitors

Not really – I just see individuals whose strategic decisions proved, in hindsight, to be seriously misguided, ill-judged – but not yet revealed to be so (although Control had his suspicions). As such, they were the trusted power-base at the Circus, whilst those who did have the intelligence and foresight to suspect it was ‘too good to be true were’ discredited and removed. The remaining Circus members (mole aside) are perhaps guilty of hubris – but not of treason. I can’t see how someone can be unconsciously a traitor. Surely history is littered with incidents of misguided intelligence and strategic thinking. Even a change of government is a power shift – often characterised by differing economic, foreign and domestic policies/strategies/philosophies – some may prove positive, some benefit one section of a society more than another, some prove disastrous. One doesn't generally conclude that the outgoing government or its constituent parts are ‘treasonous’. (On which point: why doesn't your sarcastic reference include Lacon and the Minister amongst 'traitors'?)

This further implies that the other 3 conspirators are (in relative terms) strong-points in the enemy conspiracy

Yes, in the sense that their hubris (or perhaps ambition….in the case of Alleline….in the movie at least) blinded them to the fact that they’d been duped. But that’s the very foundation of the plot no? The very thing which distinguishes Smiley (in Karla’s eyes) is that he’s not so easily duped (hence the need for Bill’s affair with his wife). If you're uncomfortable with the fallibility of the other Circus members – and believe that that fallibility makes them de facto traitors (sarcastic or not) then surely the whole plot premise collapses? Isn't this central plot premise the same in both film and book? A mole, a bunch of dupes and and a sceptic (two if you include Control). Your criticisms seem to suggest that the film is incoherent on this point where the book isn't – and from what I can see, that just isn't the case.

If Toby is loyal, but merely a dupe, then there is no need for Smiley to threaten him. All he need do is convince him. If he fails to convince him, threats will be useless.

I’m really struggling with your reasoning here. Why would a threat be useless? You say it categorically as if it's irrefutable.

If Toby is a traitor: convincing won’t work – but a threat might (although deportation wouldn't be an appropriate threat because, as with Philby, Burgess and Maclean, Toby's needs will be adequately furnished after deportation. I suppose this rather suggests that Smiley has already concluded that Toby is unlikely to be the mole. Or perhaps I haven't fully digested Toby's back story).
If Toby isn't a traitor: Either convincing or threatening might work. The approach is optional. It's just a question of proportionality – i.e. how severe is appropriate? What would be most effective? That’s a judgement call. It’s Smiley’s judgement call – I’m content with it – and don't need a vividly rationalized account/justification of Smiley’s reasoning. Seems you feel it’s too severe and therefore unrealistic…whereas I’m happy with it in the context of the story. It’s an economical device, as well as one which adds further drama. It’s a story based loosely on factual events – but, given that it’s a story, it’s of course necessary to strike a balance between being engaging/entertaining and plausible/believable. It's not an exact science. Indeed, the killing of Bill is surely included for dramatic effect – it’s not imperative to the central story. The narratives play out on parallel, but not interdependent paths. The film’s alterations may slightly alter one’s perception of some of the characters – but, in my eyes at least, in no way changes who the traitor is, who the dupes are, who the sceptics are – and thus the central plot premise.

But let’s flip your reasoning on it’s head: why would Toby - who has already shifted allegiance from Control/Smiley, and remains secure in a senior position within the Circus, necessarily trust Smiley - who has, as I’ve already said, been discredited and kicked out of the Circus? I think he’ll take some persuading to simply reveal the location and switch loyalties back again.

I’ve read and reread your thoughts/comments re Toby and I just cannot grasp your reasoning. I can accept that you regard Smiley’s behaviour to be unduly harsh – or irrational, but I do not accept that the logic of the story is in any way altered by this portrayal. In the end – I think you're arguing indefatigably in defence of an aesthetic preference, as opposed to one based on irrefutable logic.

Even if that were so, one would not need Prideaux's help for that. Haydon can simply be executed, or kept indefinitely and not traded.

Between 1946 and the late 1990s (when execution for treason was finally abolished) there were no executions for treason. The last documented case of execution for treason was in 1945 (I think). Doesn’t mean others haven’t been enacted ‘informally’. I’m afraid my trust of the absolute decency and legality of my governments' actions isn’t so unwavering. (Or should that read 'Our governments'? Forgive me - I don't know where you're form). Are such executions carried out beyond the realms of the judicial system? I don’t know. It’s possible. And that's all I can commit to. But let’s take a recent case:

Gareth Williams (MI6 spy - found dead in suspicious circumstances - came to be known as the ‘MI6 body in a bag incident’). There are theories - but I guess we’ll never know. A reinvestigation overturned an initial coroner’s conclusion of ‘unlawful killing’. The coroner even went as far as suggesting that investigating Secret Intelligence Service involvement (SIS) in his death would be advisable. The reinvestigation concluded that Williams had accidentally locked himself inside his (North Face) bag (auto-erotic sex incident) which, like the Bill killing, I find unsatisfactory/unconvincing. It doesn’t mean I think the SIS killed Williams – my point is simply this: if SIS involvement in Williams’ death can be regarded by the coroner as plausible enough to require further investigation by the police – then perhaps my version of TTSS isn’t entirely ludicrous. After all, the coroner had substantial information at his disposal through which to reach such a conclusion, rather than a few implied facts, as is the case with me and TTSS. I’m no conspiracy nut - but that doesn’t mean I blindly trust that actions taken by the more clandestine agencies are always ethical. By nature - their secrecy leaves them open to speculation (albeit unqualifiable), suspicion and doubt.

If such kill order’s do occur - then using someone who can easily be bribed - and who, if discovered can easily be discredited as a traitor is a better choice than someone whose hands aren’t as yet sullied. Yes - it’s fanciful.

I note your own incoherence. Previously you argued that Smiley's ruthlessness toward Toby had something to do with a personal vendetta. Now it's Patriotism again?

Something of a misrepresentation of what I said – though it does enable you to more easily suggest an inherent contradiction to my reasoning:

Personal vendetta Vs Patriotism
(Black/White)
I never said ‘personal vendetta’. People’s actions/motivations are far more complex - and personal feelings and loyalties, or personal ambition, or indeed self-preservation will invariably (and unconsciously) colour our perceptions of, and behaviour toward others - however rational, righteous and objective we may believe ourselves to be. Does anyone consider themselves unpatriotic? Is there such a thing as ‘objectively patriotic’? The issue is: which version of one’s country is one dreaming of/fighting for - and who else has the same vision (or seems to)? If you’re saying that such behaviour is uncharacteristic of the Smiley you perceive - it’s a point of view. If your saying it’s uncharacteristic of the Smiley of the novel - I wouldn’t know. If your saying it’s not an appropriate method of persuasion. How do you know?

I am playing a “loose game” in order to make elements of a story I find unclear/unresolved more palatable….to me. It’s fiction. I don’t feel the need to resolve every uncertainty in a story absolutely (particularly ones where ambiguity appears to be a narrative device) - just sufficiently to ensure my enjoyment. The full ‘facts’ are withheld from me – therefore certainty is not (logically) possible. I therefore apply sufficient rigour to ensure my enjoyment of the broader narrative is not undermined. No more. If Le Carré has a problem with that (which I doubt) - then maybe he shouldn’t have left these ‘open’ narratives in the story. Ok, my version probably wouldn’t wash with him (but then he has a working knowledge of SIS - I don’t).

I would suggest that the most tangible argument for a weakness in the film is that it's ambiguities make it possible for someone to conceive as fanciful a narrative as I have. Either that - or I'm more attracted to (if not convinced by) conspiracy theories than I realised.

Final observation: I have a hunch that the filmmakers were endeavouring to imbue the Smiley character with more of Le Carré himself (who is documented as being much more vocal, critical and disgusted by these treasonous, privileged elite than the far more restrained Smiley of his novels).

Le Carre on Kim Philby :

“Was he not born and trained into the Establishment? Effortlessly he copied its attitudes, caught its diffident stammer, its hesitant arrogance; effortlessly he took his place in its nameless hegemony. The SIS quite clearly identified class with loyalty.”
(see David Bordwell's reference to an introduction by Le Carré in The Philby Conspiracy):

Artistic license. And a nice flourish, if indeed this was intended.

A final word on the film: the more I think about it - the more I love it - and can begin to appreciate Le Carré's brilliance.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

nystulc, your illogicalities are spread over such a multiplicity of posts that for ease of quotation I have to write several replies.

In theory, this reply is not necessary in view of shooly85's previous post, which is impeccable in its logic and quite simply a joy to read. I must admit I did not notice it before I wrote the first version of this post, and some of my arguments below coincide with his and he puts them better - but then my post is not meant for him Schooly85 writes that he has trouble understanding your logic - well, he can be expected to have the trouble:) Whenever I come on this board - not very often, as you must have noticed, I am invariably amazed at how you twist logic to suit your cherished hate (there is no other word for it) of the film. And again, whenever I happen on your posts here, I am, no, not appalled, but rather amused by the hubris your imagined set-downs of others betray.

This is not an ad hominem attack, as a sample of your arguments analysed below will hopefully show.

Smiley and/or the film-makers (in this context, not necessarily consistently) regard Toby as the weak link in the enemy conspiracy, because he is subject to blackmail, etc. This further implies that the other 3 conspirators are (in relative terms) strong-points in the enemy conspiracy ... i.e., the weakest and least steadfast of the 4 traitors. Now, maybe you will start to understand my sarcastic reference to 5 traitors (with Prideaux as #5).

Can you not see the incoherence here? The very logic behind this reasoning implies that Toby is disloyal to England, but is weak in his disloyalty.

There is no incoherence here to anyone with logical thinking to see. Smiley indeed regards Toby as the weak link, one could marginally even say "a weak link in the enemy conspiracy", but not a weak link among enemy conspirators (in the plural). Thus, this in no way implies that "the other conspirators are strong points in the enemy conspiracy", because it does not imply the existence of "other conspirators". Toby is the weak link in the "Merlin group" (i-e- Alleline, Haydon, Bland, Esterhase), a group necessary for the conspiracy but not a group of four conspirators (I do hope you possess logic enough to grasp the difference?). Toby is the easiest to dissuade from believing in Merlin (or to blackmail into disbelieving in Merlin as the saviour of Britain and British intelligence), but this is not in the least the same as being the weakest conspirator. In no version of the story, including the film, does Smiley search for more than one conspirator/traitor/mole. He is intelligent enough to understand that the Soviets absolutely do not need more than one mole among the four top people with equal access to all of the highly classified information. To have more would in fact be dangerous - more likelihood of leakage, double agency, in sum, more likelihood of failure. One well-tested, faithful mole is quite enough.

You haughtily inform you opponent that

I note your own incoherence. Previously you argued that Smiley's ruthlessness toward Toby had something to do with a personal vendetta. Now it's Patriotism again?

Now, why can't Smiley have both a personal vendetta (your term, anyway) and be patriotic at the same time and have both as motives for his behaviour? The incoherence is yours, and yours alone. Also, you are extremely incoherent in arguing, within one post, that trading Bill is a natural thing to do as it has been done in real life, and also arguing that Smiley does not have to trade Bill, he can simply have him executed or kept indefinitely. So Smiley more or less has to trade Bill as this is how things are done, also in real life (OK, not in real life in the case of the prototypes, but we have dealt with that - and anyway you keep insisting that trading was a common real-life practice) - and then, voilà, Smiley is not at all bound by that common practice and can have Bill executed (as indeed the Rosenbergs were in real life, though obviously not in Britain). You pick the side of the argument that suits you at any given moment to demonstrate how "incoherent" your opponent is (and, of course, the leitmotif, how incoherent the film is).

Or, to take just another example, schooly85 makes a very coherent and logical point, and makes it brilliantly:

I don't really see how whether or not Smiley threatens or tries to enlighten/convince Toby makes any difference to the logic of the (movie) story, aside from serving as an indication of how aggressive the seemingly restrained Smiley is prepared to be to get the desired result - and how intolerant of disloyalty he is. What would prove to be the most effective method of eliciting information in such a situation is surely speculation.

. So what is your counterargument?

If you ignore the actual logic of the situation, as you are determined to do, then sure.

Now how can anyone call this an argument? It is just an empty sentence use with the sole aim of disparaging you opponent. Schooley85 is in no way "ignoring the actual logic of the situation", he is actually describing it very accurately.

You also seem to be unable to understand that le Carré, in all his books, deals with betrayal on very many levels and in very many forms. He is a writer, not a genre writer of "spy fiction". Personal betrayals are very much an issue - not a "confusion" - in all of his work. And personal betrayals can mutate into betrayals on other levels, including treason.

So when your opponent states, again brilliantly,

Although my perception was that Smiley was rather sarcastically implying that Toby may, if pressed, be capable of similar disloyalty in the grander sense too - in other words, not an actual traitor - but someone with the potential to be - given the right circumstances - and therefore, again, unfit for the circus)

, you, instead of seeing how coherent and logical the argument is, claim that your opponent is conceding to "the confusion". What confusion? Do you really think there is a hard and fast line between disloyalty/betrayal in one sphere and the same in another sphere? That once a person has chosen disloyal behaviour, this does not imply a potential to become even more disloyal?

You also have always had great trouble in believing in multiple motives, which are, byt the way, very much there in real life - people who simplistically believe that a person can only have one motive for an action (which is usually believed to be conscious as well) tend to badly misread others in real life. Ambiguity as well is not just a sign of good art (literature, cinema ,,,) but present at every moment in real life, one only has to recognise it instead of simplifying things by ignoring it. Le Carré's oeuvre is ambiguous throughout, and "Tinker, Tailor ..." the novel poses far more questions than it answers - if one reads it carefully.

OK,I am leaving the board again. I just find it hard to believe that you can ever see any of my points or those of your other opponents. You go on believing that "Tinker, Tailor ..." is a black-and-white spy story where anything else is a distraction (created by over-sophisticated or, in your terms, illogical and incoherent readers) and that the film, which actually captures the very essence of the book, is - "unlike the book" - "incoherent", "muddled", whatever. Your reading of the book is bafflingly off-kilter, but ultimately this is your problem.

reply share

add reply

formatting help