Watch the TV series...
....it's so much better than this poor movie .
shareAgreed.
share
MovieChat Forums > Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2012) Discussion > Watch the TV series...
Yesh. Proper class Guiness, Hwyel Bennett, Michael Jayston.
shareBetter, yes, with more time to explore things and give it more depth. However, I wouldn't call this a "poor movie." It's a decent attempt at things and does a better job than most things coming out of Hollywood, these days. It lives in a deep shadow.
Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!
Better, yes, with more time to explore things and give it more depth. However, I wouldn't call this a "poor movie." It's a decent attempt at things and does a better job than most things coming out of Hollywood, these days. It lives in a deep shadow.
I don't share your POV. The BBC adaptation could be quite leasurely at times. One might not have been able to do as good a job with two hours as with 6 hours, but one could definitely been able to do a better job than this was.
This was not a 6 hour film condensed to two hours. It was more like a 6 hour film condensed to 45 minutes to the point of incomprehensibility, then pointlessly altered to the point of further incomprehensibility, then stretched to 2 hours by padding and molasses-style pacing in the hope that, if the audience is bored to point where attention wanders, they will blame themselves rather than the film if they cannot follow it.
This film commits the terrible crime of never giving you a reason to care. Why do we want to find and capture the mole?
In the BBC version we saw characters we liked (primarily Jim and Irina; but we knew that they were only representative of others similarly affected) being captured by the Russians, crippled by the Russians, maybe killed by the Russians, because someone in the Circus was betraying them. We were given a reason to care, and other characters cared too and acted like they cared.
Here, instead, we see a mad Hungarian waiter shoot random people for no reason, contrary to orders, because he's crazy. This does not give us a reason to care. Irina's capture is not presented till the middle of the story and is disconnected from the mole hunt. Irina's capture is transformed from a reason to stop the mole, into a random tragedy that the cynical Smiley uses to manipulate Tarr into helping him catch the mole.
share
I really have to ask, with sincerest curiosity: why are you spending so much time and energy on a message board for a movie that you dislike so much? What's your motivation here?
share
I really have to ask, with sincerest curiosity: why are you spending so much time and energy on a message board for a movie that you dislike so much? What's your motivation here?
I have to ask, with sincerest curiosity: why are you so interested in discussing my motives, instead of discussing the film? Why are you trying to shift the discussion to an ad-hominem question? What could your motivation for such a tactic possibly be?
But sure, okay. My interest is, I am a fan of the BBC version and of the book. I am also fascinated by the amazing success of the "emperors new clothes" tactic which seems to be the fundamental principle not only behind the marketing of this awful film, but its very creation.
I am also ornery and stubborn. So when people attack me personally for disliking a film, it only energizes me. And yes, questioning my motives counts as personal hostility, though relatively mild so far.
Meanwhile, we do not know how much time the defenders of this film are spending defending it, because they may or may not be using multiple accounts. Some have already been caught doing so. Is that the tip of the iceberg? Your account does seem to spend much time on IMDB, but discussing this film seems its only purpose. Do you have one account or several? Who knows. Who cares. If you just discuss the film, rather than the personalities of the posters, then such questions will not matter. share
Thanks for the response! I certainly did not intend my question as either an attack or a tactic, so I apologize if it came off that way. I suppose the general tone around here could easily engender certain assumptions about motive. I honestly was just so mystified by your behavior that it compelled me to ask. But as long as it causes you no suffering then I certainly have no quarrel with it.
I do rather love this movie. I first saw it without any background, and so it was the film that led me to discover the books, followed by the BBC series. I'm happy to say I enjoyed all three very much. I'm not sure what you mean by the "emperor's new clothes tactic," unless you're implying that anyone who reviews the film positively is either a liar or incompetent. I hope that's not the idea, since that would be veering into the realm of "personal hostility." :) As for me, I watch movies with a fairly critical eye, but I think this one is wonderfully stylized, and although it serves the plot well enough, I wouldn't call it plot-driven the way the book/series are. It's more about the emotion, atmosphere, and the visceral things—more poetry than prose, in other words. It's like a good cover song. I thought the casting of Bill Haydon and Control were nearly flawless, and with all respect to Alec Guinness, I felt Gary Oldman's Smiley hewed a little closer to the way I read him in the book.
I know some people have had trouble following the plot by the movie alone; for my money, the only thing that I really needed the book/series to clear up was why Bill Haydon got to go to Moscow instead of being tried and convicted in Britain. (It seems the plan was to trade him to Karla in exchange for the field agents whose cover he'd blown.)
I certainly did not intend my question as either an attack or a tactic, so I apologize if it came off that way.
Apology is not necessary; as long as you stop doing it. Discuss the film and not the person. Questioning someone's motives is inherently ad hominem. The problem is not me "taking it that way". The problem is what you are doing. It's no big deal, as long as you stop.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "emperor's new clothes tactic," unless you're implying that anyone who reviews the film positively is either a liar or incompetent.
I'm referring to the phenomenon of people praising it for qualities it does not objectively possess. Like praising it as a realistic and intricately plotted spy thriller that only sophisticated and intelligent people can appreciate and understand; thereby creating an environment where none dare admit they found themselves unable to appreciate or understand it, for fear of exposing themselves as unsophisticated and/or unintelligent.
I hope that's not the idea, since that would be veering into the realm of "personal hostility."
Not at all. I'm saying the film does not in fact possess the qualities that a huge number of people are praising it for. My position is directed at the film itself.
This may or may not reflect poorly on those who praise it for qualities it does not possess. But there is nothing I can do about that.
I was also attempting to answer a personal question directed at me. You asked me a personal question and are now complaining because I answered it. I should have known better.
As for me, I watch movies with a fairly critical eye, but I think this one is wonderfully stylized, and although it serves the plot well enough, I wouldn't call it plot-driven the way the book/series are. It's more about the emotion, atmosphere, and the visceral things—more poetry than prose, in other words. It's like a good cover song.
Well then, to make an analogy, you are not saying that the Emperor is wearing any clothes. You are merely saying that he looks really good naked. In response to which I can only shrug and say I do not share your subjective aesthetic taste in this instance.
I have no quarrel with those who appreciate this as one would appreciate a music video. I am only saying that as an intelligent, gripping and intricately-plotted spy thriller (which is what it claimed to be and what it was promoted to be and what all the glowing reviews praised it as), it fails completely.
I thought the casting of Bill Haydon and Control were nearly flawless, and with all respect to Alec Guinness, I felt Gary Oldman's Smiley hewed a little closer to the way I read him in the book.
I like John Hurt. I like Colin Firth. The casting was fine. The result was less fine, but that is hardly the actors' fault. They were given nothing to work with.
I have no idea what you mean about Oldman being close to the Smiley of the books. Perhaps you are merely saying that when you read the books, you chose to imagine Smiley as Gary Oldman.
Sure, if I were picky, I would be forced to agree that Guinness is too tall, too thin, too elegant, too charismatic, to be the short plump awkward Smiley of the books. But Oldman's Smiley (as if trying to fill Guinness's shoes) is likewise tall, thin, elegant and charismatic; to which are added a level of pride, arrogance, cruelty and ruthlessness that only further distinguish him from the relatively humble, compassionate and humane Smiley of the books.
I know some people have had trouble following the plot by the movie alone; for my money, the only thing that I really needed the book/series to clear up was why Bill Haydon got to go to Moscow instead of being tried and convicted in Britain.
I disagree. The story has been deliberately altered to such an extent that a viewer's questions cannot with any confidence be answered with reference to the book. share
When were you personally attacked for disliking this film?
Why do you care if people like a film that you don't?
"The Emperor's New Clothes" only applies to people praising something that they know to be worthless but do not want to be controversial. You need a new analogy.
"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."
[deleted]
I don't agree. The series is a horribly-written expositional info dump that takes many hours to tell us far more than we need to know.
Hah! There's some truth to this. The exposition dumps can seem clumsy. And there was a fair amount of repetition to help the viewer follow along. But when I first watched it, I was too busy trying to figure out what was going on to complain that they were giving me too much information.
But to the extent that this criticism is true, it only undermines the defenses raised for the film ... that it did the best it could with a 2 hour running time. It really didn't. The characters are too busy giving each other silent blank stares to give each other or the viewer any information during the available running time. If the film told us what we needed to know, then I guess we really did not need to know much. No action scenes, but not much in the way of conversation either. What is left? A strange piece of modern art.
Out of curiosity, what did you think of the novel? I think it takes about 12 hours to read in audiobook form. Was that also too much information?
share
I think it's only in your mind that the poor handling of too much information in the five hour tv series undermines the defence of the supposed lack of information in the two hour movie.
But when I first watched it, I was too busy trying to figure out what was going on to complain that they were giving me too much information.
All your arguments so far have been about the signifcance of things related to characater's backgrounds, motivations and personalities, not "what was going on".
All that stuff about Bland not looking like a former academic like he is described in several paragraphs in the book do not tell us "what's going on" i.e. if he or if he isn't the mole. We don't really need to know that for the outcome of the movie to make sense. So from the film's perspective, ommitting it makes sense. Including it for the sake of literal completeness or to fill a five hour runnning time is neither invalid, nor is it essential in any other form. It's absence in the film does allow book and series afficionados to massage their egos quite a bit though.
The characters are too busy giving each other silent blank stares
Hmmm. True. Cinema has never used a human face to tell us anything without words. They're just blank stares, nothing more. That time would have been better spent telling us what kind of clothes Bland wore while handing out with Haydon or what brand of fags his father smoked.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please. share
All your arguments so far have been about the signifcance of things related to characater's backgrounds, motivations and personalities, not "what was going on".
All that stuff about Bland not looking like a former academic like he is described in several paragraphs in the book do not tell us "what's going on" i.e. if he or if he isn't the mole.
You are confusing me with someone else. I never said anything about Bland not looking like a former academic.
So from the film's perspective, ommitting it makes sense.
Perhaps. I never suggested you could make a 2 hour version of this film without omitting things. Even the BBC version omitted plenty. The goal, ultimately, is to tell a coherent story in the time available.
Hmmm. True. Cinema has never used a human face to tell us anything without words.
What a bizarre attempt at sarcasm. If you mean to suggest I said anything remotely like that, directly or by implication, then I think your pants are on fire.
They're just blank stares, nothing more. That time would have been better spent telling us what kind of clothes Bland wore while hanging out with Haydon or what brand of fags his father smoked.
Are those really are only choices?
You only succeed in bringing up the OTHER big problem with this film, which is that when it DOES give us information other than blank stares, that information is often trivial or irrelevant, and confusing to boot. Like when a man says "Her name's really Graham - she added the Pope for a touch of class"; and the viewer cannot figure who is talking, or who he is talking about, or why we needed to know this. The line, it so happens, is straight from the novel, which had room for it, and where it made reasonable sense in context. But its presence in a 2-hour adaptation, as well as the confusing way it is presented, is indefensible. And yes I know; the man is probably Mendel; he's probably talking about the woman, presumably the hotel owner, who just said that the table was Georgian. But as far as the viewer can tell, she is still in the room, so the viewer is only given to wonder why Mendel is talking about her like she is not present; or alternatively, if we are supposed to assume that she is no longer present, and the scene just skipped forward a few minutes.
And no, we did not particularly need to know that the table was Georgian either. The strength of film of that it is a visual medium, which can show us a Georgian table simply by putting one on screen. We don't need to hear a character we've never met before and will never meet again tell us that a table is Georgian.
To get back to blank stares: What's the significance of the scene where Smiley stares at a framed piece of ugly meaningless modern art for several seconds? Is it a clever metaphor for this film? We cannot even see his face, so you cannot even argue that his facial expression conveys information. (Incidentally, I know that we later learn that the picture is a gift from Bill. I still don't see what the viewer is supposed to learn from Smiley staring at it; especially since the viewer does not yet have this information. He would need a good memory for ugly meaningless patterns to recognize the art-piece when it appears again later in the film; and if he makes the connection he will learn nothing from it).
share
The characters are too busy giving each other silent blank stares
They aint blank stares, chum. Stares are something which you can't do in a book and haven't really been the language of TV, certainly not when the series TTSS was made. So I've kind of got to give you a break for dismissing something that doesn't fit your preferred format. Cinema on the other hand has been using stares for over a hundred years.
Maybe it's just because you're not literate enough in cinema that this constant state of confusion has had a grip in you for the past four or five years. Maybe you weren't meant to see Tinker Tailr Soldier Spy. Or at least, not ready for it.
You only succeed in bringing up the OTHER big problem with this film,
No that's just you that has the problem, because it's not the same as the book/series. You see, it becomees more and more difficult to surprise or scandalise people when we know exactly what you problem is. i.e. Your self satisfaction at appreciating the TV series first.
the viewer cannot figure who is talking
Try to pretend for a second that you're "the viewer" but you're also not checking off things which the series or the book did and making sure everying squares away, like a normal person does.
I still don't see what the viewer is supposed to learn from Smiley staring at it
Maybe there's a book you can look it up in.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please. share
Maybe it's just because you're not literate enough in cinema that this constant state of confusion has had a grip in you for the past four or five years.
Insults? That's still all you have. That, and multiple accounts. share
Deflection and fantasies is all you have. That quote is acccurate, if you can't do better than "blank stares", so you are chosing to find the truth insulting here.
You have no interest in the film except regularly coming here to be suspicious of people who get as much enjoyment out of it as you feel is only acheivable by watching the series or the read the book.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.
You have no interest in the film except regularly coming here to be suspicious of people who get as much enjoyment out of it as you feel is only acheivable by watching the series or the read the book.
I've explained my interest in the film. And none of my criticisms prevent anyone from enjoying the film ... whatever there may be to enjoy. Assigning bad motives to those you disagree with is a cheap and petty form of personal attack. share
And none of my criticisms prevent anyone from enjoying the film
I like how you keep inventing new accusations that haven't been made against you to defend.
Assigning bad motives to those you disagree
Like using a trite analogy such as Emperor's New Clothes isn't assigning bad motives?
Your interest is what you've consistenlly stated again and again and why you keep coming back here. People like the film and you can't understand why because you can't understand that people can intuit things from the movie that are not stated or played out explicitly like they are in the series, or the fact that, shock horror, that the movie can legitimately leave details out that the viewer is not aware of yet still enjoy them movie, even though you know that they're not being told something that you've been told. How dare they?
It reminds me of how I could tease my brother if he had an iced-cream but I didn't. I could get raise his ire just by pretending that not only did I have an iced-cream, I had a bigger iced cream than his. And that his iced cream could not be very enjoyable, relative to the much bigger and better iced-cream that I have and he doesn't. That's more or less what you're attempting to do in this supercillious way.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please. share
Marmadukebagelhole. Once again, you are not discussing the film. You are explaining why nystulc, an anonymous person on the internet, is a bad person, with bad motives.
Like using a trite analogy such as Emperor's New Clothes isn't assigning bad motives?
My reference to the "emperors new clothes was addressed directly to the film, as well as acknowledging an apparently widespread different view, as well as being a direct answer to a question put me by another poster. Saying the Emperor has No Clothes, is making an analogy to the story where the boy relied honestly on his own judgment, called it as he saw it, and said the Emperors had no clothes. Like the boy in the story, I am merely saying that the film does not, as far as I can tell, have the qualities that so many seem to praise it for. And I'm saying this for the same reason: because it is, as far as I know, perfectly true. I am also pointing out the fallacy of distrusting one's own judgment, and assuming something must be true because "everyone" says so.
You are, in effect, using the fact that I disagree with you and 80% of professional critics on a substantive issue, as proof that I am attacking you and them personally. Obviously, it is you who are making the special pleading, and your real underlying grievance is that I disagree with you and others about the film itself.
Effectively, you are saying: How dare you disagree with us. That means you think we're wrong. By saying we are wrong, you are implying we are lying or stupid. And we're going to take it personally and accuse you of attacking us personally, so that we can say "tu quoque" and have an excuse for attacking you personally in revenge.
And you are doing this instead of defending the film itself. share
I'm not saying you have bad motives. Just crap ones.
The Emperor's New Clothes depends on the integrity of people's perceptions. The contrast between the innocent boy's honesty and the rest of the subject's sycophantic denial of reality. It is almost exclusively used to denounce some people's appreciation of something which others believe has no merits worth acknowledging.
I am attacking you and them personally
Well now you've got your homework cut out for you. Find a quote where I accuse you of attacking me or anyone. Don't bother because I have never said anything about you attacking me or anyone.
It sounds like you're going to have another one of your wee tantrums here. (You did have a tantrum before and admitted to it so that's not an attack.) You don't like it when I explain what the facts of the matter are and how ill equipped you are to realise them at the moment.
defending the film itself
Defending it against what? Your complaints about other people enjoying it. Not once have you talked about the film, except what it isn't or couldn't do. I'm sorry but I don't need to defend it. I've pointed out where your coming from (attacking, you call it) which pretty much indemnifies me, and the film, from putting up a defence.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please. share
Defending it against what? Your complaints about other people enjoying it.
Wow! You're pants are on fire. I have no objection to anyone enjoying it for what it is, as I have said many many times.
A number of people have said they enjoy this as one would enjoy a mood piece or a music video; and I have merely shrugged and said, sure, whatever; it was not so for me, but tastes differ.
Not once have you talked about the film, except what it isn't or couldn't do.
Wow! Your pants are on really burning now, and your nose is growing long. I have discussed what the film at length many many many times, both in terms of what it is and what it isn't. share
"A number of people have said they enjoy this as one would enjoy a mood piece or a music video" - nystulc
Except that's not true at all.
People have said that part of what they like about the film is its atmosphere, and cinematography. You are the one that claimed that that boiled down to watching it like it was a music video.
You can't help yourself, strawman arguments just come naturally to you. Just like your claim that people that like the film are suffering from "Emperor's new clothes" syndrome, but surely that's not you calling people pompous poseurs because that would be a personal attack ... hmmm.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
People have said that part of what they like about the film is its atmosphere, and cinematography.
I have no objection to that, as I have repeatedly stated. Such people are not claiming it is an intricate, well-plotted spy thriller that you need to be extra-intelligent to appreciate. They are not claiming it makes sense as a story at all. There is nothing for me to disagree with, except shrug and say "different tastes".
You are the one that claimed that that boiled down to watching it like it was a music video.
I certainly never said it like that. I just made an analogy to a music video (or a mood piece) because a music video (or a mood piece), whether good or bad, is not an intricate, intelligent, or well-plotted spy thriller. "Similar to watching a music video" does not mean "Identical to watching a music video". But of course I have no objection to watching it like a music video either (tho' it's got only 3 songs IIRC). Or a mood piece either. I like music videos - some of them. I like mood pieces - some of them.
You seem to be bending over backwards to convince yourself that merely because I say anything at all, I am somehow denying others the right to their opinions, and preventing them from enjoying the film. Hey, if you push me to the wall, I would be forced to admit I cannot see its value as a mood piece either, unless you are planning to commit suicide and need a movie to help you get in the proper mood. Would you like to whine and cry about that, now? But that's not disrespecting anyone. That's just honestly calling it as I see it. Hey, if you say you enjoyed it, you enjoyed it. share
"I certainly never said it like that." - nystulc
But you said exactly that ...
"I have no quarrel with those who appreciate this as one would appreciate a music video" - nystulcThis is you trying to equate the film with a music video.
" "Similar to watching a music video" does not mean "Identical to watching a music video" " - nystulc
Yet another strawman; no-one claimed that you said it was "Identical to watching a music video", try learning about nuance.
"You seem to be bending over backwards to convince yourself that merely because I say anything at all, I am somehow denying others the right to their opinions, and preventing them from enjoying the film." - nystulc
Your actions are what convinces me of that, no spin required.
" Hey, if you push me to the wall, I would be forced to admit I cannot see its value as a mood piece either, unless you are planning to commit suicide and need a movie to help you get in the proper mood. Would you like to whine and cry about that, now?" - nystulc
Oh look, another swipe at the film in order to get replies, troll. Would I like to whine? Haha, that's rich coming from someone who's been crying about personal attacks when another poster asked a perfectly reasonable question in a perfectly polite way.
You're not fooling anyone.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
> "I certainly never said it like that." - nystulc
But you said exactly that ...
> "I have no quarrel with those who appreciate this as one would appreciate a music video" - nystulc
This is you trying to equate the film with a music video.
- YAWN! -
And this is you trying to win an argument by holding both sides of a conversation. Yes, I said the words quoted. No, they did not mean what you are saying. You are trying to twist the words "music video" into a claim that I have a quarrel where I explicitly said I had "no quarrel". And you already know better because I already clarified. You have no excuse. This is not a misunderstanding.
And none of this has any relevance to the film. It is simply a weird form of personal attack. You are accusing nystulc, an anonymous person on the internet, of contradicting himself. Nobody cares! But all you have succeeded in proving is your own malice and lack of reading comprehension.
For the record, no. I don't think the film "is a music video". Comparing is not equating. DUH! If I say "the man treats his wife as if she were a dog", I am not saying that his wife is in fact a dog. DUH! share
"You are trying to twist the words "music video" into a claim that I have a quarrel where I explicitly said I had "no quarrel"." - nystulc
You expect me to just believe someone as disingenuous as you? Ahaha. Yes, you said you had no quarrel. No, I do not believe you.
"And none of this has any relevance to the film. It is simply a weird form of personal attack." - nystulc
Crying again, don't you get tired of that?
"But all you have succeeded in proving is your own malice and lack of reading comprehension" - nystulc
So countering underhand veiled misrepresentation is malice now? Okay.
Lack of reading comprehension? Read on.
"For the record, no. I don't think the film "is a music video". Comparing is not equating. DUH! If I say "the man treats his wife as if she were a dog", I am not saying that his wife is in fact a dog. DUH!" - nystulc
How is that for lack of reading comprehension?
You're a joke.
Oh, before I go, have you worked out which of the five moles did it yet? Bwuhahahaha.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
No, I do not believe you.
Bye then. You can argue with yourself all by yourself, holding both sides of the conversation, and pretend that you are me. You'll probably win. But I'll wish you good luck just in case..
share
"Bye then." - nystulc
Surely it is not news to you that I don't believe you are being completely truthful? Or did you just gloss over those big words like "disingenuous", and "misrepresentation" before?
Reading comprehension fail?
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
Goodbye, Jameron. You have a nice day, okay?
shareAre you going to be okay?
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
Thank you for your concern, but I'm fine. God bless you, and good luck!
share