"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" Is the Anti-Bond Thriller

By Sean Burns
Add Comment Add Comment | Comments: 2 | Posted Dec. 22, 2011

Share this Story:


Grade: C

Set in a begrimed 1973 rife with bad sideburns and unflattering eyeglasses, Let The Right One In director Tomas Alfredson’s adaptation of John LeCarre’s legendary novel wallows in the source material’s reputation as the anti-Bond thriller. Amusingly opening the same weekend that Tom Cruise’s secret agent leaps from tall buidlings with a single bound, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’s Gary Oldman sits in a straight-backed chair and occasionally sighs.

As George Smiley, a disgraced MI6 operative coaxed back from forced retirement in order to ferret out a mole within the agency, Oldman disappears behind giant spectacles and a poker-faced mask of ice-cold silence. (I just read somewhere that he doesn’t speak a word for the first 18 minutes. That sounds about right.) It’s a nifty, counter-intuitive casting choice, straight-jacketing a hambone like Oldman within all this minimalism. There’s always plenty of stuff roiling behind those steely eyes, even if it just might be the actor’s desire to cut loose and eat the scenery.

Something really bad happened in Budapest. What follows is a lot of tight-lipped characters (to whom we are not properly introduced) standing around exchanging manila envelopes and veiled insinuations in ugly, smoke-filled rooms. Hey look, there’s Colin Firth!

Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan’s screenplay fumbles a bit with a fractured timeline, as if taking perverse enjoyment in obscuring as much crucial information from the audience as possible. I think I eventually put it all together in the end—but the picture makes this task neither easy, nor particularly rewarding. My own informal polling indicates that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy seems to play much better with those familiar with the original novel, or the 7-hour BBC miniseries from 1979.

For newbies, it’s an expertly mounted, enervating slog. The characters are all so remote and repressed, speaking jargon, using code-names and lying most of the time, there’s just no point of entry for the audience. I admired the rotted, dingy look of the film and the glum tenor of the performances from afar, but never felt like I was invited to take part. Only the final scene offers even a flicker of accessible emotion, and that might have more to do with the Julio Iglesias song on the soundtrack.

I kept muttering the new title from last year’s American remake of Alfredson’s previous picture: Let Me In!
 

Add to favoritesAdd to Favorites PrintPrint Send to friendSend to Friend

COMMENTS

Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Report Violation

1. beatrice mendetz said... on Dec 25, 2011 at 06:04PM

“for once, i agree with sean burns. i gave up trying to tie it all together until the end when i woke up.....enervating slog it is...glad i saw it so i can say"so what.".beatrice m.,philadelphia,pa.”

Report Violation

2. Anonymous said... on Dec 31, 2011 at 02:25AM

“I thought that the acting was superb, and that the accurate depiction of time and place was highly convincing. However, the rest of the film played out like an extended trailer. There were some tense moments, some good lines, a mixed up chronology, and never enough information to give away the plot. I kept turning to my date and telling him I was STILL lost. He expressed having had the same experience. I walked out of the theatre unsure of what I had witnessed and whether the people who made this film were playing a joke on the audience. Anyone that hasn't read the book and says that they understand the film is probably lying.”

ADD COMMENT

Rate:
(HTML and URLs prohibited)