Having seen the film, (check out my 28 January post), I re-visited John Le Carre’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Had to buy a new copy, mine had gone missing and you never see it in second hand book shops which is a sure sign of a good book. (you don’t see many George Simenons either but that is for another post). Anyway, it was a great read, again, and interesting to compare to the film. Interesting too, to see what bits had remained in the memory and which we’re confused. I am in line to borrow the BBC series from a friend as well and it will be interesting to see how that holds up.
The film was a great effort to collapse this complicated story of intrigue and betrayal into two reasonably coherent hours of fast paced action. But I don’t think they got the figure of Anne Smiley right, nor how she dominates the story whilst never appearing in person. Her betrayal of Smiley permeates the novel. I had forgotten how she was connected to the Minister and other ‘high ups’ in government and how this played on Smiley’s mind. But she is referred to by nearly every character Smiley interacts with and in his central philosophical dilemma – what does betrayal mean? What are its consequences? Can it be repaired?
The other thing that the film does not get right are the characters of the major players. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier. I put this down to time constraints, but still think it might have been handled better. I don’t think it was a problem of miscasting as one afficiando of the book put it to me, nor in the performances, but rather of the scripting. The big gap is the sense of Haydon’s popularity, his derring do and dashingness. They all loved Haydon, that’s the emotional heart of the novel! Not really captured in the film. It could have been presented, succinctly and should have been. Left out to focus on the Haydon – Prideaux relationship that could, should, have been left ambiguous as in the book. Then there is the Soldier, who did not have much to do in the film and was an interesting character. I really like Ciaron Hinds who has a great screen presence, intimating more mystery and menace in a look than most actors can manage in a whole scene. Given the chance I bet he would have made the most of the disillusioned lefty academic described more fully in the book.
I thought the other characters were well captured in the film despite its brevity – Control, Alleline, Guillam, Prideaux and Connie Sachs. And also Smiley even though Gary Oldman does not fit the physical description of the man in the novel – too tall and trim! That person was better physically captured by the paunchy, jowelly Guinness, but it didn’t matter. The mental portrayal in the film was accurate and true to the novel. And extremely hard to do. I also think the re- arranging and new material in the film, e.g. the male lover sent packing by Guillam, the elongated Christmas party, dispatching Toby back to where he came; worked well to illustrate the story as succinctly and cinematically as possible. It is a good, and I think in this instance a great, film that leads to long and intense discussions about betrayal and loyalty.
And it’s a great book to read again. A sense of ‘end of empire’, and of loss pervades the story and the characters. Gives it an elegiac feel. Beautiful writing, complex characters and no easy moral certitudes. Makes me want more of Smiley.
– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Leave a Reply