I finally got round to watching the
2011 film adaptation of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', which was
well received and I can see why. It's beautifully filmed, in hues of
browns and greys with even the occasional splash of green or of
sunlight seeming drained and subdued. I appreciated the way it
didn't make the mistake so many films do, of being too keen to show
off it's period detail and beat you round the head with intrusive
music and unnecessary filler shots. It's superbly acted by a strong,
almost entirely British cast – Toby Whitehouse snarls and glowers
to great effect, Tom Hardy makes an impression perhaps simply because
of his character's difference from the rest (an all together rougher
and more physical presence), Benedict Cumberbatch brings some moments
of effective and welcome emotion.
Gary Oldman dominates the entire thing, and it's interesting to see the way he has changed and developed as an actor in recent years. You might struggle to believe he is the same actor who dominated the screen so physically and showily in the likes of Dracula and Leon, but following on from his selfless supporting role in the Batman series, here he is all about restraint, physical stillness, deliberation. The greatest credit I can give is that he successfully steps out from the formidable shadow of Alec Guinness, star of the definitive TV series from the 70's (repeated a few years ago on BBC4 by the way, and such a welcome antidote to the incessant bluster and noise of too many modern series).
His character Smiley is not just the lead role, he's the very heart and soul of the story: the pace, the subdued colours, the quietness all mirroring Smiley's slow, deliberate movements – themselves external representations of his careful and considered thoughts and watchfulness as he unravels the mystery at the heart of his hunt for the mole at the top of British Intelligence. This is the most successful part of the film, a key thematic element infused into the very direction, cinematography and the performance of the key actor. Cumberbatch, as Smiley's right-hand man, is meant to be a counterpoint to this, impulsiveness and brashness providing necessary action to drive the mole-hunt forward.
Gary Oldman dominates the entire thing, and it's interesting to see the way he has changed and developed as an actor in recent years. You might struggle to believe he is the same actor who dominated the screen so physically and showily in the likes of Dracula and Leon, but following on from his selfless supporting role in the Batman series, here he is all about restraint, physical stillness, deliberation. The greatest credit I can give is that he successfully steps out from the formidable shadow of Alec Guinness, star of the definitive TV series from the 70's (repeated a few years ago on BBC4 by the way, and such a welcome antidote to the incessant bluster and noise of too many modern series).
His character Smiley is not just the lead role, he's the very heart and soul of the story: the pace, the subdued colours, the quietness all mirroring Smiley's slow, deliberate movements – themselves external representations of his careful and considered thoughts and watchfulness as he unravels the mystery at the heart of his hunt for the mole at the top of British Intelligence. This is the most successful part of the film, a key thematic element infused into the very direction, cinematography and the performance of the key actor. Cumberbatch, as Smiley's right-hand man, is meant to be a counterpoint to this, impulsiveness and brashness providing necessary action to drive the mole-hunt forward.
The least successful element then?
Well, here's the other point of this blog: that TV series will remain
the definitive version of this story. Not because of any greater
quality of acting or filming or any such technical consideration, but
simply because of this: the film is 127 minutes long, the TV series
is 315. There is so much depth of theme and detail in a book like
Tinker....that can't be conveyed in a film simply because of time
constraints. There's too much compromise needed in adapting the
story to the medium of film. The TV series still has to make
compromises of course, but that extra time – if well used – can
make all the difference, and in this case it makes the difference
between a good film and an excellent series.
Too much is lost in the film. There's no time to set up and follow through the necessary twists and red herrings satisfactorily, which means the central mystery isn't really much of a mystery and the story is turned into a potentially quite dry intelligence procedural. It's only due to the superb quality of the script, acting and production that the film is still so good despite this. There's no time to properly deal with the various deeper story elements or themes – the theme conveyed by the partnership of Oldman and Cumberbatch isn't strongly conveyed or maintained, it's left to be briefly implied in the early scenes between the two. There's no time for any real exploration of Smiley's character, why he is like he is and the significance of that to the story. There is literally no attempt at all to explain or show any reasoning behind the mole's betrayal. No time, no time, no time.
Too much is lost in the film. There's no time to set up and follow through the necessary twists and red herrings satisfactorily, which means the central mystery isn't really much of a mystery and the story is turned into a potentially quite dry intelligence procedural. It's only due to the superb quality of the script, acting and production that the film is still so good despite this. There's no time to properly deal with the various deeper story elements or themes – the theme conveyed by the partnership of Oldman and Cumberbatch isn't strongly conveyed or maintained, it's left to be briefly implied in the early scenes between the two. There's no time for any real exploration of Smiley's character, why he is like he is and the significance of that to the story. There is literally no attempt at all to explain or show any reasoning behind the mole's betrayal. No time, no time, no time.
Thinking about film vs TV, the pro's in
film's column have always seemed to me to be about spectacle and
budget, and having the biggest acting names available. But these
days there are plenty of big budget TV shows that can look just as
good and provide just as much spectacle, and plenty of shows
providing very willing vehicles for actors who would previously have
stuck with film.
The first TV show I personally can recall matching film was Band of Brothers, which is a very handy example as it took it's cue in a big way from Saving Private Ryan. It looks just as good as that film, using a very similar look and style, and over 11 hours and 10 episodes it tells a much better story. The film provided an excellent template, with that stunning opening and the overall look and feel, but then had to tell a story in a film's running time and ended up with something pretty generic and compromised. The TV series had that much more time with it's story and it's characters, and was so much more satisfying as a result, without in turn having to make any of it's own compromises in presentation, spectacle or performance.
The first TV show I personally can recall matching film was Band of Brothers, which is a very handy example as it took it's cue in a big way from Saving Private Ryan. It looks just as good as that film, using a very similar look and style, and over 11 hours and 10 episodes it tells a much better story. The film provided an excellent template, with that stunning opening and the overall look and feel, but then had to tell a story in a film's running time and ended up with something pretty generic and compromised. The TV series had that much more time with it's story and it's characters, and was so much more satisfying as a result, without in turn having to make any of it's own compromises in presentation, spectacle or performance.
This is an age of big TV series.
Quality actors, quality writers, some pretty daring stories being
told, some pretty big budgets being spent. DVD boxsets and streaming
services mean audiences can watch them at their convenience too.
Where does this leave film, then? There's still one advantage film
has: the ability to tell a satisfying story in a couple of hours.
Even watched at your convenience, a tv series is still a big time
commitment. And it can drag, and getting the pacing right - over,
what? 30, 40, 50 episodes? - can be a real bugger, not to mention it
might jump the shark in season 3, get shit in season 2 or not know
how or when to end it and …...yes.
One film, a couple of hours, one sitting, beginning, middle, end, simple. There'll always be a place for that, but cinema isn't the only game in town any more. So it's a matter of picking battles, for this I will say: when it comes to telling a story like 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', the long game, the slower of pace, will – fittingly and I think Smiley would approve – always win.
One film, a couple of hours, one sitting, beginning, middle, end, simple. There'll always be a place for that, but cinema isn't the only game in town any more. So it's a matter of picking battles, for this I will say: when it comes to telling a story like 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', the long game, the slower of pace, will – fittingly and I think Smiley would approve – always win.
