"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Directed by Tomas Alfredson, written by Bridget O'Connor & Peter Straughan, based on the novel by John le Carré, starring Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Colin Firth - Rated R

A completely solid and amazingly atmospheric spy film.  One of the best films of the year overall.

A good Cold War movie is hard to come by. Sure, plenty of great, cheesy action movies are products of the capitalist/communist conflict, but movies about the actual spying business of the conflict are few and far between, especially truly good films (although I consider the underrated The Good Shepherd, the justly lauded The Lives of Others, and the criminally under-watched Confessions of a Dangerous Mind recent examples of how these films should be done). Based on the novel by John le Carré, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (just Tinker from here on out) not only covers the Cold War in a realistic, interesting way, but is also quite possibly the best spy film of all time.

Now, hyperbole like that is likely to raise doubt and cause one to begin nitpicking Tinker and decrying all of its “faults.” A classification of what makes a movie a “spy” movie must be made before anyone cries foul of my bold statement. First, there is a difference between spy movies and action movies featuring spies. The vast majority of “spy” films (including all of the James Bond movies) are really just action movies. And anyhow, these action movies don’t attempt to portray spying in a realistic manner. Other films, like the above-mentioned Shepherd, Lives, and Confessions, are about realistic spying. The action is limited to a few gunshots and there are almost no explosions. Oh, and the plot is extremely hard to follow.

Tinker is so complicated that it cannot be truly enjoyed with just one viewing. This is not a fault. This makes Tinker a great spy film as you watch it twice or a third time to get all the details of the intricate plot hammered down and you start to pick up on all the details that blurred past the first time through. You notice that the film requires you to spy on the characters since so little is directly stated. Flashbacks that seemed slightly superfluous the first time through now contain the meat of the story just through showing characters interact with each other at a party.

In essence, as you watch and, for lack of a better word, study Tinker, you become like the main character, George Smiley (Gary Oldman). Smiley has recently been forced out of the “Circus” (a nickname for the British intelligence agency) along with his boss, Control (John Hurt). Control and Smiley were forced out after a mission gone wrong in which Control hoped to find out the identity of a KGB mole planted at a high level within the Circus. Once in retirement, and after Control dies, it turns out that there really is a mole and Smiley is tasked to find out who it is. There’s much, much more to the plot of Tinker but the simple fact that Smiley is searching for a mole is enough info to give you a basic idea of the plot.

A plot involving spies, much less double spies, naturally leads to paranoia and tension. Tinker certainly contains both, but those are not the film’s strongest elements. Don’t be put off by that, though. There is a constant element of paranoia since both the viewer and the main characters have no idea who they can trust and there are quite a few tense scenes. In fact, this film contains two of the tensest scenes of the year (I’ll elaborate in the spoiler section). It’s just that Tinker is one of best films in recent memory not for paranoia and tension, but for acting and atmosphere.

From the first scene, director Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One In) sets up Tinker as a deadly serious, quiet film. The piano-heavy score instantly and perfectly establishes a constant mysterious mood. The locations, the 70s-ness of it all, the slow, pervasive zooms, and the excellent performances come together to make this a film that you’ll wish never ends. If all of that isn’t enough, Tinker also features one of the most impressive casts in recent memory.

Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, Ciarán Hinds, Stephen Graham, Simon McBurney, Benedict Cumberbatch, and David Dencik. It’s like a who’s who of the best working British actors of the moment; kind of a New Year’s Eve or Valentine’s Day, but with integrity and actual entertainment value. Jokes aside, this cast is great and if there is a downside to it, it’s that some of these actors are too good to be relegated to such small roles. Hinds gets the short end of the stick, but everyone can’t be onscreen all at once. Everyone does a fine job, though. Hardy is the only one who gets to have a bit of fun as he seems to be one of the only characters with a slight sense of humor. Toby Jones plays smug to perfection. Cumberbatch gets a few emotionally charged moments. Strong gets a nice subplot as a schoolteacher. And John Hurt shines in his short scenes (I could listen to him yell the phone book and be entertained). But this is Oldman’s show.

Gary Oldman has made a name for himself over the years as an over-the-top villain and he is great at it, but Tinker allows him to simply act. Smiley is not a character that allows big, showy emotional scenes. Oldman only gets to show emotion a couple of times, but those instances are great. What is truly great about his performance is the presence behind it. Smiley doesn’t talk much and he doesn’t have to. Oldman’s performance is one of reaction as he spends most of the film learning new information. It is not a performance that can be expressed in a clip during an awards show (as you’ll surely see it in the next few months); it is a full bodied performance for a complex film. Like Tinker itself, Oldman is more impressive with each viewing.

All hyperbolic praise aside, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is still a film that many will dismiss. It cannot be understated just how difficult this film can be. Some may tune out after the first half hour simply because they can’t keep track of who everybody is and when everything is happening. But if you are a patient viewer with a hankering for a great spy (not action) film, then you need to watch this…twice. If you’re Cold War/spy junkie (like me), then watch it over and over and over.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

My review was already on the long side, but I still want to gush over this one a bit more.  First off, I absolutely loved this movie not only because of its quality as a film, but also because of the subject matter.  I just find the Cold War fascinating.

Those tense scenes mentioned above: Mark Strong's meet in Budapest at the beginning.  Great spy stuff in that scene as everyone looks suspect.  The other scene is when Benedict Cumberbatch has to steal a file from the Circus.  Do yourself a favor and watch that scene a few times to see every great element.

Oldman doesn't get to emote much in this, but I thought his discovery of his cheating wife and his outburst to Firth in the end, "Well, then what are you, Bill?!" was done quite well. 

Oldman's monologue about Karla was pretty great as well.  Somehow it was better as a monologue than a flashback.  Plus, the film had enough flashback as it was.

Loved the ending of Oldman sitting down to applause, what a great way to end the film.  Here's hoping they get a sequel made.

Enough's enough, so I'll finish with this: I haven't even scratched the surface of some of the elements of this film.  I could go on with the character of Karla, the lighter, the fact that we never really see Ann, the relationship between Firth and Strong, etc.  The point is, this movie doesn't give you all the answers.  It respects the intelligence of the viewer enough to figure it out and it leaves something to talk about once it's over.

"The King's Speech"

The King's Speech - Directed by Tom Hooper, written by David Seidler, starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Timothy Spall, and Guy Pearce - Rated R

Awards bait about a stuttering king? Give it a chance, it's pretty great.

Every year a film is released that screams, “Oscar!” and this year that film is The King’s Speech. Unfortunately, some people are turned off by films that seem destined for awards because the very synopsis of such films comes off as pretentious. It’s understandable why some would be put off by the story of a stuttering Duke of York in pre-WWII Britain. That’s right; The King’s Speech is all about a king with a speech impediment. It’s easy to see why some would be dismissive when they hear “awards” in relation to that plot synopsis. But people should not dismiss this film because it truly is deserving of awards consideration. It’s compelling and, more importantly, it’s entertaining.

The King’s Speech takes place in the two decades leading up to World War II. The Duke of York (let’s just stick with Albert for his name from here on out) isn’t in line to be king, but he still has to be able to speak to the public. His father, King George V (a great Michael Gambon), pressures him and doesn’t seem to understand that the problem can’t be fixed by sternly commanding him. This has left Albert short tempered and touchy. His wife and main source of inspiration, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), devotes her time to finding the best speech therapist and this is where the film really begins.

This film is actually about the friendship between the Albert and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel has a unique approach to therapy and he requires Albert to follow his rules and open up about his personal life. Albert, who is intensely protective of his personal life, reacts with outrage early on, but can’t ignore the results Lionel gets. Their sessions are combative for the most part, but a bond is created. Their friendship is realistic in that Albert can have outbursts, but Lionel accepts them and continues on in his own stubborn way. The two men are both stubborn, it’s just that Lionel is much more understanding.

Albert and Lionel’s friendship is also the source of entertainment for the film. Their sessions are amusing enough (some of the speech exercises are a bit goofy), but the way the two characters play off each other is the real entertainment. It helps that Firth and Rush are great actors. Rush is a natural when it comes to creating sympathy, so Lionel is an instantly likable character. It would be easy to dislike Albert, but Firth plays him with such sincerity that you understand his personality and want things to work out for him. The ability to mimic a stutter is only one aspect of Firth’s impressive performance. Firth’s facial expressions throughout tell more about the character of Albert than any stuttered lines of dialogue ever could.

Helena Bonham Carter is great as Elizabeth, as well. Elizabeth is very devoted to her husband and Carter embodies that quite well. On the opposite side of devotion to Albert’s cure, Guy Pearce does a fine job in a short role as Edward. Edward, Albert’s older brother and heir to the throne, likes Albert the way he is because he can control him by poking fun at his impediment. Rounding out the cast is Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill. It’s a short role and Churchill is mainly a bystander in this film, but it’s still a fun performance.

The King’s Speech serves as a bit of a history lesson, as you may have noticed from all the real characters involved. (Warning: SPOILERS FOR HISTORY.) Many may be unaware (as this reviewer was) of Edward’s abdication of the crown due to his relationship with a divorced American woman, Wallis Simpson. The idea that Albert wasn’t really meant to be king adds much more gravity to his problem. Fixing his speech is not just about being able to communicate. The struggle turns into his ability to be the voice of the people of England. The fact that this is all set during the buildup to World War II make the stakes that much higher.

This film isn’t as completely serious as it sounds and it is definitely more visually appealing that some might expect. The training sequences are fun, but they are also shot in an interesting montage. Director Tom Hooper and cinematographer Danny Cohen zoom in during one exercise and zoom out to reveal a different exercise. It’s all very seamless. The framing of the scenes in this film is interesting as well. You get to see a lot of the sets and they are all unique and/or historical. In short, the film looks great.

The King’s Speech may appear overly serious if you only read about it or just watch a preview. Ignore the serious hype the film is getting and you’ll realize that this is a touching, funny, and interesting drama about friendship, devotion, and patriotism. Does it deserve awards buzz? Yes, but, more importantly, it deserves a large audience.


Random Thoughts

This isn't really a comment on the movie, but more of a comment about the historical situation. It's interesting that this problem, a leader with a speech impediment, would be quite impossible in America. Since England is a monarchy, Albert becomes the voice of the people through birth alone. And there is no way a person without the ability to speak properly could be elected in any kind of democratic office in the modern world. I just find it interesting how time changes what type of person can be a leader.

There is a bit of a rating controversy concerning this film. The dreaded f-word will get you an R-rating if it is used twice. This film is fairly squeaky clean until a scene in which Albert lets out many expletives as part of an exercise. It's a great, funny scene...and it is the sole reason for the R-rating. It would be nice if the MPAA could rate movies based on the context of the use of "obscene" language. The point is that The King's Speech is not really an R-rated movie.