Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy - Review

At first it was difficult to put into words what was so good about the film, but I realised that what Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy , does is so simple: the story is well constructed, it has great atmosphere, the acting is fine, and it takes you on a journey into human complexity and challenges you to keep up with it.

Directed by Thomas Alfredson, of Let The Right One In fame, the film is extremely subtle in all manners. It is subtle in its performances; John Hurt is Control, the hoarse director of operations at MI5, who first has doubts about the integrity of the people around him, and promptly dies. Gary Oldman is quietly superb in as George Smiley, the man who picks up the pieces and tries to fit them all together. Tom Hardy reveals himself as the next great British actor, as the young guy who has to do all the dirty work, and makes the mistake of getting himself involved with a woman. The entire make up of the ensemble; Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Kathy Burke, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ciarin Hinds, and the rest; are brilliant. The novel by John Le Carre was originally adapted into a TV series in the late 70s, and you might think that a source as complex and with as many characters as that, would struggle to sustain itself over a normal film’s running time, but it does rather well. Though if I had to criticise it for one thing, I would have liked to have spent more time with Firth and Toby Jones, and others, if only to experience more beautiful insight. Other characters, particularly Cumberbatch (best modern Sherlock??), may get one scene, or even singular shot, that reveals a wealth of drama behind them.

There is a language you have to learn before you go in to watch a spy movie, and a language that you have to learn along the way. Firstly, one needs to be at least a little bit acquainted to what real intelligence work was actually like during the Cold War, and one needs to pick up on the most subtle gestures that indicates someone might not be who they say they are. The latter language is the language of the film; certain shots my indicate a particular inclination in one movie, and it might mean something totally different in another. Also, it is helpful to remember that, in a spy movie, whenever a character appears to start talking in complete gobbledegook, they’re actually using code words, and you should just go with it. The film gives you enough time to get acquainted with its language, and what these characters are like.

The film is also subtle in its atmosphere and its creeping sense of dread and discomfort. The slightly grubby, early 70s looks is pulled of magnificently; and the foreign hand of Alfredson shoots London with love but is not too referential. You won’t see gratuitous shots of Tower Bridge in this movie. The cinematography has a hue of brown, but is not dingy, it simply reflects the nastiness of the subject matter, and works perfectly.

An exercise in restraint and long-lasting tension, the film is slow, but at no point would you want to tear your eyes from the screen. Everything on it exudes quality, and Gary Oldman has a certain quality that makes you want to look at him all the time he is on screen.

It sometimes helps to put a film in context to properly reflect on how good it was. I saw it at the Cottage Road Cinema in Leeds, and the earlier screening was of Zookeeper . I may be being unfair, because I didn’t see it, but I kind of know that I’m not going to get the same level of quality that I do with Tinker, Tailor. This is a superbly crafted film, like how a Rolls-Royce is a well crafted car. It might not be to everyone’s tastes, but at least it’s not a Kia.

There is so much to like and probably so much to glean from it on multiple viewings. I hope you join me!