UKC

So I saw Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in the cinema last night and thought it was a pretty good film. I was left feeling that I'd not followed some of the subtler bits though. Would anyone like to fill in the gaps for me? (or tell me to read the book if that would help - ashamed to say I have never got round to reading it). Some of the bits I wasn't sure about were...

Tarr knew who the mole was, did he not, because Irina tells him. Why does he not tell Smiley, who he has clearly decided he has to trust? Is Tarr still using it as a bargaining chip to rescue Irina (who he still thinks is alive)? I thought he'd learned by this point that he wasn't devious enough to play with the big boys.

When Peter leaves with the day log, someone passes him on the stairs whistling a significant tune (I actually missed who it was, but I don't think it was the mole). Why were they listening in on his phone call? Was it just general paranoia with everybody suspicious of everybody else?

A throwaway scene that I did not get at all - Smiley tells Peter to tie up his loose ends, or something like that, and he throws out his "lodger". Why?

And finally - one of the guardian reviews implied it was obvious from very early on who the mole was. Was it really? Even in retrospect it wasn't obvious to me at all - was I being very dense, or was the reviewer talking rubbish?

In reply to jonny taylor: Not seen the film yet but, call me old fashioned, the book must be a pretty good place to start. That said, from memory, not sure it features much of the above in it!

In reply to jonny taylor:

He knows there's a mole but not who it is

Just paranoia unless there's a change from the book!


Because at the time being of a particular orientation was a major problem; it was seen by those responsible for vetting as a major weakness and not good for one's career. I don't remember this from the book...

In reply to hindu:
Thanks!

>> Tarr knew who the mole was, did he not,
OK, I misunderstood things then, I got the impression Irina had told him everything.


Fair enough, I was reading more into it than that and thinking there was actually a genuine issue (or at least suspicion of one) with his lodger. I gather he is straight in the book.

In reply to jonny taylor:


Was it not in the scene where Smiley asks him to get the day log? And tells him he cannot mention Smiley or the investigation if caught. ie he should get as unimpeachable as possible as he operating as an outsider, for Smiley

In reply to jonny taylor:


It's been a while since I last read it but I think Smiley's view of Peter Guillam is that he has a flashy sports car that's far too young for him and is a bit of a lady's man. Of course, Smiley might be jumping to conclusions too!

In reply to NickK123:

Old fashioned I think. Not seen the film yet, but apparrently Le Carre said the book had been done and that he would welcome it just being used as a starting point for a slightly different story. As a consequence, much less of the film is from the book, compared to the Guiness TV version.

In reply to digby:
>> A throwaway scene that I did not get at all - Smiley tells Peter to tie up his loose ends, or something like that, and he throws out his "lodger". Why?


My memory is that it was actually *after* he had got out with the day log, but everyone seems agreed that that's the general motivation for the scene.

In reply to jonny taylor:

Another small matter - why did the teacher/guy who got shot in Budapest shoot Bill Hayden at the end?

They were listening to Peter's phone call just as a general point of paranoia, it's suggested that all outside phone calls to the Circus are listened to. They knew it would be listened to, so they used that to make it appear that Peter had a good reason to get his bag into the archive room.

In reply to The New NickB. Ta! Not sure about the 'old fashioned' moniker but I did ask for that!

In reply to stewieatb: I assumed it was because while on the mission to expose Hayden he was shot, imprisoned and exposed to the trauma of torture/seeing Irina shot. Plus he lost his livelihood, so... revenge.

In reply to NickK123:

Actually in terms of films keeping to the book they are based on, I don't think it is necessarily an old fashioned idea. The Jeff Bridges version of True Grit is much truer to the book than the John Wayne version.

In reply to Stig:
In the book it's because Haydon was a supposedly close friend who sold him out to the Russians (the whole of Operation Testify being basically a setup) to be shot, captured, tortured etc purely to shore up his own position as a mole.

I can see why, if you were prone to direct action and the guy who'd done that looked likely to be sent off to a peaceful retirement in Russia in an exchange of prisoners, you might take matters into your own hands...

In reply to Stig:
Any why *do* they shoot Irina in front of him - he *hasn't* had any dealings with her, has he. Is it just to send a message back to the circus (and to screw with him even more) or is there something subtler than that?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

In the book at least it's pretty clear that there was a homoerotic relationship between Haydon and Jim Prideaux. It's the personal betrayal that gets Haydon killed, even if the political betrayal can be negotiated round.

In the book Prideaux kills Haydon (humanely) with his bare hands (despite all the efforts to protect him). A gun would have been too impersonal.

In reply to hindu:


"...being of a particular orientation..."?! For God's sake, you're allowed to say gay you know - no need to be as cryptic as the plot! Peter was gay and he ditched his lover i.e. his 'loose ends'.

In reply to flipper:

<snigger>

In reply to Stig:


There's the implication in two or three scenes that they were old close friends if not more probably lovers so there's the obvious betrayal and possibly an element of mercy killing given Hayden doesn't flinch at the sight of his soon to be armed killer. There's also I suppose the issue of who and what else may be exposed were he to actually be traded, the idea that there may be yet more secrets that haven't surfaced yet. I suspect it's supposed to be a rather dispassionate 'crime of passion'.

I had to concentrate pretty hard to follow the film and I'm still not really convinced I did. I suppose the way it's all presented as a load of fragments, and flashbacks is a tool used to convey how disorienting, complex and ambiguous the whole situation got. Clever maybe but a little annoying to watch!

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I had the same trouble with the book - I'm fine with Proust, Joyce or Faulkner but clearly not cut out for intricate spy thrillers. I struggled to follow all the threads but i guess that was the main pleasure in reading it.

In reply to jonny taylor:

The subtle bit in the book is the Esterhase - Polyakov - Haydon triangle

In reply to stewieatb:

They were lovers and the teacher was betrayed by Colin Firth