MovieChat Forums > The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) Discussion > Disturbing plothole

Disturbing plothole

posted 13 years ago by The_TJT
18 replies | jump to latest

I found the most essential part of the plot being flawed:

The purpose of the whole intricate plot by the Brits was to free Mundt from suspicion of being a double agent, in which they succeeded - but however that SHOULD NOT have framed Fiedler "guilty" in any sense...Fiedler was acting perfectly logically with his accusation of Mundt... which shouldn't/couldn't be counted against him. So there's a slight logical flaw there.

In other words when they "proved" that Mundt was not guilty, they same time proved that Fiedler had been played by British intelligence...against his knowing.

However I enjoyed the intricate plot and great acting so I'm still giving this a 9/10, the film kept me in it's grip from start to finish and made me even thinking about the ending afterwards, figuring what actually happened in the end.

[–] rogueforte 13 years ago

The tribunal had determined that Fiedler had falsely accused a high-ranking member of the presidium of espionage and treason. Not exactly a crime to be taken lightly in East Germany. It doesn't really matter much that he had been duped by British Intelligence.

Having one's superior arrested for a major crime in a totalitarian state, even through a clever and intricate plot by an enemy of the state, then having a tribunal determine there was no merit to the accusation, well, it's not hard to imagine what the penalty would be for the accuser for making such an error.

[–] Mrpinkeye 13 years ago

and even when the english guy is admitting the plot in court Fiedler wont accept it, making himself look REALLY bad!

[–] rogueforte 13 years ago

Fiedler was desperate and in a panic. Leamas had just admitted he had helped dupe him with supposedly false information in what appeared to be a plot by Fiedler to get rid of Mundt.

At that point, Fiedler knew his longevity was in serious doubt.

[–] Squeeth2 13 years ago

The point of the story is that they're all squalid bastards. Both sides behaved the same because they were the same.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] countvasquez 12 years ago

Yeah, it seems that eastern agents were continually liquidated for all sorts of failure - if it makes sense or not. Well, the dirty methods of spying might be similiar in east and west but at least the west is the best because failing agents will normally only been retired...

:-)

But for me the disturbing plot hole is this: George Smiley, the Superspy himself makes a blunder by visiting the girl under the eyes of the eastern agents?! Giving the girl 1000 Pounds for charity reasons?! And they all believed that to be the "little" mistake in the masterplan?

WTF?

I didn't buy it for one second, so this was clearly a fake mission. But I am no spy and only half as paranoid so why all members of the tribunal believed it (and the defender, too!) is beyond me. Heck, even Richard believed it!

The visit in Smiley's house alone should have been enough evidence...

[–] rogueforte 12 years ago

Heck, even Richard believed it!

This results in one of the great moments in the movie. When Smiley's treachery is first revealed by Nan under questioning, Leamas jumps up and admits the whole plot to the tribunal, implicating and sealing Fiedler's fate while clearing Mundt. Smiley's apparent inexplicable action doesn't seem to register.

But immediately after the hearing ends, the look of realization on Leamas' face of how both he and Fiedler were duped by Control as Mundt passes is a great example of Burton's acting ability.

[–] jd-276 12 years ago

But for me the disturbing plot hole is this: George Smiley, the Superspy himself makes a blunder by visiting the girl under the eyes of the eastern agents?! Giving the girl 1000 Pounds for charity reasons?! And they all believed that to be the "little" mistake in the masterplan?

Definitely no plot hole there. It's a critical part.

That was entirely deliberate. It was intended so that Leamas' evidence could be discredited and the case against Mundt would collapse. Leamas says exactly that at the end.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Absolutely true!

[–] Squeeth2 8 years ago

Allegedly....;O))

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] Gorgiasz 8 years ago

This is glaring plothole, but in the Fiedler's and Leamas' narrative rather in the movie. Smiley's actions were not exactly overblown - it looked like the agency has simply taken care of the agent's relatives thus completely undermining Leamas' legend of being a defector. It is worth noting that Smiley did it itself (using his real name nonetheless) instead of sending one of his people.

And it looks like Smiley's blunder unless one notices that the whole plan was to discredit Leamas (and by extension - Fiedler) to protect Mundt. Of course, this was a risky move, but it was said that Fiedler was idealistic and ambitious and, above all, he hated Mundt, so that he might have not double-checked Leamas' legend so deeply. It is also possible that Smiley and Control organized the support for Perry only after Leamas has been recruited and sent over to Fiedler, and the operation was in full swing.

[–] Son-of-WRA 11 years ago

It was an excellent film although a little too intricate for me to follow. Perhaps that's why - as the story unfolded - it seemed to me that the entire plot was designed to "retire" Leamus for his refusal to take a desk job. The other things were collateral events, sort of like killing two birds with one stone.

[–] rogueforte 11 years ago

This is a debatable point. I'm not sure Leamus was all that upset about being recalled to London. He was a good section chief (i.e., Cold War soldier) and did as he was instructed.

But even being a good section chief didn't mean he wasn't expendable in order to keep someone who was as high up in the East German Presidium as Mundt. Leamus figured it out in the courtroom as he watched Mundt leave and, I suspect, is the reason he went back after Nan after she had been shot. At that point, to him, death was better than being a part of an organization that was so willing to use him in such a sordid manner.

[–] astrofan 11 years ago

"Perhaps that's why - as the story unfolded - it seemed to me that the entire plot was designed to "retire" Leamus for his refusal to take a desk job..."

Not remotely...beter watch again.

[–] flask 11 years ago

I found the most essential part of the plot being flawed:

The purpose of the whole intricate plot by the Brits was to free Mundt from suspicion of being a double agent, in which they succeeded - but however that SHOULD NOT have framed Fiedler "guilty" in any sense...Fiedler was acting perfectly logically with his accusation of Mundt... which shouldn't/couldn't be counted against him. So there's a slight logical flaw there.

In other words when they "proved" that Mundt was not guilty, they same time proved that Fiedler had been played by British intelligence...against his knowing.

I am uncertain if that is a true flaw. The price for voicing a misguided opinion in the East German Intelligence Service was usually death or exile. Even in Western nations such as the U.S. or U.K., the price for voicing a misguided opinion in the CIA or MI6 was usually demotion or retirement. Being sincerely mistaken on a key issue ruined the careers of many promising intelligence officers.

[–] emncaity 9 years ago

Just posted a separate thread on essentially that very point. Mundt's defense was that he was completely incompetent -- having worked for years with a British agent, and certainly having revealed much information to him -- rather than a deliberate traitor. Either way, Fiedler clearly was acting in good faith, regardless of his hatred for Mundt, and the evidence marked Mundt either as a traitor or an incompetent, in either case of which he had revealed a lot of information the East Germans didn't want the Brits to have.

In short, at most, Fiedler had been duped by a British agent for a few weeks; at best, Mundt had been duped by a British agent for years.

So yeah. It's a valid point.

[–] paengmanila 9 years ago

I think it was Leamas' and Mundt's belief that Fiedler would be executed, but we're not certain if that eventually took place. At the very least, Fiedler was discredited.

[–] Gorgiasz 8 years ago

In addition to everything that was said before about the dangers of being wrong in a Communist secret service, Mundt was portrayed as a bloodthirsty bastard. It is very likely that he would personally see to it that is overachieving, scheming underling was eliminated. It is possible that even if Fiedler "died during an interrogation" or was "shot during an escape attempt" with no witnesses to say otherwise, the Praesidium would have turned a blind eye to such excess and consider it an elimination of a possible gap in security.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

That is not a plothole! It shows how dirty of a business this all is.