MovieChat Forums > The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) Discussion > Why does he do it?

Why does he do it?

posted 18 years ago by DirkPitt007
20 replies | jump to latest

I recently read the novel and saw the film, and loved both. And one of the aspects I really liked about it was the character of Alec Leamas - it was really fascinating to see a spy who was weary and almost tired with everything he was doing, who is so dis-spirited with the world, and really almost has nothing to believe in.

But that leads to my question - by the end of the film, you really get that Leamas hates the spy business and doesn't understand it, but still goes with it. Anyone have any ideas why? Or is it right there, and I'm a total fool for missing it?

---------------------------------
Jerry Goldsmith
1929-2004

[–] bmwhtly 18 years ago

i haven't seen the film (i find it almost impossible to find) but in the book (and its been a while since I read it) i remember him coming back to London from Berlin and being convinced he was going to be chucked out. Then being told if he did this, he could Keep whatever he made. Could it have all been about money?
Or was it his chance (as he saw it) to get even with Mundt for torturing and killing so many of his agents?

'There are three of them, and Alleline'

[–] fanaticita 18 years ago

I think you may be right on both. He is an aging agent and probably bored to tears with nothing to do really. The money sounded good, and he would be back out in the cold again -familiar ground.

He certainly didn't last long as a librarian assistant.

[–] rikkelk 18 years ago

Not to be too rude but the obvious reason he was acting weary and tired of the spy game was because he wanted the Communists to think he was a weary, tired, drunk who was sick of the spy game and they could "turn" him.

[–] fanaticita 18 years ago

Isn't that what Control wanted him to do also?

[–] SlowRain 18 years ago

I agree with rikkelk. It kind of throws the reader off of the scent because we believe he's burnt out, but really it's a ploy to attract the attention of the other side. If you read a bit about the history of spies, this is exactly the kind of people that they try to recruit.

The only second chance you get is to make the same mistake twice. - David Mamet

[–] PierTwo 18 years ago

I think the movie is intended to be ironic on this point. Leamas begins by pretending to be disillusioned, but by the end he is fully disillusioned, when he at last realizes the full extent of the deception Control has practiced upon him, and the ruthlessness with which Control has sacrificed lives to achieve what he wanted.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] palindromicevilolive 16 years ago

By the end, Leamas is so disillusioned he essentially offs himself. Even at the beginning, I don't really think his world-weariness is really an act-Just so happened that was the "character" he was supposed to play was also this way. His reaction to learning the girl was a communist is a perfect instance-He simply doesn't care, he's been in the business long enough to know that the cold war is a machiavellian power struggle largely detached from ideology and naive conceptions of right/wrong. In short, he's genuinely jaded and cynical, as most people would be after spending half their life in the grimy and gray world of espionage. That's kind of the point of the film, IMO.

[–] John-367 14 years ago

I think that there is a huge cultural difference between the UK and the US. If you found out in Britain that someone you knew was a Communist no one much would react with horror. In the first instance, no one - other than a spy - would have been hiding the fact that they were a Communist, all perfectly legal, so you'd know pretty much straight away that they were far Left at least.

I suspect that most people's experience of the very far Left in the UK was pretty much like mine:
Either they were an eye-rolling bore - sucking the joy out of everything by banging on about how much suffering went into producing the meal you were eating and saying we should all go on a picket line to protest at the poor conditions in the chicken factory - or they would be charmingly naive, their admirable natural compassion misplaced and exploited.

Nan fell into the latter category and that's exactly how Leamus viewed her.

[–] rogueforte 14 years ago

The anti-Communist fervor in the US versus an almost indifference in the UK is interesting. Thanks to the likes of Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan to use the 'Red Menace' for their own political agenda, until the fall of the Soviet Union, there was what seemed like a paranoia about Communism which, at times, could be quite rabid.

OTOH, the population of the UK, a country which should have had much more to fear from Communism, didn't seem nearly as wound-up about it. At worst, I think it was similiar to the librarian telling Nan she decided it best not to tell the library's administrator of the real reason for her trip since "he doesn't hold with the Communists".

[–] Miarse 13 years ago

Leaman, in the book, is described as going to seed "Very Quickly," the physical and other changes being easily noticed. (I'm sorry I do not have the book with me at present, to give you the exact wording.)

This, to me, indicates he's acting and creating the role laid out for him by control in order to make him intersting to the Germans.

[–] Noir-It-All 13 years ago

/If you read a bit about the history of spies, this is exactly the kind of people that they try to recruit./

I think Leamus was thinking of this when he asked Nan, "Who do you think spies are, anyway?"

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] jd-276 12 years ago

The anti-Communist fervor in the US versus an almost indifference in the UK is interesting. Thanks to the likes of Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan to use the 'Red Menace' for their own political agenda, until the fall of the Soviet Union, there was what seemed like a paranoia about Communism which, at times, could be quite rabid.

Oddly enough, most of that came from J.Edgar Hoover's hold over a succession of US Presidents. Prior to the establishment of what became the FBI, America was a lot more tolerant of communists and the party never had a membership of more than 5000 (Gentry*).

I don't think Britain cared what the political persuasion was. I think they just saw them as adversarial and didn't get bogged down in the hate mentality.

*http://tinyurl.com/95kbfpg

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

John-367 says > I think that there is a huge cultural difference between the UK and the US. If you found out in Britain that someone you knew was a Communist no one much would react with horror.

Well duh; of course there is a huge cultural difference between the UK and the US. That's part of the reason there is a USA in the first place. People in the US react to Communism negatively as they do to the aristocracy and to being ruled by a succession of monarchs. We have become accustomed to our many freedoms here. We are Capitalists. We enjoy those things and despise anything that could potentially threaten our way of life.

Brits may be more tolerant of Communism because they have a very well-defined class system that we don't have and don't want here in the States. Here, anyone can work hard to change their lot in life. That is not necessarily the case in British society and it's definitely not part of the communist ideology.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] John-367 8 years ago

"Well duh; of course there is a huge cultural difference between the UK and the US."

Some people aren't aware of the major difference between the usual British and American attitudes towards individual communists in the 1960s, including the person who left the comment to which I was replying.
If I remember correctly, they were surprised by how relatively sympathetically the communist librarian was treated.

Their comment has since been deleted, leaving mine looking like it came out of nowhere.

[–] TheManInOil 15 years ago

I think he does believe in it right up until he realises that Mundt is a British agent. Once disillusioned, he still has to get out of the country so he follows the plan, but when they shoot Nan he's had enough and chooses to die rather than continue with this kind of work.

"Do you realise that Otto spelled backwards is Otto?"

[–] kino66 8 years ago

think he does believe in it right up until he realises that Mundt is a British agent. Once disillusioned, he still has to get out of the country so he follows the plan, but when they shoot Nan he's had enough and chooses to die rather than continue with this kind of work.

^ This.

[–] Opwiz 9 years ago

Ultimately because of fear and it's the same reason Smiley can manipulate him. It's the same reason people keep doing jobs that they hate. We cling to what is familiar even if it's fruitless. He is on the fence though :).

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

DirkPitt007 says > But that leads to my question - by the end of the film, you really get that Leamas hates the spy business and doesn't understand it, but still goes with it.

Some of what he says while he's pretending to be a double agent seem to represent his true feelings. He talks about having been in service for a long time and they put him out to pasture as if he was only recently in. Yes, he is playing a role to attract the attention of the other side but, as we saw in the beginning of the movie, this is very close to what happened to him.

He is given this last mission because he wants to stay in. In my opinion he wants to stay in because that's been his life for so long he has nothing else. Starting over at that point would be very difficult.

However, upon starting the mission, he meets Nan. She's kind to him and they have an affair. He cares for her as, apparently he has not cared for anyone else. He now has a new focus in her. It is also a great risk so he tries to shield and protect her. When his request is not honored and she is instead used as a pawn, he chooses her over the mission.

Fortunately, it is exactly what his handlers at Control expected. Unbeknownst to him, by trying to protect her, he ensures the success of the mission. He figures it all out in his cell. He is hopeful they will have a chance to be together after all but he must realize she knows too much and is a liability especially due to her communist ties and ideology.

When she is snuffed out he realizes that was always the plan; a further betrayal so he decides it's time to hang it up. He may have believed in what he was doing as a spy - saving lives and keeping people free but all his efforts, both past and present, could not save the one person he cared about and wanted to protect.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] Mistral001 (4) 3 years ago

Leamas was not a spy, but a British secret service agent. He used to be a spy-handler in Berlin, but since all the spies under his control had been killed he was pulled out of Berlin. It is not explicitly stated in the film, but there is a strong indication that he was going to be fired because he had messed up in Berlin. Instead he was offered one last chance to stay on. His new mission was basically working under cover pretending to be a drunk and an embittered ex-British agent so that he would be seen as a potential defector by the East. In the film he seemed to be always broke, but there is little doubt that through-out the period the film covered, he would have been receiving a fairly good salary as a British agent.

Leamas was no-doubt an alcoholic by the time he left Berlin, a condition which would be a big drawback to getting and retaining a job outside the secret service, but was probably a bonus in the new role that Control wanted him to play. The new mission would have been the least option open to him and one that would use all his talents what the were.