MovieChat Forums > Cambridge Spies (2003) Discussion > Not a true story

Not a true story

posted 14 years ago by rgcustomer
4 replies | jump to latest

Upon reading several reviews which judged this work against history, it contradicts what is known.

I want to address two comments made by the writer, Peter Moffat:

1. "It may or may not be true, but even if it isn't, I think it's something that sheds light on his character."

That's a fairly bizarre thing to say. Actually, things that are false necessarily tell you about the writer's character, and cannot reveal anything about the person they lie about.

2. "It's not selling itself as a documentary. You have to trust the audience."

Well, those are weasel words. At the beginning, the sentence "This is the story of the most notorious double agents in the history of spying." is shown for about 10 seconds. Notice it is not "a story" but "the story". This is intentional. Then only about half that time is given for the more important sentence "Certain events and characters have been created or changed for dramatic effect." Cute, right? So really the audience has to trust the writers and directors to be truthful, rather than anyone needing to trust the audience to have psychic abilities to determine what's true. Apparently I wasted four hours watching what is essentially a lie. That's not a good use of my time, and I would like it back. Is Moffat prepared to give me my four hours back?

[–] kristian-stipe 13 years ago

You want the truth? Stick to documentaries. True or not, these four hours are some of the best I've ever spent infront of the TV. I don't care if the story is true. The important this is that it's a really really awesomely great film.

[–] hamlet-16 10 years ago

there are a number of glaring errors in fact ... or characters and events compressed....but this is drama...attempting to explain the motivations and ideas behind the Cambridge group (and other spies).. a complex issue...but the result is fine drama that does not play with history too much.

[–] Squeeth2 9 years ago

The put a warning on the front, that seems sufficient for illiterate English undergraduates who haven't heard of poetic licence.

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

[–] thbryn 8 years ago

I would also add that you shouldn't expect dead ringers for the characters either. However they usually do ok but Philby's persona wasn't portrayed particularly well here and it had more to do with his manners and easy going likablity which I didn't see.

As for Angleton --a very tall, very thin, British schools educated odd duck you didn't see/hear much of that either?

Kisskiss, Bangbang