Why was that guy crying like a little bitch when he shot Colin Firth? - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2012) Discussion

not sure if serious but yes, they were 'butt buddies'

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

not sure if serious but yes, they were 'butt buddies'

Well, I was not sure if he was serious either, so I did not bother answering. But if "butt buddies" means "lovers who participate in anal intercourse", then the answer is "insufficient data".

In all versions of this story all we know for certain is that they are very close friends.

reply

[–] colmachrome 8 years ago

well yes its left up to the viewer but my opinion is that they were lovers

reply

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

I think they were implying it. they've made it somewhat more sentimental than the earlier versions. in the BBC version, Prideaux breaks Haydon's neck rather than shooting him, and in the book I understand it isn't actually stated who kiled Haydon.

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

I think they were implying it. they've made it somewhat more sentimental than the earlier versions. in the BBC version, Prideaux breaks Haydon's neck rather than shooting him, and in the book I understand it isn't actually stated who kiled Haydon.

Maybe it's not "actually stated" in some narrow sense, but it is still 100% clear in the novel that it is Prideaux who kills Haydon. The reader, through Bill Roach's eyes, knows things that Smiley does not, and, unlike Smiley or Roach, the reader is able to put 2 and 2 together.

And yes, he breaks his neck.

In the novel, the motive is vengeance; for in the novel, Bill has done terrible terrible things, not only to Jim, but to Jim's friends and associates. In the film, the motive is unclear. Bill did not actually do anything to Jim or his friends, as far as we know. From what we see on screen, Jim seems to merely want to put poor Bill out of his horrible misery.

reply

[–] dylanw1 8 years ago

Maybe it's not "actually stated" in some narrow sense, but it is still 100% clear in the novel that it is Prideaux who kills Haydon. The reader, through Bill Roach's eyes, knows things that Smiley does not, and, unlike Smiley or Roach, the reader is able to put 2 and 2 together.

It’s always been my impression that Smiley knows but doesn’t say anything because it’s Lacon asking and what would be the point? That’s just an impression, though, and there’s no evidence for it in the book.

The last paragraph of chapter 34 makes it pretty clear that Guillam eventually works out that it was Prideaux following Smiley, and from there he must be at least suspicious that Prideaux killed Haydon. He probably also doesn’t see the point in saying anything, and also *beep* Bill Haydon.

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

It’s always been my impression that Smiley knows but doesn’t say anything because it’s Lacon asking and what would be the point? That’s just an impression, though, and there’s no evidence for it in the book.

The last paragraph of chapter 34 makes it pretty clear that Guillam eventually works out that it was Prideaux following Smiley, and from there he must be at least suspicious that Prideaux killed Haydon. He probably also doesn’t see the point in saying anything, and also *beep* Bill Haydon.

Well, yes. Neither Smiley nor Guillam would WANT to get poor ole Jim into trouble for getting mad, while not entirely sober, and snapping that bastard's neck like a twig. To some lesser extent, both of them understand his feelings and share his motivations.

But on a moral level, it is not quite that simple. Smiley and Guillam both still work for the Circus, and have a duty and a responsibility towards it, as well as to the agents Hayden was to be traded for. To have them covering up Jim's crime immediately as it occurs borders on making them accomplices after the fact.

I don't think Le Carre wants to put either of them in that position. I think that's why, in the passage you quote, he states that Guillam did not put a name to the shadow until "much, much later", which I think looks forward to some future point long after the close of the novel. The more time that passes, the stronger your justifications become, and the lesser the moral objections become.

reply

[–] dylanw1 8 years ago

Agreed.

reply

[–] bpollen 8 years ago

Prideaux doesn't state his reason for killing Hayden (in the film), but I didn't assume it was to save him from his fate. It seemed to me that he was killing Hayden for using him, since Prideaux had suffered torture for weeks or months, and done some things, because of his love for Hayden, who was just using him and didn't really love him. That's why he was crying...because he loved Hayden.

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Prideaux doesn't state his reason for killing Hayden (in the film), but I didn't assume it was to save him from his fate. It seemed to me that he was killing Hayden for using him, since Prideaux had suffered torture for weeks or months, and done some things, because of his love for Hayden, who was just using him and didn't really love him. That's why he was crying...because he loved Hayden.

This makes as much sense as anything else. But there is little if anything in the film supporting it. But maybe it explains the Orlando shooting.

reply

[–] churchr-1 8 years ago

Prideaux had loved Hayden but I think his grief was as much for what Hayden had done to him. He'd not only had the people that Prideaux ran killed, people he was responsible for and cared about, but let Prideaux believe that he'd betrayed them himself during the torture. The man he loved did the most horrible things he could imagine to him. And now he was killing him. It would have to be a very emotional moment.

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Prideaux had loved Hayden but I think his grief was as much for what Hayden had done to him. He'd not only had the people that Prideaux ran killed, people he was responsible for and cared about, but let Prideaux believe that he'd betrayed them himself during the torture. The man he loved did the most horrible things he could imagine to him. And now he was killing him. It would have to be a very emotional moment.

Hayden never betrays Prideaux's colleages in this version. Prideaux betrays them himself. This is a change from the novel, and apparently a deliberate one. The filmmakers have removed from the story most of the elements that would give Prideaux a motive for revenge against Haydon. Possibly this is because they wish to suggest an alternate explanation for Prideaux's motive.

But the alternate explanation, that Prideaux kills Haydon as an "act of love" or "mercy killing" designed to save him Haydon from a cricket-free fate-worse-than-death in Moscow, does not make much sense either.

reply

[–] churchr-1 8 years ago

Seriously? I'll have to watch it again and try even harder to not fill holes with memories from the novels.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] churchr-1 8 years ago

"Hayden never betrays Prideaux's colleages in this version. Prideaux betrays them himself."

Are you sure? In every version Prideaux gives up the names of his ring, it's inevitable and he knows it. His hope is to hold out long enough for them to escape.
Was all that torture and self-recrimination pointless? Had Hayden already doomed them?
Unlike the novels and previous version I'm not in a hurry to watch this again, but maybe I'll have to.

reply

[–] simon23 8 years ago

The film is consistent with the book in that Smiley puts explicitly to Haydon what remains a train of thought in the book:

SMILEY (CONT’D)
Did Prideaux come and see you
before he left on his Hungarian
mission?

BILL HAYDON
Yes, as a matter of fact he did.

SMILEY
To say what?

Haydon stares at him. For the first time the tears seem
real. Guilt and grief. He looks down. A long pause.

SMILEY (CONT’D)
(almost to himself)
To warn you. Because he knew,
deep down, it was you all along.

BILL HAYDON
So did you.

(From the early screenplay version - with useful actor cues:http://goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Tinker-Tailor-Soldier-Spy-screenplay-pdf.pdf)

Prideaux compromises the mission and ultimately betrays himself, Control and the Hungarian networks by informing Haydon of the mission details before he leaves. The torture is pointless in two respects:

1. Karla already has Control's list of suspects and codenames and obtaining them again by torture is redundant other than for sustaining appearances and a natural result of the inhuman destructive cruelty of his regime at work.

2. The ultimate purpose of operation Testify had already been achieved before Prideaux is well enough to be tortured - deposing Control as Circus head and installing Percy. Whoever the shameful, paranoid and discredited ex-head suspected of being a mole was worthless intel by then - Jim's informed by Karla after the killing of Irina to "tell Alleline what we did".

Prideaux's holding out for as long as he could was valuable to the extent that if he knew anything it was likely the networks would have had sufficient time to evade capture. If they were doomed it was not because he broke under torture.

I strongly agree with Jameron, you really should disregard nystulc. He's stalked the movie and spent a couple of years attention seeking on this board with an animosity and deranged disingenuity that would have had him chucked off any moderated board in minutes.

reply

[–] churchr-1 8 years ago

"The film is consistent with the book in that Smiley puts explicitly to Haydon what remains a train of thought in the book: "

Thanks, and thanks for the advice.

This sort of reminds me of an aspect of "Smiley's People." I though the series actually did a better job of explaining what Karla was worried about than the novel. We could see his daughter's behavior and know that in a Soviet hospital, with peeling paint and the smell of urine everywhere, she'd have been raped by everyone from the director to the janitors. It just seemed to come out more vividly in the show.

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

"The film is consistent with the book in that Smiley puts explicitly to Haydon what remains a train of thought in the book: "

Thanks, and thanks for the advice.

Hi Churchr-1. FYI, here is a summary of the differences between the novel and the film, on the issue of Jim betraying the networks.

The most directly relevant difference is this:

NOVEL: Jim tells Smiley he meant to hold out under torture as long as possible to give the Networks time to escape. However, his interrogators had little interest in the Networks. They focused on Control’s theory until, after weeks of interrogation, Jim was completely broken (and only later, presumably, returned to the subject of the Networks). Smiley then tells Jim that the Networks were rolled up the same night as Jim’s own capture. This is so fast as to imply Jim made NO effort to protect the Networks, and voluntarily gave them up immediately, before his will was broken, and before they could learn of his capture and escape to safety. Hence Smiley’s comment: “The story is you blew them so save your own skin. I don't believe it. But I have to know what happened.” The real truth is, the Russians already knew about the Networks (from Bill) and rolled up the Networks to frame Jim and compound the embarrassment of Control.

FILM: Jim says that, under torture, he tries to hold on as long as he could, to give the networks time to escape. The unstated implication is that he eventually cracked under torture. He then asks if the networks got away? Smiley coldly answers, “No. They were blown. The story is you blew them to save their own skin.” The implication is that the networks are captured because Jim betrayed them under torture, and Smiley is coldly unsympathetic to the extenuating circumstances. There is no hint that Bill had anything to do with the capture of the Networks; or that Smiley believes Jim is innocent and the "story" false.

Another difference is Jim’s visit to Bill, before his mission:

NOVEL: Jim does not believe that there is a mole. He thinks that Control has gone crazy, and (therefore) that the Czech mission will be “hairy” (that is, some kind of trick or trap). Before he goes on the mission, he tries to warn both Smiley and Bill, two people he trusts, that Control has gone crazy and sent him on a hairy mission. However he only succeeds in warning Bill. Smiley later speculates that everyone (including Jim) had a sort of “half-knowledge” that Bill was a traitor, but were in denial, as of a truth too painful to accept.

FILM: After Control’s briefing, Jim warns Bill about the Hungarian Mission, BECAUSE Jim knows Bill is the Mole.

(This is presumably what Simon is referring to above when he says that in the film, Smiley says explicitly what remains a train of thought in the book. But the meaning has been radically altered. In the novel, Jim does not warn Bill BECAUSE of his knowledge that Bill is a traitor, but IN SPITE of that half knowledge, which the conscious part of his mind has furiously rejected. Jim warns Bill (and tries to warn Smiley) for the opposite reason -- because he is certain (at least consciously) that Bill (and Smiley) are NOT traitors.)

Another possible difference is

NOVEL: The Czech mission is a trap from the start, and Bill receives no information from Jim that he did not already know. Indeed, Bill may have provided no specifics, beyond the fact that Control had gone crazy and sent Jim on a secret mission that was likely to end in disaster. The significance of Jim's warning to Bill is the irony of Jim showing intense trust for and loyalty to Bill; not knowing that Bill has already betrayed him completely.

FILM: There is no indication that the Hungarian mission is a trap from the start. The viewer is presumably meant to conclude that Jim’s warning to Bill is the reason why it failed; since no other explanation is suggested.

Often, the film uses words that come almost directly from the novel, but in contexts that completely change the meaning.

reply

[–] balthazar_bee 7 years ago

FILM: Jim says that, under torture, he tries to hold on as long as he could, to give the networks time to escape. The unstated implication is that he eventually cracked under torture. He then asks if the networks got away? Smiley coldly answers, “No. They were blown. The story is you blew them to save their own skin.” The implication is that the networks are captured because Jim betrayed them under torture, and Smiley is coldly unsympathetic to the extenuating circumstances. There is no hint that Bill had anything to do with the capture of the Networks; or that Smiley believes Jim is innocent and the "story" false.

It's difficult to state this unequivocally, given the specific peculiarities of this film's storytelling manner -- it's reluctance to state when it can imply, to evade when it might assert -- but I think this is a misreading of the scene in question. The phrasing that Smiley uses, "The story is you blew them to save your own skin," is prima facie a cold and unsympathetic Smiley, but the phrasing is also highly suggestive of an unspoken counterpoint. In other words, someone like Smiley isn't going to say, "The story is..." unless the story is quite likely false, or at least questionable.

I mean, given what Smiley knows at that point, what the viewer knows, how the movie turns out...I guess I'm wondering why anyone would hear that line and think, "Smiley blames Jim for the compromised networks." It's more like, "This is how those mole-infested eegits who're now in charge say it went down."

There's an unspoken mutual respect between these cold warriors, and the way Oldman delivers the line connotes that. In other words, "How sad that we've fallen so far, and that Percy and his minions have so little understanding of our own people." Jim's suffering, his attempts to hold out, his service generally and his present sorry state -- they all come to a bitter conclusion with that one line from Smiley, which is why it's more powerful without the immediate relief of Smiley's salve ("Of course, I don't believe such a thing," etc.).

reply

[–] GorchBrother 7 years ago

Smiley saying that it's a story leaves the door open for Jim to put that story straight if it isn't true.

At that point, Jim is choosing to be as blind to Haydon as Smiley is. Which is why he can't tell Smiley that he warned Haydon before getting shot.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

Smiley saying that it's a story leaves the door open for Jim to put that story straight if it isn't true.

Yes, but not only does Jim remain silent, but he has just (as far as the viewer can tell) admitted that it WAS true. Sure, may be it's uncharitable to say he did it "to save his own skin", given the circumstances. But as far as the viewer can tell, that's just Smiley being cold and mean.

At that point, Jim is choosing to be as blind to Haydon as Smiley is.

If the script is to be believed, Jim has already betrayed the mission to Bill BECAUSE Jim knows Bill is a traitor.

Maybe he just forgot again.

In any event, it's hard to see the relevance. Haydon was not in the room when Jim betrayed the networks under torture.

Which is why he can't tell Smiley that he warned Haydon before getting shot.

There is no reason to suppose Jim discussed the identities of the networks when he warned Bill. Bill and/or the Russians either have this information anyway, or they never had it. This has nothing to do with the question of whether they need to torture Jim for information on the Networks.

Of course, one could say that this is all Bill's fault for handing Jim over to the Russians. But one could as easily say it's Jim's fault for handing himself over to the Russians (by warning Bill, knowing Bill was a traitor).

reply

[–] GorchBrother 7 years ago

Yes, but not only does Jim remain silent, but he has just (as far as the viewer can tell) admitted that it WAS true.

No. It might be true.

If the script is to be believed,

The script does not reveal Haydon to be the mole and Prideaux not to be until the end. That and the revelation that Haydon received a warning from him before Budapest puts Jim's reticence, and a lot of other things that did not conclusively implicate Haydon or otherwise at the time they were revealed in the script, into perspective.

In any event, it's hard to see the relevance of Haydon not being in the room when Jim betrayed the networks under torture.

Fixed that for you.

There is no reason to suppose Jim discussed the identities of the networks when he warned Bill

That's interesting, I suppose. But who made that supposition? Who are you addressing with that clause?

Did you construe something in my post, or in the movie, as implying that Prideaux discussing the identities of his network with Haydon was been necessary in order for Haydon to betray them? (Why would Jim be Haydon's only access to the identities of his networks anyway?) Or is this just another tangential, non-sequitur "but"?

The reasons for Jim's torture aren't given and are left deliberately ambiguous, I feel, in order to enhance the squalid, grubbiness of their business. To show that in this context, people are capable of anything and they may not need a practical reason or a logical or ideological imperative to perform such barbarity. Maybe Karla and his colleagues kind of like it. I doubt that anyone how does employ torture and murder top effect and interrogation don't enjoy it somewhat.

Torturing Jim may also have been to test Haydon. And he did not need to be in the room in order for him to have some feeling or reaction to the knowledge of his pal being tortured.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

The script does not reveal Haydon to be the mole and Prideaux not to be until the end.

I think the viewer (if he understands anything, which he might not) knows Prideaux is not the mole. At least, that would be some twist! On the other hand, Prideaux is (sort of) revealed as being in league with the mole, or something.

That and the revelation that Haydon received a warning from him before Budapest puts Jim's reticence, and a lot of other things that did not conclusively implicate Haydon or otherwise at the time they were revealed in the script, into perspective.

Jim's warning to Bill might explain why Jim was caught and tortured; and Jim might wonder about this, and hold Bill ultimately to blame for his torture and the resulting loss of the networks.

It does not change the narrow issue we were discussing: that in the film, Jim blows the networks under torture; whereas in the book, he does not.

That's interesting, I suppose. But who made that supposition? Who are you addressing with that clause?

Did you construe something in my post, or in the movie, as implying that Prideaux discussing the identities of his network with Haydon was been necessary in order for Haydon to betray them? (Why would Jim be Haydon's only access to the identities of his networks anyway?) Or is this just another tangential, non-sequitur "but"?

Oh, for God's sake! If you agree with the statement, just say so. If you have no opinion, that's fine too. Let's not argue over nothing.

The reasons for Jim's torture aren't given and are left deliberately ambiguous ...

We are told he is tortured for the networks; and he is tortured for how far Control was with his interrogation. I suppose you're still free to speculate that that is some kind of smoke screen or red herring. But you are not giving any counter-weighing evidence.

Maybe Karla and his colleagues kind of like it.

Maybe. I mean, that would make no sense for a competent spy-master, who would presumably have better things to do than to spend weeks torturing random people for kicks. But maybe the film isn't supposed to make sense so ... why not?

reply

[–] GorchBrother 7 years ago

Oh, for God's sake! If you agree with the statement, just say so. If you have no opinion, that's fine too. Let's not argue over nothing.

I just asked you what the relevance was of the clause you were introudcing. It's just another one of your tangential obfuscations. "There is no reason to suppose..." implies that people might suppose something you reckon they shouldn't (because they've not read the book/watched the series presumablY).

Maybe. I mean, that would make no sense for a competent spy-master, who would presumably have better things to do than..

He's only human. With the capacity for sadism and compassion. It would make as little sense for a competent spymaster, particularly for a totalitarian regime, to secret their daughter away in a mental hospital behind his superior's backs. Leaving him vulnerable to exposure and blackmail by the enemy.

In that light, the next Smiley book/series doesn't make any sense. Unless you consider the human factor, which covers sadism/compassion as mentioned.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

I just asked you what the relevance was of the clause you were introudcing. It's just another one of your tangential obfuscations.

You brought up Jim's warning to Bill, in a context that seemed to imply it was somehow relevant to the betrayal of the networks (which is what we were discussing).

The only logical connection I can see would be that Jim's warning to Bill, led to the capture and torture of Jim, which led to the networks being blown. But that is 100% consistent my position ... that Jim blew the networks under torture. I did not think that was what you were driving at, because I thought you were opposing my position.

The only other connection I can even think of would be if Bill learned of the networks at through Jim's warning, and then betrayed them at that time. So I pointed out that this does not make sense, and you seem to agree.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I don't know what you were driving at. If we agree, then fine. If you have some other theory in mind that makes sense, I don't know what it is, yet. You can explain if you like, or we can just drop it.

He's only human. With the capacity for sadism and compassion.

I'm sorry. That's just not an adequate reason for having an entire team of skilled interrogators work on Jim for (at minimum) "weeks". If you think it is, we will just have to agree to disagree.

reply

[–] Jameron 7 years ago

"I mean, given what Smiley knows at that point, what the viewer knows, how the movie turns out...I guess I'm wondering why anyone would hear that line and think, "Smiley blames Jim for the compromised networks." It's more like, "This is how those mole-infested eegits who're now in charge say it went down."" - balthazar bee

Because that's what nystulc does, he disingenuously misrepresents the film so that he can attempt to portray it as a lesser adaptation. It's pretty sad really.

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

reply

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

The phrasing that Smiley uses, "The story is you blew them to save your own skin," is prima facie a cold and unsympathetic Smiley, but the phrasing is also highly suggestive of an unspoken counterpoint.

The phrasing, from the novel, is "The story is you blew them to save your own skin. I don't believe it". The film adds the cold, unsympathetic tone; and removes the line "I don't believe it."

The film also has Jim essentially confess to blowing the networks (a confession he does not make in the book).

It also removes the information indicating that the networks were rolled up the same night as Jim's capture. This is what proves either that Jim did not blown them; or else he made no attempt to hold out under torture.

The film does a similar thing with Irina. It systematically removes almost everything that tends to show Hayden was to blame for Irina's capture, and inserts alternate explanations for her capture. In the end, this makes so little sense that viewers still blame Hayden. But there still seems to have been an attempt to exonerate him.

In other words, someone like Smiley isn't going to say, "The story is..." unless the story is quite likely false, or at least questionable.

The words suggest it may be questionable ... that Smiley is not 100% committed. But that does not mean Smiley does not believe it. The removal of the words "I don't believe it" (together with other changes, such as Jim's confession that he did indeed betray the information under torture) makes it quite possible that he does indeed believe it.

I mean, given what Smiley knows at that point, what the viewer knows, how the movie turns out...I guess I'm wondering why anyone would hear that line and think, "Smiley blames Jim for the compromised networks."

I'll have to re-check the director's commentary, but I got the impression that the director thinks that, and that he believes Smiley is being cruel when he says this.

Anyhow, I don't see your logic. The fact that Hayden is some kind of spy, does not necessarily prove that he gave the Russians everything under the sun. The movie appears to say that the Russians got the information from Jim, and you're asking me to reject that information. On what basis? Sure, I know what happens in the book, but the book and film are different.

There's an unspoken mutual respect between these cold warriors, and the way Oldman delivers the line connotes that.

I don't see that. His tone is cold. The director even comments on it on the commentary track, IIRC.

reply

[–] balthazar_bee 7 years ago

The film also has Jim essentially confess to blowing the networks (a confession he does not make in the book).

It also removes the information indicating that the networks were rolled up the same night as Jim's capture. This is what proves either that Jim did not blown them; or else he made no attempt to hold out under torture.

I think you may be stymied by a very literal interpretation of a film that, again, rather delights in being evasive. For me, these ellipses don't necessarily mean what you're suggesting -- ie that the loss of this explicit information translates into a fundamental narrative shift.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm sketchy on the details, but as I remember, Jim says something like he held out as long as he could. But he also points out that his interrogators weren't interested in his networks. It's natural to assume that that is because they already had that information. Where would they get it?

Anyhow, I don't see your logic. The fact that Hayden is some kind of spy, does not necessarily prove that he gave the Russians everything under the sun. The movie appears to say that the Russians got the information from Jim, and you're asking me to reject that information. On what basis? Sure, I know what happens in the book, but the book and film are different.

No argument here -- they are different, and I'm not suggesting that the film needs the book alongside in order to be appreciated (or even understood); I'm saying that, in a spy film that concerns itself with a mole hunt, it's not exactly a huge leap to infer that said mole is secretly providing intelligence to the opposing side. That's basically a mole's job description.

And we don't really need to hear that the networks were rolled up as soon as Jim was captured. There's only a brief window of time in which such an operation can be mounted. I mean, Jim's captured during a rather risky operation, and now the enemy's got him. Obviously there'd be an effort to get his Joes out of harm's way as soon as possible. But the fact that they were "blown" anyway (and probably killed) means that Karla's people acted as soon as they had Jim.

So they grab Jim and torture him while they take care of his Joes. The opposing side (and Haydon) can say that he gave them up, when in fact Haydon had supplied the information. It's a useful smokescreen for the mole.

This is what I meant when I said that there's really no end to the indignities Jim has to suffer, and why the moment alluded to in the subject line is so moving. This is a guy who's put his trust in exactly the wrong person, been played expertly by someone he thinks is his friend, accepted an impossible mission, been tortured for weeks, finally cracked, and is then blamed for giving up his Joes to save his own skin and sent into exile.

I've read many of your posts in the past, and I know you have a comprehensive understanding of the novel and at least one of the adaptations, but I think your struggle with this particular plot point is just a refusal to accept a rather simple inference in the absence of explicit information. Haydon is a double agent who's been working against his own government for years -- if the Soviets inexplicably possess information that they shouldn't, within the narrow narrative construction of this film, Bill Haydon is the culprit.

reply

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

You'll have to forgive me if I'm sketchy on the details, but as I remember, Jim says something like he held out as long as he could.

Yes:

SMILEY: What did you tell them?
JIM: Everything. I held on for as long as I could to let everyone get the hell out of there. [pause] Did they? My networks in Hungary, did they get out?
SMILEY: No, they were blown. The story is you blew them to save your own skin.

But he also points out that his interrogators weren't interested in his networks. It's natural to assume that that is because they already had that information. Where would they get it?

Ah, no. Sorry! You must have seen the BBC version or read the novel (where he DOES say this). He never says this in the 2011 film. So that kills your premise.

As you can see from the quote above, the clear implication is that they WERE interested and DID torture him to get the networks. Otherwise "I held on for as long as I could to let everyone get the hell out of there" would make no sense.

I'm saying that, in a spy film that concerns itself with a mole hunt, it's not exactly a huge leap to infer that said mole is secretly providing intelligence to the opposing side.

That he told them NOTHING and that he told them EVERYTHING are both unreasonable assumptions.

But yes, even so: it would not be a huge leap if there were any mystery about how the Russians got this information. But here, there is no mystery. Jim tells us (in effect) that they tortured him for this information, and he gave up this information under torture.

Sure, its POSSIBLE that the Russians ALSO got the information from Hayden. But that's only speculation; and unnecessary speculation at that; given what the film directly tells us about how they got the information.

And we don't really need to hear that the networks were rolled up as soon as Jim was captured. There's only a brief window of time in which such an operation can be mounted. I mean, Jim's captured during a rather risky operation, and now the enemy's got him. Obviously there'd be an effort to get his Joes out of harm's way as soon as possible.

And how brief is this window of time? How many days does it take before they get clear of the Iron Curtain after a warning of Jim's capture manages to reach them? And when Jim says he held out "as long as I could", how long is that? Does the film give us any basis to assume that Jim is particularly good at holding out under torture?

The film provides none of this information. I don't agree that it can be intuitively inferred that it takes the networks a maximum of x days to get clear, and that Jim held out for a minimum of x+1 days.

The viewer has no basis for questioning what the film seems to directly tell us.

Remember, Jim does not say he held out until he was sure everyone was safe. He merely says he held out "as long as I could". Then he ASKS if they got out, as though unsure if he gave them enough time. Smiley says no. It's pretty straightforward.

I've read many of your posts in the past, and I know you have a comprehensive understanding of the novel and at least one of the adaptations, but I think your struggle with this particular plot point is just a refusal to accept a rather simple inference in the absence of explicit information. Haydon is a double agent who's been working against his own government for years -- if the Soviets inexplicably possess information that they shouldn't, within the narrow narrative construction of this film, Bill Haydon is the culprit.

I would agree with this reasoning, more or less, if the premise were correct. But your premise, that the Soviets inexplicably possess information that they shouldn't, is wrong.

reply

[–] balthazar_bee 7 years ago

I revisited this movie last night, and a couple of things struck me.

With respect to the issue of Jim holding out "as long as I could", he also adds that the interrogation continued for "weeks". Every wonderful moment of Strong's performance would seem to suggest that Jim is not a man who would crack quickly. He asks if they got out, yes, because it's a question one asks when a definitive answer isn't given. But, in his restrained way, he does seem surprised at the answer.

Speaking of "definitive answers", you're right that I made a mistake with regards to the film stating that Karla already knew about Jim's networks; however, moments later he comments that it "was a joke" that he'd try to bury the information about Control's mole because they already knew that.

So, while this isn't an exact science, I still believe that Haydon passed on the information about the networks; I think the film indirectly supports this, though I'd acknowledge that this is the realm of inference. I'm a natural contrarian about certain things, and on this board I believe I'm seeing that trait in some of your posts -- you're resistant this inference because you're resistant to acknowledging the film's quality generally, and more specifically, you think it fails to tell the story it's trying to. This may be out of loyalty to the book, the BBC version, or just because you don't like it. No judgment, just an observation.

Remember also that Bill angrily tells Smiley, "I got him back, didn't I?" I'd wager this is significant because it's a genuine risk to the operation to release Jim; it was only Bill's quasi-self-destructive insistence that brought it about. Otherwise he'd have been disposed of as a potential liability once they'd extracted everything they wanted.

Jim knows he "held out as long as he could", and that he was being tortured for "weeks"; since the networks were dealt with as soon as Jim was captured, if anyone bothers to ask him upon his release just how long he held out, that could tip Karla's/Haydon's hand, revealing that there had to be another source for the intelligence. But of course, even there, eegits like Sir Percy would have to believe Jim (ie that he wasn't just covering his own arse) and without Control around, exile is probably easier than dealing with the issue. There's only one rule, as Alex Leamas says: "Expediency."

Following that logic, the reason they tortured Jim was to find out how much Control knew about the mole. The "joke" is that, of course they already knew -- they knew that there was a mole since they were running him. But they didn't know how much Control knew.

With Irina's capture...I guess I don't see how anyone can watch the movie, see the chain of events that lead to this, and not draw the conclusion that Hayden is directly/indirectly responsible. He's the mole, he's alerted to Irina's existence and her possible intelligence, then he takes action. We don't see him take action, necessarily, but surely someone sent word that she needed to be taken care of. And Ricky did send a message to the "grown ups", which it's logical to assume Bill saw as well.

Sorry if this post is borderline incoherent; I wrote it in a rush.

reply

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

With respect to the issue of Jim holding out "as long as I could", he also adds that the interrogation continued for "weeks".

Of course! Even if he had spilled his guts the day of his capture, they still would have interrogated him for weeks.

You're comparing apples and oranges. We still don't know when he broke. We still have no reason to doubt what the movie seems to tell us.

Every wonderful moment of Strong's performance would seem to suggest that Jim is not a man who would crack quickly.

Really? How can you tell? What gave it away?

I'd say this is FAR MORE true of Ian Bannen's character in the BBC version. We see signs of fierce loyalty, patriotism, heroism, determination, stubbornness, and the ability to function and even be nice to children while in intense pain. Just watch him go down fighting during the capture sequence: that guy really gave a damn. That, more than Mark Strong's character, struck me as the kind of guy who would hold out under torture.

But even in the BBC version, if the evidence of the script had indicated he had cracked under torture before the networks could escape, I would have believed the script. Having never been professionally tortured myself, and having no professional expertise on how long it takes cold-war spy networks to escape the Iron Curtain; I don't really have any direct knowledge of which I would reasonably expect one to take longer than the other.

I'm going to accept what the script appears to tell me on its face. Sorry. And if someone were to prove to me that what the film says on its face is unrealistic .... well ... unrealistic films are not exactly a rare or mysterious phenomenon. Occham's Razor tells me that what the film says is what the film means.

He asks if they got out, yes, because it's a question one asks when a definitive answer isn't given. But, in his restrained way, he does seem surprised at the answer.

Surprised? Or mildly disappointed? I don't see how you can tell the difference. I'll have to watch the scene again, but best as I can recall, he did not even blink.

In the BBC version, he ran to the bathroom to throw up. That reaction was alot more noticeable. But even there, all it proved was that he gave a damn about his murdered friends and colleagues; and perhaps even GUILTY about them. It was the SCRIPT that established that the information that got the networks captured could not have come from Jim, because the timing was wrong, and therefore that he had nothing to be guilty about.

I am very skeptical when people claim the ability to read complex communications into the blank stares of actors. We have language for a reason. The best performance in the world cannot take the place of actual words.

Speaking of "definitive answers", you're right that I made a mistake with regards to the film stating that Karla already knew about Jim's networks; however, moments later he comments that it "was a joke" that he'd try to bury the information about Control's mole because they already knew that.

Again, it's not all or nothing. Otherwise, why would these know-it-alls torture him at all? For kicks?

They did NOT try to get him to reveal the mole theory, because they already knew about the mole theory. That was "the joke".

The DID question him on how far Control was with his investigation, because they DID NOT know how far Control was with his investigation (this is straight from the novel, but the film mentions it too).

Apply the same logic to the networks. In the book, they seem to already know. In the film, they don't seem to know, and have to torture it out of him. It's not just that they left out something that was in the book. They changed it. Reversed it.

I'm a natural contrarian about certain things, and on this board I believe I'm seeing that trait in some of your posts -- you're resistant this inference because you're resistant to acknowledging the film's quality generally, and more specifically, you think it fails to tell the story it's trying to. This may be out of loyalty to the book, the BBC version, or just because you don't like it. No judgment, just an observation.

I think you're drifting a bit off topic here. I thought we were discussing what does and does not happen at a specific point in the film (regardless of whether it is a good film or a bad film). Contrarian though I may be, I am willing to adjust my views if presented with evidence and a good argument. If the only evidence you present to me is speculation about my biases and motives, well ... would that convince you, if you were in my shoes?

Remember also that Bill angrily tells Smiley, "I got him back, didn't I?" I'd wager this is significant because it's a genuine risk to the operation to release Jim [...]

Agreed. That's a given in all versions of the story. As Smiley says (in all versions): I'm surprised Karla did not have him shot. That he might discuss what he knows (including what happened in the interrogation) is a reason why.

Jim knows he "held out as long as he could", and that he was being tortured for "weeks"; since the networks were dealt with as soon as Jim was captured, if anyone bothers to ask him upon his release just how long he held out, that could tip Karla's/Haydon's hand, revealing that there had to be another source for the intelligence.

This logic might be a SMALL part of the explanation (for why it is risky to release Jim) in the BOOK, because the book establishes the contradiction mentioned above.

The film does not establish any such contradiction. So they must have wanted to hide something else.

But no matter. Because the film establishes OTHER things they would want hidden ... like the fact that the interrogators were interested in how far Control had gotten with his investigation ... in other words, how much he knew about the mole; which implies there IS a mole. Or as you said ...

Following that logic, the reason they tortured Jim was to find out how much Control knew about the mole. The "joke" is that, of course they already knew -- they knew that there was a mole since they were running him. But they didn't know how much Control knew.

Exactly! We have right here a reason why it would be risky to release Jim. We have an explanation for why Smiley says he's surprised Karla didn't shoot him. There is no reason to suspect that what we seem to have been told about the Networks -- that Jim betrayed them -- is wrong.

With Irina's capture...I guess I don't see how anyone can watch the movie, see the chain of events that lead to this, and not draw the conclusion that Hayden is directly/indirectly responsible. He's the mole, he's alerted to Irina's existence and her possible intelligence, then he takes action. We don't see him take action, necessarily, but surely someone sent word that she needed to be taken care of. And Ricky did send a message to the "grown ups", which it's logical to assume Bill saw as well.

Maybe I'll address this in a followup post. In the meantime, I agree that most viewers watching the film will reach the same conclusion they reached in the novel and BBC version: That Bill is to blame for Irina's capture. If the filmmakers were trying to hint at another conclusion, they were unsuccessful in getting this across.

That they WERE hinting at something else is merely a theory I have to explain certain evidences in the film, and various otherwise inexplicable changes made to the novel, that I have trouble explaining otherwise. If anyone were to suggest an alternate theory that better explains the same evidence, I would be perfectly happy.