Most boring movie I ever saw - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2012) Discussion

I feel for you.

"Watch this....." (Leo T McGarry - Two Cathedrals)

reply

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

Ah, yes. But there is a method to the madness. The more boring and hard to understand a film is, the better it is. Right? Right?

Sometimes, that can seem true. Sometimes, maybe, it IS true. Sometimes, the problem with a film is that you are not smart enough or educated enough or mature enough to understand it. Or maybe you don't happen to have the right background. Sometimes the right thing to do is just be humble and accept that with time (hopefully) you will learn to appreciate the film's fine qualities.

Not in this case. The film is a fraud, one that seeks to take advantage of your humility. You can tell by its defenders. They have very little to say about the film. All they can do is insult those who did not like it; or fall back on the virtues of the novel and/or the BBC version.

The BBC version, however, is pretty damned good. But I cannot guarantee that you will not find it boring and/or difficult to follow. Lots of people did.

reply

[–] Jonsson791 9 years ago

Exactly my point. I know a lot of movies that are very difficult to watch, some would say boring, but if you get through them they are still very rewarding because they have a deep meaning or they stick with you. This film is not one of them, it's boring and tedious without even a point to make up for it. It's basically rubbish.

reply

[–] jamesc-helgrim 8 years ago

I'll defend it honestly: it makes masterful use of subtle, organic exposition; it is able to create realistic characters with realistic motivations and approaches to situations yet never devolves to obviousness (just as real life never does); it maintains a tense, intriguing plot throughout with minimal action or even threat of action; there is fully adequate emotional impact despite a deliberate understatedness; the acting, direction, cinematography, and music are all excellent; the writing, while occasionally seeming sparse for its own sake, is also quite good; and in everything (except plot, of course) it achieves a sort of staid simplicity (but is never simplistic). This all makes it challenging for a viewer unwilling to engage it on its own terms, but incredibly worthwhile for one more open-minded.

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

I'll defend it honestly: it makes masterful use of subtle, organic exposition; it is able to create realistic characters with realistic motivations and approaches to situations yet never devolves to obviousness (just as real life never does); it maintains a tense, intriguing plot throughout with minimal action or even threat of action; there is fully adequate emotional impact despite a deliberate understatedness; the acting, direction, cinematography, and music are all excellent; the writing, while occasionally seeming sparse for its own sake, is also quite good; and in everything (except plot, of course) it achieves a sort of staid simplicity (but is never simplistic). This all makes it challenging for a viewer unwilling to engage it on its own terms, but incredibly worthwhile for one more open-minded.

I agree with: "... never devolves into obviousness ... " (re: the film, not real life); "... minimal action or even threat of action ..."; "... deliberate understatedness ..."; "... writing ... sparse ..."; "... staid simplicity ...".

As for the rest? Your claim that the situations are "realistic" necessarily implies you understand the situations portrayed, and that they make sense, and you can explain them if challenged. I don't believe that is true. But if you are up to the challenge, I have a few questions I could ask you. Let me know if you think you're up to the challenge.

Perhaps you have studied he laws of thermodynamics and have determined that sooty owls really do explode into flames when struck with rulers. If so, then that will be one of the easy questions I will have for you. A harder one will be: why is the exploding owl scene in the movie at all, and what does it have to do with the rest of the story?

As for tension, this version drains the tension out of the proceedings at every opportunity, almost as though intentional. We are given no reason to care whether the mole is caught or not, because we are never shown that anything is at stake. Where is the tension in Control's mole hunt? Control does not seem to care; he seems bored at all junctures. Where's the tension in Jim's capture? Jim seems to expect capture and not to care whether he is captured or not - contrast the fight he puts up in the BBC version and the book. Peter and Ricki, unlike their book and BBC versions, have virtually no personal stake in the Mole Hunt, and are merely pawns of Smiley.

Where is the tension in Peter's confrontation with Percy? Peter has not spoken to Tarr, so he's in no danger of cracking when Percy accuses him of speaking to Tarr. Peter knows Percy is talking nonsense, and so does the viewer. Contrast the confrontation in the book and BBC version. Peter has in fact spoken to Tarr, and so when Percy confronts him with this fact, he and the viewer/reader are sweating bullets.

This strange lack of tension is intercut with moments of shock: the death of the nursing woman; the murder of Tufty; the butchery of Boris, the killing of the owl. But what do these moments have to do with the rest of the story? Even the execution of Irina is presented in a way that makes no sense, but apparently with an eye for shock value.

reply

[–] darkestblue 8 years ago

I'll take the easy question regarding the exploding owl..

The fire is clearly seen to be lit at the start of the scene. The owl is stuck in the chimney and opts to fly downwards to escape. On exiting the fireplace, and making its first pass towards the camera, you can see that its wing feathers are alight. Given how easily kindling or sawdust can catch fire, it isn't a stretch to imagine that the incredibly soft and downy feathers of a owl (which aid its near-silent flight when hunting) would catch fire pretty readily.

When he whacks it with the ruler, it is merely the slightest moment (possibly to do with inertia but I'm no physicist) when the owl is forced down quicker than the fire can follow since fire has no mass and cannot keep up.

The point of the scene is to show that far from being a withering hunchback, which the children mock him as, he retains his field instincts. In the few seconds the boys all trace the flight of the bird with amazement and shock, he also keeps his eyes on it but decides in a split second it has to be dealt with, picks up a ruler (without breaking his sight with the bird) and strikes it out of the air with one strong single attempt. And then snaps its neck.

If there's ever any way for new teacher to get the immediate awe, respect and fear of his unruly pupils, I'd say despatching a large bird of prey in front of them is it.

For us it suggests his killer instinct is very much alive and well, something that won't fade easily, and perhaps his story arc isn't finished.

darker than biscuit, lighter than oak

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

I'll take the easy question regarding the exploding owl..

The fire is clearly seen to be lit at the start of the scene. The owl is stuck in the chimney and opts to fly downwards to escape. On exiting the fireplace, and making its first pass towards the camera, you can see that its wing feathers are alight.

Maybe you can see all that, but I can't. I can see are the wings wafting soot as they flap. The first burst of flame occurs when the ruler seems to strike it. Which is the "huh?" moment I was asking to be explained. Certainly, the fire becomes much more noticeable at that point.

But okay. Maybe it was subtly smoldering. And maybe the ruler strike did somehow cause it to burst into stronger flame. I dunno if that's really realistic, and apparently, neither do you.

Given how easily kindling or sawdust can catch fire, it isn't a stretch to imagine that the incredibly soft and downy feathers of a owl (which aid its near-silent flight when hunting) would catch fire pretty readily.

Maybe maybe maybe. But if you have no knowledge, why even try to answer the question?

When he whacks it with the ruler, it is merely the slightest moment (possibly to do with inertia but I'm no physicist) when the owl is forced down quicker than the fire can follow since fire has no mass and cannot keep up.

Hehe. I think it has more to do with the fact that the fire is actually on the ruler and not on the owl, because the animal protection people would not let them actually put an owl on fire.

Still ... for in-story purpose .... We could not see burning from the front as the owl approached us, and we could not see burning from the owl as it flew away from us. So it's hard to accept the idea that the owl was blocking the flames and the blow of the ruler knocked the owl out of the way. Nor do I recall any significant jolting of the position of the owl after it appears to come in contact with the ruler.

The point of the scene is to show that far from being a withering hunchback, which the children mock him as, he retains his field instincts. In the few seconds the boys all trace the flight of the bird with amazement and shock, he also keeps his eyes on it but decides in a split second it has to be dealt with, picks up a ruler (without breaking his sight with the bird) and strikes it out of the air with one strong single attempt. And then snaps its neck.

If there's ever any way for new teacher to get the immediate awe, respect and fear of his unruly pupils, I'd say despatching a large bird of prey in front of them is it.

For us it suggests his killer instinct is very much alive and well, something that won't fade easily, and perhaps his story arc isn't finished.

All of this is beside the point. You are saying "The point of A is B, C and D" but you have no idea what point B, C and D serve.

I would think the fact that we were previously told Jim was dead, and then were reintroduced to Jim only 30 minutes into the film, would be a sufficient indication that Jim's story arc is not finished.

But no, that's not enough you say. You say the kids mock him as a hunchback, so this needs to be refuted by having him stomp an owl to death. Because what better way for a cripple to establish his continued relevance, thereby proving that his story arc is not finished, than by crushing small animals? And of course, mangling small animals is an excellent way to earn the respect of children. Well, I think that's silly. But even if I accept it, it would still only begs the question. Because have yet to take the next step and explain why the film needs a scene where the children mock Jim as a hunchback, or a scene showing that the kids learn to respect Jim, or even a scene showing Jim is a killer. Yeah, Jim does eventually kill Bill, while a tear rolls down his cheek, but I'm not sure the brutal butchery of an owl is particularly helpful to explain his motives. In fact, I'm not sure Jim's injury, or his relationship with the kids, is relevant at all in this version of the story (though of course I can explain its relevance in other versions).

Once again, you add details not visible in the scene. We see no neck snapping. You got that from the book. We see Roach wince, and we hear crunching sounds. But for all we know, Jim is viciously stomping on the poor owl, after knocking it out of the air with his special Kremlin-issued exploding ruler.

BTW, we later see an owl (maybe the same owl?) stuffed and mounted. This detail may distract the viewer into thinking it might have some significance, though in fact it has none.

reply

[–] darkestblue 8 years ago

OK, just watched it again to make sure I'm not imagining things!
If you can't see the flames on its wings as it flies towards the camera, watch it in slow motion or even frame by frame if you want, and you can clearly see its wings are alight.

I know that it seeming to be suddenly more aflame when hit is realistic since it is easily observable, I said I wasn't sure of the physics of why it happens. If you hit something alight - say a ball of gently burning paper on a barbecue, to be safe, rather than a furry or feathered animal, you will see it momentarily appears to flare up. The object hitting the burning item is preceded by a bow wave of air, and the object is forcing this oxygen carrying air towards the source of heat and fuel, thus enhancing the fire triangle and increasing the flames momentarily, before the negative extinguishing effect of the shock wave overcomes the positive of the increased oxygen. If one tossed a flaming ball of paper in the air and hit it out of the air, you would see the same effect - a brief increase in flames coupled with the object moving away from the flames es quicker than the flames dissipate.

Thin or wispy combustible material, kindling, sawdust, cotton wool, dry leaves, feathers or hair will catch fire very easily. Anyone who has set a reasonable number of fires understands the principal, without having to have actually set fire to owl feathers attached to a living owl!

No significant jolting? Not sure what you mean, but he hits the owl with such force that it changes direction at a right angle and hits the floor!

As for the neck snapping, I didn't get this from the book, I got it from the sound of a bird's neck snapping, and the fact that this is the quickest and most efficient way to dispatch an injured bird. It is gruesome if you are not used to that, but to a person trained to be dispassionate about his work it is purely logical. It would never occur to the children to act in that way, who are the epitome of innocence/ignorance being both young and civilian, whereas to him it is second nature.

Anyway I'm offering my opinion on what I thought was the point of the scene as ia the place of these forums when someone such as you posits an interesting question, however I may be wrong and anyone is free to disagree. It makes no odds to me. Peace.

darker than biscuit, lighter than oak

reply

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

OK, just watched it again to make sure I'm not imagining things!
If you can't see the flames on its wings as it flies towards the camera, watch it in slow motion or even frame by frame if you want, and you can clearly see its wings are alight.

Okay. If I watch it frame by frame, and particularly with the zoom on, I can see light or bright areas at the edges of the wings that might be intended to represent flames.

If this IS meant to represent flames, then I would imagine it was added by touching up the film in post production.

I would hardly call it "clear". Even you call it "clear" only in the context of the film being slowed down. In any event, I would certainly hope those are not real flames on a real owl.

I know that it seeming to be suddenly more aflame when hit is realistic since it is easily observable, ...

Holy bird abuse, Batman! What are you saying? You don't think they actually set fire to an owl and then whacked it hard with a stick while it was desperately flapping about?

Hey, you could be right for all I know. I searched the credits for the standard "No animals were harmed ..." disclaimer, and could not find it. There's no credit for an animal handler either ... just for a Hungarian pyrotechnics guy.

Hey, I always thought the filmmakers were sadists. Their marketing strategy was to make an incomprehensible film, say "anyone who does not understand this film is a low-brow who likes comic books and Bond movies", and then force all the would-be smarties to watch it in sad confusion. That's pretty cruel. But it honestly never occurred to me that they might be sadistic enough to actually set an owl on fire so they could whack it with a stick, just so their incomprehensible movie could contain yet one more incomprehensible scene.

I prefer the conclusion that there is no actual owl present, and that the explosion is just a pyrotechnic distraction covering the sudden removal of the owl image from the screen, and its replacement by vague and fuzzy suggestive smudges.

So rather than debate the physics of animal pyrotechnics, I'll just let you have this one. Like I said, that's the easy question. There's still the hard one. Why is this scene even in the movie?

As for the neck snapping, I didn't get this from the book, I got it from the sound of a bird's neck snapping, and the fact that this is the quickest and most efficient way to dispatch an injured bird.

If you say so. Maybe you can discern the distinctive sound of a bird's neck snapping (is that what you're claiming?). But I would guess that most viewers cannot. BTW, there's a video on youtube of a rooster getting its neck wrung by a farmer; and there's no neck-snapping sound at all that I could hear on the audio, much less a loud crunching noise. Are owls all that different?

We never see him reach for the owl with his hands, or even bend toward the floor where the owl has presumably gone after he strikes it. We only see Jim strike the owl with an object. Which would make sense if the owl were on fire ... right?

So from where I stand, your conclusion is poorly supported by what we see on screen, and it seems a strange coincidence that it just happens to match a detail from the novel. Note, however, that in the novel, the owl is NOT on fire at any point, so grabbing it with the hands was never a problem.

reply

[–] darkestblue 8 years ago

Holy bird abuse batman haha excellent! I don't think for one minute they sacrifice a real protected species the sake of art, some slightly British budget CGI is used as I'm sure you know..

I think we are in agreement about genuine animal pyrotechnics being an area neither of us is qualified to comment on (not a sentence I often write)

I have had the need to break a bird's neck, yes, but didn't shoot just for fun which I object to. You are correct that you can rather feel it rather than hear it - I assume they enhanced the noise for dramatic effect. I have seen plenty of action movies where the protagonist snaps the neck of a henchman whilst stealthily infiltrating the bad guy's base; rarely do they show more than the grimace of the hero and his crooked arm as he jerks suddenly, without showing the horrific dying face of a guard's near-instant death, but it is pretty clear what has just happened, especially with the over the top crack sound effect.

Films are dramatic enterprises after all, to tell a story and in part do so by exaggerating the normal, to tell that story.

I haven't read the novel but if it fits, fine. I would like to read it soon to understand it better - or perhaps realised what I thought I did and find I didn't!

Either way, your analysis and interest in the story warrants further thought.

darker than biscuit, lighter than oak

reply

[–] Korios 7 years ago

I think we are in agreement about genuine animal pyrotechnics being an area neither of us is qualified to comment on (not a sentence I often write)

Ahahahaha!! :D

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

[–] Korios 7 years ago

Hey, you could be right for all I know. I searched the credits for the standard "No animals were harmed ..." disclaimer, and could not find it

The American Humane Association, the disclaimer of which you are talking about, only sends representatives to American films. This film is a French - British - German co-production, so none of their guys was ever on set. That does not suggest that an actual owl was harmed, of course (I highly doubt that), and I'm not sure if the Europeans have an equivalent agency for animal abuse monitoring.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

That does not suggest that an actual owl was harmed, of course (I highly doubt that)...

I'm pretty sure we are all on record as doubting that.

reply

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

Short attention spans can do that to people

reply

[–] simonkevnorris 9 years ago

Short attention span and trying to watch a movie while eating " as I've only been able to watch 10 minutes at a time in conjunction with having lunch or dinner,"...

say no more....

reply

[–] tuffysmom 9 years ago

I didn't find it that boring - more like flat and mechanical, like it was just marching through the novel's plot points. Not emotionally involving at all.

reply

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

Really? I thought Alfredson did a great job injecting emotions into relationships throughout the film. Yes, it's bleak. That's kind of the point... But I thought overall it did a good job of giving the viewer the tone and emotions of each scene. Idk. IMO. All taste

reply

[–] adriebaby82 8 years ago

I also watched it in increments. I get to watch movies late at night after I put the kids to bed. So every night for about a week I would watch and it would put me to sleep.

"Destiny is a fickle b!tch"

reply

[–] Arquebus12 8 years ago

Not enough explosions or music montages, hah...? You'd have hated the book, then...

This movie is positively cerebral, a challenge to follow in parts, and very satisfying. If you don't get it, that's fine, it's not for you.

reply

[–] adriebaby82 8 years ago

Not enough explosions or music montages, hah...? You'd have hated the book, then...

This movie is positively cerebral, a challenge to follow in parts, and very satisfying. If you don't get it, that's fine, it's not for you.

Ah, the old "you didn't like it, must not have comprehended the movie dumbass" cliche`.

I WAS able to follow the movie, challenging as it was...to stay awake.
Everything "cerebral" doesn't automatically make it good.
Just like any genre, there are some action movies I do like and some I don't like.
There are some comedies that I do like and some I don't like.
There are some musicals that I do like and some I don't like, and so on for all genres.

To assume that someone doesn't like this movie because it was too "cerebral" is extremely uncerebral of you.

Simply put, I found this movie extremely boring because of its pace, lack of engaging dialogue, meaningless albeit cinematically nice shots, and purposeful vagueness (assuming that was done for suspense but failed miserably). NONE of those reasons are for lack of understanding.

"Destiny is a fickle b!tch"

reply

[–] bushd0 8 years ago

haha!

reply

[–] GunsGirlsCars 8 years ago

You couldn't be more wrong. Great acting and pace. Using a Tablet else they reply would be a bet longer.

reply

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

That's how I feel. As much as there is going on, we're essentially watching Smiley unravel the mystery and find the mole. His progression through the film is PERFECT. The incredible scene at the apartment, him taking his shoes off. Til the last moment of him sitting back at the Control Table... Right at the Top of the Circus. Brilliantly done

reply

[–] DrAtelectasis 8 years ago

Totally agree. Saw it in theaters and was fairly psyched about seeing it. Made me want to rip my eyes out

reply

[–] Inutmegu3 8 years ago

A movie like Tammy would probably be more up your alley. This is the kind of movie that you have to really pay attention to and think about. It got a little slow, even for this genre at times, but overall it was very good.

reply

[–] julaerenee 8 years ago

I found it a bit slow and hard to follow the first time, but believed it had something to offer if I would just be patient enough to look for it.

I bought the DVD (never saw it in theater) because I have a deep respect for the actors in it and had heard good things about the film. Then I sat down and gave it my complete attention in the comfort of my home with no distractions. Even then it took repeat viewings before I really appreciated it; probably because it is so much more understated than anything else I had seen before. The nuances of the characters' emotions are so subtle; these are spies after all who are trained to control their emotions. I feel I've acquired a new appreciation and love for films of this type since I committed to the work of understanding and appreciating TTSS.

reply