MovieChat Forums > Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2012) Discussion > great film, and not THAT confusing

great film, and not THAT confusing

posted 8 years ago by iterater
44 replies | jump to latest

I loved this film, and I didn't think it was nearly as confusing as people make it out to be.

I'll admit, the placement of the first couple time jumps did feel a little needlessly obfuscating, but by the second act it was clear to me that the film had to be designed that way -- it was packing a lot of story into a relatively short timeframe -- and that these stylistic choices actually made the film much more fun to watch.

There were lots of other details that were intentionally vague -- the surprise infidelity at the christmas party, for example -- but I thought the film gave you plenty enough to connect the dots. So long as you made an effort to put names with faces as they cropped up, it wasn't hard to follow the basics of the plot, and all the smaller details were there for the taking with just a little critical thinking.

Yes, there were one or two elements that took me a while to see cleary. For example, I thought that Jim's scenes at the school were flashbacks to before his "death" in Budapest. Was this intentional? if so, it made for a fun little third-act twist. And if I was simply mistaken, well, I still got with the program by the time it mattered. The information was all there, even if it wasn't arranged in a convenient order. I will take artistically-satisfying over convenient.

Hilariously, I would have to say the single biggest stumbling block for me in the first act was my knowledge of the stupid Netflix blurb, which claims that the film centers around a secret agent who returns to MI-6 under suspicion of being a soviet spy. Huh? Do they mean Jim? Because he is not the film's focus. Did they mean Smiley? Because he is certainly the main character, but I just saw him as disgraced and retired, not a suspected traitor. He was actually brought in to sniff the traitor out. I guess whoever wrote that little paragraph would count themselves among the confused.

Anyway, this movie ruled. It looked amazing, the cast was incredible, the characters were fleshed out in subtle and satisfying ways... and the narrative was just plain fun. Yes, it was challenging, but its challenges were offered with clarity of vision. I loved it.

[–] Jameron 8 years ago

Great film, great post.

.

I'm surprised Nystulc the troll hasn't been here yet, it's been thirteen hours, he must be slipping. 

.

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

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Hilariously, I would have to say the single biggest stumbling block for me in the first act was my knowledge of the stupid Netflix blurb, which claims that the film centers around a secret agent who returns to MI-6 under suspicion of being a soviet spy. Huh? Do they mean Jim? Because he is not the film's focus. Did they mean Smiley? Because he is certainly the main character, but I just saw him as disgraced and retired, not a suspected traitor. He was actually brought in to sniff the traitor out. I guess whoever wrote that little paragraph would count themselves among the confused.

It is a reference to Ricki Tarr. He is played in this version by Tom Hardy. He does not get a huge amount of screentime, but his role can still be said to be central to the plot.

I almost said that it was "obviously" Ricki Tarr. But on second thought, I decided that would not be fair. The film is, after all, quite confusing. For those unable to fully follow the plot, he merely seems a secondary character with modest screentime.

[–] iterater 8 years ago

LOL the other commenter warned me about you by name and then you show up and drop this smug-bomb. You did not disappoint! I will humor you and type this out, even if you're trolling (side note: I've noticed you bashing the movie in other threads so I can't begin to imagine why you're here talking about it so much)

For starters, I looked up the blurb in question:

This gripping thriller about Cold War Espionage follows an English spy as he returns to MI-6 under suspicion that he's become a soviet operative.

You're right that this probably refers to Ricki. I spent all of five seconds wondering who the spy in question might be, because regardless of who the blurb is referring to, it is inaccurate to suggest anyone other than Smiley is the focus of the film. Ricki Tarr is obviously an important piece of the puzzle but hardly any more "central" than Jim or Haydon, and certainly not more than Smiley. A film does not "follow" someone who only has 20 min of screen time. Period.

I can barely wrap my head around your final paragraph, wherein you remind me condescendingly that the film can be confusing, in a thread I made about how well I felt I understood it on the first viewing. The film is not terribly confusing. The blurb is -- especially when the cover makes it clear that Gary Oldman is the film's focus. Pretty simple.

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

You're right that this probably refers to Ricki.

I think so. I provided you with actual information about something you were wondering about.

But, instead of thanking me for the info, you go on an ad-hominem rampage. You accuse me of being "smug". You call me "condescending". You insinuate that the fact that I responded to your post within 20 hours somehow proves I am a bad person. You insinuate that the fact that I dislike the film, yet still post here, somehow proves I am a bad person. You insinuate that the poster who posted even sooner than I did -- not to talk about the film -- but merely to insult me before I could post, was right about me when he called me a "troll". MY GOD! If I am a "troll" then what is HE!!!

And if I am guilty of "smugness", merely for being right about this ... are you sure you are not guilty of the same vice? Are you sure your post is ENTIRELY innocent of the sin of poking down its nose at those many many many people who have said they found this film hopelessly confusing? Or at the Netflix blurb writers? I never accused you of it, but if you're going to throw that at me, you'd better make sure your own house has no glass windows.

For starters, I looked up the blurb in question:

This gripping thriller about Cold War Espionage follows an English spy as he returns to MI-6 under suspicion that he's become a soviet operative.

Dang! You're right. It IS inaccurate. They said it was "gripping"! :)

I spent all of five seconds wondering who the spy in question might be, because regardless of who the blurb is referring to ...

That's cool, dude. You did not think about it much. Still, I'm sure you spent more than five seconds typing out your complaint where you accuse the Netflix blurb writers of being hilariously confused, when they were (at worst) no more confused than you were. And that's okay too. There is nothing wrong with being confused; nor even with being a little smug and condescending when you think you are right and others are hilariously wrong. We've all done it.

But now that you see things more clearly, instead of just acknowledging it, you are lashing out at me to cover your embarrassment. Don't do that! You tripped over your own smugness. It happens to us all. Just pick yourself up and laugh it off. Don't blame me.

... because regardless of who the blurb is referring to, it is inaccurate to suggest anyone other than Smiley is the focus of the film. Ricki Tarr is obviously an important piece of the puzzle but hardly any more "central" than Jim or Haydon, and certainly not more than Smiley. A film does not "follow" someone who only has 20 min of screen time. Period.

The blurb, as you quote it, does not use the words "focus" or "central". So forget that!

I guess your quibble is on whether or not the movie "follows" Ricki Tarr. But why should I debate the narrow semantics of what it means for a story to "follow" a character? Seems to me it could mean a number of different things. It also seems to me that a story can "follow" any number of characters, and not just one. If you had interpreted ALL the words in light of the film (fully understood) all would have come clear.

Tarr is certainly the reason for the mole hunt. Even when he is not onscreen, there are scenes that are all about Tarr, such as the confrontation between Guillam and Alleline. There is even a scene where Guillam punches out Tarr and accuses him both of of causing the mole hunt AND being a traitor. Moreover, it is Tarr who (on Smiley's instigation) sets the final trap for the mole. And when the mole falls into the trap, he is motivated by his response to the ongoing threat posted by Tarr. The recording that convicts the mole is one of a conversation with Polyakov, where Polyakov discusses means of intercepting and eliminating Tarr.

Not only is he of critical importance plotwise, but we do tend to keep track of him throughout the film. The final scenes leave him standing forlorn in the rain on the streets of Paris.

But more importantly, it's just a blurb. The purpose of a blurb is to serve as a hook to get you interested in a film, preferably without too many spoilers. You can quibble about "follow" and I can quibble about "gripping". Who cares?

I can barely wrap my head around your final paragraph, wherein you remind me condescendingly that the film can be confusing, in a thread I made about how well I felt I understood it on the first viewing. The film is not terribly confusing. The blurb is -- especially when the cover makes it clear that Gary Oldman is the film's focus. Pretty simple.

Sorry. I think the film is confusing. I am skeptical of those who claim they understood it well at first viewing. I have my reasons, and I am perfectly willing to elaborate on them. I don't know whether it is "THAT confusing" or "TERRIBLY confusing" because only you know what precisely you mean by those phrases.

But the purpose of my final paragraph was merely an attempt NOT to be smug. I almost said that it was "obviously" Ricki Tarr. I then decided this sort of smugness would be unfair considering how confusing the film is. Sorry. That's how I see it. I think the film is confusing. Be insulted if you want. Still, it seems to me that anyone who understood the plot of the film as well as I do, would immediately recognize the reference to Ricki Tarr, and would not be unduly misled by the word "follow". However, I can also understand that it would take more than a single viewing of the film (without prior knowledge of the novel or BBC versions) to get to the point where you understand the film this well.

But I'm not even disagreeing with you that much. You say it's a "Great Film". Fine. I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion (Note that I did not bring up my dislike of the film -- you did). You say you understood it at first viewing. Without knowing what precisely you mean by that I have no basis for disagreement. One can certainly pick up SOME things on first viewing. "Who is that gal Haydon was kissing at the party. Oh, it was Smiley's wife. EUREKA! I UNDERSTAND THE FILM." Hey! You understood the film well enough to realize that the blurb did not accurately refer to Smiley or to Jim. And on just one viewing, too. That's pretty good. Congratulations!

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Previously, in order to simulate the experience of watching this film cold, without knowledge of the book or the underlying characters and concepts, I constructed a summary of the first 22 minutes of the film. To help simulate the experience of watching it cold, I changed all the names and unique spy-jargon. I tried to leave out no detail of significance. Occasionally, things are condensed. For example, I say "It must be Budapest" rather than listing all the evidence that might lead one to conclude that a city we see is Budapest. Or I say "London?" rather than describing the evidence that might lead one to think a city might be London.

I think this summary actually gives the benefit of multiple viewings (at least of the first 22 minutes), as I'm pretty sure the average viewer, on first watch, would miss many of the details I record below.

Once again, if anyone thinks I have left out any detail of significance, or otherwise done anything to unfairly present these passages as more confusing than they actually are, that person is welcome to state his or her objections, and I will adjust the summary accordingly where appropriate.

So far, the only objection I have received (from the previous time I posted the summary) is from Jameron, who tried to claim that "It must be Budapest" was a "lie", based on evidence that it is in fact Budapest. This objection is completely nonsensical, so I ignored it.

START SUMMARY:
###################################################

Oldy admits Baldy to a dingy room for a secret meeting. Oldy tells him: trust nobody; they are after my head; nobody else knows; go to Budapest to meet a Hungarian general who wants to come over; he will tell the name of a gopher the Russians have planted in British Intelligence at the top of the carousel; we have to find a rotten apple.

Now we see Baldy walking in a crowded foreign city. It must be Budapest.

Now Baldy sits at a café table in the hall of an atrium with a lanky Hungarian. Lanky says porkolts beat goulash but you can’t get them because Moscow took the pigs. The waiter is sweaty. Baldy wants to meet Lanky’s friend. He’s coming any moment now, says Lanky. Baldy notices others are watching him. He excuses himself and starts walking away. Sweaty Waiter runs out and shoots at Baldy’s back from 20 feet away. He misses. Baldy freezes. A Russian yells “Stop, put your gun away”. Sweaty shoots again. Baldy now lies bleeding and inert. A young mom nursing a baby is slumped with a bullet in her head. The Russian curses Hungarian idiots: “we wanted him alive”.

Now we see another city. London?

Now Oldy sits in a room lined in orange foam. He signs, with a purple "H", some British Intelligence Document. Sitting with him, at a large table are 5 mid-aged men: Peevish, Chuckles, Shorty, Tweedy and Muggs. Peevish wishes he could have done more, but Oldy says Peevish did all he could. Oldy is drinking, and not sharing his liquor. He says its time he left the party. Shorty asks about Chuckles and Oldy says “Chuckles is leaving with me”. Everyone seems glum, especially Chuckles.

Now Tweedy and Shorty are in a hallway. Peevish and others walk by. Shorty waves at them after they pass. Tweedy says “You little prick, Shorty”.

Now we follow Oldy as he walks out of a gloomy office building, followed by Chuckles. Various people watch them as they go, including Young Chap, Fuzzface, Greta, Muggs & Peevish. They pass Walrus the doorkeeper; then an iron gate. On the street, Oldy and Chuckles stare at each other blankly. Then Oldy turns his back to Chuckles and walks away.

A succession of scenes: Now someone puts a file in a dumbwaiter; we follow it as it ascends. Now an alarm goes up & Chuckles wakes up in bed with bad hair. Now back to the still-ascending dumbwaiter. Now Peevish pokes his head out of the orange-foamed room & says “shall we start” to Tweedy and Muggs while Dolly walks by with a trolley. Now Chuckles is swimming in a pond with an old guy. Now Dolly unlocks a cabinet & puts a file in. Now Chuckles is walking beside a pond. Now Oldy lies slumped & inert over the edge of a hospital bed. Now Chuckles is at the eye-doctor, getting new glasses. Now Chuckles is walking in the rain; now in the snow; now in the fog.

Now Chuckles arrives at the front of a city house, removes wedges from the door, and enters. He sorts the mail & lays some on a counter: it is addressed to Joy Chuckles, in London. Now he stares at a dreary piece of modern art, hanging framed on the wall.

Now Peevish and Muggs arrive at a grand building to see Weasel, the undersecretary. Weasel says Treasury wants Intelligence Service to account for its operation. Peevish says Operation Voodoo must remain secret because it’s a fiefdom. Weasel is concerned because nobody knows the address of the London house. Peevish says it’s necessary; and Muggs says we can’t meet in a café. Weasel complains that its rents have doubled, but Muggs says it still costs less than an H-bomb and bets that Zorro does not have such trouble with the Kremlin treasury. Weasel admits the work is imporant, but says Budapest was a disaster. Muggs says, hey, it wasn’t your guy got killed – we’re the ones standing between Zorro, Moscow and World War III. Weasel says Minister is pleased with their progress, but unhappy because the Yanks think we’re a leaky ship.

Later, Weasel gets a call: “I’m Mopy Max and I need to see you. To confirm who I am, talk to my boss Scarecrow at the carousel.”

Now Young Chap arrives to work at the Gloomy building. He sees Tweedy rolling a bike and asks he has clearance for it. Tweedy says no, but he doesn’t care because the bike will get stolen even if he brings it inside. Tweedy wants to ogle the New Girl before Muggs sees her. Young Chap says Muggs already saw her. They ogle her anyway.

Now Young Chap is at his desk. The phone rings and he answer it: “This is Scarecrow”.

Now Young Chap (who we now know to be Scarecrow) is driving Chuckles in a car. He says: “I was sorry to hear about handle, Chuckles”. They pull up to a large house. “He said Mopy Max called him” says Scarecrow.

Inside: “He said there’s been a gopher at the top of the carousel for years, so you’re well placed to look into it,” says Weasel. “You fired me”, says Chuckles. “Before handle died he also said there was a gopher,” says Weasel. “He never told me”, says Chuckles. “But you were his right-hand man,” says Weasel. Silence. “Anyway I thought he was going to pull his house down - that Budapest fiasco; it’s your legacy, so please do it”, says Weasel. As Chuckles considers we flashback to faces of Muggs, Shorty, Tweedy & Peevish. Chuckles says, “I’ll keep Scarecrow, & I want Gumbo”.

Chuckles and Scarecrow walk out of a house and past a beehive. Now they’re in a car with another man. They are menaced by a bee, but Chuckles gets rid of it. The man says he knows a hotel in Liverpool.

Now Chuckles and Scarecrow arrive at a hotel. A woman says be careful with her Georgian table. A man says “Mrs. Oreo-Cookie, my friend wants quiet and no disturbances”, and then says “her real name is Cookie, but she added the Oreo for a touch of class”. Chuckles, staring out the window at trains, says “Scarecrow, did you get the key to handle’s flat.”

Now we see Scarecrow and Chuckles enter a dark smelly cluttered room. (It looks familiar. Is this where Oldy & Baldy met?). Chuckles looks at papers. Chuckles and Scarecrow stare at each other. Chuckles walks toward Scarecrow, & finds chess pieces with tiny photos taped to them. An alert viewer may recognize the photos as Muggs, Peevish, Shorty and Tweedy. We also see a black queen.

Chuckles drifts into a flashback ...
######################################################

[–] Jameron 8 years ago

"Nystulc's disingenuous waffle"

Yeah, you missed out the part where "baldy" walks right past a large sign that says "BUDAPEST". Said sign is in shot for 12 seconds, more than long enough for people to read it instead of watching "baldy" walking up the steps.

Not very observant are you? <--rhetorical question

You're also dishonest because I have pointed this omission out to you before and yet you still claim that the viewer has to guess that they're in Budapest.

Just like they have to guess they're in London, despite the large red double decker bus that moves left to right across the screen?

Hahaha. Obvious troll is obvious.

.

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

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Yeah, you missed out the part where "baldy" walks right past a large sign that says "BUDAPEST". Said sign is in shot for 12 seconds, more than long enough for people to read it instead of watching "baldy" walking up the steps.

Not very observant are you? <--rhetorical question

You're also dishonest because I have pointed this omission out to you before and yet you still claim that the viewer has to guess that they're in Budapest.

Just like they have to guess they're in London, despite the large red double decker bus that moves left to right across the screen?

The summary identifies the city as London, based on the presumption that the viewer can guess that the city as London. And yes, the double-decker bus is the primary evidence that allows the reader to make this guess. The question mark is appropriate, since double-decker buses are not found only in London. Nonetheless, if this information is necessary to follow the plot, the summary provides it.

I actually think I was rather generous in supplying this information directly. I don't think one can safely assume that a modern viewer, regardless of background, would know what a 1970s British double decker bus looks like, or realize that such vehicles are associated mainly with London. If I had wanted to make the summary extra-confusing, I would simply have said "A reddish double-decker bus goes by" and force the reader to draw the inference himself, if he was able. But I was trying to be brief. It is, after all, a summary, and summaries should be short.

As for Budapest, my summary definitely identifies the city as Budapest. "It must be Budapest". No question mark. In fact, my assumption was that the reader would realize that the city was Budapest long before he sees the "Budapest" sign, and regardless of whether he sees it (he might not - there are plenty of other things to look at in that scene). Nor is the sign (a wall sign, not a street sign) necessarily the best evidence that they are in Budapest ... in New York City an can be found an even larger sign on a building which says CHICAGO in giant letters. But anyhow, I don't describe the evidence, I merely state the conclusion directly. In short, my summary assumes that this aspect of the story is not confusing to the viewer. I did not describe the Budapest evidence in gruesome detail, because it is a summary and I'm trying to be brief.

Jameron already knows this because I already explained it to him. His claim that I am accusing the film of forcing the reader to guess that the city is Budapest is both nonsensical and beside the point. If the film does not force the viewer to guess the identity of the city, then neither does my summary. The summary provides the information fairly and squarely. The idea behind the summary is to replicate the experience of watching the first 22 minutes of the film, and not to accuse the film of forcing viewers to guess the information squarely supplied by both the film and the summary.

Jameron is quibbling about nothing, because he's got nothing.

[–] Jameron 8 years ago

"The summary identifies the city as London, based on the presumption that the viewer can guess that the city as London." - nystulc

"As for Budapest, my summary definitely identifies the city as Budapest. "It must be Budapest"." - nystulc

Lol. That's not identifying the city as London, or Budapest. You're saying that the viewer has to guess that it's London and Budapest thereby justifying your claim that it's confusing. That mealy mouthed wordplay marks you out as a scam artist trying to hoodwink people.

" If the film does not force the viewer to guess the identity of the city, then neither does my summary." - nystulc

Your "summary" is what you wrote in order to "prove" that the film is confusing. Your "summary" states that the viewer has to guess the location when they clearly do not.

You fail.

.

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

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

You're saying that the viewer has to guess that it's London and Budapest thereby justifying your claim that it's confusing.

No I am not.

The summary is intended to fairly approximate the experience of watching the film, and contains only such information as can be fairly discerned from watching the first 22 minutes of the film. The summary identifies the cities as London and Budapest, and therefore is meant to signify that the film achieves roughly the same effect.

Certainly, the summary is confusing (like the film). But this is NOT because of any confusion about the cities. The summary identifies the cities. The phrase "It must be Budapest" is meant to identify the city in the summary, and NOT to accuse the film of failing to identify the city.

If (as you claim) the summary is confusing, but the film is not, it certainly cannot be because the film identifies the cities, but the summary does not. The summary identifies the cities. Try again.

[–] simon23 8 years ago

Nystulc wouldn't know a double-decker bus (of any hue) was up his arse until a passenger rang its bell!

[–] Jameron 8 years ago

lol.

.

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

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

ROTFLMAO

[–] fredrikanders 8 years ago

Nice to see that there are more people discovering this brilliant movie. I agree that it isn´t that confusing. I think most of the confusion comes from the sound design. In most movies the score makes it extremeley obvious when there is something important happening but this movie opted for a soothing and jazzy soundtrack throughout and wanted the viewer to act like a spy and go through all the information, withouth the score to highlight the important part. It´s been a while since I watched the movie, but I believe Jim´s return is preceded by Smiley discovering that the Circus have sent a payment to Jim after his supposed death followed by a voiceover of "Where is he now, then?" from Jims assistant (probably added in post to clarify things...) and then a cut to Jim in the School. I thought that part was abit "on the nose" when i saw the movie the first time, but obviously lots of people thought differentley...
I think if soundbites like that had been highlighted differentley by the sounddesigner it would have made things more clear for the viewer. Maybe there is a sounddesigner out there that want to make a more obvious soundmix and upload it to youtube? I really believe thats where most of the confusion comes from...

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Nice to see that there are more people discovering this brilliant movie. I agree that it isn´t that confusing. I think most of the confusion comes from the sound design.

Again, I don't know what your definition of "that confusing" is. What is your position on the summary of the 1st 22 minutes, which I provide above? Would you say that the summary is NOT confusing? Or would you say that the film is somehow less confusing than the summary? If the latter, how does the summary misrepresent the film or leave things out in a way that makes the film more confusing?

In most movies the score makes it extremeley obvious when there is something important happening but this movie opted for a soothing and jazzy soundtrack throughout and wanted the viewer to act like a spy and go through all the information, withouth the score to highlight the important part. It´s been a while since I watched the movie, but I believe Jim´s return is preceded by Smiley discovering that the Circus have sent a payment to Jim after his supposed death followed by a voiceover of "Where is he now, then?" from Jims assistant (probably added in post to clarify things...) and then a cut to Jim in the School. I thought that part was abit "on the nose" when i saw the movie the first time, but obviously lots of people thought differentley...
I think if soundbites like that had been highlighted differentley by the sounddesigner it would have made things more clear for the viewer. Maybe there is a sounddesigner out there that want to make a more obvious soundmix and upload it to youtube? I really believe thats where most of the confusion comes from...

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The viewer of the film is initially told that Jim is dead. We later find out that he is alive. I don't know why it was necessary to fool the viewer (or anyone else) into thinking Jim was dead. It adds a pointless level of confusion to a story that would be complex anyhow if anyone tried to actually tell it properly. But even so, this is one of the LESS confusing things about the movie. By the end of the film, at least, any viewer who has not fallen fast asleep will know that Jim is alive.

What does the sound mix have to do with it? I just don't get it. Even if they fail to HEAR that he is alive, they will nonetheless SEE that he is alive ... and in fact will see him almost immediately.

For whatever reason, the filmmakers wanted to fool/confuse the viewer - at least temporarily - into thinking Jim was dead. A viewer who does not fall asleep immediately is told that Jim is dead. If he manages to stay semi-awake thereafter, he eventually learns otherwise.

But if the viewer asks "What was the reason for the ruse? Why was it necessary to make me or anyone think Jim was dead?" I don't know. Nor am I aware that any adequate explanation was ever offered. Maybe it's not THAT confusing, but it's still completely unnecessary.

Sure, by paying close attention, and by not missing certain lines of dialogue, the viewer will realize that the Bill and/or London Station told everyone Jim was dead, and relocated him under an assumed name. But he will still have no idea why Bill and/or London Station did this. Why fool Lacon? Why fool the viewer? Why not use the limited time to provide the viewer with information that will help him follow the story, instead of for throwing pointless obstacles-to-understanding in his path?

Nor was any such thing done in the books.

[–] Flora_Poste 8 years ago

Or would you say that the film is somehow less confusing than the summary?

I would say the film is not confusing at all.

If the latter, how does the summary misrepresent the film or leave things out in a way that makes the film more confusing?

The summary is inadequate because it leaves out the cascade of visual detail that signals what is happening. It leaves out the expressions on the actors' faces, the looks they exchange, and the intonations of their voices, thereby omitting all the nonverbal communication that is taking place between characters.

The scenes you describe also convey critical information about character, relationships, environment, and events in sequence. We are surely meant to read all of these things visually and work out their meaning for ourselves.

Sure, by paying close attention, and by not missing certain lines of dialogue, the viewer will realize that the Bill and/or London Station told everyone Jim was dead, and relocated him under an assumed name. But he will still have no idea why Bill and/or London Station did this. Why fool Lacon? Why fool the viewer?

The intent is not to "fool" the viewer. The intent is to keep the viewer in step with Smiley, learning what he learns when he learns it. In this way, the movie prompts the viewer to delve into those painful questions [in bold] right along with Smiley. By structuring the storytelling this way, the viewer gets to experience the hunt for the mole from Smiley's point of view; every little detail that Smiley learns fills in a bit more of the picture for us. The story is more exciting and cinematic that way.

Why not use the limited time to provide the viewer with information that will help him follow the story, instead of for throwing pointless obstacles-to-understanding in his path?

There are no pointless obstacles to understanding. All the information the viewer needs is there for the taking.

Nor was any such thing done in the books.

Film is a visual medium. Information can be conveyed in many ways, unlike with a book. A movie does not have to be like a comic book, with every thought bubble inked in and every motive belabored.

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

The summary is inadequate because it leaves out the cascade of visual detail that signals what is happening.

And yet you are incapable of providing a single example?

It leaves out the expressions on the actors' faces, the looks they exchange, and the intonations of their voices, thereby omitting all the nonverbal communication that is taking place between characters.

Can you give an example where such an omission affects the viewer's understanding? Or are you going to hide behind vague generalizations?

The scenes you describe also convey critical information about character, relationships, environment, and events in sequence.

Like what??? Name ONE critical piece of information the summary left out, that would aid the viewer in understanding the story and cut through his confusion. Or, if you prefer, name TWO or THREE or more. The summary leaves out alot -- is that not what you are implying? So give an example!

We are surely meant to read all of these things visually and work out their meaning for ourselves.

You mean like when Smiley stares at a meaningless muddy piece of modern art handing on the wall? I guess he was trying to work out the meaning for himself. That was a perfect symbol for this film.

Re Making Viewers/Characters think Jim was Dead:

The intent is not to "fool" the viewer. The intent is to keep the viewer in step with Smiley, learning what he learns when he learns it.

Okay. The point of fooling the viewer is merely to put him in Smiley's shoes. Why fool Smiley then?

Come on! Stop passing the buck ... to Smiley or anyone else. In the novel, the reader also follows Smiley, and learns what he learns roughly as he learns it. But in the book Smiley, and the reader with him, are never fooled into thinking Jim was dead. Why the change? What purpose does it serve?

By structuring the storytelling this way, the viewer gets to experience the hunt for the mole from Smiley's point of view; every little detail that Smiley learns fills in a bit more of the picture for us.

How? Did not other versions of the story have enough details for Smiley to learn? Why fool him into thinking Jim is dead, just so we can go "eureka" along with Smiley upon realizing Jim is alive? Does that not dumb down the story to idiot levels?

[–] davidphantom01 8 years ago

When George debriefs Jim after he finds him at the school, Jim tells him that Control nominated 5 suspects as the mole the night he was called to Control's house and that the 5th suspect was George himself. So I guess that would make him a suspect then in the eyes of whoever wrote that Netflix blurb.

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

When George debriefs Jim after he finds him at the school, Jim tells him that Control nominated 5 suspects as the mole the night he was called to Control's house and that the 5th suspect was George himself. So I guess that would make him a suspect then in the eyes of whoever wrote that Netflix blurb.

The Netflix blurb is a reference to Ricki Tarr. He returns after going AWOL, with news of the mole, but is not trusted, since he is suspected of having turned traitor and become a soviet agent.

George may have been under suspicion at one point, but he was not under suspicion when he came out of retirement (which is the only time he "returned to MI6").

[–] davidphantom01 8 years ago

No, you are wrong, it is as simple as I said it.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

It was control who suspected a mole, not Mi6. When Budapest went wrong and Alleline replaced him the suspicion of a mole went out the door with control and Witchcraft was legitimised.

Nobody was a suspect again until Tarr got in touch with Lacon.

But, of course, Witchcraft wss the mole's vehicle for exporting secrets.

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

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

It was control who suspected a mole, not Mi6.

Control is head of Mi6 (the Circus). In any event, the blurb does not say who or what suspects the English Spy, when he returns to Mi6. It merely says he is under suspicion. More to the point, Control is dead, when both Smiley and Tarr return to Mi6. So this can't be a reference to Control's suspicions.

Nobody was a suspect again until Tarr got in touch with Lacon.

Tarr is a secret agent who returns to MI-6 under suspicion of being a soviet spy.

Tarr was suspected of having turned soviet operative both before and after he got in touch with Lacon; both before and after he got in touch with Smiley. Of being "the mole"? No. But of being a soviet spy? Absolutely.

The blurb refers to Tarr.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

Dialogue in the film states explicitly that after Budapest, Control's concerns about a mole were dismissed along with Control. Apart from Lacon, the only person we know that was aware of Tinker Tailor is Jim. This is stated in dialogue.

Tarr's contact with Lacon puts Tinker Tailor in a new light so Lacon recruits Smiley to follow in Control's footsteps. In doing so, Smiley correlates the setting up and securing of Witchcraft, Control's suspicion of it and the Tinker Tailor fiasco. Again, this is explicitly stated in dialogue.

There was suspicion around Tarr's disappearance. There was suspicion around Smiley too. And Lacon expresses lack of total confidence in any of them. Tarr wasn't suspected as the mole though because that was said to be at the top of the circus. Not from someone like Tarr. And Smiley was out when Lacon received the fresh warning about the mole, which Tarr had tried to send to the Circus before moves were made to discredit him.

It's not confusing. If the blurb confuses people, I suggest they limit themselves to what they are told in the film instead. But the OP already came to that conclusion,hence their happiness with the film.

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

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Dialogue in the film states explicitly that after Budapest, Control's concerns about a mole were dismissed along with Control. Apart from Lacon, the only person we know that was aware of Tinker Tailor is Jim. This is stated in dialogue.

Right. The only person who ever suspected Smiley was Control. Neither Lacon nor Jim ever suspected Smiley. Control is dead and buried when Smiley returns.

Hence, Smiley does not "return to Mi6 under suspicion of being a soviet operative". He was under suspicion once, but not when he returned to Mi6.

Tarr's contact with Lacon puts Tinker Tailor in a new light so Lacon recruits Smiley to follow in Control's footsteps. In doing so, Smiley correlates the setting up and securing of Witchcraft, Control's suspicion of it and the Tinker Tailor fiasco. Again, this is explicitly stated in dialogue.

Sure, but none of it results in Smiley being under suspicion of being a soviet operative when he returns to Mi6.

There was suspicion around Tarr's disappearance. There was suspicion around Smiley too. And Lacon expresses lack of total confidence in any of them.

"Lack of total confidence"? Sure. But that is not the same thing as suspecting Smiley is a soviet spy.

Lacon never suspected Smiley of being a soviet operative. Not when he fired him. Not when he rehired him. Not when he expressed doubts about the mole hunt.

Tarr wasn't suspected as the mole though because that was said to be at the top of the circus.

Tarr was indeed suspected of being a soviet operative. Those are the words of the blurb. Of being "the mole"? No. But the blurb does not say that.

It's not confusing. If the blurb confuses people ...

I did not find the blurb confusing. It clearly refers to Ricki Tarr.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

Sure, but none of it results in Smiley being under suspicion of being a soviet operative when he returns to Mi6.

Who said that it did result in that?

I did not find the blurb confusing.

Which post of mine said you did? You're the one that brought up the blurb with me, remember? Is it the film that you still find confusing then?

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

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Who said that it did result in that?

I don't know. Is this your way of saying you agree with me about the blurb? That it refers to Tarr and not Smiley? If we agree, then all is fine.

Is it the film that you still find confusing then?

It is definitely a confusing film for those who have not watched it multiple times and read and carefully compared the book.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

Is this your way of saying you agree with me about the blurb? That it refers to Tarr and not Smiley? If we agree, then all is fine.

The issue of who the blurb was referring to or indeed anything in the blurb was never in my thoughts or discussion prior to you referring to it in response to me. So I wasn't aware that I was obligated to agree or disagree with you on who it refers to as being a suspected soviet operative. I haven't even read the blurb and I am quite happy to take your word on whatever it says.

I'll reassert what I did say about the blurb and that is that anyone concerned or confused should watch the film and forget the blurb, whatever it says.

It is definitely a confusing film for those who have not watched it multiple times

Twice may be necessary for most people to take in the entire plot. At least twice is in fact desirable, in my view.

I admire anyone who got it all first time without any prior knowledge of the text. But I do not envy anyone who's experience of the film is limited to that one viewing.

I don't agree that careful study of the book is required to understand the film. Comparison with the book will highlight more intentional differences between them than it will illuminate things that the film may have wanted to convey but did not succeed. I trust the film-makers when they say it is the film of the film, and not the film of the book. In fact I am pleased to hear that this was the objective from the outside as those are generally the most interesting and enduring cinematic adaptions, in my opinion.

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

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

The issue of who the blurb was referring to or indeed anything in the blurb was never in my thoughts or discussion prior to you referring to it in response to me.

Fair enough. I shall ignore the context of the discussion, and merely assume you were relating random facts from the film for no particular reason.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

I was adding to what davidphantom said about understanding the plot by highlighting a couple of key explicit dialogue scenes (not random facts) which are more reliable than the Netflix blurb for the film, whatever it says. (I gather it gives undue prominence to Tarr's suspected soviet operative status in the film, which the reader may confuse with the mole at the top of the circus, the search for which is the actual focus of the film.)

The OP and Davidphantom may have mentioned Netflix. I did not refer to the Netflix. I never contested what the Netflix blurb said. But you seem to have imagined that I had.

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

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

I was adding to what davidphantom said about understanding the plot by highlighting a couple of key explicit dialogue scenes (not random facts) which are more reliable than the Netflix blurb for the film, whatever it says.

That was my impression. You were not, it seemed to me, merely relating random facts. You were relating facts that were vaguely relevant to the interpretation of the Netflix blurb, as quoted by the OP, and the question he raised regarding it.

I assume you'll insist I've still got it wrong, somehow.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

The interpretation of the Netflix blurb is a red herring, a distraction.

That's why I made no reference to it and highlighted the key dialogue scenes in the film which should be referred to, and not Netflix.

Any questions raised by the Netflix blurb about the movie or any other misleading external text are resolved by going solely by what's in the movie.

If you wish to preoccupied with the Netflix blurb and what it says, in spite of the movie speaking for itself far better than the blurb could, then that's up to you.

I never said you've got anything wrong. You seem, though, to be keen for me to confirm your attitude toward the blurb because other people in this thread have made comment on the content of said blurb confusing the plot of the movie a little. But I have remained focused on the film itself.

You were not, it seemed to me, merely relating random facts.



But

Fair enough. I shall ignore the context of the discussion, and merely assume you were relating random facts from the film for no particular reason.

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

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

The interpretation of the Netflix blurb is a red herring, a distraction.

Sure. We don't have to talk about it if you don't want to. The OP mentioned it, I responded, and I had the mistaken impression that you were trying to put your own 2 cents on the same subject. Sorry.

That's why I made no reference to it and highlighted the key dialogue scenes in the film which should be referred to, and not Netflix.

Once again, mixed signals here. You want to claim these scenes you highlighted had no relation to the blurb or the discussion about it. And yes, it is true (context notwithstanding) that you never explicitly mentioned the blurb. Yet at the same time, you insist these are not merely random facts cited for no reason, presumably because they relate somehow to the blurb and the discussion about it.

Any questions raised by the Netflix blurb about the movie or any other misleading external text are resolved by going solely by what's in the movie.

True. However, the OP had a question that was about the Netflix blurb; and not merely about the movie. You responded to that discussion, even though you say you have no interest in the subject.

If you wish to preoccupied with the Netflix blurb and what it says, in spite of the movie speaking for itself far better than the blurb could, then that's up to you.

Right. Nobody needs to have any interest in the Netflix blurb. On the other hand, anyone can discuss it if they want to; and noone need join in a discussion that does not interest them.

I never said you've got anything wrong.

That's great.

You seem, though, to be keen for me to confirm your attitude toward the blurb because other people in this thread have made comment on the content of said blurb confusing the plot of the movie a little.

Nope. Don't care. I was discussing the matter with the OP. I merely made the mistake of assuming you were somehow trying to participate in that discussion.

[–] GorchBrother 7 years ago

You really are confused.

You seem to think I'm telling you what you can or cannot discuss.

You need to stop relying on me in order to perpetuate your confusion because you seem to be able do a very good job on your own.

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

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

You seem to think I'm telling you what you can or cannot discuss.

I cannot answer for any subjective SEEMINGS that appear dreamlike before your mind. But I'm pretty sure I did not actually WRITE any such thing anywhere above.

[–] GorchBrother 7 years ago

Congratulations. You've made a distinction between seeming and writing.

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

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

Well ... they are indeed distinct. I don't see the necessity of congratulations, though. I guess you're just straining to be sarcastic. Or something.

[–] sascha-17 7 years ago

I'll admit, the placement of the first couple time jumps did feel a little needlessly obfuscating,

The thing they should've done here (IMO) is make Control's death-scene a bit longer and/or put the camera a bit closer to his face. When I watched the movie for the first time, I didn't get that it was John Hurt we were seeing on screen and had to rewind.

Same thing happened to a friend of mine whom I watched the movie with a couple of days ago (it was his first viewing and my third or so).

Once you know that Control is dead, the "time-jumps" become much more obvious.

I will say though that, overall, this is a movie that you'll appreciate more the second or third time around - at least for me it was. I was completely unfamiliar with the story, but it didn't confuse me on my first viewing and I could follow the plot right until the end. But since the movie is quite a bit more "demanding" than your average modern spy-film, not having to worry about who the mole is "frees up" your mind to appreciate the other brilliant aspects of the film.

S.

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

The thing they should've done here (IMO) is make Control's death-scene a bit longer and/or put the camera a bit closer to his face. When I watched the movie for the first time, I didn't get that it was John Hurt we were seeing on screen and had to rewind.

Same thing happened to a friend of mine whom I watched the movie with a couple of days ago (it was his first viewing and my third or so).

Once you know that Control is dead, the "time-jumps" become much more obvious.

The dialogue actually tells you that "Control" is dead, prior to the flashbacks featuring him. However, this is of minimal help to the viewer at first viewing, because he does not yet realize that the John Hurt character is called "Control". The only real clue from earlier is where Alleline said to John Hurt "I wish I could have done more, Control", but this is unlikely to register with the viewer as a name ... it is more likely be heard as "I wish I could have done more control".

Apparently we are expected to keep track of what glasses Smiley is wearing, and tell whether or not it is a flashback based on that.

[–] GorchBrother 7 years ago

Alleline said to John Hurt "I wish I could have done more, Control", but this is unlikely to register with the viewer as a name ... it is more likely be heard as "I wish I could have done more control".



Thanks. Haven't laughed like that in weeks.

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

[–] simon23 7 years ago

However, this is of minimal help to the viewer at first viewing, because he does not yet realize that the John Hurt character is called "Control". The only real clue from earlier is where Alleline said to John Hurt "I wish I could have done more, Control", but this is unlikely to register with the viewer as a name ... it is more likely be heard as "I wish I could have done more control".

Those with an attention span beyond a goldfish might just register the connection between Hurt's initialing the letter with a great big 'C' and being called Control TEN SECONDS later!

"I wish I could have done more control"

He's leader in waiting of British intelligence FFS ... not President-Elect of the US.

Apparently we are expected to keep track of what glasses Smiley is wearing, and tell whether or not it is a flashback based on that.

If only they coulda, I don't know ... had some kinda scene where the deposed Smiley goes into an optician and say gets fitted with a new pair of clearer focused glasses in a different style, conspicuously gleaming ... before he starts his investigation.

In your case, maybe if Smiley had left the price tag on for the rest of the movie ... you might have eventually noticed?

After all nystulc, it only took you two years of quadrupling down on stupid to accept that Smiley couldn't be the suspect mole because Irina was abducted after he'd been sacked.

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

Simon23 wrote:

Those with an attention span beyond a goldfish might just register the connection between Hurt's initialing the letter with a great big 'C' and being called Control TEN SECONDS later!

They MIGHT make that connection, IF they realized John Hurt was being CALLED "Control" as a name. But that's precisely what they may not have realized at this point.

Alternately, even a very observant first-time viewer might think the "C" stands for "Chief", since the letter John Hurt is signing with a "c" is on the letterhead of the "Chief" of the Secret Service. It is hardly self evident that it must connect to some random word beginning with "c" uttered within the same 20-second window.

Notice how belittling Simon23 is being. This, sadly, is the common attitude of many who defend and market this film. But of course Simon is not really addressing me, whatever he may think. I already knew John Hurt played "Control" before I even watched the film. He is insulting and bullying the people above who admitted they were confused at this point in the film. Because, on first viewing (which is what we were discussing) they missed alot more than the significance of the green C: They also missed the significance of the John Hurt death scene, and the dialogue explaining that "Control" was dead, prior to the flashbacks featuring "Control" that made them think he was still alive.

I am merely helping explain why their confusion (not my confusion) was understandable. Simon23, dripping with sarcasm, merely wants to bully and insult, and say their mentality is analogous to that of a goldfish. Perhaps he did not realize WHO he was insulting .... it includes people who enjoyed the film, notwithstanding some initial confusion.

"I wish I could have done more control"
He's leader in waiting of British intelligence FFS ... not President-Elect of the US.

The viewer, at this point, does not know what "I wish I could have done more control" means. Nor is he sure he understands all this talk of a small burrowing mammal right at the top of some circus. Probably he realizes the stuff he does not understand some kind of jargon with some kind of special meaning. But realizing it has some special meaning does not necessarily translate into an immediate realization that "control" means "John Hurt" the very first time we hear it. Dripping sarcasm, and comparing people to goldfish, does not change the fact that the viewer does not yet have enough context to be sure what "control" means, based on this one reference.

Later in the film, the viewer does connect "control" to John Hurt, and realizes it must be his code-name. Which is one of the reasons people are less confused on second viewing.

"Control" can be a verb or a noun, but is not something that most people would recognize as a person's name. Even with the BBC version, this caused some initial confusion in some viewers.

[–] Jameron 7 years ago

"I wish I could have done more control"
"He's leader in waiting of British intelligence FFS ... not President-Elect of the US." - simon23

ROFL!

Perfect.

.

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

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] Korios 7 years ago

I really did not think it was confusing at all. I loved that it was filmed in a calm, restrained and almost cold manner, and I think Gary Oldman gave one of the best performances of his life. This is not an action movie full of needless special effects, it is a suspenseful spy film reminiscent of some '70s classics but with a fresh look and feel.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

I really did not think it was confusing at all.

Sorry, but that's not a statement I can take seriously at all. I do my best to believe those who said they liked it, and understood it better on a second viewing. But not "confusing AT ALL"???? Come on. Who do you think you're kidding?

This is not an action movie full of needless special effects ...

Nobody said it was.

[–] Etherdave (162) 3 years ago

The 'confusing' trope here has become a fertile ground for trolls. Even given the vast amount of 15-year-olds that populate this forum and add their tiny little mental meanderings, there just can't be that many confused souls in the world, can there?