‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’
a Cold War era period piece that’s part spy thriller and part testament to expert pacing and eloquently thought-out plot structure. A dynamo film. Warranting endless rewatches mainly due to a palpably complex, serpentine, circuitous, or even labyrinthian story about an aging MI6 agent tasked with finding a mole in Britain’s spy agency at the very top of the power structure. One that’s buoyed by intricate inner plot mechanics and a powerful narrative thrust, both playing well off of each other resulting in some slow-cooked cinematic perfection! Developments in the film’s plot come off as planned and intentional. A steady hand administering brushstrokes rather than unchecked caprice running wild. This, I swear.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Directed by Tomas Alfredson
Starring Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong, John le Carrè, Ciarán Hinds, Kathy Burke and Tony Jones
Contrasting the plethora of dime-a-dozen spy movies churned out on an annual basis, ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ on the other hand – is a bottomless pit of opaque yet tangible spycraft. Cloak(s) and daggers? They aren’t merely present in the piece, no, they abound. If a character’s onscreen: it’s almost guaranteed they’re hiding something. Everyone has hidden loyalties – distrust runs deeper than ideological ties – and obfuscation keeps you alive another day to play the game. And what a devious game of double crosses is evinced…by doubly dangerous double agents.
Devilish in its design. And distinctly delirium inducing.
(Excuse the alliteration…it was a bit much.)
Moving on! The pacing would plod if it wasn’t for the mystique that broods under the hood of this hotrod of a film. A different, more inept director than Tomas Alfredson might have truncated runtime in an attempt to excise some visuals and concise the sequence of events which in turn would’ve lessened impactfulness, creating a much less compelling, ambrosial experience for the audience. Especially those key pivotal moments the feature uses to bring contextual closure; omitting these kinds of sequences seems a pitfall that many 21st century filmmakers stumble into. Modern cinema can sometimes lack in the film structure department. Not always, but sometimes.
The screenplay by Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan (a husband & wife duo) really shines, showcasing finesse present in how it’s written and fleshed out. Tributary without being “derivative”, clever without being contrite, and nuanced without being nonchalant in its explanation. Marvelous.
Take for example in ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ Colin Firth’s emotive and moving monologue occurring a few scenes before the curtain falls. As a sentimental antithesis to John Hurt’s beginning monologue – which ushers in the onscreen action in the first few minutes – it’s pure perfection, and well, thematic symmetry is nothing to shake a stick at! The two scenes work well to balance the themes of West versus East, betrayal vs loyalty and the overarching morale or lead-theme of: civic duty associated with espionage often taking the form of bemused obligation and world weariness. Beautiful. Exquisite. Parfaite. All of the above. What a wonderful finale/climax; and lovingly crafted with truckloads of readily apparent attention to detail. Almost seems like an ode to, and aggregate of, every “double agent turned traitor” grandstanding speech to occur in the final moments of other classic and equally sanguine spy flicks. Ulterior motives hidden until the last moment. Friends becoming foes when one least expects it. Countrymen turned against each other after decades of loyal service now unable to discern one anothers’ true intentions. Homage is the truest form of artistic flattery – if and when it’s handled intuitively. And modern cinema – is built off the foundation of all prior excursions into conceptual spaces existing within a genre (or genres).
Just like any artform: in cinema, inspiration can and often does mean remixing, recycling, and artistic rearrangement. Or at least alluding to what came before. Most commonly this means reusing concepts or styles established by previous filmmakers; with the addition of a refreshingly evolved take or interpretation, one that hopefully “woos” and impresses. While wholly capitalizing on nostalgia.
… standing on the shoulders of giants, etc, etc, etc and so on.
So, outright homage or inspiration is inherent within the medium of film. Which means when it’s handled appropriately the gloss it adds to the dramatic finish or “patina” of the final product is undeniable. It’s been this way since antiquity – I’m not just “glazing” Tomas Alfredson here and the script is strong as hell too. Really solid.
Gary Oldman is perfectly cast as the disgruntled MI6 operative whose advanced age has finally caught up with him. He has the air of a man who’s still got skin in the game geopolitically speaking – but intends to wind down his involvement in covert activity. A man at the end of his career, as well as his rope, now that he’s been tasked with finding a mole among his colleagues at MI6. A mole that’s been transmitting classified info to the Russians using unknown and previously unsuspected channels. A leak of titanic proportions.
A real, there’s a fly in the ointment situation, only apply that to global espionage and then you’ve got the idea. Truely this flick’s an understated entry in his filmography. I’m surprised it flew under my radar until now, seeing as it came out in 2011.
(Thanks Tubi! Tons of gems on that app.)
Both the star and lead, Oldman in this case also has the crucial role of embodying the throughline – usually a thematic element but occassionally a character in of itself. This technique is effectively like threading a needle in the dark in a directorial sense.†
The array of elements at play in ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ should weigh the film down but really doesn’t (mostly) due to diligent performances, writing, set-craft, and filmmaking coming together and coalescing just right.
Presto. Movie magic.
_____________________
Notes
†
Throughlines are sometimes easier handled when formed from a static element – a location, prop, animal, diegetic music maybe, whereas a character as throughline…may seem less contrived, and more immersive but when going this route directors usually opt for a tertiary or minor character to serve this function since their effect on the plot structure is likely less. And therefore easier to weave into the story haphazardly. Using a main character not only shows balls, but really causes your film to be plotted and paced in a more constrained manner. Working towards a destination by a more strictly defined path allows for little deviation from essential conflict and needed resolution. A cogent film this makes. But improvisation can work too. Yes.
(‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ is based on a best-selling novel.)
