...I guess I have to keep making separate posts to ward spoilers XD;

[petronia]

Tinker Tailor: A guide for the perplexed. Which is actually an explanation of WHY the movie is confusing XD (i.e. the directorial choices that made it what it is). Although I'm in the camp of finding the ending somewhat sinister and not purely triumphalist (setting aside whether a triumphalist ending works with the rest of the movie or not) -- that last shot of Smiley reminded me of the UBER-CREEPY last shot in Perfect Blue, though it took me a while to pin down the reference. I do agree movie!Smiley is more pissed off, both righteously and not-so-righteously. Book!Smiley at the crux experiences a sensation of "oh God this is going to be a shitty day/week/rest of life for EVERYONE I know and there is no way to avoid it now."

Other characterization changes while I'm at it:

1) Tarr is more likeable, partly because the script trims a lot of his caddishness, but also because he's Tom Hardy. Like, the AU Michael Fassbender version of this character would have given off a way different vibe. XD; (See: Haywire, which I should review at some point. Also, this is the alternate universe where Jared Harris is Alleline and John Hurt is cast as Smiley, so Gary Oldman gets to be Robert Downey Jr.'s Moriarty.)

2) Mark Strong ttly owns Jim Prideaux, but the more I think about it the more I feel like book!Prideaux is unsettling in a way movie!Prideaux isn't? I mean, I could have just been lost by the end, but I thought the movie version of the hit was sanctioned or at least semi-sanctioned. In the book, not only is it not sanctioned, you don't get to see Prideaux figure the plot out and decide to take matters into his own hands (Smiley doesn't tell him, so he tails Smiley and Guillam and puts it together himself). Again as dubdobdee points out, it's not the "moral" action to take, because they lose their blown networks to the Russians (who now have no incentive to trade).

Like, the thing about Prideaux as a character, in the book, is he doesn't seem to have much of an inner life when you encounter him head-on - not even when you're in his perspective. He's ttly srs and externally oriented. You get this steady pileup of third-party evidence** that he loved and trusted Haydon, and a bunch of hints that of the Circus dudes, he's the coldest killer in the field. (In fact, based on the reader's bkgnd info, Haydon's execution - which is way more frighteningly intimate in the book - is so much Prideaux's "handwriting" that the other dudes should have figured it out immediately. XD;; Not that they eventually don't.) The movie shows you the scene, and something of what the characters were feeling through it, but in the book you're left to your own horrible imaginings, basically.


** I was reading like, so I guess their relationship is meant to be ambiguous... then I was like, wait, by the standard of WHAT IS AMBIGUITY in this book? This is completely out in the open, lol.

I keep forgetting that I was actually at the red carpet premiere of this. XD; ("Colleeeeeeeen!")

Comments

[arboretum]

I keep forgetting that I was actually at the red carpet premiere of this. XD; ("Colleeeeeeeen!")

NOT READING THE REST OF THE POST at least not until i've read the book

but can i just say, JEALOUS OF YOUR LIFE and leave it at that XDDDD

it's so cool that you were at the premiere of this. just. so cool lskdjfkhjlsjdlh.

[petronia]

OK let's see if this works, these are gonna be huge and they are taken via crappy iPod camera. XD;


Gary Oldman being snazzy


Colin Firth and his amazing wife

None of the Cumberbatch ones turned out any good, though I had the clearest shot there, sigh. He had the Guillam hair which IMO is better than the Sherlock one actually.

Anyway the insane thing is that all these ppl are BETTER LOOKING IN PERSON. Like however much photographs make regular people look funny, the same also applies to movie stars. Colin Firth is like... you can tell he works out, lolol.

[arboretum]

GODDLKJKSJDFKHSDFH ♥

also lmao i agree, the sherlock hair is kind of ludicrous if you even stop to think about it for like one second?! otoh i think he looks better with dark hair than he does blond.

[brooms]

so Gary Oldman gets to be Robert Downey Jr.'s Moriarty

wait, were there rumors about this? god, that would have been a waste.

Tarr is more likeable, partly because the script trims a lot of his caddishness, but also because he's Tom Hardy.

yes. still incredibly glad fassbender bowed out and hardy took the role. the cast was already overflowing with great actors who give a perpetual shady vibe. it was good that there were two somewhat endearing characters in peter and ricki instead of just peter.

[petronia]

No, not at all. XD It's just the "logical" conclusion (all the rest was casting that really did almost happen). Gary Oldman would make a really great Moriarty, though!

[brooms]

i don't doubt it, but i dislike those movies.

[flax.livejournal.com]

Man, I need to read this book, because my <3s for the movie were many (although admittedly probably leaning heavily on the awesomeness of the cast), but this makes the book sound EVEN MORE AWESOME than I already thought it would be.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

It is really good! I like it a lot! It's much more leisurely structured than the movie, though.

[naanima.livejournal.com]

1 Book Tarr was also a USER of women. I found him so much more creepy and skeevy in the books than the film. My reaction to book!Tarr was along the lines of DIAF! My reaction to movie!Tarr was along the lines of, HAVE A COOKIE, YOU WOOBIE. I’m a product of my upbringing and feels no guilt at making cooing noises at manpain.

2 Jim Prideaux was definitely more discerning in the book than the film. For me, it was down to the way he dealt with the owl and Bill in the book vs. movie. There is something to be said about shooting your (ex)lover in the face as opposed to snapping his neck.

What did you think about Peter Guillam’s character changes? I’m quite happy with it as I view the film and the book as two separate universes, but I know some hard core fans were very annoyed.

ETA to #1 - I'm curious about your Haywire thoughts. Have not seen the film yet, but the cast list made me lift an eyebrow, and I have seen the fight sequence between main lead female and Fassbender. And you are right, the likability of Tarr in the movie owes a great deal to Hardy.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I talked about Guillam in my other post, but to recap, I think the film made an improvement there! As in, the one thematic point of the Guillam/Camilla relationship is to demonstrate what a noxious effect Circus work has on these guys' ability to trust/love in their normal lives, it's otherwise repetitively annoying [INSERT ROTE CHARACTERISATION HERE] and it's not like Le Carre knows how to write the inner lives of women at all XD, apart from Circus ppl like Connie, so Camilla doesn't get any development. (Heck, neither does Ann. None of these super spies notice anything about Ann except that she's posh and hawt. She's more perceptive about them! Again on the ILX thread, it's pointed out that one of the things that keeps you reading is the subconscious expectation that you'll get a gradual reveal re: WHY SMILEY AND ANN ARE EVEN MARRIED, but you never do. Because Smiley himself is clueless.)

The movie makes the same point ("spy work will destroy your relationship") in like 15 seconds, completely economically. It also sets up a direct parallel between Guillam and Haydon, because it's not so clear in the movie how much Guillam admired Haydon and modelled himself on him; and the subtext then becomes, how many of these ppl went into this line of work because they were used to living double lives already? (As opposed to, never trust bisexuals because they are always PLAYING BOTH SIDES!!!) There's also some foreshadow-y mirroring of the Haydon/Prideaux relationship in the book that's sort of dropped from the movie otherwise, so.

[naanima.livejournal.com]

This is what happens when I read the TOP entry of a journal.

le Carre does NOT know how to write women beyond them eing cyphers. And yes, Smiley is entirely clueless when it comes to Ann. One does wonder why Ann even married him.

I was having this conversation with somebody at work how the film is amazing at the AMOUNT of information it packs into two hours. How EVERY, SINGLE thing in this film SERVES a plot/character devise. There is a purpose, and the whole thing is just glorious.

[ampersandals.livejournal.com]

because it's not so clear in the movie how much Guillam admired Haydon and modelled himself on him;
Hijacking thread for this. I haven't read the book or anything, and I don't think I was paying close attention to the actual plot so I didn't know of Guillam's feelings re: Haydon - but one thing that I was somehow sure of was that Guillam's going to end up dressing like Haydon once he's older and has more luxuries. Idk why, but I just feel like they have the same sort of aesthetic when it comes to dressing up, starting with the flashy ties. /random

The ending was pretty sinister but mostly it just made me sad :( *weak*

[petronia.livejournal.com]

arboretum found this really good breakdown (http://hellotailor.blogspot.com/2011/11/movie-costumes-i-have-loved-tinker.html) of the styles in the movie. XD

I actually want to make another post about this - how there's all this characterization info that's not in the dialogue but that you do pick up on, consciously or subconsciously.

[ampersandals.livejournal.com]

Oooh, this is really great, especially the break-down on Haydon. Thanks! (I recently read somewhere that red socks are a sign of class.)

I actually want to make another post about this - how there's all this characterization info that's not in the dialogue but that you do pick up on, consciously or subconsciously.
*Exactly* how I feel. I mean, I had no particular strong feelings for any of the characters, but the costuming set up a lot of visual cues that gave more body to the characterization, I loved it so much.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

In short: Haywire is very, very lightweight, but Gina Carano(?) is extremely charismatic in a natural way, and you have the pleasure of watching her face for 90 minutes, basically. And also her kicking the shit out of various male movie stars, if that happens to be your kink. XD As with TTSS, it's partially a portrayal of how international espionage and assassination could simply be a job, with its own boring/bureaucratic elements.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

1) Oh, yeah, Tom Hardy = MAJOR WOOBIE. There's a lot more manly tears in the movie all around, it feels like. XD

2) It's so harped upon too! Like the movie kind of loses that entire section of Jim Prideaux being the uber-competent (but still doomed) field agent in Czecho, during which he was like, I should have broken that guy's neck! It would have been easy! No one else in the book kills like that, not even Ricki. But he's also supposed to be the gentle, watchful one under the sporty action man cover. Like you know at uni Haydon would have been the talker and Prideaux would have just stood next to him saying nothing ever.

[naanima.livejournal.com]

1) This is the first time I have ever loved Hardy so. SO MUCH MANLY TEARS! It is awesome.

2) OHHHHHHHH! The whole being chased down in the snow. YES! Just yes. His badassness does get reduced sligthly in the film. But his fascination with neck snapping is all sorts of FASCINATING.

I was reading you post about the book, and how you were relating to PoT (BTW, thanks for that, now my brain will FOREVER link everyone in the book/film with PoT.), but yes, they would be like Atobe and what's-his-name (I was very tempted to equal them to the Golden Pair, but there it jsut DOESN't work. SADS!).

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing is I'm also meant to be writing a TezuFuji giftfic, sorta, and I don't really remember anything except my own futureverse. And Tezuka adopts a new identity in that, which I suppose is partially why my brain went there all of a sudden. XD;;