My Ebert Connection to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

“I confess I was confused some of the time and lost at other times; the viewer needs to hold in mind a large number of characters, a larger number of events and an infinite number of possibilities.”

 – Roger Ebert

When I read Ebert’s review of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I was relieved. I’m in good company, for the above quote was my exact response to the movie. In fact, I had to go home and look up the synopsis of this movie in order to write this review.  That synopsis reading included a lot of “oh, ok, now I get it” sort of thoughts, but I must confess, nothing shocking. I found that for the most part, I had all the pieces of the puzzle laid out in the correct order, but just hadn’t locked them all into place.

If you were to see this movie with the thought that it was a spy thriller in the tradition of, say, James Bond, you would be sorely mistaken.  This is not the action-packed, hunky leading man meets sex-kitten, 007, Pussy Galore movie we’ve come to associate with spy thrillers; rather, this was a look at what real spy work must be like, not the Hollywood version.  Leading men are tired and cigarette-stained, leading ladies (if indeed there are any) are merely peripheral. Sexual portrayals are not shot with moving music or steamy dialogue; rather, they are shot unemotionally, as a backdrop to other activity.

            None of the characters were portrayed with any emotional attachment that would lead you to think “he’s one of the good guys”. In fact, before I read the synopsis, I viewed the ending of the movie as a possible twist where the supposed hero was actually the villain.  This is one of several ways this film was different from your typical Hollywood offering.

            Based on John Le Carre’s 1974 novel, the tale was first made into a BBC miniseries in 1979. This could have been promising, as it would give the viewer more time to disseminate the riddles and come up with an intelligent conclusion.  Le Carre would have known his material; he himself was a British spy betrayed by a double agent to Russia.

            The movie stars Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Ciaran Hinds, David Dencik  and Gary Oldman, whose performance earned him an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. Set in London in the early 1970’s, the movie centers around the premise that there is a mole in the top levels of the British Secret Service, selling secrets to the Russians. Who that mole might be is the question that must be answered, and we are fairly certain early on that one of the five or six characters we are following is the culprit.

            What follows is a complex and perplexing weave of various datelines, story lines, and characterizations. We find that Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) aka “Tailor,” has been having an affair with the wife of George Smiley, (Gary Oldman) aka “Beggar man”.  This serves no real purpose in the movie; or does it?  This is one of the details I filed away, but for which I never seemed to find a reason.  There is a lot of double-agent business going on, which made it difficult to follow.  Secrets, which the head group at MI6 believed to be bogus, were passed to the Russians with the hope that the Russians would then give their real secrets, but because of the mole, real secrets were being passed to the Russians, and only bogus information was received in return.  The American’s were involved at some point, but I’m not sure why. Sounds confusing?  Don’t worry, it is.

            The most redeeming part of this film was the cinematography.  The footage is grainy, very similar to movies of the early 1970’s (think The Parallax View, only darker and less engaging) with dreary images that clearly set the tone.  For the most part the camera work was static, but there were whole sequences where the camera would pan wide, then zoom in for close ups, then begin again.  At other times, the camera was almost uncomfortably close.  To be honest, I don’t remember if there was a sound track to this movie; the cinematography did so much more to set the tone and create suspense. 

            One thing that really sticks out to me about the film is its almost utter lack of emotion. Smiley shows practically no emotion when he finds out his wife is having an affair with a Haydon, and even when emotion is portrayed, it seems the viewer is supposed to simply view, not participate.

            I’m torn by this movie. On one hand, I utterly disliked the complexity and confusion, as well as the matter-of-fact portrayals and lack of emotion. But perhaps this is how I’m supposed to feel.  After all, as I stated at the beginning, this was no Bond flick, but a much more realistic look inside the world of spies and international intrigue, which is, well, complex and confusing, matter-of-fact, and without emotion.

            But that’s not why I go to movies. I go for great performances that move me, that cause me to want to talk about the movie and digest it. I am not looking for fluff; I want to have to think.  But I don’t want to have to think this hard.  There was no relaxing during this movie and letting it play out to the climactic revelation. I had to be “on” all the time, constantly trying to fit the pieces together. It was not fun.

            I’ll begin where I left off, with my Ebert connection to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.  Roger said it so well, I couldn’t have said it better myself:

                        “I enjoyed the film's look and feel, the perfectly modulated performances, and the whole tawdry world of spy and counterspy, which must be among the world's most dispiriting occupations. But I became increasingly aware that I didn't always follow all the allusions and connections. On that level, "Tinker Tailor" didn't work for me.”

Parenthood- The Series

Does your family get on your nerves?  Are you like me, and think that there is no family as whacky, loving or disfunctional than yours?  Then you should be watching Parenthood.

Airing on NBC on Tuesday nights at 9 central time, Parenthood is one of those series that has managed to take a virtually unknown cast (sans Craig T. Nelson, of  the 1990's tv series "Coach" and various movie roles) and create a raw, realistic family unit.

Set in the San Francisco area, the Braverman family is headed by parents Zeek(Nelson)  and Camille(Bonnie Bedelia), a couple who began their relationship in the free love Hippie days of the 1960's.  They share four children, Adam(Peter Krause), the oldest sibling to whom each family member- including the parents- look for advice and strength;  Sarah (Lauren Graham), a free-spirited single mother of two teenage children whose ex husband deals with drug and alcohol addiction; Crosby (Dax Shepherd), a direction-less single father of a bi-racial son, whose ex girlfriend only introduced him to his son at the age of five; and Julia (Erika Christensen), a high powered lawyer, mother of an only child, whose husband is a stay-at-home dad; adult children who range from thirty to forty something.  Rounding out the cast are a collection of seven grandchildren; three teenagers in various stages of teenage angst, one adolescent who deals with Asperger's Syndrome- a form of autism, two six year olds and an infant.

This show is not afraid to tackle the issues of any family; teenage sex and drug abuse, bi-racial families, behavioral disorders, you name it, the show handles it, and usually in a pretty realistic way; not everyone in the family agrees, and the problems aren't typically wrapped up in the one hour segment, but the storyline usually ends with an affirmation of the family's love for one another, even when they fight.

One of the criticisms of the show is how the cast "talk over" each other, interrupting the dialogue and literally fighting for the stage.  I think this is one of the most realistic aspects of the show.

Perhaps my favorite aspect of the show is the soundtrack that goes along with each episode, showcasing various indie groups, as well as being headed by Bob Dylan's version of "Forever Young".

Even if you think you're not ready to tackle the issues of parenthood, I promise you can relate to this show. If you are a brother or sister, mother, father, son or daughter, this is a show for you.

I Will Always Love You

Quick exercise- Google Whitney Houston and see how many results you get.  My query garnered 2,550,000,000 results in .14 seconds. Click here to view results. The untimely death of the diva has been front page news since last Saturday afternoon. I guess my question is this; is this much hype warranted?  Don't get me wrong; I am very sorry for her family's loss, and I, too, feel the sense of sadness that she was lost so young.  But I must be honest; I'm a bit surprised at the publicity, considering how long Houston has been out of the spotlight, especially for any positive reasons.

On Monday, one of my coworkers commented "You know, the truth of it is that I grieved for Whitney Houston a long time ago when she threw her talent away on drugs and alcohol".  I find this statement callous and dispassionate, even though there is a ring of truth to it.  But this is what makes it such a tough comment; have we really become so cynical that we no longer believe a person can redeem themselves while they still have breath to breath?  True, Houston may have never revived her singing career; her voice was less than stellar on her last album.  But what of the reported efforts to turn her life around?  Don't they count as a reason to consider someone of value to mourn? Or do we only mourn when the deceased had something to offer, some visible talent to idolize?

On the other hand, we are a country at war, and I daresay that neither you or I could name the U.S. Army soldier who also died on Saturday, only his death came through the instrument of war? No?  Private First Class Cesar Cortez of California.  All that to say that we are a country who gives attention and praise, and apparently grief, to those who entertain us, but completely ignore those who fight for us.  I can understand why some feel that Ms. Houston's death has received unwarranted facetime.

But perhaps we should take a lead from Houston's own family.  They have reportedly declined a public spectacle to honor Houston, opting instead for a private memorial service in her home church in New Jersey, with only a handful of celebrities in attendance.  The one concession the family has made is to the service being televised. Plans for Houston's Funeral  Will this be enough to satisfy the information-hungry masses? One can only hope that the family is left to bury their loved one with dignity.

Alcatraz

My husband and I must be the DVR king and queen of the Midwest; we are now in the habit of setting the device to record any new shows we think we might want to follow, in addition to the 10-15 regular shows already in the queue. Once in a while, we come across a gem that we add to the regular offerings and follow religiously, and sometimes we can't delete the show fast enough. For the most part, though, the jury is out until we've watched a few episodes.  Such is the case with Alcatraz.
Based on the theory that Alcatraz didn't close in March 1963 as previously supposed, but the 300+ inmates and guards simply disappeared, and a mass cover up ensued. Each episode follows one of the inmates (or guards, or both) who have mysteriously reappeared 49 years later, having not aged one day, and are reaking havoc in the San Francisco area.  The suspects are hunted by a 20 something year old female cop, a comic store owner with 2 PhD's specializing in Alactraz, as well as a former guard who, as a young man, discovered the empty "rock". Once the criminals  are apprehended, they are returned to a pristine "ward" housed under Alcatraz
There is plenty of action, and I like the premise of the show; being a history buff, this kind of appeals to my delight in the idea of "time travel".  But there are a lot of unanswered questions as well. Why are these prisoners and employees just now returning, and where have they been?  Why haven't they aged?  What is the former guard's connection?
I'm willing to wait it out for a few episodes, and willingly suspend my disbelief, to have these question s answered.  But what bothers me the most is that these questions don't seem to be raised in the show. There doesn't seems to be a sense of suspense to have the questions answered, just to get the prisoners back.  
I'll give it til the end of this pilot season, and then we'll see...