A slow burn mystery...

Rating: 7/10 (8 February 2012)

As with the last film I saw at the cinema recently (Hugo), this is another movie which has a leisurely, if not genteel pace. In my brief notes for this film I make a faux pas...I assumed it was based on fact. Not sure why I would think that...I've never seen any version of this story before, but maybe some names from it had seeped into my consciousness, like "Smiley", perhaps.
Even though this is an English spy story, it's unlike the kind which are usually brought to mind by that phrase (such as the James Bond series). There are some moments of shocking violence in this movie or the aftermath of same, but they are spaced at long intervals. If you are patient, the main 'hook' of this movie is guessing who the mole or double agent in the highest reaches of Britain's secret service is. However, I don't think that this is a 'proper' whodunnit movie, as in the viewer being presented with clues which allows one to deduce who the mole is.
That's the thrust of this story...after a British operative is killed in an overseas operation, none of the senior spooks of 'The circus' (the name the spies give to their organisation) are immune from suspicion. So, a recently retired spook is brought in to find the traitor.
Personally I found this a bit hard to follow...if I'd made my faux pas here, I would have said a documentary form would have been a better way to know what happened, assuming one was interested in the facts of the case. Some of the senior spooks seem like likely candidates for the mole...I'd often find myself looking to one or other spook and hypothesising them to be the mole. In a sense the clues are 'red herrings', but in another sense they are merely misdirections, as the suspect could have legitimate reasons for acting in a way which may cast suspicion on their motives. Anyway, my hypotheses did get a bit silly at times!
The movie itself looks like it could have been shot in the late 1960s or into the 1970s. The narrative is told in an elliptical manner...certain events and details being returned to, on occasion.
There are some interesting titbits in this movie...be interesting to know if they have a factual basis...e.g. the staff of The Circus singing the Soviet anthem! (I think that that's what it is!) and what we learn of American torture techniques, which sound ghastly. Also liked the line in this movie about choosing sides in the Cold War "It was an aesthetic choice as much as a moral one".
One of the failings of this movie, I think, is that it's not always clear what is happening in it...there's one scene where the man investigating The Circus for the mole - George Smiley, I believe, played by Gary Oldman - is upset by seeing a woman fondled by another man. I had no idea who the woman was and perhaps the man touching her either. I can presume who she was and the man too, but really, the audience should have been explicitly shown who these people were so that they would know why Smiley was upset. If details were given, then due to the leisurely pace of the movie, one could assume that we would have forgotten this information...hence a reminder being given to us would have been useful.
Some irrelevant observations:
Toby Jones - played by Percy Alleline - reminded me of the actor Dick van Patten!
Peter Guillam - played by Benedict Cumberbatch - reminded me of the actor Glenn Robbins...in Kel mode...or the guy who did the daggy dancing in the Fast Forward sketch series, I believe! I think it was Guillam who gave me this impression...didn't make a note on it...and it relates to my point of feeling in the dark about these people...difficult keeping tabs on all of them...who they are...what they do etc.
Was amused by the use of the song "The second best secret agent in the whole wide world"...might be interesting to look these lyrics up!
Anyway, I was glad I didn't make the faux pas of including in my notes the observation that it was "odd" that the film had the usual disclaimer at the end credits about it being a work of fiction...PHEW!