The Whistle Blower

I notice that Netflix has this film listed under "Thrillers." It's not a thriller, but rather a fairly complex drama about what happens when people who are schooled not to trust anyone have almost unlimited power with no accountability. There's never a "stupid moment" in this film that reveals to us, the audience, or to Michael Caine as the protagonist, who the bad guys are or what they've done. We have to peel the layers off the onion along with Michael Caine. There is no James Bond ending in which the bad guys' island explodes and collapses into the sea. Instead, there is a real world ending tailored for adults. I liked the film.

I'm surprised that this movie has not got more attention on the IMDb, of course it's dated which might be the problem. Another problem is that the film print comes across as dreary and dull, I don't know if it was a deliberate attempt by the film makers to do this but it just makes it harder to watch. It's not a young cast, on the contrary it's an old looking cast, although a fine collection of British character actors (some who are no longer with us) of a bygone age. In addition unless you are interested in British political culture, history and the antics of the cold war you will find this hard going even if you are a Michael Caine fan .There is a lot of dialog and the story line is a little confusing at times.

However, in the light of recent events, Britain always going along with the USA, the Butler report on Britains reason for war in Iraq and the apparent suicide of UN weapons inspector David Kelly a critic and skeptic of the US and Britains claim of Iraqi WMD programs, as well as recent accusations that Harold Wilsons Govt in the 1970's was to be overthrown in favor of a military government either at the bequest of the US or at least with their blessing;I thought that it might have aroused more interest.

This movie was released in 1986 ironically at the time when the cold war was winding down but the fictional events depicted in this film were surly inspired by the Anthony Blunt scandal, the Jeffrey Prime case at GCHQ ( a British intelligence listening post), as well as the Thatcher government banning trade union activity at GCHQ on the grounds of national security. The film depicts skepticism about Britains so called independent nuclear deterrent which totally relied on US authorization, the inequities in the so called "special relationship" and CIA/MI6 meddling in British politics. Also, bugging, internal spying on British citizens, lack of intelligence service oversight, secrecy and lastly hypocrisy or double standard when dealing with moles and traitors. All in all a Guardian readers 'wet dream'.

The conventional thinking was that all Soviet sympathizers and potential traitors were from the working class. Well the problem was they were not. Many top members of the British establishment working in the civil service and the intelligence services who had access to sensitive information loathed the USA and that the Suez fiasco back in 1956 was a turning point for many of them. Although It has to be said that many British double agents and soviet moles were not just motivated by that but were recruited as far back as the 1930's. Many students from in the "Oxbridge" University systems who were Britains best and brightest destined for great things were motivated by their hatred of the Nazi/fascism passed secrets onto the USSR during WWW II and well into the cold war. Suez may have vindicated their beliefs.

The movie implies that the if you were from the respected establishment or of a certain class of person the 'official secrets act' did not apply to you. You would be spared the indignity of a public trial and the humiliation of exposure, however it was a two edged sword because it cut both ways. It would also cause too many red faces at the top as well as creating difficulties in the 'special relationship'. They would leave you alone to continue with all the perks provided you kept quiet and cooperated with the powers that be. On the other hand lower down the food chain you were not so fortunate. Not only were you likely to be prosecuted through the normal channels but if you were really unlucky you might end up being a victim of a CIA death squad who quietly knock off suspected whistle blowers and possible troublemakers rather than go through a costly and public trial.

As for the film itself there is good cast all round and many of the characters are very believable in their respective roles. Frank Jones (Michael Caine) is not fobbed off by an sweetheart investigation into his sons death which concludes suicide. While conducting his own investigation, he discovers irregularities and soon suspects a cover up, but worse that his own countries security services might be involved in his sons death after all. Jones a lifetime committed patriot and former navy man he is shocked to learn of the lengths that the British establishment go to protect one of their own despite their treachery at the expense of less mortals! I highly recommend this movie, check it out!

"I still believe the man in the white hat always wins," Bob Jones (Nigel Havers) tells his father (Michael Caine). They'll both have reason to doubt that later on.

Caine plays Frank Jones, a man whose son works as a linguist at GCHQ. A mole for the Russians has been discovered, and since then, Bob Jones has become suspicious that something strange is going on, especially after there are a couple of "suicides." He confides in his father, who is concerned that Bob keep his job in a difficult economy, especially since he wants to marry a young woman with a child. She's in the process of getting a divorce.

When something happens to Bob, Frank tries to get to the bottom of it and learns some ugly truths, particularly when a journalist he is on his way to see meets with an unhappy end.

Michael Caine gives an excellent, touching performance as a man trying to make things right, and Nigel Havers is wonderful as his son. There are spot-on performances by James Fox, John Gielgud, Barry Foster, and Gordon Jackson in his final film.

Very good film, perhaps a bit dated now, with the British trying to keep the Americans as happy allies, and it doesn't give any final or easy answers. The novel was written in 1984, and this film was released in 1987.

A Brit on this board referred to this as a "Michael Caine filler" - I guess he has made a ton of films, but he's always worth seeing.

The dreary plot in this film is made overly complicated by bad directing and poor editing. Caine, Fox, Gielgud and Havers have all been in much better films. Don't do as I did and watch this on the strength of the cast - they don't deliver, and if even they had it would not have rescued the trudging script of this thrill-less thriller. 3/10

Michael Caine has been involved in some stinkers in his career (let's face it every actor has to pay the bills); he has also made plenty of very good films and also plenty of films like 'The Whistle-Blower': an above average and very watchable drama of the second-rank. In fact it's Caine's solid acting (mostly low-key though he does get to fly off the handle in his own inimitable style a couple of times) which invests the film with believable emotion and elevates it above it's many clichés. The supporting cast is strong too; a cynical, amoral, self-serving and oft sinister intelligence industry is portrayed ably by Gordon Jackson, James Fox and John Gielgud.

It's a shame that the demands of marketing mean that a film is often plugged as something it isn't. In this case 'The Whistle-Blower' is not a thriller (in fact the one and only 'action' scene - a car crash -is pretty rubbish and looks a bit tacked on), and it is only superficially a story about cold-war espionage (there are plenty of references to Anthony Blunt et al, but it's no 'Smiley's People'). Essentially it's a drama about loss; a man's loss of faith (in this case in his country) and, of his son. I'd point any harsh detractors of this film to the scene where, soon after learning of his sons death, Jones (Caine) attempts to discuss what happened with his son's neighbour and colleague, Rose (Dinah Stabb), and I challenge them not to be moved and at the same time chilled by the exchange.

Yes, this film does have plenty of flaws. Cinematically it is pretty dull and dated; it has a bit of that naff 1970's/80's home-counties feel to it (though in some ways one could argue I suppose that this style aids in the depiction of the stolid, grey, snobby, repressed British establishment of the story... an establishment trying to cope with it's diminished, subservient place in the world while keeping up the public pretence that Britannia still rules the waves). It's full of clichés and undeveloped characters, and the screen-play has plenty of downs as well as ups; but credit where credit is due, it is at times thought provoking and engaging. It shouldn't be put down for trying to cram a lot of things in and so appearing sometimes a bit unsubtle as a result (as I said previously it's no 'Smileys People').

I felt compelled to follow Jones' journey through a cynical, venal and uncaring world, and in that fundamental manner, for me, the film is a success.