Le dénonciateur

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.

This movie is among the last espionage and spy thrillers to be made during the decades of the Soviet Union and Cold War. "The Whistle Blower" won't be remembered far into the future, but some very great movies made in that time will be. Before finishing up on this film, a little review of the period and its subject settings might be of interest.

It's hard to imagine that anyone alive by 2020 would rue the demise of the U.S.S.R. But, since 1990 Hollywood has mostly lost a milieu that hosted a substantial sub-genre of films. The Cold War was the arena for action, mystery spy films. The world was its stage because the tentacles of the Soviet Union reached around the globe, just as Western trade, military security and humanitarian alliances did.

For the first couple of decades after World War II, many stories and movies came out about escapes through the Berlin Wall and other areas along the Iron Curtain. Then there were many films about espionage. Ian Fleming's stories about agent 007, James Bond, were started before the war, but continued until near the end of the century. Many of the James Bond films added another dimension of the fictional life of espionage with the Soviets. "From Russia With Love" of 1963, "You Only Live Twice" of 1967, and "Never Say Never Again" of 1983 starred Sean Connery. Others of half a dozen actors to play Bond included spy thrillers with the Russians - "The Spy Who Loved Me" of 1977 and "Moonraker" of 1979, with Roger Moore.

There were many other dramatic and action stories of espionage based on novels, some historical, others just fiction. Richard Burton starred in the 1965 classic, "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold." Michael Caine starred in two successive spy flicks in 1966 and 1967, "Funeral in Berlin" and "Billion Dollar Brain." Burt Lancaster made "Scorpio" in 1973, and Charles Bronson starred in the spy action thriller, "Telefon" of 1977.

Even comedies cashed in - so to speak, on Soviet Union relations and the Cold War. Four films remain among the best satires of all time. Two are before the U.S. got into WW II. "Ninotchka" of 1939 starred Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas, and "Comrade X" of 1940 starred Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr. Then, well into the Cold War just before the Berlin Wall went up, James Cagney and Horst Buchholz starred in "One, Two, Three" in 1961. And three years later, the blockbuster satire, "Dr. Strangelove" came out. It starred Peter Sellers, George C. Scott and a host of other top actors.

Even mystery master filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock got into the making Soviet-era espionage thrillers. Another one of the great films of all time was "North by Northwest" of 1959 that starred Cary Grant, James Mason and Eva Marie Saint. In 1966, Hitchcock made "Torn Curtain" that starred Paul Newman and Julie Andrews; and in 1969, he made "Topaz" that starred Frederick Stafford and Dany Robin.

Some real-life stories of espionage were being uncovered or revealed during that time, but the movies on such spies as Kim Philby and the Cambridge Five wouldn't come out until the 21st century. And, of course there were TV movies and mini-series about Cold War espionage. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended, and with it, the Iron Curtain fell. That was the barrier - on paper at first, and then in walls and high security fences that shut off Eastern Europe from the rest of the world. Winston Churchill had coined the name for it while riding a train at night in the U.S. to give a speech. On March 5, 1946, in his speech at Westminster College in Fulton, MO, Churchill used the term, "iron curtain."

"The Whistle Blower" is a British spy thriller in which Michael Caine's character, Frank Jones, shakes up England's intelligence hierarchy. Jones is a Royal Navy career retiree and veteran of the Korean War who starts digging after his son turns up dead. It was supposedly a suicide. But Jones had met with his son recently, and Bob (played by Nigel Havers) had told him that there was a mole in British intelligence.

Bob worked for GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), and said he was going to quit because of the overly suspicious policies being imposed. He says it was so that MI6 would look trustworthy to the American CIA for handling the mole matter. But he says he's worried with what he's heard. He knows the Russian language and listens in on Soviet communications. While Frank thought he was overreacting, when Bob is reported dead from suicide, he decides to investigate himself.

There's plenty of action and intrigue as Frank uncovers the truth. It has a somewhat surprising ending, but one that most viewers may appreciate. This isn't anything along the lines of the best spy films, but those who enjoy this type of film should find it entertaining.

The Whistle Blower tells a story which is likely to be obsolete nowadays. The end of the cold war rendered stories of this nature difficult to perceive but was written at a time when relations between the US and USSR were strained and scandals were rife in British Intelligence and at GCHQ.

The film tells the story of a jittery secret service heavily reliant on American information to help keep the soviets at bay. It demonstrates how the service would have reacted to the allegation that there were soviet agents within organisations such as GCHQ and how they may have been dealt with. The eventual reasoning is cruel and cold and leaves the watcher wondering if events like this really did take place at the time.

The Whistle Blower tells a good story which is easy to follow and comprehend. It is bolstered by a good cast but let down by poor direction making it staid in places.

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!

Michael Caine plays Frank Jones, a war veteran and patriotic British citizen who is shocked to learn about the mysterious death of his son, who had worked as a Russian translator for British Intelligence. Frank reluctantly becomes convinced that his own government had his son killed because he was going to "blow the whistle" on illegal and unethical behavior by his employers. Not deterred by the usual "national security" defense of the killers, Frank is determined to bring his son's killers to justice, whether it be by legal or illegal means...

First-rate conspiracy drama has fine acting by all, and Caine quite believable as the grieving and outraged father. Film makes thoughtful observations about government secrets, and the "who watches the watchers?" debate. Worth seeking out.