Avaliações de usuários

Sir Alec Guinness is so good at being George Smiley that John LeCarre claims he can no longer write the character about without seeing Guinness' face. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, and the script captures the novel almost flawlessly. It takes six hours because the story is complex and ranges over many years and many characters, but it is so well-written and acted that the any viewer with an attention span longer than that of a gnat can easily keep track of who did what and when, so that the ultimate unmasking of the traitor may be a surprise, but it is not a shock.

Although not as sympathetic or achingly romantic as 'The Russia House', this stunning TV adaptation is the closest the screen has gotten to the singular world of John le Carre. Very few writers actually become so synonymous with their age that we look to their works to find out what a period of history was like. When we think of the Cold War, and, most especially, the shabby bureaucracy of British espionage, it is le Carre we think of.

What le Carre shares with Graham Greene, making him a million miles from the priapic fantasies of James Bond, is in showing how the Cold War literally degraded everyone. Fils like 'Ninotchka' like to show the massive disparity between the dour, repressive, monotonous Soviet Union and the glitteringly superficial, gaily materialist West. Le Carre suggests that both sides of the Iron Curtain are merely of the same coin, at the executive level at least. You expect to see 1980 Czechoslovakia as a run-down, provincial dump; but this film's England reminded me of Svankmajer's 'Alice', as it details a society, a system, an ethic, a code grinding towards inertia, a world becoming increasingly closed in that it can only be jabbed into life by shocks of betrayal.

This England is a pure mirror image of our stereotypes of the East - a system run by chilling, amoral men with perfect manners (the most frightening thing about the narrative is that any one of the suspects could have done it, each one has so lost any kind of basic humanity, never mind idealism, that it is almost irrelevant who the traitor is) gathering together in anonymous meeting rooms, or an endless rondelay of joyless dinners; a world of cramped, impersonal decor, generally sucked in by shadows, so that we can't even be sure it's men we see, or the flickering grin of the Cheshire Cat; a world of men, where one of the three female characters is an absent joke until the last five minutes, another is tortured and murdered by her superiors, and the third is sacked for competence, reduced to scraping money from grinds, a paralysed, blubbing outcast; a drab world where all colour and life has been seeped out, or goes by unnoticed, where jokes are bitter and grim, where the (very Soviet) elevator disrepair signals a wider, fundamental malaise.

If it's fun you want, get 'You Only Live Twice' - the action here is generated from its milieu - dank, meticulous, pedantic, slow, inexorable, unsensational. This is where a 6 hour TV adaptation has the edge on a feature film - cramming a le Carre plot into the latter can make it seem rushed and exciting; this film brings out all its civil-service ingloriousness superbly (although the figure of Karla is a little too SMERSHy for my tastes).

Bill Hayden says you can tell the soul of a nation from its intelligence service, and this film, despite the go-getting yuppie 80s or the success of heritage TV ('Jewel in the Crown', 'Brideshead Revisited') is perhaps the closest representation of a kind of soul, public school, Oxbridge, Whitehall, male. In equating this world with impotence and sterility (Smiley is childless), the material errs in equating homosexuality as the ultimate, literal inversion, a closing in, of minds, spirit etc.

But the metaphor of the betrayed friendship as representative of a wider betrayal is less a corny contrivance than an indication of how fundamentally incestuous this world is. These men slipping in and out of shadows are ghosts, fighting a war that doesn't exist, nitpicking over irrelevant ideological puzzles that have lost all meaning. The 'good' guys are no better than the bad - Peter Guillam, though dogged and loyal, is little more than a thug; Ricky Tarr is new yuppie incarnate in all his cocky repulsiveness.

Smiley, marvellously essayed by Alec Guinness - more obviously sharper than in the book, Hercules cleaning out the Aegean stables - loses even the barest traces of humanity, with vast reserves of calculated sadism and bureaucratic immorality, his thick glasses seeing all the detail and none of the big picture. Smiley needs the rules of the game more than anyone; without them he is left adrift in life, and the stupendous final shot shows how deeply that defeats him.

Unusually for TV, this is a film of rare visual imagination, not in the mistakenly flashy, spuriously 'cinematic' sense beloved of ambitious tyros, but in its exploration of the medium's claustrophobia, as it traps its protagonists, in particular the way the camera's point of view chillingly suggests somebody else looking on, spying on the spies, making everything we see provisional, especially the flashbacks, which elide as much as they reveal.

I've lost count over how many times I've watched this brilliant adaptation of John Le Carre's novel. Each time I watch it I find something new to marvel over. Guinness was perfectly cast for the role of George Smiley, and seemed to play the part almost effortlessly. The rest of the cast are also superb.

Audiences initially found the film slow, baffling or indeed boring. But the truth is that the life of a spy is so far removed from the 'James Bond' image that a more down-beat approach was needed to tackle the adaptation. It is through this film that we realise that the creation of George Smiley is a work of pure genius, and Guinness so perfectly portrays this, simply dominating every scene.

The plot seems quite simple at first, but as I have watched and re-watched the work (and read the novel) I realise that it is much more complex than it seems.

In conclusion, a first class cast giving superb performances throughout. Dominating the entire film is Alec Guinness, who deservedly won the BAFTA for best actor.

The book by John Le Carre is intricate and multi layered and to attempt to film it was brave of the BBC. One wishes they had such courage these days, but that is another story. It is a television masterpiece.

The acting is superb. Alec Guinness was made for the part of George Smiley. From his opening scene in a London bookshop to the last shot of his face he is mesmerising. The supporting cast are the cream of British actors at the time. Some of them only have one scene like John Standing, Beryl Reid, Joss Ackland and Nigel Stock but they become real people before your eyes. Ian Bannen as Jim Prideaux is particularly moving and Hewyl Bennett gives the performance of his life.Even the actors who don't say anything look just right.

It is plainly filmed but that adds to the atmosphere. On the face of it life is normal and ordinary but beneath there is betrayal, anguish, danger and pain. The motif of Russian dolls in the opening credits is good. Dolls with faces, then one without and then an emptiness. In the end Smiley solves the mystery but the mystery of life is beyond him.

The music is great,sparse but edgy. I can watch this time and again and still get something out of it.

It is rare that an adaptation of a complex novel translates well to the small screen. Often detail is eliminated for sake of time and the plot loses aspects that are key to the real story.

The team of John Le Carre and John Irvin has created what may go down as the benchmark for the Spy story mini series. In six hours of television they lay out piece by piece the background of each of the characters in a slow and gentle manner enabling the viewer to capture a sense of both the person and the time in which they are placed.

Irvin permits the story to move in a 'typical English manner', with George Smiley, the principal character almost rolling along from one event to another. Alec Guinness is outstanding in this role and it seems the it was either written with him in mind or he was born for it. I suspect the later is more likely. Smiley and his quirks are key to unravelling what is a complex plot with the usual twists and turns of they spy genre.

The casting of the rest of the players is equally superb with an ensemble performance by the who's who of the English stage. The goodies are all flawed people while the badies, many of who are within the British Secret Intelligence Service, are bad in the way that only the English can truly be to each other.

If you enjoy Le Carre and are prepared to put in 6 hours to view the entire series you you will be richly rewarded.

There are few movies that follow the book. There is no end to the comment, "The book was so much better." There is good reason for that with some films. "The Lord of the Rings" would have been five movies if you went "by the book". Interesting and enjoyable as that might be for Tolkien fans, it was impossible for film makers. Yet, "Tailor, Tinker, Soldier, Spy" as a movie defies that axiom.

Having read the book and seen the movie more than "several times", they still remain interconnected and indistinguishable. Yes, the book contains more detail, but may details are covered by innuendo, scene or background detail in the movie. Alec Guinness becomes Smiley so completely that his acting gives real meaning to the idea of a "character actor", even down to wiping his glasses with his tie. (you have to read the book for that one.)That is not to say, that Guinness is a robot and the movie is stiff in the name of faithfulness to the book, just the opposite.

The movie dawns the viewer in, just as the book draws in the reader, as part of the process of discovery; unraveling the mystery. As in a true "who done it" (or as one commentator put "who is it"), the viewer has no more foreknowledge than Smiley. You are introduced to all the characters, all have reasons to be the defector, all have reasons to distrust an investigation to the past, yet only one is ferreted-out.

The ending is consistent with the logic of the book and film, but, you still don't expect it. It's anti-climactic yet believable. The film, like to book, leaves one wondering how this could happen. It's thought provoking given many of the suspects comments thought-out the book/film. Both inspire thought more than resolution. The story challenges the reader/viewer to think and think well about the reasons for and purpose of spying as a whole. (The film is more English in cultural orientation, but the concept is universal, as many Americans have learned as well.)

A wonderful book transformed into visual. Great acting through-out, and you really hate all the right people....

Having just watched this film again (for about the tenth time) I am moved to say that few adaptations have brought such a well crafted book to the screen so brilliantly. Perhaps this was because the author also provided the screenplay ?

The acting, direction, lighting are superb and the whole is only further enhanced by the haunting music of Burgon. The pace and suspense are every bit as thrilling as the book.

One tip for lovers of this movie : try and get a copy of the follow-up, namely Smiley's People. It takes over very gently from Tinker, Tailor and leads on to the ultimate conclusion of Smiley's career.

Bravo !

This is not your usual spy / action story, . . .this is a story of ordinary men within an extra-ordinary world that few, if any, of us will ever be exposed to.

This is a thinking person's film, there are no setups, no story voice overs, you are required to really "watch" this story as it unfolds.

This story is an exploration of desire, anger, hatred, fear and respect, . . .it is a story of belief and manipulation, it is NOT James Bond.

This is "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold" many, many years later, after a bitterness and loss have become a way of life.

This is one of the best films you will ever see.

I can only add to the other comments: this is a superb film. It is absolute proof that a TV mini-series can stand beside the best cinema films with honor. I have rarely paid $7.00 for just 87 minutes of anything this good. If I could vote on it, it would get a 9. The writing is rich; the acting, excellent; the theme, deep; the technical quality only slightly inhibited by a presumably small budget. When I consider the BBC's obsession with the mass market peddling of dull costume dramas, I cannot understand why this astringent tragedy is not available, at least in the US, on video or DVD. In about 20 years, this will have the sort of mythic reputation given to lost or damaged movies of the teens and twenties--more deservedly than most of them.

Well-made seven-part espionage puzzler, which does not quite live up to its towering reputation. The dialogue is undoubtedly witty and delivered with aplomb by the unanimously first-rate cast, with Alec Guinness turning in yet another brilliant performance.

But after the fourth episode the pace gets bumpy and the whole scenario appears somewhat trivial were it not for some intelligent or exciting moments here and there.

Irvin's direction uses interior spaces to maximum effect, but overall there's a slightly dowdy air to it.

Still, this Cold War reptile is definitely preferable to all those contemporary action no-brainers pretending to be spy movies. (Yes, I mean you, Mr. Bourne!)

7 out of 10 mole diggers

Although it helps to love John le Carre's novels, particularly those set during the Cold War, this series and its sequel, "Smiley's People," should be seen for their quality, which may be unsurpassed by anything on television before or since. Alec Guiness as George Smiley is the principal attraction, of course. He could do more with an eyebrow or a subtle change of expression than most actors can do with their entire bodies and vocal skills. But these two series are also distinguished by casts that are superior from top to bottom, products of the Royal Shakespeare Company and other British companies and academies. Ian Richardson is the best known member of this particular cast, other than Guiness himself, and he does an absolutely remarkable job. "Tinker, Tailor..." also offers the first glimpse of Patrick Stewart as "Karla," Smiley's chief antagonist, a leading figure in "Smiley's People." Americans used to see BBC films as part of the "Masterpiece Theatre" series on PBS, sometimes on "Mystery," another PBS staple. And the BBC is still turning out remarkable work. But "Tinker, Tailor..." and "Smiley's People" are unsurpassed -- complex, brilliantly plotted with characters (and not just Smiley) who challenge actors to do their very best work. While many of John le Carre's novels have been made into feature films (some of them quite good), they lend themselves better to the series mode, which allows for more detailed exposition and fuller development of character. They may be great literature (as le Carre's admirers insist) or polished pot boilers (as his critics argue), but they make for wonderful television. And you come away from these two series with the conviction that Smiley was MADE for Alec Guiness, that no one alive (or dead) could have done half as well.

To be really picky, I just feels that the story is missing a convincing 'big picture' focal point. While the internal machinations of a rather antiquated secret service are fascinating, the whole raison d'etre has eluded me. My concern is that it eluded the author too.

To a degree, TTSS is self-indulgent: it doesn't give any clue as to the importance or value of information that was being given to the enemy. For example, with the Enigma story, and Bletchley Park the key issue was to 'win the war' and defeat Nazism. With TTSS they key issue seems to be of how to play spymaster, but without knowing the reason why . . Is it a matter of real national importance, or just a game being played by self-obsessed wannabes? I feel that the series doesn't play against the bigger (and quite scary) drama of the Cold War: it just seems to be about the lesser drama of Oxbridge malcontents, misfits and incompetents having 'fun' for ideological reasons.

The Smiley character is quite emotionally detached - even uninterested and reticent. That doesn't signal smartness to me when we see other leading characters being portrayed as rather stupid or simply unprofessional. I can well believe that this branch of the Civil Service had its fair share of 'muppets' that reached high rank due to their public school associations, but La Carre doesn't much reveal that - at least in the miniseries.

Overall, watching this series in 2023 seemed like an academic exercise; I didn't feel engaged or entertained: I just felt that it was something I should finally 'knuckle down' and do. By the end, it just seemed rather facile.

To be fair though, a lot of the contemporary spy stuff was like that - "clever" - just a bit pretentious.

Gary Oldman did Smiley a lot better - more engaging and less 'retentive'.

Oh dear. This has dated badly. I recall seeing this when it first aired and enjoying it. The recent passing of Le Carre prompted me to revisit its pleasures. I got to Ep. 3 and gave up. How styles have changed. The acting is stilted, the characters unbelievable, sound poor, production of low standard (or low budget). Of course, many shows of that era have also dated - as have I. However, that is no excuse. It should have been better.

Definitely in the BBC pantheon (alongside I Claudius and Pride and Prejudice), partly for its formidable cast, but mainly for John Irvin's taut directorial grip - a model of visual economy and uncompromising narrative drive.

A double-agent or 'mole' is suspected at the top levels of the British secret service and retired spymaster Alec Guiness must narrow down the suspects amongst his former colleagues. Arthur Hopcraft's adaptation, while capturing the bureaucratic intrigue and perfidy of John Le Carre's novel, will demand viewers' utmost attention if they want to stay with the unfolding plot.

Irvin shoots Tinker, Tailor as if for widescreen - edge of the screen compositions, careful background detail - and demonstrates how a determined director can overcome the limitations of television(usually seen as a writer or producer's medium). Look at how he composes and cuts the scene where Guillam (Michael Jayston) is interrogated round the boardroom table towards the end of the first half. How Irvin provides deft little 'bookend' shots with the characters slowly walking away from camera.

Not that his sparse, pared-down style doesn't translate to action scenes with equal verve. The prologue - Ian Bannen's abortive mission into Czechoslovakia and its climatic chase through the forest - is as tense as anything you're likely to see on the big screen. Wintry settings and a fraught music score (mainly strings) add to this bleak, cynical vision.

Irvin landed the Hollywood actioner Dogs of War on the strength of Tinker, Tailor, but despite clever touches it didn't launch a notable cinema career. Look out, however, for his earlier television adaptation of Dickens' Hard Times. (For another example of very superior television direction, check out James Goldstone's handling of two first-season Star Trek episodes - 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' and 'What Are Little Made Of').

Author Le Carre may have topped Tinker,Tailor with a dazzling sequel (The Honourable Schoolboy, published 1977), but this is still far and away the best espionage suspenser ever televised. Indeed, it's hard to see how anything else, post Cold War, could quite match this relentless, ruthless dissection of personal and political betrayals.

John Le Carre's early spy novels were sparse affairs: his later books, rather overblown and clichéd. But in the mid-1970s, he wrote the best novels of his career, and 'Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy' was perhaps the best of them all: at heart, a character study of his long-time enigmatic protagonist George Smiley, wrapped in a detective story itself wrapped in an espionage thriller. It also made one of the best television series ever made. The spirit of Le Carre's material is utterly respected; the screenwriters were unafraid to construct an essentially talkative script, with only moments of "action" in the conventional sense; the music and lighting are both excellent; but above all else, a superb cast was assembled to fill the lead roles. Much is rightly made of Alec Guinness' brilliant performance as the quiet, meticulous Smiley: every gesture or intonation speaks a thousand words. But this was also one of Ian Richardson's best works as well, he literally steals every scene he appears in as Bill Hayden, Smiley's old colleague and adversary. Hayden is a very clever man, but Richardson's portrayal of him is no less clever. Although in some senses the themes of this story: the cold war, and England's post-war loss of confidence, may no longer seem as relevant as they once did, you'll rarely see a more riveting piece of television. And having seen it, when you watch a modern drama, with it's slick dialogues and high-paced editing, you'll have a sense of something lost as well as something gained.

I originally watched this on television in the late 1970's and was enthralled. This was the book come to life and every one of the actors seemed perfect for their roles.

Later on I bought the series on video and have now moved to DVD as the tape is worn out. I can watch this time and again as the plots and characters develop without the need for gadgetry and elaborate action scenes. This is the best of BBC drama and I cannot recommend it too highly.

The sequel, "Smiley's People", follows on like an old friend you lost touch with for a few years. Everybody looks a little bit more crumpled round the edges but, underneath everything, they are the same.

As a child of the cold war, these two series capture the period quite perfectly.

This is real class. Everything about this is superb - source material, adaptation, acting, even the music. The acting is especially wonderful: totally convincing with not a dud note anywhere. As pointed out by many others, Alec Guinness IS George Smiley. If you see the TV series before reading the book, then it's impossible to think of the Smiley character in any other way than as played by Guinness.

This is how I imagine the espionage world to be - painstaking research, surveillance and investigation, interspersed with occasional moments of high excitement. James Bond it ain't. Boring? Not a bit of it, unless all you want is minimal plot and maximum 'action'.

In this age of dumbed down TV, I don't think we'll ever see the like again on the BBC. So savour it.

I re-watched this after two decades. I have never read the novel so I am not in a position to appraise the adaptation from book to screen.

This was a prestige BBC adaptation and a lot of money was spent on getting Alec Guinness star as Smiley and some location set pieces.

However once you get over such trappings the production values are still very much interior settings. People having discussions in rooms and what not.

Guinness is all stillness, letting others to do the talking and letting them reveal themselves a little too much.

Just as Karla did the same to him some years ago. Only Nigel Stock manages to ruffle his feathers.

This gives other actors such as Hywel Bennett, Ian Richardson, Joss Ackland, Beryl Reid a chance to shine while Guinness looks on.

The drama demands concentration from the viewer, it is dense, it has a lot of chatter regarding the world of spooks. The Circus does look a lot like the old public school network. Even in those days the secret service had enough of the shifters and drifters as shown in other spy novels.

Hywel Bennett as Ricki Tarr, Michael Jayston as Peter Guillam and Ian Bannen as Jim Prideaux show how dangerous, mean and ruthless such spies can be.

Tarr has told so many lies that the truth is so hard to tell without adding some shade.

At the Circus, Ian Richardson punctures the pompous atmosphere as he displays undercurrents of rebellion. Patrick Stewart makes a silent cameo and right at the end Mrs Smiley makes an appearance, a person we hear so much about throughout the series.

This is high brow, intellectual television that allows the story to unfold rather than hurry it along as in the film. This is a highly believable fiction based loosely on the Philby affair.

Unfortunately many of the reviews here are written by the infantilised modern viewer who demands instant gratification and constant action. Anyone who cannot appreciate this modern classic that features many of the great actors of their generation must be of the lowest of intellects.

On a minor point as I have to increase the length of this review for some inexplicable reason it is worth studying the transformative effect of Smiley's spectacles; surely one of the greatest nuances in modern TV drama.

British intelligence agency MI6 has a mole. After one of their agents is shot and captured in Czechoslovakia while on a top-secret mission it is clear that the infiltrator is in a senior position. Not knowing who to trust the government turns to the former second-in-command of MI6, now retired, George Smiley, to investigate the matter.

A mini-series that looks very good on paper. Based on a John le Carré novel, starring Alec Guiness as George Smiley with a stellar supporting cast - Michael Jayston, Ian Richardson, Ian Bannen, to name but a few, made at the height of the Cold War. It ticks all the boxes.

Yet it almost misfires.

The basic plot is interesting, the Cold War paranoia and atmosphere are there and Alex Guiness is superb, as is the supporting cast, but the story is complex to the point of being confusing and moves along at a slow pace. I know this was all to heighten the atmosphere and tension but it all seems like complexity and slowness for the sake of it - style over substance.

Things come together quite well in the end but the first five or so episodes can sometimes be a slog to get through.

An engaging TV mini-series but poor quality in terms of production values, sound, cinematography and location. Surprisingly poor when one thinks it was a BBC production.

The acting is good considering the script is dated and the characters generally are quite wooden/one dimensional. The plot is laboured and it's hard to care deeply about the characters.

All that said, if you like spy stories (I do) it is worth watching. When it was made, the communist threat/cold war was still relevant. Today it's not the case, many other issues have taken priority and as a result it hasn't aged well.

Guinness was made for the role of Smiley though it is not by any means his best work. You get the feeling Guinness is so good in this role because he is close to playing himself. Still he does a pretty good job of carrying the whole series given its sub-standard script and production values.

Overall I gave it six out of ten because it does engage the viewer despite the slow pace and below par production quality. I did find it a bit predictable half way through but still enjoyed it as the plot unfolded.

I started watching the film starring John Hurt and Gary Oldman, but gave up after 30 minutes. I will give it another shot and compare it with the TV series.

Top notch actors. A well-known espi author. 6 hours. No suspense whatsoever.

I really tried, but I did not get into this. Maybe I have been Americanized too much, but in the end, I didn't care. I don't need guns and bombs and chase scenes to care. I even can handle the understated British ambiance. I just didn't care. There was nothing on the line; they didn't stop some major act of war; they didn't stop some terrorist plot or some threat to anyone. It was just "blah". I admit that I have not read the book. I shouldn't have to read it to enjoy the dramatization of it. I just didn't care if there was or was not a mole in some emasculated spy agency. Not once was our hero in any danger. Never was he emotionally torn, he had buried all of the feelings for his wife long ago. He was SMART at strategy, and that was about it.