Writing, Reviewing and Criticism In The Internet Age

Tag: John Hurt

John Hurt again, or ‘Don’t trust Men in suits!’


After last week’s rant I decided that maybe I should do something for this week’s blog that didn’t drive me close to the brink of insanity. I need something that is calmer…more sedate and emotionally stable. A film adaptation that is just more…British. You see, there are a few things that the British do well, namely things like grey skies, subtle betrayal, soul crushing bureaucracy and passive aggressive mistrust. With that in mind, this week’s blog is on one of the best films from last year, ‘Tinker Tailor Solider Spy,’ based on the 1974 novel of the same name by John Le Carre.

As per usual I’m going to give a quick outline of the plot without any major spoilers but unlike some of the films that have been discussed here the plot really won’t take all that long. The film follows the semi-retired spy George Smiley who is brought back into the world of British espionage by the head of the British intelligence ‘Control’ played by John Hurt, (him again) to track down a spy from the KGB who has managed to worm their way to the top of the intelligence service, aka the circus. And that really, is about that in terms of plot. But for all that apparent simplicity, the plot is a complex and richly detailed populated by strong and well developed characters. The atmosphere is rigid with paranoia and mistrust as people who have spent their lives lying for a living are rendered incapable of trusting anyone.

Let’s get the easy part out of the way first of all – this film is simply brilliant and to pick up on a few things as highlights feels unfair but for the sake of space I’m going to have to be a little selective rather than spend hours gushing over the whole thing – don’t want to be accused of being a fanboy now do I?

So, consider this next section a selection of the film’s good points rather than detailing them all and if you haven’t seen the film yet – go! Watch! You’ll thank me for it, and you’ll get to see Gary Oldman give the performance that landed him the lifetime achievement BAFTA award. He is probably the best thing performance wise in the film perfectly capturing George Smiley – a dour, taciturn man abandoned by his wife, losing his health and drawn back into the murky world of sabotage because he simply doesn’t have anywhere else to go. His performance is captivating, even though for much of the film Smiley doesn’t have anything to say. He’s man obsessed with watching and observing and Gary Oldman is just brilliant to watch – forget James Bond, the best British spy is a late middle aged man with big glasses who doesn’t say a great deal. The rest of the cast reads like a who’s who in British acting and to pull a quote from this outstanding review, ‘anyone who doesn’t have multiple Oscar wins and nominations, should have. Actors watch this the way that regular people watch porn.’

Even the smaller parts are great; Cathy Burke and Roger Lloyd-Pack make an impression in smaller roles and the ensemble cast all click. My personal favorites are Mark Strong as a spy who is injured and starts teaching, instantly becoming the coolest teacher ever, and John Hurt is simply magnificent as the head of the service, ‘Control.’

There is not just a great cast either; Tomas Alfredson the director does a great job of re-creating the world of Cold War Era Britain, with costuming and design expertly done. The whole film looks old fashioned and sepia toned, rooms full of curling smoke from cigarettes and pipes adorned with seventies decor. The look of the film is wonderful with imaginative cinematography and camera work that manages to make what is basically men in suits talk to each other in rooms for two and a half hours, incredibly fascinating to watch.

Well I think I’ve been pretty clear that I think this may be a very good movie, rather understanding things given how much I’ve raved about it. So how does this match up as an adaptation? Well, really very well indeed actually, and for that a lot of the credit has to go with the script and the people who wrote it.

To be honest I think it’s only right to give kudos where it’s due and the script manages to keep large swathes of dialogue from the book, staying true to the integrity of the novel. However the film manages the often missed trick of translating words into images. Too often literary adaptations tend to feel unwieldy and laden down with too much exposition and dialogue as a way of preserving the source material and as a way of keeping the film as close to the world of the novel as possible. Austen adaptations spring to mind, with the voice overs and many other adaptations have to use techniques like pre-action scrolling exposition, or omniscient narrators. Whilst these techniques are good they always seemed like a way of replicating the literary on film using the techniques of the writer rather than of a film maker. Here, however, the writers have managed to keep true to the story by using the techniques and language of film rather than things that seem more overtly ‘literary.’ I also like that it’s a film that understands the power of silence, leaving quiet moments that force the audience to pay attention to more of the film’s elements than just what the actors are saying, so things like shot composition, body language, gesture and even glances take on more significance.

The script was written by the husband and wife team Peter Straughan and Bridget O’Conner. Tragically, before filming was completed Bridget O’Conner passed away and never got to see the work of art she helped create. The film is dedicated to her, as is the BAFTA her partner emotionally collected when it won for best adapted screenplay last year.

In short this is just fantastic film making – taking a great novel and translating it into a cinematic experience that showcases the source material in an interesting and artistic method. And no, I won’t tell you who the mole is, but if you can work it out before the reveal give yourself a clap on the back. I could probably go on more about this and if I knew more about the techniques of film making I’m sure you could teach a class on all the ways this film is well structured but I’ll finish by saying this; as a film fan it’s an engrossing and intelligent movie, and as a book it is a top notch, taut and tense spy thriller by one of the best writers in Britain. It is simply a joy to see high grade and sophisticated source material handled by people who are clearly very good at what they do the writers, the actors and the director all get to show off their quality. So, really – what’s not to like?



‘Why John Hurt is destined for a happy life in a facist state’ or 1980’s flashback!


First of all, apologies for the slightly morbid title – but I thought it best to title this one with a quote from the book, and when the book is considered in all of it’s glory there really aren’t that many quotes from this magnificent novel that aren’t as bleak as Labour’s re-election chances. If the small semantic clue I dropped in the last sentence wasn’t clue enough to the more lively cells in the great hive mind of the web, I adore this novel. It was one of the first great works of literature I remember reading from my early teenage years and it scared the bejesus out of me then and still does. All of this is to say, that any adaptation of this book has one hell of a bar to meet.

To that end, enter Michael Radford, whom, in 1984, with the backing of Virgin Films released what has become an acclaimed interpretation. Whilst I was optimistic,  the idea of releasing the film in 1984 initially struck me as a gimmick. Coupled with the tagline, ‘The year of the movie. The movie of the year,’ I was slightly concerned the makers of the film had inspired the marketing strategy from The Omen re-boot, (notable only for the 11.11.11 release date and being a complete load of old balls.)

Thankfully I was swiftly disabused of my cynical notions from the opening minutes as the viewer is plunged into the ‘Two Minute Hate’ and introduced to Winston Smith, played by John Hurt. As the protagonist of the story Hurt carries the film out of necessity as the book itself is all about the isolation that the world of ‘1984’ has forced upon him. Frankly, Hurt is simply incredible; a man blessed with the kind of face that looks like weathered granite, an actor ideally suited for conveying so much through silence, glances or twitches in the face.

The rest of the cast is extremely good but I will only mention one more here, (to see more on the cast of the movie just check out the IMDB page for the film) and that would be the chilling Richard Burton as O’Brien. This was Burton’s final film and his first after a lengthy hiatus but he is simply brilliant. Cold, calculated and utterly convinced of not simply his right-ness but the Party’s righteousness. Though a fourth choice for the part he is O’Brien – the next time I go to read the book I fully expect to hear his smooth and authoritative voice giving me the image of a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

This isn’t merely a post to sing the praises of this Brit-flick classic but to assess how this works as an adaptation. To return to the film’s opening, it highlights what I believe is the crucial difference between the book and the film, a difference that is inherent in the two mediums. The opening of the book contains personally, what I believe to be one of the finest opening lines of any book ever written, ‘It was a cold, windy day in April, and the clocks had just finished striking thirteen.’

Go on, read that again. Take the time and appreciate just how good a sentence that is. That is wonderful, frankly.

The opening of the novel plunges the reader into Winston’s world. It is close, lonely and fetid with paranoia. The milieu is superbly evoked, from the first line we as readers are presented with a brew of the familar and the strangely alien. With the film, immediately the viewer is submerged, not in isolation but by faces. Screaming faces. Watching the film for the first time it actually took me a few moments to realise who was Winston Smith.

This isn’t to criticise, don’t get me wrong – the nature of film is as a visual medium, and the directorial choice to present the viewer with a bewildering and strange image is a very bold one but for me, the power of the story comes from its closeness to Winston’s point of view, something that the close third narrative point of view was specifically designed to do and film, well not so much. The film is commendably close to the original text however, and this is hugely to its credit, the design and setting of the film tracks incredibly closely what I thought the world of the book would look like.

So, all good right?

Yeah – a harrowing retelling of the classic novel for freedom that elegantly juxtaposes the original text with its modern-day 1980’s setting. And now, I’ll stop using the language of an arse and actually offer some criticism. In one very important way, I don’t believe this is an adaptation of the book.

I’ll pause to let people re-adjust. Finished freaking out?


The film is hugely and apparently indebted to the book yet is that what makes the film an adaptation? I think it could quite easily be argued, no. The closer that a film comes to the original source material the more difficult it is to transfer that into an easily comprehended, coherent visual narrative. Books are, by the nature of their form, designed for the exploration of the psyche, motive, feeling and thought. This aren’t things that have immediately obvious visual markers and whilst the film transfers really well the experience feels more like an attempt at a straight re-telling rather than an adaptation of the story in a new way. The thing that really tipped me off to this was a thought that flashed through my  mind midway through the film.

‘Would I like this as much, if I didn’t know and love the book beforehand?’

Arguably? No, I don’t think I would.

There are a few more examples that back up what I’m saying, from time to time the script feels a little crowded – jamming in points from the book without the means of explaining WHY these things matter. Things such as the old rhyme about the churches of London, the coral in glass, Winston’s thoughts on his young neighbours are all crucial to the book for understanding everything that is going on from Winston’s perspective yet in the film these events felt rushed and crowded out by the main thrust of the narrative. However, there is one moment from the film that I feel gets the balance right, with the sequence in Room 101. Watching it took me back to the first reaction I had to the novel as a teenager. I don’t want to add too many more spoilers here, (check it out on YouTube) but everything about it works. The camera work, (with it’s emphasis on the faces of the two main charcters) along with the minimal violence and the tension of it shows how the film does have flashes of genuine adaptive genius, whilst showing all of the greatness British film making is capable of.

Maybe I’m not being fair and I will certainly admit I’m splitting hairs. Yes I know – the very fact this exists in a seperate and distinct form from the book does make it an adaptation but all I’ve tried to argue here is that, perhaps, adaptation should not simply re-tell, (no matter how well it does) but should give a reason for exisiting as a film – if a re-telling is all a film offers surely I could just re-read the novel.

I will also admit that there are book/films that demonstrate this much more extremely than this one, but if I’m guilty of being too harsh please let me say that it comes from just loving this book too much for my own good.


There we go. Now go off and read the book, (no seriously, go read the book right now) then watch the movie and let me know what you think.



So onwards we go. Next time I promise to not split hairs as much and do a book/film that properly lives up to the term ‘adaptation.’ In the meantime, join the conversation, find @ThePageBoy1 on Twitter and keep talking about the best and the worst of books and films.