Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: John Le Carre and reality

[Gerald]

The new film adaptation of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, premiered at the Venice Film Festival last week, has been praised for its atmospheric depiction of 1970s London. But how firmly is John Le Carre's novel rooted in reality?

(Spoiler alert: Key plot details revealed below)

Trying to establish the precise relationship between John le Carre's fictional depiction of British intelligence in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and its real life counterpart is a task that requires the investigative skills of George Smiley.

And even le Carre's fictional spymaster might be left wondering if he had unpeeled all the layers of mystery to get to the real truth.

It is not unusual for writers to draw on the real world and their own experiences and then shape it into fiction. But Le Carre is different. He draws on his own experience of the secret world for his work.

And because that world - and le Carre's own career in it - is out of sight and clandestine, the reader is left wondering, far more than usual, where fact ends and fiction begins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14846154

Note: 11 September 2011 Last updated at 00:11 GMT

[Egan]

I'm well looking forward to the new film. Reading 'The Spy who came in from the cold' just now to get my Le Carre hunger fired up again. I've always loved the fact he read like Graham Greene without the guilt.

It's a hell of a cast in the new film, really extraordinary.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Egan

I'm well looking forward to the new film. Reading 'The Spy who came in from the cold' just now to get my Le Carre hunger fired up again. I've always loved the fact he read like Graham Greene without the guilt.

It's a hell of a cast in the new film, really extraordinary.

Thanks for the information,

[Bilge_Rat]

I read the book years ago which is still IMHO one of the most immersive spy/cold war novels around.

I also own the DVD to the 1979 mini-series starring Alec Guinness and lasting six hours. One of the best novel adaptations around since it had the time to properly tell the story, although it still had to skim over some stuff.

I dont know how they will be able to condense it in a 2 hour movie, although it looks good.

My advice if you want to understand the story: read the book!

[STEED]

Good cast, looks well acted but after watching the trailer there were errors and I'm not going to bother with it. You can not tell the whole story in two hours and I rather stick with the book and TV series in seven parts.

If you have not read the book or seen the TV series then yes go and see it.

[Egan]

Originally Posted by STEED

Good cast, looks well acted but after watching the trailer there were errors and I'm not going to bother with it. You can not tell the whole story in two hours and I rather stick with the book and TV series in seven parts.

If you have not read the book or seen the TV series then yes go and see it.

Well, that's a shame. Can I ask what those mistakes were? It must be 20 years since I last read 'Tinker Tailor' and probably not far off that since I last saw the BBC adaptation so I'm sure there are things I missed.

As for the film, and the reason it's a shame your not going to see it, is that I thought it was magnificent. I thought it was quite simply one of the smartest, most beautifully filmed movies I've seen in years, with an absolutely stellar cast who were - each and every one of them - at the top of their game. Aside from Oldman, Kathy Burke was brilliant and Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hardy and Mark Strong were probably the best I've seen them.

The whole thing, acting, cinematography, music and writing, is just superb. Only complaint is that I wished it was another hour long, and that Kathy Burke got more screen time.

If Oldman doesn't get an Oscar for this something is seriously wrong in the Academy - but I think we know that anyway: how long did it take Scorsese to win his Oscar and what was it for?

Probably my film of the year. I might even go and see it again this weekend and I NEVER go and see a film in the cinema twice.

[STEED]

Well I went and saw it only because I was not paying. I was invited so I decided to go and my verdict is this...

Yes it had a good cast and was well acted.

But...

There were changes made to the story for example Jim was sent to Hungary to meet up in a cafe, wrong country try Czechoslovakia. I counted eleven errors in the storyline and to be honest the way the film was made there was no need what so ever to make those changes to the storyline.

Apart from that I give the film seven out of ten. Could have been a eight if those errors were not in there.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by STEED

Well I went and saw it only because I was not paying. I was invited so I decided to go and my verdict is this...

Yes it had a good cast and was well acted.

But...

There were changes made to the story for example Jim was sent to Hungary to meet up in a cafe, wrong country try Czechoslovakia. I counted eleven errors in the storyline and to be honest the way the film was made there was no need what so ever to make those changes to the storyline.

Apart from that I give the film seven out of ten. Could have been a eight if those errors were not in there.

Good to hear,

[STEED]

Best line came from the Xmas party (not in the book) when Control was trying the punch Percy made.

Control..."Take five hours to get drunk on this monkey's £@$$".

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by STEED

Best line came from the Xmas party (not in the book) when Control was trying the punch Percy made.

Control..."Take five hours to get drunk on this monkey's £@$$".

Sounds like David,