While still a watchable and intelligent story, Smiley's People is a distinctly different animal from its companion Tinker Tailor. Each time I've watched Smiley's People I've found myself yearning for the kinds of complexities and subtleties movies based on LeCarre''s other stories are usually rich with - alas, the yearning goes unrequited. Whereas I can watch Tinker Tailor yet again and discover an uncaught double entendre or an unnoticed directorial adumbration, I find little new after repeated viewings of Smiley's People. What makes Smiley's People so disappointing?
First, the complexity of supporting characters in SP is woeful. Sometimes there are explicit claims that this or that person is a bit checkered, other times there is a hint that a person is running under false colors, but in every case what we are presented with are affable, earnest, innocuous people, and any potentially complicating factors are forgotten.
Another disappointment is the generally threadbare plot. I haven't read the book so I have no idea if there is more to it than is captured in the movie, but the story strikes me as pretty under-inflated for its momentous outcome. Perhaps, in addition to an intricate plot, it is the play of dark and light across the landscape that fascinates us. But this kind of interference pattern is largely lacking in Smiley's People.
Perhaps most disappointing is that Smiley's People is really not a spy movie at all. Sadly, George Smiley has been reduced to little more than another bbc shire detective. One intriguing characteristic of the spy genre is that of the minions, which each side keeps, and the perverse way these underlings are manipulated by their controllers who are always ready to gambit. In The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, for example, the spy Leamus is passed up the chain of eastern bloc dog's bodys, and each in turn is treated with contempt by his better. In Smiley's People, rather ironically, it is not his people, but Smiley who does most of the trotting around searching for clues.
There is one scene, late in the movie, that reminds me of the 'old' circus and its culture. When we meet Saul Enderby and are treated to his brand of pompous asininity - a sure sign of some serious deception - I finally feel a waking interest. But alas it is too little and too late.
First, the complexity of supporting characters in SP is woeful. Sometimes there are explicit claims that this or that person is a bit checkered, other times there is a hint that a person is running under false colors, but in every case what we are presented with are affable, earnest, innocuous people, and any potentially complicating factors are forgotten.
Another disappointment is the generally threadbare plot. I haven't read the book so I have no idea if there is more to it than is captured in the movie, but the story strikes me as pretty under-inflated for its momentous outcome. Perhaps, in addition to an intricate plot, it is the play of dark and light across the landscape that fascinates us. But this kind of interference pattern is largely lacking in Smiley's People.
Perhaps most disappointing is that Smiley's People is really not a spy movie at all. Sadly, George Smiley has been reduced to little more than another bbc shire detective. One intriguing characteristic of the spy genre is that of the minions, which each side keeps, and the perverse way these underlings are manipulated by their controllers who are always ready to gambit. In The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, for example, the spy Leamus is passed up the chain of eastern bloc dog's bodys, and each in turn is treated with contempt by his better. In Smiley's People, rather ironically, it is not his people, but Smiley who does most of the trotting around searching for clues.
There is one scene, late in the movie, that reminds me of the 'old' circus and its culture. When we meet Saul Enderby and are treated to his brand of pompous asininity - a sure sign of some serious deception - I finally feel a waking interest. But alas it is too little and too late.