Music, Film, TV & BooksTinker, Tailor [etc] 1979 series

 

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)  
 To:  ALL
42866.1 
I feel like I must have watched this before, but it seemed new. Also, it became abundantly clear that the 2011 feature film starring Gary Oldman, though quite excellent (or so I thought), is somewhat inferior to this series! I'd go so far as to call it an almost perfect clone, down to the cinematography. I was not expecting this.

"Is Twitter considered to be important in some way? Something other than a stall wall?"
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)     
42866.2 In reply to 42866.1 
Ah, you've picked another of my favourite TV series from way back. There's a sequel Smiley's People, based on the novel. You'd probably like that too. I quite enjoyed the Gary Oldman rehash, but quite honestly I did choke on my Moscow Mule when the Guardian review said that Oldman "eclipsed" Guinness. All I can think to say in response is "bollocks". I agree with you completely. The film borrows style, mannerisms, you-name-it, liberally from the earlier TV series.

Talking of borrowing, it was interesting to discover that John le Carre "borrowed" rather more than is usually considered polite from the Darkroom of Damacles by Dutch author Willem Frederik Hermans for his own novel the Spy Who Came in from the Cold. This was le Carre's second spy novel featuring Smiley and the Circus.

He May Be Your Dog But He's Wearing My Collar

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42866.3 In reply to 42866.2 
I haven't read the book, so I'm wondering which version is the more literal adaptation, e.g. of the spy sent to retrieve the 'defecting' Russian general -- shot down in the street (film), or pursued and shot in a nearby forest (series). There are a few other, apparent minor tweaks to the source. Given the series might be regarded as definitive, I'm surprised how little the film diverged from the model, for the sake of originality if nothing else.
"Is Twitter considered to be important in some way? Something other than a stall wall?"
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)     
42866.4 In reply to 42866.3 
I don't know why they changed that in the film. Maybe to show off the street setting and the collateral death of the young mother (damn commies). It was a forest in the book. One other, rather annoying change, was that at the end Prideaux shoots Haydon with a rifle whereas in the TV series he breaks his kneck with a blow. This is how he died in the book, and although Prideaux isn't expressly named as the killer in the book, it's made clear because earlier he killed an injured owl in the same manner. In the TV series this is acknowledged with the call of an owl over the scene.

I suppose old TV shows and films will be remade and plundered for ever. Some are good, some are not so good. Battlestar Galactica is in a different league to the cheesy original series - so say we all. Edge of Darkness 2010 (Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone) misfires badly in every possible way, whereas the original TV series 1985 (Bob Peck, Joe Don Baker) is just brilliant. Same director as well. I recently watched the new Ipcress File TV series. It has plenty of shout-outs to the 1965 film (Michael Caine) for example almost frame by frame copies of some scenes, naming the lead Harry Palmer as per the film, whereas in Len Deighton's novel he's un-named. Neither film nor series are all that close to the book. I like the film very much so I wasn't expecting much from a remake. I was pleasantly surprised and in spite of the self-conscious borrowing, it's very different.

He May Be Your Dog But He's Wearing My Collar

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42866.5 In reply to 42866.4 
Ah, we just started another Len Deighton / Caine  (is he really myopic, or are the specs an affectation?) spy jobby: Funeral In Berlin. FYI, Mrs.D is rounding this stuff up as my taste leans more towards

"Is Twitter considered to be important in some way? Something other than a stall wall?"
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)     
42866.6 In reply to 42866.5 
Death Race 2000. Saw that in the cinema in 75 or 76. Quite fun. Also saw Emmanuelle around the same time. By contrast, that was so dull that we left early preferring a couple of pints to yet more soft-core moaning and groaning.

Turns out that Michael Caine does have (and did have) poor eyesight and did favour heavy frames to disguise the thickness of his lenses. I see that recent snaps show him with lighter frames, but I'm sure he's rich enough to have had all the lasering that's available.

He May Be Your Dog But He's Wearing My Collar

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42866.7 In reply to 42866.6 
I was surprised how good DR2K is, balls-out trashy where e.g. Besson is delusionally coy. He even managed to work in some half-assed social satire! I think it may be the only Corman flick I've seen that really works for me, most so terrible I couldn't get past the first ~15-minutes. Ace performance by Carradine. For him, I mean.

I knew one of Corman's assistants in Halifax NS, where he was trying to produce a Buddhist CDROM title I worked a few months on, "Bardo," unfinanced and therefore unfinished (AFAIK).
"Is Twitter considered to be important in some way? Something other than a stall wall?"
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All    
 

1–7

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2022 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats