Exposition
This movie could do with more exposition. It's not that its plot is complicated; it's just that the significance of many scenes can only be understood on a 2nd viewing. And I didn't think it was worth seeing twice!
shareI've just watched it on TV and I agree. On the whole it is a good film with some excellent performances, but (spoiler coming!] it is completely let down by the ending. I don't want a James Bond ending, or some artificial fix, but you are led to think that Caine's character has some purpose in mind in extracting the confession, and he hasn't. He just walks off into the mist. Disappointing.
Mike Shields
I've also just watched it on television, and I have to disagree about the ending! I couldn't say for sure what Caine initially hoped to achieve by having Gielgud write a confession, except perhaps to gain a more total understanding of what led to his son's murder, and perhaps some element of closure regarding the same, but after Gielgud's accidental death (I believe it was accidental -- it seemed to be the result of an action, rather than being an action in its own right -- not to mention Caine looked suitably surprised afterwards), what Caine ultimately gained was what he'd sought throughout the film, but with the added bonus that he and his son's family wouldn't be in danger as a result.
Gielgud's body would be discovered with what would appear to be a self-inflicted gunshot-wound through the heart, and the reason for this probable suicide would seem abundantly clear in the content of the manuscript on his desk; doubtless this confession would make its way into the press as a natural adjunct to reports of Gielgud's death. Now, if Caine had taken the confession to the media himself, various government types would've been aware of this, and he would've been dealt with (as he was threatened with, earlier in the film), and his son's family harmed; but with the confession coming out with Caine apparently having nothing to do with it, he and his son's family would be safe. Walking off into the mist seemed the sensible thing to do after Gielgud's accidental death, knowing that this would very likely be what followed. Caine wouldn't have to take any further action to achieve his objective, so he just walked away... into the mist, as it happened.
I think I've explained that clearly enough, but questions are welcome, although by now I can't really remember the film in much detail. It wasn't, after all, a remarkable piece of work, but the ending did strike me as apt, and I felt I had to give my response to it when you expressed dissatisfaction with it.
Hello, I have read the three original posters views and I agree that the ending was a bit ‘abrupt’. But it was still an enjoyable film. I like the mid 1980’s cold war thrillers.
I have to say Michael caine KNEW what he was doing when confronting sir John Guilgude*. Cain’s character was in the Korean war and knew how to handle tough situations!
A good film to watch in the evening
He didn't walk off into the mist though, did he?? He joined his mates in the Armistice Day Parade down Whitehall.
I always want to cry when he says " I just want my country back" - Strewth, Michael, don't we all, mate??
The bit where Sir Michael Caine says 'I want to believe in England again' always brings a lump to my throat!
share<<The bit where Sir Michael Caine says 'I want to believe in England again' always brings a lump to my throat!>>
But I think it is the character played by Caine who makes this memorable statement, with which I sort of agree. I am only 59 and so the sort of "upper class" double standards portrayed have existed since before my birth, which means I would like England (and the UK) to become a decent place after all, rather than "I want it back"!
As for Caine, I understand his main place of residence is external to the UK so, maybe he is not quite as committed to East Grinstead et al as some others of us?
Seeme improbable that Caine's character would be able just to waltz into the home of a key spy as he did.
Wouldn't Gielgud's character (and Caine's) be under surveillance in the circumstances?
Somebody's coming up .... somebody serious
<<Seemed improbable that Caine's character would be able just to waltz into the home of a key spy as he did.
Wouldn't Gielgud's character (and Caine's) be under surveillance in the circumstances?>>
Very true, but it is just a drama and if the film showed every aspect of every communication it would make it far, far longer and therefore the watcher would not sustain their interest and so probably the film would not have been made. What we saw was the substance of the communication and that was the relevant bit. Had it been about evading the spooks to make the communication it would have been a very different film and perhaps more like the flash, whizz bang, James Bond type films where the substance of the relationships are not as thoroughly explored as in The Whistle Blower.
I took it that the reason Caine gained admittance to Gielgud's home was because he had come under the pretense of collecting for veterans (the red poppy and medals on his lapel). Gielgud has no clue who he is and at that point had not clue he was under suspicion.
Sure, someone might have been watching Gielgud, but would they recognize Caine? Did his friend let on that he'd gotten drunk and told Caine who the traitor was? Caine doesn't let on that he knows at the meeting he's dragged to. Also, Caine was probably watching the house himself to know then Gielgud was home alone.