With respect to the issue of Jim holding out "as long as I could", he also adds that the interrogation continued for "weeks".
Of course! Even if he had spilled his guts the day of his capture, they still would have interrogated him for weeks.
You're comparing apples and oranges. We still don't know when he broke. We still have no reason to doubt what the movie seems to tell us.
Every wonderful moment of Strong's performance would seem to suggest that Jim is not a man who would crack quickly.
Really? How can you tell? What gave it away?
I'd say this is FAR MORE true of Ian Bannen's character in the BBC version. We see signs of fierce loyalty, patriotism, heroism, determination, stubbornness, and the ability to function and even be nice to children while in intense pain. Just watch him go down fighting during the capture sequence: that guy really gave a damn. That, more than Mark Strong's character, struck me as the kind of guy who would hold out under torture.
But even in the BBC version, if the evidence of the script had indicated he had cracked under torture before the networks could escape, I would have believed the script. Having never been professionally tortured myself, and having no professional expertise on how long it takes cold-war spy networks to escape the Iron Curtain; I don't really have any direct knowledge of which I would reasonably expect one to take longer than the other.
I'm going to accept what the script appears to tell me on its face. Sorry. And if someone were to prove to me that what the film says on its face is unrealistic .... well ... unrealistic films are not exactly a rare or mysterious phenomenon. Occham's Razor tells me that what the film says is what the film means.
He asks if they got out, yes, because it's a question one asks when a definitive answer isn't given. But, in his restrained way, he does seem surprised at the answer.
Surprised? Or mildly disappointed? I don't see how you can tell the difference. I'll have to watch the scene again, but best as I can recall, he did not even blink.
In the BBC version, he ran to the bathroom to throw up. That reaction was alot more noticeable. But even there, all it proved was that he gave a damn about his murdered friends and colleagues; and perhaps even GUILTY about them. It was the SCRIPT that established that the information that got the networks captured could not have come from Jim, because the timing was wrong, and therefore that he had nothing to be guilty about.
I am very skeptical when people claim the ability to read complex communications into the blank stares of actors. We have language for a reason. The best performance in the world cannot take the place of actual words.
Speaking of "definitive answers", you're right that I made a mistake with regards to the film stating that Karla already knew about Jim's networks; however, moments later he comments that it "was a joke" that he'd try to bury the information about Control's mole because they already knew that.
Again, it's not all or nothing. Otherwise, why would these know-it-alls torture him at all? For kicks?
They did NOT try to get him to reveal the mole theory, because they already knew about the mole theory. That was "the joke".
The DID question him on how far Control was with his investigation, because they DID NOT know how far Control was with his investigation (this is straight from the novel, but the film mentions it too).
Apply the same logic to the networks. In the book, they seem to already know. In the film, they don't seem to know, and have to torture it out of him. It's not just that they left out something that was in the book. They changed it. Reversed it.
I'm a natural contrarian about certain things, and on this board I believe I'm seeing that trait in some of your posts -- you're resistant this inference because you're resistant to acknowledging the film's quality generally, and more specifically, you think it fails to tell the story it's trying to. This may be out of loyalty to the book, the BBC version, or just because you don't like it. No judgment, just an observation.
I think you're drifting a bit off topic here. I thought we were discussing what does and does not happen at a specific point in the film (regardless of whether it is a good film or a bad film). Contrarian though I may be, I am willing to adjust my views if presented with evidence and a good argument. If the only evidence you present to me is speculation about my biases and motives, well ... would that convince you, if you were in my shoes?
Remember also that Bill angrily tells Smiley, "I got him back, didn't I?" I'd wager this is significant because it's a genuine risk to the operation to release Jim [...]
Agreed. That's a given in all versions of the story. As Smiley says (in all versions): I'm surprised Karla did not have him shot. That he might discuss what he knows (including what happened in the interrogation) is a reason why.
Jim knows he "held out as long as he could", and that he was being tortured for "weeks"; since the networks were dealt with as soon as Jim was captured, if anyone bothers to ask him upon his release just how long he held out, that could tip Karla's/Haydon's hand, revealing that there had to be another source for the intelligence.
This logic might be a SMALL part of the explanation (for why it is risky to release Jim) in the BOOK, because the book establishes the contradiction mentioned above.
The film does not establish any such contradiction. So they must have wanted to hide something else.
But no matter. Because the film establishes OTHER things they would want hidden ... like the fact that the interrogators were interested in how far Control had gotten with his investigation ... in other words, how much he knew about the mole; which implies there IS a mole. Or as you said ...
Following that logic, the reason they tortured Jim was to find out how much Control knew about the mole. The "joke" is that, of course they already knew -- they knew that there was a mole since they were running him. But they didn't know how much Control knew.
Exactly! We have right here a reason why it would be risky to release Jim. We have an explanation for why Smiley says he's surprised Karla didn't shoot him. There is no reason to suspect that what we seem to have been told about the Networks -- that Jim betrayed them -- is wrong.
With Irina's capture...I guess I don't see how anyone can watch the movie, see the chain of events that lead to this, and not draw the conclusion that Hayden is directly/indirectly responsible. He's the mole, he's alerted to Irina's existence and her possible intelligence, then he takes action. We don't see him take action, necessarily, but surely someone sent word that she needed to be taken care of. And Ricky did send a message to the "grown ups", which it's logical to assume Bill saw as well.
Maybe I'll address this in a followup post. In the meantime, I agree that most viewers watching the film will reach the same conclusion they reached in the novel and BBC version: That Bill is to blame for Irina's capture. If the filmmakers were trying to hint at another conclusion, they were unsuccessful in getting this across.
That they WERE hinting at something else is merely a theory I have to explain certain evidences in the film, and various otherwise inexplicable changes made to the novel, that I have trouble explaining otherwise. If anyone were to suggest an alternate theory that better explains the same evidence, I would be perfectly happy.
reply
share