MovieChat Forums > Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2012) Discussion > Prideaux and Haydon end part spoiler

Prideaux and Haydon end part spoiler


Spoiler

In terms of the story plot - I really wish they hadn't shown Prideaux assassinating Haydon. Although we had some background info of their close relationship - it still left some doubt as to Jim's actual motive. Had he been turned by the KGB? Was he under orders by M16 to kill him? And how can someone have a leisurely Sunday stroll near to a high security area, armed with a scoped rifle, and kill an important person without getting caught or seen?

Frankly, I'd rather not know that it was Prideaux that killed Haydon - I think it would have been more appropriate if his admission of guilt was revealed later on in the sequel. I'd rather have seen the tip of a barrel poke through a tangle of foliage in the forest and take the shot.

reply

Even if you know who killed Haydon, theres still many unanswered questions like was it revenge or was it a mercy killing and if anybody could get in a high security area, it would be a member of MI6.

reply

I didn't find it plausible that someone could walk in an open area without any effort of concealment, armed with a scoped military rifle and shoot a valuable prisoner like that.

That's the fly in the ointment for me.

reply

"I didn't find it plausible that someone could walk in an open area without any effort of concealment, armed with a scoped military rifle and shoot a valuable prisoner like that." - Kerangador


Did you miss the military Landrovers in the background, the cadets running in army sportswear, the boring Government style office block, it was a Government compound. It wasn't just an open area. Only people with clearance were allowed in. Prideaux would be intimate with perimeter security of Government compounds. It would be nothing for him to sneak in, what with him being a spy and all. And if you notice, he is in amongst the trees, and he is wearing khaki.

Also, we're talking about the 70's, security wasn't anything like it is today.

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

reply

In the book, Haydon is found with a broken neck, sitting on bench outside of the building (which was a country house). It is believed that Prideaux did it (at night, when Haydon couldn't sleep and was allowed out), but never stated as an absolute fact, and that the motive would have been revenge for betraying him in Czechoslovakia (not Hungary).

reply

It looks like a military compound because that's exactly what it is.
But Prideaux is on the outside of the fence, shooting Haydon on the inside (lucky that the bullet didn't hit the wire!!)
How that would go? First - as some other contributor writes - security thirty-forty years ago was not what it would be today. Second (that's in the novel and in the TV Mini Series) Smiley grumbles about the Sarrat staff being slack on security: they don't even patrol the perimeter he complains

reply

Smiley grumbles about the Sarrat staff


What is Sarrat?

reply

The (fictive) training school of The Service
In this film - as well as in the BBC Mini Series - also used for detaining agents for debriefing. And as a custody for people, who in the world outside would be in jail 'on remand' before trial - before extradition.

reply

There might never be a sequel. No, the audience had to be shown in TTSS that Prideaux killed his betrayer. This is where the incident belongs.

reply

I really like well made, well crafted, intelligent movies based in reality. I found this one to fit that bill.

Could u imagaine how Prideaux would have killed Haydon if this would have been a Bond or Bourne movie. It would be laughable.

I'm sure everybody could imagine all sorts of ways this scene would evolve if in a B or B movie. Prideaux would have gotten through many layers of almost totally inpenetrable security systems alone with a blue shirt on (blue shirts=good guys, black shirts=bad guys)and no weapon whatsoever.

He would have made some kind of weapon like a spear from a tree branch and launched it by hand from the woods & it would strike Haydon right in the heart & then Haydon would have went through the Hollywood death throes.

Then he would have escaped in some incredible fashion with 100's of armed men shooting at him and things blowing up (lol...the movie "Taken") and then the movie would end with him in some soft sexual encounter with the most beautiful actress in the movie.

Etc., Etc., Etc.

Although I do think the Bond & Bourne type films have their place as entertainment vehicles (& particularly for the viewing demographics these movies are after for obvious reasons).....especially the early Bond movies for me when I was a young man & IMHO none of the following actors who played Bond after Connery were even close, although I would rate Craig 2nd, & of course the role/character had evolved quite a bit over the years.

reply

Almost certainly sanctioned at the highest levels of the UK government. Why else do think it happened like that. It is also a sign that Smiley brought Jim back into the service (or else it was a retirement benefit).

reply

The scene as depicted in the BBC series is pretty straightforward. Prideaux knew where Haydon would be held for questioning, and he knew how to infiltrate the grounds of the facility. Security at the site was a joke -- not at all far-fetched. Prideaux, having been betrayed by a former friend/lover/fellow spy, had been shot, tortured for months and had his career destroyed. He had more than enough reasons to kill Haydon. Motive, means (Prideaux's knowledge of martial arts -- his hands in the book/series, the rifle in the film) and opportunity combined to allow him to carry out the act.

The scene in the film is effective, but flawed. I doubt that Prideaux would have attempted the murder during daylight hours, much less in the open with a plainly visible weapon.

reply

How did Prideaux know ? He was living in a trailer and out of the service. How did he even know the guy was arrested and waiting for his flight to Moscow? Smiley must have set it up, to close loose ends.

reply

It is suggested in the book that once Smiley visits Prideaux, telling him that he is researching the Czech scandal, Smiley feels that he is being follwed. It would correspond with Prideaux leaving the school, so readers deduce eventually that Prideaux is keeping tabs on the investigation in some way. He follows Smiley to the facility when he interviews Haydon after interrogation, presumably watches until he gets to know Haydon's general routine and then pounces - although the excuse Haydon gave the guards about 'not being able to sleep' is suggestive that Haydon had got round the guards in some way and arranged a meeting, probably through the letters he gets Smiley to post to 'a girl and a boy'. Haydon and Prideax must have done stuff like this plenty of times in the USSR.

Smiley, also as a professional, must guess that Prideaux is following him; although he might not have predicted the exact end, his complaints about security suggest he knew something like that was a possibility. Although his concern is played relatively genuinely in the film, I think that could be a bit of a bluff as well. After all, if Smiley is aware he is being followed, he might have passively allowed the minimum security as a chance for Haydon to be neutralised by Prideaux without further outrage or collateral damage. After all, Haydon did plot Prideaux's death, and I think Smiley understands the fundamental justice issues involved.

reply

Prideux broke Haydon's neck in the book

reply

Maybe I was the only one who thought this, but judging by the way Prideux and Haydon looked at each other during the Christmas party, I wondered whether they might have been in a relationship. We already know Haydon seduced Smiley's wife for strategic reasons - might he have seduced Prideux as well? Or perhaps they were gay/bisexual? This would have added another dimension to Prideux's sense of anger and betrayal.

All right, let the arguments and throwing of rotten tomatoes commence! (jk)


reply

i always thought it was clear that at the very least there was a sexual connection between the two of them - whether that was a full on relationship, who was unreciprocated on Haydon's part isn't clear and not particularly relevant

reply

The book suggests that they had a close relationship since their university days, but is ambiguous about whether or not it is a homosexual relationship. Either way, Prideaux is justifiably upset about being betrayed.

reply

I think it’s in line with the general devaluation of non-sexual relationships in Western popular culture (or, at least, in the English-speaking parts) over the last few decades. Close friendships just aren’t as important as romantic relationships to an audience—or, at least that’s what filmmakers assume. A betrayal from a close friend just isn’t as bad as a betrayal from a sexual partner.

reply

In the Mini Series (and in the novel?) Prideaux sees that Haydon is arrested, and having been a senior officer he simply knows that there is only one place where Haydon could be detained for debriefing: Sarrat. And it is more than hinted that he conceals a message to Haydon in the clothes delivered to the cleaner's.

A lot is unexplained in the film (it only lasts two hours against the Mini Series' five...) but it would not be impossible for Prideaux to find out that Haydon is in custody - and where. But I agree that it is a bit unlikely that he would come marching with a rifle on his shoulder. But on the other hand - he would be very conspicuous sneaking among the bushes. With a kind of reverse logic he might reason (knowing that compound security is slack) that a man, calmly marching along (rifle or not) is 'invisible'.

reply

^The mini-series you refer to is the original one with Alec Guinness? Maybe I should take a look at that also.

reply

The mini-series you refer to is the original one with Alec Guinness?

Yessirr!
Maybe I should take a look at that also.

Highly recommendable. And please don't start comparing the two, trying to tell which is the better.
Two hours duration vs. five. And a difference of more than forty years, the first from the Ice Age, the latter from twenty years after it - and in the middle of another cold war. I think they are both fine movies

reply

Yessirr!


Yes ma'am would be more appropriate.

reply

Would you also recommend Smiley's People as good viewing?

reply

Of course.... Ma'm(!)
On the risk of spoiling 'the point' (if you have not read the novel) I will say that it completes the picture of George Smiley (and Circus), because it makes it clear that to fight evilness the good guys cannot stay good. They have to be evil too.....
So in the end, after his 'victory', George Smiley is not happy at all. In realty he has squandered everything. A very sinister ending.

reply

^Thanks.

reply

I thought it was fairly explicit that Prideaux killed Haydon because they had been lovers and Prideaux was heart broken that the Haydon had sent him to his death.

reply


I thought it was fairly explicit that Prideaux killed Haydon because they had been lovers and Prideaux was heart broken that the Haydon had sent him to his death.


In the BBC series it is pretty explicit that Jim Prideaux's motive is vengeance. Bill Haydon was his close friend, someone he looked up to and trusted and worshiped - who betrayed him and betrayed all his friends, betraying his trust by killing people he was responsible for. It is also hinted they were lovers, which gives an extra edge to his feelings of betrayal, but is perhaps not entirely essential to understand his motives.

I'd say that Jim's motives are also clear in the book; but it's less explicit, since the killing of Bill by Jim occurs off-screen.

In the 2011 film, the director's intent is that Prideaux's act is an act of love. He does not care about anything else, only about Bill. He is saving Bill from a fate worse than death by killing him.

Does that make any sense? No it does not. It is ridiculous. But it is the director's intent in this awful film. He says so outright in the director's commentary.

It also helps explain other weird scenes, like where evil Smiley evilly threatens Toby with deportation, and Toby grovels for mercy. This emphasizes the idea that deportation is a fate worse than death, setting up the ending. (An idiotic scene - Toby really was loyal - there was no need to threaten him - all Smiley needed to do was convince him of the truth, as he did in the book and BBC film. To have almost EVERYONE be a traitor - except Smiley who here is almost the bad-guy - undermined the core idea around which the film is based).

And other weird scenes, like the crazy behavior of the Hungarian Operative, and the woman getting tragically and senselessly killed, and Prideaux being shot in the back even though he freezes with his hands in the air, and the KGB operative cursing out the Hungarian agent for his bizarre, crazy and senseless behavior contrary to plan. See? It wasn't Bill's fault at all! How could Bill have predicted that a completely crazy person would shoot Jim for absolutely no reason? That's what that was all about. And Jim falling unconscious instantly - no pain - no suffering - nothing to get revenge for. Jim's "torture" sequence consists of being forced to listen to bad music.

Also, in this film it is implied that it was Jim (not Bill) who betrayed Jim's agents (and got them killed). Smiley's line "I know that's not true of course" (from the book and film) is deliberately omitted (so the director can point out in the commentary how sadistic Smiley is for rubbing Jim's nose in their deaths). So again, nothing to get revenge for. They are both traitors. Jim and Bill against the world, only caring about each other. Yuck.

reply

Well I go by what the film says to me rather than what the director has to explain in the commentary.

I agree as you explain it that if that is the intent, it does not make much sense, but I don't think that comes across in the film itself at all. At least not to me or anyone I know who has seen the film, which I thought was a pretty great adaptation (I'm a long time fan of both the book and the BBC version)

reply


Well I go by what the film says to me rather than what the director has to explain in the commentary.

I agree as you explain it that if that is the intent, it does not make much sense, but I don't think that comes across in the film itself at all. At least not to me or anyone I know who has seen the film, which I thought was a pretty great adaptation (I'm a long time fan of both the book and the BBC version)


You want to go by the film? Fine. Watch the film. See Jim and Bill giving each other meaningful looks as Jim is taking aim. See a tear run down Jim's cheek. Then, and only then, does Jim pull the trigger and Bill fall dead. And throughout, listen while a maginificent French love song, sung by a male tenor, plays on the soundtrack.

And it's not just me. People on this board, indeed in this very thread, have raised the possibility that Jim's motive was mercy. The director's comments confirm that this was no accident. The director intended to leave open this possibility, and even considers it his preferred interpretation. He's not a random observer offering a random opinion. He's the director. His interpretation affects the film. We see what we see because of the choices he made, and the instructions he gave the actors.

Here's another thing to consider. What was the purpose of the owl scene, where Jim kills the owl?

I can explain its purpose in the book. In the book Jim kills the owl with his HANDS, by expertly breaking its NECK. This establishes that he is skilled in killing with his HANDS. This is meant to serve as a clue to later developments. Later, when Bill is killed off-page, one of the clues we have his that his neck was expertly broken. So the reader is meant to go "Ahah! It was Jim, then."

The BBC version has Jim kill Bill on-screen. Hence, they had no need for this clue - they were portraying the event directly. No owl scene is needed and no owl scene is used.

The 2011 film includes the owl scene. It is not necessary as a clue because, as in the BBC version, the killing occurs onscreen. But at least it could have been a foreshadowing. Nah. In this version, Jim kills Bill with a rifle, and it is impossible to make any connection between the two incidents. So why sabotage his own movie, leaving a random owl scene that serves no purpose at all?? Let me humbly suggest that the reason for the change is that its hard to make killing someone with your hands, by breaking his neck, look like an "act of love".

reply

Watch the film. See Jim and Bill giving each other meaningful looks as Jim is taking aim. See a tear run down Jim's cheek. Then, and only then, does Jim pull the trigger and Bill fall dead. And throughout, listen while a maginificent French love song, sung by a male tenor, plays on the soundtrack.

And it's not just me. People on this board, indeed in this very thread, have raised the possibility that Jim's motive was mercy. The director's comments confirm that this was no accident. The director intended to leave open this possibility, and even considers it his preferred interpretation. He's not a random observer offering a random opinion. He's the director. His interpretation affects the film. We see what we see because of the choices he made, and the instructions he gave the actors.
The biggest problem with this (very popular) interpretation is how nonsensical it is. There is no indication in the text of the book, the dialog of the film or reality to suggest that Haydon was heading off to some fate worse than death from which he needed saving.

Defectors to the Soviet Union were not treated especially well, but they weren’t treated badly, either. Kim Philby endured a drab, uninteresting life in Moscow for 25 years after his defection, and there was never any indication that he’d been locked up, interrogated or tortured in the whole time he was there.

The Russians were, if not indulgent, then tolerant toward their defectors. Guy Burgess escaped any serious sanction from the authorities even after he drunkenly pissed in the fireplace at a Chinese Embassy reception.

reply


The biggest problem with this (very popular) interpretation is how nonsensical it is. There is no indication in the text of the book, the dialog of the film or reality to suggest that Haydon was heading off to some fate worse than death from which he needed saving.


I agree with the above, and indeed with your entire post, as far as reality, and the book, and the BBC version go. I disagree only for the part about there being nothing in the dialogue of the film (by which I mean this particular film, not the BBC version) that suggests this idea. As I mentioned before, Toby's reaction on being threated with repatriation to the iron curtain (as an airplane looms menacingly in the background) is indeed meant to suggest this idea.

And of course, there are the non-dialog clues: the meaningful looks, the tear, the love-song playing, the fact that (as the director points out in his commentary) Bill seems to LET Jim do it.

reply

In the specific case of Toby’s threatened repatriation to Hungary, there’s some justification. If I recall correctly, movie Toby is a refugee/defector from Hungary, and the Hungarian secret police—historically, known to be an exceptionally nasty group of people—would almost certainly have arrested, tortured and executed him upon his arrival in Budapest.

However, in a film with many, many things I disliked, I don’t think there is another scene I hated nearly as much as the runway scene. The above circumstance seems to have been invented for the film in order to make possible to have sad, blubbery Toby Esterhase beg George Smiley for his life.

And the idea that George Smiley, of all people, would get information out of a colleague by threatening to have him deported to a country where he would tortured and killed borders on offensive. The literary relationship between Smiley and Esterhase is complicated and interesting, and to throw all that out to produce a bizarre bit of melodrama is, to me, ridiculous. Not for the first time, I have to wonder how much effort the screenwriters put into understanding the book.

reply


In the specific case of Toby’s threatened repatriation to Hungary, there’s some justification. If I recall correctly, movie Toby is a refugee/defector from Hungary, and the Hungarian secret police—historically, known to be an exceptionally nasty group of people—would almost certainly have arrested, tortured and executed him upon his arrival in Budapest.

However, in a film with many, many things I disliked, I don’t think there is another scene I hated nearly as much as the runway scene. The above circumstance seems to have been invented for the film in order to make possible to have sad, blubbery Toby Esterhase beg George Smiley for his life.

And the idea that George Smiley, of all people, would get information out of a colleague by threatening to have him deported to a country where he would tortured and killed borders on offensive. The literary relationship between Smiley and Esterhase is complicated and interesting, and to throw all that out to produce a bizarre bit of melodrama is, to me, ridiculous. Not for the first time, I have to wonder how much effort the screenwriters put into understanding the book.


Yes. I agree with all of the above.

It's not that its incredible that Toby might not want to go back to Hungary. It's just that the scene makes no sense in a general way.

The whole idea of the film is (or should be) that there is only one traitor. Everyone else in the scheme (including Toby) is a dupe who thinks they are playing the Russians in a double-game. Threatening Toby makes absolutely no sense in this context. If Smiley convinces Toby, Toby will cooperate with Smiley out of loyalty (but will suffer a blow to his ego in the process). If Smiley fails to convince Toby, Toby will stand firm and refuse to cooperate with Smiley, also out of loyalty. That's it! Threats make no sense here, AT ALL!

But since it makes no sense, why do it? My suggestion was that it sets up the idea that Jim killing Bill was a mercy killing, since Toby's blubbering sets the stage for the idea that life behind the iron curtain is a horrible fate.

reply

But since it makes no sense, why do it? My suggestion was that it sets up the idea that Jim killing Bill was a mercy killing, since Toby's blubbering sets the stage for the idea that life behind the iron curtain is a horrible fate.
Fair enough.

reply

Good grief! how on earth can you possibly construe this nonsense:

In the 2011 film, the director's intent is that Prideaux's act is an act of love. He does not care about anything else, only about Bill. He is saving Bill from a fate worse than death by killing him.

Does that make any sense? No it does not. It is ridiculous. But it is the director's intent in this awful film. He says so outright in the director's commentary.


from what Alfredson actually says on that commentary:

"He [Jim] loves him. I'm not sure if this [killing of Haydon] is an act of revenge or an act of love or both.



What are you up to nystulc:

A. Your usual grossly deficient comprehension of TTSS - oblivious to your own incompetence?

Or

B. A conscious crude distortion, a flagrant pathetic lie designed to influence anyone here you assume to be gullible or naive enough to accept it on trust?



I'm kinda hoping it's the former.

reply

"I'm kinda hoping it's the former." - Simon23


That doesn't look very likely.

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

reply


from what Alfredson actually says on that commentary:

"He [Jim] loves him. I'm not sure if this [killing of Haydon] is an act of revenge or an act of love or both.


You quote from the commentary, and CONVENIENTLY leave out the part that immediately follows, where Alfredson says which of these 3 options he personally favors???

I guess that makes you dishonest.

The director's preferred interpretation influences the film. It is no accident that they seem to be giving each other loving looks, while a tear rolls down Jim's cheek, while a French love-song sung by a magnificent male tenor plays over the soundtrack, just before Jim fires the fatal shot.

This was so obvious, that I could not miss it, even though I had already read the book and the film, and my expectations were completely contrary.

Nor am I the only one. Many viewers on this board, having seen the film, reached the exact same conclusion (and without checking the commentary). The director's comments prove it was no accident. Even the part you quote indicates that he thinks the killing as "act of love" is a valid interpretation of what he chose to portray.

reply

You quote from the commentary, and CONVENIENTLY leave out the part that immediately follows, where Alfredson says which of these 3 options he personally favors???

I guess that makes you dishonest.


Afraid not - nothing on show here but your usual standard of stellar stupidity and delusion:

Alfredson: He [Jim] loves him. I'm not sure if this [killing of Haydon] is an act of revenge or an act of love or both.

Oldman: I like to think it's an act of love. Because he's going to go back inne [isn't he] it's not going to be very nice for him.

Alfredson: No. And he [Haydon] let's him do it.





That's it, Alfredson in fact says nothing further "as to which of these 3 options he personally favors". Still, nice to see you've inexplicably shifted your wrong headed position slightly in the space of 24 hours:

In the 2011 film, the director's intent is that Prideaux's act is an act of love. He does not care about anything else, only about Bill. He is saving Bill from a fate worse than death by killing him.


Becomes:

The director intended to leave open this possibility ["that Jim's motive was mercy"], and even considers it his preferred interpretation.



You're failing to realise - it's Le Carre that deliberately 'bakes in' the connotation of Haydon's mercy killing as a possible motive by selecting an owl for Prideaux to put out of its misery in the first place. The theme isn't as bizarre as you seem to think and long precedes Alfredson - for example from a 1999 book The Spy Novels of John Le Carre:

Prideaux follows Smiley as he tracks down the mole. After Haydon has been finally identified and incarcerated, Prideaux breaks his neck in the manner in which he had previously dispatched an injured bird at Thursgood’s school.This act could be interpreted either as an act of revenge or as a mercy killing (the allusion to the wounded bird) of someone whose life of intrigue was over and therefore had nothing more for which to live. [pg.44]

reply


Afraid not - nothing on show here but your usual standard of stellar stupidity
and delusion:


Insults? You lose!


Alfredson: He [Jim] loves him. I'm not sure if this [killing of Haydon] is an act of revenge or an act of love or both.

Oldman: I like to think it's an act of love. Because he's going to go back inne [isn't he] it's not going to be very nice for him.

Alfredson: No. And he [Haydon] let's him do it.


What exactly are you trying to prove here? That I did not remember every word of the conversation verbatim?

Okay okay, so it was Oldman who said he preferred to think it was an act of love. But Alfredson agreed with his reasoning, and went on to further support him by pointing out that Bill LETS Jim kill him. The clear implication is that it's really a mercy killing.

Like I said, the meaningful looks the director has them give each other, shortly before the fatal shot, are NO ACCIDENT!


That's it, Alfredson in fact says nothing further "as to which of these 3 options he personally favors".


What more does he need to say?


You're failing to realise - it's Le Carre that deliberately 'bakes in' the connotation of Haydon's mercy killing as a possible motive by selecting an owl for Prideaux to put out of its misery in the first place.


YOU'RE the one making that connection in the novel. Yes, I agree that killing the owl was a mercy killing and not an act of vengeance. I also agree that the owl was covered in soot and that Bill was not; and that the owl terrorized Jim's students and that Bill did not. But those, in my view, are not the intended connections between the two incidents.

The intended connection is that Jim skillfully kills with his hands by breaking the neck in both cases. This is important because Bill's killing occurs offscreen and the author needs to give the reader clues about Jim's M.O. The other details are incidental.

In order to draw the "mercy killing" connection in Le Carre's novel, you have to agree that the idea makes sense. But I was just having a relatively sane discussion with someone who agreed with me that it made NO sense. If it does not make sense, there is no adequate reason to draw the connection in Le Carre's novel. There is already an adequate explanation for the significance of the owl incident in the novel that DOES make sense.

Seems to me you're changing your tune a little bit. Instead of arguing that the director did not intend this interpretation, you arguing that he did, but that's okay because Le Carre intended it first; and the reason you think that Le Carre must have intended it is presumably because you think it makes sense after all.

reply

Seems to me you're changing your tune a little bit. Instead of arguing that the director did not intend this interpretation, you arguing that he did, but that's okay because Le Carre intended it first; and the reason you think that Le Carre must have intended it is presumably because you think it makes sense after all.


nystulc, excuse me, let us be quite clear, simon23 never said of even implied the director did not at all intend the mercy killing interpretation. He has two posts on the issue, and in the first one he actually quotes the director as not knowing whether Jim killed Bill out of 1) a)love, 2)revenge or 3)both. What simon was opposed to was your argument that
In the 2011 film, the director's intent is that Prideaux's act is an act of love. He does not care about anything else, only about Bill. He is saving Bill from a fate worse than death by killing him
,
i.e. your rigid stand that mercy killing was the director's only interpretation (originally you did not even say "preferred", as simon also aptly points out).

Simon23 then goes on to contradict your claim -
Does that /the mercy killing interpretation/ make any sense? No it does not. It is ridiculous
- by indicating that leCarré himself leaves the mercy killing interpretation open by the metaphoric parallel of the killing of the owl. Simon never says it was leCarré's only intention. In fact, his brings a quote from Aronoff's extremely interesting 1998/1999 book that emphasises the possibility of multiple interpretations. However, it also makes it clear that at least the perceptive critic Aronoff does not exclude the mercy killing interpretation nor consider it ridiculous. Let me bring the quote at a slightly greater length:

To dramatize further the depth of Haydon’s betrayal of Prideaux, le
Carré implies that they were lovers as well as colleagues and close friends.
Prideaux follows Smiley as he tracks down the mole. After Haydon has
been finally identified and incarcerated, Prideaux breaks his neck in the
manner in which he had previously dispatched an injured bird at Thurs-
good’s school.This act could be interpreted either as an act of revenge or
as a mercy killing (the allusion to the wounded bird) of someone whose
life of intrigue was over and therefore had nothing more for which to
live. It is also entirely consistent with le Carré that it was both, because
he suggests that individuals act for a multiplicity of reasons — particularly
when they appear to be acting without reason.
pp. 44-45 (emphasis mine).

(As an aside, I would like to add that there are many other clues in the book for the killer of Haydon than Jim's MO. I myself started TTSS with the book, did not notice the parallel with the owl yet never doubted who the potential killer moving in the shadows was that Smiley tried his best to protect Haydon against. There was no need for any version of the film or for paying extra attention to Jim's MO. So I, for one, find the metaphoric/connotational interpretation much more plausible than your rather mechanical theory of a badly needed clue to a puzzle).

The first sentence of the quote lends support to what I have previously claimed on this forum, viz., that it is leCarré himself who implies that Jim and Bill were lovers (in fact, he is fairly unequivocal about it when he makes Lacon express his surprise at quite how close these two were in their Oxford times - indeed very unequivocal for anyone who knows the historical context). But it is the last sentence that is most important here: both a good writer and a good director (and Alfredson is one) understand that "both" is closer to reality than "either... or...", or for that matter "all three (four, etc") is closer to human psychology than the exclusive disjunction of "either ... or ...or ...or...".

So what about the dialogue between Alfredson and Gary Oldman? Again, simon23 is perfectly correct in saying that Alfredson does not say here what his preferred interpretation is. Let us have a look.

Alfredson: He [Jim] loves him. I'm not sure if this [killing of Haydon] is an act of revenge or an act of love or both.

Oldman: I like to think it's an act of love. Because he's going to go back inne [isn't he] it's not going to be very nice for him.

Alfredson: No. And he [Haydon] let's him do it.


Alfredson does not say: "Yes come to think of it, that would be the right/my preferred interpretation". On the other hand, I hope you do not think that Oldman, too, is harbouring "ridiculous" notions? You'd end up with quite a lot of idiots, including Aronoff, leCarré, Alfredson, Oldman, simon23, of course, and also your humble servant, and many more, including many throughout the history of this board 😃.

What we actually have here is two intelligent people deliberating Jim's various potential motives, weighing evidence for one or another interpretation and quite possibly, again as intelligent people, understanding that a person can and very often does act out of multiple motives. I do not have the whole conversation but it seems likely that they themselves would not have raised the "which motive" issue, the discussion was probably in response to an interviewer's question, if not explicit then behind the scenes? People do so like clarity and are so uncomfortable with a fuzzy world with multiple causes ...

Summary: you have fully misrepresented simon23 on all points and then "refuted" him, a typical strawman technique (and no, I am not a sockpuppet😃, just a person who has an intense dislike for logical fallacies and/or faulty logic, whichever is the case with you, and a great respect/love both for leCarré and the makers of this film).

P.S. My own "preferred interpretation" will be left to a reply to simon23 him/herself.

reply


nystulc, excuse me, let us be quite clear, simon23 never said of even implied
the director did not at all intend the mercy killing interpretation.


Well, gee. I thought he at least IMPLIED it, since he appeared (to me) to be attacking me for saying the director DID intend that interpretation. But I don't want to debate who said what. If we are all now in happy agreement that the director intends the "mercy killing" interpretation, let us move on.


What simon was opposed to was your argument that

> In the 2011 film, the director's intent is that Prideaux's act is an act of
> love. He does not care about anything else, only about Bill. He is saving
> Bill from a fate worse than death by killing him ,

i.e. your rigid stand that mercy killing was the director's only interpretation (originally you did not even say "preferred", as simon also aptly points out).


Okay. I'm not sure what your quibble is here. Obviously the director is aware of the "revenge" interpretation. That interpretation was pretty explicitly portrayed in the BBC version; and is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the novel, which is arguably more vague about it than the BBC version was. The novel and the BBC version loom over this version, since it is not (in my view) able to stand on its own.

The filmmakers have gone out of their way to insert a different "take" on it into their own version. Obviously that was intentional, on the part of the director and probably other people too. At least half a dozen changes have been made to the story, all intended to nudge things in that direction.

So your quibble now is: Yes, he intended it; but he intended the interpretation to be OPTIONAL. Fine. Okay. I get it. It's like modern art. You splotch some paint on the canvas and tell the viewer to interpret it himself. It does not change the fact that the director did indeed intend the interpretation I proposed.

Take a look at what I wrote again. I did not say that this was the director's "ONLY" interpretation. I merely said that he intended it. He deliberately inserted this ridiculous element into the film. And you agree that he did indeed intend it. So what exactly is your problem?

You go on to take issue with my claim that the mercy killing idea is "ridiculous". That's another subject, which I may address in a later post. It's what we all should have been discussing in the first place, since we all seem to agree that the director intended the "mercy killing" interpretation; whether he meant it to be optional or not.

reply

That interpretation was pretty explicitly portrayed in the BBC version; and is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the novel, which is arguably more vague about it than the BBC version was.


In the BBC version, possibly yes, but not in the novel - that is both simon23' and my point, and Aronoff's, whom we both quote, and, ultimately, le Carré's, who loves Alfredson's version. The film, if anything, "nudges things" in the direction of the novel.

It seems that you really do not understand the notion of multiple motives. And you really do not understand that in the conversation with Alfredson and Oldman Alfredson did not say that his "intention", optional or primary, was to portray Jim's act as mercy killing - the conversation simply was not that primitive. Even though I know this will fall on deaf ears, I'll repeat one more time: what simon23 says explicitly is that the director does not know for sure (nor needs to know, I might add) what Jim's motives for killing were. Hence, none of these motives could have been, strictly speaking, the director's intention. If the director "intended" anything, it would rather be multiple, fuzzy, intertwined, not quite knowable motives. What he is sure of though is that Jim loves Haydon. Yet, as an intelligent person, he also sees (and demonstrates throughout this film and "Let the right one in") that love itself is a very complex notion that can embrace mercy, revenge or both, and much more ...

But again, it seems you really are unable to conceive that revenge and love may not be mutually exclusive, indeed that revenge may be taken because of love. Or, for that matter, that communication/interpretation is far more complex than just attaching the "right" meaning to an utterance or text. Of course you would despise modern art, no surprise there 😃; and think that "traditional art" has only one interpretation (so the right, reasonable meaning of "The Nude Maja" is a naked woman, or what? What is the reasonable interpretation of "Mona Lisa"?). Clearly you would have been flabbergasted by experience like mine where two leading old-school, traditionalist Shakespeare specialists, at different times, told me their interpretations of "Hamlet", which were almost exact opposites of each other (let alone totally different from my own "preferred one"), both claiming that after long years of research and reflection they had finally come to the "right" interpretation ... Or, as you would put it, "the only reasonable one".

So, since this is your framework of thinking, I do not see any sense in continuing the discussion. I am sorry I started it, should have known better from previous experience ... I had hoped to correct at least some of the distortions of the views of a fellow board-member whose perspicuity (as well as felicity with words) I have always admired, and even more so a film, and a book, that I love, but, as I foresaw, even that hope was too much. If simon23's first post where he explicitly quotes three possible motives for Jim's act as offered by the director himself made you think that he was attacking you for saying "that the director DID intend that /mercy killing/interpretation", what is the use of further discussion? He attacked you, yes, but for your general primitive one-sided approach (
Prideaux's act is an act of love. He does not care about anything else, only about Bill. He is saving Bill from a fate worse than death by killing him
- the very way you formulate what you think is the director's "intent" is enough to make one groan with embarrassment).

If after my detailed explanations you still believe that
we are all now in happy agreement that the director intends the "mercy killing" interpretation, let us move on
, there is no moving on, because, even though you seem to be unable to understand it, we are not in agreement, much less in a happy one.

If you take the same simplistic approach to the question of whether the idea of "mercy killing" is or is not ridiculous, at least I will not be there to read it. The discussion so far has been painful enough and I am a relatively rare guest on the board these days.

reply


In the BBC version, possibly yes, but not in the novel - that is both simon23' and
my point, and Aronoff's, whom we both cite, and, ultimately not leCarrés, who loves Alfredson's version. The film, if anything, "nudges things" in the direction of the
novel.


Enough about Aronoff, please. Aronoff is NOT Le Carre. He is Aronoff.

If you want to argue from the book, argue from the book. Or at least a quote from Le Carre. I've already told you why I'm unconvinced by the owl/mercy-killing connection, which I think is a very weak argument. It does not become more convincing just because Aronoff agrees with it. Come up with something else, please!


If the director "intended" anything, it would rather be multiple, fuzzy, intertwined, not quite knowable motives.


You know, I'm not even going to disagree with that assessment. It explains so succinctly why this version of the story is awful.


It seems that you really do not understand the notion of multiple motives.


Vengeance and Mercy are contradictory motives, especially when killing someone. To make too much of the idea a single act of murder can can be both at the same time, is to permit the discussion to descend into incoherence.

A coherent work of art has to have some idea as to what it is about. Choices must be made. The artist cannot simply spout nonsense, while declare everything to be unknowable.


It seems you really are unable to conceive that revenge and love may not be mutually exclusive, indeed that revenge may be taken because of love


Now you're distorting what I said. I never said one could not take revenge because of "love". Indeed, I explicitly acknowledged that aspect of the situation. I merely said that the vengeance itself is not an "act of love" in the sense of being a benevolent act of mercy.


So, since this is your framework of thinking, I do not see any sense in continuing the discussion. I am sorry I started it, should have known better from previous experience ...

The discussion so far has been painful enough....


I'll say what I said before. Continue the discussion as you please, or bow out as you please. But DON'T WHINE!!

reply


As an aside, I would like to add that there are many other clues in the book for the killer of Haydon than Jim's MO.


Of course. Le Carre gives us lots of clues that Jim was the culprit. He makes sure the reader does not miss the implication. I hope we are not going to get into some silly debate about how many clues are strictly and absolutely necessary. He gave us alot of clues, and this is one of them. If a reader misses a few of them, he may still catch the rest.


There was no need for any version of the film or for paying extra attention to Jim's MO.


That's because in the filmed versions, the killing is portrayed directly. You don't need to give clues to what you show directly.

The BBC version showed the killing directly, so it did not need an owl scene as a clue and did not use one. The 2011 version has an owl scene that serves no purpose at all - not even the purpose you allege.

It is impossible for a viewer to look at a scene of a teacher whacking a healthy-looking owl, who can fly, with a ruler, and draw the conclusion that this is supposed to signify a "mercy killing".


The first sentence of the quote lends support to what I have previously claimed on this forum, viz., that it is leCarré himself who implies that Jim and Bill were lovers


The novel does indeed hint that Jim & Bill were lovers at one point. (But this is because the novel says so; not because Aronoff says so; why are you quoting Aronoff?). The BBC version also hints that they were lovers; and in this sense is faithful to the novel. But that's not what we were discussing. The discussion is whether killing Bill was a mercy killing or an act of vengeance.


On the other hand, I hope you do not think that Oldman, too, is harbouring "ridiculous" notions?


I think that Oldman interprets the film as supporting the "mercy killing" idea; and is basically correct in that conclusion.

I don't expect him to voice criticism or disapproval of the film; that would no doubt be contrary to his contractual obligations.

I think the film is ridiculous, yes. I don't expect Oldman to publicly agree with me.


You'd end up with quite a lot of idiots, including Aronoff, leCarré, Alfredson, Oldman, simon23, of course, and also your humble servant, and many more, including many throughout the history of this board


Le Carre does not belong on the list. But you are all correct in your interpretation of the FILM, just as Oldman was.

And when are you going to drop this "How dare you simplistically accuse us of believing it's a mercy killing; and anyway we are RIGHT to believe it is a mercy killing" nonsense?

reply

After having corrected nystulc's flawed logic regarding your position in an long reply to his post, I reserved this to a reply to you, just not to make the task of understanding too difficult for that person - not that I have any hopes of success😊. Based on previous experience, awaiting me there will be an even longer reply muddling things even further (by now my prophesy has been proved correct).

The"Jim Kills Bill" theme remains endlessly fascinating, though. My own "preferred version" - by no means definitive or something I would like to impose on others - is love but not so much "love as mercy", rather "love betrayed", or something almost in the vein of "each man kills the thing he loves". In this sense the killing is mutual, Jim, though untouched by the authorities, would hardly be "alive and well" after that fatal shot. Even more precisely (and that is the reason for writing this post, which otherwise repeats much that I have already said on this board on the subject), James Prideaux behaves very similarly to Julien Sorel in "The Red and the Black", by some called the first psychological novel of all time (by no means a romantic novel!). The reasons for the (attempt of) killing are similarly mysterious, too.

Critics who know the historical context are almost unanimous that Mme Renal, by betraying Julien via her letter, did not actually cause a social downfall for him or indeed harm his ambitions or prospects in any serious way: he was already ennobled by the time the letter arrived and had obtained his position as a lieutenant in the army, this was officially irreversible. Even his prospective father-in-law would most likely have eventually come around. A letter from a provincial lady could easily have been explained away as a product of petty jealousy. So why go and commit what was, au fond, nothing but a murder-attempt-cum-suicide?

I find one explanation, offered by a number of critics, most plausible. Again, the desperate act was, according to this interpretation, motivated by love, and followed love's tortuous - and torturous - logic. Put in a painfully simplified way: betrayed by somebody he suddenly, at the very moment of betrayal, discovers he genuinely loves, Julien does not want to live - nor, as the first impulse, does he want his loved one to continue living. So revenge and love are not only intertwined here but essentially the same thing.

This version is supported by a remarkable sentence in the landmark 1954 screen version. In that version, when Mathilde repels/betrays Julien, he seizes a sword to kill her, only to put it back in slow deliberate motion, just like in the novel. However, he also utters words that are not in the novel though perfectly in accord with its spirit: "I do not love you enough to get myself executed for you" (my rough translation). Those words were a kind of epiphany to me: Julien did not love Mathilde enough to really attempt to kill her (and be killed in his turn), and did love Mme Renal enough to do just that.

So why am I telling this on a TTSS board? Because I see exactly the same happening in TTSS. Despite his very real physical suffering in Moscow and later psychological suffering when back in Britain, Jim would not have bothered to take action had he been, deep down, indifferent to Bill. Not the Jim of the book, nor the one of the film. The Jim of the BBC version is simpler, rougher, coarser, ruder, partly probably because any hint of love between the two men has been carefully erased. As he is shown in the BBC version, Jim is quite likely to have followed the eye-for-an-eye path, which is also revenge, but of an inherently mediocre kind. The more complex Jim of the book and the film would, in the case of a mere erstwhile friend turned traitor, probably have let things take their official course. Killing somebody he felt nothing but contempt for would have been beneath him. Unconsciously, he would have believed that being killed would be an honour that the, by the time, virtual stranger had not deserved. (Honour is, after all, an important theme in the hyper-cynical world of le Carré). Ignoring that person would have been a far more adequate response. Also, indifferent contempt is cold, it does not generate the energy needed for a passionate and profoundly tragic act that killing "the thing he loved" was for the Jim of the book and of the film.

I do not wonder that the end sequence of the film has acquired something of a cult status, being shown, inter alia, as a separate clip. What a mediocre person sees as ridiculous glances between the two men and "that tenor singing a love song" is the culmination of a work of art that has been excellent throughout (even more so on a tenth viewing than on the first). And the culmination tells the story of love betrayed, between Jim and Bill first of all, accompanied by those between Smiley and Ann, Irina and Ricki, Connie and her "boys". Love both generous and avenging, tragic and beautful.

So
...all men kill the thing they love,
By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

P.S. And what about mercy killing? If one believes, as I do, in multiple motives (Julien Sorel had multiple motives for shooting Mme Renal, too, wounded pride, inferiority complex, social protest - the list goes on, "Le Rouge et le Noir" is not a romantic novel), then this could also have played its part. Jim had seen the Soviets at their most authentic, he may well have exaggerated the dismal side of the future that awaited Bill in Moscow. Bill's prototype Kim Philby was not unhappy there, with a young wife and the best lifestyle possible in the Soviet Union, yet he did drink heavily and felt underrated/depressed. But it's not what happened to real-life Philby but what Jim would have thought that matters here, so the motive could have been love, revenge and mercy all at the same time. I cannot help quoting that passage from Aronoff once again: "It is also entirely consistent with le Carré that it was both, because he suggests that individuals act for a multiplicity of reasons — particularly when they appear to be acting without reason".

💨💨💨


reply


The"Jim Kills Bill" theme remains endlessly fascinating, though. My own "preferred version" - by no means definitive or something I would like to impose on others - is love but not so much "love as mercy", rather "love betrayed", or something almost in the vein of "each man kills the thing he loves".


There is a thin line between love and hate, they say. But there is still a difference, and it is disturbing to see acts of rage and hate and despair and injured pride such as murder-suicides, romanticized and glorified as "acts of love".

Certainly this is NOT what Oldman and Alfredson mean when they refer to Jim's act as an "act of love". From the arguments they make (Bill lets Jim do it, and it's not going to be nice for Bill in Russia), it is clear they mean "mercy killing". It is ridiculous and makes no sense, but it is still not quite as offensive as the romantic glorification of the murder-suicide.

In the book, Jim's killing of Bill is act of vengeance and (only partially) one of love betrayed. It is not a "mercy killing" as portrayed in the film; but it is hardly a "murder-suicide" either. Jim in the book is far more sympathetic than your typical murder-suicide. He is not suicidal, and he has alot more to avenge than merely love betrayed and injured pride. As much as Jim has suffered, it is not merely about himself. He is not merely committing murder because his feelings are hurt. He is avenging his colleagues who Bill murdered. If vengeance is your preferred interpretation, then why did you not agree with me in the first place that the book was better?

For the film is very different from the book. We don't have to take Alfredson's and Oldman's word for it either. Let's list the differences:



[1] HOW PATRIOTIC IS JIM? In the BOOK, very patriotic. In the FILM, there is no mention of this.

[2] IS JIM ANTI-SOCIALIST? In the BOOK, Jim has anti-socialist attitudes (the Alvis, best car in England, is "Out of production, thanks to socialism"). In the FILM, he makes no such remarks, and the Alvis is merely "the best car in England".

[3] WHO SETS JIM UP? In the BOOK, Bill did; "Testify" was a setup from the start and Bill anticipated that Control would pick Jim for the mission. In the FILM there is no indication that "Testify" is a setup, so it's just Control who sends Jim into danger.

[4] WHY DOES JIM WARN BILL ABOUT "TESTIFY"? In the BOOK, Jim warned Bill because he loved Bill and trusted Bill and thought that Control had gone crazy; and this is significant because it contrasts Jim's loyalty with Bill's perfidy (making Bill briefly feel a bit guilty) and not because it gives Bill any new info. In the FILM, Jim warns Bill because he knows Bill is a traitor (which makes Jim a traitor too); and this is presumably how Bill learns about "Testify".

[5] WHY DOES JIM GET SHOT? In the BOOK, Jim gets shot because he is a brave and loyal soldier of Britain who puts up determined and desperate fight, and does everything in his power to complete the mission and avoid capture. In the FILM he betrays the mission himself; and gets shot by a crazy madman for absolutely no reason, contrary to Russian orders, after calmly walking into Karla's hands, and calmly surrendering.

[6] HOW BADLY IS JIM INJURED? In the BOOK, Jim suffers 2 machine-gun bullets in the back, a botched spinal operation by Russian medics, and left a permanently hunchback in constant agony; which he manages by regular doses of Vodka and heroic levels of stubborn stoicism. In the FILM, Jim takes 1 bullet in the shoulder from a low-caliber pistol; and as a result his shoulder seems a bit stiff when he first arrives at the school, but he seems perfectly fine thereafter and never seems to be in any pain.

[7] WHO ELSE GETS SHOT DURING JIM'S CAPTURE? In the BOOK, it's just Jim. In the FILM, the focus is on the even worse tragedy of a beautiful young mother shot dead by the same crazy madman; which has the effect of completely overshadowing Jim's tragedy, as well as proving that it is so random and senseless that Bill cannot possibly have anticipated it and cannot possibly be blamed.

[8] HOW DOES JIM FEEL ABOUT BEING LURED INTO A TRAP? In the BOOK, he feels vindictive; and wishes he had broken the neck of the Magyar who led him into the trap. This foreshadows Bill's death. In the FILM, Jim displays no vindictive attitudes.

[9] WHO BLEW THE NETWORKS? In the BOOK, Bill did, long ago, but the capture of the networks is timed with Jim's capture as part of the frame-up of Jim and Control. In the FILM, Jim blows the networks himself; by failing to hold out long enough under Russian interrogation.

[10] WHO BLAMES JIM FOR BLOWING THE NETWORKS? In the BOOK, Bill did, that was part of the setup; but Smiley assures Jim he does not believe it. In the FILM, Smiley blames Jim, because he's a big meany.

[11] WHAT IS THE FATE OF THE NETWORKS? In the BOOK, they are extensively tortured and then shot by the Russians. In the FILM, we are merely told that the networks failed to "get out"; it is not even clear that it is human beings we are talking about.

[12] HOW DOES JIM REACT TO THEIR FATE? In the BOOK, Jim is clearly shaken and horrified when he learns the fate of the networks, and keeps asking questions and referring to them by name. In the FILM, there is no reaction, but Jim is presumably a bit hurt that Smiley is being so mean by blaming him.

[13] WHY IS PETER SO ANGRY? In the BOOK, Peter is traumatized by the loss of his field agents, and suspicious that his friend Bill and his lover Camilla are leading double lives, making him nervous and paranoid and wanting to hit people, especially the mole. (By extension, this helps us understand how Jim feels). In the FILM, Peter is gay and forced to lead a double life, and upset because evil heteros like Smiley and Ricki are making him spy on his own people, making him sad and angry and wanting to hit people, especially mole-hunters like Ricki. (This helps us understand how Bill feels?)

[14] WHY DOES TOBY ASSIST THE MOLE HUNT? In the book, Smiley convinces Toby that there is indeed a mole; and Toby (being loyal) is taken aback but offers to help. In the film, Smiley obtains Toby's cooperation by threatening to repatriate Toby to the iron curtain; causing Toby blubber for mercy; establishing that Smiley is mean; that deportation to Soviet territory is a horrible fate; and that it takes severe threats to force a British intelligence officer to join a sadistic campaign to persecute small burrowing mammals.

[15] HOW DOES BILL FEEL ABOUT BEING TRADED TO RUSSIA? In the book, he is eager for them to get on with it, and worries about his wardrobe so he can make a good impression when he gets to Moscow. In the film, he does not mention this and seems completely miserable.

[16] WILL BILL MISS HIS GAL? In the book, Bill refers to Jan, his mistress, as a "bloody millstone" who he would not want to take to Russia even if he could (the baby may have something to do with it), and tells Smiley it does not matter what he tells her as long as he makes it final. In the film, Bill tearfully begs Smiley to tell Jan he loves her.

[17] HOW DOES JIM KILL BILL? In the book, Jim wrings Bill's neck with his hands (per clues - the event occurs offscreen). In the film, Jim shoots Bill with a rifle after seeing how miserable he looks; and while a tear runs down Jim's cheek; and (as Alfredson points out in the commentary track) Bill seems to let Jim do it.

[18] WHO BETRAYED IRINA TO THE RUSSIANS? In the BOOK, Bill did, after Ricki's telegram to London Station; resulting in Irina (& Lapin, & Boris) being tortured and shot. In the FILM, he evidently does not, as plot elements that originally related to this are systematically altered in order to make it impossible for the viewer do draw any such conclusion. Examples follow:

---[A] HOW DOES LONDON 'STALL' RICKI'S TELEGRAM? In the BOOK, London Station (ie. Bill) "stalls" Ricki after his telegram by first saying "We read you" then after a delay, giving him further instructions intended to keep him busy until the Russians can close in on him and Irina. In the FILM, London Station "stalls" merely by responding with "We read you" implying only that Ricki's information is being ignored, perhaps out of laziness.

-- [B] WHY DOES LACON THINK THERE'S A MOLE? In the BOOK, Irina's fate, and the conclusion that her betrayer must have been a highly-placed English mole, is what sets Smiley's mole hunt in motion. In the FILM, Smiley merely takes Lacon's word for it, Lacon takes Ricki's word for it; and Ricki is evidently just taking Irina's word for it, and its not clear whose word Irina is taking.

-- [C] WHEN IS IRINA'S STORY TOLD? In the BOOK, Ricki's story of Irina's capture is told very early on, starting the mole hunt. In the FILM, this story is moved to the middle, apparently to prevent the reader from drawing any logical connection between the reasons for her capture and the reasons for the mole hunt.

-- [D] WHO DOES RICKI BLAME FOR IRINA'S CAPTURE? In the BOOK, Ricki blames the unknown mole [ie. Bill], and that is indeed the whole point of his story (that there is in fact a mole). In the FILM, Ricki blames himself, and that seems to be the whole point of his story when he tells it to Smiley.

-- [E] COULD TUFTY HAVE BETRAYED IRINA? In the BOOK, there is no hint of this; Tufty knows nothing, and Ricki makes clear Tufty could not have deciphered his telegram to London Station. In the FILM, this is not made clear, and the Russians torture and murder Tufty before they grab Irina, hinting at some kind of connection (Nothing bad happened to Tufty in the book).

-- [F] COULD BORIS HAVE BETRAYED IRINA? In the BOOK, Ricki (and Smiley) initially consider this possibility; but the reading of Irina's "diary" tends to rule it out; and Boris and Irina end up being executed together. In the FILM, there is no diary, and Boris is tortured and murdered by the Russians *before* Irina's capture, suggesting that Boris was nabbed first and this is what led to Irina.

-- [G] WHO DOES IRINA THINK BETRAYED HER? In the BOOK, Irina makes clear in her "diary" that she thinks Ricki has not been careful enough, & the mole has betrayed her through Ricki. In the FILM, she leaves no diary.

-- [H] WHY DOES RICKI GO AWOL AFTER IRINA'S CAPTURE? In the BOOK, Ricki goes AWOL because he panics after realizing the traitor at London Station, who betrayed Irina, will want silence him as well. In the FILM, he goes AWOL because someone kills Tufty with a knife, and he is afraid he will be blamed because he carries a knife.

-- [I] RICKI'S WORDS TO BEN? In the BOOK, when London Station tries a similar stalling near the end of the story, Ricki cries: "... Know why he's stalling, Ben, darling? He's sizing me up to shoot me in the bloody back! That's how he got my Russki girl. He's playing the same tune, the bastard. I warn you, Ben: there's some damn lousy people in this outfit...." In the FILM, Ricki instead cries: "... You keep stalling. I better warn you Ben, there’s some lousy people in this outfit...." Deliberately removed is the critical point that such stalling was and is part of the mole's plot to capture and murder Irina and/or Ricki.

That's a partial list. In short, the film methodically eliminates or downplays every reason and motive Jim might have to take revenge on Bill; and goes out of its way to create the case for a mercy killing of a man who no longer wants to live.

reply


Not the Jim of the book, nor the one of the film. The Jim of the BBC version is simpler, rougher, coarser, ruder, partly probably because any hint of love between the two men has been carefully erased.


This is simply not true. The portrait of Jim in the BBC version is very consistent with the book. It is not 100% clear if their love was sexual or platonic, but in both versions they are portrayed as extremely close; that they really did love each-other in some sense, or at least, Jim loved Bill, and was intensely loyal to him. The point being that Bill really is a traitor, and not just to England. He really did betray the best friend he ever had.

The clue in the novel that makes Smiley suspect they MAY have been lovers is Bill's gushing letter about Jim from their college days, which Smiley found in the files. The BBC version actually goes out of its way to include this clue, by having Smiley quote this letter to Jim. Jim's reaction seems to confirm that something more than friendship was indeed going on there; so ironically, one can make a stronger case that they were lovers in the BBC version.

reply

I agree that the TV series is actually quite direct considering it aired in 1979. When Jim shows up to break Bill's neck, he kisses him on the forehead before he does the deed (it's a bit difficult to see because of the shadowy lighting). They probably had to account for mainstream viewers at the time not being able to pick up on any less obvious cues.

The film takes a different approach, but I don’t think it’s because it’s being coy or ambivalent about the nature of their relationship. They were giving their audience enough credit to work it out for themselves based on Connie’s assessment of their relationship and Bill’s reaction to the news that Jim’s been shot. And even if they haven't caught on by that point, that last look at the Christmas party is not in the least bit subtle.

reply


I agree that the TV series is actually quite direct considering it aired in 1979. When Jim shows up to break Bill's neck, he kisses him on the forehead before he does the deed (it's a bit difficult to see because of the shadowy lighting). They probably had to account for mainstream viewers at the time not being able to pick up on any less obvious cues.


It is one of the curious things about our modern culture that a kiss on the forehead, exchanged between old, old friends, can be taken as evidence of "homosexuality". It is almost as though there were no distinction between a kiss on the forehead and an act of anal intercourse.

No-one born before World War II would find this comprehensible.


The film takes a different approach, but I don’t think it’s because it’s being coy or ambivalent about the nature of their relationship. They were giving their audience enough credit to work it out for themselves based on Connie’s assessment of their relationship and Bill’s reaction to the news that Jim’s been shot.


I guess, then, that our culture has "progressed" since 1979. Now even a kiss on the forehead is not necessary. Mere evidence of friendship suffices as proof of "homosexuality". (Not to suggest that you are necessarily wrong in your interpretation of the film-maker's intent).


And even if they haven't caught on by that point, that last look at the Christmas party is not in the least bit subtle.


Bill is making goofy eyes at Jim and smirking, and Jim smiles back. Why? "Because they are gay", you say. Er, okay. I accept that explanation as possible, only because no other explanation presents itself, and only because the pointless Peter Guillam scenes suggest the writers have homosexuality somewhere on their minds.

But ordinarily, a sane person in real life would not take two middle-aged old friends glancing at each other as proof that they were gay. Sure, if I went to a gay bar, and someone started making eyes at me and smirking at me, I might take that context into consideration - I'm in a gay bar, after all. But these are 2 old friends & colleagues at an office party. Some private joke would seem more likely.

The song that is playing, "La Mer", is not even a love song. It is a song about the sea.

reply

Jim prideaux and Bill Haydon were definitely intimate with each other..In the book they allude to this several times.. Smiley even says they were lovers at one time, possibly still involved..Bill also was smiley's wife Ann's lover..in addition to a male sailor and another girl. It's also implied in the movie.
Jim's killing probably wasn't sanctioned by either side..the British wanted to do a deal in exchange for certain conditions. To let Bill go to Moscow and to keep things quiet with the press. Bill had been a Soviet citizen for awhile and had medals.. The Russians would not have killed him. He was recruited in the 50s I believe and would have been a hero in the soviet Union.. Smiley says something to the effect of "the Soviets take pride in rewarding their people" or else no one would spy for them.
I think Jim Prideaux cared more for Bill..Bill just played everybody including him.. Jim's Czech, (Hungarian in the movie) operation was a setup from the start.. I think Prideaux was on the verge of knowing Bill was the mole, he came to see Haydon before he was set up to let Bill know that control sent him on a secret mission to get the name of the mole..which is Bill of course .so Bill tips off the Soviets and screws over Prideaux..who knew the mission was shady, but didn't want it to be true because of his feelings for Bill
As far as Bills assassination, I think it was pure revenge for betraying Britain, MI6 and Prideaux personally in the worst possible way..So Jim shoots him..I don't think it'd be that big of stretch for him to sneak in the compound. It was early 70s and they were planning in sending Bill back to the soviet Union anyway..which is the only place he could go anyway so it was all planned out, no reason to watch him that closely beside 2 guards who didn't care much about a traitor. Allowing Jim to kill him. In the Book it was alot more subtle, and he wasn't shot but someine broke his neck I believe..most likely Jim.
Love this story and Jon le carre's other books..

Bills character was based off Kim Philby in real life..He was high up in MI6 during the 50s and 60s and was a Soviet Double agent the whole time and barely escaped to Moscow in the early 70s..Fascinating story if anyone is interested..I don't have a link but just search for Kim Philby and the Cambridge spies, there's several books out there.. John Le Carre actually worked for British intelligence and knew Kim Philby..they were there at the same time so Le Carre has a perfect background for this type of story..'Bridge of spies' with Tom Hanks and 'Our kind of traitor' which just came out where based off his writing as well as others.

reply


Jim prideaux and Bill Haydon were definitely intimate with each other..In the book they allude to this several times..


The book refers to the POSSIBILITY that they may have been lovers. One of these references is in fact a categorical rejection of this possibility.

The only evidence that they were lovers: (a) they were very close friends; and (b) someone who knew them in college DENIED that they were lovers (possibly in reaction to a rumor, or something).


Smiley even says they were lovers at one time, possibly still involved.


No. Smiley believes they were very close friends, and that they MIGHT even have been lovers, for all he knows. But of course, he does not know. For the purpose of his analysis, it suffices that they were, at least, very close friends, and that Jim had been intensely loyal to Bill.

It is 100% clear that Jim loved Bill. It is far less clear that he "loved" him in a sexual way.

reply

jaseace is of course correct - circumstantial evidence in the book points overwhelmingly to Haydon and Prideaux having been lovers. Even the TV version while playing down these features acknowledges the relationship - Jim greeting Bill with a kiss on the forehead before killing him. How do you explain that away nystulc? A secret code?


Connie insinuates as much to Smiley in defining Jim as:

‘His [Haydon's] alter ego, we might say, hem hem, hem hem.’ (Ch 13)



Lacon's unease passing on the security report to Smiley conveys it isn't simply a case of close friendship:

Lacon stayed behind. “You asked me to look out for anything on Prideaux,” he announced at last.
“Well, I find that we do have a few papers on him, after all.”
He had happened to be going through some files on the internal security of the Circus, he explained, “Simply to clear my decks.” Doing so, he had stumbled on some old positive vetting reports. One of them related to Prideaux.

“He was cleared absolutely, you understand. Not a shadow. However”—an odd inflexion of his voice caused Smiley to glance at him — “I think it might
interest you, all the same. Some tiny murmur about his time at Oxford.
We’re all entitled to be a bit pink at that age.”
“Indeed, yes.”
The silence returned, broken only by the soft tread of Mendel upstairs.
“Prideaux and Haydon were really very close indeed, you know,” Lacon confessed. “I hadn’t realised.”
He was suddenly in a great hurry to leave. (Ch. 25)


By "entitled to be a bit pink" he means immature, but it has inevitable connotations for the reader of gay too.


The description of Haydon's clean up activity in the immediate aftermath of
Jim's shooting:

"Soon as he could, he slid off to Jim’s rooms to make sure he’d left
nothing around that a journalist might pick on if a journalist were clever enough to make the connection, Ellis to Prideaux. I guess he did a thorough cleaning-up job. Dependents, everything.”

“There weren’t any dependents,” Smiley said. “Apart from Bill, I suppose,” he added, half under his breath. [Ch. 26]



Part of Smiley's initial thoughts on realising Haydon is the mole:
This man was my friend and Ann’s lover, Jim’s friend and — for all I know — Jim’s lover, too; ..." [Ch. 36]


No qualification of possibly or "MIGHT" as you claim.


The college denial in Prideaux's file you mention:

The tutors of both men aver (twenty years later) that it is inconceivable that the relationship between the two was “more than purely friendly” ... Jim’s tutor speaks of him as “intellectually omnivorous after long starvation” —dismisses any suggestion that he was “pink.” [Ch. 29]


What really should strike you is not the denial, but how and why two convenient reassuring testimonials are sought and added apparently out of the blue to Prideaux's security file (in the late 50's - early 60's) twenty years after the events? What possible purpose could it serve other than a covering of tracks? And who 20 years on other than Haydon would have known the identity of these tutors in the first place?

















reply


jaseace is of course correct - circumstantial evidence in the book points overwhelmingly to Haydon and Prideaux having been lovers.


Jaseace may be correct about many things, but is not correct in saying that the book establishes that they were definitely "intimate" with each other; nor in saying that Smiley concludes this in any definite way.

But if you want to move the goalpost, and be overwhelmed by the number of indefinite hints and rumors that they might have been lovers, be my guest. The book certainly refers to such hints and rumors.


Even the TV version while playing down these features acknowledges the relationship - Jim greeting Bill with a kiss on the forehead before killing him. How do you explain that away nystulc? A secret code?


A secret code? Why are you asking me? To me it's just an expression of physical affection, of the kind that used to be normal between men before gay awareness made straight people paranoid of affection. It is you who are taking it as some kind of secret code for "let's plow the hershey highway". For God's sake, it was not even a kiss on the lips.

There is no doubt that Jim loved Bill. That wasn't the question.

Besides which, that's from the TV series. Weren't we talking about the book? If you're so right and you're evidence is so good, and there is so much more evidence in the book than in the TV series where they allegedly "play it down", then what is the point of changing the subject and bringing up the TV series instead? Stay on point.

If you want evidence from the TV series, I'd say Jim's embarrassed reaction to Smiley's recital of Bill's gushing letter is stronger evidence than a kiss on the forehead. I still would not call it very definite, and in any event, it does not occur in the book.


Connie insinuates as much to Smiley in defining Jim as:
‘His [Haydon's] alter ego, we might say, hem hem, hem hem.’ (Ch 13)


Yup. In the book they are rumored to be gay lovers. And Connie has heard the rumors.


The description of Haydon's clean up activity in the immediate aftermath of
Jim's shooting:

"Soon as he could, he slid off to Jim’s rooms to make sure he’d left
nothing around that a journalist might pick on if a journalist were clever enough to make the connection, Ellis to Prideaux. I guess he did a thorough cleaning-up job. Dependents, everything.”

“There weren’t any dependents,” Smiley said. “Apart from Bill, I suppose,” he added, half under his breath. [Ch. 26]


Jim is a loner without family or close friends. Bill is his only close attachment. It seems to that that is what Smiley is referring to, and whether actual buggery is involved is rather beside the point. There is nothing about the word "dependent" that implies sexual activity. Even if Smiley were thinking about buggery, the expression "I suppose" does not make him sound very definite, does it?


Lacon's unease passing on the security report to Smiley conveys it isn't simply a case of close friendship:


Well I'm not sure exactly why Lacon is uneasy. Maybe he got buggered in prep school. But if what is making Lacon uneasy is the RUMORS of gayness in the security report, then what is making him uneasy is the RUMORS. Lacon does not have psychic powers. The rumors are still just rumors - and disconfirmed rumors at that -- no matter how uneasy they make Lacon.


Lacon stayed behind. “You asked me to look out for anything on Prideaux,” he announced at last.
“Well, I find that we do have a few papers on him, after all.”
He had happened to be going through some files on the internal security of the Circus, he explained, “Simply to clear my decks.” Doing so, he had stumbled on some old positive vetting reports. One of them related to Prideaux.

“He was cleared absolutely, you understand. Not a shadow. However”—an odd inflexion of his voice caused Smiley to glance at him — “I think it might
interest you, all the same. Some tiny murmur about his time at Oxford.
We’re all entitled to be a bit pink at that age.”
“Indeed, yes.”
The silence returned, broken only by the soft tread of Mendel upstairs.
“Prideaux and Haydon were really very close indeed, you know,” Lacon confessed. “I hadn’t realised.”
He was suddenly in a great hurry to leave. (Ch. 25)


By "entitled to be a bit pink" he means immature, but it has inevitable connotations for the reader of gay too.


I assumed "pink" meant having left/socialist leanings, ... just shy of being "red". I doubt he meant "we all got buggered in college". Even if Lacon did get buggered he would not say that.

I assumed this was primarily an inquiry into Jim's loyalties and political affiliation. The report looks into Jim's sexuality as well, but I assumed that was just a side issue that came up during the vetting process.

But whatever he was being investigated for, the report cleared him. There is no indication that Lacon has any independent knowledge beyond what the report contains.


Part of Smiley's initial thoughts on realising Haydon is the mole:

This man was my friend and Ann’s lover, Jim’s friend and — for all I know — Jim’s lover, too; ..." [Ch. 36]

No qualification of possibly or "MIGHT" as you claim.


What do you think the expression "for all I know" signifies? In what way do you think the final assertion is being distinguished from the first 3 assertions?


The college denial in Prideaux's file you mention:

The tutors of both men aver (twenty years later) that it is inconceivable that the relationship between the two was “more than purely friendly” ... Jim’s tutor speaks of him as “intellectually omnivorous after long starvation” —dismisses any suggestion that he was “pink.” [Ch. 29]

What really should strike you is not the denial, but how and why two convenient reassuring testimonials are sought and added apparently out of the blue to Prideaux's security file (in the late 50's - early 60's) twenty years after the events? What possible purpose could it serve other than a covering of tracks? And who 20 years on other than Haydon would have known the identity of these tutors in the first place?


WTF are you even talking about? Yeah, sure; the professors could be wrong. But a denial, by itself, not proof that the opposite is true; and two denials does not improve the situation. Their denials that he was gay do not prove he was gay; just as their denials that he was "pink" (leftist) do not prove he was "pink". Bill covering his tracks? What kind of tracks? Haydon's bi-sexuality is not even a secret.

reply

Your post is totally correct, as is jaseace's. When we last discussed this question, I re-read the book and was astounded by the number of passages that confirm Jim and Bill's intimacy. I had only remembered the Lacon-Oxford passage - which was enough for me, anyway. But I found many more, still marked in my copy, which unfortunately I do not have at hand in my summer home. Which, again, does not matter much, since you have already quoted the most important ones.

As you know I do not read nystulc's posts on principle. I can guess, however, that your arguments will not convince him/her. Nystulc would probably only be convinced if le Carre wrote a blatant sentence about Jim and Bill having a sexual relationship. Which le Carre would never do - that is absolutely not his style. Le Carre puts nothing in black and white, he is all about hints and implications. He never, come to think of it, uses the author-as-omniscient-God's point of view. While the writing is in the third person, actually le Carre uses only two points of view: Smiley's and the boy's. I wonder if nystulc also contested Smiley's thoughts since they had the "for all he knew" disclaimer added to them? With Smiley's scrupulous honesty, the disclaimer would obviously have to be there, since he clearly had not been physically present at any intimate meetings and could not have any absolute proof...

I wonder why anybody as literal-minded as nystulc (judging from his/her earlier posts) would concern themselves with le Carre at all, they miss out on so much ... But far be it from me to dictate to anybody what they should read or watch. Most probably le Carre works, on some level, also for readers who do not catch or enjoy nuances.

I particularly liked your last argument

The college denial in Prideaux's file you mention:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tutors of both men aver (twenty years later) that it is inconceivable that the relationship between the two was “more than purely friendly” ... Jim’s tutor speaks of him as “intellectually omnivorous after long starvation” —dismisses any suggestion that he was “pink.” [Ch. 29]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What really should strike you is not the denial, but how and why two convenient reassuring testimonials are sought and added apparently out of the blue to Prideaux's security file (in the late 50's - early 60's) twenty years after the events? What possible purpose could it serve other than a covering of tracks? And who 20 years on other than Haydon would have known the identity of these tutors in the first place?


Did nystulc seriously use the college denial as proof of non-sexuality of the Jim-Bill relationship? If so, this is almost hilarious. Has that person ever heard of "The lady doth protest too much"? Almost a clich'e but (emphatic) superfluous information is indeed nearly always suspect and (emphatic)superfluous denial doubly so. The latter is by nature the surest proof of the truth of the thing denied. Incidentally, negation is so rare that in large language corpora the ratio of affirmative to negative sentences is quite stably 9 to 1. People just do not go about talking spontaneously and arbitrarily about things that did not happen, or about those things not having happened. There normally has to be an opposite expectation that needs refuting. If the refutation is undertaken twenty years later, the expectation must be really strong and the need for refutation truly urgent. Which essentially amounts to a confirmation that the expectation is true, in this case that Jim and Bill were indeed "more than purely friends".

Not that you would need any of this explanation. Just thought a little support in your heroic though hopeless battle might come in handy ...

So yes, these testimonials are perhaps the strongest proof of intimacy between Jim and Bill.

However, when all is said and done, even had le Carre had written, from the hypothetical author-as-omniscient-God point of view (that he avoids)something like: "Be it known to the reader that Jim and Bill definitely had intimate relations", I would not be surprised if nystulc advanced a further argument that "intimate" may mean different things... The real problem seems to be that a view that s/he knows his arch-enemies, including you, hold cannot by definition be true😃

reply


When we last discussed this question, I re-read the book and was astounded by the number of passages that confirm Jim and Bill's intimacy.


Well, Krista should have no trouble coming up with some, then.


But I found many more, still marked in my copy, which unfortunately I do not have at hand in my summer home.


How convenient.


I can guess, however, that your arguments will not convince him/her. Nystulc would probably only be convinced if le Carre wrote a blatant sentence about Jim and Bill having a sexual relationship. Which le Carre would never do - that is absolutely not his style. Le Carre puts nothing in black and white, he is all about hints and implications.


Sounds like Krista is conceding that I am right, and that the novel contains no definite indications that Jim and Bill are sexual lovers.

But instead of simply being honest about this, she tries to hide behind the claim that LeCarre is never definite about anything. Which is pure nonsense. Krista is projecting her own nihilistic philosophy, not describing the actual book.

For instance, let's look a single sentence, from Smiley thoughts: "This man was my friend and Ann's lover and Jim's friend and - for all I know - Jim's lover too;". We see 3 propositions stated in definite terms, and the final one deliberately singled out for indefinite treatment.


I wonder if nystulc also contested Smiley's thoughts since they had the "for all he knew" disclaimer added to them? With Smiley's scrupulous honesty, the disclaimer would obviously have to be there, since he clearly had not been physically present at any intimate meetings and could not have any absolute proof...


Well, at least Krista acknowledges that "for all he knew" signals indefiniteness. But giving reasons for this indefiniteness does not make the statement definite.

Anyhow, Smiley was not physically present for Ann and Bill's intimate meetings either. But he is obviously more sure of them than he is of Jim and Bill.


While the writing is in the third person, actually le Carre uses only two points of view: Smiley's and the boy's. I wonder if nystulc also contested Smiley's thoughts since they had the "for all he knew" disclaimer added to them? With Smiley's scrupulous honesty, the disclaimer would obviously have to be there, since he clearly had not been physically present at any intimate meetings and could not have any absolute proof...


Krista is merely giving reasons why the novel might be indefinite about Jim & Bill's relationship. These reasons only prove that Nystulc is right, and the novel is indeed indefinite about Jim & Bill's relationship.

The novel is told almost exclusively from Smiley and Roach's POV. And neither of them know whether Jim and Bill were sexual lovers or not. That's just the way it is.


Did nystulc seriously use the college denial as proof of non-sexuality of the Jim-Bill relationship?


Not at all. Nystulc's position is that the novel is indefinite about the Jim-Bill relationship. There IS no proof of non-sexuality, and no proof of sexuality either.

Nystulc did not take the college denial as proof of non-sexuality. He merely refused to take it as proof of sexuality. Similarly, if someone were to tell me that "Krista is not a pedophile", I would likewise refuse to take it as proof that Krista was in fact a pedophile.

Nystulc's position matches the text, and there's nothing Krista can do about it except raise a straw man. But it is not Nystulc's fault that Krista and others are picking a fight they cannot win.

You want to think they were gay lover's? That's fine. This is fiction - enjoy it how you please. And the text gives you excuses for suspecting this. But it is NOT DEFINITE ABOUT IT. This is really a very reasonable, humble position.


Has that person ever heard of "The lady doth protest too much"?


You mean like Krista's repeated denials that she reads Nystulc's posts, while she responds to them and argues with them at length?


People just do not go about talking spontaneously and arbitrarily about things that did not happen, or about those things not having happened.


Obviously there was some kind of rumor, that the agency is investigating and the professors are responding to. That does not mean the rumor is true. The known fact that Bill is bi-sexual, and that Jim is his very very close friend, would be enough to explain why the rumor exists.


So yes, these testimonials are perhaps the strongest proof of intimacy between Jim and Bill.


Interesting concession. The strongest evidence that they were gay lovers is two people insisting they were not gay lovers, just close friends. Because in Krista's mind, people always deny true rumors, but never deny false ones.


reply

From the movie alone, it's likely that Smiley (mi6) wanted him taken out. In his final questions, Smiley finds out that Prideaux went to tell Haydon about the Hungary mission ("deep down he knew"), which implicates Prideaux. Smiley then makes an offer to Prideaux to wrap up his own mess (by killing Haydon).

It may not have been a direct order though. The problem for Prideaux (now implicated) is that as long as Haydon lives, Prideaux will be under suspicion (because of their close relationship) and his loyalties in question.

reply