Irina
Was Irina the woman that was shot in front of Jim by the Russians?
shareYes.
shareOne of the great tragic beauties in cinema.
shareShe was the one shot, I guess. Smiley chose not to tell the guy who loved her (can't recall his name...there were so many unusual names in this movie).
share
Smiley chose not to tell the guy who loved her (can't recall his name...there were so many unusual names in this movie).
Ricki Tarr was his name. But Smiley himself could not have known, unless sketches or photos of the woman were produced and compared in his presence by Tarr and Prideaux. Which does not seem to have happened. It is one of the things about the film that does not really make sense. share
Smiley did know when he told Tarr "I'll do my upmost" to get her back, because he had already heard Prideaux's account of his interrogation where he saw her shot. Even if Prideaux didn't know her name, I'm sure Smiley was able to put 2-and-2 together (he already knew Tarr's account of Irina being returned to Karla). There's no doubt to me that the intent of the movie is that Smiley knew, and was lying to Tarr when he said he'd "do his upmost" to bring her back. Smiley needed Tarr to catch the mole, and that end-game was far more important.
share
Smiley did know when he told Tarr "I'll do my upmost" to get her back, because he had already heard Prideaux's account of his interrogation where he saw her shot.
Was a sketch artist present when Smiley heard Prideaux's account? I guess they left out the part where Smiley has Prideaux work with a sketch artist so Smiley can know what the woman looks like.
They also left out the part where Tarr works with a sketch artist, so Smiley can compare the two pictures, and realize they are the same person.
Even if Prideaux didn't know her name, I'm sure Smiley was able to put 2-and-2 together (he already knew Tarr's account of Irina being returned to Karla).
Prideaux did not know her name. He asks Smiley who she was, though how he expects Smiley to know is one of the things that just doesn't make sense.
Your logic is as follows:
Premise 1: Irena is in Soviet captivity
Premise 2: The person killed in front of Prideaux was a woman in Soviet captivity
Premise 3: Only one woman can be in Soviet captivity at any one time.
Conclusion: Therefore, the woman killed in front of Prideaux was Irena.
Problem is, Premise #3 is false. Which renders the argument nonsense.
Sure, he could "put 2 and 2 together" in a loose way. But he still would not KNOW. He would be only GUESSING that they MIGHT be the same person. But guessing that she might be dead would still allow him to hope that she might be alive. Meaning he could still promise Tarr in good faith to do his utmost to get her back.
There's no doubt to me that the intent of the movie is that Smiley knew, and was lying to Tarr when he said he'd "do his upmost" to bring her back.
I agree absolutely that it is "the intent of the movie". But that doesn't mean it makes sense.
share
Geez - do you really need it to be spelled out for you to that degree??
The woman in captivity was the ONE woman that was trying to give up the identity of the MOLE to Control. Prideaux was in Budapest trying to meet a defecting general that knew the identity of the MOLE and was going to give it to him. They were both caught because the MOLE was able to tip off KARLA. KARLA was in the room interoggating Prideaux when they put the woman in front of him. Of course Irina's going to be the ONE woman that they put in front of Pirdeaux and ask "do you know this woman?" -- and of course Smiley would know that the woman Prideaux was talking about would be Irina, having already heard Tarr's account of Irina's fate. It's not "loosely" putting 2 and 2 together.
Geez - do you really need it to be spelled out for you to that degree??
The woman in captivity was the ONE woman that was trying to give up the identity of the MOLE to Control. Prideax was in Budapest trying to meet a defecting general that knew the identity of the MOLE and was going to give it to him. Of course she's going to be the ONE woman that they put in front of Pirdeaux and ask "do you know this woman" and of course Smiley would know that the woman Prideaux was talking about would be Irina, having already heard Tarr's account of irina's fate. It's not "loosely" putting 2 and 2 together.
You are describing a situation that makes no sense, and adding the words "of course" as a way of pretending it makes sense.
It makes NO sense whatsoever that Karla would parade Irina in front of Prideaux, and ask Prideaux if he knew Irina. Karla already knows, or should know, that Irina and Prideaux have no connection. He's already finished torture-interrogating Irina, or else he would not shoot her. So he already knows what she knows.
It makes even less sense that Karla would shoot her in the head in front of Prideaux and then say "tell Alleline what we did". The best possible result from this (from Karla's standpoint) is that Prideaux and Alleline will have no idea what he is talking about and have not a snowball's chance in hell of figuring out who the woman was and why she was executed. Worst case scenario is that they will somehow figure it out, and that will be a disaster for Karla and the mole.
The connection you are drawing is not one that Karla would want to make. If anything, this ought to prove that the woman could not possibly be Irina. But as viewers, we do not have this option, as (unlike Smiley) we can see her face and know therefore that she is Irina. So, again, how does he know that it's Irina, given that he cannot see her face? Based on what he knows, it makes no sense that she would be Irina. share
It makes perfect sense -- you're waaaay over complicating it. Karla was done torturing Irina, but maybe she wouldn't give anything up (that's not so far fetched). So now he was interrogating Pirdeaux. Pirdeaux had told Smiley that Karla was trying to figure out how deep they were into the investigation of the mole, so I don't think Karla knew as much as you're implying. So it makes sense to me that Karla would put Irina in front of Pirdeaux and ask if he knew her as a last-dicth effort to find out if they had been in contact before.
I don't want to drag this out any further. It's clear to me that Smiley knew Irina was dead (for the reasons I already explained) and was playing Ricki Tarr so that he'd continue to cooperate and help flush out the mole. The closing montage scene (to the La Mer song) showed Ricki Tarr standing on the street in Paris alone in the rain, to me implying that he had been hung out to dry by Smiley. Me and the screenwriters and the director seem to make sense of it -- you obviously see it differently.
Pssst
Don't feed the troll.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
It makes perfect sense -- you're waaaay over complicating it.
That's fine. Yes we know it's Irina, because we can see her and can remember what she looks like. Smiley obviously realizes it is Irina, some way, some how. That's enough for you and you don't want to think about it further. You obviously feel that asking how Smiley could know this makes it too complicated. That is fine.
My only problem is, you keep trying to explain HOW Smiley knows, and when I point out this makes little sense, you just change the subject, or fall back on "But we know he knows". Yes. We know he knows. But you still cannot explain how. Admit that, and we're done.
Maybe he has psychic powers.
Karla was done torturing Irina, but maybe she wouldn't give anything up (that's not so far fetched).
Even if Karla doing what he did to Irina was not "far fetched", that would not explain how Smiley KNEW that it was Irina. It is not far fetched that it may rain next Tuesday, but that does not make me an infallible weather forecaster.
If I were in Smiley's shoes, and knew only what Smiley knew, I would assume that the woman was some woman rounded up in the sweep of Jim's Hungarian networks. Under this scenario it makes a certain amount of sense that Karla would ask Prideaux if he knew her, and that Karla had her shot in front of him. It says "Look what happens to the traitors you recruit." No, it's not particularly helpful or logical, but it makes more sense than doing it with Irina. And if Karla does not need a particular helpful or logical reason for his actions, then it could be anyone under the sun, murdered in front of Prideaux as a shock tactic.
So now he was interrogating Pirdeaux. Pirdeaux had told Smiley that Karla was trying to figure out how deep they were into the investigation of the mole, so I don't think Karla knew as much as you're implying.
Karla does not know everything that passes through Control's mind, but that does not mean he knows nothing at all. Irina is Karla's own agent. And he's got an inside man at London Station as well. He has enough information to know that Irina and Prideaux have not been in contact. He's tortured both of them past the breaking point and he already knows how Prideaux heard of a possible mole: from Control. Irina's first attempt to contact British Intelligence occurred after Prideaux got shot.
Moreover, since he plans to release Prideaux, it would be just stupid to call Prideaux's and Alleline's attention to Irina. Alleline thinks Tarr is spreading a false narrative to muddy the waters; and so presumably would think Irina was a loyal soviet operative. Why would Karla mess with this narrative by making Irina's execution a special message to Alleline?
So it makes sense to me that Karla would put Irina in front of Pirdeaux and ask if he knew her as a last-dicth effort to find out if they had been in contact before.
Sure, maybe Karla would possibly take the risk of showing Prideaux a picture of Irina and asking "Do you know this woman." But that's not the hard part.
The hard part is (1) How does Smiley know the woman is Irina; and (2) Why does Karla drag Irina physically in front of Prideaux, shoot her in the head, and say "Tell Alleline what we did?"
It is conceivable that Karla might do a whole bunch of inexplicable things for a host of inexplicable reasons. But this does not explain how Smiley knew it must be Irina. If it is inexplicable, then it could be anybody.
I don't want to drag this out any further. It's clear to me that Smiley knew Irina was dead (for the reasons I already explained) and was playing Ricki Tarr so that he'd continue to cooperate and help flush out the mole.
Again ... I've already agreed with you about that. The position you keep retreating to is not our point of disagreement.
Yes, it's obvious he knows.
No, it's not obvious HOW he knows (to put it very mildly).
The closing montage scene (to the La Mer song) showed Ricki Tarr standing on the street in Paris alone in the rain, to me implying that he had been hung out to dry by Smiley.
Well, he's lonely, he's in the rain, and he's lost Irina forever. I don't even know what you mean by "hung out to dry". But it doesn't matter, because the bottom line is you just changed the subject. This has nothing to do with what we were just disagreeing about. share
There's a passage from the books that comes to mind when I hear arguments about what characters "would" do, or "should" do, or what "makes sense":
Within a day of Haydon’s arrest, all nine of the Circus’s Soviet and East European networks had gone cold. Radio links stopped dead, courier lines dried up, and there was every reason to say that if there had been any genuinely Circus-owned agents left among them, they had been rolled up overnight. But Smiley fiercely opposed that easy view, just as he refused to accept that Karla and Moscow Centre between them were invincibly efficient, or tidy, or logical.
I don't think Smiley knew that the woman was Irina in any airtight way. I think he had a pretty good idea that it was—and that even if it wasn't, the odds that she was still alive at all, much less recoverable, were slim at best. That being the case: Smiley needed Ricki Tarr's cooperation to trap the mole, and it costs him nothing to say he'll try. I think the worst you can call it is a little disingenuous, but Ricki Tarr is a veteran of his trade—he's not naive. I read Smiley's promise as a diplomatic and, in a way, merciful lie. He's the doctor saying the patient didn't suffer before she passed; whether she did, and whether he knows it, is beside the point. share
There's a passage from the books that comes to mind when I hear arguments about what characters "would" do, or "should" do, or what "makes sense":
> Within a day of Haydon’s arrest, all nine of the Circus’s Soviet and
> East European networks had gone cold. Radio links stopped dead, courier
> lines dried up, and there was every reason to say that if there had been
> any genuinely Circus-owned agents left among them, they had been rolled
> up overnight. But Smiley fiercely opposed that easy view, just as he
> refused to accept that Karla and Moscow Centre between them were
> invincibly efficient, or tidy, or logical.
You may not be aware that in the books, and specifically SMILEY'S PEOPLE, Smiley does eventually find the crack in Karla's armor, and (sort of) defeats him. But Karla still has reasons for his actions. It's just that those reasons are not efficient, tidy, nor particularly "logical" from a purely coldhearted POV.
Sorry. I do not accept your all-or-nothing dichotomy. Le Carre did not mean it that way, and I'm not going to take it that way. TRUE, Smiley does not think Karla is an All-Powerful Invincible Superhuman Demigod of Reason and Efficiency. BUT NO, it does not follow that NOTHING Karla does can be analysed with an eye toward a realistic or credible purpose, in a story whose purpose is to portray him as a master spy of (at least) above-average competence and intellect.
I will accept your dodge as an admission that you have no explanation whatsoever for Karla's actions as portrayed in the film.
Hey. I could be wrong. Maybe there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for Karla's actions that I have not thought of yet. But you're not even trying to help me find it.
In the meantime, your argument proves too much. You are just throwing at me an all-purpose explanation wherein no behavior of any character need make any sense at all.
You also completely dodge the question of how Smiley knew it was Irina. How does Smiley use his own powers of reason to deduce the meaning and purpose of conduct that (it would seem) has no meaning or purpose to begin with? Why does not Smiley just shrug and say "Oh there goes Karla again, doing random things for no reason at all. It must be Tuesday. Maybe it was his wife this time."
I don't think Smiley knew that the woman was Irina in any airtight way. I think he had a pretty good idea that it was—and that even if it wasn't, the odds that she was still alive at all, much less recoverable, were slim at best. That being the case: Smiley needed Ricki Tarr's cooperation to trap the mole, and it costs him nothing to say he'll try. I think the worst you can call it is a little disingenuous, but Ricki Tarr is a veteran of his trade—he's not naive. I read Smiley's promise as a diplomatic and, in a way, merciful lie. He's the doctor saying the patient didn't suffer before she passed; whether she did, and whether he knows it, is beside the point.
I don't think the filmmakers agree with this interpretation. The pre-shooting script refers to Smiley being "cold" at this point, and in the performance in the finished film he seems almost reptilian in his coldness. I think the Smiley and the director comment on it in the commentary track as well, though I forget their precise words.
This makes sense only if he knows. If he merely suspects Irina is dead, there is nothing dishonest - or cold - about promising he will do his best to save her if he can.
However, you have not even explained why Smiley suspects it is Irina. share
Sorry. I do not accept your all-or-nothing dichotomy. Le Carre did not mean it that way, and I'm not going to take it that way. TRUE, Smiley does not think Karla is an All-Powerful Invincible Superhuman Demigod of Reason and Efficiency. BUT NO, it does not follow that NOTHING Karla does can be questioned as realistic or credible in a story whose purpose is to portray him as a master spy of (at least) above-average competence and intellect.
You're correct, and I did not present such a dichotomy. Where did all of that come from, anyway? I didn't post an "argument," an "explanation" or a "dodge." I posted a quote. The only point I was offering was the author's: that a logical flaw in a decision does not in itself prevent the decision from being made.
I will accept your dodge as an admission that you have no explanation whatsoever for Karla's actions as portrayed in the film.
I thought Joe offered a pretty good accounting above, and I don't expect to do better, but I'll give it a shot.
From Karla's point of view, Irina enters the story when Ricki Tarr tells the Circus that he has a lead. Haydon puts the kibosh on it London-side, and the Russians capture Irina. But Tarr escapes. That's a huge gap. Karla doesn't know where Tarr is, what he learned or who he's told. He has Irina, and no doubt interrogates her within an inch of her life, but that's not enough. What if she met someone with Tarr? What if Tarr isn't even the first enemy agent she's attempted to contact? Karla must explore every possibility, but he has little evidence to corroborate anything Irina says.
Until Jim shows up. Karla's objective with Jim—as is clear both in the book and the film—is to determine the extent of Control's fact-finding. He feels no need to conceal this motive; once Jim is back in Britain, Haydon can invoke the full power of the Circus to ensure Jim's silence. So for the moment, Karla feels quite free to test Jim by any and all means. He brings Irina into the room and is convinced that Jim doesn't know who she is, which is probably as close as he'll get to determining that Control doesn't know her, either. At this point, Karla decides that she's outlived her usefulness, and so, without further ado, he ties off the loose end.
(Now—I've hypothesized some decisions on Karla's part, and if true, they'd qualify as the kind of plausible miscalculations that le Carre was talking about in the quote above. Karla risks revealing some information to Jim because he believes Haydon will be able to mitigate that risk by isolating Jim upon his return. Haydon fails to do this effectively, because Jim is a weakness of his. Similarly, it's easy to argue that Karla should have kept Irina alive until he was sure about Tarr's fate, just in case; or that he should have killed her much sooner and never have shown her to Jim; or perhaps that killing her in that manner was the impulsive act of Smiley's "fanatic." All debatable in their wisdom, but none implausible. This is an element of the story where we must accept some ambiguity on account of being unable to read Karla's mind. Do these choices fit with who Karla is as a character? That's the wrong question—the film tells us who he is through his actions. It's not to say that anything he does is random or inexplicable, just that these are human beings and not everything is a chess move.)
As for Smiley, I can't really add much. Remember that this is a film, and information is given in the language of filmmaking. We see Jim's interrogation in the context of Jim telling his story to Smiley, and what we see and hear is a more efficient way of delivering that information to the viewer than to make Jim describe the whole thing verbally. So while we don't hear all of Jim's words, we can infer that he's describing this woman and what happened to her, and that it's as significant, and anomalous, in his telling as it's presented to us on screen. This is also how Irina is introduced in the first place: through Ricki Tarr narrating his story to Smiley. (In fact, these two scenes are not only similar, but roughly equidistant from the midpoint—they rhyme very deliberately.) In other words, whenever we see Irina, it's really Smiley who's "seeing" her in the narratives of Ricki and Jim. She's one of the common threads that helps him connect the two stories and put the pieces together. Insofar as we recognize her as the same woman we saw earlier, that recognition belongs equally to Smiley. We don't need to know the precise descriptors or contextual commonalities that gave him the confidence to make this leap, just that they exist.
Does he "know" it's the same woman? Could prove it in a court of law? No. Earlier you said that the only way to claim knowledge is on the premise that "only one woman can be in Soviet captivity at any one time." But that's silly. It's not how anything works in this story, or in life for that matter. That standard of proof would make it impossible for anyone to function. And I think you know that. :)
I don't think the filmmakers agree with this interpretation. The pre-shooting script refers to Smiley being "cold" at this point, and in the performance in the finished film he seems almost reptilian in his coldness. I think the Smiley and the director comment on it in the commentary track as well, though I forget their precise words.
I've read that elsewhere. I don't think it's inconsistent with my interpretation, which has more to do with Smiley's actions than his motivations. Certainly I don't think he was much concerned with Ricki Tarr's broken heart at that point. But I've also heard it described as "cruel," and that I think is a matter of opinion. share
You're correct, and I did not present such a dichotomy. Where did all of that come from, anyway? I didn't post an "argument," an "explanation" or a "dodge." I posted a quote. The only point I was offering was the author's: that a logical flaw in a decision does not in itself prevent the decision from being made.
I asked for an explanation for specific conduct, and in its place you gave me this quote about Karla being neither invincible nor superhuman. The quote, correctly understood, has nothing to do with my question. If you stretch to make it relevant, it becomes an all-purpose non-explanation for all conceivable behavior. That's where I'm coming from.
From Karla's point of view, Irina enters the story when Ricki Tarr tells the Circus that he has a lead. Haydon puts the kibosh on it London-side, and the Russians capture Irina.
Uncertain. This was true in the books, but the film seems to try to disconnect Haydon from any responsibility for Irina's capture. Perhaps in the film, Karla gets suspicious of Irina when she plays hooky with Tarr, pounces on her return from their jaunt, misses Tarr & murders Tufty instead. Perhaps the only significance of Alleline's "stalling" was that he was being lazy and failed to pull Irina out on time.
But Tarr escapes. That's a huge gap. Karla doesn't know where Tarr is, what he learned or who he's told. What if she met someone with Tarr? What if Tarr isn't even the first enemy agent she's attempted to contact? Karla must explore every possibility, but he has little evidence to corroborate anything Irina says.
Karla knows what Irina told Tarr. If Karla's not sure, then Karla's not done interrogating her. And if he's not done interrogating her, then he does not shoot her in the head. If he still needs to corroborate, he does not shoot her in the head.
If Karla suspects Irina has spoken to other people, he does not just ask random people if they know Irina, and then shoot Irina in the head. That strategy won't get him very far, and poor Irina will have hundreds of bullets in her head by the time Karla is done.
From Karla's perspective, Jim is merely a random agent. Karla has ZERO reason to believe Jim and Irina have ever had contact. That Jim has heard of the mole is NOT evidence of contact with Irina in this context. Jim learned of a Mole from Control, and Karla knows this.
Until Jim shows up. Karla's objective with Jim—as is clear both in the book and the film—is to determine the extent of Control's fact-finding. He feels no need to conceal this motive; once Jim is back in Britain, Haydon can invoke the full power of the Circus to ensure Jim's silence. So for the moment, Karla feels quite free to test Jim by any and all means. He brings Irina into the room and is convinced that Jim doesn't know who she is, which is probably as close as he'll get to determining that Control doesn't know her, either.
There is no connection. If, hypothetically, there was a chance that Control knew Irina, there would be no reason for Control to tell Jim about her.
At this point, Karla decides that she's outlived her usefulness, and so, without further ado, he ties off the loose end.
Now—I've hypothesized some decisions on Karla's part, and if true, they'd qualify as the kind of plausible miscalculations that le Carre was talking about in the quote above. Karla risks revealing some information to Jim because he believes Haydon will be able to mitigate that risk by isolating Jim upon his return.
That pretty much ends your explanation. And it comes up ZERO. You have IGNORED the questions I asked.
I did not ask why he shoots Irina. I asked why he shot Irina IN FRONT OF JIM. "Because she outlived her usefulness" is not an answer.
I asked why he tells Jim to tell Alleline that he shot Irina. I don't think you tried to explain that at all. But your explanation, to the extent that you gave one, might be translated as "He told Jim to tell Alleline because he was counting on Hayden to make sure Jim never told Alleline". But this obviously explains nothing.
It's like I asked you "Why did you just sprinkle flour all over the floor"? And you answered "Because I was about to sweep the floor anyway". The explanation does not explain. You explain why he thinks he can get away with the counterproductive behavior, but give no motive for the counterproductive behavior.
Your explanation is that Jim already knows things that Karla hopes to keep quiet ... so why not tell him more? But asking "why not" does not provide a reason "why".
And I can tell you why not: Because spymasters dispense top secret info on a need-to-know basis as a matter of policy. One does not shrug and say: "well, he knows a few secrets, so he might as well have a few more." That's just pure nonsense. You cannot have some allegedly super-intelligent spymaster casually throw around secrets that way for no reason at all, and make any claim to realism. Sure Karla is not perfect. Sure, Karla can make mistakes. Perhaps letting Jim live was a mistake after all (though he had reasons, at least in the book, to let him live). But come on! Give a reason for what I asked. Why does he send this message to Alleline?
Similarly, it's easy to argue that Karla should have kept Irina alive until he was sure about Tarr's fate, just in case; or that he should have killed her much sooner and never have shown her to Jim; or perhaps that killing her in that manner was the impulsive act of Smiley's "fanatic."
Haha! Looks like Karla and the sweaty waiter have alot in common!
Saying that Karla does things impulsively for no reason (or "because he's a fanatic") is just giving a non-explanation.
I really don't think much of a chess player who cannot stop himself from pulling out his gun and shooting the chess pieces. I mean, I've known six year olds who get mad and overturn the board, and I find it amusing that you imagine Karla as possessing the same level of maturity.
This is an element of the story where we must accept some ambiguity on account of being unable to read Karla's mind.
"Ambiguity" would imply you had presented TWO plausible explanations, but had insufficient evidence to decide which was correct. In fact you have presented ZERO plausible explanations for Karla's conduct.
In other words, whenever we see Irina, it's really Smiley who's "seeing" her in the narratives of Ricki and Jim.
Sure. Maybe he's psychic, like I said. You've offered me nothing better, except to suggest that it's only a movie and Smiley is watching it too.
Sure. More could have been said off-screen, with a picture replacing a thousand words. But a thousand words cannot supply facial recognition. Maybe offscreen her name was given as well: Karla gave it to Jim, and Jim relayed it to Smiley. But that only further begs the question of why Karla is sending this top-secret information to Alleline.
share
I asked for an explanation for specific conduct, and in its place you gave me this quote about Karla being neither invincible nor superhuman. The quote, correctly understood, has nothing to do with my question. If you stretch to make it relevant, it becomes an all-purpose non-explanation for all conceivable behavior.
It wasn't a response to any specific question.
Uncertain. This was true in the books, but the film seems to try to disconnect Haydon from any responsibility for Irina's capture.
Hm, what makes you say that? It's not stated outright but it still seems like Ricky's communication with the Circus (i.e. alerting the mole) is the trigger that makes things fall apart for Irina and him. He gets stonewalled by London, and then "the Russians begin to move."
Karla knows what Irina told Tarr. If Karla's not sure, then Karla's not done interrogating her. And if he's not done interrogating her, then he does not shoot her in the head. If he still needs to corroborate, he does not shoot her in the head.
If Karla suspects Irina has spoken to other people, he does not just ask random people if they know Irina, and then shoot Irina in the head. That strategy won't get him very far, and poor Irina will have hundreds of bullets in her head by the time Karla is done.
From Karla's perspective, Jim is merely a random agent. Karla has ZERO reason to believe Jim and Irina have ever had contact. That Jim has heard of the mole is NOT evidence of contact with Irina in this context. Jim learned of a Mole from Control, and Karla knows this.
Respectfully, I think this line of thought may be a combination of an overly-rigid model of human behavior, and a misunderstanding of a few story points.
Jim did not tumble randomly into Soviet captivity. His mission was an entrapment scheme. He was targeted—if not by name,
then by his position as Control's representative—in an expensive, high-risk operation which Karla is shown overseeing personally. He'll obviously never get to question someone on the level of Control, or Smiley. So Jim Prideaux may be the best font of knowledge Karla ever gets to interrogate firsthand. And he's a promising one, too. He knew the names of Control's top suspects—and one of them was right! Obviously he was trusted with vital information, and it's only natural that Karla would push his luck a bit in order to determine its full scope.
Karla, you said, has zero reason to think Jim would know Irina's face. I'd say that's correct. But it doesn't cost him much to make that final confirmation, to put them together and see it in their eyes that there's no recognition, not even from a photograph. With that, it seems, the risk of keeping Irina alive with her knowledge is no longer justified by any substantial uncertainty in her dossier.
(Again, this is an action for which I personally don't feel the need to know every scrap of strategic detail to find it plausible. In this kind of story, I think it's fitting that the villains have some enigma to them. I suspect that's a fundamental difference between the way you and I watch movies, though.)
That pretty much ends your explanation. And it comes up ZERO. You have IGNORED the questions I asked.
I did not ask why he shoots Irina. I asked why he shot Irina IN FRONT OF JIM. "Because she outlived her usefulness" is not an answer.
I asked why he tells Jim to tell Alleline that he shot Irina. I don't think you tried to explain that at all.
Well, no, you didn't ask me about those things. But in any case, I don't think the answers would satisfy you. It's a lot like the bee in the car, or Jim and the owl. You're looking for a very literal accounting of each moment, and I know that if I say anything about "creative license" you'll either ignore it or cast it as a "dodge" or something like that. Nonetheless... The storytellers want to make an instructive statement about Karla and about the world these characters inhabit; the immediate discarding of Irina's life is a stark and economical way to do that; but the story has no omniscient narrator, so we need a witness; enter Jim. In terms of PoV, it's the ideal moment to add something a little crazy, a little extreme. Jim's in the cave. He's exhausted and broken. And whatever he sees or hears in Russia is strategically a moot point, given what's in store for him at home. Go ahead and tell Alleline what we did, Jim—Alleline doesn't want to hear it. Alleline's going to gag you with an Alvis to protect his precious Witchcraft. It's ironic, and definitely a little gloating, which is understandable—Karla is at the height of his triumph at this moment. So the film does six hard days of prose and indulges in a fleeting Sunday of poetry. I'm fine with that; you're probably not; and that's ok.
Sure. Maybe he's psychic, like I said. You've offered me nothing better, except to suggest that it's only a movie and Smiley is watching it too.
Sure. More could have been said off-screen, with a picture replacing a thousand words. But a thousand words cannot supply facial recognition. Maybe offscreen her name was given as well: Karla gave it to Jim, and Jim relayed it to Smiley. But that only further begs the question of why Karla is sending this top-secret information to Alleline.
Let me put it another way: just as you're looking for the reason in Karla's actions, god knows Smiley is too. Set aside the wisdom of killing Irina for a moment. For Smiley, it's simply a fact that he has to reconcile with his other facts. It's an odd, anomalous thing for Karla do. As you've said many times, assuming randomness gets you nowhere. So who (thinks Smiley) is she? What's her significance? How is she connected to this tapestry? Who, in short, is the only other woman of note in the entire cast of characters? Jim gets as far as "young blonde Russian" and the process of elimination is over before it begins. Again: does he have bulletproof DNA evidence that they're the same person? No. Does he have enough circumstantial evidence to feel kind of gross when Ricki pleads for her life? I think so. share
Hm, what makes you say that? It's not stated outright but it still seems like Ricky's communication with the Circus (i.e. alerting the mole) is the trigger that makes things fall apart for Irina and him. He gets stonewalled by London, and then "the Russians begin to move."
It's not merely that it's "not stated outright". It's that every reference to it has been systematically eliminated from a story in which it was once a central and key point. Replacement explanations have been inserted. Consider the following story changes:
(1) In the book, the story of Irina's capture sets the mole hunt in motion, because her capture suggests she must have been betrayed by someone at London Station. In the film, the mole hunt begins with on Ricki's say-so, with no mention of Irina's capture. Ricki in turn, believed it (we eventually learn) on Irina's say-so (and not because of her capture). The mole hunt is never presented as having anything to do with Irina's capture.
(2) In the book, Tarr, emphasizes that he thinks Irina was very careful, and unlikely to have given herself away. In the film, Irina goes on a wild fling with Tarr, and is arrested shortly after her return.
(3) In the book, Ricki blames the mole for Irina's capture and is motivated by vengeance. In the film, Ricki blames himself for Irina's capture and is motivated by remorse; cooperating with the mole hunt so that the mole can be traded for Irina.
(4) In the film (not the book) Tufty is watching while Tarr sends the coded message. The torture-murder of Tufty (which does not happen in the book) seems to serve no purpose ... unless perhaps to suggest that the Russians learned of Tarr's message to London Station by torturing Tufty. This eliminates any need to conclude the info must have reached the Russians by way of London Station.
(5) In the book, Ricki goes AWOL after Irina's capture because Irina's capture convinces him that there is a traitor in London Station who will be out to get him. In the film, he goes AWOL because he thinks it looks like he murdered Tufty, and expects to be blamed.
(6) The film includes Ricki's final rant against Percy's stalling. In the book, that rant included the words "That's how he got my Russki girl". In the film, those words are removed.
Jim did not tumble randomly into Soviet captivity. His mission was an entrapment scheme.
You are confusing the film with the book. In the film, as far as we can tell, the reason the mission fails is because Jim betrays the mission to Bill, and then walks into Soviet hands. There is zero indication that it fails for any other reason.
He'll obviously never get to question someone on the level of Control, or Smiley. So Jim Prideaux may be the best font of knowledge Karla ever gets to interrogate firsthand. And he's a promising one, too. He knew the names of Control's top suspects—and one of them was right! Obviously he was trusted with vital information, and it's only natural that Karla would push his luck a bit in order to determine its full scope.
That's no reason to say "Tell Alleline I shot Irina in the head".
But it doesn't cost him much to make that final confirmation, to put them together and see it in their eyes that there's no recognition, not even from a photograph. With that, it seems, the risk of keeping Irina alive with her knowledge is no longer justified by any substantial uncertainty in her dossier.
He is (unnecessarily) revealing to Jim that this girl has been tortured. And then (unnecessarily) he reveals to Jim that she has been executed too. That is a COST. These things should be TOP SECRET.
But in any case, I don't think the answers would satisfy you. It's a lot like the bee in the car, or Jim and the owl. You're looking for a very literal accounting of each moment, and I know that if I say anything about "creative license" you'll either ignore it or cast it as a "dodge" or something like that.
It IS a dodge. You're using the phrase "creative license" as an all-purpose explanation for things that make no sense. And if you cannot give the literal significance of the owl scene, I'd love to hear your explanation of its figurative significance.
Hey, you might not convince me. But you might convince SOMEBODY.
In terms of PoV, it's the ideal moment to add something a little crazy, a little extreme. Jim's in the cave. He's exhausted and broken. And whatever he sees or hears in Russia is strategically a moot point, given what's in store for him at home. Go ahead and tell Alleline what we did, Jim—Alleline doesn't want to hear it. Alleline's going to gag you with an Alvis to protect his precious Witchcraft. It's ironic, and definitely a little gloating, which is understandable—Karla is at the height of his triumph at this moment.
It may be possible to type this, but it's just words. It makes no sense. In order for Jim to understand this gloating, he'd have to understand who Irina was. And if he did understand the gloating, it would only motivate him to break out of his lotus-eater exile and make trouble. Which Karla does not want. And why would Karla want to gloat at Jim, of all people? Jim betrayed his own mission and then surrendered without a fight.
You're once again portraying a master spy as having the emotional maturity and self control of a six year old.
Well, no, you didn't ask me about those things.
It's clearly laid out in the post you first responded to.
Set aside the wisdom of killing Irina for a moment.
Why should I? That's a major reason the scene makes no sense. Why should I let you get away evading the key question? And I can't help noticing you left off the words "in front of Jim".
As you've said many times, assuming randomness gets you nowhere. So who (thinks Smiley) is she? What's her significance? How is she connected to this tapestry? Who, in short, is the only other woman of note in the entire cast of characters? Jim gets as far as "young blonde Russian" and the process of elimination is over before it begins.
HAHAHA. Yes. Smiley knows he is not a real spy, but only a character in a movie, and that limits the world of possibilities. So he checks over the cast list, and decides it must be Irina by process of elimination. You've got it EXACTLY! To be fair, you're not someone who's ever praised this film for its realism.
But you still overstated your case. He does not know she is Russian. For all he knows, she could be Hungarian. After all, Jim was just arrested in Hungary, while trying to meet a Hungarian general, he was tortured about the identities of his Hungarian agents, and his Hungarian networks were then arrested and rolled up.
But yes, you're right. Smiley can eliminate anyone associated with the Hungarian general or the Hungarian networks. Because he has checked over the cast list and knows that none of these people are part of the cast. share
Wow. British arguments are as pointless and boring as British movies and British "comedy" LOL
shareNot sure what you mean by "British arguments" but disagree strongly with your assertion that British movies are boring. Am not British but find that their cinema and theatre are generally a notch above most productions from other countries and a few notches above the average mindless pap made in the US.
As I'm not a great fan of comedy would find it difficult to make a comparison. Admittedly, can see why the"Carry On" movies never garnered Oscar nominations!!!
Since you have read the book and seemingly have a very good handle on the plot, can you please tell me (in about the second last scene of the movie), who is
it who is lying face down (presumably dead!) and who was the character seen peering out of window just prior to this?
Thanks for any help.
Since you have read the book and seemingly have a very good handle on the plot, can you please tell me (in about the second last scene of the movie), who is
it who is lying face down (presumably dead!) and who was the character seen peering out of window just prior to this?
Thanks for any help
The final montage is a series of disconnected scenes.
First we see Bill Haydon (Colin Farrell) and Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) making eyes at each other, at what may be the Circus Christmas Party, some time in the past.
Then we are back to the present, where Bill Haydon, wearing a blue sweater, stands behind the fence at the intelligence compound where he is being held. Jim Prideaux approaches the compound with a rifle, and shoots Bill Haydon through the cheek. Bill starts to fall ...
Then we switch to Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy), standing in the rain, in what is presumably a street in Paris, looking forlorn.
Then we switch to a person looking out the window. He/she is smoking. This seems to be Connie Sachs (Kathy Burke), looking out the window of her home at Oxford (where Smiley met her earlier in the film). I have no explanation as to why the scene is inserted here, except that it (together with the preceding scene) may be part of a general theme of love and loneliness.
Then we are back to a man in a blue sweater, lying on the ground in the leaves. We are back at the intelligence compound, and the man is Bill Haydon, lying dead where he fell 3 scenes earlier ....
The montage has no counterpart in the novel, except that all these characters appear in the novel, and Jim does kill Bill. In the novel, Jim arranges a secret meeting with Bill at the compound, succeeds due to lax security, and kills him by breaking his neck. The murder occurs off-screen, and the reader is left to guess what has happened based on various clues.
share
Many thanks for your reply and explanation. The face in the window (person smoking) certainly had me perplexed.
Cheers.
Honestly? Your own posts about this make no sense. If you need further clues you only needed to look at Smiley's facial expression. In the film Gary Oldman has a good poker face but in that moment he slipped slightly.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
Honestly? Your own posts about this make no sense. If you need further clues you only needed to look at Smiley's facial expression. In the film Gary Oldman has a good poker face but in that moment he slipped slightly.
Sorry. I'd like to respond, but at this point it's a bit too hard to discern what post you are responding to, or what scene you are referring to. share
Prideaux is a top agent, so he is a trained observer. Even is his run-down state (he had been trained to stand up to the pressure of interrogation) he would be able to remember specific details about her face and able to describe her again later. So Smiley would have a fair chance to 'recognize' her from Tarr's description. Tarr may be a top bastard, but probably also a trained observer. And having fallen in love with Irina he would really be able to describe her.
share