5 ms·

The film is stellar too really, has a visual authenticity to it, and great actors as well Oldman, Benedict Cumberbach, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy. Oldman in fact d

The film is stellar too really, has a visual authenticity to it, and great actors as well Oldman, Benedict Cumberbach, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy. Oldman in fact does turn out a subtle and nuanced portayal of Smiley, that is not any less superlative.

justin66 6y ago
Unless I’ve forgotten something about the BBC program, it’s really just The Alec Guinness Show, in contrast to the film, wherein every supporting role was played brilliantly. I’m a bit of a fanboy, but honestly, the whole film is worthwhile just to hear John Hurt’s Control tell Esterhase “I should have left you where I found you.”
- klelatti 6y ago
  Ian Richardson, Bernard Hepton, Michael Jayston, Ian Bannen, Joss Ackland, Beryl Reid, Anthony Bate, Sian Phillips and even Patrick Stewart. Definitely not just the Alec Guinness Show.
  - justin66 6y ago
    An impressive list of actors, but the person comparing the two productions will compare the direction and the performances. It's a little unfair, given the standards of early eighties television, but still. To the original point that you seem to disagree with - I think the person making that comparison will agree that the show is built around Guinness in a way the film is not built around Oldman. I don't think that's wrong, and which is "better" must be a point of personal preference. One could not make a show with Alec Guinness any other way, and the result is certainly worthwhile. It really is a great show and of course I'd encourage anyone to watch both. A person reading your comment might end up being a little disappointed, though. The most eminent name on that list, and the one people outside the UK are likely to recognize, does not even have a speaking part.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      Sure? Don’t quite understand your point. The actors in the supporting roles are also a pleasure to watch. Nor would it be nearly as good if it had Alex Guinness, but the supporting cast wasn’t up to snuff. Lol I very strongly feel that the miniseries kicks the movies ass :). Consider that Gary Oldman re-uses the glasses prop for George Smiley which Guinness originated. That’s how long a shadow Guinness cast in the role - it’s the definitive performance, and thus the definitive filmic version :).
      - justin66 6y ago
        > Don’t quite understand your point. The actors in the supporting roles are also a pleasure to watch. They’re not nearly as good as the actors in the film, and they’re used to a much lesser extent. (Seems a little mean but you did force me to spell it out.) The positive comments make me feel I do need to give the series another watch someday soon to understand where the fans are coming from. I think I had a much more positive view of Smiley’s People than some, which I’m curious about too... > Lol I very strongly feel that the miniseries kicks the movies ass :). I can clear a room by going on about how Soderbergh’s Solaris is superior to Tarkovsky’s, so I guess I’m not a stranger to your plight. > Consider that Gary Oldman re-uses the glasses prop for George Smiley which Guinness originated. He used Guinness’s voice. It’s astonishing, really. > it’s the definitive performance, and thus the definitive filmic version :) You’ve got me wishing it was filmic - unless I’m mistaken it’s 576i :( There’s a series with Helen Mirren called Prime Suspect that was shown intermittently in England over twenty five years. One thing I took away from it was that the evolving aspect ratios of broadcast TV (the show used three different ones over time, inviting some comparison) really have expanded what’s possible on the screen.
        klelatti 6y ago
        I've been trying to stop myself from commenting further but you've forced me to! > They’re not nearly as good as the actors in the film, and they’re used to a much lesser extent. (Seems a little mean but you did force me to spell it out.) Factually incorrect on both counts and very unfair to an outstanding cast. > The positive comments make me feel I do need to give the series another watch someday soon to understand where the fans are coming from. I think I had a much more positive view of Smiley’s People than some, which I’m curious about too... Maybe a good idea to have a recent watch before criticising. Actually Smiley's people suffers from many of the flaws you've highlighted with a much weaker cast beyond Guinness. > You’ve got me wishing it was filmic - unless I’m mistaken it’s 576i :( Yes it was made for TV and made in 1979. As a result it is also utterly authentic. I have many, many criticisms of the film which I'm not going to express because it may just be my taste and I'm glad that lots of people enjoyed it. I just don't want anyone to be put off seeking out the TV series because of an assessment that is so far out of the consensus. Edit: for an independent view the LA Times gives a good assessment of both. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-nov-27-la-ca-second-look-20111127-story.html https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-nov-27-la-...

justin66 6y ago

Unless I’ve forgotten something about the BBC program, it’s really just The Alec Guinness Show, in contrast to the film, wherein every supporting role was played brilliantly. I’m a bit of a fanboy, but honestly, the whole film is worthwhile just to hear John Hurt’s Control tell Esterhase “I should have left you where I found you.”

klelatti 6y ago
Ian Richardson, Bernard Hepton, Michael Jayston, Ian Bannen, Joss Ackland, Beryl Reid, Anthony Bate, Sian Phillips and even Patrick Stewart. Definitely not just the Alec Guinness Show.
- justin66 6y ago
  An impressive list of actors, but the person comparing the two productions will compare the direction and the performances. It's a little unfair, given the standards of early eighties television, but still. To the original point that you seem to disagree with - I think the person making that comparison will agree that the show is built around Guinness in a way the film is not built around Oldman. I don't think that's wrong, and which is "better" must be a point of personal preference. One could not make a show with Alec Guinness any other way, and the result is certainly worthwhile. It really is a great show and of course I'd encourage anyone to watch both. A person reading your comment might end up being a little disappointed, though. The most eminent name on that list, and the one people outside the UK are likely to recognize, does not even have a speaking part.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Sure? Don’t quite understand your point. The actors in the supporting roles are also a pleasure to watch. Nor would it be nearly as good if it had Alex Guinness, but the supporting cast wasn’t up to snuff. Lol I very strongly feel that the miniseries kicks the movies ass :). Consider that Gary Oldman re-uses the glasses prop for George Smiley which Guinness originated. That’s how long a shadow Guinness cast in the role - it’s the definitive performance, and thus the definitive filmic version :).
    - justin66 6y ago
      > Don’t quite understand your point. The actors in the supporting roles are also a pleasure to watch. They’re not nearly as good as the actors in the film, and they’re used to a much lesser extent. (Seems a little mean but you did force me to spell it out.) The positive comments make me feel I do need to give the series another watch someday soon to understand where the fans are coming from. I think I had a much more positive view of Smiley’s People than some, which I’m curious about too... > Lol I very strongly feel that the miniseries kicks the movies ass :). I can clear a room by going on about how Soderbergh’s Solaris is superior to Tarkovsky’s, so I guess I’m not a stranger to your plight. > Consider that Gary Oldman re-uses the glasses prop for George Smiley which Guinness originated. He used Guinness’s voice. It’s astonishing, really. > it’s the definitive performance, and thus the definitive filmic version :) You’ve got me wishing it was filmic - unless I’m mistaken it’s 576i :( There’s a series with Helen Mirren called Prime Suspect that was shown intermittently in England over twenty five years. One thing I took away from it was that the evolving aspect ratios of broadcast TV (the show used three different ones over time, inviting some comparison) really have expanded what’s possible on the screen.
      - klelatti 6y ago
        I've been trying to stop myself from commenting further but you've forced me to! > They’re not nearly as good as the actors in the film, and they’re used to a much lesser extent. (Seems a little mean but you did force me to spell it out.) Factually incorrect on both counts and very unfair to an outstanding cast. > The positive comments make me feel I do need to give the series another watch someday soon to understand where the fans are coming from. I think I had a much more positive view of Smiley’s People than some, which I’m curious about too... Maybe a good idea to have a recent watch before criticising. Actually Smiley's people suffers from many of the flaws you've highlighted with a much weaker cast beyond Guinness. > You’ve got me wishing it was filmic - unless I’m mistaken it’s 576i :( Yes it was made for TV and made in 1979. As a result it is also utterly authentic. I have many, many criticisms of the film which I'm not going to express because it may just be my taste and I'm glad that lots of people enjoyed it. I just don't want anyone to be put off seeking out the TV series because of an assessment that is so far out of the consensus. Edit: for an independent view the LA Times gives a good assessment of both. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-nov-27-la-ca-second-look-20111127-story.html https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-nov-27-la-...