strange and random happenstance

When I heard they were making a miniseries about the last woman executed in England I decided then and there that there would be no way I would watch this series. It would be too depressing. And then I decided to drop my BritBox subscription. I will never let a single day go to waste with a streaming subscription so I started to look for short shows to fill in this two week gap. After exhausting all the Agatha Christie I hadn't yet watched and hearing rave reviews about A Cruel Love, I caved. I blame Bessie Carter. I can do four episodes of about anything so I should have been able to handle this. Well, I should have stuck to my gut instincts. This was beyond depressing. A sort of fever dream of domestic abuse filmed with an almost Lynchian glamour of a woman battered and bloody and bruised. Yet there felt like there wasn't any grounding in reality. They just showed little vignettes of Ruth's life and her love affair with her "victim" David Blakely. Though I think "love" is a stretch. There was no love, cruel or otherwise here, it was people colliding into, using, and destroying each other in whatever way they could. The show seems to be wanting to say that it was the unspoken rules of society that Ruth dared to breach by aiming to better her life that lead to her death, which, while partially true, in that it lead to her being railroaded at trial, doesn't take into account her upbringing at all. She was raised to believe that all she deserved from life was abuse. She suffered at the hands of her father and then all her lovers, even the one "good guy" who basically turned this broken woman into a killer. And yet this is all told elliptically. In little flashes. The horrors of her childhood are mentioned in a throwaway line from her sister, who it should be noted was another victim of men having been raped and impregnated by their father. I just felt like this REAL LIFE STORY has something so important to say. It changed the law, as she was the last woman executed, and within a decade the death penalty was abolished. And yet the weight isn't there. It's more snippets of her degradation while still looking glamorous. There's no real history, what history I read about was thanks to the internet, and seriously, someone has to get onto how Ruth's mother was connected to the Cambridge Five. Now that's a true crime show I do want to watch. But this. This was a woman whose life was destroyed by men and her story is told and controlled by men. She doesn't really factor in until the end. She's about an eye for an eye and a stiff upper lip and not showing how her repeated abuse, her trauma, is what led her to this desperate act. She doesn't want to be seen as a victim and that is exactly how abusers get away with their crimes. They make their victims carry the blame and shame. Only at the end does she realize that she was sticking to a morality the others weren't playing by and by then it's too late to save herself. But maybe that's what makes this work, on some level, at least in the eyes of the reviewers who raved, because it was men who controlled, ruined, and then ended her life, and therefore, it's not really about her, it's about the patriarchy. Personally, I think it should have been about Ruth. But maybe I'm alone in this assessment.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: A Cruel Love, Abuse, Agatha Christie, And the Emmy Goes To, Bessie Carter, BritBox, Cambridge Spies, David Blakely, Execution, Love, Lynchian, Miscarriage, Murder, Patriarchy, Rape, Ruth Ellis, The Ruth Ellis Story, Trauma, True Crime

I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who remembers the miniseries Cambridge Spies. Starring Toby Stephens, Tom Hollander, Rupert Penry-Jones, and Samuel West as the famous Philby, Bugress, Maclean, and Blunt respectively. This was a whose who of top British talent that followed the infamous spies from their halcyon days at Cambridge up until they were exposed. Needless to say it was kind of a rose tinted view of spying. They had scruples but their idealism, their conviction that they were doing this for the greater good, outweighed the downside. Yes they would touch on issues like Burgess's alcoholism, but I think it was more because Tom Hollander plays a wonderful dipsomaniac than any darker import like guilt. I felt at the time that it was missing a beat. The DVD set I had rented had a documentary on it and I think that did a better job than the entire miniseries in showing how what they did was a betrayal of their country. They might have been idealistic fools but they were also traitors. Which is why I was so excited for A Spy Among Friends. Based on the nonfiction book by Ben Macintyre, this seemed like it would actually give us a version of the truth. Because the truth is that we will probably never know the whole truth. And even here, even in a world of "truth" we are warned that some things aren't as they seem. This miniseries gets to the heart of the old boys network by showing that the education and comradery forged within the upper echelons of British aristocracy was ripe for infiltration because in the world they moved in it was something that simply wasn't done. The question isn't how it was done or why it was done it's a more intimate look at two friends who come to the realization that their shared history isn't what they thought it was. Damian Lewis as Nicholas Elliot was sent to Beirut to interview Kim Philby as played by Guy Pearce and Elliot let Philby run. Much like in the Watergate scandal there was some missing minutes on their taped debriefing and that lead to much speculation. A Spy Among Friends spins out what could have happened in that time and who is playing who. It's a cat and mouse game involving Russians, Americans, Britons, and old old friends. But by pulling back the iron curtain and seeing what Philby's life in Russia was actually like gives his crimes a greater weight. Was this the glorious life he was fighting for? And what of those he left behind and those he's reunited with? Through flashbacks and dreams, we see these two men circle each other. We see the same events over and over again through different eyes with new knowledge. The genius of this miniseries is that it relies on two of the greatest actors today, Guy Pearce and Damian Lewis. They bring a weight to this miniseries that makes every betrayal land a punch. You actually feel the dead Philby's legacy is propped up with. I don't know if I have ever seen a better Cold War thriller and the fact that it rests on the shoulders of so few yet talented actors shows that with the right people and the right material you can make magic.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 3 comments  

Labels: A Spy Among Friends, And the Emmy Goes To, Ben Macintyre, Cambridge Spies, Damian Lewis, Guy Pearce, Kim Philby, Nicholas Elliot, Rupert Penry-Jones, Russia, Samuel West, Spy, Toby Stephens, Tom Hollander, Traitor

The Great Gatsby
Based on the book by F. Scott Fitgerald
Starring: Paul Rudd, Martin Donovan, Mira Sorvino, Francie Swift, Alex Bisping, Bill Camp, Heather Goldenhersh, Janine Theriault, Matt Malloy, Richard Jutras, Jerry Grayson, Megan Broadman, Paul Hopkins, and Burt Harris
Release Date: January 14th, 2001
Rating: ★★★★
To Buy

Twenty miles outside New York City there are two eggs. Nick Carraway has found himself in the less desirable West Egg as he works in bonds in the city. But he has acquaintances in East Egg and the convergence of East and West will be memorable. One night he takes himself over to West Egg to see an old classmate from Yale who just so happens to have married his cousin Daisy. The Buchanans live a charmed and luxurious life, never worrying about what happens in their wake, and a ghost from the past will soon change their lives forever. But first there's the dinner. Nick is the only other guest besides the golf pro and childhood friend of Daisy, Jordan Baker. When Tom Buchanan gets a call during the dinner hour and Daisy storms out after her husband Jordan fills Nick in on the gossip. Tom has a girl in the city and that's her on the phone. Nick's a little surprised that Tom has the brainpower to juggle two women, but Jordan's suspicions are soon confirmed when Tom forces Nick to join him on a trip into New York City where they pick up Myrtle Wilson on the way. Once they reach the city Nick tries to break away from the couple only to be dragged into a party at their love nest with Myrtle's sister. There Nick can barely stomach the lies about Daisy being a Catholic and the violence that Tom unleashes against Myrtle and therefore he drinks. Later, inebriated, he stumbles home where he finds a manservant asleep on his front step with an invitation from his neighbor, the infamous Jay Gatsby, to come to his next party. The night of the party Nick walks over to Gatsby's house that's lit up like the world's fair. Nick feels a little superior to all the party goers knowing that he was in fact invited by the host, unlike most who just pile into a car on a weekend and head out to West Egg. Nick meets his elusive host and is invited to lunch in the city where Gatsby tells him his story and how Nick can help him achieve the one goal he has been working towards. He wants to see Daisy. Jordan fills in the details for Nick about how Gatsby and Daisy where an item but he went off to war and she married Tom. But Gatsby has never forgotten her and wants Nick to invite Daisy over so that Gatsby can show her the man he has become in an effort to take her away from her life without him. There reconciliation is everything Gatsby could have hoped for. What happens next as a result is nothing but a tragedy.    

What I find odd is how little impact any adaptation of The Great Gatsby has ever had on me. With the 1974 version I know I watched it with my Mom because she wanted me to see it, and she liked heckling movies with Robert Redford, but the only scene in the whole film I remembered is Edward Herrmann playing the piano. Then there's this TV adaptation and I have nothing. Just a blank. Oddly I remember tons of press leading up to the broadcast. An article in People about Toby Stephens being Maggie Smith's son and the "next big thing" has stayed with me more than the adaptation. Now I adore Toby, but my adoration didn't happen for many, many years, in fact it wasn't until after watching this and even Cambridge Spies and Poirot and The Queen's Sister that he made a lasting impression with Jane Eyre, but rewatching it I think I can be exempted for my lapse in memory because he's SO Jay Gatsby that you don't think of him as an actor who exists outside this role. That smile which feels like a veneer to coverup the mobster underneath is perfection. Unlike with Redford's performance you actually believe all the rumors about this Gatsby. Also I don't think I've ever seen Toby Stephens smile this much, which in itself would throw off even his diehard fans. So yes, at the time, I will admit, I was in this mainly for Paul Rudd, and a little for Mira Sorvino, because I've always loved her. But I don't know how everything about it was so forgettable because it is actually a really strong adaptation. For the first half hour it feels a bit like a beat for beat remake of the 1974 version, but listen to the genius music from Carl Davis hinting as to where this adaptation is going to go, he brings this to a whole new level. It feels like a made for TV movie that would have been event viewing in 1986, "Sidney Sheldon presents The Great Gatsby!" In fact I bet despite being only seventeen in 1986 Paul Rudd would have looked exactly the same if this was made then! And as for Rudd's Nick Carraway, at first I found his narration a little too detached, but then I noticed the subtle wry humor, the smirks, the badly concealed laughter, and I came to love this snarky version of Nick. The only flaw in the whole adaptation is the added specificity of Gatsby's wealth being tied up in fake bonds, though my Dad would probably say it was Myrtle's overly graphic death. Yes, the bonds angle made a nice parallel to what Nick's work was, but I didn't like this invented specificity. Gatsby is and should remain a mystery. 

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Adaptation, Bonds, Cambridge Spies, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jane Eyre, Mira Sorvino, Paul Rudd, Poirot, Roaring Back to Reading, Robert Redford, Sidney Sheldon, The Great Gatsby, The Queen's Sister, Toby Stephens

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré
Published by: The Franklin Library
Publication Date: 1974
Format: Hardcover, 355 Pages
Rating: ★★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

When you're a spymaster for the Circus you don't really think about what your retirement will be like, yet that's what George Smiley has been forced to ponder for the last year. Forced out because of a botched operation in Czechoslovakia he spends his days waiting for his faithless wife to return to him. He has come to terms with the fact he'll never know what exactly happened, how Control botched things up so badly that Jim Prideaux got two bullets in his back and all their networks were blown. Yet fate as something different in store for Smiley. The Circus might be under new management, but there's now evidence that perhaps Operation Testify was brought down by a mole. Ricki Tarr is also on the outs with the Circus. Ricki was in Hong Kong to follow a member of the Soviet Trade Delegation code named Boris and ended up falling for Boris' wife, Irina. She was willing to defect for Ricki, but when Ricki contacted the Circus she was swept back to Moscow. Ricki was shaken, he knew this was proof of a mole and went to ground himself. He's come out of hiding to help bring down the mole. But the small enclave of agents working with Under Secretary Oliver Lacon agree, it's George Smiley who must run the operation. He's been called back into action and he must dig into the Hong Kong events, he must look into Czechoslovakia, he must use all the spycraft he's ever learned to smoke out a traitor among his own former colleagues and save the Circus from disaster.

Picking up a book that many people view as a Classic with a capital "C" is daunting. There are those books that legitimately deserve that classification... and there are those that, in my mind, don't. I truthfully don't think I have a prejudice against certain modern classics, but maybe I do... because if it's modern and about war, I just tune out. A Farewell to Arms, Catch-22, both modern classics that I just couldn't stand. Now along comes Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and I'm torn. Because it's a classic of spy fiction, it's about the cold war, and well, it just left me cold. Yes, it's a clever and probably more realistic alternative to the image of Bond, but if this is a more truthful representation of the Cold War era perhaps that era isn't for me. It is rare for me to admit, but this book, about 95% of it just left me baffled. If was confusing and at times completely incomprehensible. Every so often I'd get into a good groove, I'd be like, yeah, I'm finally in the book, I totally know what's going on, then I'd put down the book for two seconds and when I picked it back up again it's like all the words had rearranged themselves on the pages and I had no idea what I had read, who anyone was, or what the hell was going on. At the close of the book it's almost like everything you read doesn't matter, it was a foregone conclusion that Smiley would catch the mole, and the mole doesn't justify himself, explain himself, or anything. So why exactly did I read this book again?

I read this book because it's THE spy book to read. Though I find it interesting that after reading it I find all these caveats from people complaining about Carré overwriting his characters and having tedious descriptions of all those who people his pages. I'd say that half that is right. Carré overwrites. He loves minutiae and getting into Smiley digging deep into files for what feels like hundreds of pages. And the thing is, it's not badly written, it's just badly plotted, like he's very purposefully trying to throw the reader off track and kind of forgets that was his purpose and he has now fallen down a rabbit hole and is writing gibberish. Nicely written gibberish, occasionally beautiful, but still gibberish. Whereas for his characters? I could really actually do with a bit more description. Because I have no way of telling them apart. Their names all kind of blended together and sometimes they were referred to by first names sometimes by last, and yet there's no mental image of what they look like to differentiate them. And seriously, one of the characters is named Bland!?! Yeah, cause that's SO going to make me remember him. I think that perhaps this is one of those books that would be better as a re-read because you supposedly know the characters, but the thing is I still don't know who these characters are. I figured out the mole in like five minutes and the rest was just hundreds of pages of sitting around literally reading about Smiley sitting around.

The reason the mole isn't that hard to spot is because Carré based this book on his own experiences, in particular the revelation of the Cambridge Five, Philby, Maclean, Burgess, Blunt, and Cairncross. I know quite a bit about this from watching the Cambridge Spies miniseries as well as all the documentaries on the DVD set which were actually far more interesting. So knowing this history going in it was just about matching the ill-defined character to the real life counterpart. Of course later in the book they are all given codenames, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Poor Man, and Beggarman. But that doesn't matter because obviously the mole is the one most like Philby, aka "Tailor." In fact Tailor is the only one really described in detail of the group, so it's not that much of a leap to deduce him as the mole. The only real question that needs answering in this story is if the mole was working alone or as part of a group, like the Cambridge Five. I think it's a bit of a cop-out that Tailor was working alone, but in a way that used the rest of his group and kind of made them look complicit. Having the taint of Communisim be more deep-seated, more wide spread would have made Smiley's task harder. It wouldn't have been just one word, but several. After all that palaver to end with just one? Seems kind of wasteful.

What was fascinating about reading this book in the current world climate is that this book is still very relevant. Until the last few years, and in particular since the election, I think the vast majority would have said that the Cold War ended with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. While now we see that it's never ended, just went black ops, underground. So all this spycraft was still ongoing. This isn't a book about 1974 and the events before, this is a book about now. This book is so relevant it's actually a little spooky. To think that everything we had kind of relegated in our mind to being something of the past to realize it's of the now... Carré knows what he's writing about, even if it's not that linear or succinct. There's a reason why The Night Manager resonated so much with viewers, and it's not just because of Tom Hiddleston's ass. In the labyrinth of Smiley's world and all the dealing and double-dealing that goes on, there was one thing that really struck me. That sometimes a country would welcome a defector with open arms, promise them safety, security, a new life, not just for their secrets. There was a hidden agenda. Yes, a vast majority would be taken in, some played back into their country, but some, some were just taken in for bargaining down the road. Some were then sold to other countries, some even sold back to the country they had defected from. That just scares the shit out of me. To be promised this new life only to be passed along.

But what I found most startling was that at the root of it, the mole's reason for turning against his country wasn't a hatred for Britain, it was a hatred for the United States. Tailor clearly saw Britain's position on the world stage and realized that they could never bring down the United States, he saw their ineffectualness. Only the USSR could destroy America, so he should align himself with them in order to achieve his goal. While I fully admit, especially right now, America isn't a popular country, I don't quite get why Tailor felt this way. His reveal as the mole and his summation of why was given so few pages that his hatred of America felt a bit like a slap in the face. I just wanted the why. Why did he come to this conclusion personally. America is barely mentioned in the book. A few of the spies are in Washington from time to time but years previously, and Karla, the Russian spymatser, ran a failed radio scheme in San Francisco, but that is the only real mention of America. So why should Tailor, who was, let's face it, a lover of the finer things, including lots of pretty men and women, and wasn't logically the traitor aside from the fact he aligned with Philby's profile, a strident hater of all things American? I think this is what will stick with me most. Not the rambling and meandering of Carré but the xenophobic hatred of America that comes out of nowhere at the last second. Just why!?!

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: A Farewell to Arms, Benediction, Cambridge Spies, Catch-22, Cold War, Communist, England, George Smiley, John le Carré, Modern Classic, Russia, Spies, The Night Manager, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, Tom Hiddleston