Ars Gratia Artis. That company motto was first brought to my attention sometime in 2006 when I was a member of a pub quiz team called ‘The Oswalds, Ed, and Anne’ (I think that requires no explanation) at the pub in the basement of the Belmont cinema in Aberdeen, Scotland. If memory serves, the question required us to recall what that motto, that of a major motion picture studio, meant in English. Cynic that I am, I almost choked on the popcorn I was eating when I heard the answer explained. It means ‘Art for Art’s Sake’.
Really? A major motion picture studio has THAT as a motto. I remember mumbling something like ‘Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say ‘Money for Money’s Sake’. And believe it or not, I was not yet involved in the entertainment industry when I had that reaction. I remember thinking that might, MIGHT, have been appropriate at one time but even as an avid enjoyer of independent and art house cinema, I could not recall any film that I thought of as fitting the description of art for the sake of art itself. I have now changed my mind.
Two days ago I went to see Tailor Tinker Soldier Spy (2011) and I really wished that I had been more prepared for what I was going to see. Believe it or not, I actually had only heard about the film through word of mouth. My British expat friends went to see it one night and I missed the outing so when my mom called about a week later saying she wanted to go see it, I jumped at the chance. Not knowing anything about the film production, other than that it starred Gary Oldman, I went off to it with the expectation that it might be a 300 million dollar budgeted Hollywood version. I think I was expecting something like the James Bond franchise. I just expected it to be designed to make lots of money. Apparently it is only in limited release right now and will open nationwide in about a week or two.
When it does, I am not sure how large the advertising budget will be. It is not designed to make money from the looks of it. It appears rather to be a craft film based on the novel written in 1974 at the height of the Cold War. I must say, it was not what I was expecting but I was very much pleasantly surprised!
***From this point there may be plot spoilers. If you have not read the book or seen the film. Read at your own risk.***
First off I had to adjust my expectations. I arrived all hyped up and almost felt like I had attention deficit. This is because the film, in every aspect, appeared to be one that was actually made in 1973 when the film takes place. I just kept thinking ‘But Gary Oldman was not in his fifties in 1973′ such was the illusion.
It was really distracting. And the pace was that of a film of the period. The editing was slower, there was no gratuitous or unrealistic action. The tension came from the script, worst of all you had to actually pay attention, there were no photographic or sound effect punctuations such as quick zooms or epic sound effects to point out what the important information was. You just had to pay attention.
Worse still, I hated the 70′s. I was born in 1972 and did not have a very happy childhood. What’s more I was born with a highly developed sense of style into an unfortunate decade in which everything was frankly, ugly. I have many theories as to why. Perhaps after years of drug abuse in the 60′s people were just depressed and loved ugly things. Perhaps there was a desire to produce designs that had never been produced before… because they were ugly. Whatever the reason, aesthetically speaking the 70′s and I just did not get along. I don’t think i even cracked a smile at anything design related until 1984. So my initial felling, after the surprise wore off of course, was that I did not like this film.
But even in this transitional state of deciding this film was not for me I really loved that it was made. I loved that someone endeavoured to and succeeded in creating something out of its own time that really felt like the time in which the action was placed. I have an upcoming short that does this with the noir film genre and I can only hope I have been as successful and the makers of Tinker Tailor.
But even when I thought I did not like this film, I loved it as an example of what Britain has to offer film. Because I started my career in the UK, I really ally myself more with British film than American. One thing that struck me is that the whole attitude in the US is geared towards the ‘box office’. You never cast anyone without asking ‘What’s his box office?’. Across the pond you tend to be a little more concerned with who is right for the part. The reason for this is simple. Film and television in Europe are tax funded and art is still a very big consideration. In the US, everything is privately funded. If it does not make money, it will not be made.
Its not that there is no consideration for money, it just is not the first thing in one’s mind. For instance the tax funded BBC includes programming that I would never watch but for every program that has me reaching for the remote, there is one that I want to watch that I know from my former flatmate’s reactions, not very many others do. I can’t remember the number of times I was banned from the tv and had to watch something in my room on iplayer because I was overruled.
So as I was sitting there, not really enjoying the film, I was smiling to myself, absolutely delighted that it had been made. I was marveling at the production design which made me want to be sick simply because it really did look like the 70′s and wondering if the Director of Photography purposely used grainy film and old lenses or if the look was achieved entirely during the post production phase. And then something happened. My brian turned on. I guess it was because I was analyzing the production aspects but suddenly I was thinking about the plot of the film and it is a very complicated one.
Suddenly I was was really enjoying the film (just wishing it was placed in a more aesthetically pleasing decade) and by the time it was revealed how the wife of one of the characters was used to distract him, I was riveted. I think I may have even uttered an audible gasp. All I can say is go see this film, just be prepared to think. It is very old fashioned that way.
I have noticed in the past that many of the films I used to enjoy in the 70′s and 80′s, I no longer can sit still for because my attention span has shortened due to the fact that I constantly multitask. A typical day for me is listening to some sort of ‘tv’ on the internet while answering emails, changing music on my ipod with one hand and texting someone with the other. I rarely carry out a phone conversation without using the internet on the phone at the same time and often when I do actually turn on the television, I am streaming something from YouTube at the same time, constantly adjusting the volumes to be able to switch my attention back and fourth.
One of the reasons I hate to drive is that I can’t, in good conscience, do that without giving it my full attention. If I walk or take the bus, I can be listening to music, web surfing, and writing something in my head at the same time. But watching this film took me back to my previous ability to just sit and fully engage with a film that required every bit of my intelligence to be active and on high alert.
I miss that.
According to IMDB stats it looks as if the film has made back it’s budget but that is not always enough to cause a film to be seen as successful by those who fund them. I can only hope that even if it does not make bank for investors, this film will be seen as a wonderful example of film as an art form and that more, similar productions will go ahead.
So that you won’t be taken off guard by the film, here is a link to the trailer. In it you will see what I mean by the look of the film but unfortunately, the trailer uses quick witted editing and epic sound effects in a way not seen in the film. Pity. You will just have to go see the film to know what I am talking about then. 
In contrast to the Tinker Taylor trailer, check out this trailer for The Conversation (1974) which is not entirely devoid of such techniques but relies much more on dialogue for the film and narration.