Skip to main content

Money has no smell as long as there's enough of it.

Our Kind of Traitor
(2016)

(SPOILERS) In which a poetry teacher with a hitherto untapped capacity for derring-do
 takes up arms against a sea of Russian mobsters, and by opposing ends (some of) them. Our Kind of Traitor, the latest John Le Carré adaptation derives from of one of his later novels (first published in 2010), and one gets a sense that, the further the author strays from first-hand knowledge and experience, the less effective his yarn spinning becomes.


Certainly, tackling the War on Terror in A Most Wanted Man made for a well-mounted but rather passé picture. In contrast. The sophisticated arms dealer of The Night Manager proved highly effective and fertile ground, but that novel was penned more than two decades ago, which may help explain its relative verisimilitude. Our Kind of Traitor finds Le Carré exploring Russian thugs buying legitimacy via the keepers of the British establishment, but is propelled by the most unlikely of Hitchcockian everymen, consequently struggling to balance its serious-mindedness with a Man Who Knew Too Much/ North by Northwest “Who knew?” resourceful protagonist.


However, if this is a core weakness in the scenario, its servicing by director Susanna White (best known for her TV work, from BBC prestige adaptions such as Bleak House and Parade’s End to HBO’s Generation Kill and Boardwalk Empire) is always highly accomplished. She proves particularly adept at the subjective experience, from an early interlude with Ewan McGregor’s (poetics lecturer) Perry Makepeace in Marrakech, as he gets progressively more squiffy while attending a depraved party with the convivial Dima (Stellan Skarsgård), Russian Mafia’s Number One money launderer, to a later, edgy sequence in which Alec Utgoff’s henchman stops off with Perry and his girlfriend Gail (Naomie Harris) at a block of rundown Parisian flats to the accompaniment of inexorably building unease.


Dima, out of desperation, has picked Perry to be his contact with British Intelligence, his objective being safe passage for himself and his family (mostly his family) in exchange for the lowdown on the mob money financing a newly-approved London bank, a bank that has the endorsement of an assortment of British politicians due to get paid handsomely for their trouble (their ill-gotten gains nestling comfortably in those obligatory Swiss accounts).


As ever, Le Carré’s great strength is capturing the machinations within the corridors of power, where everyone has their own agenda, trustworthiness is foreign territory, and corruption is rife, be it in ways large or small, to positive or negative ends; this doesn’t manifested as cynicism on the author’s part, it’s simply the way the world turns. We know Damien Lewis’ Hector is a good guy, but is his quest to bring down the lynch-pin of the scheme, MP Aubrey Longrigg (Jeremy Northam), in what becomes an unsanctioned mission, endangers everyone involved. And can his immediate superior Matlock (Mark Gatiss, eschewing the usual RP delivery) be trusted?


Le Carré met the inspiration for Dima in Moscow two decades before penning the novel, but the actual chap doesn’t sound remotely as endearing as his fictional counterpart, and much more like one of the gangsters who surround him. Skarsgård, sporting a long, flowing mane courtesy of the makeup department, is clearly enjoying himself as Dima, an exuberant bear hug of a man treading a precarious line of deception. He effortlessly takes charge of every scene he’s in, be it flashing McGregor in a locker room (it used to be Ewan who did all the flashing), beating a henchman half to death in a men’s room, or putting young mob pretender-to-the-empire Prince (Grigoriy Dobrygin, boasting a big bushy beard that precedes him) in his place before a room full of peers.


Lewis also commands the attention, even if he dresses Hector like he’s just stepped out of a Harry Palmer picture and offers an accent akin to Dickie Attenborough wrestling a trapped Fruit Pastille.


McGregor and Harris are less notable, at least in part because their characters are so thin. Altruistic to a fault, they just want to help because their hearts bleed for the kids. And because Perry feels a curious kinship for Dima. So they throw themselves into mortal peril (and onto Hector’s team to break Dima from the mob’s clutches) when the mission is in danger of falling apart. That Hector isn’t going by the rule book, and that Dima has earlier insisted on their presence, doesn’t make their embroilment any more believable.


There’s a problem too with McGregor in the lead role, in that he has long since ceased to surprise as an actor. I possibly have the same weakness in hoping for the best from him as with Richard E Grant; in both cases its borne of goodwill based on a couple of performances more than two decades ago, and neither has made much of an impression in anything since. Ewan being so unassuming, and Perry being so dauntless, makes for a tenuous combination; a character of unremitting chivalry, albeit with a barely mustered skeleton in the closet, and who turns out to have few qualms about picking off goons in the French alps on the first occasion he picks up a gun (okay, just the one goon, but I’m sure he’d have shot up more given half the chance).


Even given the stretch involved, Our Kind of Traitor proves absorbing for much of its duration, mainly thanks to White’s good work. Right up until it looks as if they’ve got away with getting Dima et famille away, until they haven’t. Which leads to an uninspired retreat to a shack in the Alps, and that old chestnut of a character making a phone call that brings the dogs running. By the looks of it, Hossein Amini (who also has adaptations of works by Patricia Highsmith Thomas Hardy, Henry James and Elmore Leonard to his name) could have done with being a little less faithful to the original text, but I’m guessing that won’t happen too much now the the author’s offspring (through their production company The Ink Factory) are shepherding his works to the screen.


It’s unlikely that Our Kind of Traitor will satisfy anyone expecting another top-flight Le Carré in the wake of The Night Manager, although it’s definitely more audience-friendly than A Most Wanted Man. Still, the cottage industry of adaptations should keep ticking along nicely for the time being, just as long as there are enough successes like Manager and the Gary Oldman Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy to balance the slightly less illustrious ones. I’m not sure The Ink Factory is best placed to steer their dad’s biopic to the screen, however; a little more distance from the central character might be in its best interests.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There