Hacker News Reader

Comment by justin66 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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 :).

> 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.

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-...

>> 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.

“Authentic.” Okay.

The remarkable photography of the film is part of its value.

> 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.

It’s free on YouTube. The most people have to lose is their time, and it's Alec Guinness, so of course people should watch it and form their own opinions.

> I've been trying to stop myself from commenting further but you've forced me to!

It's an interesting topic that doesn't involve the ongoing decline of civilization, or Rust, so I don't think you should be shy about it.

Btw here's a lovely New Yorker article about the miniseries.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/we-are-all-sm...

Love your comment man! Appreciate it. And I agree with you about Smiley's People.

Ha, Soderbergh's Tarkovsky I have never seen - sounds like I should.

You're probably right about filmic - I was just looking for the word that encompasses film/tv/video.

FWIW I saw the film before the miniseries, and, really liked it at the time. It's been a minute. Sounds like maybe I should

The thing is the film is nuanced and well crafted, and also has engaging performances from an ensemble cast. It did do a superlative work in adaptating Lecarre's vision, so I don't think it compares unfavorably with the TV series.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com