Head-to-Head: Sherlock Holmes Part 1 (Basil Rathbone v.s. Peter Cushing v.s. Ian Richardson)

Before I get into the reviews, I should note that each and every actor who's played Sherlock Holmes not only has to make the detective his very own creation, but also must contend with the film itself in the right way, and fit in with the thematic and structural approach. The following five portrayals all approach the character of Holmes in very distinctive, different ways, and are all equally interesting to talk about. For the timebeing I'll be getting into 3 performances of Holmes I am perhaps most well-acquainted with due to recent re-watches...

Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes in 1939's 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', as well as in 13 subsequent films in the series.

 



The 1939 version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is, fitting in with the general stratosphere of filmdom in that particular year, an excellent and highly influential adaptation of perhaps Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous Holmes story, centered on the deerstalker donning detective's investigation of a most unusual case of attempted murder on the moors of Devon, and the possible supernatural connotations of a mysterious local legend in the mix. Sidney Lanfield's direction is incredibly assured, with some very effectively held moments of tension, and the Devon moors are made good use of by the superb cinematography and lighting generating a simultaneously oppressive yet expansive setting for the characters to inhabit. Some of the writing is fairly on the nose in terms of exposition, admittedly, but that can be forgiven as the script is otherwise very flowing and well-written.

There were many more films released for this series by 20th Century Fox and Universal Studios, a few of which I've seen and are decidedly hit and miss in terms of entertainment value and storytelling quality; one constant throughout them all were Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and his (in this incarnation) bumbling, jovial sidekick Dr Watson. Before getting into this particular series I'd always envisaged Leslie Howard as being the perfect Holmes for this time period, owing to the fact that I'd always been a massive fan of Howard's cool, calculating and slyly charismatic presence in films like 'Pygmalion', and also my less than favourable opinion of Rathbone from what I'd seen in him thus far. Though possessing an undeniably mellifluous, beautiful speaking voice I'd always found his acting in the likes of 'Romeo and Juliet' and 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' to be, if not particularly bad, not very interesting, a bit on the stiff side, imbuding the right amount of menace for Tybalt and Guy of Gisbourne, but not much beyond that.

Which is precisely why his portrayal of Holmes proved to be such a pleasant surprise for me. In fact, I may well have to revisit some of his other performances now that I've become so enamoured of his Holmes. Rathbone, like Leslie Howard, seems to have hidden depths hitherto unknown in some of his earlier, more stoic performances and when allowed to relax and have fun in a role, actually becomes an incredibly charismatic, fascinating and most importantly, incredibly intelligent incarnation of Sherlock. Some have raised contention with Rathbone, reservations I will address over the course of this review, but I must say personally that from the very moment he's presented to us presiding over the case and bantering with Dr Watson and Mortimer, Rathbone is just pitch perfect as Holmes. Graham Greene's description of Rathbone as the man with a 'knife-edge face and the snapping mouth' is spot on in showing just how perfectly attuned Rathbone's features intrinsically were to visually embodying Holmes. But he doesn't leave it at that--no, Rathbone goes far beyond just the aesthetic to make his Holmes an unforgettable creation.

Unlike some later incarnations, Rathbone's Holmes is actually fairly lighthearted, despite his aquiline features and posh manner, and yet interestingly enough not really that quirky. Now that might be a problem for some, but not for me, for I thoroughly loved that goodnatured humour and affability he instilled into his Holmes' intention. It makes him approachable, and makes sense as to why other characters feel so at ease to entrust their cases to his care. Is it somewhat paradoxical to fuse a mind of mechanically astute logic with such a breeziness of characterization? Perhaps, but Rathbone makes it work so well with his charisma and above all, his masterful intertwining of this charm with intellect. This Holmes has a genuine interest in not only solving crimes but also the whole process of it, and it's just a great deal of fun watching him go about doing his thing even when it''s not really all that consequential to the plot.

Nigel Bruce's Watson has been retrospectively chastitised by some Holmesian scholars for taking too avuncular an approach to Dr Watson, who in the novels is every bit as resourceful if not nearly as intelligent a figure as Holmes. Well to this I say: what works for the books, works for the books, but what works for the film works for the film. What I mean to say is that Bruce's idiotic performances in some of the later films do nothing to diminsih his lovable portrayal of the ideal friend Watson here, which works wonders in merging with Rathbone's portrayal as the two have such excellent chemistry together. I particularly like the scene where they discuss the intricacies of a cane left behind by Dr Mortimer, and the comic payoff of Watson completely fluffing his guess up; Rathbone's reaction in this scene is priceless. I also love their brief but very funny arguments over Holmes' affinity for the violin; really these little comic interludes could have come across as extraneous but instead, they're always thoroughly fun to watch. Although I must say the best comedic touch to this portrayal of Holmes is the peddler disguise he takes on to sneak around the moors. Rathbone is not only hilarious but also utterly convincing in playing this doddering, raspy voiced, country accented fellow, and the payoff of this particular joke is marvellous by just how seamlessly Rathbone slips back into his usual pedantic, intelligent self, cheerfully mocking Watson.

Now I like Rathbone's lighthearted side of his portrayal a great deal, but that's not to say he keeps Sherlock on this one note throughout. When the going gets serious Rathbone wisely tones down the humour and becomes more incisive and contemplative in his portrayal. What I love about his portrayal is that he's never downright calculating or overtly manipulative, and yet he shows these aspects of his persona just by very fleeting glimpses and the precision with which he makes with every movement. And yes, while my favourite parts of his performance are indeed his banter with Nigel Bruce's Watson, I also think he does a great deal to lend weight to the proceedings of the mystery, infusing his investigations with the suitable mystery they require, while retaining that analytic precision to each and every delivery to show that he's always on the ball. He even manages to make the central romance between the lackluster Richard Greene as Sir Henry Baskerville and the okay but not particularly noteworthy Wendy Barrie as his love interest, resonate a lot more than it really deserved to by the conviction he and Bruce give to rescuing them from their predicament. This is a performance I thoroughly enjoyed watching throughout, carrying the film so very well and embodying the sleuth so vividly that even when he's not onscreen, you feel like Holmes is just around the corner, waiting to pounce or perhaps, just jovially banter awhile with you.

I was torn between a 4.5 and a 5 because it's not really the most complex of characters, and he's actually only onscreen for just barely over half of the film's running time, but in the end I decided, I love this performance in the same way I love William Holden in 'Stalag 17', he brings Holmes out to his fullest, he dominates the screen with every second of his performance, so why deny him what is rightfully his?

Basil Rathbone in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1939): 5/5

Peter Cushing played Sherlock Holmes in 1959's 'The Hound of the Baskervilles', as well as in Season 2 of 'Sherlock Holmes' (1965-1968) and 'The Masks of Death' (1984) with John Mills as Dr. Watson.

This particular version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' is a Hammer Films production, thus naturally it places far more emphasis on the Gothic/Horror elements than the 1939 version. It's certainly incredibly beautiful to look at with its Technicolor cinematography and overall it's a very compelling experience, in particular the opening prologue is incredibly viscreal and unnerving. Baskerville Hall is, in particular, a marvel of foreboding colours and masterful design, and have I mentioned how beautiful the film is to look at? I enjoyed watching it even if I never really loved it, so to speak.

One thing I do rather like about this adaptation is that it in no way tries to ape the original elements of the 1939 version. Cushing's performance and indeed, Andre Morell as Watson (funny to note I've just covered the two of them for their performances in '1984') are rather indicative of this. Morell, particularly, seems rather keen from the outset to distance himself from Nigel Bruce's portrayal by portraying Watson as quite a capable, clever and rather dashing figure (forming a bit of an early precursor to Jude Law actually), charming and certainly more so than Cushing's Holmes actually who's rather stoic and for the most part, a bit charmless. There's two ways of looking at this performance, either that Cushing is playing Holmes as a priggish stiff who goes about tasks mechanically, or a grumpy sort who distances himself from warmth and amicability in order to focus on the case at hand. I personally go with the latter, though there is a streak of priggishness, Cushing's Holmes is predominately an irritable, arrogant sociopath. Like Rathbone, Cushing's lean and mean features were born to play Holmes, and he certainly makes good use of it by having his performance falling in the same vein. His Holmes is has much waspish energy and dynamic to his interactions with other characters as Cushing mostly stays on this one note of subtle condescension and self-assuredness, not very charming yes, but entirely in line with the film's depiction of the character as a blunt but brilliant sort of chap.

His fast-paced delivery as Holmes certainly takes a bit more getting used to than Rathbone's equally quick but perhaps more languid approach to Conan Doyle's language, I have no reservations with it however as it very nicely accentuates the innate intelligence of Cushing's Holmes. Indeed the main meat of Cushing's performance resides in character creation. The way he smokes his pipe, sits in a chair, the manner in which he contorts his body when listening and speaking showing that he's always on the lookout for clues, may be distracting to some and even overly mannered, but I personally found them to be quite effective. A less towering presence than Rathbone, it makes perfect sense for Cushing to approach his role with more in the way of tics and mannerisms and it certainly does do its job, I can't say I loved them (well no, I actually do love the way he smokes his pipe, it's so damn classy), but I liked them all.

One thing remarkable about this particular adaptation is the depth it gives to Henry Baskerville. Not so much the writing itself really, but rather the performance of Christopher Lee who in my opinion, kind of steals the show with his intriguing performance as a romantic lead, with a twist. Lee and Cushing have a cool but effective rapport between the two that was rarely ever explored in the other Hammer films where the two were perenially at each others' necks, so to speak. Lee does have the more interesting arc to explore, for once he's not some hulking monster to be ridden off but instead, a slowly warming up presence who has some nice romantic chemistry with Cecile Stapleton (played well by Marla Landi). In this sense Lee kind of steals the show away from Cushing a bit, though I must emphasise Cushing is still very good, it's just that Lee is there to make up for his momentary disappearance from the middle. I should also note that unlike Rathbone he doesn't get a comic re-entrance into the proceedings, that probably wouldn't make much sense and be a bit tonally jarring with the rest of the film because Cushing's Holmes is also particularly badass, I mean he kills a poisonous taurantala, Dracula's life is in his hands, he slinks around with a cape, he makes looking through a magnifying glass akin to a cold stare of death (Cushing's piercing blue eyes were made to bare down into the souls of men), I'm not taking the piss you really would not want to mess around with Cushing's Mr Holmes.

The final moments of the film where the who of the whodunnit is revealed is probably one of the louder sections of the film but it works, however, due to the work of Lee and Landi. The two actors develop their relationship far better than Greene and Barrie and it all sets up a very satisfying yet heartbreaking final denouement. I can't help but wish Cushing had a bit more of a role in these moments as Cushing is most certainly sidelined, he doesn't really get a hand in any of these dramatic beats. I do love what Cushing does within these restraints though as his calm and collected reaction shots do a lot to add to the overall flavour of the disconcerting tone of these final scenes. I mentioned that Cushing is a badass, well none more so than when he fires a perfect point blank shot at the Hound itself, though Watson gunning down a certain someone else is very close on the badassery scale. All in all this is a very good performance by Peter Cushing, who's gradually rising up on my list of underrated actors, the true power of the film lies elsewhere, but it's still an incredibly effective portrayal of Holmes.

Peter Cushing in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1959): 4/5

Ian Richardson played Sherlock Holmes in 'The Sign of Four' (1983), and in the same year 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'

I have indeed seen the Ian Richardson version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' but it's been a while, and have not been very succesful in salvaging a copy of it anywhere. From what I can recall Richardson gave an effective performance as Holmes, with that usual sort of playful omniscience and calculation, nothing incredibly groundbreaking and treading on somewhat similar ground of both Cushing and Rathbone, in fact I'd go so far to say as mending the two portrayals together. I'd give him a 4 in that from what I remember, though a re-watch will most certainly be needed in the near future. Donald Churchill's Watson wasn't much to speak of from what I remember, not much more than just a faint impersenation of Nigel Bruce, and I can't remember much about Brian Blessed, Martin Shaw, and Denholm Elliot though I'm sure they were fine, as always.

Instead of just relying upon a wavering memory, I thought instead, why not look at the other Ian Richardson performance as Holmes in 'The Sign of Four', a decidedly different story. I would not call this a great adaptation of a Holmes story as is certainly lacks the distinctiveness of the previous two I'd described. I do like the Columbo-esque procedural approach it takes throughout though as for once we get a separate perspective of the case not from Holmes/Watson's POV, as well as additional insight into how exactly Holmes goes about picking up the pieces. There's some questionable scenes and writing throughout, especially how it adds a lot more in the way of setpieces and thrills and romance, at the risk of completely diminishing the novel's original impact, but it's largely forgiveable due to the intrinsic strength of the story. In short: not a very faithful adaptation, but good nevertheless. It's centered around some valuable jewels which intertwine murder and malice amongst a one-legged prisoner and his cahoots, a lovely daughter of a murdered Captain, a strange man named Tonga and overall just a whole cast of oddities and bestial malice.

As aforementioned, Richardson's character creation hinges a lot on what Tim Prasil on 'In the Shadow of Basil Rathbone' (https://timprasil.wordpress.com/) calls the 'impish mischievousness at odds with Watson’s description of a man more machine than human'. Richardson is by no means the classical embodiment of Holmes because he's just too spry and fun-loving, but I can definitely see where he's coming from. Speaking to the press about taking on the role of Holmes, he described his depiction as consisting of a 'kind of cool irony'; that's the crucial point here. Richardson's Holmes has a ball with his investigation but remains cool and collected, and whenever the going gets dark (which it does an awful lot here), he follows accordingly with a more sombre approach, like Holmes is deliberately toning himself down. I particularly like it when he begins differentiating between the concept of an 'abstract' and 'real' problem, jumping between his serious and playful persona and showing there's a different side to Holmes for every choice moment.

He maintains an acrebic, intelligent bent even with the easygoing side of Holmes, a talent Richardson showed in many of his roles from 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' to 'House of Cards'. This is a Holmes who takes genuine pleasure in playing around with science, chemicals and facts, and Richardson makes this work through his performance. I find this to add quite a bit of flavour to the structure of the film which is essentially an extended car-and-mouse chase, I made that 'Columbo' comparison early on because really it's a rather nice way of surmising the whole performance of Richardson: weighty when necessary, but mostly just a nicely attuned, pleasant to watch Peter Falk-esque rendition of a brilliant man who isn't too fussed about too much, and only wishes to complete the game at hand. Now in terms of my reservations towards the film as a whole one of them is the complete neglect of Holmes' drug habit, which was a significant plot point in the novel. Now on one hand, drug addictions often form the crux of many a gratuitous overacting display, on the other hand it's Ian Richardson we're talking about here. He would have probably found some way to parlay it into even more depth for the performance; but this is a massive 'if'. Anyway, regardless, Richardson gives a very good characterization of Holmes that works well, even if not fulfilled to its full potential.

Much of the story centres around Holmes tackling an assortment of oddballs who've been somewhat downsized from the original. I won't go into too much detail about the finer points, but I will say that amongst this sometimes rather messy structure of the proceedings, Richardson is always completely at home no matter how outrageous some of the scenarios get. Unlike most of the cast, Richardson maintains a very consistent characterization throughout the film so that even when it falters, he keeps his head above the water. I really like that he resisted the temptation to go as broad/OTT as the likes of Joe Melia as Jonathan Small, one of the more obvious portrayals of a Sherlockian villain (but it does work for the film), and instead with his continually quiet and subdued approach makes it all work astoundingly well. And though Holmes never really gets big showboating moments like the villains in this tale, Richardson makes good on each opportunity to steal the scene. A brief but memorable moment that really stands out for me is him asking Inspector Layton (played by Terrence Rigby, them Tinker Tailor connections though) 'found something?', only to put a damp on the inspector's parade by revealing that he'd discovered the trap door Layton had prided himself on finding 'first'. That small shit-eating grin just speaks volumes; wonderful, wonderful stuff.

Though I do enjoy the film and performance of Richardson a great deal, I can't help but feel they're slightly at odds at certain points. For instance a long middle stretch involving Richardson v.s. a circus dwarf strikes me as being a bit of a waste of Richardson's talents, as he spends a while esentially doing  a 'man on the run' routine without any real fun to be had. It's interesting to watch and clearly director Desmond Davis had a hell of a time recreating scenes from films like 'The Lady from Shanghai' in the 'hall of mirrors' scene, but I do wish they'd instead spent a bit more time just letting Richardson control the film, instead of having the film's setpieces control him. Although he more than makes up for these lapses by his silent but always incredible reactions to the chaos around him. I often have reservations if a Sherlock is sidelined for too long by action setpieces but hey, Richardson finds a way to get around this here so I guess I shouldn't begrudge the film too much. The ending of the film is a bit lacking for the likes of Watson (no, he doesn't get the girl here) but Richardson is excellent in his final explanation. He lends it the appropriate amount of seriousness, but his best moment is perhaps his laughter at another character's explanation, over where the jewels have gone. 'Oh what a very pretty tale' he smillingly says as he completely tears apart that explanation, and I thought it was the perfect end to a performance that doesn't take itself too seriously and has quite a bit of fun (further emphasised by his final clin d'oeil breaking the fourth wall), and yet works equally well, effectively and astutely when necessary. Far from being Richardson's best performance or most complex role (though it would have been interesting to see his take on say, Nicol Williamson's role in 'The Seven Per Cent Solution'), but still a very solid, occasionally brilliant, performance.

Ian Richardson in 'The Sign of Four' (1983): 4/5



Sherlock Holmes Part 2 will feature: Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Downey Jr., and Ian McKellen. Stay tuned!



gonemovies.com
maruda3.wordpress.com
timprasil.wordpress.com

Head-to-Head: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, 1979/2011. Tinker (Michael Aldridge v.s. Toby Jones), Tailor (Ian Richardson v.s. Colin Firth), Soldier (Terrence Rigby v.s. Ciarán Hinds), Poorman (Bernard Hepton v.s. David Dencik)

**SPOILERS** **SPOILERS**

I supposed before I get into each of the performances of the Circus individually, that I'd look at how brilliantly each of the members of the Circus are introduced in the 1979 miniseries. It's brief, but that opening scene with them each walking into the room, silently, yet showing so much about their respective characters, is quite great really. Bernard Hepton's Toby Esterhase arriving with tail between legs, eager to please like a little puppy, keen beyond his ability, perhaps. Michael Aldridge's Percy Alleline struts in with all the sheer pomposity of a natural born (or so he'd like to think) leader, pipe in hand and with such an air of pretension about him. Ian Richardson's Bill Haydon playfully tiptoeing in, tea and biscuits in hand, looking more at ease than anyone else in the room; and the chain-smoking Roy Bland (Terrence Rigby) who seems like he'd rather be anywhere than here. The 2011 version does not really have an equivalent scene and to an extent, suffers for it. 

Michael Aldridge and Toby Jones both played Percy Alleline ('Tinker') in 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' in 1979 and 2011, respectively. 

Despite having distinctly more screen-time and material, however, I don't feel that Michael Aldridge makes that much of an impression as Percy Alleline. Oh, he's certainly servicable, and emphasises the ambition of old Percy just about well enough, but unfortunately his performance always feels a bit lacking, a bit too consistent. He's actually rather good in showing Percy to have that big bluff manner about him that verges upon bullying, working well with his wide frame to make for an intimidating enough figure who puts fear and obedience into the hearts and likes of Toby Esterhase, but I never really got the sense of that inner calculation that Toby Jones brings to the role--although to what extent is Alleline really a master strategist? One of the more underrated character actors of recent years, Jones brings his usual brand of slimy pompousness to the role, as well as a bit of that old-fashioned charm he has in most of his roles. 

Both Aldridge and Jones are aware that Percy's not by any stretch of the imagination a villain, and I think Aldridge does well enough with this by laying some seeds of weakness and insecurity within his performance to emphasise that yes, perhaps Percy isn't all he's cracked up to be. My only reservation with this though is that his confrontations with Smiley and Control don't have the same sort of frisson that Jone's elicits in the 2011 adaptation with that subtle yet pretty effective way of slipping beneath Hurt and Oldman's defences and making a rather big spectacle of it. Jones always has a sort of underlying intelligence to most of his roles, and this performance actually evoked some memory of his pretty good performance as Truman Capote in the unfortunately neglected 'Infamous'. Aldridge is smarmy and sure of himself to overcompensate for any lacking attributes, but I just don't think he brings enough aggression to the role that Percy needs to combat the passive-aggressiveness of Control and Smiley. I will say that both performances are to an extent shortchanged by their lack of 'big scenes', so to speak; particularly Jones, who is pretty limited so far as screentime is concerned. Nevertheless I do think Jones manages to make Alleline into a pretty memorable character, overall, nothing earth-shattering but certainly effective, while Aldridge is for the most part servicable, he's lacking in some respects but actually quite good in his final scene as he begins to deal with the fallout of his actions, unfortunately it is kind of cut short by the arcs of other characters.

Jones: 3.5

Aldridge: 3

Ian Richardson and Colin Firth both played Bill Haydon ('Tailor') in 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' in 1979 and 2011, respectively.

If you haven't already been warned off by that HUGE label above, then turn away now, but to really get into both performances I will have to bring into discussion that SPOILERS Bill Haydon is the mole within the Circus, leaking information to the Soviets. This sort of role, the 'who' behind the 'whodunnit', is probably the trickiest of all performances to pull off, since it requires the actor to both in some way (s) allude to the truth, so as the make the eventual reveal not out-of-the-blue, yet he or she also has to maintain that facade of innocence but not laying it on too thick, and remain engaging and approachable as a character without being too obvious. It takes careful, precise writing and acting to craft out just the right balance of ambiguity and fact within such a character, and more often than not it fails, which leads many films and novels to 'cop out' by usually placing the blame of the crime on, say, the most obvious perpetrator, or some random mook, or some strange metaphysical occurrence, etc. I will note that many of my favourite mystery films hold a special place in my heart in large part, due to their handling of characters of the akin: 'Stalag 17', 'Laura', 'In the Heat of the Night', 'The Prestige'.

And of course, 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'. And via re-watches in vein of my above criteria, one performance that has come under serious scrutiny and re-evaluation by me is Colin Firth's 'turn' as Bill Haydon. Well the first time I watched the film I thought Firth did a good enough job of playing the cheeky, very British, a convincing enough spy and I held my reservation of him being too obvious a suspect due to a fact that an A-lister playing a supporting role usually gives the game away. Upon re-watch, some of that old charm really wore on me, and I began to see cracks in his performance that I believe were not wholly intentional, and really lessens a lot of the initial impact I had to the reveal of who the Soviet mole was. A multi-layered approach to the character of Haydon is necessary, but also requires the actor to mend these different sides and also, to not give the game away. Well Firth I feel gives the game away, way too early, just the way he postures himself in those Circus meetings, almost too defensive of his actions to push Control and Smiley out, sure the way those scenes were written it is kind of obvious that Haydon's got something to hide. Still, Firth could have played those notes much more quietly. It's not that he's bad in these sort of scenes really, but I have to say that upon re-watch of both versions, quite frankly, he can't hold a candle to Ian Richardson's portrayal.

Richardson was a great actor; I haven't seen as much of him as I'd have liked to but having just begun the UK series of 'House of Cards' I must say, he was an incredibly underrated and terrific screen presence who just exudes presence without even saying a single word. That mellifluous, distinctively smooth speaking voice and accent of his, alongside with his unconventionally refined and intrinsically mysterious appearance actually reminds me most of all of another famous actor who's landmark role was in another landmark mystery film, Clifton Webb, and 'Laura'. The physical resemblance is quite uncanny, but even more so the excellence with which they go about setting up their characters as men not solely defined with their complicity, and yet amidst all the different flavours of their portrayal, an underlying merging factor of what makes them the 'who' in the 'whodunnit'. I'm afraid I can no longer be lenient on Firth being too obvious a mole solely because of his A-lister status, because in the same sense, Richardson and Webb were the most well-known of the potential culprits in their respective films as well, and yet not once do they give the game away.

As Bill Haydon, Richardson is simply pitch-perfect from his very first appearances. Limited though they are, he so eloquently evokes the very precise, classy manner of Haydon through his movements and voice, always as if he's on a different plateau to all the other members in influence and intellect, a true fatherly figure; and yet also with a more earthy undertone to it that suggests a certain cynicism with his job, and the lesser men performing duties around him. Firth, in his interactions with Cumberbatch's Guillam is perhaps a bit too forceful, too obviously showing that he and the Circus have something to hide and arousing our suspicions immediately, but Richardson is darned perfect in alternating between patronizing Guillam as a 'pariah', to quietly giggling in an admiring manner at Peter taking the piss out of his fellow Circus officials. Richardson strings along these various faces of Haydon in such an effortless manner that makes sense entirely in accordance with his playful interpretation of Bill as a man who does his job well, but doesn't take it too seriously. Firth, I guess, takes a different approach that is far more stiff and professional in his manner of speaking, he shows a certain displeasure to the ways of Percy Alleline and his 'little cabaret', and is good enough in showing that Haydon really does not have time for the conniving toadying of the likes of Alleline and Esterhase. However, I do feel his delivery of 'why don't you fuck off to his majesty' a bit too overt a line of dialogue and delivery, almost like the film is trying to make too much of a statement about Haydon being a bit of an odd one out in the Circus. What Richardson does brilliantly is leave many of these quirks of Richardson unsaid, yet conveys it so well through his performance, and makes them not only entertaining to watch, but also quite endearing, in the sense that the audience, getting to know Bill Haydon a bit better, is more inclined to like him, despite some of his less than savory qualities.

Of these qualities, most notable perhaps is Haydon's condescension, particularly to George Smiley. Firth goes for the safer route of making mountains out of molehills, he definitely overplays a fair few moments when he's acting like a complete dick to Smiley, no reservations involved, it works well, but mostly because of Oldman's mostly silent reactions. Richardson and Guinness, on the other hand, share something that is absolutely brilliant, the most perfect anti-chemistry I have ever seen onscreen. This may sound like sarcastic praise but abide with me. The crux of the relationship between the two characters is Haydon's past affair with Smiley's wife, Ann. Despite the miniseries never actually showing any of the affair, nor Guinness' reactions at the time to it, both actors are absolutely flawless in showing the history of their troubled relationship. Richardson's aloof manner of wandering by the way is intertwined with a rather uncanny awareness and bluntness he brings to the sly humour he has in his interactions with Guinness' Smiley, really bringing the flair to the 'classy bunch' he remembers them to be part of. I have heard some minor reservations by some people that Richardson was not 'sexy' enough to play Haydon, but I don't think that's the point of the affair at all; he exudes this sort of quiet, incredibly compelling allure over the audience instead of Firth's usual charming routine (which I must note, does work, I guess, in the sense that you can imagine Ann faaaaawning over Mr Darcy and his wet t-shirt contests), and I think that alone helps to already establish his sovereignty over George, his emasculation of him.

With Jim Prideaux, Firth's performance is strongly aided by the strength of his (and indeed, Strong's) contrasting approaches that merge quite nicely into that single look they share near the film's conclusion, but I do think that due to the limitations of the film's running time the friendship is given the right amount of power, but nothing more. We only catch brief glimpses of Firth here and there throughout the film and I must say, he always looks like he's up to something; whereas Richard, on the other hand, in the flashbacks and present scenes, is decidedly more casual and therefore more effective in showing how routine the character's handling of espoinage affairs is, up till the point he has to deal with his good friend's imprisonment by the Soviets. I would say that Richardson, though downplaying the strength of companionship between the two at this point, is equally effective as Firth in showing the history between the two men, as he drops his usual facade of indolence and becomes altogether more serious and irritable, a fascinating display of an enigmatic yet approachable man stripping down layers and yet still remaining distant. All these little scenes for both versions, lead up to the final reveal that Bill Haydon is the mole. Firth's reveal scene I must confess is a little underwhelming in the way it is handled, I will give him credit for handling it well enough to make it resonate with the viewer, but it really does pale in comparison to Richardson who is absolutely brilliant in his almost silent resignation, but still with that certain degree of arrogance within himself as he tries not to outwit, but to continue to play mind games even when, nose bleeding and utterly defeated, he is truly at wit's end.

The final few scenes of Bill Haydon are what really makes or breaks the performance, and I will say that Firth, while imperfect in his approach, does manage to make a certain impact by his more directly emotional portrayal of a man suffering from the weight of rerality, and the repercussions of his actions, and actually does manage to make me feel sorry for Bill Haydon to an extent. I think he kind of overdoes the line 'I'm not (Karla's) bloody office boy!', but makes up for it with his assertion that he's 'someone who's made his mark'. Firth is good enough I suppose in showing the man's pride in his work and shame at his failure, but really it's nothing compared to Richardson's amazing scenes, some of the best acted I have ever seen in any film/miniseries/television show/play...anywhere. Coming under Smiley's relentless questioning, Richardson bursting out into laughter and tears about his actions being a 'necessary' evils, and his disillusionment with the Circus that led to his defection to the enemy, is simply heartbreaking without compromising the 'villainy' (if it can be called as such) of Haydon's actions. Simply put, it's probably the greatest portrayal I've ever seen of an emotional breakdown into nothingness that really shows how hollow an existence Haydon has led ever since he betrayed his principles for the sake of what he sees, as the greater good. When he discusses the machinations of he and Karla's plans to deceive Smiley through an affair with the latter's wife, you don't feel hate for his deviousness as the wit he displays seems so emptied of emotion and vigour, retaining the intelligence of the man but without his former spirit.

Watching Richardson slowly break down the defences of this enigmatic man into someone more truthful, more understandable and yet so painful to watch is an incredible achievement as we watch his final moments of tying loose ends up with his girlfriend, Smiley's investigation, and finally his own death. That last scene with him and Bannen is just remarkable not only because of Bannen's cold yet deeply heartbroken portrayal of a betrayed man, but also Richardson's remarkable conclusion to the character, by accepting his guilt and death but trying to make final amends. Firth's final speechless scenes are also incredibly effective, but I would say considerably less so than Richardson's, they're not bad of course, in fact they are probably the high points of Firth's portrayal, but in contrast to Richardson's great work, my favourite television performance of all-time, it can't help but be overshadowed by the sublime magnificence of Richardson's portrayal.


Richardson: 5

Firth: 3

Terrence Rigby and Ciarán Hinds both played Roy Bland ('Soldier') in 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' in 1979 and 2011, respectively.

Roy Bland is actually a fairly, well, bland role in the scheme of things, but I do think Terrence Rigby gets much more of an opportunity to make an impression than Hinds. Most of this comes in his one big scene with Smiley, and Bland very effectively accentuates that very naturalistic, amicable yet also rather nihilistic manner of his. Rigby has a kind of Peter Ustinov-esque air about him, and I felt he could have been an absolute scene-stealer if he'd been given a few more scenes. Nevertheless, it's a very good characterization of one sort of washed up, yet not quite disgruntled, swine who doesn't really have a conscience, and doesn't seem to fussed about that. I won't say that Ciarán Hinds is bad at all, but it's just that he doesn't really have anything to do, at all, besides one speech which is quite frankly, rather inconsequential exposition, and sit around and look a bit intimidating. Hinds does not get any opportunity to flesh out his character, while Rigby has a bit of material and really does make the most of it, more than anyone else could've, probably.

Rigby: 3.5

Hinds: 2.5

Bernard Hepton and David Dencik both played Toby Esterhase ('Beggarman') in 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' in 1979 and 2011, respectively.

Bernard Hepton re-enacted his role as Toby Esterhase for the 1980s miniseries sequel to 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy', 'Smiley's People', which I am incredibly interested in seeing as he apparently takes on an entirely different approach to the character which is, in the words of many, both genius and makes sense with his depiction here. Mr Esterhase, I would say, is the closest we get to a comic relief character insofar as his primary qualities are his breezy manner, distinct lack of autonomy, and his general willingness to please. I may sound like I'm calling him out but don't mistake me; Esterhase is one of my favourite characters, but I will say that to properly demonstrate why he is, a performance must touch upon the right notes of his characters very, very carefully, and avoid descending into parody.

David Dencik as Toby Esterhase does not have that many scenes in the 2011 adaptation overall but unfortunately, he already manages to make a somewhat negative, kind of detrimental impact to the proceedings. Dencik plays Esterhase as being completely spineless and somewhat idiotic, highly incapable and sort of the proverbial scoff for levity within the Circus. Which I guess, works in one sense, as he is completely eaten up by the scenery-chewing of John Hurt and Toby Jones in the Circus boardroom scenes, and the quieter Oldman and even Firth, heck even Hinds makes a bit more of an impression in those scenes. Dencik I thought was fine enough the first time I watched the film but like Firth, but to an even larger extent, my reservations grew to an extent on re-watch that I ended up verging upon dislike of his portrayal. One reason for this being Bernard Hepton's great portrayal of Esterhase, which really does go out on a limb, but not in the conventional way at all.

Hepton plays the role as yes, a pushover, but with rather more complexity than Dencik bothers to give/can give. Firstly there's that accent he gives him which is almost exaggeratedly British in its intonation, almost as to mask some kind of foreign flavour he has underneath it, generating from the character conception alone a mystery that is well differentiated by the other darker enigmas on display. Beyond that Hepton is remarkable in imbuding Esterhase with such a polite, posh manner to him that's obviously quite a put on and yet feel entirely natural as something he'd be able to maintain so much as part of his personality. Really, I found Esterhase's conversations with the fellow members of the Circus particularly interesting because of how jovial and actually, quite sweet, he comes across as just this little puppy the other members subtly belittle and take advantage of. I particularly enjoy a specific little interchange between him and Guillam where he describes information as being 'ultra, ultra-sensitive'; Guillam's consequent response of 'I'll try and keep my mouth ultra, ultra-shut' is priceless not only because of Jayston's delivery, but the priceless look on Esterhase's poor face. Dencik, unfortunately, is quite boring and stoic in similar interactions, a bit of a stick in the mud really. It is not detrimental to the film really, but adding a bit more style to Toby's patheticness as a characters would have done a lot more to help him stand out.

Within Esterhase, Hepton also imbues a sense of ambition to move up in the ranks in the Circus that is palatable because of his little hints of Toby's inner desperation to be recognized. It's wonderfully underplayed work by him that makes Toby suspect enough as a potential mole, without compromising the inherent weakness of the character. Esterhase is very much aware that he is a 'little guy' compared to the 'big guy (s) of Percy Allenine and Bill Haydon, and this chip on the shoulder is evoked very well by Hepton, whereas with Dencik he leaves this aspect of the character to the domineering presences of the likes of Jones, Firth, Hurt, even Hinds. I don't know if my line of argument here is evident enough but Dencik really is underwhelmingly underwhelming.

Both characters get a big scene--indeed, probably the closest the 2011 film comes to an 'Oscar-y scene' is in the scene where Smiley interrogates Esterhase coldly about the address of a London safe house in order to catch the mole. Interestingly the potential is there for Dencik to give an Oscar-nomination worthy one-scene wonder of desperation and a man being broken down to nothingness. Dencik, however, continues to be underwhelming, and is not bad really, he cries well enough I suppose and has the right amount of belligerent anger to his tone, but it doesn't really add up to much. The real power of the scene resides with Oldman (I'll stop there for now). Hepton, in contrast, makes the gradual breakdown so incredibly powerful. Much of the credit has often gone to Guinness for unraveling the reserve of Smiley to reveal the cold, calculating and even montrous persona underneath all those layers, but Hepton, 'On the Waterfront'-esque style, is often neglected. He's incredibly moving in showing through Esterhase's mostly silent reactions, as his normally calm manner slowly breaks down, that he is both not a mole, nor a traitor, but instead a pawn in the game who is forced to suffer the consequences of his subservience. He works in complete, perfect harmony with Guinness to bring out the best of both portrayals and the basest emotions of Smiley and Esterhase. Hepton's excellent work turns potentially stock character into an incredibly effective facilitator of other characters, and a fascinating character creation of a fish out of water.

Hepton: 4.5 (verging on a 5)

Dencik: 2

Picture Credits:
coveringmedia.com
movie-dude.co.uk
picturefrommovie.tumblr.com
whysoblu.com
let-the-right-one-in.com
focusfeatures.com
blurray.highdefdigest.com
tr10023.com