ian@loral.UUCP (Ian Kaplan) (10/23/84)
I have long been a Le Carre fan and I bought "The Little Drummer Girl" when it came out in hard cover. I liked the book, it was one of the few Le Carre books that has a sunny setting (i.e., outside of foggy, rainy post war england) and, for Le Carre, it has a happy ending. I recently saw the movie and it is even better than the book. The movie is fast paced and suspenseful from the begining and does not let up until the credits appear at the end. Diane Keaton was fantastic and Klaus Kinski was very good. I can't do professional grade movie reviews, like Peter Reiher, so I will simply say that I recommend the movie highly. Ian Kaplan ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!ian
consult@uwmacc.UUCP (MACC Consultants) (10/26/84)
I saw a (free!) sneak preview of The Little Drummer Girl
a few weeks ago. I had started reading the book last summer,
but I only got about a third of the way through it.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the movie while I was watching it.
The plot hangs together better than anything I've seen in a while.
A few days later, when I started thinking about the movie, I felt
like they had just gone through the motions of the plot.
All of the actions were there, but WHY things were happening wasn't
very clear.
In spite of this, I would recommend the movie. You can't help caring
what happens to the characters, and I especially liked the way the
good and bad on both sides (Israel and the PLO) was shown.
Sue Brunkowdonn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (10/27/84)
From Ian Kaplan <ian@loral.UUCP>: I recently saw the movie and it is even better than the book. ... Someone else made the same comment to me, so I went to see the movie myself. But I was disappointed... Time and Newsweek magazines split evenly on the movie, one giving it a rave and the other dismissing it entirely. Clearly people are seeing different movies. *** SPOILER WARNING *** Unlike the magazine reviewer who disposed of the movie, I did like the book -- my objection is that (as is all too common) the movie lost the spirit of the book. The movie felt like a version of the book with all the depth stripped from it. The central character of Charlie, the unsuccessful actress and lukewarm revolutionary, was changed beyond recognition (so I thought). No longer an Englishwoman, she's now an American; no longer unsuccessful, she's getting parts in commercials and (unbelievably!) playing the female lead in English plays; no longer punishing herself for not having good class background by sucking up to loathsome boyfriends, she seems clean, wholesome, sane; no longer poor and embittered, she's well off enough to afford coordinated designer outfits; and worst, Diane Keaton just does not give the impression of being a pathological liar like Charlie. Keaton's Charlie is missing the necessary moral vacuum. When le Carre's Charlie finds out that her diary and correspondence have been forged, she flies into a rage and nearly wrecks the project; Keaton's Charlie just laughs at the idea. When the Palestinians press on le Carre's Charlie, she screams and complains and lies like mad; Keaton's Charlie is stoic. Le Carre's Charlie is empty, yet terribly afraid of emptiness, and welcomes a chance to play in 'the theater of the real' because it gives her a purpose, a place, a role; Keaton's Charlie is self-assured and occasionally brash, never lonely or alienated. I could go on... I don't want to imply that Keaton is really at fault here, just that she is wrong for the part. The plot in the novel was more than a bit contrived, but it was held together by subtly anchoring all the points that were loose. The movie simply drops all the background material. Where are the scenes in which Kurtz and Litvak butter up friends in German intelligence, or pretend to be Hollywood directors to Charlie's agent, or coax a reluctant British officer into cooperating, or argue with superiors about invading Lebanon, or engage Gadi Becker to return from retirement? It was a brilliant idea to get Klaus Kinski to play Kurtz, but unfortunately the movie's Kurtz is nowhere nearly as important a character as the novel's Kurtz, and Kinski is wasted. There are some good points about the movie -- the minor characters are well done (especially the psychopathic Helga), the action scenes are carefully enacted (the opening in particular is very nice), and the one new plot twist (the identity of Khalil) was a clever idea. Perhaps I've just been spoiled for movies of le Carre novels by the BBC adaptations of TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY and SMILEY'S PEOPLE, which I thought were amazingly well done... I sure hope Hollywood doesn't get its paws on THE HONOURABLE SCHOOLBOY, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (11/06/84)
I read the book and saw the movie two days ago. Interestingly, a number
of reviewers have said that they found the movie to be even-handed in its
portrayal of the Palestinian-Arab and Israeli causes. It's true I have
my own sympathies, but I found the movie (& book) to be somewhat pro-Israeli.
Why? Because
(1) The Israelis are out to stop terrorism which has been repeated all over
Europe against innocent Israelis. This is a noble cause. Their
enemies are killing innocents. There is no justification for that.
(2) The treatment of the Palestinian-Arabs in the movie is for the most
part humane (on the part of the Israelis). This is in contrast to
the brutal beating sustained by the young Israeli spying on the
terrorist training camp in Lebanon.
(3) The character of the Israelis is depicted as thoughtful and serious.
They don't wish to kill--you can see that it really hurts them. They
never joke about what they are doing; they are never triumphant except
in a formal manner. To them it's a dirty job that someone has to do.
(4) The Israelis present their argument in a persuasive way during their
persuasion of Charlie. While it is true that the Palestinians feel
hatred for Israelis (Palestinian-Arabs, that is--the Palestinian
Jews aren't complaining), the Israelis really have nowhere else to
go. Since the current world politics as in the UN seems not to
recognize the legitimate needs of Israel, I would score this as
a pro-Israel point.chu@lasspvax.UUCP (Clare Chu) (03/17/85)
I'm posting this so my friend Tim at TRW can see this, but
I do think there's something to be said.
Did anyone else think this movie was as stupid as I thought
it was? No wonder they showed it at Cornell for $2.00 and
the place wasn't even crowded. Anyway, it seemed like a
fantasy for a working class girl, to be involved in these
exotic terrorist movements, smuggle bombs across the borders,
jogging with rifles, playing double agent, and oh yes, sleeping
with not one, but TWO terrorists from opposing sides. Sure
beats the old nine-to-five, doesn't it?
Clare Chu
chu%amvax@Cornell.ARPA
chu@lasspvax.UUCP
Tim,
by the way, there's something wrong with our mail handler,
chops up addresses.