Salting the Battlefield (2014)

Undescribable Perfection

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The problem may be that we've had too many Bourne and Bond movies of late. Or perhaps it's also a younger audience (most probably men) who prefer easily telegraphed plot points alongside the beautifully (and expensively) choreographed action scenes. Maybe they've never checked out Alec Guinness in his portrayal of George Smiley, or better yet, the Le Carré novels to understand how actual tradecraft operates.I'm not saying that this whole series works flawlessly; there are plot loopholes and legitimate complaints about not fleshing out Worricker character sufficiently. One could argue that Johnny is so terribly flawed (and the films do make that perfectly clear that he is flawed) that he remains a cypher to even those closest to him. And would that not serve him well as a spy? However, we don't see a backstory of him operating in the field, only as an office-bound intelligence analyst. I understand other quibbles that reviewers cite. But overall, this series bears repeated viewings to fully grasp the nuances and the ulterior motives of the main protagonists. It is in these readjustments of thought and action where the films excel, along with brilliant (if sometimes too elliptical) dialogue and fine acting.And speaking of acting, this series provides several substantive roles for women, and not just young, attractive women. No review I've read calls attention to that.Having said that, I find it disappointing that ratings on the IMDB are so low, since this series deserves to be seen. But you will have to pay close attention, and by doing so you will fully appreciate the issues raised, most of which are still with us years later.Oh, and I do like the best of the Bond and Bourne films; but they are a different animal all together and thus should not be the subject of comparisons.

And while there are far better endings of trilogies, remember this was made for TV. And yes I do know there is quite a lot of great TV work out there (particular in the TV show/series area), but I still think this warrants a 7 rather than a 6. The acting alone is really superb and while the story may be predictable (especially if you've seen the previous two entries), it still works.Do you have to have seen the other two movies? I reckon not, but you do get the relationships between certain characters a lot quicker if you do. And they are fun to watch or at least entertaining and suspenseful enough to warrant that.

A remarkable cast was assembled for this: Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham-Carter, Bill Nighy, Olivia Wilde, a who's who of British acting. There are spies and politics, a prestigious writer, so why did this end up being so dull? It is hard to fault the acting, but the script somehow manages to plod along with barely any tension. It seems more like a talking shop from an Islington dinner party than an action packed spy thriller. I enjoyed Fiennes' suspiciously Blair-like prime minister, and indeed the performances all round are fine, with Mr Nighy portraying a silken if disgruntled ex-spook. Yet the action, such as it is,, trundles along at a funereal pace. Perhaps Mr Hare's undoubted talents are better suited to the stage than to the moving picture. I can't see this leading him to being asked to write.a Jason Bourne screenplay any time soon.

'Salting the Battelfield' is one of two new television films by playwright David Hare, following up on an earlier film of his about a renegade British spy; and having (mostly) praised the first, 'Turcs and Caicos', I now feel obliged to criticise the second, even though the two are more similar than different. The critiques are two: firstly, the story takes place in a beautiful Britain full of beautiful people, I may like Helena Bonham Carter as much as the next man, but she really doesn't make a very convincing spy, and the elegiac music gives the whole piece a "sun sets sadly on the glorious British Empire" feel at odds with the reality of the nature of modern society and its contribution to the growth of Islamic terrorism. This film is indeed supposedly about terrorism, and the threat (or opportunity) that it offers to the state; but we never get a glimpse of anything that might be a cause of it. Indeed, the second criticism is that we rarely get a glimpse of anything, much; when Bill Nighy's character has an argument with his daughter, it's nicely scripted as far as it goes, but we know nothing to allow us to judge the man, his words and his feelings; and its emblematic of an entire drama where the cast talk around the issues but the audience is never sufficiently well-briefed. Is the Prime Minister paranoid, a con-man, or does he really believe he is doing the best for his country; the film is good on the psychology here, but poorer on the political (to the extent that the PM is doing his best, then the real, unanswered question is, to what extent is he right?). The praise I had for Hare's earlier film also holds true here (though to a slightly lesser extent): the elliptical dialogue is a treat, even if it sometimes frustrates. But what frustrates most is that Hare, who personally is a very political man, seems unsure of what he wants to say here; and leaves us with a portrait of the delicate moral dilemmas of the upper middle class that seems as far away from the life most of us actually live as the Turcs and Caicos islands themselves.