The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

 The Spy Who Came in from the Cold - 1965 - Martin Ritt

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is a 1966 English film, directed by Martin Ritt and starring, among others, Richard Burton, Claire Bloom, Oskar Werner, and Peter Van Eyck. It is a dramatic thriller that belongs to the film noir genre and deals with espionage. It won several awards:

·         1966: 4 BAFTA Awards: Best British Film, Best British Actor, Best British B&W Cinematography, and Best British B&W Art Direction.

·         1965: Golden Globe: Best Supporting Actor (Oskar Werner).

·         1965: David di Donatello Awards: Best Foreign Actor (Richard Burton).

·         1965: 2 Oscar nominations: Best Actor (Burton) and Best B&W Art Direction.

It is based on the novel of the same name by writer John le Carré (whose real name is David John Moore Cornwell), who in real life was a British spy before dedicating himself to writing. The novel is ranked among the best espionage novels of all time, received great reviews, and was a bestseller. It is a book I still have pending on my reading list. By Le Carré, I read The Secret Pilgrim, a work in which the story revolves around George Smiley. Well, in the movie, George Smiley makes a brief appearance in a supporting role.

The film was shot in 1965, at the height of the Cold War, and is set against the backdrop of the two Germanys: the GDR (German Democratic Republic), which was communist East Germany, and the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany), which was West Germany. The wall that divided Berlin went up overnight in 1961. (Note: The original text says 1963, but keeping the translation literal -> in 1963). Of course, it later underwent various repairs and improvements over time, and many parts from that first night were initially just covered with barbed wire. The movie was made just 2 years after its construction.

In short, Alec Leamas (Richard Burton) carries out an operation against the head of counterintelligence in East Germany. The situation gets complicated because he realizes he is caught in the middle of a conspiracy that goes far beyond his mission—something he notices when there is no turning back.

The beginning of the film is very good. The music director starts off with a piano solo that creates a gloomy atmosphere, which then accompanies the entire plot. A border crossing at night, with guard soldiers pacing back and forth, the wall, the barbed wire. It is Checkpoint Charlie, the most famous border crossing of the Berlin Wall. This crossing truly existed, and the film recreates it as it was; in fact, after the fall of the wall, it was rebuilt and became a tourist attraction alongside a museum. Checkpoint Charlie was Control Post C, except that NATO uses a phonetic alphabet: Alpha (A), Bravo (B), Charlie (C), Delta (D), Echo (E), … It even shows the indicator sign stating that you are leaving the American sector, which was written in three languages. Photograph 2

When Leamas’s boss assigns him the mission, over a cup of tea, he speaks to him as follows:

·         Sit down, please. Our work, as I understand it, is based on the simple assumption that the West will never be the aggressor. Thus, we do things that are unpleasant, but defensive. Our policy is pacifist, but our methods cannot be less ruthless than those of the opposition. Right? I would say that, since the war, our methods, our techniques, and those of the communists have come to resemble each other closely. Yes. I mean that on occasion we do foul things, really very foul things. But... we cannot be less foul than them just because our government's policy is tolerant. Right? What I have in mind for Mundt is something out of the ordinary.

In this simple way, he lays out the idea from which the film's meaning will emerge. Leamas is just another guy, one of the crowd, and viewed from his perspective, we don't know the true plot. The masterminds behind the entire mission, those who thought it all through, barely appear—they belong to higher spheres. Here we are with an ordinary agent tasked with the mission. That is what the film has: you have to pay very close attention so as not to get lost, because to understand what happened, you have to watch what follows next. That keeps the suspense alive. We are not dealing with a hero; we are with a character who has strengths and weaknesses, but an ordinary one.

It is also possible to catch a glimpse of an era: 1960s London—the cars, the streets, the facades, the clothing, the interiors of middle-class homes, the shops, etc.

At the same time, the atmosphere of intrigue is recreated: the sense of suspense, the capacity for endurance, the flow of difficult events framed in a gray, cloudy, rainy setting (rain acting as a natural attack), the enclosed atmosphere of the library, the smoke-filled, bustling bar, the melancholy music, the character completely drenched by the rain, even the book on lycanthropy on the shelf (the man who turns into a wolf)—everything is designed to generate in the viewer that sense of uncertainty (and emptiness) that something is wrong, or that something bad is about to happen.

On the other hand, we can see the girl, Nan Perry, played by actress Claire Bloom, who found fame alongside Chaplin in the movie Limelight. This time, she plays the role of a communist militant. At one point, Leamas says, "Communism, capitalism, the innocent always suffer for the guilty." At a certain point, Nan and Leamas are talking, and she says she "believes in history, in freedom." Leamas replies, "Don't tell me you're a fanatic?" and she says, "Yes, that's the way I am, fighting for peace," and continues, "Some people just talk, but the Party tries to do something more." Leamas retorts, "And what will the Party do, if one may know, for comrade Nan?" (…) "That's what the Party does for us, it channels our passions," Nan replies. Ultimately, the militant is a naive character used by both sides in the film.

The other two characters, especially Fiedler (played by Oskar Werner), the deputy head of intelligence in East Germany, are well portrayed.

Finally, it remains to mention the staging of the trial. I thought it was very good, especially since it is something unfamiliar to me—I don't know if it is a reproduction of a real trial or if it disregarded the way they were actually conducted. But the lack of guarantees, the suspicion of impartiality, the feeling of injustice it leaves behind (whatever the outcome), the exacerbation of authority (or abuse of authority by the tribunal)... I honestly don't have enough information to compare and verify whether trials in the so-called people's democracies of the Eastern Bloc satellites of the USSR were like the one unfolding in the movie. Putting aside the presence of the star witness, I didn't think it was poorly staged. For those who enjoy the genre, it is a highly recommended movie to watch.

Link to the film's profile on FilmAffinity: http://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film410880.html