Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 18, 2019 9:16:07 GMT -8
Funeral in BerlinViewed on Amazon Prime Video (included with basic subscription) • or rent HD version for $3.99
Info: IMDB • (1966) • 2.25:1 aspect ratio • UK Genre: Spy Thriller Runtime: 102 minutes Starring: Michael Caine Quick Rating: Great cinematography, sardonic humor, and Michael Caine in the second Harry Palmer story from the novels by Len Deighton. Quite watchable. Summary: Colonel Stok, a Soviet Intelligence Officer responsible for security at the Berlin Wall, appears to want to defect, but the evidence is contradictory. Stok wants the British to handle his defection and asks for one of their agents, Harry Palmer, to smuggle him out of East Germany.
 Like most spy movies, this one is over-loaded with twists and turns. What holds it together is Michael Caine as the quiet, cynical, anti-James Bond. As one reviewer writes, “Michael Caine's Palmer has a cockney accent, avoids fights, can't afford the finer things in life, has no fancy cars or technological gimmicks. What he has is the brain to figure who's triple crossing all the double crossers in Cold War Berlin's espionage underground. It helps that all the other characters underestimate him. This movie is sharp, intelligent, and unsentimental.” This is reportedly even better than his first Harry Palmer movie, The Ipcress File, which I’m still trying to find. Visually, the movie reminded me of a color version of The Third Man. The cinematography is excellent. You see a bit of old Berlin, East and West. It’s stark and dangerous-looking. This film is somewhat whimsically gritty and lacks foolishness except for the plot which becomes a little overloaded by the end. Eve Renzi is stunning as Samantha Steel. Oskar Homolka is a hoot as the brash Colonel Stok who is in charge of security at the Berlin Wall but lets it be known that he wants to defect — on his quite specific terms. Paul Hubschmid is boring as Johnny Vulkan. But I guess spies can be boring too. Hugh Burden as a sort of anti-Q is good as Caine’s go-to support guy. Guy Doleman has a good role as Caine’s boss, the stereotypical British beaucratic. He was Count Lippe in Thunderball among other roles. 
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 18, 2019 9:43:22 GMT -8
I haven't read any of Deighton's spy fiction, though I like his historical matter (including SS-GB as well as his straight histories). I saw portions of the movie The Ipcress File, though not enough to supply the plot. I will also point out that Randall Garrett parodied it, or at least the title, in one of his Lord Darcy stories, "The Ipswich Phial".
Of course, I've enjoyed a lot of movies with Michael Caine in them. He was in both Sleuth and Deathtrap, for example, though in opposite roles. And as for spy movies, he was also in The Fourth Protocol, based on a novel by Frederick Forsyth.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Aug 18, 2019 12:55:31 GMT -8
Ah the famous Harry Palmer, whose name is a pun. Deighton did several books with this character. All of his books were mildly popular especially among the anti government types of the late 60s and early 70s. My impression was that Deighton just ran out of good ideas and rather then turn out muck just quit with the character. Both of the movies Funeral in Berlin and the Imcress File were fun and had just enough James Bond stuff for the spy thriller folks. They are fun and don't require you to know anything about English style espionage. Rumor has it that the Brits actually did, and do, recruit from the military prisons for their field officers. Never meet one myself but I believe it is possible, in fact probable.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 18, 2019 13:38:46 GMT -8
I’m still on the lookout for “The Ipcress File." The only copies I can find are used and they are all European discs that only play in Region 1 (America). As part of a Michael Caine double-feature, I just finished The Holcroft Covenant from 1985. It’s not very highly rated at IMDB (5.7) but I found it surprisingly watchable. Many found the plot overly convoluted. But in this case, I didn’t find that a problem because you were not supposed to take anyone at face value anyway (thus you didn't have to try to keep a large, convoluted plot inside your head). You were quickly shown that everyone seemed to have a possible interest that had nothing to do with their stated goal. Caine’s character (again) provides coherence amongst the twists and turns. It’s a pretty good cast, all around. The quality of the picture (as viewed on Amazon Prime) was not even SD. It was pretty rough. But that’s where I found it. Michael Caine is at his best in pictures such as these. He’s stoic and methodical while the world around him is tearing itself apart. But I’ll take it as a given (as so many reviewers are saying) that the novel by Robert Ludlum is much better. But then that novel would be missing Michael Caine. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 18, 2019 14:22:47 GMT -8
If Deighton ran out of good ideas for the Palmer books, that might explain why he decided to start writing history and historical fiction. Those all came out later.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 19, 2019 8:24:26 GMT -8
I haven’t read any of Palmer’s books by Robert Ludlum, nor have I read any of the Bourne series.I get the general impression that it wouldn’t be my cup of tea.. But I did check out a non-fiction book from the local online library yesterday titled The Billion Dollar Spy. It starts out rather well and shows promise. It’s basically about the entry of the CIA into serious espionage efforts inside Russia — which was apparently an enormously difficult thing to do because of the ubiquitousness of the KGB. You could contact Russians easily enough outside of Russia, or perhaps even in some outlying lands. But to recruit people and make contact with them in Moscow was, in the early days, nearly impossible. But this is the story (so far) of how the CIA — with much help from the much more competent MI5 — set up shop in Moscow. And it’s apparently the story of some of the big fish they landed, including especially a guy named Tolkachev. I think Artler would approve of a story (so far) that is interesting and thriller and that is based not on a Hollywoodized version of spying but the real thing. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 19, 2019 9:08:55 GMT -8
Does he discuss Oleg Penkovsky? We had a copy of The Penkovsky Papers when I was a kid. Communists still deny their validity.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 19, 2019 9:39:24 GMT -8
Haven't got that far.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 20, 2019 12:13:39 GMT -8
Right now I’m watching Blunt: The Fourth Man on Amazon Prime video. I wonder if Artler or Mr. Kung has seen this. I know they’re both fans of “Tinker Tailor Solider Spy” which I have yet to work my way through. This is as much about a band of homosexuals as it is a band of traitors. The cast is outstanding with Ian Richardson as the real-life traitor, Anthony Blunt, and Anthony Hopkins as one of his recruits, Guy Burgess. You haven’t lived until you’ve seen these two men kiss each other on the lips. Much like “Tinker Tailor Solider Spy” there’s a lot of talking talking talking. But I’m have way into it and you do get a bit into the mind of a subversive. And it’s arguable that bands of homosexuals are prone to trying to subvert whatever they can. See: The Catholic Church. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 20, 2019 12:23:36 GMT -8
Part of the problem with homosexuals is that they were very vulnerable to blackmail. On the other hand, in for a penny, in for a pound -- many see themselves as rejecting societal norms. This can be extended to such norms as loyalty. The Cambridge 5 (the fifth -- Cairncross, I think -- was discovered even later) developed the sort of love of communism common among the young. ("If you aren't a socialist at age 20, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at age 50, you have no head." This is why modern miseducators teach their charges to feel rather than to think.) Unlike so many of us, they never learned better.
Kim Philby, son of a famous (and also leftist) British Arabist, was perhaps the most important. He was close to the leadership of the intelligence branch he was in when he was exposed and had to flee to Moscow. He plays a role as planner in Forsyth's The Fourth Protocol. Burgess and MacLean also fled to Moscow. As far as I know, Blunt was merely suddenly retired -- he had never been a major figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 20, 2019 12:37:52 GMT -8
I have never seen the film. I do recall when it came out that Blunt had been a traitor and communist recruiter at Cambridge. Amazingly, nothing much happened to him. He resigned and had to give back a medal or two. Apparently, the British intelligence services had known for years that Blunt was a traitor and the fourth man in the Cambridge Group. He only had to resign when it somehow became public knowledge, as I recall.
Sometime thereafter, it also saw that one of the people who gave our atom-bomb secrets to the Soviets was a young American scientist named Hall. He was apparently let alone by our government and moved to England where he taught. Like the Rosenbergs, he should have been executed. But so should have Greenglass, Fuchs and some others.
This all still makes me wonder what else our spy-services are covering up.
I believe there is something to that thought. It seems to be human nature for miserable people to desire to see others punished for their misery. At the very least one must agree that misery loves company.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 20, 2019 14:18:52 GMT -8
That was the Rosenbergs (Ethel and Julius), not the Goldbergs. I understand J. Edgar Hoover opposed executing them, though this may have been for practical reasons. I'm not sure if Ethel actually did anything to deserve it, though Julius certainly did. I'm not an expert on the case, but I gather that Greenglass (who in essence had been turned) was a key witness against them. (That's why he wouldn't have been executed. It's possible that Hoover wanted to do the same with the Rosenbergs, which would be a good reason not to go ahead with the execution.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 20, 2019 14:22:43 GMT -8
Thanks for correction. I will amend accordingly.
Must have been thinking of Harry Gold.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 20, 2019 15:29:32 GMT -8
I’ve got about 10 more minutes to go. I think you all would like this one. There’s a good scene near the end with one of the four spies and his wife. He’s explaining to the wife that he’s a former member of the Communist Party. “It’s what sensitive men did in those days.” He’s such a mealy-mouthed SOB. I hope they threw this jerk in jail.
By contrast, Ian Richardson (as Blunt) is more commendably despicable. Anthony Hopkins (as Burgess) is just a drunk.
This 85 minute presentation doesn’t have much context for the spying. It’s just a low-budget set piece to show you how despicable these English traitors are. Bravo to the BBC or whomever to have the guts (back then) to show Communists as despicable.
But you do get a sense that there is a “type” (including homosexuals) who are prone to subversive doctrines, especially ones promising Utopia. In the minds of the homosexuals, I’m sure they thought this meant sexual utopia. Whatever the case may be, sticking it to the English was what it was all about. Only people with a soft grip on reality could ever believe the various over-promising doctrines of that day, or any other day.
But there is a foolish mindset that is willing to believe things, especially if it satisfies 1) Their grievance and, 2) Their sense of smallness (by connecting them to a supposedly, almost transcendently, important cause).
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 20, 2019 15:36:19 GMT -8
All of what you say is true. These same people are also too happy to lie, cheat and just make up stuff to further their insanity. They particularly like to use fake, or pseudo-science in their cause. See the below link.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 20, 2019 16:02:41 GMT -8
The irony with that study is that it probably has a modicum of truth. People with friends or family who are known homosexuals are probably more likely to sympathize with their goals. On the other hand, I have at least one friend in Louisville who happens to be a homosexual activist (which I learned when he was one of the people mentioned in a newspaper article on the subject), and nevertheless oppose almost every aspect of the homosexual agenda. But I do oppose anti-sodomy laws (though unlike Anthony Kennedy, I consider them constitutional).
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Aug 20, 2019 21:58:15 GMT -8
It seems like almost everyone who entered English secret service before or during WWII was a homosexual at one time or another, or bisexual. I think some of that wore off on the OSS who trained in England during the war. If I remember correctly Blunt walked away from all charges of espionage by giving up his role in the Cambridge five. The Thatcher government stripped him of his knighthood.
As to the Soviet target, one of the problems is that Russians are ultra-paranoid. An ex KGB spook who I knew in Sacramento put it best. "The Russians believe the butterflies are spying on them", and that is just in the US in USSR it has to be worse. The closest I ever got to the USSR was one day in Berlin in 1973. Now that sounds like a title for a short story. I'll think it over.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 21, 2019 6:39:56 GMT -8
The Destroyer series had some fun with the personnel problems in British intelligence. Perhaps the best came in #55, The End of the Game, in which the villain (a computer whiz) decided to list out all the British agents who were working for the Soviets. When it started to print out pages and was still in the letter A, he changed it to print out all those who were NOT working for the Soviets -- and came up with 3 names, including the deputy head of the service.
On another occasion (I don't remember the book), at the end they were looking for some agent who was a homosexual, a traitor, and probably some other flaws. The head of the agency noted that this description didn't exactly do much to narrow things down.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 21, 2019 7:17:30 GMT -8
Here’s another spy movie to watch on Amazon Prime if you’re following at home on the current Spy-o-Thon: John Shea and Eli Wallach star in the true-life story of Israeli spy, Elie Cohen, in The Impossible Spy. This is rated only 6.6 at IMDB but I found it to be a compelling 96-minute docudrama. True, this is a low-budget film, but I think they do a good job with what they have. They keep the pace moving. The acting is good. If you don’t know the history (I didn’t), then watch the movie and don’t read on. But these are the basic historical facts: Elie Cohen, of partial Syrian descent, was a well-placed spy in the burgeoning Ba’ath Party which Israeli intelligence assumed would eventually take power in Syria. Cohen is recruited not only because of previous work for Israeli intelligence in Egypt but because of his unique background. Plus the fact that he did not look like a spy. Elie ingratiates himself to the Ba’ath Party officials in Argentina, providing substantial financing (using Mossad funds) while posing as a rich textile and art trader. Because he was eventually able to give (thanks to his excellent memory) the exact positions of the Syrian gun emplacements on the Golan Heights, he is credited with being instrumental in the success of Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967 again Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. We also see the strain that such undercover work puts on a family. Elie could not tell his wife about the real reason for his prolonged absences. He was supposedly an arms purchaser for the Israeli military. But he was gone for months if not years at a time. (Personally, I think he found it easy, if only to escape that hairdo.) IMDB ratings are noticeably unreliable and reflective of an uncouth rabble than thoughtful movie watchers. One reviewer wrote, “…everything about the movie is unspectacular but competent.” I think that’s a fair statement. But this other reviewer remarks: I don’t think one need cite anti-Semitism for the poor quality of taste shown in movies by the rabble. These horrible modern comic book movies are often given 9s or 10s while Casablanca is lucky to receive a high 7 or 8. But you do have to wonder if any movie that doesn’t show Israel as villains is not deemed a good movie. But I found this one to be very watchable.  |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 21, 2019 7:33:14 GMT -8
It took 20 some years — if not longer — for the full repercussions to come down on Blunt. Wiki notes: Prior to that, he had cut a deal: The weakness of this movie is that they don’t even try to speculate for why Blunt wasn’t thrown into jail or even executed. At least “Queen Elizabeth II stripped Blunt of his knighthood,[34] and in short order he was removed as an Honorary Fellow of Trinity College.” I suspect he was treated so tolerantly because he was such an iconic member of the upper crust. Soviet spy or not, his first identity in many eyes must have been one of the upper class. To bring that class’s privilege and right to rule into question was probably scene as the greater threat by many. |
|
