As trends in fiction become more successful and exaggerated, there is often a want to provide a deconstructed or more realistic depiction of the subject matter. Today’s film, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, gives me that sort of impression. This movie came out in the mid-60’s, right in the middle of the James Bond craze, and presented a much more down-to-earth and somewhat depressing view of what spy work actually is, as opposed to the cooler and more exciting visions that many other spy works were presenting. It even has a classic “downer” ending for good measure, which as always, I will not spoil. It’s the sort of film that is very much out to make a point and does exactly that but might not go too far beyond that for some folks. I certainly don’t think I’d put this in a favorites list, but I do still think it worked well for what it was trying to do, and I would still recommend it, all things considered. I’ll go more into detail later, but for now, here’s the plot.
Our story follows Secret Intelligence agent Alec Leamas, who is seemingly being removed from duty after a botched operation in West Berlin. However, rather than being taken out of service, the agency plans to have Alec take on one final task for them. He returns home to London and appears to be in a bad way, becoming an angry alcoholic mess. However, this is all part of the operation, as the MI6 wants to set Alec up as a faux defector and gain the interest of the Soviet Intelligence, who are aware of his spy status. While taking on a job at a library, he ends up developing a relationship with Nan, one of the other employees and a member of the British Communist Party, which I’d imagine was intentionally ironic. Eventually, Alec is courted by several soviet agents regarding defection to their sides, to which he agrees, though he will only sell them his info for a price. Still, after a meeting in the Netherlands, they agree to his terms and send him over to Eastern Germany where he meets Fiedler, another agent and his overseer. Fiedler tells Alec that he is meant to spread information that one of the soviet agents, Hans Mundt, has been a double agent for the British all along. Though Alec doubts this to be true, as he would have known this from the agency beforehand, he nevertheless takes up the mission. However, Mundt isn’t one to be taken down so easily, and has both Alec and Fiedler arrested. Meanwhile, Nan is visited by some officers at her apartment and is taken away. Is Mundt actually a double agent? What ends up happening to Alec? What’s Nan’s role in all of this? You’ll have to see for yourself.
So, as I was saying before, this film was clearly trying to give a more authentic portrayal of secret agents, or at least as much as one can while still being fiction. There’s no suave womanizing, neat gadgets, or black-and-white morality in this film, it’s just a portrayal of the conflict between two sides and the games they play with each other, as well as the folks that end up getting used in the process. Interestingly, while the morality might not be black-and-white, the film itself is. Now, by this point in movie history, black-and-white was in its last decade of major relevance, with color becoming much more prominent in the industry, so it was still around but much less favored at this time. However, I do think that the choice to film it this way was intentional and rather fitting. The story has a very cold feel to it, not cold in an overpowering or uncertain danger sort of way, but more in a “it’s not fair, but it’s the way things are” sort of way. The black-and-white look helps to “emphasize through downplaying” this vibe, if that makes any sense, and brings home both the mundanity and depressing nature of the scenario. Plus, considering that the James Bond series was entirely in color and was much more lively and traditionally appealing, it would make sense to present a story like this using the opposite sort of film-making techniques. On a separate but related note, I want to commend Richard Burton’s performance in this film. You really get the sense that his character is a man who’s been in this agency for a long time and knows how to do things, but is ultimately an employee, not a boss. He clearly takes a certain level of pride in his work, refusing a desk job upon hearing of their want to remove him from service, and will agree to make a jackass of himself as long as he can continue working, but to be a spy often means fudging honor and even morality for the sake of the greater good. And even there lies a question: is this really all for the greater good or is it more for the self-interest of the two sides in this conflict? Is it just one big game of back and forth between two players and everyone on the field is just a piece on the board? Leamas clearly wasn’t as integral to the agency as he thought he was, as they kept vital information from him for a good long time and put him through a lot of turmoil just to keep things running as they were. It’s hard to discuss in detail without spoilers, but needless to say, his mission wasn’t what he believed it was. On another note, I also want to say that it was interesting how they made Nan a communist, not a soviet, just a communist. This, of course, flies in the face of everything that Leamas stands for, and yet he still maintains a relationship with her. You have to wonder if this was just meant to be an “opposites attract” situation or if his interest in her was meant to hint at some level of doubt about his convictions. To be honest, I thought that it was hinting that she was part of the recruitment process or something, though in hindsight, she was never shy about her involvement with the British Communist Party, which wouldn’t be particularly subtle for a soviet agent. Anyway, I think in general this film was rather well done and got across its point effectively. However, I must admit that I don’t know if this is a film that I would regularly come back to. It’s the sort of film that says what it needs to say within the time frame that it needed to say it but doesn’t do much beyond that. With the spy craze in full swing and typically more outlandish than reality, it made sense to deconstruct the genre and show that spy work wasn’t a clean or glamorous thing when you get down to it. The problem is that the entire film is, for the most part, just based around this one idea and trying to lead up to its final message. It gives you exactly what it says, and that’s about it. Again, this isn’t to say that it’s a terrible film, it is effective at what it set out to do, but at least I personally feel that I got most everything I was going to get out of this film after one viewing. I also have to admit that I felt the film took a while to get interesting, but I also acknowledge that it was structured that way on purpose, so really, I think this might just come down to individual tastes (I mean, technically everything does, but you get what I mean). This is why, even though this film probably wouldn’t go in my favorites, I still recommend watching it, as others might find it even more interesting than I did. And, really, it’s always good to get a different perspective on a subject that is often portrayed a certain way.
Therefore, I give The Spy Who Came in from the Cold a solid recommendation. I know that sometimes there’s a concern with deconstructions, in that they can sometimes come across condescending about something that is already obvious, but in this case, they did a good job of avoiding that issue and presenting a story that works for the message they’re getting across. It’s a film that will require your patience, as it is on the more deliberate side, but I think it’s ultimately rewarding in the end. So, rendezvous with the Spy, the one who came in from the cold, that is. He might seem unflattering at first, but he has some good insight that you’ll want to hear.