Number one thing I keep seeing on the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy tumblr tag:
“I wish they hadn’t made Peter gay/it didn’t make sense for him to be gay/it added nothing to the plot/blah blah blah.”First, pretty sure him being gay (or at least having a male lover) was in the book. Second, historically accurate to British secret intelligence at the time, which apparently attracted a lot of gay men. Third, it gave Peter a fucking weakness as a character (as in, having a deep dark secret), and thus gave him backstory and made him more than just a simple spy.
And fourth, anyone actually bothered by Peter having a male lover needs to think about if they’d have the same reaction if he were crying over a woman, for instance. If the answer is no, then really ask yourself whether or not it’s that you actually have a problem with Peter’s character, rather than you’re just uncomfortable with “the gay”, period.
Now back to saving all the Peter-is-a-BAMF gifs.
In the 2011 film version Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Guillam is played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Guillam is portrayed as homosexual in the film, unlike the books in which he is energetically heterosexual. No explanation for this decision has been offered by the filmmakers. Cumberbatch has commented that the necessity of the character’s secrecy about his sexuality (for fear of blackmail) went well with the secretiveness of the spy world. - From Peter Guillam’s Wiki page
As said above, it gave Peter a weakness, and a backstory. And Christ, can you imagine not being able to talk about your home life at work, nor your work life at home, yet despite being so isolated you’re a total BAMF? That is an interesting character.
I haven’t read the book yet, so I don’t really know one way or the other. Just went off IMDb boards. On the other hand, I still think making him gay gave him interesting layers to his personal life, when the movie really didn’t offer room to expose much of it. I think otherwise he would’ve come off as a typical pencil-pusher without any depth. This way, it came off as a deep emotional toll and a huge sacrifice to the Circus. (And looking it up, it appears that while homosexuality wasn’t exactly a crime in the 1970s, it wasn’t exactly something you could say out loud, either.)
Either way, it gives Peter an edge. And people who are complaining about it and saying it’s inconsequential and meaningless shouldn’t notice/comment on it - you know, if it’s really that pointless.
I haven’t read the book either, but discussions after seeing the film made me look up the differences and that’s when I found the Wikipedia page I linked above.
And I totally agree with you about the emotions behind it, and why it was so good. It was an emotional punch for a character who, otherwise, we only got little glimpses from. It spoke so much about who he was as a character.
Ditto as well about the people commenting.
