Cambridge Spies (Dbl DVD)

I expected the BBC to skew the history of the Cambridge spies towards something romantically favorable to communist terror and butchery, but this one really went "over the top" as the Brits say. Casting aside all historical fact, save for their names and little else, the BBC production mis-cast these four craven young men, filled with hatred for their homeland, as idealists seeking to help the Soviet communist utopia, out of the goodness of their hearts -- "for the sake of starving children", etc. By their words, Britain and America are described as decadent, money-grubbing capitalist, Nazi-craving hell-states, bound by insuperable class-barriers and homophobia. Not a chance is missed to show these guys as idealist heroes, fighting for the greater good, and the hated society upon which they parasitically thrived as something wicked and nasty. The impression is very clear also, this is not merely the opinions of the spy-boys, but of the BBC producers who give plenty of examples to validate those same negative impressions. Nothing is presented to counter such a skewed and false vision, and the producers seemed to aim for a rehabilitation of the spy-boys, with a simultaneous villification of Western democracy.Of course, the BBC is well-known today for doing exactly the same thing on its "news" reporting also -- use of selective reporting and lies of omission, praising, or at minimum "understanding" Islamic terror bombers by embracing jihadi propaganda and revisionist history, if not outright Jew-hatred, while blaming their dead victims for what happened to them. Those who view the BBC broadcasts in the USA won't get the "full monty", as their international branches is where the most propagandist anti-freedom and pro-fascist sermons are delivered. This mini-series lives down to that "new BBC" tradition. It also seemed aimed at pushing homoerotic bedroom scenes into the livingrooms of ordinary BBC viewers, with the first segment being particularly rich in this measure. No comparable heterosexual scenes appeared, even though two of the Cambridge spy-boys were claimed straight. It is not a particularly complimentary view of the gay condition either, with Burgess chronically soliciting anonymous sex from public bathrooms, getting drunk and acting provocatively, unzipping his pants in the face of a fellow worker's shocked wife in one scene. Was this all really relevant? Perhaps, as an added factor of their hatred, of Blunt and Burgess, at least, towards Western heterosexual society. Communism alone would suffice, however. BBC doesn't touch those meaty topics, however, of their hatred of ordinary decent hard-working British and Americans, even when showing them willfully transmitting atomic bomb construction details to the Soviets.To say that the Cambridge spies were idealistically ignorant of the butchery of Stalinism is the most profound Lie in the whole business. No communist living outside of Antarctica could claim such ignorance much after the 1930s, especially with the Hitler-Stalin Pact and the subsequent invasion of Poland by the Nazis and Soviets (funny how most left-wing histories never mention the inconvenient fact that the Soviets also invaded Poland a few days after Hitler's whermacht, making sure to get their half of the Polish pie). Too much BBC script-writing time was devoted to showing the spy-boys hand-wringing, lip-biting and anxiously furrowing their brows about the Hitler-Stalin Pact, when in reality they happily took their marching orders from Moscow without hesitation, and we know well how the left-wing idiots of those days went about "explaining" to everyone how the "devil Hitler" suddenly became a devoted Socialist, something which only the genius Stalin knew about (actually some have made a good argument Hitler was indeed a socialst, but I digress...). Every decent Marxist or communist was out of the game by that time, writing their mea culpas and coming over fully to the center-point of Western democracy, as with George Orwell. When the central characters are not smooching it up with each other, hugging in forced-crocodile tears when one of their ilk gets into trouble (but narry a tear for the hundreds they sent to early graves), then the film treats the viewer to angry or drunken ranting speeches by the characters, denouncing Western democratic society. This is more than just "character portrayal" but is a "message from the BBC producers".Virtually everyone who is not a communist spy is either (take your pick): 1) a low-class idiot, 2) a filty capitalist pig, 3) a Nazi-enthusiast, 4) a homophobe, or 5) an upper-class idiot, wallowing in inherited money, who is happy when poor children are starving to death. Oh, and Americans, we are racists and atomic-bombing religious fanatics also, on top of all else. Did I miss anything? The summary statement of the BBC producers, and probably authentically of the Cambridge spy-boys as well, was the scene when Guy Burgess drives his car through the front yards of a half-dozen ordinary American homes, smashing everything and then giving a speech from the roof of his car, denouncing their contemptible "picket fences" and "capitalism" and so forth. Everyone is denounced as a member of the Ku Klux Klan (which for all its grim theatre and murdering, never killed so many innocents in a hundred years as Comrade Lenin did in one, or Comrade Stalin did in one good day), or worse, and so on. On that scene, one got a very real sense of authentic emotion in the production. One can only hope the average decent viewer will come away thinking that communists are drunken and revolting treacherous parasites.The only decent thing in this production was a separate History Channel item which gives a factual overview of the Cambridge spies, and thereby not surprisingly conflicts with much of the BBC production. Another documentary section provides old news footage of Blunt "explaining" why he did what he did -- but of course, not one interview with anyone who goes down a list showing the damage they did to the West, nor how many lives were lost, those who were directly murdered because of these "spy-boys". Once again, the BBC shows it is more loving of Red Fascist causes than of Western freedoms, and will happily turn such miserable Red-fanatics into "misunderstood idealists", no matter what the body-count.

Those one-star reviews that promised extreme homosexual content and outrageous "sodomy" are just not true---and I'm SO DISAPPOINTED. Given that three of the four were homo-or bisexual men (Maclean's sexuality was, apparently, whitewashed for this production, at least according to the documentary special feature that was attached), their sexuality is just part of the fabric, even part of the nexus, of their existence. In truth, you see as much of Philby's hetero exploits as you do of the others' gay moments. Now, as to the story itself...It's a muddle, as that big old homosexual, E. M. Forster, would say. The four-hour runtime isn't enough to cover all four men's stories, so it makes a mess of all of them, really, and those reviewers who say the story should have narrowed have a legitimate point. There must be a lot of fictionalizing here, and certainly parts lack clarity (what exactly were they spying ON? you might ask--when they weren't bedding down men and women?) The four men are all charming actors, as one suspects all four men were in real life.This is a fun show, but don't take it too seriously. If it sends you off to study the real history of the Cambridge spies, then it has done its job. And, well, Samuel West has turned out to be even sexier by far now as Sigfried Farnon, hasn't he?

This fine BBC docudrama depicts the lives of the four Cambridge spies from their university days, when they were recruited to do espionage work for the Soviet Union, through the defections of two of the four some twenty years later. Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, Guy Burgess, and Donald Maclean were members of Britain's upper class elite. From prominent, well connected families, they were educated at some of the best public schools and then Cambridge University. Their minds were as brilliant as their pedigrees, and they all seemed destined for the highest levels of diplomatic, social, and political careers.Blunt and Philby, in public statements years after they were unmasked, all claimed that they became Communist spies in an attempt to better the world. You do see a little of this desire to make things better in an incident near the beginning of the film, when Burgess and Philby foment a strike by the waiters at their college, but overall the four don't seem to have had much first hand knowledge of the people whose lives they claimed to want to improve through a Communist revolution. The film does make clear the interesting point that the four were able to go about their espionage efforts for many years precisely because they were priviledged, elite people who knew all the right things to say and had entree into the highest circles. The proverbial old boys club was hard at work for these four, and they knew it and used it.At times the film seems to overglamourize the four, toning down the more sordid aspects of their lives (except in the case of the flamboyant and disreputable Guy Burgess) and barely acknowledging that they did real damage to Britain and the rest of the West through their espionage. But its a well depicted and beautifully acted dramatic reenactment of one episode in the Cold War. The extra material provided on the second DVD is interesting as well, including interviews with Blunt and Philby after their unmaskings, BBC obituaries for Philby and Maclean, and a bizarre excerpt from a film about the Queen's Gallery in Buckingham Palace, made in the 1960s and partly narrated by Blunt himself. (There's also a rather mediocre History Channel presentation about the Cambridge spies which provides a little more information about their lives and times.)

Kim Philby was a double agent, working for the British secret services for many years without having been found out. Either because he was a double agent and thus considered a traitor, or because he had the secret service duped for so many years, or because he was of the upper class and that was why he had the secret service duped for so many years, the British now cannot forgive him.That doesn't make for an honest representation of who he was. I've done some reading about the Cambridge Five (note, five and not four), about Burgess, and about Philby. The representation of Philby and Burgess is biased and blantantly, and incorrectly damning.. If I want fake facts, I only have to hear Trump speak.Two things that bothered me in episode 1. The first: Burgess was instrumental in organizing the waiter's strike at Cambridge. But it was a success, not a failure that left the waiters without work. The result was that they were made regular employees and paid for the whole year and not just when the university was in session. Misrepresenting this makes as if Burgess was inept and didn't really care about the working person. He became a communist precisely because he saw it as the only way to help working people (and fight fascism, which the British were, at first, not doing). Second: Kim Philby married Litzy in February 1934 and brought her to England where they remained married for several years. It was Litzy who introduced hin to Deutsch who didn't recruit him until June 1934. They separated after several years but remained married until 1946 when they finally divorced. Thus, Philby was not the man portrayed in this prejudiced series who abandons his new wife upon landing on British shores for the sake of the "party."The Russian defector Krivitsky had no information that gave away any of the Cambridge spies, and his murder had nothing to do with Kim Philby. Just another element to make these men look worse. It would be more interesting to be told the truth and to get a better picture of their complexities.At the end there is some text telling you what happened to the four, when they died, etc. With Guy Burgess they say that he died from his alcoholism. They neglect to mention that in the late forties he was pushed down the stairs of a club (by a friend!), suffering a concussion and cracked skull. He never fully recoveered from those head injuries, and had emotional episodes and pain for the rest of his life. This added to the alcholism he already had developed. The alchohol and many other health issues related to that and to his head injuries led eventually to his early death. All that was known when the BBC made this series. Why did they not mentionn it in their summing up at the end?Because they wanted to make him look like a lout. Guy Burgess, by all accounts -- those who liked him and those who didn't -- was extremely charming and a great conversationalist. Whereas all these Cambridge spies were intelligent men, Burgess was one of the geniuses of his generation. You get no sense of that in this series. You also get little sense of how far into and how high these men positions of power and influence. Painting a picture of dishonest misfits, makes it easier for the BBC (where Burgess worked, successfully for some years), and Foreign Office, MI5, etc. to pretend that these men were traitors. End of story. It would be far more interesting to be told more of this very interesting story.The Cambridge spies were all human, idealists, revolutionaries, who wanted to defeat fascism and make the world better. Despite the fact that they worked for the Russians, they were not evil and they were not idiots. Having now watched all four episodes I can say that I am very disappointed with the BBC for the lies it included and the truth it left out. Their stories are what good spy books are made of. All the BBC had to do was tell the truth and it would have been just as good, no, even better.As Michael Holzman points out in his book, Guy Burgess: Revolutionary in an Old School Tie, Burgess "never committed treason as the Soviet Union was never at war with Britain.... He simply believed that Britain's future lay with Russia not America." The same could be said for tham all. During the war Russia was an ally, and afterwards, America seemed to be taking the wrong path.

Although not as enjoyable as 'Tinker Taylor -----' the author of that book,' John le Carre', was much affected by the events portrayed, in that he lost his position in the Secret Service. It's interesting to understand better how four men came to spy against Britain who enjoyed a privileged life provided by that same country.

This three star rating is based solely on the quality of this DVD edition:  Cambridge Spies .The 2 DVD edition is extremely basic. There is no menu whatsoever, the DVDs just start playing once they are inserted in the DVD player. The discs are marked 'disc 1' and 'disc 2'. That's it. No indication which episodes are included on which disc. No extras. No subtitles. No language options. Picture and sound are good throughout.After viewing, I can state that episodes 1 - 3 are included in disc 1, episode 4 is on disc 2. The only navigation possible is to skip to the next episode. Any other navigation is possible only by fast forward/rewind. Very awkward.The TV Mini-Series itself is excellent and a better edition would warrant a much higher rating. It is a dramatisation of the story of the Cambridge spies, the group of young privileged students around Kim Philby and Guy Burgess who believed that the rise of the Nazis in Germany could only be stopped by Russia and the communists and who thus allowed themselves to be recruited by the KGB. The series follows Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt from their student days at Cambridge to their various first assignments in Austria, Germany, Spain during the civil war, through their work for the British Secret Service, the BBC, and the British Royal family, to postings at the British embassy in Washington to their eventual defection to the Soviet Union.The cast is well chosen with Toby Stephens as Kim Philby, Samuel West as Anthony Blunt, the ever enjoyable Tom Hollander as the larger than life Guy Burgess and Rupert Penry-Jones as Donald Maclean. All four turn in solid performances. Good series, poor product design, hence the rather low three star rating. Cambridge Spies

I had high expectations for this series but have to admit if seemed to lack something. It deals with their lives in Cambridge (as would be expected) and early careers in their jobs in MI5, BBC etc. Surprisingly lot of attention is spent on their respective sexual activities with less on the spying angle. It delves into their motives for wanting to align with Communism and spends time on the Spanish civil war. Blunts (alleged) interactions with the Royal Family are quite funny - especially the Queen Mother. Would be interesting to know how accurate the story portrayed is. It painted a sympathetic picture of these four, leaving you seeing them as idealistic young men, not the spies they actually turned out to be.

I've watched the first two of four programmers so far. It is good but looks slightly dated compared to modern TV production quality. A pity there aren't more episodes which would have given the opportunity to explore these complex personalities in more depth and better examine the extent of the damage they did and lives that were lost by their actions. Overall it is a damning indictment of the great pre and post war institutions - Cambidge, the BBC, the Times (the press generally.) and the intelligence agencies. The acting is good, particularly a young Tom Hollander who paints a vivid portrait of the brilliantly flawed Guy Burgess.