Why did this one Guy Burgess, of the multitudes (according to the movie) who engaged in gay sex at prep school, end up betraying his country and class to the Stalinist soviets, and why should we care? You'll never learn from this movie. As best I can tell from it, Burgess cared nothing about the rights of the working classes, and had no particular issues with the extreme privileges of the oligarchy in England. Homosexuality certainly wouldn't have stood in his way if he had been more discreet. In fact he seems to have ratted out of a fit of pique over being outmanoeuvred in the competition for the most privileged rank.
I saw no reason to admire the Burgess character. The villain Fowler was only guilty of petty stiff-neckedness, as far as I could see, Judd was perhaps admirable, but flat, and in fact the most interesting character was Barclay, the reasonable prefect.
This was an interesting introduction to the intricate politics of elite British boys' schools. The boys were certainly good looking, but it was not a sexy movie, the drama fell pretty slack towards the end, and I'm just as ignorant of the interesting career of Guy Burgess as I was before.
I saw no reason to admire the Burgess character. The villain Fowler was only guilty of petty stiff-neckedness, as far as I could see, Judd was perhaps admirable, but flat, and in fact the most interesting character was Barclay, the reasonable prefect.
This was an interesting introduction to the intricate politics of elite British boys' schools. The boys were certainly good looking, but it was not a sexy movie, the drama fell pretty slack towards the end, and I'm just as ignorant of the interesting career of Guy Burgess as I was before.