Am I to trust Andrew Sullivan's review of this series, sight unseen? Might he have an ax to grind, hmm?

A quote by one of the actors, pulled from Mr. Sullivan's article, which seems to underpin Mr. Sullivan's evaluation:

"Double agents are hard to root for - but 'Cambridge Spies' makes a splendid case. 'It is controversial, portraying these guys as heroes,' says [actor Rupert] Penry-Jones. 'But to stand up for what you believe in the way they did is pretty heroic.'"

The actor in the quote is talking about a portrayal of character. He discusses his art, not the politics (which he, blandly, identifies as "controversial"). His job is to portray a character with inner consistency and realism. To do so, he has to find the character's core motivations and be that person.

Hero: larger than life. Doer of great deeds. Not always admirable. Great villains are also heroic in their scope. Lucifer was the hero of Milton's epic poem, Paradise Lost, remember?

Tell you what: you can look at them as worthless toads if you want, but that won't give you any insight into the reasons why four well-educated, well-placed men decided to betray their country.

Some spies -- many of our recent American crop are good examples -- are in it for the money. Some want revenge. That was not the case with these men. They were in it because they were Believers.

If this series seeks to show them in a way that makes their motives understandable to the viewer, that is, shows them to us as they saw themselves, it will help people to understand betrayal at the ideological level.

And until I've seen it myself, I am in no way prepared to judge it. Many of the Puritans didn't think much of "Paradise Lost", either.

Regards--
Mary Anne