The opening moments of Bridge of Spies set the tone for the film as a whole. We aren’t quite sure whom the camera is following and no dialogue is spoken. With furtive glances over shoulders and fingers delicately unwrapping secret notes, the Cold War is presented as a time in which opponents avoid talking to one another, leading to not only political dispute, but the potential for world destruction.
The latest effort from director Steven Spielberg tells the story of Rudolph Abel (an excellent Mark Rylance), a Soviet spy living in America who is arrested for espionage in 1957. He is assigned Jim Donovan as counsel (Tom Hanks), an insurance lawyer from Brooklyn who is told to offer his best defense for his client, but that it would be best for national security—and national image—if he loses. Lose he does, but the challenge becomes what to do with Abel. While the country calls for his death, Donovan believes that keeping him alive in case an American spy is ever caught in a similar situation may be the best option. His prescience is fulfilled in the man of Francis Gary Powers, an American pilot whose plane is shot down over the USSR while taking secret photographs. Donovan is given the task of getting Powers returned home by using Abel for the trade. However, when Donovan also wants the retrieval of an American graduate student stuck in Germany, he must figure out a way to trade one life for two and negotiate with both Soviet and German counterparts. His harrowing journey to East Berlin sets the stage for a risky battle of wits, with the stakes not just the fates of a few men, but perhaps the whole world.
The strength of Bridge of Spies is its focus on individuals. This is a chess match with ubiquitous pawns. With the threat of nuclear war constantly in the background, many Cold War films tend to rely on the potential for action (ticking clocks, missile silos opening, mass paranoia, and the like). But Spielberg deftly reminds us that what often gets lost in the confusion of international politics is the people, the select few that can do both tremendously good and horrible evil things. This film shows that individuals are often symbols for larger causes and larger cultures, and what happens to them in the micro is often what can occur in the macro. By taking the complexities of the Cold War and reducing them to the intimate exchanges between men on both sides of the conflict, we can more easily see the humanity that may prevail or falter, leading to a possible recognition of our own involvement in broader social relations.
Hanks is solid, the ideal everyman as always, but the supporting characters truly stand out here (which is perhaps one of Hanks’s best qualities as an actor). The players on all the three sides—American, Russian, and German—are interesting to watch and hold the screen nicely alongside Hanks. While Spielberg employs many of his consistent methods (lots of his standard pensive close-ups here), it appears that he and his longtime cinematographer Janusz Kamiński have attempted to give the film a 1960s-1970s feel. There are several images and camera movements, as well as musical cues, that elicit the styles of films of that era. There are some heavy-handed moments that seem unnecessary (a confrontation with a cop, fence symbolism as children play, and an oddly placed Pledge of Allegiance are just a few), and a window lighting effect that strangely mutes many of the scenes in a distracting haze. But Spielberg is Spielberg, and he’s earned the right to do what he wants.
Though Bridge of Spies occurs during one of the most fearful times in American history, its premise echoes many of the controversies still existing today. Immigration, court trials for non-citizens or enemy combatants, national security policy, the death penalty, and other issues are examined here, and though many of the participants may have changed with time, the film effectively raises questions applicable to twenty-first-century America.
This is a film that espouses big messages and, for the most part, it succeeds in demonstrating them. However, there are elements that seem to subvert, or at least soften, those positions. Donovan repeatedly says that “every life matters,” even that of an accused foreign criminal (a rather timely axiom by which many today don’t appear to abide). But while Donovan does make a brief reference to the humanitarian implications of his statements, he ultimately believes in saving every life because of that life’s value to be exchanged for a life more valuable. Though Donovan connects on a personal level with Abel, the foreign agent is still a danger to America and must be traded away. This is obviously understandable and necessary, but one has to wonder if treating humans as baseball cards is indicative of truly humanitarian beliefs.
The fact that Abel is a sweet senior citizen who faithfully complies with his captors and would seemingly rather paint a picture of a fly rather than hurt one, while likely historically accurate in this specific case, is a risky representation of those attempting to damage America. To assume that spies, terrorists, or other agents are simply meek men who offer folksy insights and will become our friends if we just give them a chance might give some viewers a dangerously inaccurate portrayal of international conflict.
Donovan also claims that offering a non-citizen and a criminal a fair trial and not sentencing him to death is an opportunity to demonstrate America’s values to the world, that we are different, better. However, an ominous undercurrent that winds through the second half of the film is that even if Abel is successfully exchanged, his Soviet bosses may execute him anyway for mere suspicion that he might have given away national secrets. This is an important point: Donovan wants to demonstrate American values to countries that are willing to shoot their own citizens just in case they revealed any information. Though America is not perfect, and no one has claimed that it is, we must ultimately be cognizant of whether cultures who believe in such barbarism can ever be convinced of our humanitarian, democratic, and legal values.
Bridge of Spies is a solid film despite some of the inconsistencies above. The first hour is a bit sluggish, but once the effort to exchange prisoners gets rolling at the halfway point, it’s a great ride. Though we know the outcome, it maintains suspense and is overall a well-crafted narrative. For a truly unique look at Cold War politics, Bridge of Spies is worth checking out.
Grade: B+
The latest effort from director Steven Spielberg tells the story of Rudolph Abel (an excellent Mark Rylance), a Soviet spy living in America who is arrested for espionage in 1957. He is assigned Jim Donovan as counsel (Tom Hanks), an insurance lawyer from Brooklyn who is told to offer his best defense for his client, but that it would be best for national security—and national image—if he loses. Lose he does, but the challenge becomes what to do with Abel. While the country calls for his death, Donovan believes that keeping him alive in case an American spy is ever caught in a similar situation may be the best option. His prescience is fulfilled in the man of Francis Gary Powers, an American pilot whose plane is shot down over the USSR while taking secret photographs. Donovan is given the task of getting Powers returned home by using Abel for the trade. However, when Donovan also wants the retrieval of an American graduate student stuck in Germany, he must figure out a way to trade one life for two and negotiate with both Soviet and German counterparts. His harrowing journey to East Berlin sets the stage for a risky battle of wits, with the stakes not just the fates of a few men, but perhaps the whole world.
The strength of Bridge of Spies is its focus on individuals. This is a chess match with ubiquitous pawns. With the threat of nuclear war constantly in the background, many Cold War films tend to rely on the potential for action (ticking clocks, missile silos opening, mass paranoia, and the like). But Spielberg deftly reminds us that what often gets lost in the confusion of international politics is the people, the select few that can do both tremendously good and horrible evil things. This film shows that individuals are often symbols for larger causes and larger cultures, and what happens to them in the micro is often what can occur in the macro. By taking the complexities of the Cold War and reducing them to the intimate exchanges between men on both sides of the conflict, we can more easily see the humanity that may prevail or falter, leading to a possible recognition of our own involvement in broader social relations.
Hanks is solid, the ideal everyman as always, but the supporting characters truly stand out here (which is perhaps one of Hanks’s best qualities as an actor). The players on all the three sides—American, Russian, and German—are interesting to watch and hold the screen nicely alongside Hanks. While Spielberg employs many of his consistent methods (lots of his standard pensive close-ups here), it appears that he and his longtime cinematographer Janusz Kamiński have attempted to give the film a 1960s-1970s feel. There are several images and camera movements, as well as musical cues, that elicit the styles of films of that era. There are some heavy-handed moments that seem unnecessary (a confrontation with a cop, fence symbolism as children play, and an oddly placed Pledge of Allegiance are just a few), and a window lighting effect that strangely mutes many of the scenes in a distracting haze. But Spielberg is Spielberg, and he’s earned the right to do what he wants.
Though Bridge of Spies occurs during one of the most fearful times in American history, its premise echoes many of the controversies still existing today. Immigration, court trials for non-citizens or enemy combatants, national security policy, the death penalty, and other issues are examined here, and though many of the participants may have changed with time, the film effectively raises questions applicable to twenty-first-century America.
This is a film that espouses big messages and, for the most part, it succeeds in demonstrating them. However, there are elements that seem to subvert, or at least soften, those positions. Donovan repeatedly says that “every life matters,” even that of an accused foreign criminal (a rather timely axiom by which many today don’t appear to abide). But while Donovan does make a brief reference to the humanitarian implications of his statements, he ultimately believes in saving every life because of that life’s value to be exchanged for a life more valuable. Though Donovan connects on a personal level with Abel, the foreign agent is still a danger to America and must be traded away. This is obviously understandable and necessary, but one has to wonder if treating humans as baseball cards is indicative of truly humanitarian beliefs.
The fact that Abel is a sweet senior citizen who faithfully complies with his captors and would seemingly rather paint a picture of a fly rather than hurt one, while likely historically accurate in this specific case, is a risky representation of those attempting to damage America. To assume that spies, terrorists, or other agents are simply meek men who offer folksy insights and will become our friends if we just give them a chance might give some viewers a dangerously inaccurate portrayal of international conflict.
Donovan also claims that offering a non-citizen and a criminal a fair trial and not sentencing him to death is an opportunity to demonstrate America’s values to the world, that we are different, better. However, an ominous undercurrent that winds through the second half of the film is that even if Abel is successfully exchanged, his Soviet bosses may execute him anyway for mere suspicion that he might have given away national secrets. This is an important point: Donovan wants to demonstrate American values to countries that are willing to shoot their own citizens just in case they revealed any information. Though America is not perfect, and no one has claimed that it is, we must ultimately be cognizant of whether cultures who believe in such barbarism can ever be convinced of our humanitarian, democratic, and legal values.
Bridge of Spies is a solid film despite some of the inconsistencies above. The first hour is a bit sluggish, but once the effort to exchange prisoners gets rolling at the halfway point, it’s a great ride. Though we know the outcome, it maintains suspense and is overall a well-crafted narrative. For a truly unique look at Cold War politics, Bridge of Spies is worth checking out.
Grade: B+