While watching Bridge of Spies I couldn’t help but think I was in some kind of time loop that had taken me back to 1963. It felt like I was at the Ritz Theater in Winter Haven, Fla., on a Sunday outing with my parents. All it needed was to be followed by being taken to Morrison’s Cafeteria for dinner and then to Rexall Drugs to buy a magazine. Yes, Spielberg’s latest — an F-bomb to one side — really is that old-fashioned. Some will see that as a plus, and while I understand this, I can’t really view it that way. While I can appreciate the basic idea of what could be called a “classical” approach — at least in theory — the results remind me of all the things I disliked about so much of late 1950s and early 1960s filmmaking. It’s too long, too inclined to speechify, too filled with straw-man adversaries, too sold on its own importance — and inclined to be dull. And, since this is Spielberg in full ersatz Frank Capra mode, Bridge brims with corny touches and faux naïveté.
I am not saying that Bridge of Spies is a bad movie. It’s very well-made as concerns production values. There are even some nice stylistic flourishes — usually at scene changes — but I’m not convinced they’re a lot more than window dressing. I don’t even mind that the film plays fast and loose with the James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) character, though I question the need to remake Donovan in James Stewart’s image of the naif American — even if Hanks is the Stewart of our time, but in liberal terms. This is, after all, a movie and not a history lesson, though I’d feel better about that if it didn’t feel like a lesson — and one with a very poorly defined timeline. So much is mashed together that it comes across as taking place in a relatively short time, rather than the five years it spans.
The fact-based story starts with Soviet agent Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance, who is the best thing about the movie) being arrested as a spy (there’s no mystery concerning his culpability) and insurance lawyer Donovan being tapped by the government to defend him — or, as the film has it, to put up a show of defending him for PR purposes. This last is probably fiction, but it sets the stage for the Spielbergian David-and-Goliath aspects of it all, since it allows Donovan to be the little guy who sticks to his beliefs and does the right thing against all odds and everyone else’s opinions. In other words, this is feel-good history — you know, the kind that baits Oscar.
The way it all plays out is too complicated to detail here, especially since Francis Gary Powers’ (Austin Stowell) U2 spying incident — along with another plot aspect — has to be factored in. Suffice it to safely say (the trailer does) that it all ends up with a spy swap between the U.S. and the USSR (and the German Democratic Republic) on the bridge of the title. And then we get a series of uplifting post-ending scenes that are startling in their literal-mindedness and high school-level symbolism — not to mention suffering from Return of the King-itis.
There’s no denying that Bridge of Spies carefully crafts a persuasive picture of its era. It hits all the right notes by sketching in anti-communist fever, fear of nuclear war, meat loaf, hair-rollers, ugly TV sets with 77 Sunset Strip playing on them, offering at least a veneer of the period. (That it might be a little free with coiled phone cords in 1957, and that the phrase “That would be me” was hardly common coin at the time, may be let slide.) It undeniably feels solid in broad strokes. Whether it’s real history or just the movie version to one side, it’s all that Capra-esque corniness that keeps me at arm’s length, though I find it kind of ironic that the film ends at almost the exact moment that Capra decided to call it a day as a filmmaker. Rated PG-13 for some violence and brief strong language.
This isnt top ten material but I really enjoyed it mostly because Im a sucker for anything Cold War. This pales in comparison to films like TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY but its entertaining and a well made “high school text book” political film. ( I like that term Ken)
Another amazing performance by Tom Hanks but we expected that. The real shine here comes from Mark Rylance, a great contender for best supporting Oscar.
When in comes to tension in East Germany, there is only one man to send…. Nick Rivers.
Another amazing performance by Tom Hanks but we expected that.
No, we didn’t. And neither were we amazed,
“The fact-based story starts with Soviet agent Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance, who is the best thing about the movie) being arrested as a spy.”
He was brilliant and though I appreciate Tom Hanks probably more than you do, Rylance very early on became the star of the film for me.
The movie was slugglish, like the moment after a train leaves the station and it is revving up for the journey speed. But it kept feeling like it never picked up much speed. It felt tired. It just all felt too safe, too polished.
Editing would have helped if they could have whittled down the length a bit.
They could have left out all of the backstory to the U2 incident for starters.
It is a recherche fact of the world of today’s Leftists and Progressives that the United States of the 50’s is not to be praised. It was, to them, a time of “ossification” (to borrow a word Hanke uses). The negative commentary by this critic and some others which follow tends to focus on pace and a lack of editing of the parts that made the movie lengthy. Hanke nominates the background on the spy plane, and that’s fair. It might be also noted that this complaint could be the proverbial “sign of the times” of a world that is, in most things, manic or borderline so (watch cable TV and listen to the voices, the sheer volume, the rudeness of repeated interruptions of people who speak at breakneck speed to get in a half of a sentence before being interrupted by some other loudmouth on the “panel”). Oh, and yes, this will be considered one of the ten best of the year, just as fair minds will continue to value Eisenhower as one of the ten best presidents we’ve had.
Compare the pace of this impression of the Cold War and the pace of Billy Wilder’s Cold War comedy One Two, Three, which was actually made in the era (and for which we see a marquee in this), and get back to me on the manic state of “modern times.”
” It might be also noted that this complaint could be the proverbial “sign of the times” of a world that is, in most things, manic or borderline so (watch cable TV and listen to the voices, the sheer volume, the rudeness of repeated interruptions of people who speak at breakneck speed to get in a half of a sentence before being interrupted by some other loudmouth on the “panel”)”
The fact that I don’t agree with you about this movie is a sign of my cable TV watching, etc…Please don’t try to diagnose my lack of ardor for this film with any aspect of what you imagine might be a sign of the times we are living in. I have watched films that stretched on for longer than this and did not notice the time at all. I have sat through 3 hour plays written by Shakespeare and never twitched a muscle.
I didn’t love the film. I thought it was overly long and way too anesthetized. And I have an admirable attention span.
I didn’t try to analyze anything about you or your opinions in writing my response to Hanke’s review. Along with your “admirable attention span”you strike me as being rather strident, and, to me , that’s a quality in a person to be avoided. If you disagree with me about the pace of the culture we live in, fine. I’m sorry (for you) that the movie wasn’t short enough to give you an extra hour for your texting and tweeting.
I am pretty sure we don’t agree on much. Best not to go there. I responded to your assessment that any response to this movie that isn’t admiration indicates something about the person or culture of the day.
I find your comments offensive. My mistake was attempting to respond to such a person.
you strike me as being rather strident
This from a man who seems to be spend his life putting those he disagrees with “in their place”? Seriously?