Bridge of Spies (2015)

A new film set in the Cold War era of the 1950's was released a few weeks ago and is apparently a big hit. The plot revolves around James B. Donovan, a simple lawyer who is chosen to defend Colonel Rudolf Abel, a captured Soviet spy, in the midst of an atmosphere of anti-communist hysteria sweeping the US. Later in the movie Mr. Donovan is recruited by CIA to negotiate the release of captured American spies in exchange for Colonel Abel, including U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers who was captured by the Soviets after his spy plane was shot down in Soviet airspace. The tortured tagline of the film sums up the propaganda point to be driven home: "In the shadow of war, one man showed the world what we stand for." What we (the US) stand for is supposedly a just and humane society where everyone, even a communist spy, is entitled to a fair trial. This is set against the supposed tyranny and cruelty of communist states.

However, the version of events presented in this film and the case it attempts to make in favor of an American system of "fair play" can easily be disproved. Many relevant details have been distorted or conveniently left out of the narrative. Also, some facts have been included but presented out of any historical context. Unfortunately, most Americans will passively accept this false narrative without question or without doing any further study of their own. They will accept the movie as being a true recounting of historical events. I could now spend a lot of time discussing every single propaganda element within the film such as the dark and gloomy atmosphere in East Berlin; the scowling faces of the East German border guards; the menacing and hostile demeanor of various communist officials or scenes of torture, but I have decided to take a different approach. I will simply tell the truth of the historical incident that this film is supposedly based on; and I will do it using the memoirs of the two primary American participants in these events - James Donovan and Francis Powers.

Let's start by comparing the details and outcomes of the Abel trial in the US with that of Powers' trial in the Soviet Union. Both spies were caught red-handed and so there could be no doubt as to their guilt in both cases. Therefore, the purpose of the trials should have been simply to gather all the facts available in an effort to come up with a suitable punishment to fit the crime. Below, I have included a table that shows the results of each trial.

Powers (Soviet trial) Abel (US trial) Held Incommunicado 4 weeks 3 weeks Phys. or Psych. Abuse No Yes Max. Poss. Sentence Death (rare cases) Death (very common) Actual Sentence 10 years 30 years

Powers stated in his autobiography, written a decade after his return to the US, that he did not suffer any abuse during his captivity in the Soviet Union. Abel, however, said that during his interrogation he was struck in the face by one of the FBI agents who grew frustrated at his silence and refusal to cooperate.

Powers was told by the Soviets that execution for espionage was rare in the USSR, but Abel was informed that the death penalty was very likely to be his fate. In fact, just a few years prior to Abel's trial in 1957, the Rosenbergs had been sent to the electric chair for stealing atomic secrets for the Soviet Union. Finally, in the sentences that were eventually handed down, Powers received a relatively light 10 years imprisonment while Abel was given 30 years.

The Soviets were accused of subjecting Powers to a &qu

Fmovies: If you expect to see much spying or bridges in this movie you will be sorely disappointed. The plot is about ace lawyer Tom Hanks (his screen name does not really matter, since the movie is just star performance) who is going to prove how good he is, both to the Russians and the East-Germans.

A rather puffy-faced Hanks is in most scenes, playing a smug and arrogant lawyer, who always gets the last word and whatever he wants. His performance as a the lawyer is rather overbearing and even slightly unpleasant, but the public still liked him a lot and laughed at all his one-liners (again, star performance, rather than good plot or script).

The spies or would-be spies featured in the movie are: 1) a sour little man, who speaks with what sounded to me an Irish accents and who was supposed to be funny with his unflappability. He repeats "Would it help if I worry?" countless times, every time getting a laugh 2) a rather dumb American pilot and 3) another sort of heroic American student, getting mixed up with foreign politics, when he'd better stayed at home. They all seem to be just props to give Hanks a chance to shine.

The moral of the story should be that all countries should be better off minding their own business. However, this sound unrealistic, so the moral is that American heroes (especially Tom Hanks) always save the day. Mind the overbearing soundtrack that seems to come straight out "Saving private Ryan"

I am biased in my review of BRIDGE OF SPIES. The Cold War is my thing, always has been my thing. I am dazzled by that time in history: surveillance, the cars, CIA, Eisenhower, and the mystique of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

From the trailer of this film, I expected a delicious plate of Cold War atmosphere, intrigue, and commentary. Like a gleeful child, I sprinted to the movie theatre – expecting a non-pretentious high octane version of Mad Men. I anticipated my favorite era in history being served up like LET ME IN (a piece of 1980s period perfection elegantly directed by Matt Reeves).

I held close the trailer as I landed my perfect middle seat in the theatre. The clips of a U2 Surveillance jet spiraling at 70,000 feet, children overflowing in tears as they watch a thermonuclear film strip, and Tom Hanks' face plastered to a subway window as we see guards firing at bystanders trying to climb over the Berlin Wall.

Then you add Steven Spielberg to the mix – the master of the period piece – modern cinema - the evoker of our deepest emotions. One of my favorite Spielberg films is Munich. Munich captures the violence of the Middle East 70s with revere, respect, and revelation. This is what I wanted from Bridge Of Spies. I wanted a dark, harrowing portrait of the Cold War, I wanted this tense era exposed in Spielbergian fashion, and I wanted to have 1957-1961 ruminating in my heart, mind, and belly. Bridge of Spies, however, met none of my desired expectations.

Diluted by a PG-13 rating, filled with comedic moments (clearly due to the Coen Brothers having written or participated in this script) that don't tickle my fancy, and an avoidance of Cold War atmosphere – Bridge Of Spies hit me like a tennis ball on the head.

It's taught, adequately plotted, and the hero is smart, likable, and witty. It's garnered rave reviews. But, for anyone that likes substance, don't look here. Spielberg's story is a moral tale – of courage and standing up for one's ideals – the universal plot which Steven devours like a hungry child.

Unfortunately, there's no stakes. Hanks follows his journey and does what he does best – but his universe is given little context. You'll want turkey and you'll get turkey – but you're not getting any gravy.

**Possible Spoilers – Things that bugged me about the film was plethora of wasted opportunities. When you have Spielberg at the helm, you know what could have been –

1. The relationship between the Lawyer (Hanks) and the Soviet Captive (Mark Rylance) is an unbalanced paper weight. We get a glimpse into the Lawyer's character, the archetypal Tom Hanks - fair, honest, moral, etc. We get very little info on the Captive. He is quiet, dignified, and keeps responding to Hanks wondering if he is aware of his dire situation, "Would it help?" Rylance is the typical Spielbergian "caught in the middle guy" – much like Ben Kingsley in Schindler's List. Physically weak, trapped and powerless - yet stoic and unafraid. That being said, what are his motives? He is a spy but what drives him – where is the monologue where he explains his background, what formed and shaped him and what forms the basis of his lifelong goals?

2. What I love about Mad Men is its strong focus on the media and culture of the era. Except for the end of Bridge of Spies (where we get a clip of Pierre Salinger informing the news of the spy swap) and an early scene of a teenage girl watching a

Bridge of Spies fmovies. One of the surprising things about Bridge of Spies is not really that Steven Spielberg directed this story, which tracks the trial and then trade of a Russian spy in 1957 (an exchange for an American pilot, and someone else who I'll get to shortly). It's the kind of material that would attract Spielberg, especially with the hero of the story, Jim Donovan (Tom Hanks), who comes into a situation he shouldn't be involved with but not only can pull off talking and reasoning with people and finding the better side of a situation or person's nature. What's surprising in a way is the involvement of the Coen brothers with the script.

It's hard to say if Matt Charman was the primary writer (someone I'm not familiar with, not least on the level of his co-writers) and if the brothers came in on a polish. But watching the movie, it does make more sense - certainly more than Unbroken, which barely has their touch - since it carries a lot of dry wit in the exchanges between characters, in particular the opposing attitudes of people in this 'period' setting. Hanks' Donovan is a straight-shooting guy who believes in the constitution of the United States and wants to do right, legally speaking, by his client Rudolf (Mark Rylance in a fine, subtle supporting role), and doesn't really care per-say what he's done or didn't do. This doesn't fly well in a society that is overrun with Red-Scare fever and end up doing the worst of things when in total fear of things (i.e. the A-bomb, which gets a kind of cameo in the film in a way that Spielberg I'm sure has a personal connection with, being a child of the 50's, but I digress).

The Coens I think brought a sense of realism to things, but also stylization; the way characters talk at times there's a lot of things where people try to figure the other person out, which is fascinating to watch. When Donovan arrives at the first part of the mission he's given in the second part of the film, to do this exchange of the Russian for an American pilot caught by the enemy, he goes to the Russians and doesn't talk to the lawyer (who he thought to talk to) but some other official. Spielberg covers this expertly, going in on Hanks and the other actor at just the right moments to emphasize things getting tenser - another young American, a student caught up in the mix of things (it IS East Berlin, after all) - but the script dictates a lot of the momentum here. And at the same time the Coens aren't necessarily making it 'Coens-y', in a manner of speaking; they serve their filmmaker extremely well, giving a light air to a good number of scenes in a way that keeps the tension and suspense in a good balance.

In a way it's interesting to get this so soon after The Martian, also in theaters: two films about perilous situations and men caught in a struggle to survive, and two stories that benefit from some levity. Between the two though, Bridge of Spies is the more serious affair, and certainly Spielberg has a lot thematically on his plate. The story takes place during the Cold War time, but it's really a war-war (so to speak, sorry, couldn't find another way to put it), only with terse words and missions via the CIA instead of men on a battlefield. At the same time I feel like the message can, and probably will, resonate today; Spielberg knows that we're in times where it can be dubious whether people are put on trial and given proper legal counsel if they're suspected 'others' or combatant

Well deserving of the awards it earned, Mark Rylance and Tom Hanks are outstanding! Very good spy/espionage film! It's fascinating learning from a special feature that Steven said he was a young kid during a war and he too filled his bath like the kid in the movie. I don't have much to say except this is genuine acting perfection and the war and flying bits were minor which is nice.

I am a Cold War child, born in a country which did have common borders with a Warsaw Pact member but was never a target of thermonuclear destruction. I was still at primary school when I came across a couple of serialized excerpts from Powers' memoir. He really caught my imagination. I saw "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" and "Across the Bridge" (with Rod Steiger), films in which the bridge is both the passage and the frontier, a no-man's land in which destinies can be decided in a split second of hesitation or bad luck.

Bridge of Spies was a great disappointment. Cars and costumes were fine but the spirit and the people of the era was absent. I don't understand why, when I think of "Munich" or "Schindler's List", when there are so many novels to consult for the atmosphere and so many memoirs to consult for the facts. Why was Powers pictured with such unkind shallowness? Why were CIA men and DDR functionaries such caricatures? No matter how great Mark Rylance was, where was the motivation and the ideology of the Soviet spy? Where were the political leaders of the two superpowers? How did the little lawyer from the Bronx become such a cool operative behind the lines, from one day to the other, without experiencing any fear or trepidation?

There is nothing wrong with high morals or nostalgia in cinema but when a film tries to portray an episode from a complex political and ideological conflict serving only these ingredients, then I can only be disappointed at the waste of means and opportunities. Pity.