Steven Spielberg give us two movies and a rebuke for the price of one.
By Josh Lasser
Steven Spielberg is no stranger to period stories, nor to asking the audience to think about an event. With Bridge of Spies he is at it again, but rather than giving us just one film, he gives us two, first a courtroom tale and then a spy drama. However, neither of them is great because there simply isn’t enough time to given to either one.
Starting in 1957, Bridge of Spies features Tom Hanks as lawyer James B. Donovan. In the first portion of the movie, Donovan is tasked with the thankless job of defending suspected spy, Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance). Then, in the second portion of the movie, Donovan must go to Germany to try to swap Abel for a downed American pilot, Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), who is being held by the Russians.
While these two distinct acts are tied together via the characters, the look of the movie, and the quality of the acting, they are very much different pieces. Importantly, there is one other thing that they share – a sense of disdain, or perhaps disappointment, for how America and Americans view the world and our own ideals. This last thing is actually the most fascinating part of the entire affair.
We want to hear it.
Initially, Donovan is concerned about taking the case of Abel – he’s an insurance lawyer and he doesn’t want his firm to suffer for defending a spy. However, he is easily convinced that it is the right thing to do and the audience is reminded about our nation’s promise that everyone deserves a fair trial. As Donovan soon learns though, no one wants Abel to have a fair trial, not the judge, not the prosecutor, and not the public. They all want to see Abel in jail and are willing to do whatever it takes, even if it isn’t legal, to make that happen. Abel is railroaded and try as Donovan might, he can’t stop it.
Played by lovable everyman Hanks, Donovan is the guy we all hope we can be in such situations. He is the one who is defending the ideals of our nation and the words in the Constitution, the one who is not willing to sacrifice either of those things simply because someone looks guilty or may threaten our security. However, Spielberg holds up the other side — the side that says Abel deserves to go to jail and because he might be an enemy of our country doesn’t deserve any protections — as the one most of us tend to take. As the trial is swift and the conclusion foregone, it isn’t particularly interesting, but the rebuke sent out in it is powerful.
In the second portion of the film, rather than facing the U.S. public once more, Donovan has to weave his way through the interests of the U.S., East German, and Soviet governments. Each wants something different – the U.S. wants a pilot back before he can divulge secrets, the Soviets want their spy back before he can divulge secrets, and the East Germans want to give up a U.S. student they captured just so they can have a seat at the table. Only Donovan—the idealist—wants the right thing. Here, in this part of the movie, the U.S. is shown as absolutely no better than either of the foreign governments. It is subtext made overt when, after spending the night in an East German prison, Donovan tells his CIA contact that it wasn’t much worse than where the U.S. has him staying in West Berlin.
We want to hear it.
By having these two very separate portions of the film exist side-by-side in a single piece, what Bridge of Spies is unable to do is offer enough complications for Donovan in either one. It is clear from the moment he starts the trial that Donovan is going to lose, so there’s no suspense there. Then, in Germany, while Donovan may not know where he’s going once he gets to the East and may find himself in trouble with various authorities, there is never the sense that he is going to fail. Just as the trial’s conclusion is clear, so too is the prisoner swap, it doesn’t even appear that difficult to engineer, and again we are left without much tension.
Hanks, as always, is enjoyable, as is the rest of the cast (particularly Rylance), but Donovan isn’t shown as a deep character, just a moralistic one. Somehow, Hanks can get away with offering lofty principles without sounding overly grandiose and that certainly improves the film. Still, it would be better if Donovan’s problems in Germany went further than a night in jail and a sniffly nose and if his troubles back home, mainly dealing with the safety of his family and career, were dealt with at all.
On the technical side of things, while some of Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography in the film is beautiful, with close-ups of Abel’s spy work making the audience feel as though we are intricately involved in the activity, other moments work less well. Again on display is Kaminski’s extensive use of backlighting which too often eliminates our ability to see a face and get a feeling. These shots may be beautiful, but they distract from the storytelling rather than adding to it.
While Bridge of Spies may take place decades ago, during the height of the Cold War, the message Spielberg is offering about today is quite clear. He warns us that we are trading our principles for perceived security, that we are regularly happy to give up our ideals. It is a powerful rebuke, one that is more powerful than the film from which it emanates. Hanks and the cast are enjoyable, but having two separate stories prevents satisfactory depth on either one.
