Bridge of Spies may look like a film about spycraft and doublespeak (yes, I like those. A lot.), but it really isn’t. Rather, it’s a Spielberg film with a good old helping of American decency, provided by none other than Tom Hanks, The Film Embodiment of American Morals. The film takes the latter-day Spielberg obsession with historical events, makes some commentary on modern events as a result, and then makes an entirely riveting take on a well-worn genre. I find it hard to resist such a thing, and so I didn’t, and I enjoyed myself. Bridge of Spies almost throws back to an earlier time in films where dialogue and characters actually mattered, and you needed a script (rather than excessive branding) that provided empathy for two different sides of an impossibly hidden war.
So, the premise! After the 1960 U-2 Incident, in which an American spy plane was shot down over Russian territory, a pilot named Francis Gary Powers was captured by the Soviet Union. James B. Donovan, an insurance lawyer, is asked to negotiate for his release in East Germany just as the Berlin Wall was erected. However, that’s not where the film starts; instead, it begins a few years earlier, when Donovan is asked to defend suspected Russian spy Rudolf Abel, who may/may not be a Soviet KGB spy. Rather than simply provide a defense and obtain a guilty verdict, Donovan wants to defend the man, give him the rights of any United States citizen. This naturally angers just about everybody around him, and he inevitably loses.
However, that’s not before figuring out how to keep Abel alive via the possibility of a “trade” between Russian and the Americans should a hostage situation arise. Then, we find ourselves in the thick of negotiations for Powers and an economics student named Richard Pryor who found himself at the wrong place and time. This isn’t part of Donovan’s job for the CIA, but gosh darnit is he ever going to get every American he can out of the deal, because he is American Morals Embodied (I say this endearingly, and not with a hint of cynicism). Of course, you could probably look this up on Wikipedia or something, if you’re simply interested in the history of it. Bridge of Spies takes minor liberties to spice things up a bit, but nothing that should disturb anyone too much.
All of this sounds enormously complicated, but it doesn’t come off this way at all. The film takes its times over two hours to establish the world, the time period, the characters (you meet Donovan and Abel quite early), and the plot in a way that’s easily digestible and exciting. The concern of Spielberg definitely lies in the grays of the Cold War than in a simple black-and-white tale. I would say that, while Bridge of Spies definitely wants to communicate the harsh contrast between America and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it isn’t all lopsided; Abel, played magnificently by Mark Rylance (who doesn’t appear in films very often), often seems more honorable than the Americans who want him convicted and killed for being a Russian spy. Likewise, the CIA’s concerns seem almost identical to the Soviets in so many ways, especially with their seeming refusal to also rescue Richard Pryor. Nothing’s all that simple, other than Donovan wanting to remain a decent guy (in this case, a follower of the Constitution’s rule of law), both after his reputation’s sullied by defending Abel in court, and after he successfully negotiates the hostage exchange for both men (spoiler for stuff that happened fifty years ago, oh no!).
But, it doesn’t do this in a heavy-handed way. Calling it a “drama-thriller” seems a bit much, all things considered. Bridge of Spies contains a sense of levity to the proceedings which would seem out of place, but nevertheless gives the film a unique tone. I’m not even sure whether Spielberg intended for so much dry wit to come through on screen; while Tom Hanks comes from a comedic background, some of his lines really just nail you right in the funny bone. I attribute this quirky, understated dry wit to the Coen Brothers, who (apparently) wrote the script along with one other collaborator. Why did they write this one in particular? I’m honestly not sure, but I’m not complaining. Think of it as a more accessible version of the weird humor found in their films (just thinking of their remake of True Grit makes me laugh, just for example).
So, Bridge of Spies contains a lot of ideas and disparate element that come together in distinctly Spielbergian form. Whether or not that’s your cup of tea, Bridge of Spies will definitely entertain you for the entirety of its run time and give you something to think about in a non-judgmental fashion – that, I think, speaks to Spielberg’s skill as a director even in the year 2015 that it engages you even as a film of almost entirely dialogue in rooms with men in suits. The key word is “entertaining”; it’s just nice to watch a film and have the entirety of its plot wrap up in under three hours or so with no further monetary investment, isn’t it?
