BRIDGE OF SPIES
Added 2022-11-30 22:21:02 +0000 UTCI watched the film the other day. I had heard it was an underrated film from Spielberg. I have to say I agree. It's more straight-forward, more subtle, and more sophisticated from a filmmaking standpoint than what I have seen from him in a long time. But it had a bite to it, a snark, and though it's a film that feels retro in its design, it had some satirical elements that gave it some freshness imo. It's still Spielberg so...of course it's heavy handed at times...especially the ending. For me Spielberg almost always ruins the endings of these historical pieces with schmaltz, and that's unfortunate. But still...I think it's a film worth discussing. Has anyone seen it? What are your thoughts?
Comments
I agree that this is one of Spielberg’s more underappreciated films, but I wouldn’t say it’s one of his best, or even the best film he’s done in the last 10 years (that would be Lincoln). It’s certainly an interesting story well told, which is something we can always count on from Spielberg, but…I don’t know if he’s the right director for this kind of material. This film needs a harder edge to it—more cynicism and ambiguity about the proceedings—and Spielberg is ultimately too much of a warm optimist. He can’t help but let little moments of “inspiration” bubble up to the surface (you can tell they’re coming when the music score starts to swell). He gives Tom Hanks’s Jim Donovan a Capra-esque quality; he may be a big-time Brooklyn lawyer representing insurance companies, but he’s also a secret idealist who believes in America and the Constitution. I find Donovan to be more interesting when he embodies the quality people both value and despise lawyers for having—impartiality—like in his introductory scene where he expertly talks down the opposing counsel regarding a claim his insurance company client failed to pay five people injured in an accident (using brilliant dialogue written by the Coen Brothers, who no doubt supply the snark of which you speak of). It’s arguably Hanks’s best scene (in competition with the scenes where he’s negotiating), and the film would have gone down a more fascinating path if it continued on with the premise of that scene and given Donovan a more mercenary mentality usually found in highly successful lawyers—the amoral, purely logical mindset they have to utilize any line of argument they can to win the case for their clients. There’s an interesting ambiguity in that kind of portrayal. I feel that Spielberg instead lets him off the hook by having him believe in what he’s doing—a crusader for the way of America and its laws. The dark running joke of the film’s second half is that neither nation really cares about the spies they’re trying to get back (they in fact hate them for getting captured). They’re essentially rendered as MacGuffins in what seems like the latest chapter of an ongoing struggle of gamesmanship between the two superpowers, where espionage is the darkest area of play. I suppose that’s the statement the film tries to make about the Cold War, and it’s a potent if not altogether revelatory one. But like I said, there needed to be a harder, more bitter perspective on the story, and Spielberg is not suited to the task. You’re right, he mucks up the ending with too much forced uplift. He overdoes it, as per usual. In a Cold War story of such political and legal intrigue, it’s best there be no room for sentiment (if only the Spielberg of Munich, his least sentimental film, had showed up for this). I can only imagine what the Coen Brothers would’ve done with the material, provided they managed to keep a straight face and not let it turn into Burn After Reading. There could have been a better, more remarkable movie made, rather than this modest accomplishment of Spielberg’s.
Bennett Oliver
2022-12-01 04:52:18 +0000 UTCI like it overall - The plot and scenes between Donovan and Abel kept me super invested. Also, it introduced me to Mark Rylance, and he’s consistently impressed me ever since. But yeah I think you’re right about the ending. He did the something similar to his characters in The Post, deifying these history heroes in a way that for me, makes them less memorable. I do think he was able to hit a nice balance with his characters in Munich, idk why.
Jared Angcanan
2022-11-30 23:10:32 +0000 UTCI missed out on it because I was busy in college but I had a film professor at the time who I very much respected, and still do, who said it was one of the worst films of that year's Oscar lineup but he said that about Brooklyn too which is a film I absolutely love.
Wolfman Brandon
2022-11-30 22:40:36 +0000 UTCI don’t really like it. I remember having a lot of the same problems I do with his historical movies, especially the excess sentiment. But the big thing was that I found it very unevenly paced. Was pretty bored for most of it, like there’s a complete lack of tension or stakes, but I remember there being a plane action set piece that absolutely comes out of nowhere. Rylance was good in it though.
Jackson Littlewood
2022-11-30 22:31:08 +0000 UTC100% agree it’s the best thing he’s done in years and that includes The Fabelmans. I believe it was initially written by the Coen Bros. which can explain some of its sense of humor. Love the opening chase…
Stephen
2022-11-30 22:27:58 +0000 UTCI remember liking it in theaters but haven't had a strong desire to revisit it other than the times i toy with the idea of doing a Spielberg filmography series. It brought Mark Rylance to the forefront of Hollywood which I think is a gift cause I love what he brings to his roles and his screen presents.
Tyler Shobe
2022-11-30 22:25:47 +0000 UTC
