It’s amazing how after five decades of directing, Steven Spielberg can still create great entertainment. Perhaps even more amazing is how he can take an obscure Cold War incident—which could likely be found as a passing history lesson students sleep through—and turn it into an engaging blockbuster drama. Such talent is a gift which truly keeps giving, with Bridge of Spies another success in Spielberg’s quest (alongside some witty dialogue by the Coen Brothers) to make history entertaining AND informative for everyone.
The plot follows specialized insurance lawyer James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks), asked to defend recently captured KGB spy Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance) as a means of showing Abel receiving a fair democratic trial (in opposition to the Soviet Union’s kangaroo courts). Donovan reluctantly accepts, expectedly becoming “America’s second most detestable man” for defending the first. Donovan does his job with absolute efficiency, reducing Abel’s guilty sentence from death to 30 years in prison on grounds he be needed as a bargaining chip if an American spy get captures. Donovan’s prediction pays off when U.S. pilot Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell) is captured taking pictures over Soviet territory. Donovan (thanks to his clever prediction) is asked by the CIA to negotiate a trade-off since he represents non-government. Donovan accepts and is flown to East Berlin to handle, with minimal U.S. support, the increasingly problematic task.
Solid acting is needed for Bridge of Spies’ plot to succeed, and what better actor to secure such factor than Tom Hanks. I expect Tom Hanks to deliver top-notch performances, so his acting in Bridge of Spies isn’t very surprising. Who does surprise is actor Mark Rylance, who I mistook as Richard Jenkins at first (the actors look remarkably similar). Rylance is no one new to showbiz (he’s been around since the 80s), yet this is the first time I’ve seen him in film—his performance being quite notable. I love films which give perspective from the “villain” lawyer’s side (i.e. Reversal of Fortune), and Hanks and Rylance (together with some very helpful assistance by Spielberg and the Coen Brothers) do an effective job portraying America’s “most detestable” in an entirely appealing light.
Hank’s character is a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington sort—someone who wholly believes in the American system and is willing to defend a KGB spy to uphold such declaration. Unlike Mr. Smith however, Donovan is shrewd and harsh towards his adversaries. When CIA Agent Hoffman demands any confidential information regarding Abel (which Donovan hasn’t been told nor asked about)—arguing America’s safety is worth breaking the confidentiality code—Donovan replies how he’s Irish and Hoffman’s German, yet what connects them as Americans is “the rule book called the Constitution” which distinguishes them from Soviet Russia. Donovan emphasizes if they were to disregard such connection whenever it was convenient, they’d be disregarding exactly what makes them American—“So don’t tell me there’s no rule book, and don’t smile and nod at me you son of a b!@ch”, wiping the idle grin off Hoffman’s face.
Naturally Donovan’s patriotism makes defending a KGB spy personally difficult, with their initial meeting being tense and overly formal—yet the scene soon defuses thanks to some classic Spielberg humor: “Have you represented any foreign spies before?” Abel somewhat sarcastically inquires, “Hmm…no I haven’t.” Donovan states after humorously pretending to ponder the question. Abel is an unusually calm individual, yet also a charming gentleman—acting very polite to Donovan and his captors. A running gag involves Donovan asking Abel if he’s worried, to which the ever-composed man replies, “Would it help?” It’s Rylance’s performance which makes Abel instantly likeable, yet it’s the chemistry between Hanks which makes him (as well as Donovan) downright endearing.
The film wisely progresses the duo’s bond at a reasonable pace; at first Donovan only wants to give Abel a fair trial, but soon goes further than needed—asking for a reverse appeal (which he gets) from the U.S. Supreme Court. Donovan’s persistence puts him and his family in a dangerous position, to the point where there’s a shooting at their house (barely missing his daughter). Abel warns Donovan not to defend him too heavily, yet Donovan perseveres—to the point where Abel calls him “the standing man”, after a Russian he knew who refused to be knocked down. By the film’s last third a friendship between lawyer and criminal is clear as day, with Donovan concerned over how the Soviets will treat Abel once he’s returned (constantly enforcing to the Russian negotiator how Abel’s been a loyal soldier), and Abel painting Donovan a well-made portrait as a gift for his labors. This is fascinating material particularly from an American-made film—to take a KGB Soviet spy and portray him in a thoroughly humane light. And while I question the historical accuracy regarding the duo’s bond (the sources were apparently from Donovan’s memoirs), from a storytelling perspective it works satisfyingly.
I do have several nitpicks in regards to Bridge of Spies. For one the run-time is a bit too long for its own good—with certain subplots (while necessary for exposition) feeling underwhelming and jarring with the main story, while other aspects feel forced in to add unnecessary tension to an already exciting film. The CIA agents feel somewhat clichéd, having a “Die Hard higher ups are foolish” situation where it’s Donovan who knows best (being wise and compassionate) while the CIA agents (particularly Agent Hoffman) are remarkably ignorant and tasteless. Admittedly my love for historical accuracy makes it difficult to fully enjoy historical fiction which recreates the past (you may be surprised to know there was no actual shooting at Donovan’s house, nor were people so against giving Abel a fair trial). Yet the great thing about Spielberg is he rarely strays far from the truth—keeping the main facts in tact while simultaneously creating great entertainment. It’s such effective entertainment that intrigues viewers to look up the film’s events—whether over historical accuracy or a new found interest in the subject. Bridge of Spies’ is still a fairly accurate representation of the 1960 U-2 incident, as well as a great drama which entertains and fascinates those in a forgotten historical event.
