Skip to main content

Have you represented many accused spies?

Bridge of Spies
(2015)

(SPOILERS) I’ve grown rather used to solid rather than spectacular Steven Spielberg fare of late, the consequence of a consummate craftsman who can never quite resist the urge to impress base sentiment on material that needs less, not more, of his predilections. As such, Bridge of Spies is a near miss, frequently gripping and engrossing but resistant to a chillier, more distanced approach that might have benefited its fact-based, Cold War setting.


The director’s last unqualified successes came with back-to-back 2002 pictures Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can. Since then he has made several movies (notably the also fact-based Munich and Lincoln) in which he grasped at intellectual rigour and emotional depth that eluded his essentially populist ethic. Spielberg isn’t one who generally plays to his strengths when in at the deep end, out of his comfort zone, since it draws attention both to what he’s good at (manipulative audience button-pushing, but now in a context where it looks cheap and cynical) and what he isn’t (interrogating a serious subject without succumbing to his more maudlin instincts).


You can see this at work in Bridge of Spies, the story of James B Donovan’s defence of Soviet Spy Rudolf Abel and the former’s subsequent negotiation of the latter’s exchange for US spy plane pilot Gary Powers. It takes effect in the easy iconography of casting all-American Tom Hanks as Donovan, being that Donovan is an exemplar of what America should be (in spite of practising insurance law); “Every person matters”. While Donovan’s cautious about taking on Abel’s case, since it is basically seen as a done deal and strictly for show purposes (being that America gives everyone, no matter who they are and what they have done, a right to a fair trial). Donovan takes the government at their word, though, and in so doing clashes with a partial judge who scoffs at his every request and a CIA contact who has zero patience for attorney-client privilege if it prevents him getting the lowdown on anything Abel may have spilled to Donovan.


There are echoes of the up-against-it Jim Garrison of Oliver Stone’s JFK in Donovan (albeit Hanks embodies dignified reserve while Costner becomes tearfully impassioned), particularly when his wife (Amy Ryan) expresses concerns over pursuing his client’s case to his utmost; it’s an honourable man’s sense of right versus a husband’s perceived duty to protect his family. We also see Donovan’s shrewd legal mind, in a very unaffected Jimmy Stewart manner, as he ensures the death penalty is avoided through pointing out Abel’s potential worth as a bargaining chip should an American be captured (and wouldn’t you know it…)


Even then, Donovan doesn’t let matters lie, appealing the now convicted Abel’s case as due process wasn’t followed for the arrest. People give him dirty looks on trains, and when shots are fired into his living room (a bit of creative licence there, but this is a fictional drama) an officer at the scene admonishes him for his unpatriotic behaviour. While casting Hanks is obvious, it’s also a smart move, as Spielberg, in his stubby, sausage fingered manner, means to point out contemporary actions and attitudes, not just those of 50-plus years ago (conversely, the picture could be said to be signalling that current fast-and-loose, or flagrantly illegal, policies are nothing new).  Donovan upholds the rule book, the American Constitution, even (or especially) when it doesn’t suit the powers that be, or the people, a move as unpopular as speaking out over the infringement of civil liberties, be it surveillance, extraordinary rendition or illegal invasions. This is Hanks in unblinking paragon mode, where the principle is the thing, and pretty much everyone but his client falls short of that ideal.


For, while Hanks is the star of the picture, it’s very lucky for him that Mark Rylance is barely in the third act, so effortlessly scene-stealing is Abel. Rylance’s transition to TV and movies in the last three or four years has yielded notable dividends with first Wolf Hall and now this (and The BFG to come). He’s an immensely gifted stage actor who can make even sometimes too-cute dialogue work (Abel’s “Would it help?” response to Donovan querying if he is scared/nervous is delivered three times, which is at least one too many).


“Colonel” Abel’s unflappable calm and unswerving dedication to his cause (he never even admits to being a spy) is, in Spielberg’s eyes, just as impressive as Donovan’s standing by his man. There’s a lovely little bit of superior spy nous as Abel is arrested (in reality, he was shopped by his also-spy assistant) and he casually requests to clean up his paints (if the picture is accurate, Abel was an outstanding artist, as well as a prolific smoker), in so doing engineering the disposal of the incriminating message he has just received; it’s entirely understandable that Donovan should warm so to this unassuming, diligent and dutiful fellow.


Which makes it the more disappointing that Spielberg (or the Coen Brothers, indulging him with their polish of Matt Charman’s screenplay) can’t resist the urge to over-egg. We really don’t need Abel testifying to Donovan’s heroism, and positioning our Soviet spy as promulgator of the protagonist’s stature is rather leading us by the nose (and so an entirely Spielberg thing to do). He does it twice, first warning Donovan of the danger he may be putting himself in by pursuing the defence as far as he can (a scene or two later the Donovan living room is strafed with bullets) and then at the climax worshipping at Donovan’s altar when the latter apologises for not being able to offer in kind for Abel’s gift; “This your gift” replies Abel, of his return to his homeland. And then he repeats it. One can only console oneself that it would be a much bigger groan with a lesser talent than Rylance; it would have been no chore to make the entire film about Abel (whether it got financed is another matter).


There are other too-neat touches, ones that might have worked if the Coens had directed, but Spielberg makes them heavy-handed; the disapproving newspaper reader(s) on the subway turn to beaming smiles when Donovan secures Powers’ release. Then there’s the cold Abel starts the picture with, which moves to Donovan and finally ends up with the unsympathetic CIA guy. And the way in which the insurance meeting between Donovan and another attorney (perhaps the most evident example of Coen Brothers dialogue, and a reminder that Hanks is familiar with their cadences from one of their rare lesser efforts, The Ladykillers), in which he eruditely explains that one insurance claim cannot be five, is later reworked when he decides to press for both Powers and hapless student Price to be exchanged for Abel. On paper it’s quite a neat touch, in action a little clumsy.


Of which, there’s no getting round that interweaving some of the elements leads to structural problems. Despite the telegraphing of Powers’ involvement through his selection as a pilot, and the instruction regarding how he should destroy his plane and top himself rather than be captured, there’s no attachment to, or investment in, his character. Casting someone who doesn’t come across as a complete blank (sorry, Austin Stowell) might have helped matters, except you almost sense Spielberg wants Powers to come across as a complete blank. He goes as far as exonerating Powers’ actions (in other words, for failing to kill both his plane and himself), but unlike the other main players you’re left in doubt about whether any sympathy is supposed to reside with him. It bears noting that Jesse Plemons is much more memorable as Powers’ pal than Stowell is as Powers.


There are similar issues with awkward introductions when Frederic Pryor (Will Rogers) enters the scene out of nowhere. Nevertheless, Hanks is in his element with Donovan’s “stranger in a stranger land” negotiations, from being uncoated by a gang of youths, to standing up to the CIA, the petty-minded East German authorities (who want recognition and resent playing second fiddle; there’s a particularly good performance here from Sebastian Koch), the Soviets, of course, and even sidestepping Abel’s fake relatives. I’d like to see Spielberg tackle a straight Cold War thriller, since I have a feeling he’d handle the full-on genre immersion better without the onus of constantly straining for respect.


Unaccompanied by stalwart composer John Williams, the ‘berg makes do with Thomas Newman. The result is a wholly unremarkable score. Newman may not have wanted to reference Williams, but you can hear JFK in the evocative ‘60s milieu. Elsewhere, he hits a multitude of predictable beats, from Soviet clichés to military drums for the spy plane scenes. Definitely not an Academy-troubling piece.


Of which, most seem to consider this a decent but low-key Spielberg affair, so while the costumes/cinematography/art direction could all gain notices, I suspect only Mark Rylance will garner significant attention. The remainder of the supporting cast is generally strong, including Alan Alda, Ryan, and Scott Shepherd giving probably the breakout performance; his empathy-free CIA guy makes an impression despite being a fairly unvarnished role. Bridge of Spies may not be vintage Spielberg, then, a little too structurally wayward and emotionally indulgent to soar, but it still might be his most easily digestible picture of the last decade.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Espionage isn’t a game, it’s a war.

The Avengers 3.3: The Nutshell
Philip Chambers first teleplay (of two) for the series, and Raymond Menmuir’s second (also of two) as director, The Nutshell is an effective little whodunit in which Steed (again) poses as a bad guy, and Cathy (again) appears to be at loggerheads with him. The difference here is how sustained the pretence is, though; we aren’t actually in on the details until the end, and the whole scenario is played decidedly straight.

Set mostly in a bunker (the Nutshell of the title), quarter of a mile underground and providing protection for the “all the best people” (civil servants bunk on level 43; Steed usually gets off at the 18th) in the event of a thermo-nuclear onslaught, the setting is something of a misdirection, since it is also a convenient place to store national security archives, known as Big Ben (Bilateral Infiltration Great Britain, Europe and North America). Big Ben has been stolen. Or rather, the microfilm with details of all known double agents on bot…

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.

I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sh…

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?

The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

He’d been clawed to death, as though by some bird. Some huge, obscene bird.

The Avengers 5.6: The Winged Avenger
Maybe I’m just easily amused, such that a little Patrick Macnee uttering “Ee-urp!” goes a long way, but I’m a huge fan of The Winged Avenger. It’s both a very silly episode and about as meta as the show gets, and one in which writer Richard Harris (1.3: Square Root of Evil, 1.10: Hunt the Man Down) succeeds in casting a wide net of suspects but effectively keeps the responsible party’s identity a secret until late in the game.

Dirty is exactly why you're here.

Sicario 2: Soldado aka Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
(SPOILERS) I wasn't among the multitude greeting the first Sicario with rapturous applause. It felt like a classic case of average material significantly lifted by the diligence of its director (and cinematographer and composer), but ultimately not all that. Any illusions that this gritty, violent, tale of cynicism and corruption – all generally signifiers of "realism" – in waging the War on Drugs had a degree of credibility well and truly went out the window when we learned that Benicio del Toro's character Alejandro Gillick wasn't just an unstoppable kickass ninja hitman; he was a grieving ex-lawyer turned unstoppable kickass ninja hitman. Sicario 2: Soldadograzes on further difficult-to-digest conceits, so in that respect is consistent, and – ironically – in some respects fares better than its predecessor through being more thoroughly genre-soaked and so avoiding the false doctrine of "revealing" …

Ah yes, the legendary 007 wit, or at least half of it.

The World is Not Enough (1999)
(SPOILERS) The last Bond film of the 20th century unfortunately continues the downward trend of the Brosnan era, which had looked so promising after the reinvigorated approach to Goldeneye. The World is Not Enough’s screenplay posseses a number of strong elements (from the now ever present Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, and a sophomore Bruce Feirstein), some of which have been recycled in the Craig era, but they’ve been mashed together with ill-fitting standard Bond tropes that puncture any would-be substance (Bond’s last line before the new millennium is one Roger Moore would have relished). And while a structure that stop-starts doesn’t help the overall momentum any, nor does the listlessness of drama director Michael Apted, such that when the sporadic bursts of action do arrive there’s no disguising the joins between first and second unit, any prospect of thrills evidently unsalvageable in the edit.

Taking its cues from the curtailed media satire of Tomorr…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …