Bridge of Spies

Based on the 1960 U-2 incident during the cold war, Bridge of Spies is the story of James B. Donovan and his journey negotiating the release of Francis Gary Powers and Frederic Pryor from the Soviet Union after defending a KGB spy in his trial. He uses KGB Spy prisoner Rudolf Abel as a trade and as a source of bizarre friendship during the film. Written by the Coen brothers and Matt Charman and directed by Steven Spielberg, this film has the basic components for an Oscar winning film. Tom Hanks leads the relatively small core cast and isn't joined on screen by many other Hollywood a-listers. Although having said that, many smaller names such as Jesse Plemons were a welcome surprise to the films cast list even though his screen time was minimal.

The film's story, as I mentioned is based on true events, was gripping. The film flowed nicely from our introduction to Abel, to the court case, to Donovan's time in Germany. I felt the film was paced well and kept audience attention throughout. The setting for most of the film, Berlin, was a creative way of depicting additional international tensions alongside the main storyline revolving the US and the Soviet Union. One of the things that I found to be interesting was the way Abel was treated in the first third of the film. Although perceived to be the enemy, the way Spielberg focused on the nations opinion of Abel and Donovan as influenced by the media, is an insight into society today. We are so quick to judge when we're told the verdict by our 'trusted' media. For example, the drama surrounding the Making a Murderer series on Netflix. Many assume they know right from wrong, guilty from innocence because they've seen one, 10 part docu-series that has publicly acknowledged it's biased content. A nice touch was when the film circled back on itself. The final sequence mimics an earlier one where we first see the public opinion of Donovan and his work. But this time, he's given a polite smile of gratitude before gazing out the window to be reminded of his time in Germany.

Tom Hanks, whom I most recently saw in a Carly Rae Jepson music video, was great. I cannot fault his performance. He certainly stood strong and proud, as I suppose we would wish of any lawyer defending human rights. I think what struck me about his performance was that the role wasn't noteworthy. In fact, the story could be considered lack lustre too. Hanks brings attention to the film because of his existing reputation as an actor and performed well in a role that could have been overlooked had it been differently cast. I think as Hanks grows older, we will continue to see him tackle similar roles. Lawyers, fathers, officials of some capacity. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

I enjoyed this film and it's interpretation of the real events. Do I think it was Oscar nomination worthy? Perhaps not. The film was well constructed, acted and its themes were compelling. But what I felt the film lacked was punch. It didn't leave me speechless or, better yet, wanting to talk about it until my throat hurt. Having just seen the Revenant, this felt like it had a more subtle impact. Perhaps my opinion comes down to timing. Had I seen it before DiCaprio's film, I might have felt differently.