Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Cast: Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Alan Alda, Amy Ryan, Austin Stowell, Michael Gor, John Rue, Billy Magnussen, Jesse Plemons, Michael Gaston, James Lorinz, Brian Hutchison, Martin Dew
Soundtrack: Thomas Newman
It’s become somewhat popular to hate on Steven Spielberg.
I understand why: as he’s gotten older he’s maybe lost some of his edge and has made at least one grave mistake; but on the whole I find this rather disingenuous.
First of all, nothing can ever change the fact that he has personally auteured, at minimum, a handful of the greatest movies ever made. Secondly, it’s perfectly natural for an artist’s work to have some degradation over time; I mean, did anyone really expect ‘War Horse’ to be better than ‘Saving Private Ryan’? People get older; it happens. I give the guy a lot of credit that he’s still a major director, let alone that he’s still producing work that’s actually good (it’s a lot more than you can say about many of his directorial contemporaries).
So, where does ‘Bridge of Spies’ fit into all of this?
Well, in some ways it’s more of the same: it’s over two hours long, it’s a period piece, it’s a historical drama, it’s got Germans, Tom Hanks, and sometimes it’s a little cornball.
In other ways it feels like a radical departure. Since 1974, Steven Spielberg has been a director on 29 feature films: 14 of which have been shot by Janusz Kaminski, who shot ‘Bridge of Spies’; 26 of which have been edited by Michael Kahn, who edited ‘Bridge of Spies’; and 26 of which have been scored by John Williams, who did not score ‘Bridge of Spies’.
That’s right. For the first time in 30 years (‘The Color Purple’), John Williams, the Brady to Spielberg’s Belichick (or maybe vice versa; who knows?), did not compose the music for a Steven Spielberg movie. In fact, there’s very little music in general throughout the runtime of ‘Bridge of Spies’, and most of the pivotal scenes aren’t scored at all. Now, according to Spielberg himself, this was the plan all along even before it was revealed that John Williams would not be physically able to compose the score (don’t worry, kids; he’ll be back for ‘The BFG’), but, frankly, the overall absence of music (and John Williams music in particular) is so atypical that I venture to say this is the least Spielbergian Spielberg movie ever. I admit though, not having seen his entire catalogue, I’m not the most qualified person to make such a statement.
Besides that major departure, what else is notable about ‘Bridge of Spies’?
Honestly, the element I was most impressed by was the attention to detail in the production. There’s nothing worse, even if you’re not an expert, than seeing something you know shouldn’t be there while watching a period piece, and in that regard ‘Bridge of Spies’ is top notch. Every set, location, prop, costume, and hair and makeup style looks exactly how it should. It’s not exactly a surprise to learn that production designer Adam Stockhausen won an Oscar for ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, and set decorator Rena DeAngelo won an Emmy for “Mad Men”, and I expect to see their names come next awards season.
Other than that, Tom Hanks is a good as you’d expect him to be, I really liked Mark Rylance in a quiet but vital supporting role (I was totally unfamiliar with him before this film), and I liked the fact that this story was being told at all, and its message of what it means to be to be American. It’s a bit preachy in the first half hour or so, but after that the movie becomes very matter of fact, which I also appreciated.
On the other hand, I do have some minor criticisms. For one thing, I don’t know for sure whether ‘Bridge of Spies’ was shot on film or not, at the very least it looks way better than a Michael Mann movie, but, during the U-2 crash sequence (which is not a spoiler) everything all of a sudden looked real fakey-fake, which, given the realism of the rest of the movie, was quite the sore thumb. Also, especially with a historical film, I generally like to be aware of the time, place, and timeframe of events, and ‘Bridge of Spies’ was lacking in this area. I always knew where things were happening, but outside of an initial title card stating 1957, I could not tell that the events of this movie were taking place over a five year period. Finally, there’s some back and forth movement between James B. Donovan’s story and Francis Gary Powers’ story that I found unnecessary, and could have easily been cut out of the film for the sake of time.
In the end, I liked ‘Bridge of Spies’ quite a bit, and it deserves reasonably high praise, but I also know that not everyone will like it, and quite a few people will likely find it boring. It’s a quiet film, it’s very unreliant on action, and in many ways it feels like a product of the period it’s portraying. It may not add up to much box office success for Spielberg, and I don’t even know that I’d consider it Best Picture material (though, knowing how the Academy works, it probably will be), but if you are a fan of, or at least don’t mind historical dramas, then ‘Bridge of Spies’ is certainly worth your time.
And if you don’t think that Steven Spielberg is an artistic director, the opening scene will definitely give you a little something to chew on.
Rating: ★★★★☆
P.S. I say this not to spoil anything, but rather to properly manage expectations: the advertising for ‘Bridge of Spies’ makes it appear as if the entire film is about James B. Donovan’s negotiations to exchange a Soviet spy for Francis Gary Powers, but in actuality this plot line doesn’t occur until the second half of the movie. There’s more to the story covered in the first half.