BRIDGE OF SPIES: MEDIOCRITY AT ITS WORST

bridge of spies

I need to start of by qualifying the rest of this post and say that I am a fan of what Steven Spielberg used to be, and an even bigger fan of both what Tom Hanks used to be and, on occasion, still is: powerhouses in the movie world. Before this film, watching a Spielberg-Hanks collaboration was cinema magic for me, specifically Catch Me if You Can and Saving Private Ryan (never saw The Terminal so I cannot say anything about it). When I first heard that they would be collaborating again, I was so happy that I might see a film as witty and charming as Catch Me if You can or as emotionally powerful as Saving Private Ryan, but then the trailers started appearing and my anticipating waned. I finally got around to seeing this film because it is Oscar season and I make a point to see every major film nominated for an Oscar. Oh how I wish I could get back the last two and a half hours.

As I sat through this film the same few thoughts kept: This is the most heavy-handed spy film I have ever seen, Spielberg’s direction feels old and tired, and I cannot believe this was nominated for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor when so many other better nominees were left in the cold.

The first two points sort of go hand-in-hand because it is without question that Spielberg’s old and tired directing style is what lead to the overt heavy-handedness of the movie, which is what ultimately made this movie so abysmally mediocre. The same directing cliches are used continuously throughout the movie that make it feel utterly stale, the use of a joke three times throughout a movie, using the same woman on the train to show the audience what people think of the main character at the start and end of the film, and over-the-top acting from the “villains” of the film to help us remember that they are villains. For instance, throughout the movie James Donovan (Tom Hanks) asks Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) if he is worried three separate times, and each time, without fail, Abel responds “would it help?” And, of course, the third time this conversation happens is when they are walking to the center of the bridge to make the exchange and they are discussing the possibility that Abel is killed once the soviets take him. I find it personally insulting that Spielberg would allow for something so obvious to occur in this film, and to know that the Coen Brothers have writing credits for this film just makes it worse.

vlcsnap-2016-01-27-16h37m51s139

vlcsnap-2016-01-27-16h39m43s18

As for the woman referenced above, Spielberg so blatantly uses her in this film to depict what the public thinks of Donovan that when she showed up for the second time at the end of the film, I could actually feel my eyes roll to the back of my head. I posted both images of her staring down Donovan just to prove how ridiculous this whole thing is. In both scenes both Hanks and the woman are shot from the exact same seats on the train and in both everyone on the train happens to be reading about Donovan’s latest adventure as he happens to be sitting there. The only thing that makes the second scene worse is that Donovan just finished having a conversation with Francis Powers (Austin Stowell) where he told Powers that he should not worry about what others think of him, as long as he knows the truth of what he did. You cannot have a character swear off the need for recognition for doing the right thing, then make that same character happy by giving him vindication in the form of approval from a character who previously scorned him. IT’S ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

Next I just need to discuss some of the over-the-top characters that are meant to be villains. First, Abel’s fake family in Berlin.

vlcsnap-2016-01-27-16h47m12s158

These three individuals present themselves to Donovan as Abel’s wife, daughter, and his cousin. Donovan is brought to an office in the Russian Embassy in Berlin to speak to a negotiator for the prisoner exchange. Instead of finding the negotiator, he instead finds these three, claiming to be Abel’s family. God forbid the audience actually believe that Abel is related to these people, Spielberg has them give such an over-the-top performance, followed by this emotionless walk out of the office that the audience can now be reassured in their belief that these are just spies, and not Abel’s family. It’s a good thing that Spielberg did not allow for any mystery in this spy film, that would just be silly and absurd.  Donovan was told he would be negotiating with Vogol, a german attorney and friend of the GDR’s Attorney General, but instead he first negotiates with Ivan Schischkin (Mikhail Gorevoy).

vlcsnap-2016-01-27-16h55m14s107

I will give Spielberg credit for at least hiring a Russian actor to play the Russian ambassador, but that is where my credit ends. Spielberg forces Gorevoy to give such an over-the-top performance that Schischkin comes off as untrustworthy and conniving from the first moment you see him. Again, this is a movie involving spies and the cold war, is there really no room for subtlety here? Can the audience really not be trusted to determine through the course of dialogue and events that someone is untrustworthy? And it is not even good direction becuase Schischkin ends up doing exactly what he promises and the facts presented at the end of the film inform the audience that Abel was returned home to be with his family, and not killed by the soviets. So it isn’t even proper direction to make Schischkin appear less than a man of his word. Did he try to negotiate his position? sure, but that was his god damn job, that was why he was there. Having said that, when we do meet Vogol (Sebastian Koch), he turns out to actually be a subtly portrayed character, which is ironic because he is the only one to actually trick Donovan and make him spend a night in the GDR prison. I will give all the credit for this subtlety to Koch who showed an equal measure of subtlety in his roles in The Lives of Others and Homeland. After Vogol, we are introduced to Harold Ott (Burghart Klaussner), the East German Attorney General.

vlcsnap-2016-01-27-17h07m07s75

First, Spielberg has the meeting with Ott placed at a giant empty conference room, as if he is some James Bond villain. Spoiler alert: he’s not. And once again, Spielberg has this poor guy yelling and banging the table one second, the fanciful answering the wrong phone the next (he has four or five phones on the table, because you can never have too many phones in a conference room). Honestly, don’t even know what to make of this character because he is on screen for no more than 5 minutes. I have no idea why Spielberg chose to portray him the way that he did, other than to spoon feed the audience the idea that Ott is a less composed and worse negotiator than Donovan.

This leads me to the final thought I had throughout this film: This film robbed other films of Oscar nominations in the best picture and best supporting actor categories. Not only should this film not be considered one of the best films of 2015, it shouldn’t even be considered one of the best Cold War films. Hanks literally made a better Cold War film previously, Charlie Wilson’s War, which isn’t great, but it’s certainly very good. To really see the greatness of what a Cold War film could be, I couldn’t recommend the movies The Lives of Others and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy any more highly. To really get a sense for what subtle acting and direction can do for a spy film, one need only compare Tinker Tailor to this film. In fact, if you have not yet seen Bridge of Spies, you can just skip it completely and go see these two movies instead. You’ll be all the better for it. As for Mark Rylance’s Oscar nomination, he did a fine job, I have no real complaints about his performance, considering what he was given to work with. However, it’s simply ridiculous to say that his performance was Oscar worthy when there were so many better performances from supporting actors this year, such as: Benicio Del Toro or Josh Brolin for Sicario, Samuel L. Jackson in Hateful Eight, or Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina. I found all these roles to be more difficult than the role of Rudolf Abel, and were all better executed by the above actors than by Mark Rylance.

As I said from the very beginning, this movie doesn’t upset me because it’s bad. It’s not a bad movie. It upsets me because, for the talent that you have in this film, it is so absolutely mediocre, yet garnering praise that could have been given to other, more worthy films. It literally angers me to know that the academy gave this film a very undeserving Best Picture nomination. And why? Because it’s Spielberg and it’s Hanks and it’s the Cold War, making it the perfect recipe for Oscar bait, regardless of whether it actually deserves such a distinguished nomination. Like I said, if you’re looking to watch a Cold War film, you can do so much better with The Lives of Others and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

Advertisements

Django Unchained: Historically Fictional, Cinematically Magical

Image

If there is any movie this year that beat my personal expectations this year, it’s going to be Django Unchained. I came into the movie uncertain that I’d enjoy it; the trailers did nothing for me and the plot seemed questionable, but brother convinced me to go and thank god he did, because I loved this fucking movie. The plot was decent enough, if not completely unrealistic given that it’s the 1850s and that there was a black guy going around insulting people left and right, but it worked. What really blew me away though was the fantastic performances from the cast.

Image

They say that, when making an argument, you’re supposed to start off with your strongest argument, so I’ve got to start with Christopher Waltz’s performance as Dr. King Schultz. Holy shit he was great, and probably stole the entire movie, or at least up until Stephen’s appearance. I fell in love with Christopher Waltz as an actor after his last venture with Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds, and he did not disappoint here. He gives his character so much wit and intelligence, not to mention that character had an intriguing sense of morality. Take the scene, for instance, when he gives Django his first official kill. The man they are meant to obtain is farming the land with his child, and Django feels it’s morally wrong to shoot down the man in front of his child. First Schultz teases Django a bit for taking too long, then hits him with two points from his own moral reasoning: that at least the kid will have a chance to say goodbye to his father, which he wouldn’t if they killed him while he was alone, and that this is a man who murdered numerous people, and the last few moments that he would get are more than he deserves. Waltz brings such greatness to this scene that he really does get the audience on his side, and I suspect most of the audience probably started on Django’s side. The entire film is full of instances of Waltz’s great acting prowess, and I don’t want to ruin the rest of the movie, so just trust me that Waltz is truly fantastic in this.

Image

If we’re to say that Waltz stole the first two-thirds of the movie, then there is no question that Samuel L. Jackson stole the last third, as the house slave Stephen. Stephen’s loyalty to his master, and hatred for black people is so insane, that he probably goes beyond the description of an Uncle Tom and borders on being Uncle Ruckus (No Relation). I don’t even want to go into specific scenes that involve Stephen because they’re all too good to spoil, but Sam Jackson did an amazing job making you truly hate a character you would normally have sympathy for. From the instant change in tone he has when speaking in front of white people than when he’s in front of slaves, to the slight shake he has, Sam Jackson truly created a character that is truly unredeemable by any standard; a vile creature who turns on his own in an instant to appease his superiors.

Image

In terms of acting, the last one I want to talk about is Leonardo DiCaprio. This isn’t because he was something truly outstanding to the level that Waltz and Jackson performed at, but that he performed so far above the usual level that I’ve come to expect from him. I’m not the biggest Leo fan, I like the movies he’s in, but I always find that the movies he finds himself in are good, not because of him, but because they were already well written when he joined on. I’ve never seen him bring anything special or unique to his characters, his acting always seems stiff and procedural. The script says to say something and behave a certain way, so that’s what he does. He doesn’t do it badly, he just doesn’t give you anything unique, he doesn’t present you with something that another actor couldn’t do. For instance, Waltz has a certain whimsy quality that he gives his characters, to the point that even villainous characters that we’re supposed to hate can have moments of likability when we forget for a moment that we hate them: Exhibit A. Jackson provides us with the fire and the fury that we’ve all come to love; a rage that can be truly terrifying, and a stare that pierces you: Exhibit B.  With Leo, there isn’t really any unique quality that he brings to his characters, but in this film he definitely went above his usually acting ability. He didn’t reach the level of true greatness, but he was very good, to the point that he was able to act right through an accidental injury (possible spoilers in link) and not break character.

The music was another wonderful part of the film. From the very intro we get a song that perfectly sets the mood of the film, a bit silly, a bit western, and a lot of fun. One of the smartest things that Tarantino has made in his career is when he took the advice of his friend, Robert Rodriguez, and started making original scores for his films, instead of just playing popular music all the time. In this movie however, Tarantino struck a nice balance between providing the audience with an original score, and songs that weren’t written for the movie, but fit the scene beautifully. Again we find ourselves in a moment where I can’t give the example I want because it’s such a fun moment that I don’t want to spoil it for you, but trust me when I say the music really helps make the movie.

So yes, the movie isn’t historically accurate by any means, but after Inglourious Basterds I think we can all agree that historical accuracy isn’t at the top of Tarantino’s list of concerns when making a film. The action is great, there is some true comedy gold in it (the white bag scene) and the acting is incredible, hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.