Handsomely made and crafted but lacking in any kind of intrigue or tension, Bridge of Spies is the kind of prestige picture that just sits on the screen and fails to engage emotionally. I hesitate to give much more in the way of venomous diatribe because the movie isn’t one that engenders anger, just boredom.
Bridge of Spies sees Steven Spielberg tackle another period piece and true story. James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) finds himself unknowingly tossed in the middle of the Cold War when he is chosen to “defend” Rudolf Abel (a delightful Mark Rylance), a man accused of being a Soviet Spy. I put defend in quotes because no matter what Donovan does, he’s basically fighting a losing battle against a judge who won’t exclude inadmissable evidence and a public who hates him. Realizing that his goose is cooked, he manages to convince the judge that not hanging the man might benefit the government. Who knew Donovan’s plea would turn out to be prophetic, as a fighter pilot and a student both get captured. Donovan becomes the key point person in the negotiations as the American government can’t be linked to the negotiations. What transpires is a game of who will blink first with Donovan’s every man caught in the cross hairs.
There’s really not much in the way of positives for this film that amount to more than praising the craft. As I mentioned above the move is indeed handsomely made. Janusz Kaminski‘s cinematography is gorgeous, the costumes are tip top, and the score, while not one of Thomas Newman‘s best, is serviceable. Speilberg, who is known for having many a stylistic flourish, tones it down a bit here, delivering just a solid story. Tom Hanks is probably the best thing about the film delivering a pretty nuanced portrayal of a man that could read too good. His late film conversation with a boy in the German government is so wonderfully subtle but perfectly in step with what the director wanted. However, even with these things something kept me at arms length from getting really into the movie, not making me feel much in the way of any emotion.
But what do you make of a movie that doesn’t make you feel? By this I don’t mean summoning my tears of being artificially schmaltzy. I’m talking about making me invested from frame one in the story you want to tell. Bridge of Spies failed in every moment to do this. Compare this movie to a film like Brooklyn which is due out this year. Neither film “says” anything particularly “important”, both are period pieces and spectacles of craft, and both somewhat concern relations between countries and people. After looking at both these films, it is easy to see that Bridge of Spies is missing a key factor, soul. Without soul a movie feels like a formal exercise in filmmaking, which means that the problems stick out, such as a script that takes too long to get into the action and then spends too little time in making the situation feel heightened. This is the second historical film that the Coen Bros have touched that have had horrendous first acts. At least in Unbroken, the survival tale and acting kept the movie from bombing completely, there’s no such saving grace here.
It’s unfortunate because I truly believe this film had the elements to be a solid film. But it appears that the solid style and craft of the film were put above audience engagement and intrigue.