Bridge of Spies

Despite the critique from many a historian, nobody does history as consistently well as Spielberg. Schindler’s List, Lincoln, and Munich were all fine retellings that balanced fact and emotion extremely well. Other of his films such as Empire of the Sun, War Horse and perhaps most-notably Saving Private Ryan inhabit a detailed, rich historical world, despite adapting the circumstances into their own story. His latest film, Bridge of Spies takes a look at the events surrounding the exchange of Soviet spy Rudolf Abel and American U-2 pilot Gary Powers. 

The year is 1957 and in Brooklyn, KGB spy and talented painter Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance) goes about his business; retrieving secret messages and not getting caught in the process. However, this time the FBI are on his tail and he’s arrested whilst his hotel room is raided. Elsewhere in town, insurance lawyer James B, Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked by his boss (Alan Alda) to take on Rudolf’s case. It’s imperative that the U.S justice system is seen to be fairly representing the spy, and the Bar association has unanimously voted that Donovan should draw the short straw. 

A guilty verdict is a forgone conclusion, however Donovan gives the case his all, and even after the verdict, talks with the judge to downplay the sentencing from death to incarceration. There may be a time when an American is captured by the Russians and a trade required. That’s exactly what happens when U-2 reconnaissance pilot Gary Powers (Austin Stowell) crashes over Russia and fails to kill himself. Donovan is chosen to negotiate the trade, however he must travel to the divided Berlin to do this. 

Bridge of Spies plays out like a classic espionage thriller, subtle and nuanced like the most recent notable example Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but with Spielberg’s personal touch thrown in for good measure. The period style is immediately evident through the set design, and the entrenched fear of the time palpable through minor details like everybody’s favourite civil defence film Duck and Cover. In the Berlin scenes, the fear and panic is noticeable as construction starts on the Berlin Wall; a snapshot of Europe’s instabilities at the time. Thomas Newman’s score stays largely unannounced, but when it does come out, there’s a distinct Road to Perdition feeling to it all. 

Much like his last film Lincoln, Spielberg accents the themes of this quite astounding story through what can be most closely described as ‘selective patriotism’ – drawing out the inherent humanism in liberal American values, whist rejecting the cold bureaucracy that seems to have taken their place. Donovan cites the constitution in his appeal for Abel, partly because he believes in its protective principles – even if Abel’s not an American – partly because he’s foresees the value in keeping him alive, but also because he empathises with Abel. It’s here that Spielberg reveals his true intentions, which are as usual to draw out compassion and build character. 

These areas are what really sets Bridge of Spies apart from what the film could have been in lesser hands. The well-rounded, often witty Matt Charman/Coen Brothers script covers the historical ground exceptionally well, and the gritty cold-war environment is brought to life through Janusz Kamiński’s reserved cinematography. However the good-natured James B. Donovan is the root of this film and carried through by the always-exceptional Tom Hanks. Hanks gives this film everything, both to his role and to others. He’s well known for his generosity as a co-star, and it really shows. Everybody that shares the screen with him is at their very best. Mark Rylance brings a composed genteelness to Abel that makes him immediately likable, and other standout roles include Stowell as Powers, Jesse ‘Lydia O Lydia’ Plemons and all-round acting legend Alan Alda (despite only making a brief few appearances). 

Not only does Bridge of Spies continue to prove that any Spielberg/Hanks collaboration turns to gold, but it marks a strong return to the classic espionage sub-genre, evident even through the notably “old-school” editing. This film is unashamedly Spielbergian in all its glory – from the human interest core to the final moment of minor sentimental overreach. Many criticise Spielberg for his neat and tidy endings but as a piece of historical storytelling, you don’t need anything more. This is a film that brings out the humanity behind the events and is also the first film I’ve seen in ages that got a healthy round of applause at the end, which certainly says something.

Black Mass

South Boston, or 'Southie', has been the subject of many a crime film over the past decade and a half. Movies like The Town, Southie, The Departed and even Good Will Hunting have striven to accurately portray one of the roughest neighbourhoods in the United States. But one notorious figure has yet to be portrayed on film; that of James 'Whitey' Bulger (Okay so not necessarily true, Martin Scorsese's The Departed was based on his crimes).

Bulger (Johnny Depp) is the leader of the Winter Hill Gang in South Boston during the mid-1970s. He is well known in the community as both a gangster and a pillar of the community. His brother Billy (Benedict Cumberbatch), a state senator, is contacted by their childhood friend John Connelly (Joel Edgerton), who is now a FBI agent who has been tasked with reducing Mafia activity in Boston. He sees Bulger as the key to bringing down this stranglehold they have. So Bulger becomes an informant, all the while continuing his own criminal activity.

This success of this film hinges entirely on whether or not you find Depp's performance as Bulger convincing. Unfortunately for me, I wasn't convinced. Yes, he is unnerving, but I wasn't scared by him, which is the whole point. I think that they were relying on his makeup and new look to add to the performance but it did nothing for me. Outside of this, there isn't too much going on. At a stretch you could say that the intrigue surrounding Bulger's manipulation of the FBI is interesting, but not enough to be exciting.

In fact the film seems like it purposefully goes out of its way to be obtuse. There is a whole subplot involving who owns World Jai-Alai, a sport the movie even admits no one knows what it is (unless you're like me and you do know what it is (I lie, I have no idea what they're doing)). I also feel like this film is needlessly violent. I know Whitey Bulger was an incredibly psychotic film, but you don't need to show every single murder he committed. Sometimes implied violence is just as effective. I also feel like the movie dropped the ball with the ending. It is a well known fact that Bulger was apprehended in 2011, yet the film ends in 1995 with an epilogue about his capture.

Because Depp's performance is so dominant here that the others don't really get a look in. Joel Edgerton's is the only one that is on par with Depp, but it isn't very good. Everyone else is really in the background which is disappointing considering the cast. Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon, Adam Scott and Rory Cochrane are all fantastic actors, and while they are in a lot of scenes, they aren't the focus of any of them. Corey Stoll is the only minor performance given any notice, which is good because he carries those scenes. Women are hugely under represented with Dakota Johnson and Julianne Nicholson given barely any screen time.

A hugely disappointing and largely unnecessary biopic. It is not at all engaging, so if you want to see a better film about Whitey Bulger, go rewatch The Departed.