Posted on 10/18/2015 10:15:18 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
I'm wondering if anyone else on FRee Republic has seen Bridge of Spies, the new Spielberg movie? I don't see a review here, so I'll start with mine. However, I'm really interested in other opinions.
The movie was a little slow moving, but gripping and attention-holding to the very end. My concern is its accuracy. It says in the disclaimer right up front that it is "inspired by true events". Yet, the tale is spun as if it is all Gospel. Somehow, I doubt some of it, so I'm rushing to Google this AM to find out what is true and what is pure Hollywood revisionism.
I was alive and interested in politics during that period, but rather young and a newlywed. I had limited access to the news and (of course) the news, in those days, only told us what the government allowed. Somehow, I don't quite remember it the way it is told in the movie.
The story, as told by Spielberg keeps you on the edge of your seat to the very end. The movie is PG and safe for families. It is a story of life in the US during the height of the Cold War.
The tale centers around an insurance lawyer named Jim Donovan who is asked by his firm to defend a captured Soviet spy, Rudol Abel. Abel, supposedly caught red-handed (no pun intended) acting as a conduit for information to and from the Soviets. His "cover" is that he is an artist who paints scenes around town "plein air", which allows him the cover of setting up and working in unusual places (which also happen to be "drop" locations) where he picks up messages from other spies. Some of the spy craft he is shown to use is interesting. Some of the "evidence" the FBI uses to bring him to trial turns out to have been gathered illegally, in Donovan's opinion. Donovan had been on the prosecuting team that brought Nuerenburg criminals to trial at the end of WWII, so his credentials are impeccable and would show the rest of the world that Abel was given the best defense possible. The judge and the whole country seem to have Abel's guilt prejudged and they are shocked when Donovan takes his role as a defense attorney seriously and gives this man a vigorous defense which results in a lengthy prison sentence, instead of the death penalty. He then follows with an appeal.
Donovan becomes the most hated man in America, right along with Abel. The story spins from there until events coincide with the Russian downing of Francis Gary Powers and his U2 and the erection of the Berlin wall.
All I really remember is the great contempt the public felt for Francis Gary Powers who was viewed by many as a traitor for getting caught and great contempt for President Eisenhower for ADMITTING that the U2 was a spy plane.
There are mny FReepers who are older than I and I would like to know what they remember. I admit that my access to the news was limited at the time and my attention was elsewhere, being a new bride and dealing with a new job{s}, a dying mother in law, a new home and then a surprise pregnancy. Did I miss all of this, or are my memories accurate? I am including a link to a professional review, but these words are all my own.
Thanks for the review.
The tale was based on true events. Francis Gary Power was shot down by the Russians just about the time I was supposed to separate from the Air Force (1960) and the exchange for a high-level Russian spymaster all happened. It was a time that the US and Soviet Russia were circling each other like a pair of wary tomcats, so the tension in the story was very real.
Because of the turmoil and uncertainty, I actually spent four years, two months and twenty-four days in service, as the Air Force was on alert for a few days there. A lot of personnel actions were deferred for a short while.
There have always been questions surrounding Powers. Eisenhower presumably ordered overflights of the USSR to stop, pending his planned trip there. However, Powers was launched despite this by the CIA.
The photo shown by the Russians of the ‘damaged U-2’ may not have been that of Powers’ plane, or even of a U-2. IF not, what happened to his plane?
The KGB knew Powers was coming and what his likely flight path would be, from agents in Turkey and elsewhere.
So, did Powers have a suicide pill and decline to use it (understandable), resulting in his being caught alive and identified as a US pilot? And then being put on trial where he was made to perform as the Soviets wished?
Did the KGB or the CIA plan for Powers to be shot down, in order to sabotage Ike’s trip to Russia (and possible openings)?
Did Powers actually land his plane, rather than crash?
Don’t know the answers to any of those; all of the above is pure speculation.
That we traded a valuable Russian spy (Abel) for Powers (a questionable figure) was not extremely popular at the time.
The sleeper of the fall in my opinion is "Sicario"
Wow, fantastic movie, led by Benicio del Toro, in the lead role of a mysterious anti-drug operative of the FedGov.
What I liked about this movie is it not only showed the chaos on the border, but the chaos in Mexico. And the fact that the chaos there is headed here is made explicitly. The young, tough woman FBI agent is schooled in the realities of Latino drug gang culture.
Along the way, while there is never any doubt about who the good guys are the level of moral ambiguity rises and rises.
The last scene in the movie, a coda really, could serve as an epitaph for our entire nation at this time; "this is a land of wolves now".
It had a pretty amazing 95% on Rotten Tomatoes and 4 stars from IMDB - ratings rarely achieved by any movie. Also, the cinematography is fantastic. The bleached out heat of the Sonoaran desert is well captured. And the location scenes from Juarez show the side of Mexico that is driving the millions of Mexicans into our once-peaceful nation and transforming it, especially the border area, into "the land of wolves".
Here is a snipit promo for the film.
Tom Hanks is a Jackass. Tom went Hollywood wacko years ago and I don’t care to see his movies anymore.
He’s done a few things that please me, but the vast majority of his views are vile.
The real problem with him, and it’s not just him, is being outspoken politically. It affects the way I view him in his movies and I cannot see him as any kind of actor anymore. Just an activist promoting his own agenda.
I remember the big flap when it was reported that he was "shot down by a missile". (We had been brazenly overflying Russia at a height that they couldn't reach.) Later I heard that his engine flamed out and when he descended into the range of the AA missile batteries, they knocked him down.
After that I read that he flew a traffic-reporting chopper and died in a crash.
Since writing my vanity review, I have gone to various sources on the Web to see what they say about the incidents in the movie. It seems that my memories, no matter how hazy, are pretty accurate, except for Mr. Donovan’s role.
It seems that that was well publicized at the time, a fact that I must have missed because by that time, I was busy with 2 toddlers and another infant that I cared for full time. I was still short on news since my husband was a student, I had no TV, and no subscriptions to the newspaper, or news magazines. And no time to go to the library.
I relied on radio, only, until he graduated and our cash flow picked up enough for a subscription to the daily paper and to Time magazine. And in those days, radio was something that was plugged into the wall and could only be heard when I was in that very room doing ironing. (We did lots of ironing in those days.) LOL
My memory of dates was accurate. (The movie compresses the time line of major events.) My memory of the contempt the public felt for Powers was accurate. People pretty much viewed him as a sell-out and suspicious. The movie doesn’t make clear the separation of the AF and the CIA. He was really flying for the CIA, although the AF was a co-sponsor. I suppose the AF role was in the training, but the planes belonged to the CIA and the missions were ordered by the CIA. All that info has come out much later.
I neglected to mention that I give the film 4 stars and would see it again. I appreciate the fact that they offered the disclaimer at the very beginning “inspired by true evens”, rather than “based on a true story. It sent me to the Web to do a little research.
You are right about the way he died. THere is a question about what happened to the plane. THe movie shows it being demolished in a thousand jpieces and a rather improbable scene of Powers being blown out of the cockpit and clinging to the side of the plane and crawling back in the remnant to try to set the destruction cannister. Then he deploys his parachute and is shot at by the Russians on the way down and narrowly escaples the debris from his self destructing plane.
Pictures and diagrams published at the time show a fusilage of a U2 (intact) with its wings severed (more akin to my memory. Somehow, I doubt the movie rendition. If he were actually to have bailed out at 70,000 ft., he likely would have frozen to death instantly in the type of flight suits they had in those days.
I was young too when these events happened. I remember two things about it: (1) People were disappointed with Gary Powers for not taking his L Pill and killing himself. The general opinion was that he was a cowardly traitor for not doing that and allowing himself to be captured alive. There was a sort of comic book mentality people had back then that everyone was expected to act like heroes in the movies or something. (2) Not knowing that the Russians had captured Powers or that parts of the U2 airplane were in their possession, Eisenhower categorically denied that any Americans were involved. When he was exposed as having lied about Powers, the general public was actually taken aback that their president would lie publically. Silly as it may seem now, this was not something that the average American expected.
I don't remember that. But I was only ten at the time. I do remember reading the news about the plane being shot down and feeling sorry for Powers. I never heard any adults making disparaging comments about Powers. Of course, I wasn't around much adult conversation.
There is just one point in the movie that I considered pure Hollywood. That near the beginning when Donovan (the Hanks character) says that everyone living here, even illegal immigrants, deserves protection from our Constitution. I don’t think that many people thought that way at the time, and the judges paid no attention to his argument.
However, some of the histories published about these events make the same point and credit Donovan’s appeal before the US Supreme court (which he lost) for establishing that point in case law (such as right to keep one’s home off limits to law enforcement unless they have a warrant.
You can disdain Hanks, but don’t miss a good movie that is gripping and largely propaganda free.
Bridge of Spies.
My review based on the title alone.
Four people sitting at a table playing cards doesn’t generally make for a good movie. But, “Bridge of Spies” adds, well, Spies. And when you consider the traditional alliances or “so-called” partners of North-South and East-West they aren’t very traditional after all. Spies and double agents are a natural fit that brings intrigue and intensity to a mostly boring game. Bidding for tricks while employing deception and double deception without ever being sure if you will be “Trumped” adds a refreshing political component and makes this movie a must see !!
I was older and heard it a lot. Most people thought that he jprobably had sold out the US Government, and I (personally) wondered why Eisenhower caved on the weather plane story. I remember saying to my husband at the time, “You are not supposed the ADMIT that we are spying.” Of course the public did not know most of the story, just that the plane was brought down largely intact and our enemies now had our secrets (But how did they know that it was NOT a weather plane that had strayed off course?) I thought that Eisenhower was a senile old fool for admitting our collective guilt.
I did live in Berkeley at the time and associated mainly with other University wives, so our opinions on Eisenhower probably reflected that. I changed my opinions and my political affiliation after Johnson got in.
Good review! A little off base, but an accurate portrayal, nonethe less. ;)
I keep hearing it’s a good movie.....
....too bad that contemptuous ‘actor’ Emily Blunt had to ruin alll the hard work spent on it..
....cause she couldn’t keep her anti-American attitude shut, and mouthing off.
It hurt the attendance
The U2’s only defence was the altitude it could maintain. The problem was that if the engine flamed out—the lack of oxygen at such height would not permit a restart. The plane would have to lose altitude in order to restart—and at the lower altitude was vulnerable to a high-altitude missile which most likely brought the plane down.
The Russkies did show some condoms and a High-Standard .22 pistol the pilot had with him—but no “kill me” capsules if I remember the Life magazine photos correctly.
I was just a kid but remember the shootdown of Gary Powers——airplanes!——and seeing Walter Leland Cronkite blathering on about it. The rodents at the Complete BS Network such as Walter Leland Cronkite would have been all atingle since they could bash a Repub Admin over the incident.
IIRC, at least six U2s flown by Taiwan pilots were lost over China. How many besides Gary Powers over the Soviet Bloc?
Spielberg and Hanks? I would see this film if paid enough. Fifty bucks a minute-—I’m not greedy.
History says the suicide “pill” was revealed to the Church Committee in a later investigation/hearing. Apparently it was a silver dollar with the ridges on the perimeter infused with a deadly fish toxin. (the movie showed something a little different). I guess the pilot was supposed to put the coin in his mouth and it would kill him instantly. That what the movie meant with the line the trainer told the pilots (who were called “drivers”), “if you are captured, spend your dollar.”
Largely? How large is large after your quote? You caught that one. How many more subtler points were made to promote his agenda did you miss?
At the end of the day we only have one way to vote and that is with our dollars. I may get screwed over by Hollywood values but I don’t have to pay for it (not directly anyway).
Maybe North Korea will take care of Hollywood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.