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.
Haven’t seen the movie, however the words ‘Inspiredd by true events’ is a virtual guarantee that its contents are horse sh*t.
Most here and elsewhere too young to remember the not so cold, "Cold War." Disappointed to not see many young people in the theater. Mostly old dudes (like me). I was at Fulda Gap in the 60s. And elsewhere. Saw the Iron Curtain many times. Frightening then, and frightening now to think of it.
[snip]There are two marvelous themes at work in “Bridge of Spies.” The most prominent is a crucial reminder that regular, everyday American citizens are the only corrective measure against a government that almost always errors on the side of encroaching against our civil rights. The other, and this is spoken out loud in one of the film’s best moments, is that if you know you did the right thing, you shouldn’t worry about what others think of you.
Spielberg has come a long way since his moral monstrosity “Munich,” and his art is all the better for it. “Bridge of Spies” is Spielberg’s best film since 1993’s “Schindler’s List.”
Thanks for the updates. I was around then, but the memory has gotten fuzzy.
Don’t prejudge. It’s a terrific film. I expected to ind lots wrong with it and was left with some questions at the end (even though I likes it). However, upon researching the facts of the case, it filled in the gaps in my memory. You have allow that the news media didn’t tell us everything at the time.
Go see it.
Haven’t all of our memories? Thus the reason for the vanity. I wanted to check everyone else’s memories to see if they jibed with mine.
I have a pretty good memory, but we weren’t privy to all of the facts for many years, if you remember those years.
In the days before the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, classifed meant classified, and top secret meant top secret.
Spoiler ... to some extent ... alert ...
Hanks: Good, but ... 'shut up and act'
I think they handled the Powers thing well. When he gets on the plan going home w/Hanks, he says 'I didn't tell them anything' .... Hanks says 'All that matters is what you know you did' ... I would say this left the impression that he talked.
There is some typical liberal hollywood BS like making Abel out to be a wonderful human being. Also, the insertion of whether 'enemy combatants have the right to due process' was clearly updated to reflect modern stuff, and frankly DID NOT WORK or make sense.
That said, it's not overly political, Hanks does a good job although I don't like him politically (again: shut up and act) ... I've also had to throw up in my mouth for thinking that Matt Damon and Johnny Depp did a good job in their craft of acting in Black Mass.
It's a quality flick, without too much politics inserted. It's not deep, it's a little slow ... but it's a good solid movie, and the guy that plays Abel does a great job - I think Tom Hanks does an OK job too - although he's a little like Nick Cage where you feel like you're watching the Nick Cage Movie rather than whatever movie it is ... it's gotten to be the same with Tom Hanks - always he's some ethically perfect sensitive guy. If I saw the same movie without The Spielberg name on it ... I might rate it less.
A for being solid and quality, B for story, A- for acting, B for fast moving.
Events are before my time and I don't know the history therefore accuracy. It SEEMED that Steve left the unknown to remain mostly unknown ... and wasn't trying to make a point - he really didn't overdo the Constitutional lawyer junk ... more like he just wanted to tell a good story.
Having watched the South Park Yelp episode this week, and not being someone who every writes reviews, I hope there will be no Bug... and cu... in my popcorn next time :-)
See post #38 for straight poop on the Constitutional Law question. Poster studied decision in law school. Interesting.
Ahhh - thank you!
As a result I'll be giving this one a miss,as I do with 99.9% of the swill that comes out of Hollywood.
You trust Google?
Not necessarily, but it provides an easy portal to many sources of Info. For what it’s worth, a retired CIA agent who was stationed in Russia during the years covered by the film appeared on Fox & Friends this AM. He said that the film was very accurate in its portrayal.
Of course, I wondered what he was doing appearing publicly and identifying himself as formerly CIA. I thought these guys were supposed to keep their identities secret forever.
I liked "The Martian" more.
That comment about Google was kind of a wise-guy question. I heard that in China they were reporting on people who Googled forbidden topics, like freedom, democracy, etc. as a condition of doing business there.
I saw it Sunday.
A good movie with a great plot.
The plot is historically accurate,
but....
...the movie is a perfect example of how Hollywood puts a leftist spin on everything.
The communist spy (Abel) is portrayed as a likable character, even innocent. The Soviet negotiator - as a reasonable man. Meanwhile, Gary Powers is shown as a bumbling idiot. CIA and FBI agents are pig-headed and cold-hearted. Judge Byers is shown as being deeply corrupt and unreasonably uninterested in constitutional justice. And the citizens who want this spy put way are simply ugly.
It is an interesting topic and the movie is well worth the price of admission. But get ready for the left hook.
I didn’t quite see it that way. I don’t think Abel was portrayed as innocent. He clearly was NOT innocent and the movie showed him that way. They didn’t show his underling in this story at all who betrayed him and blew his cover. Likeable — yes in a perverse way. But, isn’t that what a good spy is — likeable? That’s how they get away with their treachery. He just never admitted anything. He just stood up.
I thought the leftist spin was with the idea that even illegal aliens are covered by the Constitution. People of the era (and I am of the era) did NOT think that way. To my surprise, however, a poster here studied this decision in law school and that was one of the points that was taught and was pointed out be CJ Earl Warren in the SCOTUS decision, even though Donovan and Abel lost the appeal. See post #38.
How did it show Abel as innocent? It all but showed him doing his espionage right from the start.
This is exactly why I don't waste one penny on Hollywood anymore. I read the review of this movie at The Blaze - the reviewer liked it - but just from reading that review, I could tell the movie is a definite miss due to all the boilerplate Leftist nonsense from the first part of the movie. Government run by GOP = bad/evil, lawyer protecting the Marxist puke = superhero. Same as it ever was.
My understanding of the U-2 mission profile was that they would take off, climb until the engine flamed-out, then glide until they reached the proper altitude, re-light the engine, and repeat until reaching the end of the mission.
I have heard one suggestion that Lee Harvey Oswald, who defected to the Soviet Union a few months before Powers was shot down, told the Soviets that the U-2 followed this varying trajectory and would be more vulnerable to shoot-down as it was nearing the relight altitude.
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.