Film review

  • Bridge of Spies

    Steven Spielberg (2015)

    The Cold War drama Bridge of Spies, based on actual events, begins in 1957.  The pivotal character, James B Donovan, is a partner in a New York law firm and a specialist in insurance settlements.  In his early days as a lawyer, he was assistant to the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg war trials.  When a man called Rudolf Abel is arrested in Brooklyn and prosecuted for espionage as a KGB agent, Donovan is approached to defend him.  The American government, while it wants Abel convicted, is also anxious to ensure the appearance of a fair trial in order to limit the Soviets’ opportunities to use it for propaganda purposes.  Although Donovan takes on the assignment reluctantly, professional and moral conscience compels him to defend Abel as strongly as possible.  Donovan’s attempts to secure an acquittal are seen by many Americans as tantamount to treason:  he and his family find themselves on the receiving end of hate mail and worse.  Abel is duly found guilty but Donovan convinces the judge to give Abel a lengthy prison term rather than a death sentence.  Part of Donovan’s argument to the judge is that Abel may one day prove useful as a bargaining tool with the USSR – in the event, that is, of a high-profile case of an American being charged with espionage on the other side of the Iron Curtain.  Donovan is vindicated when, within a very few years, two potential exchange candidates have emerged.  In 1960, the US pilot (Francis) Gary Powers, on a U2 plane sortie over the Soviet Union, is shot down and captured.  When the Berlin Wall is erected, in August the following year, Frederic Pryor, an American graduate student, is arrested by border guards after trying to get his East German girlfriend into West Berlin.  Jim Donovan becomes involved in negotiations on behalf of the CIA.  He’s instructed to negotiate Gary Powers’s release in exchange for Rudolf Abel – Powers is a bigger deal politically – but Donovan insists on a two-for-one swap and eventually succeeds.  In virtually simultaneous operations, Frederic Pryor is handed over to the US authorities at Checkpoint Charlie; Powers and Abel are exchanged on the Glienicke Bridge, which gives the film its less than inspired title.

    This account of dealings between chalk-and-cheese political systems also involves the collaboration of two very different film-making sensibilities:  Steven Spielberg directs from a screenplay for which the Coen brothers share a credit.  Matt Charman’s name appears before the Coens and it may not do to overstate their contribution.  Even so, it’s hard to ignore a tension here – an interesting one – between a script with some taut, tart dialogue and direction that cleaves to a more traditional, even square treatment.  There are real pleasures to be had from Spielberg’s approach and Bridge of Spies, although it’s too long, is high-quality entertainment.  The clarity of the storytelling and the audibility of the actors are very welcome.  As usual, Janusz Kaminski’s lighting is expert (even if the backlighting of images is overdone) and Michael Kahn’s editing fluently precise.   The first twenty minutes or so – which focus almost exclusively on Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) and his arrest by the FBI – are particularly good.   The opening shot comprises three Abels in a single frame:  the man himself; his image in a mirror; and a self-portrait that Abel is painting.  Anthony Lane in the New Yorker describes this as ‘not just a dazzling composition with which to kick off a movie but a formal introduction to the world of espionage – a haven for multiple identities’.  Lane isn’t wrong:  the composition, if you have any advance knowledge of the film’s story, is quite an obvious one but nonetheless apt.  It’s also an immediate reminder that we’re in safe, vastly experienced directorial hands.   The FBI men’s pursuit of Abel on the New York subway, before they burst into his rented room to arrest him, is very well staged and, as a result, bracing to watch.

    The enjoyment continues when Jim Donovan (Tom Hanks) enters the picture, in spite of early signs here that the film will avoid exploring tensions that might hinder the narrative.  Donovan’s wife Mary (Amy Ryan), once she’s made clear that and why she’s opposed to her husband’s taking on Abel’s case, quickly becomes almost silently loyal, even when gunshots are fired through the windows of the Donovans’ home.  At this stage, one’s doubts about Bridge of Spies are subdued thanks to the quality of the acting and some nice touches by Spielberg – as when Jim Donovan says grace at the family dinner table with a quiet urgency designed partly to silence his wife.  But the script develops a tendency to rhyme or repeat details.  Spielberg is keen to emphasise these and the effect is sometimes pat.  I liked it that, when we first meet Donovan, he’s debating an insurance claim case and how many clients can benefit from the single incident underlying the claim; the resonance of this with the later two-for-one negotiations in Berlin is amusing and effective.  Tom Hanks’s fine playing nearly transcends the crude political juxtaposition of what Donovan sees from the upper deck of a Berlin bus (guards shooting dead the young Germans trying to scale the Wall) and, on his eventual return home, from the window of a New York train (American kids playing ball and clambering over a high wire fence).  It’s too much, though, when, on the same commuter train at the end, Donovan gets a quietly admiring smile from the woman passenger who earlier gave him a filthy look when she recognised him from newspaper photos as the defender of the Communist spy.  Struck by Abel’s imperturbability when he first goes to see him in custody, Donovan asks if he isn’t worried.  ‘Would it help?’ replies Abel.  A bit later, Donovan asks a similar question and gets the same response.  This first repetition is amusing; the next one – turning Abel into a man with a catchphrase – less so.  A larger problem develops in preparing the ground for the East-West negotiations.  Spielberg seems to devote as much time as he does to the Gary Powers strand because the aerial sequences have spectacular potential.  The Frederic Pryor strand is perfunctory:  like the CIA, the director treats Pryor (Will Rogers) as of little importance compared with Powers (Austin Stowell).  In Berlin, Spielberg’s appetite for managing large-scale action distracts him from the core of the story and the film starts to drag.

    There’s another reason, however, for the loss of momentum when Donovan goes to Europe:  you miss his exchanges with Abel.  The development of their liking and respect for each other is one of the film’s strongest elements.  When Mark Rylance played Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall on television earlier this year, you knew you were watching a fine actor but the performance contained few surprises and grew tedious after a while.  Although Rylance’s controlled underplaying contrasted with the obviousness of many of the lines he was given to speak, and the dramatic construction of the piece as a whole, it got to dominate Wolf Hall, infecting others in the cast.  In Bridge of Spies, his dry wit is unlike anything else in the film:  Rylance compels attention from the start and brings unexpected textures to proceedings.  He makes Rudolf Abel convincingly anonymous, gives him a cynical air and subtly conveys how Jim Donovan modifies Abel’s cynicism.  Rylance’s deadpan, delayed delivery of punchlines is often funny.  At one point, FBI men discuss whether Abel is putting on a fake accent and their puzzlement is believable:  Rylance has devised an accent that is very suitably hard to pin down, though I thought I detected Northern Irish notes.  (The real Rudolf Abel was born and raised in the north east of England.  According to Wikipedia, ‘his father was an ethnic German from Russian and his mother was of Russian descent’.  The family left England for Moscow in 1921.  Abel moved to North America in 1948.)

    Tom Hanks is admirable.   It’s crucial to the conception of Bridge of Spies that Jim Donovan is a regular guy and a sharp cookie, and Hanks strikes the balance very well.  He gets across Donovan’s persisting incredulity at being involved in defending Abel and then in negotiating with the Soviet authorities.  He also shows the lawyer’s intellectual self-confidence:  you can see Donovan thinking, ‘I’m smart enough to do this’.  The comedy of his shabby treatment by the Americans while he’s in Berlin – he’s in a cramped, freezing room while the CIA men stay in a good hotel – is overworked in the script but not by Hanks.   Donovan loses his overcoat at one stage in Berlin.  When he gets a new one, with a big fur collar, Tom Hanks is on the verge of looking too impressive (especially since the CIA agent with whom Donovan has most contact is unprepossessing) but this actor’s sovereign ordinariness just about seems him through.   Another of Hanks’s qualities proves even more important when Jim Donovan is used as a mouthpiece for core American values.  Hanks deflates the rhetoric while persuading you that Donovan means what he says.  The acting in the film is generally strong.  Amy Ryan does well in the underwritten role of Mary Donovan:  she creates her own opportunities to hint at divided feelings.   In a small part, as one of Gary Powers’s fellow pilots, Jesse Plemons once again registers.

    2 December 2015

  • Broken Embraces

    Los abrazos rotos

    Pedro Almodóvar (2009)

    I saw Inglourious Basterds in the last week of August and Broken Embraces on the first day of September.  The two pictures, for all their differences, were immediately coupled in my mind because they display their creators’ cinephilia in such a very explicit way.  The Tarantino film angered me and I really enjoyed the Almodóvar one.  It’s taken ages to get my thoughts about it down on paper and I knew many weeks ago this was because I didn’t really have anything to write.  It took me long enough to do a note of Inglourious Basterds but I felt a pressure to do it that I never felt with Broken Embraces.  Three months on and the notes I scribbled the day I saw it remind me that I liked the film then.  But it’s virtually evaporated in the meantime, whereas parts of Tarantino’s picture (although it still angers me) have stayed strong.   Pedro Almodóvar nowadays directs with complete confidence yet, in terms of the strength of his themes and obsessions, he seems to be in decline.  He’s not old for a film-maker (sixty this year) but he doesn’t seem to have that much left to say.

    Broken Embraces is about the doomed love affair between a cinema writer-director and the woman who became a leading lady in one of his films.  In the present tense of the story, the man, Mateo Blanco, is now blind and has taken the name ‘Harry Caine’.  He shares his life with his loyal assistant, Judit, and her adult son, Diego.  The story moves backwards and outwards from its starting point.  Soon we’re in 1992 and watching a beautiful young woman called Lena, whose father is dying and whose mother is poor.  Lena is secretary to an immensely wealthy businessman, Ernesto Martel, but she has to supplement her income, in order to pay her father’s hospital bills, with part-time work as a prostitute.  Her life changes once she becomes Martel’s mistress.  She announces that she wants to become an actress and gets a part in a film Mateo is making.   The obsessively jealous and suspicious Martel has his creepy, effeminate son spy on Lena and Mateo with a camcorder.   Broken Embraces has plenty of plot:  Almodóvar has to do a lot of melodramatic writing to tie together the various strands of the story.  The contrivance is enjoyable as you’re watching the film, as is the heap of movie references.  Love of cinema and the extent to which films enrich characters’ fantasy lives and inform their real ones are familiar Almodóvar themes but in a picture like All About My Mother they’re an important part rather than the sum total of the people in the story.  Broken Embraces seems to be so completely about film-making that, even though it’s more dynamic than Almodóvar’s previous film Volver (2006), it ultimately lacks a life of its own.   (Although this obviously can’t apply in the same way to the title in Spanish, the fact that ‘Broken Embraces’ sounds more like a translation than a natural English form of words puts quotation marks round the film in a way that fits with its artificiality.)

    Of course there are rewards to be had from this.  Some are minor but affecting, like Mateo listing favourites in his collection of films and saying he can live with being blind provided he can still hear the voice of Jeanne Moreau.  (How much you get out of this will probably depend on the extent of overlap between Mateo’s favourites and your own.)  A few other sequences amount to something more.  One day when Mateo is out for a walk with him, Diego remarks on a ‘Give Blood’ poster and this sparks a rapid brainstorming between the two men to invent a screenplay based on blood-doning.  You get the sense that this is something that’s tickled and fired the imagination of Almodóvar himself on seeing a ‘Give Blood’ notice but it works really well: it’s funny as a virtual comedy sketch and it helps to realise a bond between Mateo and Diego.  It also pays off in the eventual revelation that they’re blood relatives:  Mateo is Diego’s father (a revelation which is also a good illustration of Almodóvar’s continuing ability to make a moment feel right even if, in storytelling terms, it’s obvious and mechanical).  I can’t help  taking pleasure in the happy ending of Broken Embraces, underlined by Mateo’s maxim that, ‘You always have to make another film.’  But there are irritations in cinema’s stranglehold on the proceedings too.   The picture that Mateo is making in which Lena stars is called ‘Girls and Suitcases’ and it’s a replica of Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.  Since it never occurs to you that Mateo is the same kind of film-maker as his creator, this idea seems not just self-indulgent but lazy on Almodóvar’s part.

    Pedro Almodóvar has a marvellous ability to create images without pinning them down, without giving them a limiting meaning.  The colouring of the sets and the clothes are what you’ve come to expect and enjoy in his films.  I’m less sure, though, about the way he uses Penélope Cruz as Lena as part of the design.  When, for example, she puts on a blonde wig, Almodóvar seems to be turning Cruz into an artificially constructed image of a woman.  Cruz is a good enough actress to distract you from this most of the time but I was still occasionally uncomfortable watching her, or, at least, the way Almodóvar presents her.  (That wig almost turns her into a drag queen.)  You’ve come to expect the actresses to be the stars of an Almodóvar show; as well as Cruz, it’s good to see Blanca Portillo (although, as Judit, she’s saddled with more than her fair share of backstory exposition), Chus Lampreave (her role is too small, as usual) and Lola Dueñas again.   Lluís Homar, however, makes Mateo a stronger male character than has appeared in any Almodóvar picture since Talk to Her. He’s good not just at acting blind but at presenting a man who has deeply interiorised his past.  Tamar Novas is Diego, the monkish José Luis Gómez is Martel and Rubén Ochandiano plays his son, whose camera sees all (‘Ray X’).   The cinematographer is Rodrigo Prieto and the score, which has plenty of sinister wit, is by Alberto Iglesias.

    1 September 2009

Posts navigation