•
Rating: [Contains spoilers]
Spielberg's new film is undoubtedly a heavy piece, magnificently written and shot. 140 minutes of often dense dialogues full of details and very fine political nuances. People in the theater, having just indulged in Christmas feasts, surely yawned, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the work of the famous filmmaker is of the highest level.
The screenplay was written by the Coen brothers, which explains a lot. The dialogues are detailed but not overly complex, dense yet always clear, serious but with necessary ironic twists to lighten the tone. Obviously, the film speaks a political, serious, and sustained language, but it never becomes cold and distant. The writing is so meticulously calibrated to appear credible and precise without losing the audience's empathy.
The direction is also essentially impeccable. Spielberg is in a state of grace, directing with the wisdom and elegance of the greats. The staging overflows with cinematic wisdom and is exalted by simply masterful shots and camera movements. While recounting the main story, many collateral details are generously revealed, enriching an already substantial whole. Indeed, it is the details that prove decisive in a sober weave like this because they give it vitality. So when lawyer Donovan discusses with the counterpart and asks for another whiskey, we know why (he has a cold); Judge Mortimer, while discussing with Donovan in his home, also fumbles with his bow tie. The details become even more decisive when they carry a conceptual weight: at the end, Donovan sees kids climbing over a fence, and the viewer immediately recalls the sequence at the Berlin Wall. In a few seconds, the director gives representation to American freedom in contrast to Soviet repression.
In terms of content, the first part is wonderful and open to interpretations even updating American inconsistencies. To defend their values from Communism, American authorities fail to respect those very principles that characterize — or should characterize — the West. The second half follows more canonical lines, though doing so with great elegance. It's only a pity for the somewhat triumphalistic ending, which overshadows the otherwise sharp critique of the obtuse CIA value system. Donovan is a hero, but from such a refined Spielberg, one could have expected a less loud praise, like the rest of the film.
Tom Hanks is simply perfect in the role of Donovan, but Mark Rylance's performance as Rudolf Abel is even better: the actor truly grasped the attitude to maintain, that of a spy who must dissimulate tranquility and coexist with danger. His distant looks are truly wonderful. There are also many "rough faces" in the cast suited to the story type: above all, Mikhail Gorevoy as a KGB executive. This choice too gives credibility to the staging.
The grainy photography is beautiful, but in some parts, it goes overboard. Just like the chromatic play that highlights the Soviet gloom: it's acceptable, but when Donovan returns to America, the colors become too dazzling. Venial sins that can be forgiven, but could have been avoided.
In short, for those who love films about legal disputes and complex political negotiations, Bridge of Spies will be a godsend. In its genre, it's almost perfect, but the lukewarm reception it received in America is also understandable. Spielberg doesn't even pretend to pander to the public: a peculiar and less captivating title, the not-so-young Hanks as the protagonist, an outdated political issue. Steven cares little about appealing to the masses, who have previously celebrated him on numerous occasions. Is it a sign of complete maturity or an inability to provoke new enthusiasms on a large scale? The next film, The BFG, will say something about it.
7.5/10
Loading comments slowly
