The superb new Spielberg movie is a showcase for the superb new Spielberg.
In a recent interview with deadline.com, Guillermo del Toro – whose entertaining throwback to Gothic horror, Crimson Peak, is in theatres now – spoke of his admiration for Steven Spielberg’s Catch Me If You Can. “It’s preternaturally nimble with such grace in the way it’s staged. It’s so brisk. It’s so breathless. It’s so apparently effortless and so damn fluid. The hardest thing to accomplish on film is to make time stand still, or make a story completely fluid. Those are two truly, truly difficult things to do… The way [Spielberg’s] narrative flows is just almost miraculous and so beautifully staged.” In other words, del Toro admires Spielberg for the reasons many of us do: his amazing ability to direct a sequence. Few other directors use the space on screen so well, move the camera so instinctually that we think this is the only way this sequence could have been staged, the only way it would have made sense.
When we think of Spielberg, therefore, we think in terms of his set pieces – those extended sequences in which all filmmaking elements coalesce with breathtaking logistical planning – and there’s a doozy of a set piece in the director’s superb new movie, Bridge of Spies. But first a bit of background. It’s 1957, the height of the Cold War. A Soviet spy named Rudolf Abel is captured in Brooklyn and sent to trial, defended by an insurance lawyer named James Donovan. Despite Donovan’s spirited arguments, Abel is found guilty and sentenced to prison – until the capture of an American spy by the Russians makes Abel a valuable bargaining chip. Give us our man, the Americans say, and we’ll let you have Abel. The exchange will take place on the Glienicke Bridge (also known by the film’s title) in Germany, and the set piece kicks in around the time Donovan goes there, as the Wall is being built.
The camera moves back and forth, capturing blocks of stone and barbed wire being dropped in place to divide a nation, and we see, simultaneously, people trying to leave (what will become) East Germany and go to the West. The thing that links all this activity is the arrest of an American student named Frederic Pryor. He cycles from West to East, finds his girlfriend, asks her to leave at once, they cycle back to the Wall… only to find that the last stone is being lowered. Indiana Jones found himself in a similar situation once, when his enemies left him behind in the crypt where he found the Ark – there too, a slab of stone blocked off his exit. But that Spielberg was out to thrill us, do the things that del Toro so admired, whereas the Spielberg of Bridge of Spies isn’t out to dazzle. This set piece doesn’t scream for attention. It just is. We’re being shown what happened to Frederic Pryor, what happened around Frederic Pryor that day. It’s still a master class on how to transform pages of a talky screenplay into pure cinema – only now, there’s a subtler magician on stage.
Many people confuse the worthiness of the subject with the quality of the filmmaking, and some of Spielberg’s films, like Amistad, have told important stories without making a convincing case for why these stories wouldn’t have been better off as a book or a play. But with films like Munich and Bridge of Spies, Spielberg has moved to a realm of artistry where he’s able to put out ideas and also give us cinema, which is something of a Holy Grail for mainstream filmmakers who aren’t just out to make a buck. (It’s important to judge Spielberg as a mainstream filmmaker, and not compare him to someone who might make more uncompromised films that would play in a handful of art-house theatres.) How to entertain versus how to educate. How to make us enjoy the film (a function of our senses) and yet make us think (a function of the intellect). Spielberg balances it all beautifully. From an overhead train in Germany, Donovan looks down on people being shot as they try to scale the wall. Back home, he looks down from another train and sees kids clambering casually over suburban fences. It’s contrast, yes – but as in Munich, it’s also a reminder that the horrors we witness never really leave us. It wasn’t that Spielberg wasn’t doing any of this earlier, but even his “serious films” like Schindler’s List were largely sensory experiences. We were sucked into the drama on screen. Now, he’s cooler, more detached. The comparison isn’t accidental. Like Oskar Schindler, James Donovan is doing his darnedest to save lives.
But where Schindler’s List seems like a slice of history, a glimpse into a world that once was, Munich and Bridge of Spies come off as past events whose echoes are felt even today. When there’s madness all around, how does one keep his sanity and do the right thing, the decent thing – especially when this course of action gets you labelled a Boy Scout, a bleeding-heart liberal? How does one treat a prisoner of war? (Abel to Donovan: “You have men like me working for your country. If they were caught I am sure you’d want them to be treated well.”) To what extent should due process be followed? These questions come up in Bridge of Spies and they’re all around us today. There’s even a nod to how we take our cues from the media. How the papers talk about Donovan is how people treat him.
Bridge of Spies tells us that there are two sides to everything. Seen through American eyes, Abel is a Commie rat. There’s a stunning cut – perhaps an editorial decision, perhaps it was written that way – when the judge enters the courtroom and we hear the words “all rise,” but we move to a classroom where children get up and proclaim their allegiance to the American flag. This is the Normal Rockwell picture of life that people like Abel are threatening. And yet, isn’t Abel, from Russia’s viewpoint, a patriot, a hero even? I was reminded of the Alexander-Porus legend – they were enemies who recognised that the other was merely doing what one was doing himself. Had Spielberg made Schindler’s List today, he may have given the monstrous Nazi commandant Amon Goeth (played so chillingly by Ralph Fiennes) a more human face. We’d still have hated him, but maybe we’d have seen that he was a product of his times, like we all are.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2015 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Tambi Dude
October 24, 2015
I also enjoy the background music in his movies. John Williams seem to reserve his best for him. The BGM of Catch me if you Can was especially very good.
LikeLike
brangan
October 24, 2015
Tambi Dude: Actually,Catch Me If You Can’s sprightly score is the exception, IMO. Otherwise Williams’s syrupy scores have brought down Spielberg’s films a couple of notches.
LikeLike
chronophlogiston
October 24, 2015
Enjoyed it immensely. Loved the opening scene introduction of Abel, the lighting, his living space; it humanized the man which is what Spielberg wanted to do for the audience. Hanks is the Jimmy Stewart of our generation isn’t he?
LikeLike
Rahul
October 24, 2015
October has been a great month for movies – The martian, the walk, sicario and this.
LikeLike
the BRangan fan
October 24, 2015
sir
anything to say about tamasha songs??
LikeLike
venkatesh
October 24, 2015
What a coincidence, I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark yesterday.
Has there been any movie that starts of with such gusto – man moves forward, groups of men follow and we are up and away. No prologue, no nothing and even then everything is rock-solidly clear. You know who is doing what and why.
What is odd is that for some reason Steven Spielberg is now not a box-office king. This in spite of him still coming up with fantastic movies that triumph at the box-office. Not sure why this is so.
LikeLike
MANK
October 25, 2015
Venkatesh, I think that Raiders is Spielberg’s greatest film. I don’t have much love for his more celebrated works like Schindler or Ryan, which I look on as Oscar packages. Raiders was Spielberg at his zenith.
LikeLike
brangan
October 25, 2015
MANK: Not the greatest fan of Schindler’s list either, but I love Ryan. Little annoyances notwithstanding, I think it’s one of the most marvellous examples of mainstream craftsmanship and storytelling entertainment.
LikeLike
prasun
October 25, 2015
And yet, isn’t Abel, from Russia’s viewpoint, a patriot, a hero even?
Actually Americans do not concede the equivalence of the two – Americans spies are heroes but Russian spies are not.
American spies are fighting for the free world, for ideas that make America. There is a point in Bridge of Spies where Donovan makes this point – he is Irish and the man across him is German, but what unites them is their beliefs in American ideals.
On the other hand, Russia is not only wrong by being Communist – it is a corrupt regime as vindicated by history.
LikeLike
MANK
October 25, 2015
What is odd is that for some reason Steven Spielberg is now not a box-office king
Because he has moved away from the ET ,Jurassic park form of blockbuster populist entertainment and much more towards adult skewing movie dramas. they do become successful but do not become the biggest hit of the year. thats now the domain of marvel and pixar.
Brangan, the first 25 mins of Ryan was terrific, but after that it was all downhill for me. The sheer improbability of the mission aside, it comes across as intentionally manipulative – may be not as much as Schindler- and dunno whether entertaining is the right word to describe the storytelling in the film – with all that blood, flesh and guts thrown right in our face. I preferred Terrence Mallik’s the much more elegiac Thin red line from the same year. As for post 90’s spielberg, i think Minority Report is a n extraordinary film. And i hated AI when it came out, but i saw it very recently and i was struck by how brilliant and beautiful it was.
LikeLike
MANK
October 25, 2015
I love the term – subtler magician – that you used for Spielberg. he is the master of invisible style. when the style is great, you just wont notice it. you just have to watch the christopher Nolan films to see the contrast. They look so labored and heavy handed as opposed to spielberg’s movies that just flows. Nolan can learn a thing or two from spielberg in the way he handled complex themes in close encouters or AI or Minority Report so effortlessly.
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 25, 2015
Thanks for this article. Indeed, a different Spielberg, but one who is every bit as magnificent. Mr. Rangan, have you written anything about ‘Schindler’s List’? I would like to know what you think of it.
LikeLike
venkatesh
October 25, 2015
@MANK: I am coming to that view myself. Raiders is the greatest film of Spielberg inspite of a lot of hilarious mis-steps in the middle.
However, Saving Private Ryan is most definitely up there and Minority Report, what a great great film.
LikeLike
KayKay
October 25, 2015
venkatesh, I too love Spielberg. People who trash him seem clouded by his frequent descent into mawkish sentimentality, and thereby completely overlook his skills as a film maker. His shot compositions are excellent and his spatial awareness in orchestrating an action scene is unparalleled.
But as to why he isn’t King Of The BO anymore is primarily because Spielberg himself has chosen to eschew the action adventure genre for more “serious” material. Jurassic Park 2 was probably the last big Spielberg foray into pure popcorn entertainment. He followed that up with 3 Dystopian Sci-Fi films (A.I, Minority Report, War Of The Worlds) and a War movie Saving Private Ryan and even when he went for lighter fare like The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can, they somehow bore little resemblance to what a “Spielberg Movie” is. Munich was a stark Jewish Revenge Drama and Lincoln and Amistad his Twin Treatises on Slavery
It’s a pity his entry into pure animation, the delightful Tintin wasn’t the success it should have been (not surprising in hindsight as Herge’s creation is virtually unknown in the States). War Horse was The Beard indulging in his worst tendencies towards treacly sentimentality.
Somewhere in that varied oeuvre lies the fourth Indy movie, which Spielberg later said he was “Strong-Armed” into directing, which is a pretty telling statement on the type of movies he’d rather make.
LikeLike
vijay
October 25, 2015
Am a big fan of Minority report as well, seen it at least half dozen times. Benchmark for sci-fi thrillers. The Eastwoods and the Spielbergs of the West still keep their creative juices flowing somehow well into their 60s and 70s. why do most of our directors(music directors as well) seem to fall off a cliff when they hit their 50s?
LikeLike
brangan
October 26, 2015
KayKay: About War Horse (review here), I agree it’s an excessively sentimental movie. But there, we have amazing set pieces, like the one with the horse trapped in barbed wire.
That’s the thing with Spielberg. With rare exceptions like Amistad, his films always leave you with something. Oh yes, I love AI too. I can see where it’s problematic, but the film holds a strange, obsessive fascination for me.
LikeLike
MANK
October 26, 2015
Brangan, any thoughts on Spielberg’s 1941. I watched the film only recently with great trepidation – after all the bad reviews I have read of the film – but I ended up liking it immensely. It was so spectacular. I can see it’s problematic. But its so damn ambitious. Perhaps it’s the most ambitious film he has made. I think it’s failure affected him badly. He never tried anything so crazy in his career again.
LikeLike
Prasad
October 27, 2015
Very Nice Article. Saw some of the comments whether he is a box office king or not. I don’t know if it really matters now when it comes to Spielberg with the kind of genres he has ventured on. It’s interesting to see some of his earlier movies also including “The Duel” a pure play road movie (1971) which keeps us in the edge of the seat and “Close encounters of the third kind” which seems to be a preamble for all of his Sci fi movies like ET and AI. There is a originality and freshness and you can’t ever feel a slack in the narration.
Again his ability to venture into multiple genres like “The color Purple” ” Empire of the sun” (Christian Bale as child hero) are very interesting movies even though COlor Purple is manipulative.
Saw some comments like “Schindlers list” as manipulative but still It is a cinematic achievement in terms of the casting (Have never seen a menacing character like Amon Goeth” on screen) Production values , research and detailing. And what a Biopic to make! Definitely there’s a lesson or tow for our Indian Directors on “Making a Biopic”
Vijay
” The Eastwoods and the Spielbergs of the West still keep their creative juices flowing somehow well into their 60s and 70s”
Very True comment. This is not only applicable Spielberg and Eastwood. Just try “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” directed by Sydney Lumet at the age of 82. I mean so much control and such a compelling story. Our directors… take anybody their creativity come with a such a short shelf life I think. It’s sometimes sad to see them struggle… Bharathiraja.. KB(in 2000’s with movies like Duet) Shankar … sometimes even Mani.
LikeLike
Selvin Paul
October 27, 2015
While i agree Spielberg is a magician in terms of staging a scene or film making scale. I have a problem with ppl (critic) who take a swipe at Nolan like any other business, you guys deserve nothing less than a glass of humble pie. He is no ordinary filmmaker, perhaps a brilliant version of Kubrick. no, don’t agree? go watch Prestige (half decent) again. nuanced detailing and sheer brilliance (its only a sample). sour grapes.
LikeLike
brangan
October 27, 2015
venkatesh says his comments keep disappearing. I found some in the spam folder and rescued them.
Anyone else having this problem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Santosh Kumar T K
October 27, 2015
off topic alert!
BR, what do you think — if you are into it — of the current comic scene in india?
I ask because one of the big names — TVF — is also into the drama space, and from their recent efforts especially “Pitchers,” they seem to be quite good at it. Have you had a chance to watch any of the episodes? Comments?
( to me they are also remarkable because all their success so far has been purely on the basis of their products, and not mere (in fact zilch) presence on the social media where their subpar peers with the blessings of the cultural/political left have risen to be the culture custodians of the nation! )
LikeLike
Madhu
October 28, 2015
I had this problem of my comment disappearing around four times, quite recently – when I was trying to comment in the Manorama post; I ended up commenting via my laptop. Even before that, I have faced this issue occasionally.
LikeLike
arjun_shivaram
October 28, 2015
Hello, sir!
Great post.. 🙂
Can you take the effort to explain to me what actually “cinema fluidity” is, as Guillermo del Toro talks above.
Because, however hard I watch a film, how much ever deep I try to get in and scrutinize the elements of the film.. I just don’t get the practical meaning of fluidity. As far as I could guess, I would say it is a logical arrangement of superbly shot visuals, but I think there is more to it than just arrangement and editorial cuts..
Thanks in advance 🙂
LikeLike
Naren
October 29, 2015
BR,
It was such an experience to watch Hanks act in Spielberg movies. Somehow, the seem to share a wonderful chemistry off/on screen.. err.. yeah! 🙂
But there was one most clichéd moment towards the end when he was travelling in the train. A moment before the scene you mentioned, ‘kids jumping off the wall’. A juxtaposed moment of the fellow travelers looking at his with smile now and Hanks.. kindda.. accepting it. Isn’t this scene so obvious when they all had to stare him with enmity in the beginning. is that even needed? Spielberg or even Coen brothers who co-wrote didn’t have any trouble with it. Is it part of balancing mainstream and off stream?
LikeLike