Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
My belated review of Bridge of Spies.
http://www.ctka.net/2016/bridge-of-spies...story.html
I was actually being kind to the film, as there were many other things I could have scored it on.
But I wanted to center on the double standard, one for Oliver Stone, and one for Hanks, Spielberg and Clint Eastwood.
Posts: 17,304
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:But I wanted to center on the double standard, one for Oliver Stone, and one for Hanks, Spielberg and Clint Eastwood.
Thank you for taking this tack. I quite like Tom Hanks in some of his earlier work like Forrest Gump and Philadelphia but his later work has become so much propaganda shilling for empire as to make Leni Reifenstahl blush.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 2,690
Threads: 253
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2013
The previews alone look like myth-making propaganda. Hanks has done so much of this kind of stuff over the last 20+ years.
Posts: 48
Threads: 6
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:The previews alone look like myth-making propaganda. Hanks has done so much of this kind of stuff over the last 20+ years.
I never liked Tom Hanks. And I see that I have a good reason to still not like him
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
A good player on the one-touch propaganda football team...
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2015
I think you were way too kind on the film, Jim. Bridge Of Spies was deathly dull, even with all the fictional accoutrements and artificially upped ante it was somehow completely bereft of tension.
What's even more amazing is some reviews I've read have been critical of Spielberg for being too harsh on the US and the CIA. This, in a movie which is essentially an advert for the primacy of Western values in general and the US Constitution in particular, features Donovan fawning over Dulles during their meeting, and constantly (and often clunkily) contrasts US goodness freedom with USSR evil and repression.
In respect of historical accuracy, you make a very good point about the double standards of the media (as you did in Reclaiming Parkland). Some critics even praised BoS for being so historically accurate.
Posts: 118
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
I have to agree with Jim's critique, particularly the problems with the timelines. I don't recall seeing a graphic on the screen telling us that it was 1960 when Powers was shot down or when his trial took place. The movie seemed to jump from the late fifties to the early sixties where Powers was concerned. Was there even a mention of the effect on the summit meeting?
I guess we won't be seeing "The book of the film" for this one like we did for JFK.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
17-05-2016, 07:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 17-05-2016, 06:11 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Phil:
That's an interesting question.
Because I looked at the credits in several places, like IMDB. Which is usually quite complete.
I could not find the source material, Strangers on a Bridge there.
If that is true, then what these guys did is really something.
They clearly used that book as a source. But they then disguised their use of it and then dubbed the film as Inspired by True Events.
See, they want to have it both ways.
Sorry Stevie and Tommy. I'm not buying it.
Posts: 335
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2015
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Phil:
That's an interesting question.
Because I looked at the credits in several places, like IMDB. Which is usually quite complete.
I could not find the source material, Strangers on a Bridge there.
If that is true, then what these guys did is really something.
They clearly used that book as a source. But they then disguised their use of it an dibbled the film as Inspired by True Events.
See, they want to have it both ways.
Sorry Stevie and Tommy. I'm not buying it.
Yes…… 'Inspired' by true events. That sounds like it was inspired by their legal department. Didn't Stone have to call his film "a modern myth" before its release? Faction by any other name. When are these filmmakers going to start producing documentaries ?
Posts: 118
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Phil:
That's an interesting question.
Because I looked at the credits in several places, like IMDB. Which is usually quite complete.
I could not find the source material, Strangers on a Bridge there.
If that is true, then what these guys did is really something.
They clearly used that book as a source. But they then disguised their use of it an dibbled the film as Inspired by True Events.
See, they want to have it both ways.
Sorry Stevie and Tommy. I'm not buying it.
And the goofs section doesn't have anything on the anachronism of Donovan meeting with Dulles at CIA after Dulles had been fired. But they do helpfully point out that
"Several pieces of Wedgewood china are seen in a cabinet in Dulles' office. The pattern is "Columbia Sage Green & Gold", which was not made until 1966. ".
OK - good to know.
