Would it help ? If.....


If the plot were less convoluted, it certainly would have made for a better film. Frankly, with all the liberties taken by the film, removing the subplot of Pryor would have made it far more compelling. Like most Americans at the time, I'm quite familiar with the Abel /Powers exchange since it was a huge story at the time. Admittedly, however I knew nothing of Pryor portion of the story. That said, he was merely a byproduct of a major event. Yet given the screen time devoted to him and the awful rendering of his story, it might have been beneficial to discard it,
The entire sequence of negotiations with GDR was incomprehensible. What was Vogel's angle ? What occurred in the offices of the supposed Comrade Ott, was he merely an actor ? Why the separate entities working on behalf of the USSR & GDR ? Please !
But more importantly there was no reference made to the embarrassment caused by Powers' capture. At the time of the incident Eisenhower & Khrushchev were in the midst of a summit meeting.The Russian Premier immediately seized on the shooting down of the U2 spy plane as a huge propaganda coupe, resulting in diplomatic fiasco for President Eisenhower.To have overlooked the big picture, the geopolitical implications of the story, without even a brief mention, was a major flaw in the story.

reply

I completely agree with you regarding the Pryor subplot. It made no sense to me to include it.

reply

I saw a main theme of the movie the humanity and decency and determination of a regular American, Donovan (perfect role for Tom Hanks). Things would have been so much easier for him if he had just knuckled under the pressure on him to just focus on getting Powers out. But Donovan couldn't abandon an innocent young American, and put himself at risk to do, what he viewed, as the right thing.

I think the Pryor story worked for this theme.

Was complicated in parts. I appreciated it more on second viewing.

reply

I agree with your post. The Pryor exchange was important to the plot. It demonstrates the chess maneuvers of the countries during the Cold War as well as the need to save face and put a positive spin on the exchange. The U.S. got a twofer. Nah nah nah nah nah.

The movie gets better with each viewing. Once you aren't confused anymore by the plot and are able to keep track of the parade of bland looking men (I've never seen so many weak chins in one movie), then you can concentrate on Tom Hanks' performance and Spielberg's direction. Both of them are masters of their craft, and the movie is beautifully edited by Michael Kahn, who is 80 years old and still working.

One thing annoys me: Abel somberly telling Donovan to be careful (twice), directly followed by the bullets flying into Donovan's home. We didn't need this obvious tip off. Also, when I hear the CIA agent say to Donovan, "Don't go 'Boy Scout' on me," I now visualize Hanks wearing a dress. Thanks Boy Scouts. 

Also, I've developed a desire for Nescafe, which they still sell. Has anyone tried the stuff?

reply

beautifully edited by Michael Kahn, who is 80 years old and still working.


I wonder if it's actually true, because he said, in an interview when Bridge of Spies came out, that he is:
"closer to 85, actually".

reply

That would be even more remarkable.

reply