People claiming this movie is US propaganda didn't pay any attention - Bridge of Spies (2015) Discussion

[–] drivenkick43 9 years ago

Agree. Any time a movie is made about a historical event, some people have the knee jerk reaction to cry "propaganda!" It really is quite tiring.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] onaks_ne1 9 years ago

Well said. I completely agree with you.

reply

[–] dalecoleman3 9 years ago

Couldn't agree more. Have been arguing much the same since it was released.

reply

[–] rodrigo666 9 years ago

This movie not only is filled by USA propaganda as it is full of lies:

For instance, Powers stated in his autobiography, written a decade after his return to the USA, that he suffered no abuse during his captivity in the Soviet Union. Abel, however, said that during his interrogation he was struck in the face by an FBI agent for refusing to cooperate.

What do we see in the movie? Powers got a sleep deprivation treatenment, without even a proper place to urinate and got water torture as well. Abel on the other hand even got to use his pencils for some art.

Other thing, Powers was told by the Soviets that execution for espionage was rare in the USSR, but Abel was informed that he would very likely get the death penalty. In fact, only a few years before Abel's trial in 1957, the Rosenbergs had been sent to the electric chair for activities on behalf of the Soviet Union. Finally, Powers received a relatively light 10 years imprisonment while Abel was given 30 years.

The Soviets were illustrated in the movie as subjecting Powers to a "show trial," but this is exactly what the Americans did with Rudolf Abel. It turns out, despite all the blather about the high ideals of the American legal system, Donovan and his co-conspirators were mainly interested in promoting the idea of the so-called superior values of American "fair play". The real reason why Donovan wanted to save Abel's life was to hold him as a bargaining chip in the inevitable event of a spy swap with the Soviets.

A very important thing that the movie fail to demonstrate is that Donovan had been head legal counsel in the OSS, helping to organize its successor, the CIA, after WWII! He admitted in his memoirs that at the time he was defending Abel, he "still held a commission as a commander in Naval Intelligence."

All this makes sense in terms of American exceptionalism, but if the film had been shot from the Soviet perspective (taking into account the undeniable facts), it might go something like this:

The US repeatedly violates Soviet airspace until one of their spy planes is shot down. Despite the pilot's refusal to denounce the criminal activity of his government, he receives a very light sentence in comparison to America's treatment of captured Soviet agents.

Some time later, a CIA spymaster shows up in East Berlin demanding the release of two American spies in exchange for one Soviet spy. Although this naturally strikes the Soviets as unfair, they decide to cooperate. Colonel Abel returns home to a hero's welcome, while Francis Powers is held incommunicado by the CIA for "debriefing" for nearly a month, then is denounced by the media and received by much of the American public as a traitor (all true)!

reply

[–] johnston.scot 9 years ago

Abel was informed that he would very likely get the death penalty.

Which was shown in the movie.

Powers received a relatively light 10 years imprisonment while Abel was given 30 years.

As shown in the moive.

The real reason why Donovan wanted to save Abel's life was to hold him as a bargaining chip in the inevitable event of a spy swap with the Soviets.

As shown in the movie.

helping to organize its successor, the CIA

Donovan was gone from the OSS two years before the CIA was created. At that time he was working with Justice Jackson on the prosecution of Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg trials.

it might go something like this:

That's pretty much how the movie did go.

reply

[–] rodrigo666 9 years ago

The real reason why Donovan wanted to save Abel's life was to hold him as a bargaining chip in the inevitable event of a spy swap with the Soviets.
As shown in the movie.

Are you sure about that? So why the movie show him appealing from the sentence? That wasn't accurate and even neccessary!

helping to organize its successor, the CIA
Donovan was gone from the OSS two years before the CIA was created. At that time he was working with Justice Jackson on the prosecution of Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg trials.

From Wikipedia:

Donovan did not have an official role in the newly formed CIA but with his protégé Allen Dulles and others, he was instrumental in its formation. Having led the OSS during World War II, Donovan’s opinion was especially influential as to what kind of intelligence organization was needed as a bi-polar post-war world began to take shape. Although he was a force to be reckoned with, his idea for consolidating intelligence met with strong opposition from the State, War and Navy Departments and J. Edgar Hoover. President Truman was inclined to create an organization that would gather and disseminate foreign intelligence; Donovan argued that the new agency should also be able to conduct covert action. Truman was unenthusiastic about this additional authority, but Donovan's arguments prevailed and were reflected in the National Security Act of 1947 and the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949. In 1946, Truman appointed Rear Admiral Sidney Souers, USNR, as the first Director of Central Intelligence. This was an important first step but the actual creation of the CIA required another persuasive voice, that of Hoyt Vandenberg. In 1947 Rear Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter was appointed as the first Director of the CIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Donovan

it might go something like this:
...
That's pretty much how the movie did go.

Yah, that's pretty much how the movie did go.

Alright, you are fooling yourself believing in that.

reply

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Donovan

WTF? This is not our guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Donovan

After graduating from law school, Donovan started work at a private lawyer's office. In 1942, he became Associate General Counsel at the Office of Scientific Research and Development. From 1943 to 1945, he was General Counsel at the Office of Strategic Services. In 1945, he became assistant to Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg trials in Germany.[5] Donovan was the presenter of visual evidence at the trial. While he prepared for the trials he also worked as an advisor for the documentary feature The Nazi Plan.

reply

[–] johnston.scot 9 years ago

Really?! Please tell me you're engaged in a kind of gonzo parody of Euro-centric American bashing. Please.

The guy in the movie was obviously William "Wild Bill" Donovan. People don't really give him the credit he deserves for negotiating Powers' release after he was already dead.

Incidentally, you realize that Donovan's boss at the Nuremberg trials later went on to create the Jackson Five before coaching the Lakers and later changing genders and making a name as player for Australia and the Seattle Storm. They even made a musical about him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Jackson_(manager)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jackson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Jackson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Bloody_Andrew_Jackson

reply

[–] johnston.scot 9 years ago

The real reason why Donovan wanted to save Abel's life was to hold him as a bargaining chip in the inevitable event of a spy swap with the Soviets.

As shown in the movie.

So why the movie show him appealing from the sentence? That wasn't accurate and even neccessary!

Just to finish up - or attempt to - with this spectacularly ill-considered argument:

The movie never shows Donovan "appealing from the sentence." I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean.

It shows him arguing to the trial court judge (in an informal meeting at the Judge's home, toward the end of the trial*) that he should not sentence Abel to death, because by keeping him alive, he might someday be used a bargaining chip in the event of a spy swap with the Soviets. I guess he may not have considered such a swap "inevitable," exactly, but that's not a major point. And - I guess - while Donovan's motives aren't 100% transparent, his deepest motivation probably wasn't simply to facilitate a spy swap, but to save his client's life. Which may well have been the case - indeed, probably was the case - in real life. In any event, the movie doesn't exactly shy away from the notion that Abel was allowed to live largely because of his potential value in a spy swap.

It also shows him appealing the outcome of the case, which he did in real life. The appeal was related to the admissibility of evidence gathered in the coruse of an arrest, without a search warrant. It wasn't in regard to the sentence. In any event Abel was sentenced to imprisonment, rather than death, by the trial court. If Donovan had appealed the sentence, it presumably would've been simply to shorten its length.

It's also accurate. I don't know if it was entirely necessary. I mean, it's an interesting story element, but the gist of the story wouldn't be affected by omitting it. Given that he lost at the Supreme Court - as shown in the movie - I don't see how including it could possibly serve any "propaganda" purpose.
____
*Which, incidentally, almost certainly didn't happen, at least not exactly that way, is it would have been a highly improper ex parte communication. Donovan may well have made the argument to the judge - he probably did - but it would've been either in open court or in a conference with a prosecution lawyer present. But showing it the way they did has no particular propaganda benefit, and could conceivably go the other way.

reply

[–] wyldeone2 9 years ago

Yes, johnston.scot, you are exactly right about the quotes shown above being explained in the movie. I replied in order to add that at the end of this film there were written statements on the screen that showed other things James B. Donovan did after this spy exchange. I rewound the DVD back and read them a 2nd time. It lists the Bay Of Pigs prisoner swap negotiations in Cuba as shown on the wikipedia page. And as every good reasercher knows, multiple sources are required.

Here is a 2nd example of many http://jamesbdonovan.com/ for rodrigo666.

_____

Books and movies are usually better than real life.

reply

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

Finally, Powers received a relatively light 10 years imprisonment while Abel was given 30 years.

There was no possibility of 30 year imprisonment in Soviet Union. Maximum lenght of imprisonment was 15 years - it was either that or death penalty.

Powers got 2/3 of maximum and Abel got 2/3 of maximum (30 out of 45 years).

reply

[–] amalija91 9 years ago

There was no possibility of 30 year imprisonment in Soviet Union. Maximum lenght of imprisonment was 15 years - it was either that or death penalty.

Coming from a nation that has emerged from 50 years under Soviet rule, it is a fact that under Article 58 one could be sentenced for 25 years in a Gulag camp in various and remote parts in Siberia without the right to return. Ever. Because of "Counterrevolutionary Crimes". Some things changed when Stalin died, though (1953).

reply

[–] robbystoner 9 years ago

I am late to the party .. but.. here goes my post anyway.

I get the feeling you missed the feel and point of the film. The film wasn't really about telling the truth of the biographies of Powers or Donovan. It's based on historical events but I am sure Spielberg and co. took some liberties with historical facts to try to tell a good story and make a good film. And that's what BOS is, it's just a good well make film. It's not a documentary about Donavan or Powers. And film makers are allowed to take liberties with facts in order to make a good film. Even films that are based on true stories. Nowhere does it say they have to stick to facts 100% of the time. you are allowed to embelish characeters, combine certain characters into one, play with temporal order, play with facts a bit if needed in order to get a good story out on film.

BOS was an allegory to times past. To Cold War America of the 50s and paranoia of the "reds" and what it means to be an American and an patriot in cold war America in the 50s, and to some extent, what it means to be an American and a patriot today? Do the things that make America great take precedence over national security? Should you be allowed to side step the constitution and the American justice system for national security. Which one takes precendence? Thats what the film was really about.

Can this really be the end..to be stuck inside of mobile
with the Memphis blues again.

reply

[–] Kawada_Kira (7282) 4 years ago

The depiction of East Berlin was probably the silliest thing. The whole portrayal of communists in this movie was unbelievably awful, but the way East Germany was portrayed was downright laughable. The Soviets supposedly "didn't allow" the GDR to rebuild their own capital city, whereas in the real world the reconstruction of East Berlin had begun practically as soon as the guns went silent. In this movie East Berlin was basically a war zone, soldiers all over the place, oh but of course despite heavy security everywhere in sight in the form of evil authoritarian communist police (unlike good friendly capitalist police who will just choke you to death for being black), it was also completely lawless with rampant crime and chaos (unlike good peaceful capitalist countries where crime is unheard of - btw which country has 25% of the entire world's prison population again? Hint: it ain't a communist country).

Rudolf Abel was depicted respectfully, thank God, one of the few times in the entire history of Hollywood (and certainly the only time in this movie) that a communist was portrayed as **gasp** a PERSON and not a caricature. The decent portrayal of Abel was the only thing I thought was ok in this movie. I actually thought the movie was pretty decent up until we got to Berlin, with poor sad innocent crying people being victimized for no reason by the big bad Stasi in a city that looked like it was still 1945. It was all downhill from there. The GDR and USSR have been gone for three decades and the capitalist world still can't stop trying to demonize them to the limits of the human imagination.

reply

[–] pelican_somber 9 years ago

Good post. The protagonist was fighting against his own government as much as he was the Russians or Germans. His character was the only one really shown in a good light.

And East Berlin was a *beep* hole. Looks like some of you just have come to grips with that, or move to Venezuela.

reply

[–] RobbieCalifornia 9 years ago

Loved the movie, it's a great true story. I don't give a damn about the minor details. These super long picky posts,are ridiculous, why not just write a book while you're at it?

Great movie and James Donovan was a good man.

reply

[–] dreamchildrulesfandorina 9 years ago

i agree i was a great movie trying to tell an accurate story and yet bee an entertainig movie,and not a us propaganda movie (whitch i truly hate)so political asside:it should yust be enjoyd as a great piece of cinema.nothing else.:-)))

reply

[–] dreamchildrulesfandorina 9 years ago

basicly it was a story about 2 great men from both side who kept their heads clear and stoud up against the two superpowers where the inviduels did`nt matter when it came to the countrys own interest.national interest as it is called.it is always easy for them (yes iven the us)to forget the rights of the inviduel when it crashes with national security and the nations honour.

reply

[–] dreamchildrulesfandorina 9 years ago

the greatest harm to a nation is not the one an indeviduel can cause.but what a nation can du to an indeviduel.(this goes special for a free democratic nation)so for a hollywood movie bridge of spies what quit a sober movie in its presentation of the story.:-)))

reply

[–] rudykawa 9 years ago

It is a propaganda when it's shown that americans are diverse and foreigners are robots all the same, evil and manipulative.
Or stupid like they did this time with the germans.

It's just like telling a false flaw in a job interview. "Oh. I tink my worst flaw is being a perfectionist. Ohhhhh". It's a "flaw" that you throw out trying to state that you actually will be a hard working guy.
All the different things the OP said was meant to mean that americans are free, with free thinking and everyone has the right to say and act.
While in Germany and URSS they are not. All the same, all conspiratory. Except for the one guy, the spy, that was actually a scottish that was living in US for 8 years. So convenient.

If it was not a propaganda, why the lie about the pilot being tortured? Specially with a scene right after showing the soviet spy being waked up gently, with a soft voice, with a soft breeze blown by a wiggling hat.
Or am I imagining that those scenes were in the movie.

Anyway.
It's a Spielberg movie and we all should see maniqueisms coming miles away.
But it was not a bad movie. At least better than 90% of what he has been doing in the past decades.

reply

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

foreigners are robots all the same, evil and manipulative.

Most of the foreigners in this film are part of security apparatus of communist dictatorships. Yes, they are evil to anyone sane.

All the different things the OP said was meant to mean that americans are free, with free thinking and everyone has the right to say and act.
While in Germany and URSS they are not.

Compared to America there was no freedom in SU or GDR, this undisputable fact.

reply

[–] msbj_bear 9 years ago

Stallone should have got this...mark who ?????

reply

[–] johnston.scot 9 years ago

Stallone should have got this

"This" being, what, exactly? The point that the movie isn't US propaganda? For all we know, he did.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

Most of the foreigners in this film are part of security apparatus of communist dictatorships. Yes, they are evil to anyone sane.

Actually, I thought the Soviet Rezident, Schischkin, was a pretty interesting character. He co-operated with Donovan, even though he lied about who he was. In the scene on the bridge he was trying to force Donovan's hand and Donovan wasn't having it. It was just another bout of brinkmanship, not born of good versus evil but of each side playing high stakes poker. That was their job. The East Germans are just hilarious. In his book "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold", British author and former intelligence officer, John Le Carre describes East German politicians as "political neurotics", which is exactly what they were. This comes over quite well in the scene with DDR Attorney General (or whatever the equivalent was), Harald Ott. That's not the same as being evil. Just slightly insane. Their battle was not world domination. They were the school kids who never got any recognition and spent their time seeking attention.

reply

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

Well, maybe evil is too strong word, but anybody working in the "organs" of a totalitarian regime is certainly not good in the conventional sense.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

Yeah, I can see there is some truth in that. Things had changed a bit since Stalin's time so they had probably moved from totalitarian to authoritarian (less personality cult). A lot of the administrators in Eastern Europe at this time were people who had been fighting the Nazis since the 1920s and had fled to the Soviet Union after Hitler became Chancellor. Others were people who had distinguished themselves in combat or wartime leadership (such as Khrushchev). Given what a lot of them had seen and been through, it is pretty unsurprising that they had a rather distorted view of the world.

So, compared to us, yes they probably were not good in the conventional sense.

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

anybody working in the "organs" of a totalitarian regime is certainly not good in the conventional sense.

How about someone working for a state where "freedom" and "equality" means exterminating, enslaving and segregating people because of their race; excluding people from voting because of their gender (or race); persecuting people for (real or imagined) thought crimes; invading, oppressing and mass-murdering people all over the world; dropping nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and literally millions of tons of 'conventional' bombs on the tiniest, most defenceless countries?

How could any good person work for the organs of such a terrible place?

The absurd "conventional sense" you talk about is only "conventional" to you because it's what you've been brainwashed by since birth.

reply

[–] theemaster 8 years ago

It is a propaganda when it's shown that americans are diverse and foreigners are robots all the same, evil and manipulative.

Well great I love our propaganda movies.. I'm going to sign up for the army and kill me some iraqi's.. you happy now?

Steve Spielberg is a visionary.. regardless the crap your spouting.. he makes good movies.. thanks steven! Your not forgiven for indie 4.. but it's great when you don't follow someone else's ideas.. and follow your own. 

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

..which is why I don't pay attention to those who are clearly resigned to being sycophantic party line types. I have seen my share of shameless propaganda films that were ostensibly billed as gritty-real life dramas and this was surely not one of those.

It's pretty clear cut. If anyone disagrees, I'm quite sure that it be eminently apparent that there is an agenda driving it.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

If anyone disagrees, I'm quite sure that it be eminently apparent that there is an agenda driving it.

This is a somewhat less-than-rational point of view. I'm sure anyone who disagrees with you can see it for what it is. Do you think it is even remotely possible that someone might not agree with you because they understand the historical perspective better than you? Or maybe they just don't like what you say? Do you understand the concept of tolerance?

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

When you make the honest attempt to see things from the middle, perspectives are more resolute in reference to the coloring and/or distortion of the lens that they are looking through. There is propaganda and then there is obvious propaganda. I suppose the call is made through how sensitive one is to political issues, events and values and also, how perceptive the person is who is doing the perceiving. Of course, above all, honesty plays a large part in how one sees these sorts of things as well....

See, that's the thing about looking at the world from the middle; among other perks such as the ability to toggle conveniently left and right, no matter how anyone chooses to look at things from their perspective, those in the middle will ALWAYS be in the middle, in fact. Partisans on either side can easily dismiss those in the middle as "weak" or "dilettante-esque" but by the same token, can also be seen as "sensible."

The very crucial mistake that you have made is taking my statement for only the claim that it makes as you seemingly ignore the content altogether. The content is what qualifies my claim, otherwise, I would not have made such a bold claim. Sometimes in life, it's intellectually viable to make bold claims. Particularly if one can back it up with actual logic and good solid sense. That is always a plus...

Your introduction of "tolerance" is quite irrelevant here. It has no bearing in regards to your objection with my statement, not sure if you realize that or not. Well, now I'm telling you. It's not about tolerance, it's about the debate on whether or not this is a propaganda film. Why can't people stick to the damn issues? You only muddle the whole thing up when you don't.

So, no. You are incorrect. However, if you have any questions regarding this matter, I'll will be more than happy to set you straight.

BTW, one more advantage to walking the middle of the road; on the straight aways, it's the highest point of the road.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

Well, you seem to be the one with the crystal ball. What is my agenda? According to you, I have one, solely because I don't agree with you.

You are claiming to be in the middle. You are also, by inference, claiming to be honest with yourself. Does that make everyone else extreme? Does it mean they are dishonest? But you tell me; how do you know what everyone else thinks, regardless of your position or theirs?

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Well, I don't know. Do you know exactly why you don't agree with me? That'd be a good start.

Why should I necessarily be the only poster who strives to be honest with themselves? The difference, I believe, manifests itself when someone is trying to either push or protect a partisan line. To them, they are being honest with themselves but because their perspective is derived from a less than neutral spot on the spectrum, their take will naturally be "tainted," naturally upon a sliding scale.

How the hell would I possibly know what your agenda is? You haven't disagreed with me regarding my dismissal that this could be a propaganda film. You have only disagreed that I would be able to judge a person's agenda by them disagreeing with my original statement.

It appears as though you have thoroughly f'd up your understanding of my original point.

So let's do this; why don't you simply tell me if you feel that this is a propaganda film and please, cite at least one example that would appear to support your position.

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

why don't you simply tell me if you feel that this is a propaganda film and please, cite at least one example that would appear to support your position.

I can't speak for the other poster, but while I wouldn't call it a "propaganda film", and generally enjoyed it, it is a film containing (pretty blatant and crude) propaganda. Examples, mentioned in this thread and others include:

* Boringly and stereotypically depicting East Germany as grey and cold, compared to the bright, sunny USA.

* Heavily and falsely implying Abel will be killed by the KGB (for absolutely no explained or logical reason; we're just supposed to think the Soviets are monsters who do that kind of thing).

* Falsely implying Powers was tortured in Soviet custody (while Abel, the 'most hated man in America', was treated by the American secret police like a guest at the Ritz).

* Randomly depicting a shooting at the Berlin Wall - after Donovan was, also for zero narrative reason, locked up by the evil East Germans because 'papers please' - despite the shooting having nothing to do with the story of Abel, Powers and Pryor. The shooting was, of course, 'subtly' contrasted with happy-go-lucky kids climbing fences in the USA, where nothing bad ever happened to anyone in the 1960s.

* Falsely depicting Pryor as being interrogated and beaten by evil, aggressive German soldiers, surrounded by tanks and barbed wire, with a hysterical, crying girl looking on in horror, as if he was going to be killed. In reality nothing even remotely like this imaginary scene occurred.

* Falsely depicting the Soviets/East Germans as trying to hold on to Pryor and not exchange him for Abel, when in fact they were more than fairly exchanging two people for one.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Fair points and most of your citations are noteworthy but I don't really see them as propaganda points so much as "Hollywoodisms." Spielberg has always had that subtle over the top touch in his films. I mean, as gritty as "Saving Private Ryan" was, it had plenty of such moments.

Aside from that though, again, perception is in the eye of the beholder. The film made it clear that Abel wasn't killed and actually returned to his life and also, I never got the intimation that Powers was tortured. That scene about being ushered directly into the back of the sedan on the bridge by his comrades was just a basic tension/drama device, in my opinion. Like I said, Speilberg is known for incorporating those moments into his movies. He is brilliant at understating the over statements in his film making, is how I'd put it. Also, keep in mind, the Russians, while not monsters, had a penchant for "raw" and unrefined behavior. This is a fact. Look at how they forcibly deployed the K-19 when the thing was criticized as unsound for voyage. Take into account how the Bolsheviks wantonly murdered the monarchy that they overthrew in the 20's. Heck, just look at how they dealt with the terrorists that took that movie theater in Chechnya. The Russians may not be monsters, but they don't play and the latter more than the former was depicted in "Bridge of Spies."

The difference here is that Speilberg is not trying to sell politics. As usual, he's trying to sell story, one with a considerable level of drama. After all, if it were a propaganda type film, I hardly think that he would have painted the American situation with such a divergent brush. It is important to know the difference.

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

The film made it clear that Abel wasn't killed and actually returned to his life

It didn't though. This thread demonstrates that some people are confused by the scene and some still believe he was killed, even after reading the end title:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3682448/board/nest/249459012

The Russians may not be monsters, but they don't play and the latter more than the former was depicted in "Bridge of Spies."

You're right, we've all seen James Bond. Nobody thinks of the KGB as warm, cuddly guys.

So given we all know their reputation, after building up some mild peril and suspense about will-he-or-won't-he be killed by the nasty KGB, whose mind was blown by it playing out exactly to everyone's preconception?

Even if in real life Abel had been killed, it would have still been more dramatic and challenging to show him being embraced and welcomed by people you would not normally expect that from. Instead it goes to the trouble of falsifying history just to portray a tired old stereotype.

Hey, that Italian guy we played on your preconceptions to make you think was a Mobster? He is. That cop you were sure was dirty? He was. Those Russians you thought were evil and murderous? They are.

If it's all just innocently about dramatic tension, why not imply Powers was going to be killed, or show Abel being brutalized in a leaking dungeon with bright lights? If it isn't trying to sell politics, then it shows a chronic lack of imagination.

I hardly think that he would have painted the American situation with such a divergent brush.

The only 'bad' thing I can remember about the American side was the guy from the CIA (which nobody thinks is a group of tree-hugging liberals anyway) saying we don't care about Pryor/due process for Commies. And those clunky exchanges - like the outburst from the angry uniformed cop - were just there to hammer home what an absolute Saint Donovan is in the film.

reply

[–] johnston.scot 9 years ago

On what happened to Abel after the movie's time frame: you're conveniently ignoring the end title card that told us.

just there to hammer home what an absolute Saint Donovan is in the film.

Which is the point, really, isn't it? If the movie were propaganda, Donovan wouldn't be a saint, he'd just be an ordinary American. While the movie is light on cartoon baddy Americans (though they're in there), it's similarly light on ordinary good guy Americans. Basically, Donovan is portrayed not as an illustrative American, but an exceptional one.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Yes, it did. A subscript tells the audience that Abel "returned to his wife," or something or other. This didn't surprise me. I rather expected Spielberg to depict Abel getting unceremoniously ushered into the back to the sedan. Again, it's not "politics," it's dramatic tension. Spielberg's not the only director who employs these tactics. To take your supposition to the logical extreme, why not have Powers get shot down by an alien vessel that materialized out of nowhere due to extremely advanced technology and as Powers chutes away from the compromised U2 plane, notices a "hammer and sickle" emblazoned on the the alien craft?......C'mon, buddy. Reign it in a little.

"Chronic lack of imagination?" As if a movie made for public consumption (not to mention, Oscar worthiness) has never been watered down and used cliches to relate to the masses...even Spielberg is guilty of this. Hell, look at what Dinero's career has become lately; even those who were great at one time can assimilate into the larger body of "business before art."

Honestly, I don't really know what you arguing about? I mean you seem to assert that you think that this is indeed a politically motivated film but you go on to rail on the "lack of imagination" in the script and direction. Sure, I suppose that you can have both if they were valid, but you'll get further if your position is that the movie was loaded with trite archetypes. These don't necessarily mean, however, that there is a propaganda directive going on with it.

Was Donovan not an "saint" when it came to what he was under taking? Do you not recall the myriad of depictions of an angry American public up to and including the aforementioned cop? What of his home getting shot up by "patriot?" I mean, how many more scenes did Spielberg need to create in order to portray a divergent American nation? At some point, you just need to get reasonable in your expectations of a film...that's all.

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

Yes, it did. A subscript tells the audience that Abel "returned to his wife," or something or other.

I know. I referred to that in very first line of my post. If you bother to read it you'll see it says: some people are confused by the scene and some still believe he was killed, even after reading the end title

To take your supposition to the logical extreme, why not have Powers get shot down by an alien vessel that materialized out of nowhere due to extremely advanced technology and as Powers chutes away from the compromised U2 plane, notices a "hammer and sickle" emblazoned on the the alien craft?......C'mon, buddy. Reign it in a little.

I should reign in something totally ridiculous that you just wrote? WTH are you talking about? Why not just depict what happened to Abel, Pryor and Powers truthfully, instead of falsely? is that being too "extreme"?

you seem to assert that you think that this is indeed a politically motivated film but you go on to rail on the "lack of imagination" in the script and direction.

Where did I "rail" against the lack of imagination? I said:

"If it isn't trying to sell politics, then it shows a chronic lack of imagination."

Was Donovan not an "saint" when it came to what he was under taking? Do you not recall the myriad of depictions of an angry American public up to and including the aforementioned cop? What of his home getting shot up by "patriot?"

How is the depiction of an American public negative? Who expects them to be happy about an enemy agent? And what does that or his home shot up have to do with anything anyway? It was not the state that was doing that. It was there to show how unpopular Donovan was with the American people, not to depict the state as evil (which is what the anti-Soviet/DDR stuff was about).

At some point, you just need to get reasonable in your expectations of a film...that's all.

So it's reasonable to expect American films to be biased and full of propaganda?

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Yes, I know. That's why I wrote what I wrote in disagreeing with you. Don't confuse yourself.
Here's what you wrote, "It didn't though." That was in reference to your disagreement to my statement that the film makers make it evident that Abel was returned to his wife. Yet now, you come with, "I know. I referred to that in very first line of my post. If you bother to read it you'll see it says: some people are confused by the scene and some still believe he was killed, even after reading the end title ."

So...which is it, bud? You're playing both sides of the proverbial fence here. Look, if anyone is confused as to what happened to Abel, either they didn't read the subscript or else they are a very dense lot. That's all I can say to that. Bottom line; if was very apparent, if one paid a modicum of attention, that Abel ended up with his wife. Not a difficult thing to digest there, friend.

My point about the alien/ Russian space craft was purposely absurd in order to show how subjective that citation regarding the non-existent torture of Powers, in fact was. Just because the film makers will take creative license in one scene, doesn't mean that they should be bound to do it all throughout the film and ad nauseam.

I'm sorry, I was going to continue, but your copied and pasted segments and your subsequent arguments to them have gotten too convoluted to even address. You say one thing and then say another entirely. This isn't so much a debate as a damn "Chinese Fire Drill." To make an attempt to answer your even increasingly myopic position, you can't just say it's about US govt. propaganda and then ignore that Spielberg shows a very divided American conscience. You can't just "cut and paste" from an argument for your liking else you are guilty of "intellectually dishonesty"...willful or otherwise.
Besides, I think it's quite clear that the CIA and it's more shadowy contingent is represented by that one wormy agent. Furthermore, why would one need more than one agent with flimsy ethics in order to see the reality of intelligence agencies anyhow, U.S., Soviet or otherwise?

Okay, so I decided to continue after all and in doing so, I will say that it IS reasonable to think that American made films will have a certain amount of bias and propaganda, but only a REASONABLE amount. Spielberg's only point with this movie is sell the film, not to make a political statement that history has already clearly made anyhow.

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

So...which is it, bud?

What do you mean which is it? You said it was clear. I said no, it wasn't, then gave an actual example on this board where several people were confused or believed he was killed, despite the title, because of that specific scene.

The movie literally has two conflicting elements, a scene that specifically implies he'll be killed and a title that suggests otherwise. That is the definition of not being clear.

Just because the film makers will take creative license in one scene, doesn't mean that they should be bound to do it all throughout the film and ad nauseam.

Fine, then when all of the "creative license" is about depicting the Soviets and East Germans in a negative light, don't pretend it's not propaganda.

You can't just "cut and paste" from an argument for your liking else you are guilty of "intellectually dishonesty"...willful or otherwise.

It's dishonest of me to copy and paste exactly what I said to disprove your mistaken claims about what I said?

Spielberg's only point with this movie is sell the film, not to make a political statement that history has already clearly made anyhow.

I don't think it was a political statement either, it just unfortunately contains many parts that are crude propaganda. And before you try and claim I'm saying something else entirely again, that's the very first thing I said when I first posted, when you asked for examples of propaganda.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Wrong. It becomes abundantly clear when a text line specifically tells the audience about Abel's fate. That's not confusing, it's clarifying. I can't be any more "clear" than that.

The film did not depict "all" the Soviets and East Germans in a negative light but still, you seem to ignore the political ramifications of the time. I don't know which nation that you hail from, but you don't seem to have much historical perspective from which to understand the cultures of those two nations at that time. Maybe you should go back and brush up on it.

No, you only "cut and pasted" snippets of what I said. This is what I was referring to in intellectual dishonesty.

If you didn't think that it was a political statement, then why are we still having this discussion? What you think is propaganda is actually just a device for building drama in a movie. Not exactly propaganda but I suppose that you are free to call it what you wish, however erroneous.

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

Wrong. It becomes abundantly clear when a text line specifically tells the audience about Abel's fate. That's not confusing, it's clarifying. I can't be any more "clear" than that.

Okay, despite me showing you real actual people who are confused by it, you refuse to believe it's not confusing. Fine.

The film did not depict "all" the Soviets and East Germans in a negative light but still

I didn't say all the Soviets and East Germans, I said all of the "creative license".

No, you only "cut and pasted" snippets of what I said. This is what I was referring to in intellectual dishonesty.

It's called quoting and interleaved posting, and has been a standard, normal way to reply on message boards since Usenet. Quoting exactly what you wrote and replying specifically to that is anything but dishonest. Certainly more honest than your habit of not quoting what I said, but simply making it up instead (as above).

why are we still having this discussion?

Good question.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

"All" creative licensing or not, it is quite the fact that both places, certainly at the time, were relatively grim and gruff. The Soviets alone have quite a reputation for prickliness. It's in their heritage, their winters. They are a spartan people by definition. The East Germans, well I can't speak as much to their disposition but you must realize, they were the newest entries into the cold war at the time and trying to make their position matter. The creative license entered when Spielberg needed to make Donovan's situation as dire as was reasonably viable.

Just because people get confused doesn't mean that they SHOULD be...This is one of your weakest points. The idea that if some people are confused, then it IS confusing. That's like getting two emails in succession and the first says that a meeting will be at 9:00 and the second arrives ten minutes later and says that the meeting is moved up to 9:30 yet some people still aren't sure which time the meeting will be....I had a kid once tell me that if I was gonna to watch the remake of "True Grit," that I'd better pay attention because "..it can get away from ya."...."True Grit," of all movies. Yep. Then I told him to beat it.

You quoted exactly what I said but conveniently neglected to acknowledge the context of it. That's pretty much as important as the actual quote in many instances.

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

That's like getting two emails in succession and the first says that a meeting will be at 9:00 and the second arrives ten minutes later and says that the meeting is moved up to 9:30 yet some people still aren't sure which time the meeting will be.

No, it's like receiving an email with a large embedded image stating the meeting is at 9am, and then in the same email, after a bunch of other stuff, some small print saying the meeting is at 9:30am.

A better analogy though, is a sleazy newspaper splashing a deliberately false story across the front page, then later publishing a five line retraction on page 6.

You quoted exactly what I said but conveniently neglected to acknowledge the context of it.

I'm not deleting the post I'm replying to, am I? The exact context of what I'm quoting is there for all to see.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Disagree. You have taken a analogy that I offered in order to portray some clarifying perspective and warped to your liking. That "better analogy" is anything but as that "deliberately false story" doesn't really encapsulate what the film et al is about. While some parts of the film are "deceptive," those moments aren't really central to the film, unlike your warped newspaper story which you represented as purposely pushing a story line that is a fabrication from the jump. This is exhibit A in how people can misconstrue another's position; their own comprehension of the situation is suspect.

The "exact context of what I'm quoting is there for all to see," indeed however, but only to the people who really care to circumspect it. I mean though, how many outside of you and myself even care to?....you are certainly not inclined to fairly represent the whole sum context of what I've said in relation to the pasted quotations, now are you? I don't think that you'll do that with dishonesty originally, mind you, but I do think that once you go back and review your original take and perhaps realize that you might have come to it in haste, you'll not be too concerned with correcting it...if you ever come to that realization, that is. I'm just a huge fan of accepting the spirit of discourse and not so much the actual letter of it because at that point, it just becomes a semantic pissing match and nobody really enjoys that....

reply

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

You have taken a analogy that I offered in order to portray some clarifying perspective and warped to your liking.

You don't like or accept anything anyone else posts, so why do you expect other people to completely accept any old flawed point that you make?

unlike your warped newspaper story which you represented as purposely pushing a story line that is a fabrication from the jump

Actually even the sleaziest newspaper could produce a headline which they honestly thought was true then had to retract. The people who made this film knew full well that Abel was not killed, yet specifically constructed a scene and dialogue that deliberately and falsely implied that he was.

you are certainly not inclined to fairly represent the whole sum context of what I've said in relation to the pasted quotations, now are you?

It's a lot more fair and honest than what you're doing by not exactly quoting me at all and simply making up what I said.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Well, that's funny because you clearly rejected the analogy as soon as I published it. At least, when I reject a reasoning, I will always provide rationale for it. Look, past bullet points aside, I equated the film to a running series of emails and you equated it a deliberately false new paper story. I'm gonna say that my analogy was truer to the spirit of how the movie played out in regards to the capacity that Abel's fate played out for the movie. It wasn't central to the theme. Why can't you accept that?

Well originally, you didn't simply mention a "headline," you said newspaper story which anyone would reasonably take to mean the entire thing. Even if it was just the headline that was false and misrepresenting the story, that's quite different than a moment towards the end of the film that implies a certain fate that doesn't come to fruition..once more, I just ask you to be reasonable in what you think is tantamount to what we are discussing.

Your last comment just finally shows me that you are at your wits end here. I don't quote you because I'd just as soon not bother with it even though it would involve a simple cut and paste and besides, you'd know what I'm referring to if you were that cognizant of your own "argument." I have not made things up. I would not do such a thing lest I become guilty of wasting my own time. "Making up" what another person said on a movie forum is pretty low brow, even for someone who enjoys the back and forth banter like myself. What purpose would that serve aside from the obvious?...and I can assure you, I am not an obvious person. No, right or wrong, I would not and do not need to stoop to that level of dishonesty in order to cheat someone out of an argument....even if that tactic were successful, I wouldn't take any satisfaction from it.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

So let's do this; why don't you simply tell me if you feel that this is a propaganda film and please, cite at least one example that would appear to support your position.

Look mate, I couldn't care less if people think this was a propaganda film or not. I'm just asking why you think you know so much about the people who disagree with you.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Call it, "familiarity with how human beings think," I guess. While I don't have an unblemished record regarding this educated guessing game, I will honestly say that it's usually damn spot on.

I know where I stand politically and when someone claims 'propaganda," I review the "evidence," in this case, the particular examples that someone cites. So far, I feel reasonably strongly that the examples that some posters have presented are simply born of pre-conceived notions.

Is this so difficult to comprehend? It's called "bias," and it affects the way people judge things. Since I'm "in the middle," I think it's safe to say that I have a relatively unjaundiced eye when it comes to sensing who has an "agenda."

Of course, the disagreement could arise because I'm wrong but I also feel fairly strongly that my arguments are fairly air tight if one can muster the objectivity to ruminate on them.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

Call it, "familiarity with how human beings think," I guess. While I don't have an unblemished record regarding this educated guessing game, I will honestly say that it's usually damn spot on.

This is one claim I would never dare make. Not because I'm stupid but because I don't have a crystal ball into everyone else's thought patterns and motivations. You have also built a sophisticated system of logic and protocol which allows you to believe that you are right. That actually is human behaviour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-justification

So far, I feel reasonably strongly that the examples that some posters have presented are simply born of pre-conceived notions.

You have just articulated your own "pre-conceived notions". Can you not see this? I'm sure there are plenty on the opposing side of your argument who might claim the same thing but they haven't.

It's called "bias," and it affects the way people judge things.

"Bias" is entirely judgemental and does not require any capacity for reflective thought. Do you really believe that you are the best person to judge bias? Because this is exactly what you are saying. We either accept that everyone - including ourselves - has an individual bias or we ignore bias altogether. "Bias" is part of who we are as individuals and is not absolute and binding and nobody has a mortgage on what is and is not biased. Ultimately, people who talk about bias as an absolute are incredibly naive. You might as well be arguing about the weather.

I think it's safe to say that I have a relatively unjaundiced eye when it comes to sensing who has an "agenda."

You really do believe it! Actually, unless you are trolling, it's an incredibly unsafe assumption because it relies solely on your judgement. You are not in a position to do this unless you are omniscient (which none of us is).

Of course, the disagreement could arise because I'm wrong but I also feel fairly strongly that my arguments are fairly air tight if one can muster the objectivity to ruminate on them.

Good luck with that.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Your breakdown, while extremely thought out and thorough, seems to have been created to be applies solely on a myopic level, I'm afraid, and thus, misses it's mark. You mention "self reflective" thought but in many of your bullet points, IMO, you failed to actually employ the concept. For example, your criticism of my mention of bias is incredibly reductive and basically sets up a straw man so that you can tear that down instead of my actual postulation. I'm not saying that you did this on purpose, on the contrary, it appears as though you did so in error. However it happened, it leads you and your argument astray...if there is any subject that would contain a significant amount of bias, it's the subject of politics. No one has claimed "a mortgage" on the de facto incidence of bias but it is something that can be reasonably figured upon. If you are attempting to get technical, we can stop the discussion right here because there are no absolutes nor have I come even to close to implying that there are such. As it stands, I would have thought that adults would understand this as a default. Perhaps THIS is where I'm wrong, eh?

Furthermore, I have abundantly qualified my position as a position of objectivity relative to the political spectrum. Being in the middle, by definition, requires one to being balanced. Once again, your position is a fallacious one in that it does not take into account the actual context of what I have asserted. Life is relative, yes but some opinions are born of greater equity in counter balancing information than others. Your argument is essentially an attack upon my assertion, "that I am correct.." which would be fine however, you omit the second part of that which is, "..given the circumstances of that which is debated." You see, it is the context (the second part) that gives legitimacy to the original statement (the first part). Now, if you are to refute the whole (both parts), you are also charged with the task of qualifying your objection..something that you have curiously failed to even approach.

Now, why is that?

Finally, I stand behind my last statement that you cited. What's ironic is that I believe that you are doing precisely the opposite of the objective rumination that I would ask people to use in circumspection of the tenets of my argument.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

Now, if you are to refute the whole (both parts), you are also charged with the task of qualifying your objection..something that you have curiously failed to even approach.

Now, why is that?

I'm quite sure that, whatever I say, it will not satisfy you. I don't feel the need to explain it. You are setting yourself up - again - as the ultimate arbiter. Others may agree with me or they may agree with you. That's their prerogative. But so far only you have claimed to represent the "middle of the road" view. That is your datum point and from it, you grant yourself the right to judge everyone else. Don't expect anyone else to agree that you are in the middle. Opinions vary and humans are fallible.

Except you, apparently.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

You raise a fair point but consider this; what value does the ability to cite counter balancing issues hold to you? When someone exhibits the ability to recognize both sides of the fence, does that not render this person as someone who can be trusted to survey impartially? My take is not that I am the "ultimate arbiter" rather that I am but one person who feels strongly that his perspective IN POLITICAL MATTERS is quite centered. How is this an arrogant thought?

You see, you wish to disagree but you still have to explain why you do so. Honestly, what I'm getting from you is more, "just because..." Why can't I be qualified to be the most impartial lens through which to see whether or not a film is propaganda? Now, the problem could arise because I simply don't know what propaganda is but that is precisely why specific examples are required from both debating parties in order to "separate the wheat from the chaff" or so to speak.

This is the point of rational debate. It's critical thinking in motion. So, however absurd that you think my view point is, you must realize it means nothing unless you can prove it. As far as your frustration as to whether or not you'll ever be able to satisfy me, just trust that it is possible but I will not bend to someone's point of view simply because they "tried" to get a point across. See, you have to actually do it. Humans are fallible but I don't see how that applies to this particular discussion. After all, by that logic, what good is a Supreme Court, among other institutions?

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

When someone exhibits the ability to recognize both sides of the fence, does that not render this person as someone who can be trusted to survey impartially?

I don't know. You are the only one making the claim.

I am but one person who feels strongly that his perspective IN POLITICAL MATTERS is quite centered.

Virtually everybody thinks they are centred.

You see, you wish to disagree but you still have to explain why you do so.

What's to explain? I'm just calling you out on your self-proclaimed "centrism" (as though it was something unique) and resulting judgement that anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.

This is the point of rational debate.

Except that you are setting yourself up as judge and jury on the basis that you alone have a mortgage on the middle ground. Few would agree.

As far as your frustration as to whether or not you'll ever be able to satisfy me

Don't flatter yourself.

See, you have to actually do it. Humans are fallible but I don't see how that applies to this particular discussion.

Do you have a God complex? Like I said before, I could say anything I like and you would still disagree. This is because you are setting yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of something you don't understand.

Good luck.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

I hardly believe that I am "the only one making this claim" of RELATIVE impartiality...just the only one that you've talked to on this forum. But you evaded the question even when you answered, "I don't know." My status as the "only one" has nothing to do with how you would answer the question that was posed to you. So evasive.

It is patently untrue that "virtually everybody" thinks that they are centered. They make think that they are "justified" or that they are "right" but if they have any idea of what comprises the political spectrum, they won't consider themselves "centered" in the sense of political orientation. Your are confusing context again.

I never claimed that my "centrism" was unique. You are ascribing that designation. I'm saying that if one believes that this film is American propaganda, they then most likely have an agenda of their own. I say that because of the fact that my centrism affords me the ability to survey both sides of the political spectrum fairly evenly and thus, is the same perspective through which I have analyzed the the film itself. If you think it's American propaganda, I then would like to know why...after I find out why, it becomes apparent that those who judge it as such, in fact have some sort of political agenda. In other words, I don't trust people to judge impartially that which is possibly in divergence with their own established core of beliefs.

So, what is your point? That I don't inhabit the "middle ground" or that doing so doesn't make me a qualified assessor of others judgement motives? What are you saying exactly because once I find that out, I might be able to help you more with your incredulous disposition regarding my position.

So, because humans are fallible, logically there is no point in debating anything in your world, apparently. "Humans are fallible" is a common denominator to everything. So for any practical purposes, why would that even be relevant to formal debate? You use a phrase like "God Complex" yet you don't exhibit any understanding of what that actually is, much less, how it would be applied here. If you said "anything you like," it's quite probable that I'd disagree...not so much because I'm predisposed to reject anything that you offer intellectually (which you obviously have erroneously chosen to believe) but rather because you have not demonstrated a clear appreciation of the timbre of my comments. My position is something that you can not grasp and admittedly, it could be due to it's inherent obtuseness but more probably it's because you have a pre-formed bias regarding anyone who claims that he/she can legitimately be an arbiter. Well, someone's got to do it at some time, right? Why not do so at the very least under the circumstances that I have qualified? Your lack of belief that this can be actually achieved leads you to feel that someone like myself has a "God Complex" but you arrive at your conclusion prematurely as you do not understand political dynamics upon from which that I have derived my opinion.

reply

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

tl;dr

I've wasted enough of my life on you.

reply

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

That's the most practical thing that you've written yet.

reply

[–] ssjkid97 9 years ago

The film's story is told incredibly honestly. I agree with you OP. It's not propaganda. It's a great film only further enhanced by Tom Hanks' brilliant performance and charisma.

reply