Most people think of the Bridge of Spies movie as just another Tom Hanks vehicle where he plays the most honest man in the room. You know the type. The guy who stands up for "what’s right" while everyone else is losing their minds. And yeah, it is that. But if you look closer at what Steven Spielberg actually put on screen in 2015, it’s a lot grittier and more cynical than the "Father Knows Best" vibe suggests. It's a film about how fragile the law really is when people get scared.
I remember watching it the first time and thinking about how Mark Rylance—playing the Soviet spy Rudolf Abel—barely says a word. He’s just sitting there, painting or listening to the radio, waiting to see if the United States is going to hang him or not. When James B. Donovan (Hanks) asks him if he’s worried, Abel gives that iconic line: "Would it help?"
Honestly, that's the whole movie in a nutshell.
The Real James B. Donovan and the Trial Nobody Wanted
In the Bridge of Spies movie, James Donovan is portrayed as an insurance lawyer thrust into a world of shadows. That’s factually spot on. The real Donovan was a partner at the law firm Watters and Donovan. He wasn't some high-level diplomat at first; he was a guy who had been an associate general counsel at the OSS during WWII, so he had the background, but by 1957, he was mostly doing insurance law.
The American Bar Association asked him to defend Rudolf Abel because they needed the trial to look fair. It was all about optics. If the U.S. just shot a Soviet spy without a trial, we’d look just as bad as the "Reds" we were fighting.
Donovan took it seriously. Too seriously for most Americans.
His house was actually shot at. His kids were terrified. The movie shows this tension well, but the reality was even more suffocating. People genuinely viewed Donovan as a traitor for providing a "vigorous defense" for a man who was clearly a KGB colonel. But Donovan’s logic was simple and kind of beautiful in its stubbornness: if we don't follow the rules for the people we hate, the rules don't actually exist.
The Francis Gary Powers Connection
While Donovan is fighting in court, the movie shifts to the U-2 spy plane program. This is where the Bridge of Spies movie gets into the technical anxiety of the Cold War.
Francis Gary Powers, played by Austin Stowell, was part of a CIA program flying at 70,000 feet. The idea was that the Soviets couldn't touch him.
💡 You might also like: Ashley My 600 Pound Life Now: What Really Happened to the Show’s Most Memorable Ashleys
They could.
On May 1, 1960, a surface-to-air missile brought him down over Sverdlovsk. The U.S. government actually lied about it first, claiming it was a "weather plane" that got lost. Then Khrushchev produced the pilot, the wreckage, and the photos of Soviet military installations. It was a massive embarrassment for the Eisenhower administration.
The movie does a great job of showing the contrast between Abel—the professional who refuses to break—and Powers, who is younger, scared, and carrying a "suicide coin" he chooses not to use. It sets up the leverage for the trade that forms the climax of the film.
That "Standing Man" Story and the Power of Mark Rylance
We have to talk about Mark Rylance. He won an Oscar for this, and he deserved it. He plays Abel with this weird, quiet dignity.
There’s a moment where he tells Donovan a story about a "standing man"—a friend of his father's who was beaten by border guards but kept getting back up. Every time they hit him, he just stood back up. Eventually, they stopped hitting him and let him go.
"Stoikiy muzhik," Abel calls him. The "standing man."
It’s a metaphor for Donovan, but it’s also a metaphor for how these two men, from opposite sides of the Iron Curtain, find a weird sort of respect for each other. They’re both just doing their jobs. In a world of ideological screaming, they’re the only ones talking quietly.
The Negotiating Nightmare in Berlin
The third act of the Bridge of Spies movie moves to East Berlin, just as the Wall is being built. This is where the cinematography really shifts. Janusz Kamiński (Spielberg’s long-time cinematographer) uses these cold, blue, desaturated tones. It looks miserable. Because it was.
📖 Related: Album Hopes and Fears: Why We Obsess Over Music That Doesn't Exist Yet
Donovan travels there alone, without official government protection. The CIA basically tells him: "If you get caught, we don't know you."
He’s not just trying to trade Abel for Powers. He discovers there’s a second American, a student named Frederic Pryor, who was caught on the wrong side of the wall while it was going up. The CIA doesn't care about Pryor. They want the pilot because he knows secrets. But Donovan refuses to leave the kid behind.
He plays the Soviets against the East Germans. It’s a high-stakes game of "chicken" played in a freezing embassy.
- The Soviets wanted the prestige of getting Abel back.
- The East Germans (GDR) wanted to be recognized as a legitimate country, not just a Soviet puppet.
- Donovan used their mutual ego and lack of coordination to force a 2-for-1 deal.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Movie
Is it 100% historically accurate? Not quite.
For one, the timeline is compressed. The actual events spanned years, whereas the film makes it feel like it happens over a few months. Also, the scene where Donovan sees people being shot while trying to climb over the Berlin Wall? That’s a bit of "Hollywood-ization." While people were absolutely murdered at the wall, Donovan didn't likely witness it from a train window in that exact manner during his negotiations.
But the feeling is right.
The movie captures the paranoia of the era. The "duck and cover" drills in schools. The way neighbors looked at each other with suspicion. It reminds us that "national security" is often used as an excuse to bypass the Constitution.
Why You Should Care About It Now
The Bridge of Spies movie isn't just a history lesson. It’s a blueprint for how to behave when the world is polarized.
👉 See also: The Name of This Band Is Talking Heads: Why This Live Album Still Beats the Studio Records
Today, we’re back in a cycle of "us vs. them." Everyone is expected to pick a side and never talk to the "enemy." Donovan represents the third way—the way of the negotiator. He doesn't like what Abel stands for, but he treats him like a human being.
There’s a scene where Donovan is sick with a cold, wrapped in a blanket, shivering in a foreign city while people lie to his face. It’s not glamorous. It’s exhausting. And that’s what actual diplomacy looks like. It’s not James Bond jumping off a bridge; it’s an insurance lawyer with a runny nose refusing to give up on a student.
Practical Takeaways from the Story of James Donovan
If you’re looking for a film that balances historical weight with actual tension, this is it. But beyond just watching it, there are real-world lessons in the way Donovan handled the Abel-Powers exchange.
- Stick to your principles even when it’s unpopular. Donovan was arguably the most hated man in New York for a while. He didn't care because he knew the law was on his side.
- Humanize your opponent. By treating Rudolf Abel with respect, Donovan gained a partner in the negotiation rather than just a prisoner.
- Leverage is about perception. Donovan convinced the East Germans that if they didn't release Pryor, the whole deal would collapse, even though the CIA didn't actually care about the kid. He bluffed, and he won.
- Look for the "Standing Man" in your own life. Resilience isn't about winning every fight; it’s about getting back up so many times that the other side gets tired of hitting you.
To really get the full picture, you should look into James Donovan's book, Strangers on a Bridge. It goes into much more detail about the legal maneuvers and the sheer boredom of the waiting periods between the high-stakes meetings.
The Bridge of Spies movie ends at the Glienicke Bridge. It’s a quiet, tense walk in the dark. No explosions. No gunfights. Just two men walking in opposite directions, back to lives that would never be the same. Abel goes back to a country that might execute him for "talking," and Donovan goes back to a country that finally realizes he was a hero.
If you haven't seen it recently, watch it again. Focus on the silences. Focus on the way the light hits the dust in the courtroom. It’s a masterpiece of "dad cinema" that actually has something vital to say about how we treat our enemies.
To dive deeper into this era, your next steps are simple. Start by reading the original 1960 New York Times archives on the Francis Gary Powers trial. It gives you a raw look at the propaganda from both sides. Then, compare the film's depiction of the Berlin Wall's construction with the actual historical photos from August 1961. You'll see that Spielberg actually toned down some of the chaos. Finally, watch Mark Rylance’s performance one more time—pay attention to his hands. Every movement is a choice. That’s how you tell a story.