The Constitution and the Cold War

Rating: 7/10 (24 January 2016)

During the Cold War, an American lawyer (Tom Hanks) is recruited to defend an arrested Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) in court, and then help the CIA facilitate an exchange of the spy for the Soviet captured American U2 spy plane pilot, Francis Gary Powers.
The film is nominated for six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (for Rylance), Best Production Design and Best Original Screenplay. Let us address those in reverse order.
There is no doubt the screenplay is strong, and another feather in the caps of the Coen brothers. Whether or not you consider it to be "best" probably comes down to one thing: do you prefer a good story or do you prefer historical accuracy? If you prefer historical accuracy, you are going to have qualms with this picture because Donovan (Hanks) is very false. He is portrayed as an insurance attorney rather than the intelligence operative he was, and he is shown as the victim of multiple acts of violence, which he was not. So that will be an automatic hangup for some people who frown on dramatic exaggeration and poetic license.
If one looks at it a bit more forgivingly, though, it is an incredible script that covers the Constitution, the Cold War, the interaction of various governments and their agents... it tells the story of one attorney defending a despicable client because it is the right thing to do (a la "To Kill a Mockingbird") and the better-known tale of Gary Powers and the U-2 spy plane. Is it sensationalized? Somewhat. A little melodramatic with its patriotism? Yes. But still a darn fine story, and whether a winner or not, clearly a strong contender for best screenplay.
How about production design? This one is a bit of a challenge. The work that went into this film is incredible, bringing everything on screen back to the 1950s and 1960s. Every car, every outfit, and even the most inconsequential detail had to be touched. How you compare this to the futuristic sets of "Mad Max" or the science-driven world of "The Martian", who knows? It is like comparing apples and oranges. While "Bridge of Spies" will probably not carry this category, those who worked on securing all the necessary scenery deserve top honors.
The supporting actor category is where "Bridge of Spies" has its best chance of winning an award. Mark Rylance is not an actor whose work I am familiar with, because he has primarily distinguished himself on the stage. So it is hard to say how much he is going outside of his normal range here. But he gives us an interesting character. While "best actors" are often intense or pushed to their limits, Rylance is quite the opposite: subtle and understated. But it makes fora powerful, compelling nemesis you cannot help but like in some way. He would be deserving of the award.
Which leaves us with best picture. And the short answer is no, this is not a contender. The nomination makes sense, but the film never seems to hit all cylinders. Although nothing is lacking, it still feels somehow incomplete. "Bridge of Spies" is not the film of the year, nor is it among Spielberg's best.