Why Everyone Needs to See Bridge of Spies

Not a movie review, but instead a commentary on the ideas behind the film

By MARTIN REZNY

If you want to know whether the film is well enough made to be watchable — it’s shot by Spielberg, have you ever heard of the guy? Sure, you can nitpick technical stuff, loathe the slower pacing and lack of balls-to-the-wall action in a spy movie, but if that’s what you’re pondering while watching it, you’re missing the point of it entirely. This is a thinking man’s movie, so yeah, it’s enjoyable mainly if you think about it. And I’d like to explain why you should.

Without spoiling any of the plot twists, there is one concept that I do have to explain for a discussion of the movie to be possible, the central theme of the movie — the standing man.

The hero of the story, based on a real person (which is crucial for this movie to work), is the kind of person who stands for principles despite literally everyone around him telling him he’s wrong in doing so. The kind of man whom you can metaphorically or literally beat down over and over again and he would never retaliate, but always stand right back up again.

And that’s why it’s so important that it is based on a true story — so that no one can say that such everyday heroism is a thing that happens only in the movies. In case you’re still critical and have doubts about how close the movie is to actual events, good that you do, but yeah, it’s indeed pretty close.

But you’d be mistaken if you thought that this is a movie exclusively about past events. You should watch it because it is a movie about things that are as true and real today, both the good and the bad parts of it, as they ever were.

There are always powers with ulterior motives. The names, flags, and mechanisms of oppression and injustice may evolve in appearance, but not in essence. Similarly, nothing ever changes about the importance or the difficulty of ordinary people trying to do the right thing.

As a political scientist, I must tip my hat off to Steven Spielberg, because especially if you understand the commonly accepted values permeating our culture today and how they have shifted in the last few decades, this is exactly the kind of story that everyone needs to be reminded of right now.

The picture above is that of Philip K. Dick, and you might wonder what it’s doing in an article about the Bridge of Spies. The thing is, the best summation that I have ever come across of what an authentic human being is, or in other words, a good person, comes not from the classics, but from this author:

“ The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do. (…) He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; (…) They cannot be compelled to be what they are not.”

Power always seeks to reshape you, the citizen, in its own image, and that’s always wrong, either because it happens as an act of violence against your will, or because of your willing participation at that violence visited upon another. But it’s only ever easy to see on an example of a distant enough past.

Which is why the movie has to be from some bygone period like the Cold War, so that you, the viewer, can understand what’s wrong without getting personally offended or filtering the message out of your mind. Let’s break all the kinds of wrongness in the film down and show the masks they now wear.

Us versus Them mentality

To give you an easy way of seeing why this way of thinking is wrong and how it can become dangerous, I only have to say who came up with it — Carl Schmitt, “Crown Jurist of the Third Reich”. Now you know where that leads. But on a personal level — do you really feel like every single human in some country, any country, is truly your enemy, wishing you harm, being a threat?

Caring only for your own

This one is hard because if we’re hard-wired for anything, it’s caring for our close friends and especially family. And if you insist on doing the right thing, it may put them in danger, or even worse, it may drive a wedge between you, make them hate you. Wrongly. Realize that doing the right thing is the more important the harder it gets, and you cannot expect it to be an easy choice.

Caring for personal gain above all else

Similarly, especially in the light of current refugee crisis, I’m baffled by all the people in the developed world who not only expect that doing the right thing — helping other human beings in danger — will be easy, but also that they only should be expected to go along with it if it’s beneficial to them. Personal gain is great, but if it hurts someone else, it’s wrong. Profit justifies nothing.

Principles are only for show

Given that it’s no secret that the main character in this movie is a lawyer, I think it’s safe to reveal that he indeed is going to defend ideals like due process. Against fellow lawyers and judges and other government employees, who are legitimately surprised that someone actually believes in any principles. So, yes, abstract things are real too, and have real consequences in real life.

Winner is always right

Here’s a thought experiment — imagine the Soviets won the Cold War, or just watch The Man in the High Castle. What do you think you would read in history books about the American way of life? The act, or more likely just a happenstance of winning is only very loosely correlated to being better in any objective way, let alone being closer to any kind of truth or righteousness.

Reality doesn’t change, so accept it

No. Just no. Change is the only reality, and accepting what’s wrong now merely delays the inevitable reckoning. If the history of progress is any indication, insisting on remaining wrong is the more futile choice. Even if you’re not remembered for being right or doing the right thing during wrong times, rest assured that the future will forever hate your oppressors.

Might is power

And finally, to end this brief incursion into political philosophy, Max Weber is the one who defined power as the political realists see it — that having power means having the mandate to force people to do things by the threat or use of violence. That does nothing against “standing men”, and if you have to use violence to force someone to do something, it can be argued that you have precisely zero power over them.