Hammerle on … ‘Bridge of Spies,’ ‘Freeheld’

“Bridge of Spies”

Based on a true story, Mr. Steven Spielberg’s “Bridge of Spies” focuses attention on the height of the Cold War being waged by the USSR and the U.S. in the late 1950s and early 1960s. No one trusted anyone, and Fidel Castro’s rise to power in Cuba was followed by both the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis that danced on the edge of thermonuclear war.

Those of us who grew up in the 1950s remember the genuine threat of nuclear war. Attending grade school, our class was one of many that had regular drills where we crouched in a hallway with our heads buried in our knees to protect ourselves from a nuclear explosion.

With “Bridge of Spies,” Spielberg combines the shooting down and capture of American U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers with the arrest in New York of Rudolf Abel, a man strongly suspected of being a Soviet spy. While the film helps to explain the spy swap that occurred several years later, the strength of this movie flows from Spielberg’s focus on the importance of the representation provided to Abel at trial and appeal.

With our government, including the presiding judge, intent on giving Abel the image of a fair trial before executing him, they overlooked the dedication of James Donovan, an insurance lawyer appointed to represent Abel. What follows is a brilliant reminder of why cherished American freedoms could not endure without defense lawyers.

The legendary Tom Hanks embodies every noble feature of Donovan. As he fights for his client, Donovan incurs the wrath of his law firm as well as friends and relatives. Following gunshots through the windows of his home, even his wife, played by Amy Ryan in a very small role, questions her husband’s judgment.

Ironically, the movie loses considerable strength following Abel’s conviction and sentence. Though you see Donovan traveling to East Berlin to negotiate with both the Germans and the Russians concerning an agreed swap of prisoners, the movie drags to the point where it tests your patience.

Importantly, the film’s significance is found in the conduct of Donovan as he not only argued his client’s case before a jury, but followed it up with an argument before the United States Supreme Court. Despite enduring hatred and contempt from nearly every level, Hanks’ Donovan never stopped his efforts to put the government to their proof.

While Hanks is once again superb, Mark Rylance gives an Oscar-worthy performance as the Soviet agent who refuses to panic. What follows is an unexpected close relationship between Donovan and Abel, and what you see is the dedication of a lawyer who will do his very best to give his unpopular client the benefit of the law.

Once in a great while a movie is perfect to be reviewed in this publication. To be quite honest, serving as a defense lawyer over the past 40 years has occasionally alienated me from friends and associates who I greatly admired. Forgive me, but I admit that I saw a small bit of myself as Hanks’ Donovan stood in support of the despised Abel.

“Freeheld”

Much like Steven Spielberg’s “Bridge of Spies,” the strength of “Freeheld” is to be found in its historical significance. Despite its weaknesses, the film brings to life a moment in recent American history where discrimination was embraced and supported from sea to shining sea.

Directed by Peter Sollett, “Freeheld” centers on a true story that occurred in New Jersey less than 15 years ago. Laurel Hester, a respected gay New Jersey police detective, was quietly living with her partner, Stacie Andree. Forced to stay in the closet to keep her personal relationship secret, Hester did not want to do anything that would interfere with her professional advancement.

In the process, Hester is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, and she discovers that the laws in New Jersey will not allow her domestic partner to receive her pension. Andree worked as a mechanic, and this pension was the only way that she could pay the outstanding mortgage on the home they both loved.

While the movie becomes a bit preachy, both Julianne Moore and Ellen Page are superb playing the couple fighting for equality under the law. In particular, Page gives a tremendous performance as Andree, a young gay woman simply seeking the guaranteed American right to life and happiness. While most of Page’s appearances in front of the camera are filled with angst, you are left applauding her courage given her public acknowledgment that she is a gay woman. How many male actors would dare make that admission?

Additionally, Michael Shannon gives a convincing performance as the detective who has been Hester’s police partner for many years. In my recent review of “99 Homes,” I commented on his great ability to play rancid characters, and here he does a splendid job as a kind-hearted detective who wants to see justice done for his old friend.

What both helps and hurts the film are the hearings before the local County Council in New Jersey where Hester seeks approval to have her pension awarded to Andree. The council members, all men, lack the courage to do anything but offer their prayers to a dying woman, and you hate them for hiding behind God to mask their bigotry.

The ending sequence where police officers and the general public have to decide whether a dying gay woman has the same rights as a dying heterosexual man will bring tears to your eyes. Though it is not an exaggeration to say that Steve Carell’s performance as a gay activist comes dangerously close to robbing the film of its significance, my advice is to ignore his annoying performance and simply embrace the tragedy faced by two women who dare to love each other.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis at Pence Hensel LLC as of counsel. When he is not in the courtroom or the office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.