Talk:Bridge of Spies (film)

Giles Whittell book

I created Bridge of Spies (book) but I cannot tell if this film is based on the book or not. My brief searches do not turn up mention of rights to the book. There are some sources that say the film is based on the book, but they seem rather assuming based on the lack of crediting or rights-owning. If others can figure out the matter, perhaps the book article can be linked in this film article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't based on the Giles Whittle's book "Bridge of Spies" (2010) at all. It is based on the re-release of Vin Arthey's book "Like Father Like Son" (2004) renamed as "Bridge of Spies" (2015) which has not yet been released yet. Look on amazon.com. Adamdaley (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Adamdaley, is there a better source for that? I just added a "Related film" section at Bridge of Spies (book) based on a source that says the film is actually based in part on Strangers on a Bridge by James Donovan. The source did not mention Vin Arthey or his book. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Biography.com backs the Strangers on a Bridge source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the book I mean: [http://www.amazon.com/Abel-Traded-Dialogue-Espionage-Classics-ebook/dp/B015N1W0AS/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445898656&sr=1-16&keywords=Bridge+of+Spies Abel: The True Story of the Spy They Traded for Gary Powers]. It's on Amazon.com, the kindle version. Paperback is not released yet. Adamdaley (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Adamdaley, the cover says, "The story behind the events depicted in Bridge of Spies." I think they are wording this on purpose to try to make a connection between this book and the film where one did not exist before. This is supported by the lack of coverage in news sources about any preexisting connection. There are numerous books written about these events, and there is no evidence that this book was the direct basis for the film. Both are about the same events, generally speaking, that's all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Whittell book is the most recently published. Arthey's book seems to concentrate on Abel and his father (who isn't mentioned in the film). It seems like Donovan's book is closest to the actual subject matter of the film. I would guess that the original script-writer was inspired by Whittell's book, and did some more research. The problem with adapting Whittell's book is that there isn't a central character, so naturally the writer decided to focus on Donovan. But that's just a guess. Is it a coincidence that a book of the same name, relating to the same incident, came out a few years before the film? Perhaps. But I doubt it. While they haven't paid Whittell for the rights to his book, the film will have given him a boost in sales.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland, considering that the titles are the same, I am somewhat surprised that there is no minor controversy about it (at least not in sources). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess Whittell has no reason to complain. They don't seem to have violated his rights, and his book will get a boost in sales. If he doesn't complain, there probably won't be a controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

At Bridge of Spies (book), there is a discussion on the talk page about whether or not to include a "Related film" section in the book article. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Winter in Berlin and spring in NY?

The exchange on the Glienicke Bridge occurred on February 10, 1962, and, accordingly, the movie depicts a snowy bridge. Next day, in the movie, Donovan returns home and finds New York green. We even see spring blossoms outside the window. Then, a few days later, we see Donovan back in winter when he is on a train watching kids climb a fence. What's going on? Ekem (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It was hard to get marmalade in those days.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the kids seen, from a train, climbing the fence in America, for fun, is being contrasted with kids climbing another fence, also seen from a train, in Berlin, with much more serious consequences, is an intentional juxtaposition? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Section on Inaccuracies?

As well as the winter/spring/winter issue above, there were (as with any other historical film) historical inaccuracies.

Given that the bulk of the film depicts historical events in a pretty realistic way, I would suggest it is useful for these to be recorded, and that there is a section of the page for "Inaccuracies".

One inaccuracy of greater importance than the standard film continuity issues...

The shooting that Donovan 'sees' out of the window while in Berlin appears to represent the Killing of Peter Fechter that happened the summer 'after' the Powers/Abel exchange on the Glieneker Bridge.

According to the List of deaths at the Berlin Wall, the only shooting at the 'wall' before the Powers/Abel exchange was that of Dieter Wohlfahrt, but when/where he was shot, the 'Wall' was "three layers of barbed wire fence" (http://www.berliner-mauer-gedenkstaette.de/en/1961-299,339,2.html), and not a wall at all. DrArsenal (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a section, but it should be called "Historical accuracy" (used as neutral terminology). Such a section would explore both accuracies and inaccuracies. There are guidelines at WP:FILMHIST to follow. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. I have had a look at WP:FILMHIST, have found a couple of RS discussing the question of the accuracy of the film, and am starting to work on a section. DrArsenal (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Working on it in my sandbox DrArsenal (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

On Rudolf Abel's accent, Mark Rylance portrays it as a sort of odd Geordie/Scottish/Russian/German sound - but apparently this was accurate. William Fisher was born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne where he would have picked up a Geordie accent from the locals. His parents were ethnic Germans from Russia. But he also spent several years in Scotland, and apparently had a Scottish burr. See http://www.salon.com/2014/02/09/the_russian_spy_who_duped_my_dad_partner/ for this description:

“He had this accent,” Silverman explained. “You just couldn’t place it. There was a strange, rolling ‘r’ sound when he said my name—Burrrrrt—as if he had a Scottish burr, though he explained it with a story about an aunt from Scotland that had raised him.”

Without any recordings, Rylance presumably did the best he could to come up with something that sounded like the description. Against that, it should be said that James B. Donovan described him as having "the accent of an upper-class Britisher who had lived in Brooklyn for some years" (Strangers on a Bridge, p. 16), and Donovan was quite familiar with Britain. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I don't think that a bad accent counts as a historical inaccuracy.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland in a sense, the accuracy or inaccuracy of "Abel's" accent is irrelevant. A reliable source reports the paradox of an accent that clearly isn't a 'northern English' accent being described in the film as 'northern English'. Logically, either the accent is inaccurate, or the script is (or both): Sam Blacketer makes a good case that it isn't the accent. But there is no way someone who can confidently describe an accent as 'northern English' would have so described that accent. Certainly, there is scope for considering whether this question of script inaccuracy is worth reporting, but I don't think there is much scope for debating whether it exists. DrArsenal (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Is IMDb a reliable source? In real life, people describe accents wrongly all the time. As Sam as shown, there were different accounts of what the real Abel's accent was. Donovan was surely wrong in describing the accent as upper-class British. I think it is perfectly conceivable that someone could describe the accent portrayed as "northern English", particularly if they knew Abel had been born in Newcastle.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland none of us knows, or can know what accent the historical "Abel" was using at any time. It seems quite possible that he put on accents to disguise his natural Geordie (since he was able to hide his true identity and be known as "Abel" all the time he was in US custody), rather than being revealed as Fisher.

I agree that it is perfectly conceivable that someone could describe the accent portrayed as "northern English", particularly if they knew Abel had been born in Newcastle, but however conceivable that is, the accent portrayed by Rylance in the film was NOT 'northern English': what Rylance portrayed may have been an "odd Scottish/Russian/German sound" (personally I thought there was some Irish in there too), so the "conceivable" description was not an accurate description of the accent portrayed. HOWEVER, by the looks of the essay WP:CITEIMDB, the authors of that essay view IMDb as not reliable for the use here. So perhaps the mention needs to be deleted on the basis of laking the RS basis that I thought it had? DrArsenal (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to listen to his Rudolf Abel/William Fisher's actual accent this is a youtube: Dead Season Film. Adamdaley (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking English?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No. But you will understand somewhat his English/Russian. When I speak English and Tagalog, my voice doesn't change in my opinion. Adamdaley (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

On another topic, in the "standing man" conversation, Abel says when he was a child, his family was attacked by "partisan border guards". I don't think there's such a thing, and he wasn't in Russia as a child. I suspect this is just nonsense the writers came up with, but haven't found a source that addresses this.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland – When a movie is based on true events, it means "loosely" on true events. The U.S. did capture a Russian spy in 1957, due to his assistant spy Reino Häyhänen defecting in Paris on the way back to Moscow. James B. Donovon indeed represent Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher/Rudolf Abel during the trial 1957-1960. The Russians indeed capture Powers and the U2 plane and Donovan, indeed master the three-way swap, one Russian for two Americans which were Powers and Pryor. That's unfortunately, where the true events leave us. Adamdaley (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland - thinking about the "standing man" conversation, though, a spy who was hiding his true identity may well have made up such a scenario. DrArsenal (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In relation to Abel's later life, the film also says that the USSR never acknowledged his spying, which is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember that from the film myself, but I can remember the lack hug before getting into the car, and it seems like it is worth including the acknowledgement if you are confident in your memory of/can check against the film. DrArsenal (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's noted as a goof by IMDb, but we need a better source than that.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It says on the page "Donovan is portrayed as just an insurance lawyer": but that's not the way I remember it - iirc the film portrays involvement in the Nuremburg trials DrArsenal (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He does say something about himself to that effect.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Jack Upland, but that could be an 100% accurate portrayal of what he said. People do sometimes downplay their notable achievements and background, and someone with a " a history with US intelligence" moreso DrArsenal (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

At around the 14-minute mark, in the scene where the case is being handed to him, it is explicitly stated that Donovan is currently, and for years has been, an insurance lawyer, and is out of practice with his previous law experience, and the notable Nuremburg is brought up. Not to mention, the implicit nature of the significance that the choice to have him take the case was, in the film, unanimously voted upon by by a Federal Court bar committee.64.134.232.78 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)ehcmier

So, based on the information we know (the source is a blog which relies on "open source" material - Wikipedia?), the film is not inaccurate on Donovan's previous career. A lot of people had interesting jobs in WW2, but that was more than a decade before. If it turns out, that Donovan was not largely an insurance lawyer at the time of the film, then, yes, the film would be inaccurate. Until there is a source that says that, we can't say the film is inaccurate on this point. Regarding the bar committee vote, I don't think this matters one way or the other. It is weird that they didn't choose a prominent defence lawyer. The fact that he was involved in the prosecution at Nuremberg or that he worked with the OSS (which was basically an amateur outfit) way back when doesn't change the weirdness of it. This is captured in the movie. Hence, it appears the movie is accurate on this point, and I will delete the offending material.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The DDR hat no "Attorney General". European countries have Ministers of Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E2:3725:3693:6C0F:37FE:F4F1:B721 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sequence of sections

User:Jedi94 has twice moved the section on Historical Accuracy to a subsection within 'Production' section. This time at least there has been a reasoning given "as Per WP:FILMHIST", but I can't see what there is about that element of the MOS that says it should be within 'Production' section: I think it is more logical to the flow for it to follow the plot synopsis in this article. DrArsenal (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of a section on historical accuracy is to present and discuss what is in the final, finished film and how similar it compares to actual events and historical record. A similar editing discussion happened at Saving Mr. Banks (see that discussion here). The consensus there was to have the "Historical accuracy" content exist as a subsection of the Production section. In the case with Bridge of Spies, I've simply employed the same logic and reasoning from that discussion and applied it here. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the original placement.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks, User:Jedi94 for the extra explanation. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two films, though. Saving Mr. Banks is essentially about events that are not historically notable, while 'Bridge of Spies' depicts and is about momentous historical events. As such, any historical inaccuracy in 'Bridge of Spies' has a greater importance, since it is not just of interest to film buffs but also anybody bothered about the history of the cold war, and thus the section warrants greater prominence than an equivalent section in 'Saving Mr. Banks'.
PS you will be glad to know I'm not 96.253.65.178! DrArsenal (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the section discusses critics' comments, so follows on from "Critical reception".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I endorse the "Historical accuracy" section standing alone. I say this because the "Production" section is a generally descriptive section of how the film was made. I think a "Historical accuracy" section is more of an analytical section and should be treated as distinct. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being its own independent section. In fact, the HA for Saving Mr. Banks is also its own section (I must've overlooked that, my bad). I just feel that it flows better after either Production or Reception, rather than after Plot. Perhaps we should flesh out the section a bit more first though. Thoughts?

And yes, User:DrArsenal, I am extremely relieved you are not like that one user! Lol ;) ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at a fair few other pages about films based on major historical events, and I can see that my original placement immediately after the 'Plot' section is not normal practice even for films based on major historical events. I think there might be a problem here in that those that set the standards for film articles are people who are interested in film, and while each film based on a major historical event, and page about it, may attract interest from people more interested in the history surrounding it, these tend to be people interested in that portion of history, thus their interest (like mine) in film pages more widely is relatively fleeting. Thus, the 'lobby' (sorry I can't think of a better word) that view questions of historical accuracy as being more closely related to production or reception is a constant part of the community around film pages, while the 'lobby' that views questions of historical accuracy as being more closely related to plot is composed of relatively fleeting 'visitors' to the film pages. Nothing about this means one viewpoint or the other is better, just that one is more likely to become dominant because of the structures of Wikipedia. And, like other people more interested in the history surrounding the film than films 'per se', I'm not going to put a lot of effort into trying to change how film articles about films based on major historical events deal with historical accuracy.

Meanwhile, Jack Upland, it looks like you have unintentionally contradicted yourself. The original location was immediately after 'Plot': I presume from your subsequent post, that you actually do not want it returned there.DrArsenal (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot where it originally was. I don't think it fits under "Production". Following on from "Plot" or "Reception" would make sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User: Curdlash has moved the section, without obvious reference to this discussion or contributing here. I am hoping Curdlash will explain more the reasoning for the particular location, in the light of Jack Upland's point that "Following on from "Plot" or "Reception" would make sense". DrArsenal (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:DrArsenal Hey there, I was unaware of this complaint as I often forget to check the talk pages. I had moved the Historical accuracy section under Production because on true story film pages, such as The Revenant, this certain section is under Production. I wanted to stay consistent with other true story film pages. I apologize if this would be an unacceptable edit. User:Curdlash (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User: Curdlash If it was utterly clearly against what was consensus here, I would have moved it straight away: I thought there may have been more/different reasoning that the one you gave. I agree that where, as with The Revenant, Saving Mr Banks or Cool Runnings, the interest in the historical events is primarily because a film has been made about them, then a 'Historical Accuracy' section can reasonably be well down the article - for example after 'production', but I still contend that cases where the events are historically notable to such an extent that they have wiki pages about them before the film is made, then the 'Historical Accuracy' section needs to be earlier in the article: I've moved it back after 'plot'. DrArsenal (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ex Parte Contact

In the film, Donovan goes to the judge's home and tries to persuade him not to impose the death penalty. This is clearly an impermissible ex parte contact, without the US attorney present. I don't think the rules governing attorney ethics were that much different back then, so is this nothing more than dramatic license, or what? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Two curious omissions

Milan C. Miskovsky's CIA biographical summary (which makes him a key player in the spy swap) makes no mention of Frederic Pryor, while the movie Bridge of Spies makes no mention of Miskovsky. Are their any reliable sources that might clarify either of these curious omissions, as well as whether they might somehow be connected? (Note: I'm asking this question at the Talk Pages of both the movie and Miskovsky articles, but any replies are best left in a single place, so I suggest the Miskovsky Talk Page (Talk:Milan_C._Miskovsky#Two curious omissions)) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

More fr/ Historical accuracy

I removed one or two sentences which begin with a statement that Donovan is presented as an attorney in private practice with no major government connections. During the 13-15th minute of the movie, it's made clear that Donovan contributed significantly as an attorney at the Nuremberg trials. This removed info was added by a unregistered editor with no contributions since late 2017. Tapered (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I partially disagree with this removal. In a movie about spies, there is merit in noting the fact that Donovan was the chief lawyer of the US intelligence community during the biggest war in history, something the movie makes no mention of. Clarified the previous writeup in the article.

174.77.93.182 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)