Bridge Of Spies Analysis

The role of power in Bridge of Spies is not a question per se. More precise would be to ask: How? The answer is soft power. Both the US and the USSR exercise soft power over the GDM . However, the way in which the US and the USSR influence the behavior of the GDR is different. The US exercises institutional power, while the USSR exercises compulsory power.
On one side, the exercise of soft power by the US to achieve the goals of the liberation of Mr. Powers and Mr. Pryor is undeniable. Mr. Donovan (the incarnation of US goals) is wise enough to put on the table what the US wants. Although Mr. Vogel (the incarnation of GDR) wants to put his interest of having Abel for the release of Pryor, Mr. Donovan has already dealt with Mr. Schischkin the

Spielberg, I believe tends to be too much “Westernized”. Mr. Donovan fights for the American values and the Western way of living, despite the many (often irrational) attempts to stop him from doing so by most of the Americans depicted in the film. While Mr. Donovan fights to defend the Western value of “liberty” and “equality”, his countrymen are too much blinded by their fear of Communism to realize that they and Mr. Donovan are defending the same values. Nevertheless, while Mr. Donovan relies on the rights and duties of “every human being”, his countrymen (which include judges, attorneys, and journalists) act through their fears (Mr. Spielberg may have been thinking of toady’s crisis and debates). The main point here, however, is how Hollywood tries to promote the American core values of “fighting for what is right”. According to Barnett et al. “Power is the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate.” I cannot think of a more direct relation of shaping one’s point of view than being spectators of a film, the person and the screen. It is not a secret that what is right is by far a subjective concept. While Mr. Donovan is portrayed as a lawful and very wise, sincere and honest man, his counterparts in the GDR and the USSR are portrayed as pursuing more obscure political interests than him. Just like Barnett et al.