.jpg)
BACK-STORY: “Bridge on the River Kwai” is the
screen adaptation of Pierre Boulle’s Bridge Over the River Kwai (I do
not know why they changed the title).
Boulle channeled his experiences as a POW in Southeast Asia during WWII
and based his main character on French officers who collaborated with their
Japanese captors. Boulle was awarded the
Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar even though he did not write it. Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson were
uncredited at the time because they were blacklisted due to the McCarthyism of
the 50’s. Both were given posthumous trophies
in 1984. It was directed by David Lean
(who co-directed “In Which We Serve” and went on to do “Lawrence of
Arabia”). The movie was filmed in Sri
Lanka so the crew and actors had to deal with diseases and jungle
critters. It was not an easy shoot, but
considering what the real-life POWs went through, I hope no one
complained. The movie was a huge
financial and critical success. It cost
$3 million to make and made $27 million.
It was the #1 movie of 1958. It
won seven Academy Awards: Picture, Director,
Actor (Alec Guinness), Adapted Screenplay, Score, Editing, and
Cinematography. Sessue Hyakawa was
nominated for Best Supporting Actor. The
movie is #36 on the most recent AFI Top 100 Films list.
OPENING: We see graves along a railway
that is being constructed by emaciated British prisoners of war in the Burmese
jungle in 1943. An American named Shears
(William Holden) is digging a grave in the camp cemetery. He gives a guard a cigarette to bribe him
into allowing him to go on sick leave.
Holden is a cynical gold-brick who is only interested in survival. He is neither an officer nor a gentleman. Anti-heroes are not a recent development.
SUMMARY: New British soldiers arrive
whistling the movie’s iconic theme.
When they stop, their marching in place denotes the mindless discipline
of the British army. The commandant
Saito (Hayakawa) explains that they are there to build a bridge. They will work hard or be punished. There are no walls around the camp because
escape into the jungle is suicidal. Most
significantly, Saito proclaims that the British officers will work alongside
the enlisted. The British C.O., Lt. Col.
Nicholson (Guinness), reminds Saito that the Geneva Convention says officers do
not have to work. Saito is not
interested.
On the
first day of work, Saito gives a speech where he makes it clear he hates the
British and considers them dishonored because they surrendered. When Nicholson confronts him with a copy of
the Geneva Convention, Saito beats him with it and threatens to shoot all the
officers. The camp doctor, Clipton
(James Donald), intervenes to talk Saito down.
Nicholson and the other officers stand in the hot sun all day while the
enlisted go off to work. Game on. Next, Saito puts Nicholson in the “oven”, but
he refuses to back down. Weeks pass and
the prisoners are doing their best to slack off and sabotage the construction
so it is way behind schedule and increasingly shoddy. Meanwhile, Shears escapes and manages to make
it back to Allied lines. Earlier,
Nicholson had ordered his British soldiers not to escape because when the
British high command surrendered at Singapore they committed the men to
respectful imprisonment!
Saito
is forced to back down because his career (and life) are on the line. He agrees the officers will not have to
work. The loss of face on his face tells
it all. Nicholson assumes the dominant
role in their relationship and this allows him to start his pet project. He feels that it would be good for morale and
discipline for the British to build the bridge.
The construction of a high quality bridge will also serve as proof of
the superiority of the West over the Orient.
They will build a “proper bridge” that they can be proud of. Nicholson puts a stop to the slacking and the
sabotage. In a telling moment, Nicholson
scolds Saito that his recalcitrance means “we’ve
wasted almost a month.”
 |
| I have students who would rather die than work, too |
Suddenly,
construction picks up markedly in both quality and quantity. The prisoners work hard because of the
charismatic leadership of Nicholson. Only Clipton questions the collaboration. At one point, he wonders to Nicholson if the
Japanese “appreciate what we are doing for them.” Even mentioning the T word (treason) has no
effect on the pompous colonel. In fact,
Nicholson becomes so obsessed with completing the bridge on time that he puts
the officers to work. Add irony to the
list of concepts he is not familiar with.
 |
| Nichol-san and Saito |
Meanwhile,
Shears is enjoying his convalescence with a pretty nurse. (A subplot forced into the movie by the
studio.) A British commando named Warden
(Jack Hawkins) strong arms him into joining a mission to blow up the
bridge. They will be joined by a rookie
named Joyce (Geoffrey Horne) and aided by Siamese guerrillas. They parachute into the jungle (with no
practice for Shears). There is a Tarzan-like
sequence as they cut their way through the jungle and the ubiquitous encounter
with leaches. Speaking of leaches, Tokyo
Rose makes a brief appearance (“Take it easy, never volunteer for anything”). Warden gets wounded on the trek for plot
purposes.
The
bridge is completed on time much to the pride of Saito and Nicholson who tour
it together. The British celebrate and
Nicholson tells the men they should be proud and that they “have turned defeat
into victory.” That same night, the
commandoes rig the bridge for explosion.
This unfortunately lacks suspense because you know there has to be a big
explosion at the end.
CLOSING: So far, the plan is working
perfectly which means some major shit is about to hit the fan. Sure enough, during the night the river has
gone down a couple of feet exposing not only the exposives but the freaking
wire leading to the plunger! Curse you,
Mother Nature! Guess who discovers the
explosives? Hint: the inferior Oriental soldiers would never
have noticed them. Nicholson brings his
lackey Saito to check out this threat to their
bridge. Joyce knifes Saito, but
Nicholson calls for help and Joyce gets shot.
Shears tries swimming to Nicholson to kill him, but is not successful.
Nicholson gets wounded and finally realizes that he is a shameful
collaborator. “What have I done?” He falls on the plunger. Toot, toot!
Boom, boom! Clipton: “Madness, madness.”
HISTORICAL
ACCURACY: The
Thailand-Burma Railway was constructed by Allied prisoners in a fourteen month
stretch from 1942-43. It was to connect
Rangoon to Bangkok. The railway’s
completion was deemed essential to supplying Japanese forces in Thailand. 60,000 prisoners toiled along with many more
dragooned civilians. About 13,000 soldiers
died.
The
movie accurately depicts the attitude of the Japanese toward the
prisoners. The Japanese code of bushido
insisted that surrender was a disgrace so the British prisoners were not worthy
of respect. There were other factors
that explained the mistreatment. The
Japanese were unprepared for the huge volume of prisoners when Singapore
fell. This explained the poor housing,
food, clothing, and medical care. The
movie actually underplays the terrible condition the men were in. The actors in the film are much too fit. (They also are not wearing the loin clothes
that would have been typical.) Another
factor was the fact that the prison administration consisted of second-rate
soldiers. A commandant like Saito would
have been in a combat unit if he was competent.
The prisoners were faced with incompetent and bitter guards. That was a very bad combination. Then throw in that soldiers who are used to
being beat are naturally going to take it out on their charges. Usually using bamboo canes. Interestingly, the worst guards were actually
the conscripted Koreans. They had a
strong propensity to turn their resentment of the Japanese on the PWs.
The
first 40 miles of the construction was easy and then the Japanese government
upped the timetable by months. This
resulted in the “Speedo Period” named after what the frantic engineers kept
yelling: “speedo! speedo!” At around this time a new group of 7,000
prisoners (mostly Australians) arrived after a 150 mile march that lasted 17
days. It is doubtful they were whistling
when they arrived. 47% of this “F Force”
did not survive the war.
The
building of the bridge was actually pretty easy. The Japanese engineers were competent and did
not need any help. It was across the Mae
Klong River, not the Kwai River (Boulle liked the sound of “Kwai”). Only a few died in the construction. It was after the bridge was finished that
construction through the jungle got really rough. This was partly because of the monsoon season
which the movie overlooks. There were
two bridges in reality. One was a
temporay wooden one to get supplies across the river and the one the movie was
modeled after was made of stone and steel.
As
far as the main characters, the movie is way off. The commanding officer in charge of the
bridge crew was a Lt. Col. Philip Toosey.
He was pretty much the opposite of Nicholson. He encouraged the men to work slower and to
sabotage whenever they could. However,
he did insist on adherrance to the Geneva Conventions and was subsequently beaten
for it. He did not argue that officers
should not work. In fact, junior
officers routinely worked and senior officers supervised. There was a Major Saito, but he was second in
command and had a reputation for being relatively benign. Toosey testified for him at his war crimes
trial and they became friends after the war.
The fictional Clipton commendatorially represents the real heroes in the
railway construction – the medical officers. They had to deal with diseases
like malaria and cholera as well as malnutrition.
It
probably will not surprise you to learn that the ending is completely
fictional. There was no attempt to blow
up the bridge. The stone bridge was
brought down by American B-24 bombers by June, 1945.
WOULD CHICKS DIG
IT? Yes. It is not all testosterone like “The Dirty
Dozen”. There is even a brief, lame
romance thrown in to lure females into the theater. The film is more of a character study than a
shoot’em up. In fact, the violence is
restrained and not graphic. There is
also no offensive language. The movie is
an adult date movie for baby boomers.
CRITIQUE: “The Bridge on the River Kwai” is
a classic epic war film. Not surprising
since David Lean and “epic” go together.
Here we get the density of the jungle instead of the sweep of the desert
as in “Lawrence of Arabia”. And both his
signature films feature a deeply flawed main character. Lean made a film that is not blatantly
anti-war. He described it as about “the
folly and waste of war”. Other themes
include strong leaders butting heads, the importance of principles in warfare,
and what is proper behavior for a POW.
In
order to explore these themes, Lean and the screenwriters had to defy reality a
bit. There certainly were Nicholsons in
the British Army. However, the same
strict adherrance to principles before capture would have made it highly
unlikely that type of personality would have collaborated like Nicholson
did. The military code of continuing to
resist even after capture would have trumped any belief in acquiesing to your
legal captor. If a commander had chosen
to aid the enemy’s war effort, it would have been for much more crass and
craven reasons than Lean gives Nicholson.
It is also extremely unlikely that the other officers and men would have
abandoned slacking and sabotage for working harder to help the enemy complete a
vital railway. There certainly would
have been more debate over the cooperation.
As it is, Clipton sticks out as a lone voice in the wilderness. You do have Shears sneering at Nicholson, but
his character is mainly there to contrast the British an"d American attitudes
toward discipline, principles, and officers.
This
is not to say that the Nicholson character is ridiculous or flawed. The plot could not exist without him. As played by Guinness (in possibly his best
performance), he is fascinating. There
are times when you admire his bravery and endurance in pursuit of maintaining
the principles his life is based on. But
more often you shake your head over his borderline treason. In this respect, the Clipton character
mirrors the audience. Saito is also a
strong character and more accurately reflects the Japanese officer class than
Nicholson reflects the British. The arc
of Saito from obstinate bully to Nicholson’s lap dog is heavy-handed, but
necessary. Shears is another character
that had to be forced into the plot (literally, because in the book he is a
British commando who had not been in the camp).
If it is a British movie and there is a minority major American
character, they always behave like Shears.
Brash, anti-authoritarian, and individualistic. Basically, Holden is playing Sefton from
“Stalag 17”.
Speaking
of acting, the movie is top notch. The
cast is very good with the odd exception of Horne as Joyce. What is this B-List actor doing mixing with
the heavyweights? I guess you could say
the odd casting paid off for Lean because Horne rescued him when he almost
drowned in the river. Jack Hawkins is
his usual solid self as the stereotypical stiff upper-lipped Warden. The role is basically the one played by
Anthony Quayle in “Guns of Navarone”.
James Donald is crucial as the film’s conscience - Doctor Clipton. He would go on to play the same personality
in “The Great Escape”.
The
movie is technically magnificent. The
cinematography was award-winning as to be expected from a Lean film. Jack Hildyard makes good use of the jungle
locale. The scenery is beautiful. There is a variety of long-range shots, deep
focus, and stationary camera. No
slo-mo. The score probably did not
deserve the Oscar, unless they were rewarding the film for being an epic
without the usual pomposity of music.
There are long stretches, like the rigging scene, where there is no
music. It is likely that the “Colonel
Bogey March” that book-ends the film is the primary reason for the award. The sets are great. The camp is squalid, although probably a bit
more liveable than in reality. The
bridge is outstanding. It took longer to
build than the real one (8 months). Its
demolition with the train passing over is one of the greatest scenes of that
type. It is similar to the one in “The
General”.
BOOK /
MOVIE: The theme of the
book is that both the Japanese and the British had the concept of “saving
face”. Both Saito and Nicholson are more
extreme characters in the book. Saito
has a drinking problem which made him mean.
His “I hate the British” speech was given while he was drunk. Nicholson is more insane in the book. He forbids the men to steal supplies from the
Japanese and in fact orders inspections that were more thorough than the
guards. It was his idea to increase the
work quota. Clipton is the only Brit who
questions this and is more of a conscience than in the film. When Clipton asks Nicholson if he will paint
the bridge, Nicholson says no because then it would be easily spotted by
planes! Clipton shakes his head a lot in
the book and veers between admiring Nicholson’s obstinate defense of principles
and his insane pushing of the men to help the enemy.
The
commando mission is substantially changed.
Shears is the head of the unit and Warden is his right hand man. Joyce is close to the movie character. They are in the jungle for weeks before
launching the mission. The book also
lacks suspense as the rigging of the bridge and the climactic last day are told
in flashbacks. But it’s that climax that
it is the big problem. Nicholson
discovers the wire with Saito in tow.
Joyce slashes Saito’s throat and tries to reason with Nicholson, but the
Colonel yells for help and ends up strangling Joyce before he can set off the
explosion. Shears swims across to
intervene, but Japanese guards have arrived.
He stabs two of them before he is rifle-butted. The Japanese cut the
wire before the train arrives. Warden
fires his mortar from a nearby hill and the first round kills Nicholson and
Shears. Warden escapes to tell the
story.
The
movie reinforces my belief that a movie should be able to improve on the book
it is based on. The screenwriters were
able to soften Boulle’s racism toward the Japanese. This attitude was understandable for a person
who had good reason to hate his former captors.
A constant refrain of the book is that the Japanese are uncivilized in
comparison to the West (exemplified by the British). The Japanese are absolutely incompetent when
it comes to railway construction. They
also softened the over the top personalities of Saito and Nicholson. The movie Saito is not an alcoholic and
Nicholson is more two-dimensional.
But
most importantly, the movie substantially improves the ending of the book. In the book, the bridge is not blown up!
CONCLUSION: It is understandable that “The
Bridge on the River Kwai” is high on the list and many would argue it belongs
in the Top 10. Part of this is due to
reputation. Looking at it from a modern
perspective, the film is a bit overrated.
As an adventure story, it is slow moving and lacking in adrenalin and
suspense. There is hardly any action. As a prisoner of war movie, it downplays the
horrors the men went through. As a character
study and clash of cultures, it is excellent. However, for a war movie fan,
there are many more impactful films.
“The Bridge on the River Kwai” is a war movie classic for the non-war
movie lover. Everyone can enjoy it, but
I can’t get excited over it. I would
argue it is not as good as lower ranked (but similar) movies like “The Great
Escape”.
RATINGS:
Action 5/10
Acting A+
Accuracy C
Realism C
Cliches A
Plot A
Overall A
the trailer
