by Chris Marshall:
I should really stop having expectations when I go into
these movies. I don’t mean expecting a movie to be good or bad but the more
basic level of what the film is even about.
I knew that The Bridge on the River Kwai took
place in a POW camp during World War II, but outside of that, it was completely
different from what I thought it would be.
I figured it would be about the deplorable conditions the
British soldiers faced in the camp and how they were forced to build the bridge
against their will, all while struggling to survive the horrendous situation
they found themselves in. That really wasn’t the case at all, though.
Sure, that’s more or less how it started. We start out
seeing the American Navy prisoner (played by William Holden) digging graves in
a well-populated cemetery, obviously leading to the conclusion that many
soldiers had died there already. When the British contingent arrives, the camp
leader, Colonel Saito, informs them that everyone, officers included, will have
to do manual labor. When Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) objects,
citing the Geneva Convention’s mandate that officers not be used for manual
labor, Saito rips it in half. This could be trouble.
As it was in real life. Despite all the crimes the Nazis
committed, they tended to treat POWs fairly well, giving them access to Red
Cross workers and allowing them some level of communication with the outside
world. This was not the case on the Pacific front, however. Japan’s government
had never formally ratified the Geneva Convention, and they felt no need to
honor it. Combined with the tropical/jungle settings where these camps tended
to be located, this led to incredibly atrocious conditions for captured
soldiers.
The River Kwai, which is in Sri Lanka (formerly known as
Ceylon), was no exception. In addition to being worked to exhaustion and not
being given enough food, there were also myriad diseases to contend with. Even
if you survived the actual bridge building, you were likely to succumb to
malaria or dysentery or some other disease.
But again, this turned out to not really be the focus of the
film. Lt. Col. Nicholson refuses to let his officers work, and he is punished
by being placed in the “oven,” a tiny metal shack. Saito repeatedly offers to
let him out if he agrees to work, but he holds steady. Soon, Saito realizes
that there is no chance that the bridge will be finished in time if his own men
are running the project. After a meeting with Nicholson, he relents and allows
the British officers to supervise the construction.
Instead of sabotaging the bridge, which will be used to
transport Japanese troops and supplies, Nicholson wants to use it as a
testament to British efficiency and workmanship. They will build the bridge
even better than the Japanese asked for. Long after the war is over, the bridge
will remain, and it will all be due to these British POWs.
Well, that’s the way Nicholson envisioned it. Meanwhile, the
aforementioned American sailor has escaped and made it back to an Allied base.
While the prisoners are tirelessly building, he is working with a covert
operations team to devise a plan to get back to the camp and destroy it.
 |
| Can you believe this guy was 68 at the time? |
As the rest of the film plays out, we realize that Nicholson
has completely forgotten the big picture. The war is an afterthought, and even
when one of his own men suggests that their work could be viewed as aiding the
enemy, he scoffs at the idea. He only cares about the bridge and seeing it
through to the end. Nothing else matters.
For this reason, I classify this less as a war film and more
of a story about the relationship both between captive and captor and between
Nicholson’s duty to his country and his role as a leader of men. The war is in the
background for Nicholson and everybody else. They are only concerned with what
is in front of them. Maybe that’s how it always is for the people actually
fighting in wars. It’s hard to think too much about the big picture when your
very survival is on the line.
Alec Guinness won Best Actor[1]
for this role, but William Holden was first-billed and I believe had more
screen time than Guinness. Nevertheless, I think the Academy made the correct
decision. Guinness was superb as the stoic, always-in-control Lt. Col.
Nicholson. And to think, director David Lean openly clashed with Guinness
throughout the filming process, as he disliked the way Guinness was playing the
role. I guess Obi-Wan knew what he was doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment