We’re in Japanese-occupied Thailand in 1943, and an English platoon has been captured by the Japanese army. They are led by Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness), a popular patriot and obstinate stickler for rules. There, they are forced into manual labour by Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa) to build a railway bridge across the river Kwai. Determined to prove English efficiency and engineering as superior to Japanese, Nicholson takes command of the construction (much to the chagrin of Saito). Meanwhile, an escaped American prisoner, Commander Sheers (William Holden), is part of a group led by Major Warden (Jack Hawkins) to try and blow up the bridge…
Doug says...
This is a strange and mesmerising film. At first glance, it seems to be a film about war and army values (yawn) but then actually it becomes more of a critique of the army attitudes to the world versus the natural human attitudes. It’s also a slow-moving, affecting study of man’s compulsion to build rather than destroy, and how far one will go to protect their work.
The first hour sets up for a different film altogether with the hero Colonel Nicholson doing battle with the dastardly Colonel Saito, a Japanese soldier in charge of the Prisoner of War camp. They challenge each other over authority and Saito locks Nicholson in a metal box under the sun’s glare for several days. So far, so obvious. It is clearly setting up for a Good Vs Evil, English Vs Japanese flick to just remind everyone over a decade post-war how great the Brits are.
Except then it does a huge flip, Nicholson skilfully negotiates, Saito backs down, and Nicholson begins building the bridge of the title as a way to prove the strength and skill of the British Army. And you slowly realise that there are no heroes or villains here. Saito reveals that if he does not complete the bridge on time, he will be forced to commit suicide, hence his aggressive actions. No baddies after all.
Meanwhile there’s a bunch of British and American soldiers trying to get to the bridge to blow it up. They speak far more brutally of having to ‘leave each other behind’ and of the coldness required to kill a man. It’s a different mindset, and not one that becomes any more rational or easy to accept through the film. A doctor from the camp sees these attitudes, alongside Nicholson’s tunnel vision focus on his men’s well-doing and the bridge he is constructing, and questions it all with great seriousness. At first we are annoyed with the doctor, but as the film progresses we begin to side with him, wondering quite how these obsessive characters with their different obsessions will end.
It’s an Oscar winning performance from Alec Guinness that pins down the whole film and you are always keen to get back to his scenes and watch his depiction of a man torn between his army duties and the love of his own creation.
Highlight
When Nicholson stands on the completed bridge, looking out over the sunny waters, and talks of how he wonders what - if anything - his life will mean. It’s a moment that captures a concern common to everyone, and the tension we already have for the bridge’s fate ensures it’s a fleeting moment, as transient and quick as life itself.
Lowlight
A few of the scenic scenes - trekking through the jungle - ramble quite long. They’re full of beautiful imagery which is no wonder why they’re there. But they slow the pace of a long film unnecessarily.
Mark
10/10
Paul says...
What I love most about The Bridge on the River Kwai is its structure. There are two major storylines- that of Nicholson constructing the bridge, and that of Shears and Warden planning to destroy it. Unlike many war films, this is heavy on character and dialogue so there is a great deal of talking and scene-setting, but the suspense and excitement are maintained for the full two and a half hours because the two storylines constantly circle each other in a double helix, almost touching but never quite. The total opposition of the major characters’ objectives keep the audience tense, and as the double helix becomes tighter and tighter, and the two storylines become closer and closer, the tension becomes unbearable. We are constantly reminded that when both storylines eventually collide, the result will be literally and figuratively explosive- and we are far from disappointed at the final climax.
Long this film may be, but it is far from dull. The character work is second to none. It is similar to From Here to Eternity in that the unquestionable war-heroics of Greer Garson and Humphrey Bogart are dispensed with, and what we are left with are no heroes and villains at all but rather characters doing good and bad things for complex reasons. Whether you agree or disagree with their actions is beside the point, now the only imperative is to understand them. Saito’s tyranny is driven by his desire to build the bridge on time- the consequence of failing would be seppuku (suicide). Nicholson’s collusion with the enemy to build the bridge is driven by his desire to prove that the English are far superior in its work force- a drive augmented by Saito’s own deluded determination to prove that punishment and shouting are great motivators (this man obviously needs a crash-course in team management). And Warden’s obsession with destroying the bridge is created by his unquestioning conviction that the British must win this godforsaken war. The fact that the whole film ends in tragedy and mayhem is no surprise when all these characters’ motivations are working against each other.
It also raises questions about how one should prove your nation’s superiority in wartime. The natural assumption is to bomb the shit out of your opposing country until they’re too weak to fight back. But Nicholson demonstrates a different way- that of building the bridge quicker and more efficiently than your enemies in order to intimidate them. He turns out to be right, as Saito spends a vast majority of the final hour in silent shock and awe at British prowess. It’s just a shame that such prowess will prove advantageous to the enemy. So how does one display national strength? By destroying, or by creating?
Analyses aside, this is a cracking good film. The location filming in Sri Lanka is stunning, the performances are phenomenal (Alec Guinness demonstrates some spectacular character-acting in a performance that he was actually quite insecure about), and for a film that is light on action, it is tremendously exciting. Not many character-driven films can achieve such stature.
Highlight
The final 20 minutes are incredibly tense. All the characters are assembled like chess pieces around the centrepiece of the completed bridge, and you have no idea what’s about to happen- but you know it won’t be good.
Lowlight
There’s an arbitrary and irrelevant quasi-romantic love story between a minor lieutenant and a Burmese peasant girl who doesn’t speak English. It’s brief but it’s totally pointless.
Mark
10/10
No comments:
Post a Comment