By Marc S. Sanders
David Lean’s The Bridge On The River Kwai commits to a common theme. The purpose of war means nothing to the pawns assigned to execute its actions.
The film primarily takes place in Japanese occupied Burma during World War II. A prison has just acquired a British platoon of soldiers, and the Japanese have mandated this squad to construct a railway bridge that will run over the Kwai river benefiting the Axis efforts in the war. Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness, in a celebrated early career role) respects the rules of war that come with his battalion being held as prisoners of the Japanese enemy, and he is prepared to have his men begin construction. However, as his copy of the Geneva Convention Agreement dictates, his officers are not obliged to join in the assignment.
This is a far off deserted jungle however, that does not even need to be fenced off because an attempted trek to escape is bound to fail. Therefore, the Geneva Convention Agreement has no value of authority out here in this bug infested, stilted and sweltering heat with minimal resources of food, clothing or medicine. The Japanese commander Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa) does not hesitate to swat Nicholson’s copy in the Englishman’s face. Now, since the politics of war are no longer a factor, the stamina of these two men are what’s at stake.
Saito forces Nicholson into a cramped, isolated hot box with next to no food or water. He’s lucky because his remaining officers are forced to share the other box together. Saito will force them to comply, or he may just have to kill himself.
The Bridge On The River Kwai explores how productivity, leadership and endurance thrive, but at a startling cost of madness. Before you realize it, none of these characters are speaking of their respective war efforts or even the mandates of war. As Nicholson persists in his stance as a defiant leader, a remarkable tide turns within this prison camp. Soon, the question arises as to who is running this camp and overseeing this bridge project. The enforcers or the prisoners?
A separate storyline involves an American prisoner named Shears (William Holden) – one of the last men in his platoon to survive, and now only here to bury his fallen comrades. He’s introduced to describe the harsh reality of what Nicholson and his men can expect. Yet once Shears escapes the camp, he is caught in a twisted irony, being forced to return to the prison camp where he must destroy the bridge under the command of a British special forces leader named Warden (Jack Hawkins). Warden goes through his own form of madness. A badly injured foot becomes something worse than a bloody stump and still he insists on leading his small brigade into the jungle.
Meanwhile, as Nicholson develops more control over the camp, with Saito realizing his own pitiful ineptitude, a faction of the British are now likely to engage with Nicholson’s newfound achievement as a leader over his own squad, as well as the human Japanese resources he’s also recruited to complete this solid foundation.
David Lean had a reputation for never settling for less on his pictures and The Bridge On The River Kwai is a perfect example. I recently watched the film, for a second time, with my fellow Cinemaniacs. Thomas and Miguel assuredly pointed out that one less than sturdy bridge was constructed by Lean’s crew to demonstrate its weaknesses and the lack of engineering the Japanese possess, before Nicholson fully takes over. That structure collapses on film and thus lends to the next plight in the story, when Nicholson proves to Saito that he is more capable than his enemy counterpart.
Later, the actual bridge is finished leading to a nail biting ending that elevates in suspense as an oncoming Japanese train is heard approaching with its signature whistle and chugging overheard as Colonel Nicholson proudly walks across his success, newly minted with a plaque carved with his name. Elsewhere in the area are Stearns and Hawkins. What began with Japanese antagonism has shifted to one side likely to do battle with itself.
Who is fighting who? More importantly, what are they fighting for? War or persistent, delusional madness?
The Bridge On The River Kwai is a magnificent adventure produced with sensational filmmaking. The investment and risk that David Lean took to assemble this picture is astounding. It was filmed within the actual jungles. (Miguel said somewhere around Sri Lanka.) The costumes worn by the thousands of extras are tattered dirty scraps that certainly does not invite the sex appeal you’d expect in a modern film of this kind. Moreover, the audacity of the filmmaker at least matches the nerve of the story’s cast of characters.
The cast is marvelous, but it is Sessue Hayakawa and Alec Guinness who serve the impact of Lean’s film. The movie comes close to a three-hour running time. The first half of the film has Hayakawa positioned as the leading antagonist, but the second half has Guinness filling that spot. They almost seem to mirror one another as their character arcs move in parallel but opposite directions working to accomplish their goals, while shedding any kind of humane concern for their underlings or the countries they serve.
I consider this film to be groundbreaking. It’s a spectacle, but it allows much to be examined in mental acuity, military allegiance and endurance. The Bridge On The River Kwai tests how effective war can be for any side that participates. My Cinemaniac comrade, Thomas, informed me that the story, adapted from a novel by Pierre Boulle, is entirely fictional. Still, I believe it garners an important message. Are we supposed to truly embrace “rules of war?” This is not Risk the board game.
These men might carry the titles and rankings issued to them by their governments. However, isolate them in the middle of nowhere and who is going to uphold any semblance of regulation? War functions on efforts of violence. When was the last time anyone had respect for violence?
2 UNPAID MOVIE CRITICS!!!! 