This film is outrageous in its minimizing of the terrible cruelty of the Japanese toward their prisoners. Sadistic behind belief, which is why the survivors despise this picture. They also despise it because they did not willingly build the bridge as depicted in the picture.
Also, the finale, when Col Nicholson suddenly realizes his madness and falls on the detonator, is extremely contrived. Lean, originally an editor, liked to build his finales like this, but here he went too far.
Why do so many of us admirers have to keep repeating -- the novel (a fiction by definition) and the picture (based on the novel) are both fictions? Whew!
sharecfewente: " ... the novel (a fiction by definition) and the picture (based on the novel) are both fiction ... "
This ^^^^^
The film is NOT a documentary. The film (and the novel it is based on) are fiction.
... there has been technological advancement, but how little man himself has changed.
That's not the point. The suffering of the Japanese POW's was very real, and this fictional story minimizes it. That's the point.
shareIt doesn't minimise it and the levels of brutality present in those Japanese WW2 camps probably couldn't be made into a film in 1957. If someone wants to know about what really happened they read accurate accounts of the time.
shareAnother work of fiction, "The Narrow Road To The Deep North", captures it pretty well although the author took a lot of critical heat for "sensationalizing".
shareHow could they make actors look like real POWs did?
shareI agree, to unitiated viewers, they will simply think that real WW2 Kwai history was as depicted. Without the sheer sadism and cruelty.
To dismiss films as 'not a documentary' is a misleading cop out.
So do a film about Bataan that depicts the Japs as honorable soldiers?
All these films about the Germans being assholes to Jews but the Japs get a pass? Why?
I understand a film about atrocities over a decade after the war might not go down well. People want to move on but it is a flaw in the film showing the Japs acting like Brits or Americans. They were not.
I think that when dealing with an actual historical event, it is incumbent on the author or director basically to respect the truth rather than whitewash it. It is like taking Auschwitz and basing a fiction on it without the grim truth. The men who survived the Burma-Siam railway protested the film strenuously. It is an insult to their suffering and to those who died.
sharespencer,
Fiction is after a different kind of truth than fact. History deals in that which "was", and fiction deals in that which "may" have been or may be. Both lessons are valuable. The telling of one does not obliterate the telling of another. TBOTRK is a great motion picture, imo, and is not intended as an historical essay. The documentaries I've seen are great, too, but they don't purport to inform me about the fears and regrets of a single aging man responsible for the lives of hundreds of other men. Remember, too, the special power of fiction is that it deals with events "unique" in life -- the unexpected, the irony (with which TBOTRK is loaded!)and, thus, how the events depicted may parallel other events entirely unrelated historically.
The Japanese had a history of cruelty yes, but maybe in this case, with this commander, they were less cruel, though their cruelty was lessened by their need to cooperate with the British to get the Bridge built.
The detonation scene is the only thing i dislike about the Movie, contrived isn't the word, stupid and impossible is more like it. i don't know why it was important for Nicholson to die than almost by divine luck fall on the Plunger, rather than Nicholson coming to his senses and destroying the Bridge as he is shot by the Japanese.
There is no "maybe" about this commander. I and others have explained the brutal mistreatment that characterized Japanese conduct toward all prisoners, whom they considered cowards. Their entire conduct in the war was beyond belief, which makes Obama's Hiroshima apology so despicable. Did you know they slaughtered an estimated ten million Chinese civilians, dropped bubonic plague in village wells and dropped anthrax bombs on the civilian populace, amongst other atrocities.
The scene near the end when the prisoners are enjoying a movie is ridiculous. Do you think Auschwitz prisoners (same conditions) watched movies?
Holy crap people just want to further their own agenda and not pay attention to facts. President Obama went to Hiroshima to honor the dead and recognize the atrocities of war. There was no "apology" anywhere in his speech or actions.
War is an awful thing. Let's not act like the Japanese were the only side to torture and do terrible things to the enemy. Either way though this is a FICTITIOUS movie. Nobody is saying that these things actually happened.
In your own words you concede Obama was engaging in moral equivalence: "the atrocities of war." You are flat wrong on the facts when you seem to put us in the level of the Japanese, who of course started the war with the sneak attack in Pearl Harbor ((never visited by a Japanese prime minister much less their emperor), murdered an estimated ten million Chinese, bombed them with anthrax bombs and dropped bubonic plague in village wells. Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking or the Rape of Manila in January 1945? Just to name a few?
Japan brought the atomic bombings on itself. It's emperor and militarist leaders were responsible. The atomic bombs were ultimately acts of self defense to end the war and prevent perhaps one million casualties. If Obama knew this history and didn't always apologize for the U.S., which he obviously detests, he would not have visited Hiroshima, certainly not before the Japanese apologized at Pearl Harbor. It was just an ego trip for him with no respect for the Americans who fought and died against this ferocius, savage enemy.
You are clearly the one ego tripping here. You can't let something go that happened well over half a century ago, while the people of Japan paid a very heavy price and have been dealing with the consequences ever since. No nation is innocent, and no man represents those who died before him.
share"No nation is innocent ..."
Depends upon what specifically it's claiming itself innocent of. Clearly, the U.S. is innocent of the atrocities spencer cites in his post. Re the A-bomb, spencer also correctly cites the stated reasons for its use -- defensive (since the war was initiated by the Japanese) and to save lives. Additionally, neither country owes the other an "apology" because, as you said, "... no man represents those who died before him."
Dropping an A-bomb on civilians to "save lives"? Don't get me wrong, probably the American death toll was somewhat contained thanks to that, but it was still a war crime.
shareYou can't let something go that happened well over half a century ago
You are clearly the one ego tripping here. You can't let something go that happened well over half a century ago, while the people of Japan paid a very heavy price and have been dealing with the consequences ever since.
Your initial posts bring up some good points before you go off the rails by bringing up Obama and Hiroshima. There's clearly some anti-Japanese sentiment given most people have moved beyond Pearl Harbor and the like. That's not to say one should whitewash the numerous and ghastly Japanese war crimes, but to hold those crimes against an entire people seventy years when almost all the perpetrators are long dead is really rather childish.
As to your original point, depicting the conditions of the Burmese railroad as they actually were would have been too shocking for audiences of the late 50s and even today an explicit depiction would probably turn away large numbers of people. When creating art, sometimes one has to compromise between telling a story and attempting to recreate reality. Lean and the writers chose to keep the story grounded in reality (the dialogue, particularly from Shears, tells us the camps are a nightmare) while choosing to create a story rather than a documentary.
"Japan brought the atomic bombings on itself." Do you hear what you're saying? You're doing the same as Colonel Saito in the movie. The atomic bombings were done on civilians, they were as much of a war crime as any war crime of the Japanese. Just like the Dresden bombings. I don't even support Obama but let's be honest here. Don't get all chauvinistic and lose objectivity.
shareThe Japanese have a strong recurrent nationalist/militarist streak gaining strength in their nation, especially among some elites. The national government is still trying to keep a lid on those sentiments, and so was desperate for Obama not to help the militarists by apologizing for the US dropping the atomic bombs. The apology would only have validated the nationalist/militarist fantasy that WWII was a just struggle for Japanese superior culture and people, while the Americans simply proved their barbarity and criminality by dropping the atomic bomb on "civilians". (Who were engaged in war material production IN THEIR HOMES and were all part of the militarized citizenry that was to participate in the final epic battle envisioned by Japanese war zealots).
The point being made is that as memories recede, fantasies begin to take hold: fantasies such as those in this film and those driving Obama's apology.
How about some actual support (via links) for your assertion that he wanted to "apologize" so badly? It sounds like you were in these meetings which I doubt is the case. Ultra-conservative sites that hate everything Obama does don't count.
Besides, there is an acknowledgement of the evil of war that isn't an "apology".The acknowledgment that while the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were calculated moves to bring a faster end to the war they resulted in the death of many women and children. Who's leaning on moral relativism here? The "they did it so we should do it" justification is just as steeped in moral relativism.
It's all off the subject anyhow. The movie was almost 60 YEARS before the presidential visit. Most of the actors were alive during WWII. Every situation in a movie doesn't have to be "typical", it's possible that an example might have existed that was similar to the film. As viewers we know that it's fictitious. Most who watch it now are interested in the history as well and know the awful things the Japanese did during the war.
I'm not so sure "moral relativism" is appropriate here. All wars are fought with an awareness of the probability of civilian casualties. And, the war in question was fought on each side with different prerogatives. Ie., a war can be fought with aggressive intent or with defensive intent. Moral relativism may come into play in considering the reasons for engaging in the war in the first place. There are just wars and there are unjust wars, or so it has been acknowledged by most cultures for centuries.
Re "the apology" vs. "an acknowledgment", One must look at the speaker and the circumstances of the pronouncement. Obama has a tendency to apologize (in carefully selected venues and through carefully selected rhetoric) for his country's past international activities. He doesn't, imo, like his country very much. (I've read his books.) You might have convinced me his remarks regarding the use of A-bombs were an abstract "acknowledgment" of the sins of war plain and simple, had he included in his remarks the Pearl Harbor attack, the Bataan Death March, and/or other Japanese atrocities begun by and regularly committed in the service of an Emperor's interest in international conquest ... clearly the aggressive (unjust) side of the moral syllogism.
LOL. So any evidence works for you except the evidence available. Because that's obviously from a conservative site and therefore unpalatable to your prog sensitivities. Amazing box you've got yourself hidden in there.
But anyway, special snowflake, see if these work for you: LA Times and Japan Times are not exactly known for being against your point of view, Precious.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/09/28/news/obama-hiroshima-trip-discouraged-in-09-wikileaks-cable/
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-na-japan-hiroshima-apology-20160429-story.html
If you are interested in facts you should know that President Obama did not apologize for the bombing of Hiroshima.
shareAn "apology" can take many forms. I could punch out a neighbor, think better of it the next day and bring flowers, canned goods, a Hallmark card with a check in it to the man's doorstep without saying "I apologize". Knowing the "facts" about Obama's propensity for apologizing for his country's history, and doing so in foreign countries, I'd say his trip to Hiroshima amounted to an "apology". Additionally, it would make more moral sense if Obama would apologize for some of his own acts (I'm still waiting for that) rather than for the acts of others for whom he has no authority to apologize.
shareWhy are you listing how they treated Chinese prisoners? These were prisoners along the Burma Railroad, affected by completely different conditions than the Chinese. The treatment of the Chinese was horrid, brutal and disgusting, but there are other works about that. Some of the worst examples of that treatment was stuff like Unit 731, which the US granted diplomatic immunity to get their knowledge on biological warfare. The Soviets wanted to send them to trial, which would have been the right thing to do.
If you look at accounts on this particular project, there is stuff like The Railroad of Death which points out how some guards were cruel, whilst others were humane. It's easy to demonise an enemy when you win a war, but thinking that all of their troops were the same is just downright ignorant, and a depiction like you suggested would have almost no impact as a fictional tale because everything the Allies did would be acceptable in the face of such an enemy. The film isn't obliged to only depict cruelty, especially not when that wasn't the whole picture. This is what having History in school should teach us, and in my country they did. Films can make us see people in-between the lines of history books, and when they do, they can make us think differently. Not just sow hatred on the basis of some generalisation that is completely inapplicable. Especially when propaganda, and post-war history has already favoured that sort of retelling heavily in the years after the conflict.
And don't go saying that because one nation did horrible things in a war (under several different commanders) that any act against their people is suddenly justified. One despicable act does not excuse another. Dropping two nuclear bombs on civilian targets was a malignant demonstration against people who had no part in the travesties committed against Allied forces. You don't take on the sins of the nation you were born into anymore than you choose what nation you were born into. When are people like you going to understand that there are human beings on both sides of a conflict, and the travesties they commit, we all have to live with. It's not like there are many countries without these kinds of travesties either. The US has the Philippines (where they executed kids who looked old enough to carry a rifle) and Vietnam, in addition to the two things I mentioned earlier. Does that mean we can say that all US troops acted in that way? Is any film about those conflicts required to depict the US in their worst clothing. I don't think so. If you need more countries, the Brits have Ireland, and their colonies, the Turks have the Armenians during the Great War, and the list just goes on.
Obama didn't make an apology when he visited Hiroshima, but you know what? It would have been decent and respectful if he did. Because human life matters, no matter what language they speak, or the colour of their skin.
Great post man.
shareI assume the cities of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki played their part in the Jap war effort.
I agree, but it does bring great irony to the final scene.
😎
by spencerc2217 » 2 days ago (Sat May 28 2016 19:04:15)
IMDb member since September 2012
This film is outrageous in its minimizing of the terrible cruelty of the Japanese toward their prisoners. Sadistic behind belief, which is why the survivors despise this picture.
No one can criticize the survivors of those camps for complaining about any film's minimizing the horrors of what they experienced. They are exempt. One can only explain (again!) that this film is not a documentary and wasn't intended to be seen as such. It is an entertainment with themes extending far beyond those which can be provided through simple historical exposition.
Additionally, the events in this film are pretty damn "cruel" as they are depicted, or contemplated by the characters -- hot-boxes, summary executions, over-work, beatings, poor rations and starvation, etc. If the producers had attempted to graphically show the actual consequences to prisoners in SE Asia at the time, the film would never have been distributed, not to mention even been made. Nicholson's and Saito's characters are certainly unique, which is what makes TBOTRK great fiction. And, what opens the door to many wider questions about human nature than a simple look at what took place factually at one time and in one place can do.
In the mid-fifties, "big" budget films had to appeal to "big" audiences or they would have lost "big" money. Grandpa, grandma and the kids would not have gone at all. Adults then came home from work, ate a quick meal, and headed to the theatre to get away from their troubles -- not to sit down for 2+ hours and be grossed-out. The latter, it seems to me, is the stuff that's designed for today's "kiddies" who seem to revel in graphic visuals. Times have changed. Be it for good or ill remains problematic, to be sure.
As per my uncle's satement; "We never had it that good!" He meant the whole film from frame one.
It was more than just hot boxes. It was Japanese officers beheading guys who couldn't hack it with samurai swords on the spot. It was beatings. Shootings. Work 'em until they're dead by busting up rubble or whatever. That's not to mention the food.
I don't recall any of that in this movie. I recall POWs working for the Japanese with espris d' corps.
Whatever.
I know it's not a documentary. I think 99% know that.
And that's what my uncle and the people who went through that horrible experience with him objected to.
They're objection was that the director and actors had no idea of what happened.
As I said, the vets who were there are exempt. The rest of us should be bright enough to know the difference between a documentary and a fiction, and that valuable but different lessons may be learned from both.
shareBut you're still not getting it.
Veterans are exempt but somehow the rest of us aren't?
I think you need to re-examine what it is you're saying and telling the rest of us.
This film was made by an ignorant, stupid, and paranoid Hollywood that has an incestuous fetish with WW2 because it's the ultimate expression of fighting Antisemitism and other forms of bigotry.
That does not excuse this trash heap of a dramatic depiction of what a band of artists thinks should have happened.
"Incestuous fetish"? Whew -- that's too much for me!
shareYeah, but you admit to the truth of it.
Even now, "Anthropoid" is the latest Hollywood-Nazi film to come out.
The United States of America was not founded by fighting "nazis", nor specifically created to fight nazism. We just happened to be able to do it when the time came.
What you don't see in this movie is that Bataan march.
What you don't see in this movie is the Imperial Japanese military version of "nazi" experiments.
What you don't see in this movie is working prisoners until they're dead.
Nor any of the other brutalities visited upon them by the Imperial Japanese military.
And you know what? Some of that same stuff happened in Korea and Vietnam.
How many films do we have about the Koraen War? A few. The civil war? A few more. The Revolutionary War? Hardly any. WW1? A few here and there. 1812? A handful. Spanish-American war? I think maybe one.
But WW2? Whoa Nelly! Hundreds.
Now, mister, maybe you can tell the rest of WASPy America why it is we see dramatic depictions of one major conflict, but not the others, including the one that founded this very nation. Because if you can do that, then I'll bet you me and others might be a little more silent on this very topic.
We're not getting anywhere. You want to see what's not shown in TBOTRK. Okay. Make a film that shows those things. In a free country, anyone can make a film that makes the point(s) he wants to make (that's what we fought this and other wars over -- freedom). The points you want made are different points than David Lean's points. So -- make that picture! I will buy a ticket. Or, focus your efforts on a picture about the first of the wars you mention - the Revolutionary War. (You can be as graphic as you want.) Horrible things happened in that war, too. That was the war that secured the viability of my point regarding freedom of expression (and your right to dislike how something is expressed).
C.B. DeMille, a very patriotic fellow, always wanted to make an epic about the Revolutionary period but couldn't raise the bucks (Unconquered was as close as he could come). He was told audiences never responded to stories written about that period. Sad. (It's my personal favorite period in American history.) Beside that, our country has been so well indoctrinated by the Hollywood and academic left that national self-hatred flourishes virtually unabated today and continues to discourage any depiction of the American identity in a favorable light.
TBOTRK is a fiction.
Until recently (1990s) major motion pictures were made by the descendants of European immigrants (ditto with TV series), who had throughout the 1970s and 1980s showed a very negative (framed as humorous) depiction of the U.S.
Their favorite topic is WW2. My family fought in that conflict, and in fact helped found this nation. But you hardly ever see films about our heritage.
It's self aggrandizement, and those films, it is hoped, are made to remind people of the evils of WW2. Well, okay, fine, but all wars are fought over money, even the Revolution, but you never those films made.
And the reason you don't is because they're not considered socially important by old guard Hollywood.
End of story.
And where I have the freedom to push for a film about the American Revolution, the simple fact is, no matter how good the script is, no matter who I signed on, in Hollywood industry-social circles war is considered the ultimate sin. Ergo, no movie, or no movie made by me, a suspected war monger.
And, further, if said got made, say like Gibson's "Patriot", then it would have a "nazi" scene like the church burning sequence. Again, another WW2 reference.
I'm sick and tired of it. If you really want to prevent or remind people of the evils of Nazis, then goddamn, move to Germany and organize demosntrations in downtown Berlin or something.
WW2 is treated like a huge all American event. It wasn't. We had lots of help. We're glad to have helped, but WW2 does not define the United States of America. But according to Hollywood, it does.
And I'm sick of it, and tired of incest that exists in Hollywood to perpetually keep that idea alive.
I agree with much of what you say, except:
"...but all wars are fought over money..."
Not really. Of course, the element of economics is a part of what makes or leads to war. But, there must be a moral or principled element behind the effort in order to galvanize a population to risk their lives and personal fortunes to endorse or participate in such a risk. Eg., the Civil War was fought over slavery (moral position) and e pluribus unum (principle), not strictly the financial stakes connected with the victory. Certainly, money matters played a large part on both sides, but getting the blacksmith in Chicago to agree to risk his life in a sustained combat in Georgia over bucks alone would have proved insupportable over time. . . Guess I'm not quite so cynical as you are.
A little off the original topic aren't we?
We're discussing why Bridge on the River Kwai is a poor film, and a continuation of an unspoken policy in Hollywood to make movies about the second world war, and how someone, even if they had the resources, could not produce something other than a WW2 film (say ... a film about the Spanish American war or the Revolutionary War) without putting in a reference of some kind to the Second World War.
I brought up the fact that wars are fought over money as a context to understanding why nations truly fight with one another, and as a retort to a notion that we fought in the second world war to stop the holocaust. That's not why we went into Europe, but I think the supermajority of Americans would agree that even thought that we didn't go in there specifically to stop that atrocity, we were happy to have done it anyway.
You're the one who brought up this tangential issue.
I've seen and heard movies about Anne Frank, about stalags, about various aspects of the holocaust, about the airwar over Europe, about the U-boat threat, and lord know what else.
But I've rarely seen a film about Valley Forge. I've never seen a film about the American Pacific Squadron blowing the crap out of the Spanish in the Phillipenes. I know all about the atrocities in Germany during the WW2 but even this movie pales and fails to demonstrate what my uncle and his servicemen went through as POWs under Japan. And the list goes on and on.
That's what we're discussing.
- the Revolutionary War. (You can be as graphic as you want.) Horrible things happened in that war, too.Who said they didn't? Maybe the people who got slaughtered and suffered atrocities deserved what they got.
Beside that, our country has been so well indoctrinated by the Hollywood and academic left that national self-hatred flourishes virtually unabated today and continues to discourage any depiction of the American identity in a favorable light.
They aren't shown dying from camp conditions but they make it damn clear that all the prisoners before them died. Didn't you pay attention to what Shears said?
shareThis film was made by an ignorant, stupid, and paranoid Hollywood that has an incestuous fetish with WW2 because it's the ultimate expression of fighting Antisemitism and other forms of bigotry.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not going to watch 2+ hours of torture. It would make for a brutal and terrible movie. I don't think anyone watches this movie and thinks "wow, being a POW would be awesome", there are big stars and it's a movie about egos and the psychology of a particular, unique egomaniac.
shareMy uncle disagreed.
shareGreat reply, (wo)man.
shareMadness.
shareYou summed up in one word the reason this film is not a travesty.
A bridge really was built over the River Kwai, so some people mistakenly take it as a historical reference point. But all the names and events are made up, so I don't know why people say they were inspired by, or twist, real life.
If Bridge on the River Kwai is a travesty, so is Life is Beautiful. But neither film is meant to show reality. I doubt any child came through the camps unscathed, innocence in tact, but LIB uses that historical setting to explore aspects of the human spirit.
BOTRK similarly uses a historical setting to explore sticking to principles (and yes - when does it become madness?), pluckiness, outwitting your enemy through reverse psychology, cowardice.
There is another one-word answer to some of the criticisms expressed in previous posts:
Irony.
Exactly right and nicely said.
shareJust watched this tonight on PBS after many years, and have to agree that is was a whitewash of the true conditions for POW's under the Japanese. So already in the 1950's the film revisionists were at work to tell us how nice the Japanese were...what a bunch of BS.
RSGRE
Lots of revisionists out there on the left-coast, it's true. But, if you were watching a movie last night which showed "how nice the Japanese were", it wasn't TBOTRK. In TBOTRK, there is forced starvation, hot boxes, summary executions by machine gun, closed hospitals, beatings, etc., described if not graphically depicted (as today to give the kiddies something to really enjoy on a Saturday afternoon). TBOTRK is an entertainment for a very different kind of audience and with many messages not directly connected to war -- not simply a documentary for WWII scholars with strong stomachs.
shareSeems like guys here expected a R-rated movie with explicit torture. Sometimes it works to leave it to the imagination.
shareAll this talk about America and Hollywood.... and yet the book was written by a Frenchman and the movie was made by a British director and a mostly British crew. Just thought I'd put that out there.
shareSee: Every Single Movie Ever Made By White People About Native Americans or Christianity/Catholicism.
Face it, we love telling happy stories, rather than the truth: That pretty much all of history is built upon genocide.
"That pretty much all of history is built upon genocide."
Never heard a bigger crock in all my life!
Oh really? Let me ask you a question then: What year is it?
If you say 2016, then guess what, you can thank the crusades for that, because we didn't all just agree to start counting from 0 two thousand and sixteen years ago.
Yes, really. And, I think your response is cute but hardly illuminating. Perhaps you have a new definition of "genocide" with which I'm not familiar. And, perhaps, your designation for the current year differs from mine. Fortunately, the use of "2016", though popular, is not mandatory everywhere. Pick a number and explain your preference for it, and I'll be happy to climb on board -- temporarily.
shareAnd history is written by the victors, so try not to sound like a condescending prick, you lost this one.
shareLet's just say, "the victors" write their own histories . . . and the losers write theirs. Eg., have you read The Gulag Archipelago? It's up to the reader to determine whose description of events is the more accurate. This, however, takes intelligence -- which brings me to:
When a person intends to be condescending, it ain't so bad to sound like a "condescending prick". And, I appreciate hearing that you think I did a better job of it than you did in your initial post.
I never saw this as a historical movie. I saw it as a comment on the ironies of war. It could easily have been set in any war.
shareDude, they minimize it because of the censorship of the time. That's what you get with the Hayes code.
share