MovieChat Forums > The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) Discussion > I hated this movie -- glorifying collabo...

I hated this movie -- glorifying collaboration with the enemy


If Nicholson had wanted to keep his men's spirits up he could have done so by devising devious and undetectable methods of slowly sabotaging the bridge construction.

Instead, incredibly, he browbeats men in sick bay to help build the bridge in order to accommodate the Japanese in finishing by their scheduled completion date.

Then at the end of the film he flagrantly betrays the British commandos and is responsible for their deaths, all due to his demented pride in "his" bridge -- which by the way was about to enable enemy troops to take a train to Burma with the intention of killing even more of his countrymen.

Unbelievable! A misguided, abhorrent, twisted idea of heroics.

reply

If you're going to hate it, hate it because it makes a mockery of the brutality of the actual building of the bridge and the hideous, wanton cruelty of the Japanese. Actual survivors DETESTED the movie because it depicted British soldiers sitting around civilly with Colonel Saito and most of the men well fed and treated "well." Read about the actual brutality of Japanese internment. Most men died within 5-6 weeks, if lucky.

reply

yes, you're right, and I hate it for that reason too

reply

Great film but could hardly have shown realistic conditions- could hardly have really starving actors.

reply

Same here. I have always had this problem with this film because the Japanese (with very few exceptions) were abolutely brutal to their prisoners. In this film, they are living in relative comfort.

reply

I've sometimes wondered if there are as many people who are disappointed that documentaries are not fiction as there are people who are disappointed that fictions are not documentaries?

Btw, I've seen this picture over ten times, and I must say I don't remember a single scene in which the prisoners are shown living in anything like "relative comfort".

reply

You missed Nicholson being offered corned beef, Johnny Walker and a cigar? I'd suggest an eleventh viewing but I doubt it is worth it. (I am somewhat ironically reminded of Sir Alec's advice to a Star Wars fan by your admission.)

As for your remarks regarding documentaries, few people demand that fiction always have a documentary like rigour, but if a story is set in the real world, it is a matter of credibility that truth is not violated in pointless ways. BOTRK doesn't even try to convey the depravity of the situation. You can fly loose with the truth when it comes to wizards and rings and battles in galaxies long ago and far away, but when it comes to things like the holocaust or Japanese POWs, if you downplay the horror of that, then you do so at risk of being pilloried.

And rightly so.

reply

"You missed Nicholson being offered corned beef, Johnny Walker and a cigar?"

No, I don't think I missed that? I did miss the parts depicting the prisoners being offered those things in their "relative comfort" in the hot box and the barracks.

"... if you downplay the horror of that, then you do so at the risk of being pilloried."

By whom? By you? . . . I think I'll risk it.

reply

My Canadian great uncle spent some time in a Japanese POW camp. He couldn't stand the movie. He especially despised the way that film showed that the Japanese had some 'code of honour.' 'Bah,' he would say, 'the [Japanese] have no honour!'

___________
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this deadly bore!

reply

I'm sure your great uncle is not alone among former POWs in his feelings. But their's is a peculiar and honorable perspective -- very understandable and one to which no one in his right mind could object. . . Nevertheless, the picture's a "fiction".

reply

This film is not a documentary. This film is fiction.

... there has been technological advancement, but how little man himself has changed.

reply

Way to miss the point completely. The whole point of it was that Nicholson became obsessed with making the bridge that it made him mad so he forgot about the war and who's side he was fighting for.

You're an idiot. Play a record.

reply

But it is wrong even on that count. When Nicholson is brought out of the oven the movie depicts him as winning a moral victory over Saito, that Saito was powerless to defeat British resilience in the face of defeat to build his bridge. It also depicts the enlisted men as responding to Nicholson's "heroism" for officers not to work, entirely at a cost to the enlisted themselves. This is total fiction, and is ridiculous given the circumstances of the setting.

First, Saito wouldn't have simply thrown the officers and Nicholson into isolation, wait weeks, and then cry when his plan didn't work. At the first instance, when Nicholson refused to carry out Saito's orders, Saito would have thrown Nicholson in the oven and then shot each officer one at a time until Nicholson relented. He may have even shot enlisted. When he ran out of men, either due to shooting or to the harsh work environment, he would simply request more POWs. He would never have sacrificed his authority as weakly as the movie depicts. Japanese commandants simply would not do that.

Second, the enlisted would have whacked their own officers eventually when the officers refused to work. Officers may be gifted special privileges under Geneva, but in Japanese work camps those privileges were often rescinded, and an officer's duty is to lead. In this case, that means acting out the work to appease the Japanese as best as possible while getting as many of your own men to escape as possible. IF you can't get the men out, you sabotage the works while keeping as many of your men alive as is possible.

Simply put, the plot of this movie is entirely ludicrous, and is an insult to POWs and the incredible brutality they faced. No wonder they didn't like it.

reply

Well, TBOTRQ isn't about what officers should or shouldn't do, nor is it about what Japanese prison camps actually did to their captives. It simply isn't an exercise in historical accuracy or a lecture about what smarter officers would, or should, have done for their men under similar circumstances.

I suggest you write a script dramatizing your point of view and try to get it produced. Yours is an interesting point of view with a message worth a telling, but . . . it'd be a far different tale than the one already produced and would offer very different messages, I think, than this one does.

reply

What is the message of the TBOTRQ? I actually don't get it. To me, it is utter fictionalized drivel. The acting is excellent and the dialogue is fine, but the plot, circumstances, and setting ruin it for me. To me, it is mostly the typical post-WW2 propagandish "triumph of western ideals" movie. Nicholson's character is an exception to this, but it is a ludicrous exception that doesn't make any sense. He is a champion for his officers at the expense of his men, which is a common theme of depictions of officers in many movies, but in this case the enlisted men revere him for it, which is bizarre. At the same time, he champions the capability of the British, but does so in a way that directly threatens Britain's ability to win the war. He comes to his senses at the end to scream madness, which suggests that he was just crazy the entire time- ok.... but that is a massive copout.

When you throw in the unrealistic portrayal of the commandant.... like I said, I just don't get it.

/and I don't need to write my own movie on the subject. See King Rat, Great Escape, Hanoi Hilton, Schindler's List, Rescue Dawn, and many others with far more realistic POW plots, that still manage to be dramatic good movies.

reply

I can't tell you what you should or shouldn't have gotten out of this film. If you want to know what I got out of it, I wrote a review some time back for IMDb. You can look it up and read it quite easily if you like. This film is much more than you think -- and much more than Great Escape, Hanoi Hilton, etc., and, yes, more than Schindler's List -- all films I like a great deal.

Best

reply

The plot of this movie is a little is something an average Fox News watcher is going to have trouble understanding. The person who started this thread was probably raised on movies like American Sniper and Rambo. He'll have a visceral reaction against any kind of script that contradicts his simple world view.

reply

I'm "an average Fox News watcher" with a rather complex "world view". For "simple" check out the networks. . . And, I think TBOTRK is a masterpiece.

reply

The person who started this thread was probably raised on movies like American Sniper


Can't imagine how someone could be raised on a movie that just came out two months ago. I don't think placentas can type.

I'm afraid that you underestimate the number of subjects in which I take an interest!

reply

I don't think it glorifies collaboration. We clearly see in the end how misguided Nicholson is. The film isn't pretending he is an unvarnished hero, it's the intent of the book and movie to lay out the facts of the story and let the viewer see the tragic irony unfold. The movie does NOT endorse Nicholson's behavior. He is a man of contradictions. His narrow minded belief in proper military protocol, and a desire to do a proper job of building a lasting bridge is his undoing.

reply

The plot of this movie is a little is something an average Fox News watcher is going to have trouble understanding. The person who started this thread was probably raised on movies like American Sniper and Rambo. He'll have a visceral reaction against any kind of script that contradicts his simple world view.

reply

How do you watch this movie and walk away with that interpretation? Did you watch until the end, where Nicholson says, "what have I done?" And with the bridge being blown up, the entire exercise was pointless, a lot like war itself? The movie is about the ego of the officers and it's how Nicholson's strict adherence to his military code ironically makes him work against the British.

reply

The plot of this movie is a little is something an average Fox News watcher is going to have trouble understanding. The person who started this thread was probably raised on movies like American Sniper and Rambo. He'll have a visceral reaction against any kind of script that contradicts his simple world view.

reply

It doesn't glorify it - the ending only serves to illustrate how pointless and misconceived the whole endeavour was, for exactly the reasons you state... HE even realises his mistake, at great personal cost! I don't see how anybody could come away from the ending thinking that it was a great idea, so it's the exact OPPOSITE of 'glorification'.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

You think it glorifies collaboration? To any intelligent viewer, which obviously excludes pompous morons like you, it savagely MOCKS collaboration. If a post should be deleted for sheer stupidity, then it's yours!

reply

You seemed to have missed the point. The movie is doing the exact opposite of glorifying Nicholson, instead it's painting him as a pompous, stubborn, irrational fool who's so obsessed with following "the rules" that he ends up committing treason. His final words, "What have I done?" are him realizing this. Just look at Clipton's feelings towards Nicholson over the course of the film. Just before the climax, his attitude towards his commanding officer is that of barely disguised contempt.

reply