MovieChat Forums > A Bridge Too Far (1977) Discussion > WAAAYYY Too Strong Anti-War Message

WAAAYYY Too Strong Anti-War Message

posted 14 years ago by brasidas1970
46 replies | jump to latest

I know it was considered a bold move at the time, and the Vietnam War had changed American way of thinking, and every good war movie has some sort of anti-war message, but this movie was (pardon the pun) overkill. The camera hovers lovingly over piles of bodies and groaning Allied wounded (Germans don't die in this movie). The leaders are blundering egotists. A frustrated soldier points a pistol in his superior's face. No moments of glory, no sense of purpose. No persecuted Jews (don't want to make the fighting seem justified). Just tedious, overplayed shock. We get the message. War is hell. So is this movie.

No wonder this movie got lousy reviews. It could have been a Nazi propoganda flick. The Americans and British were blundering jerks who loved throwing their boys into a purposeless meat-grinder. Three hours of lame acting by "injured" Allied cannon fodder? Ugh.

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

The time sets the tone: Saigon & Pnom Penh had fallen shorty before the filming started--a twenty year effort just went up in smoke; I think it was 'expected' for the film-makers & the cast to 'ramble on' about the 'cost' of war...though I was a bit surprised they chose WW2 to do it; of course several years after 'The Fall', we became acquainted with the costs of 'peace'...

NM

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Elliot, "War" is bad for sure(considering my Family overseas lived thru the occupation)...but considering "What & Who" The Allies were fighting against, I think it has to be said that the 'cause' was just---I feel that was overlooked...the 'can't we all just get along(while we work a few tens of millions of people to death as slave laborers)' sentiment just doesn't seem appropriate...

NM

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InvaderPastulio 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure that the news of the "death camps" hadn't really gotten out. And that wasn't why the war started either, Germany invaded Poland. There, that's why, not because of any death camps, they discovered them later on, in 1945 particularly (Russians found Auschwitz), in april 1945 the camps in germany were discovered. Not until then did the full extent of it reach the fighting troops, so... I dunno, they probably didn't know?

[–] pete36 12 years ago

The Russians also invaded Poland in 1939, together with the Germans but UK and France only declared war on Germany, not Russia. Which is a bit strange as Communism then was considered a far greater ideological enemy to the West then Nazism.

[–] carthur27 10 years ago

Which is a bit strange as Communism then was considered a far greater ideological enemy to the West then Nazism.

Incorrect. Because the English-speaking world had just lost hundreds of thousands of young men to fighting Imperial Germany, with the U.S. losing well over 100,000, Nazism, with its militancy was considered a far greater threat than communism. There were plenty of communist party members in the U.S. film community in the 1930's. The blacklisting got started in the 1950's.

By the way, the Soviet Union signed a pact with Germany in August, 1939. That made it possible for Hitler to sell his idea of invading Poland in the first place.

[–] Jokke_r 9 years ago

Hitlers reasoning for invading Poland was the protection of the persecuted Germans who ended up on the wrong side of the border in Poland after the new borders were drawn after WW1, essentially retaking German land lost after WW1, too bad he didn't just stop there, then again the allied were unwilling to discuss peace terms at any point during the conflict, even though the Hitler tried at numerous attempts to have peace with Britain, even going as far as to not bomb Britain until after Churchill ordered the bombing of German civilians.

All of ww2 could have been a much smaller ordeal if Churchill wouldn't have been so stubborn and just accepted peace with Germany after the invasion of Poland. The rest of Europe would have been spared.

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

Churchill didn't become Prime Minister until May 1940, you feckin' moron, 9 months after Hitler invaded Poland. He was a backbench MP with little power to influence anything in September 1939.
The big giveaway that Hitler wasn't going to stop after conquering Poland is his very own words in Mein Kampf where he states that invading Russia for "Lebensraum" is the ultimate goal- do you think he was going to invade Russia by going around Poland, you stupid bastard?
Not to mention that Hitler was given the choice of not going to war with Britain and France in 1939- an ultimatum was given to Germany to withdraw from Poland- Hitler chose to ignore that ultimatum- he chose war.
And Nazi Germany sure as hell bombed civilians first in Poland, Holland and even Britain. The RAF only attacked military targets in Germany until the Nazis bombed London- albeit accidently at the time. But Hitler had wanted London to be bombed when he wanted to, he wasn't refraining from doing so because he was a great humanitarian. The retaliatory raid in Berlin forced his hand to do so earlier than he wanted to.
You jokk_er are clearly just another Nazi apologist and I suspect another piece of Neo-Nazi scum too. And clearly an imbecile.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] TCMer 14 years ago

I know ABTF is supposed to be an anti-war movie. But it has never really seemed that way to me, either now or when it first came out. It seems more like an "anti-eff-up" movie, so to speak. The targets appear to be poor planning and overconfidence, not war itself.

"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

This battle was a tragic mistake, and portraying it in any other way would have been a travesty and an insult to all those who died during the battle. The very fact that the cause was just in defeating Nazi Germany is part of the reason WHY the battle was such a tragic mistake. This film should be studied in military colleges as an example of how political expediency and personal publicity goals should NEVER be a part of military planning.

It's becoming pretty frightening how some are so blinded by their ideology that they cannot stand seeing any version of the truth portrayed on screen unless it reinforces their own biases. And that includes liberals, some of whom at the time this movie came out (1977) were upset that the movie wasn't anti-war ENOUGH.

[–] Thephantomharpoonist 14 years ago

Too depressing? Market Garden was a disaster for the allies and the film rightly shows this.

However it has many memorable and uplifting scenes.

The takeoffs.

The airborne landings.

The rebuilding of Sohn bridge and the push to Ahrnem (my favourite scene of the whole film)

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Yup. Exactly.

[–] sommert-507-32566 8 years ago

That was the take I had on it, too.

[–] Christoph_Tietje 14 years ago

On the contrary, the movie is excellent, historically accurate and has been very well received. There are scenes of Dutchmen welcoming their liberators. Have you even watched the whole movie? Do need to be reminded of who is good and who is bad in every single scene? Where were the Jews that coud have been persecuted at that time? In concentration camps. Were there any concentration camps in the southern Netherlands? No.

Apparently you need to brush up your knowledge about ww2. I am more than happy to help you doing so. :-)
Operatoin Market-Garden was a failure and only German commanders making quite a lot of mistakes themselves prevented it from being a complete disaster. Hence, it is no wonder the movie is quite depressing.

After the battle of the Falaise pocket the was virtually no German resistance at all in the West and only Allied supply problems slowed down their advance. In the East, the Red Army had launched several huge offensives, each all of which were very successful.
Subsequently, British commanders grew a bit over-confident and came up with such a poorly planned operation such as that one.

However, at that time it really seemed as if the Wehrmacht was on the verge collapsing. British as well as American commanders were surprised by the stiffening German resistance as they approached the Rhine. This is not meant to excuse their lackluster performance. Just keep in mind that hindsight is always 20/20.

[–] HHFan 14 years ago

Its gotten fine reviews. We can't all be war lovers like you.

--
Lets nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure.

[–] splumer 13 years ago

I have to disagree. Even in the context of being made at the tail end of the Vietnam War, I don't get the anti-war message, and I'm a peacenik. I reading the book at the moment, and it follows the books quite closely. In fact, the scene where James Caan pulls a gun on the doctor is true. The only difference is that in actuality, Caan's character was under arrest for one minute.

But like I said, it follows the real action quite closely. The British expected to be able to break through fairly easily with XXX Corps and link up with the 1st Airborne Div. in Arnhem. They all but ignored warnings from Dutch Prince Bernhard that the road leading to Arnhem was elevated and unsuitable for tanks to drive alongside it, being soft, marshy polder. The road itself made any vehicles travelling along it sitting ducks. Once the breakthrough started, the commander of the 82nd Airborne (played by Robert Redford) insisted they keep going to relieve Urquart in Arnhem, but the Brits refused, saying it was too dangerous until the infantry caught up and was able to go with the armor. In retrospect, the Brits were probably right. They would have been torn apart, but I can't even imagine how the commanders must have felt, knowing their comrades were in such dire straights.

Also, since the advance was so stalled (the Red Devils' relief was supposed to come in two days, but they held out for nine before withdrawing), the Brits in Arnhem suffered horrendous casualties. Something like 75 percent (including wounded). So the scenes of the camera hovering "lovingly" over Allied wounded is in line with what really happened. The delay also gave the Germans time to reinforce the area.

So, if there's a "message" at all, it's that leaders - especially military - can be disasterously wrong at times, because of overconfidence in their own abilities or simple pig-headedness. I don't think that's a sentiment unique to this film.

[–] Blueghost 13 years ago

by brasidas1970 (Mon May 31 2010 20:42:18)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I know it was considered a bold move at the time, and the Vietnam War had changed American way of thinking, and every good war movie has some sort of anti-war message, but this movie was (pardon the pun) overkill. The camera hovers lovingly over piles of bodies and groaning Allied wounded (Germans don't die in this movie). The leaders are blundering egotists. A frustrated soldier points a pistol in his superior's face. No moments of glory, no sense of purpose. No persecuted Jews (don't want to make the fighting seem justified). Just tedious, overplayed shock. We get the message. War is hell. So is this movie.

No wonder this movie got lousy reviews. It could have been a Nazi propoganda flick. The Americans and British were blundering jerks who loved throwing their boys into a purposeless meat-grinder. Three hours of lame acting by "injured" Allied cannon fodder? Ugh.

I never got that from this film. I just thought it a good war flick. And for the record, we didn't fight to save the Jews (however horrible their suffering), we fought to contain the German socialist state and regime from expanding.

[–] deeveed 13 years ago

So, if there's a "message" at all, it's that leaders - especially military - can be disasterously wrong at times,

That's it..that's ABTF. We see it also in Dieppe, Gallipoli etc. Higher command makes mistakes. Problem is as we know many men die because of them. I have to hand it to the Brits though. They took a great number of casualties and yet we see that how can I say it that they had a great amount of "pluck" and taking a "cool" attitude to all the destruction. "Keep calm and carry on" that was the mantra.

[–] DD-931 13 years ago

True, deeveed. The higher-ups may have screwed up big time, but the ordinary Allied soldier, in particular the British troops, are portrayed in this film in a very positive light.

[–] Blueghost 13 years ago

I thought so to. Those guys at the bridge... wow.

[–] Squeeth2 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUSugUrHPEs

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] Alfriend 13 years ago

"We get the message. War is hell" Amazing how glibly the OP says this. He wouldn't be so glib if he were in the middle of the deadly fire fights that these brave men were in. War isn't "Hell" it's an insane and awful experience. I lost two uncles in the battle of the bulge. One died of injuries after 6 straight hours of hand to hand combat. My Dad was a marine in four of the pacific island battles and he never was the same afterwards. God knows what our young boys are going through now and what they have to live with. For my money there aren't enough anti-war films. I think some people like the OP watch too many movies and play too many video games so films like these are mere entertainments for him. God forbid if he ever was in combat, he must have forgotten the pain and madness of it all.

This film had a great message, a great cast and was very well directed.

[–] Verse101 13 years ago

Unless you happen to think war is a good thing, I'm curious to know how you can ever have an anti-war message that's too strong?

"Wow. Koo-koo-ka-choo got screwed."

[–] Alfriend 13 years ago

Agreed.