Reflections
on “The Bridge on the River Kwai”
Directed
by David Lean
Written
by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson,
Based
on the book by Pierre Boulle
Starring
William Holden, Jack Hawkins and Alec Guinness
A video presentation of this material is available here.
It is early 1943. A group
of British POWs under the command of Colonel Nicholson arrives at a Japanese
prison camp in Burma, commanded by Colonel Saito. Saito has been set the task
of constructing a railway bridge across the river Kwai as part of the railway
line intended to link Bangkok to Rangoon, and in part to ensure its completion
by mid-May, he insists that all prisoners, including officers, should participate
in the construction. Colonel Nicholson points out that the inclusion of
officers in work parties contravenes the Geneva Convention, leading to a confrontation
between the two commanding officers. Nicholson is beaten and then incarcerated in
a corrugated iron container, next to his officers, as the Burmese sun beats
down on them until one side or the other concedes.
Such is the opening of
this gripping and thought-provoking, yet entertaining, anti-war film.
Saito’s insistence on
officer participation and the conflict that entails is based not just on
practical considerations, but also on a cultural divide. According to the Japanese
viewpoint, these POWs, who were not defeated in battle as they were ordered to
surrender by their superiors, are disgraced, have no honour, dignity or
personal worth exactly because they surrendered. They are no longer to be
considered soldiers but prisoners, to be used by their Japanese captors as they
see fit, and this applies to all prisoners, enlisted men and officers. Saito
states that the rules of war do not apply as his prisoners have not behaved as
soldiers.
Clearly, by adopting and pursuing
policies of threat and intimidation, Saito hopes and expects that his prisoners
will accede to his authority and offer no resistance. However, Colonel
Nicholson considers rules and principles the backbone of civilised society and
he will not give in to physical abuse. He refuses to accept the yoke of defeat
or bend with the wind of pragmatism. He and his men may have surrendered as
ordered, primarily to save lives, but they remain who and what they were and
retain the honour, dignity, pride and values they exemplified before their
capture. Spiritually, they remain undefeated, and so the scene is set for a
stand-off between these two men who represent different cultures and differing
values.
Nicholson readily accepts
responsibility for the conduct and wellbeing of his men, including the necessity
to inspire belief and confidence in the values he and they seek to represent.
Indeed, Saito’s actions inadvertently provide the means of maintaining the men’s
fighting spirit. Not submitting to pressure provides a sense of purpose and
value, and serves to unify the British soldiers against perceived injustice,
when Saito sought to appeal to a sense of disappointment and a feeling of
dishonour, a further consequence of differing cultures and perceptions.
In the meantime, work
continues on the bridge but, under poor Japanese direction and planning,
progress is slow and limited. It becomes clear that success will require not
just a workforce but experience and knowledge as well, elements which,
Nicholson points out, could be provided by the British officers currently held
in isolation, if the rules of the Geneva Convention were to be upheld.
Saito concedes but
contrives to find a way of maintaining his position and saving face, but it is
clear that Nicholson has won the day. It is also clear that respect and
co-operation are more likely to bring about success than attempts to coerce one
side into submission.
Upon his release and
recovery, Nicholson is concerned by the poor discipline and attitude of his
men. He recognises the need to restore discipline and good order, and he decides
the best way to do that is to give the men a purpose. He sees the construction
of the bridge as a tool to maintain the spirit of his men, but also as a means
of embarrassing and humiliating their Japanese captors by planning and building
a bridge that is superior to anything their captors might produce.
Of course, the irony is
that in so doing, the enemy cause is also being advanced. However, Nicholson
refuses to see beyond the immediate effect on the morale and discipline of his
men. This has the secondary, and unintended, consequence of steadily
undermining Saito’s authority as the British officers take decisions and make
demands regarding the bridge. Saito is acutely aware of this effect, but to
take steps to reduce their input or to rail against their involvement would be
counter-productive. Thus, Saito is embarrassed and weakened by the successful
progress of his task because he cannot claim control or credit.
Counterbalancing these
men of principle, we have Commander Shears, an American officer whose outlook is
heavily and amusingly influenced by self-interest and survival. For all he
lacks the moral fibre of Nicholson and Saito, Shears is intelligent, resourceful,
courageous and determined. He manages to escape, along with two others who die
in the process, and, suffering considerable hardship, he eventually makes it to
a military hospital where he contemplates his discharge from the army on health
grounds.
Shears is a sort of common-sense
everyman who just wants to be allowed to lead his life as he wishes. In fact,
we discover he is not an officer at all, but has merely impersonated one in
order to take advantage of the better conditions offered to officers, a clear
example of his resourcefulness. He is somewhat sceptical and is unswayed by
matters of principle, and he offers a lighter and refreshing approach to the
problems of war. He becomes involved in a plan to destroy the bridge because
his military superiors have offered his services, indicating that as long as
the war lasts, his life is not really his own. In the great scheme of things, he
may be a little man but he is capable of great actions and recognises, however
unwillingly, the value of the mission he is about to undertake. He also
supplies a certain comic relief at times from the intense drama, while
remaining likeable but at risk.
He is recruited by Major
Warden, a commando in charge of an operation whose purpose is quite simply to
disrupt the enemy war effort as much as possible, in this instance by ensuring
the bridge on the river Kwai is destroyed.
Warden is a man of
action. Something of an academic in private life, he trains men and leads them
on dangerous undercover missions. In keeping with other British officers, he is
keen on principle, planning and the application of rules for all eventualities,
down to killing comrades rather than allow them to fall into enemy hands. There
is no doubting his courage, determination and commitment, but while these are
positive qualities, training and unquestioning loyalty can lead to a rather blinkered
view of situations.
For Warden and his small
group of men, the bridge is a target whose destruction will hamper the war
effort of the enemy. As they move on the bridge, crossing hostile terrain and
encountering enemy activity, there is ample opportunity to admire the skill,
courage and resolution of these men.
We are reminded, however,
of the human cost of their actions. Killings are quite brutal and painful, and
not without physical and psychological damage to the survivors. At one point,
the young and relatively innocent Lieutenant Joyce comes face to face with a
young and terrified Japanese soldier. Both hesitate and both are afraid, suggesting,
perhaps, that neither wants to be in this situation that has been inflicted on
them and is not of their making. The human cost of conflict is brought home in
this up-close-and-personal confrontation and quandary which is decided by
Warden who is willing to take a life, painful though he finds it, for the sake
of the cause he is fighting for.
By now the bridge is all
but complete and is due to carry its first train and passengers. Nicholson’s
plan has worked. He and his men have, indeed, produced a magnificent feat of
engineering and construction, and it has served its purpose of sustaining
discipline, order, pride and dignity, to the extent that even the sick are
willing to leave hospital to help out and Japanese soldiers have been
conscripted into service to complete the bridge on time. Effectively, Nicholson
has taken over the running of the camp as he supervises all aspects of
construction and issues orders regarding its completion. In the process, he has
dealt profound psychological damage to Saito for Nicholson has achieved far
more by appealing to the spirit and pride of his men than Saito could have done
by force and brutality. Saito has virtually been reduced to a role of camp
administrator and, with his ego and pride severely dented, he contemplates
suicide.
Both Nicholson and Saito
are so self-involved and obsessed by position, honour and principle that both fail
to see the bigger picture and the obvious, that the Japanese war effort has
been advanced by the building of this excellent bridge, yet the captives are
celebrating what has become their victory over their Japanese guards while the
captors are commiserating over what is viewed as their dishonour.
Warden, Shears and co see
the bridge from a wider perspective and are set to blow it up, but as a result
of the lowering of the level of the river, Nicholson spots wires which lead to
a detonator and, wishing to protect his pride and joy, he sets out to
investigate, putting himself, Saito and the commando unit at risk.
In the resulting fracas,
Shears and Joyce are killed while trying to prevent Nicholson’s exposure of the
detonator, and Saito and Nicholson are fatally wounded and die, though not
before Nicholson comprehends what is happening and realises he has acted
against the interests of the Allied forces. He falls on the detonator,
destroying the bridge and the train which had started to cross it. Warden is
the sole survivor of the group but he is riddled with guilt as, blindly
following his training, he fired on his own men to save them from falling into
enemy hands.
From a vantage point
above all this mayhem and death, the British doctor, who has expressed doubt
over Nicholson’s policies in the past, is left stunned and bewildered by what
he has just witnessed, repeating “Madness, madness…”. Just as Warden and co saw
the bridge from a wider perspective than Nicholson and Saito, so the doctor, from
a suitably higher standpoint, sees the whole from an even loftier perspective.
All the pain, effort, endurance, courage and determination on the part of both
those who built the bridge and those who destroyed it, have led to this point –
the destruction of everything and the deaths of just about all involved. Great
things can be achieved with time, effort, co-operation and resolution, but they
can be wiped out in an instant through petty differences, intolerance and
conflict, with no winners or losers in the end, just devastation.
At the beginning and end
of the film, birds of prey are seen circling, as if in wait for man’s
inevitable self-destruction. The Earth and nature will continue even if man
squanders his opportunity to thrive and develop.
The script by Carl
Foreman and Michael Wilson cleverly and skilfully combines reflection, action
and humour, while the direction and photography make you feel the heat,
discomfort and pain endured by the POWs, allowing you to appreciate the natural
beauty of the landscape at the same time. David Lean tells the story
masterfully, capturing the feelings, motivations, personalities and development
of his characters as well as creating tension and excitement in the action
sequences.
All the lead actors
handle their roles with confidence and flair, and receive superb support from
their co-stars. It should be said, however, that third-billed Alec Guinness
steals the show, perhaps because of the emotional intensity and the understated
and inspirational, if slightly misguided, heroism he brings to the role.
The music by Malcolm
Arnold and the use of “Colonel Bogey” only enhance our emotional engagement.
This is a great war, or
anti-war film. It allows us to admire the personal qualities of the characters
yet it invites us to see the whole from a wider perspective, emphasising the
pain, wastefulness and overwhelming destructiveness and futility of war.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie
I can be reached at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk .
No comments:
Post a Comment