The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

As anyone who knows me can tell you, I am very interested in British history, particularly from the 1880's to 1940's. The era of the British hegemon on world affairs holds my fascination as there really is nothing like it with which to draw comparison. Everything that we know about England at her pinnacle comes from the written word which we must accept as fact as all else is lost. There is little to equate a strong England to--even the United States at its zenith is nothing like it. There was pride that came with strength that was not boastful, it was duty bound. The United States may be large and in charge, but that is only because we actively seek to preserve our power for the sake of having it; it is scary to imagine a world without supremacy. The English, however, fought to preserve their dominance, it seems, because they felt it was their purpose as the leaders of the civilized world to encompass as much of it as possible. That is a strange and foreign idea to me, and one that is intriguing. This was a period in time where a nation referred to "honor" as something that could be tangible, and that is what The Bridge on the River Kwai is about.

Alec Guinness plays Col. Nicholson, the commanding officer of a British squadron in the Pacific Theatre during WWII that is forced to surrender to the Japanese. Moved to a PoW camp he butts heads--to put it euphemistically--with the head of the camp, Col. Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). The power struggle escalates as Nicholson tries to maintain control of his troops and Saito attempts to undermine his authority and use their labor to construct a bridge over the Kwai River. The main issue at hand being that Saito tries to force the officers to do manual labor with the rest of the lower ranking soldiers, a demand strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

An American PoW also stationed in the camp manages to do the impossible and escape. Arriving to a safe camp of the Allies, the US Navy turns him over to the British Army to penetrate the camp with a small team to destroy the bridge, in turn damaging the Japanese rail lines. The soldier, Shears (a passable William Holden), provides the voice of dissent as the anti-war cynic who at every opportunity points out the ridiculous and the futile. Nevertheless he agrees to the assignment. It is an exciting and very engaging plot without the violence for the sake of violence. It is exactly my type of war film that does not rely on excess, but simply focuses on telling a story with strong characters and a clear message.

The questions that it raises are much more complex than the plot might initially reveal and, because of a stellar performance by Hayakawa, the answers do not come easily. It is documented that wounded Japanese soldiers taken to Allied hospitals would need to be restrained because if they did not then they would rip off their bandages in order to bleed to death. The Bushido Code firmly establishes honorable and dishonorable conduct in war, and being taken alive was not listed under the "honorable" category (watch Letters from Iwo Jima). Japanese honor is very similar to British honor in the respect that it is taken seriously, and to be disgraced is a fate far worse than death. Of course the two have differences, and that is the real topic explored in this film. What does it mean to be honorable? How far does one go to preserve their honor? Is it okay to place the health and well-being of others at stake in order to preserve the good name of your nation and its leader?

The fact is that both Nicholson and Saito are very strong, very proud men who love their country. Guinness won an Oscar for his stiff upper-lipped colonel who did really push the limits of those questions I listed. At the hands of the Japanese he suffered for weeks because he stuck to his principals, and others suffered by association. But watch and really contemplate what happens to Saito once Nicholson takes control of the bridge building. Who really is Col. Saito? When we are introduced to him he is the devil incarnate. But is that truly who he is? Hayakawa and director David Lean do a magnificent job of not revealing more about his character than absolutely necessary. What is given is amazing, earning the actor an Oscar nod, and the director a win.

This movie will challenge you morally as it entertains you thoroughly. There was not a minute of this nearly three hour epic that I was not completely invested in the action as well as the characters. It is a supreme example of film making of the 50's, and of war films in general. I can find gratuitous violence anywhere, but whether or not I care about the characters is an entirely different story.

*A little side note: This film is done in CinemaScope and glorious Technicolor. The bigger the screen the better, but certainly not necessary.

4/4