Colonel Nicholson / Alec Guinness / - commander of the British military, surrendered to the Japanese; man principled and inflexible
Commander Shears (William Holden) - an American marine who found himself in Japanese captivity before Nicholson's troops; does not agree to surrender, thinks about escape, a light man with a good sense of humor
Colonel Saito (Sesshu Hayakawa) is the commander of a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp in the jungles of Burma; his goal is to build a strategically important bridge over the Kwai River with the help of free labor of prisoners of war; the man is tough, unbending and ruthless.
Major Warden (Jack Hawkins) - the leader of a detachment of British commandos who were ordered to blow up a bridge that is being built by prisoners of war; a man responsible, executive, for the sake of the goal is ready to cross everything and everyone.
This film is included in the list of the greatest American paintings of all time. It has a rather impressive timekeeping - 2 hours and 40 minutes. And although I had to split the viewing into two days (since there was simply not enough time on the first day), I watched the film with great interest and a lot of emotions.
This tape is from the category of those where there are few special effects, but a lot of emotional effects. Here, the images of heroes are so masterfully revealed, such psychologism is observed that you are just amazed when you see the year in which the tape appeared on the screens. It looks fresh and very relevant.
The action itself is also of great interest. The confrontation between Nicholson and Saito causes a storm of emotions. The transformation of Nicholson’s personality creates confusion. The finale is a bit stupefying. The picture is very well shot. Interesting, juicy, colorful - and in this case I'm talking about emotions. I really liked it.
The film has many awards: 7 Oscars, 3 Golden Globes and 4 Actors Guild Awards. I don’t like this phrase, but it’s worth a look. I'm sure you won't get bored and remember this picture.
Having scattered all competitors at the Oscars in 1958, this film, based on real events, won the hearts of the entire Academy, as well as viewers who have not yet departed from the events of the Second World War. And we are talking now about the film “Bridge over the River Kwai”.
This is a story about the clash of two opposing civilizations: the surrender of the British colonial unit by order of the command and the Japanese who captured them. In the middle is a bridge that needs to be built. And it is here that the British snobbery in the face of Colonel Nicholson begins to confront the discipline of the Japanese Colonel Saito. Very pleased that the heroes appear not a kind of good and evil, but real people, but with their own oddities: initially seeming a tyrant Saito is only afraid not to justify the hopes of his command and not to finish the construction on time, and principled Nicholson so wants to demonstrate to the enemy the honor and dignity of a British soldier that slightly overdoes - everyone has their pros and cons.
Despite a very long time, the film does not let you get bored and looks very dynamic. In moments, the climax becomes almost unbearable, and you start fidgeting in place, waiting for what happens next! This movie was made over 60 years ago! Not surprisingly, the film collected seven statuettes from eight nominations.
Some Russian and Soviet people who grew up with a sense of pride and patriotism sometimes find it difficult to understand that fascism touched not only the Soviet Union, but really different parts of the world. That not only our valiant Red Army fought against it, but also many soldiers and officers of the so-called "Allies" & #39; ' Bridge over the River Kwai' is the true story of British prisoners of war forced under the leadership of Japanese troops (serving for the benefit of Hitler) to build this very bridge. Despite some discrepancies of the plot with the original, the picture has become an absolute classic of world cinema. Being to this day in many lists of the best films of all time.
The film, completely devoid of fighting (except for the final scene) and given its timekeeping, is certainly long. This is perfectly logical, because the Bridge over the river ... & # 39; with an expenditure of $ 3 million was a major, epic work in the 50s. It requires very careful viewing, and then it will not seem boring. Such a state is difficult to achieve when the characters of two proud officers fight on the screen. Plus, good acting incarnations of many living characters. Real men of honor. Filming took place very close to the scene of those distant, real events. To watch how, under the fantastic nature of Sri Lanka, a huge bridge is created before our eyes is a pleasure. And it's not that at that time it was the largest & #39; built from scratch & #39; in the cinema. The realization that more than 60 years ago, about 100 million people experienced similar pleasures in theaters alone leads one to think how eventful this film was. All these people brought the film studio $2.6 million in net profit. That was a pretty big amount for those years. And 7 statuettes of the award 'Oscar' (which still receive a few) do 'Bridge. . . ' immortal.
Any merits and successes of film works are sent except reproduction, to the idea, idea, message. And even though history has already been written, the main factor of this masterpiece is injustice. A word that leads many of us through life. Not to mention the laws of wartime. There was simply no place for such words. The horror of war in this tape is not from the usual canons. Shootings, violence, devastation... It's not here. Resentment at war. It brutally destroys all plans, goals, and intentions. Everything a man held on to. He ended up being a pawn in someone else’s game. I don’t want 'spoiler' but at least for this it is worth watching such a long canvas to the end. In the end, it becomes clearer why the painting was awarded as many as 30 times! It doesn’t matter how reliable the English are. Remembering the rules and laws of the convention. You don't just have to watch movies. You have to think. It needs to be understood.
Probably strange parallels, but ' Bridge over the River Kwai' has direct similarities with World War II. To the tragic death of the assistant director on the way to the shooting, you can add only decades later deservedly received ' Oscar' one of the writers. How many great men and their merits became known only years later! The world suddenly realized and realized that they were heroes. You can and should be proud of them. Better late than never. If it's not too late... But the basic resemblance to the war seems to be that it is also a thing of the past and is beginning to be forgotten. Yeah, it was a global event. One in the film industry, the other is the worst disaster of the 20th century. A new time is coming with new movies and events. No one is calling to watch the movies of past years, or start leafing through the history of the Great Patriotic War. It's everyone's business. There is nothing to call yourself a patriot unless you know who hosted the Victory Parade or when the Battle of Stalingrad took place. Exactly as well as to expose yourself as a movie lover, if you also have no idea and desire to see and know such masterpieces. As Thomas said in 'Fizruka'- you actually have to. And if you can’t think and understand them, at least watch them. Otherwise, you will not even know the legendary music of the march, whistling by British prisoners of war, spent every day in a camp in far South Asia.
8.5 out of 10
"The Bridge on the River Kwai" “The Bridge over the River Kwai” is one of the most significant anti-war dramas in its genre. Anti-war does not mean pacifist. In the film there are no heart-wrenching scenes of battles, which were often sinned by Soviet-made cinema, designed to soften and soften the viewer, there are no angry philippines against the "fratricidal" war, military actions here are practically out of the picture - they are not interested in Lin. The focus of the director’s research is the automated models of behavior inherent in the army with its hierarchical structure, subordination, deification of the uniform, the cult of masculinity, contempt for the individual, and the fact that these models, it turns out, are able to change to the opposite under the influence of certain circumstances. In the film, two worldviews collide, two different attitudes to life, reality, war. The protagonist is Commander Shears (actor William Holden), he is also - in the film's art system - a carrier of values with a plus sign (freedom, individualism, addiction to women and other "simple human pleasures"; his attitude to war can be summarized by a line from Joseph Brodsky "General!" Your cards are shit. I pass), and the antagonist is Colonel Nicholson (actor Alex Guinness), a British commander, a bearer of values with a minus sign (pedantism, fanatical adherence to discipline, laws and rules, willingness to sacrifice other people’s lives in the name of the principles of “gentleman and officer”). Throughout the film, we see the characters of these characters, their consciousness in development. It is worth saying that in order to solve their purely aesthetic problems, the authors of the tape neglected the accuracy of correspondence to true events and characters, which expectedly caused accusations of distortion of facts; Lin, in particular, was reproached for slandering Philip Tusi, a lieutenant colonel of the British army, who was destined to be in Japanese captivity with the remains of his regiment and serve as a prototype screen colonel. (For reference, in 1943, a bridge was actually built by British and other prisoners of war to link Japan’s strategically important railway line from Japanese-allied Thailand to occupied Burma.) However, unlike the film and the book of the French writer Pierre Boole, the historical bridge connected the banks of the Makhlong River, not Khwe (Bul distorted the name). By the way, thanks to the film, Makhlong acquired legends, becoming the object of pilgrimage for foreign tourists, so that in the 60s, by order of the Thai government, one of its tributaries was called Khwyaei. If desired, the picture can really be criticized for many things: for showing the Japanese such hard-headed people who do not understand the engineering craft, while in practice everything was exactly the opposite, for “imperial”, “barrier” ignoring the local population, who died during the construction of the railway for 16 months from swamp fever, dysentery, hunger, etc., according to various estimates, about 100-150 thousand; the film was criticized for anti-British sentiments. But Bridge over the River Kwai is not a documentary film of real events. Not thinking about the Second World War. Not an image of the nightmares of camp life with its filth, disease and violence. This is the verdict of a war-mongering military man. As an institution of class society, as a pillar of all power, it is satirical ridicule. And, oddly enough, the apology of working democracy in its Freudian-Marxist, Raychian interpretation – as a set of natural-labor relationships of people based on voluntariness and mutual assistance (whatever you say, in the background of disgraced screenwriters Carl Forman and Michael Wilson, for “connections with Communists” included in the “Black List” of Hollywood and deprived of the possibility of legal work in the homeland – “The Bridge” saw screens without specifying their names – the same good old Marxism; Foreman, who came from a working-class family of Jewish immigrants from Russia, was a member of the Communist Party of the United States for ten years. After all, it is impossible not to admit that man is an unpleasant, sick and strange creature who likes to fight; but some social conditions aggravate his deadly instincts, others are potentially capable of numbing them. This is what is hidden, at a deep level, is intended to tell us a film full of mockery of militarism, whether it is Japanese, British or anything else. Despite everything, the Bridge leaves an extremely bright impression. The first thing that catches the eye when watching the tape and that can alienate someone who considers himself a fan of a more “chamber” European art house from it is the signature Hollywood grandeur of the production depicted along with the academicism of the production. Indeed, contemporary critics called his epic films either too majestic and lush, or too cold and “technical”. However, if the large-scale and expensive Hollywood cinema today has no equal, then something fundamentally significant with the departure of such masters as David Lin, he definitely lost. 10 out of 10 Original
I have already seen a lot of bad films, but it is rare to have such a positive response to such projects and invent colorful epithets and hidden genius meanings. I don't know what this movie is about. I know for a fact that the film is not about war. And categorically not about people, because the characters of this picture do not meet the characteristics of a person. Perhaps this is the most obvious and outright failure of the film “Bridge over the River Kwai” In this film, the viewer does not see people in whom one could believe and form an opinion about him. There are some hints in the face of the commando group, but it is not without a number of errors, and is not put at the head of the picture. The camera work is good, the actors are trying to play, the scenery is decent, the sound pumped over my only with water in the scene of the bridge mining. Everything would be fine, but the plot of the film is something incomprehensible.
First of all, they unceremoniously show the Japanese as stupid, untenable, faceless, incompetent, etc. What is this nonsense about prisoners of war, which the authors are so zealously and with a proper dose of pathos trying to smother the viewer? Who knows better than the British colonialists how to make the oppressed work for you? Why would soldiers be happy that their officers wouldn't work with them when they were anyway? And the colonel plainly says that please let these soldiers hunch, but a dozen officers will not work like blacks. And the further it goes, the more. Already prisoners will begin to drink tea with their guards, and then command them at all, organize their holidays and sing their hymn.
With such an idea of captivity, it is not clear how such brave British soldiers were captured by such incapacitated Japanese. Nicholson just had to say you defeated us, but we're not going captive, we're going home because British officers don't surrender and the Japanese wouldn't do anything about it.
In the film, the Japanese are often vilified, they say they do not know how to command, they do not know how to build, discipline was ruined, even prisoners are not able to keep. Then again, all of you know how to win. Yes, there is no one more disciplined than the Japanese in the world and they build magnificent craftsmen. It would seem that they mocked the Japanese, and ours are so good. No, no, the British are all idiots. One less normal person was a doctor, Major Clipton. The truth in the end end end endowed with the phrase “madness”, but why and what it meant is not at all understandable, since this madness is being created throughout the film and is now over.
Do you know what will happen if the bridge is built on time?
The war dramas of the past stand in stark contrast to the realism that continues to evolve in film and television today. The unspoken rules of what can and cannot be shown on the screen have left a clear imprint even on such cult classic films as The Bridge over the River Kwai. British prisoners of war do not live in revenge against the Japanese. Scenes of violence, even the slap in the face of a prisoner, remain somewhere behind the scenes or with a veil of bills. This censorship sterility complements David Lean's classic film status as a bright representative of the 1950s era. But there is a sense of informational dissonance between what you saw on the screen and the actual history of such episodes of the Second World War - in your head you unwittingly scroll through the image of what the film could be today.
The plot of the film is based on the novel of the same name by the famous French writer Pierre Boole. On the one hand, the author of the original conveyed his own experience of a prisoner of war in Southeast Asia, on the other - the story borrows details from a similar real story that took place and his prototype, which was transmitted in the movie by actor Alec Guinness. This is a military drama without major battles, without events on the scale of a whole theater of operations. We will spend two and a half hours beside the characters, contemplating a multitude of dialogues, both between the British and between the Japanese and the British. Before us is a slow, leisurely story, which, nevertheless, in some moments causes a sense of anxiety - usually about the fate of the characters. Such scenario slowness in a good sense reeks of book atmosphere and structure.
Even Steven Spielberg, commenting on the shooting of his legendary “Seekers” (the first part of “Indiana Jones”), stressed that he wanted to shoot scenes on the same location where David Lin once created his “Bridge over the River Kwai”. Of course, many will say that the jungles are the same everywhere and it doesn’t matter if we see Burma on the location or, as it was decided, the island of Ceylon. Most of the nearly three-hour film takes place in a prisoner-of-war camp in a few dozen meters of observable space, and despite the censorship of war in the film, believe in where the main characters are. Separately, it is worth noting the bridge itself, which seems to be the crown not only of engineering thought, but also a kind of symbol of the work of people deprived of freedom and limited in basic needs, such as safety, food and water.
Perhaps the highlight on the cake of the classic story of this war drama is the hero Alec Guinness. The actor, whom most people know by his titular image of Obi-Wan Kenobi, gave off a great game and character. It is not unreasonable to argue whether the intransigence and pride shown by a British officer in putting his subordinates under attack is at all appropriate. But the image itself, within the framework of this particular story, came out memorable and vivid, albeit hypertrophied and slightly caricatured. It is also worth noting the role of the Japanese actor, who acted as an antagonist – the commandant of the prisoner of war camp. His on-screen intransigence and awareness stand in stark contrast to Colonel Nicholson’s steadfastness. Even faithful to the code and orders from above, torturing prisoners, Saito sometimes seems even more humane than his British opponent.
8 out of 10
Nothing in the film, except the obvious stupidities I saw
In war, the Geneva Convention for the Japanese as a team of the Black Pearl pirate code. They don't really care about the convention. Very stupid look the British waving a license book and the Japanese who can not find control on prisoners. The simplest thing, even within the framework of the stupid idea of the film, is to take out those who are not submissive, under the pretext of transferring them to another place of captivity and shoot them. But in the film, the Japanese pour tea, serve lunch, at the request of British officers, persuade to work. Let me remind you that these are the same Japanese who killed 30 million Chinese, something suggests that this does not comply with the norms of the Geneva Convention. Prisoners command. The Japanese are incompetent, unable to design a bridge or call in a good engineer.
I watched the movie Bridge over the River Kwai. I can’t say the movie is a nightmare and I wish I had never seen it. The movie has pros: He’s very interesting, you can’t take that away from him, personally I was interested in watching the situation, the heroes. Also, most of all in films, and in books, I like high-quality dialogue and in this regard, this film satisfied me; it was a pleasure to listen to the arguments of the characters about their position and what the main goal in the war was.
But I can’t say I liked the movie because it has some flaws.
The most important is the absurdity and unrealism of the scenario. What the hell is that? British Colonel Nicholson complains that the Japanese Colonel Saito does not comply with the Geneva Convention and refuses to work. Is this English colonel so naive? Apparently, for him, war is not killing people, not destroying in the name of victory, for Nicholson, war is a children's game in which there are rules that can not be violated, as in a child's game, or: "I don't play like that." Who is the master of this island: the Japanese or the English prisoners of war who make their own rules?
What are these “rules of warfare”? We can go further, the “rules of genocide”, according to which it is impossible to exterminate more than 1,000 representatives of one ethnic group at a time; the “rules of terrorism”, according to which fragmentation explosives cannot be used in explosions.
I wonder how Nicholson went through this war. After 5 years of war, did all his enemies always observe these conventions, fought like good soldiers and generally did not step beyond the limits of the permissible? And how did he, with his super-enhanced sense of discipline and duty, become a colonel if he only followed the rules?
Throughout the film, he wondered: “Can you imagine this happening here?” for Andrey Sokolov (the hero of “The Fate of Man” Sholokhov) to tell the Nazis in a concentration camp: “You are violating the convention, it is impossible to attract people to such difficult working conditions without appropriate insurance.” My friends and I refuse to work, so they would be shot on the spot. Or imagine that in the Gulag during the construction of the White Sea Canal, convicts said that they would not work because they are scientists, not builders, and in general this contradicts international norms? They would have been shot on the spot, too. Because war is a cruel phenomenon, when people are killed, prisoners are tortured. But apparently the British have their own ideas about the war, for them it is a children’s game with rules, who should work and who in the “house”.
Second, Nicholson knew perfectly well that he was building a bridge for the needs of the Japanese army, that is, he knowingly assisted the enemy, and therefore no excuse like “This will strengthen the discipline of my soldiers” is appropriate. The whole world is at war with these Japanese, and the English colonel is building them bridges. Yes, in the Soviet Union, he would be repressed only because he surrendered, and if they knew that he knowingly helped the enemy, they would destroy him. But, again, apparently for the English it takes for granted.
Third, I was confused by the ending. I did not understand Nicholson’s recent actions, why he did not want to help his own, why he changed his decisions after a second, and finally, what the cry of one of the soldiers means: “Madness, madness”, I personally did not see any crazy situation there, except for what was happening.
The result is an idea of 0 out of 10
For the film itself 6 out of 10
Overall assessment -
After watching it, I remembered Robert Murle’s novel The Island, published just five years after the film. The plots of these two works are completely different, but both have a common theme and problems, which can be described as a problem of formal morality, that is, one that is supported by some authority and exists in self-sufficient value. And no matter what kind of authority (in the case of the Island, the Christian God, in the case of the Bridge over the River Kwai, tradition), a person relates his behavior to such norms without any critical doubt, and thus literally everything is sacrificed to the “unclear” “god.”
It is also characteristic of formal morality that it does not carry out a revision of the values, of the ends it was once called upon to defend, and of the morals of the means by which this protection is attained. At some point, any formal morality skews in its monumentality, inspiring reverence and respect, but to some extent ignoring man and the world. Such a norm becomes an end in itself, and any life in this construct of norms is elementaryly destroyed. That’s why Lt. Col. Nicholson in The Bridge over the River Kwai commands a lot of respect at first, but closer to the finale you feel the enormous “inhumanity” of this creature in a cap. Yes, such “moralists” do not think about what human sacrifices are for if they follow the Rule.
This problem was relevant then, it is relevant now, so “Bridge over the River Kwai”, although it has a touch of “naivety” of the old movie, looks very good, especially since it was shot great.
In the end, 7 Oscars.
A huge number of prestigious awards, a heap of laudable reviews from critics and foreign viewers, the highest places in numerous charts of the best of the best. Despite all this, why the “Bridge over the River Kwai” is not well known in Russia. There are many reasons for this, but all of them are undeserved, since the film is a classic story about life in captivity and the real dedication of oneself to some cause. The last topic was particularly well revealed by the example of one of the main characters - Colonel Nicholson. He had to spend several months in a stuffy “isolator” to get for his wards the human conditions of work on the bridge. Almost losing his life because of this, but nevertheless achieving his own, he showed the incredible strength of his faith and unshakable character. With what zeal he built a bridge across the river. As if creating a work of art, which in later life he will not be able to produce again.
In general, the film is very lucky with the characters and with the disclosure of their inner world. Starting with Nicholson, and ending with the seemingly evil Japanese Saito, in whose place, all of us would surely act exactly the same. The director of the epochal "Lawrence of Arabia" David Lin again tried to fame. With almost all points "Bridge over the river Kwai" copes well. Except that the tape lacks some dynamics. Without it, the already long time of three hours, lasts impossible long. Although, it is worth admitting, the drive of the ending makes you forget about the early boredom and the tension in the last scenes begins to just skyrocket. Personally, I sat at the monitor and clutched my fists for the main characters, simultaneously listening to every rustle coming from the screen.
Well, once I started on the plot, I will tell you a little about it. During the war, British soldiers were captured by the Japanese and sent to a prisoner of war camp in Burma. There, everything is led by the prudent and fair chief Saito, who sets the task for the new arrivals - to build a bridge over the Kwai River so that trains with ammunition and provisions can pass along it. At the same time, a small group of prisoners escape from this camp. Of them, one still manages to escape and get to the location of the allied troops. But it does not end there, because the fugitive is instructed to show the command where exactly the Japanese are and how they can be more conveniently and imperceptibly approached in order to deal them a crushing blow. There is no alternative, as this operation will affect the course of many battles and the fate of many people depends on it. Including those who have already started large-scale construction of the transport bridge.
The script is first-class, as is the film itself. Too much time has been spent on sometimes empty conversations. This is probably the only drawback of the tape, which is remembered last and fades before a galaxy of positive moments. If I have already mentioned the characters and directing, then it is worth noting the incredible scenery, which amaze with its detail and allow you to feel all the work that the characters put into it. Competent was the course of showing the situation from several sides (by the captured British and Japanese, respectively). This allows you to compare two points of view and create your own personal opinion about what is happening at the moment. All these little nuances are backed by great acting work.
Alec Guinness deservedly received the Oscar for Best Actor, because his character is the most memorable among all. In addition to a very unusual and memorable appearance, Guinness managed to endow his character with many qualities that he discovered at the most necessary moments. And about how Colonel Nicholson was reborn, eventually becoming a different person, and not worth talking. You just have to see it. Overall, excellent performance. Greatly played their roles William Holden and Japanese Sessu Hayakawa. All the actors were good.
As a result, we can conclude that the Bridge over the River Kwai is a classic military drama, not obsessing, like many tapes of a new format, on military battles. Here, almost all the attention is paid to the life of the characters in captivity, which gives the tape some chamberliness, making it closer to the viewer. The movie is long (almost three hours), but it is definitely worth watching real movie fans. My personal assessment is:
There are people for whom war is a way to become famous. There are others who enjoy war as if it were a deadly battle and the danger of death is a drug. However, there are people who devote their lives to the service of the Motherland and can see in the war even some philosophical meaning, which is to prove something sacred, as it happened to Colonel Nicholson in the stunning psychological military drama David Lean “Bridge over the River Kwai”.
Plot
During World War II in Southeast Asia, a group of British soldiers are captured and taken to a Japanese camp commanded by the ruthless Colonel Saito. The Japanese command instructs Saito to build a railway bridge crossing the Kwai River. This work must be done by the British soldiers, but their defense comes Colonel Nicholson, whose fight with Saito turns into something else.
Game of actors
After watching this film, I am convinced that old movies are pleasant to watch because the actors in them perform their roles so well that their play cuts into your soul. So, I was struck by the play of Alec Guinness, who played the role of Colonel Nicholson, an amazing character who will burn to seem crazy, but, in the end, turns out to be a miserable man, for whom the construction of the bridge became a symbol of valor and bravery of the British army.
Director
After watching it, I realized that David Lin was a very good psychologist, because he managed to make the film not just as a heavy war drama, but as a subtle psychological drama that pays a lot of attention to individual details that emphasize the significance of the situation in which the characters find themselves. So, for example, I liked the episode in which Colonel Nicholson and his officers reported to Colonel Saito about the bridge, and Saito was angry at the fact that Nicholson was smarter than he was.
Scenario
Of course, I didn’t read the book, so I can’t judge the film as an adaptation, even though it won an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. However, I will mention some of the plot details that played a major role in creating the main idea of the film. For example, I liked the contrast between Colonel Nicholson and his decency and Colonel Saito with his incompetence. Another detail is Nicholson’s behavior, namely, how this unfortunate bridge has become to a certain extent the meaning of life, which he realizes only before his unexpected death.
Operation of the operator
Despite the tense atmosphere that reigns throughout the film, one of its pleasant advantages, which lifts the mood, is the work of the operator. The film demonstrates the magnificent and striking shooting of the tropical jungle, at the sight of which the heart freezes, as one begins to marvel that such harmony and beauty can be disturbed by war.
Installation
Even editors played an important role in creating a deep psychological atmosphere of the film. I particularly liked one episode in which the scene with Colonel Saito was replaced by the scene with Colonel Nicholson, when both were talking to their subordinates. Only if Saito spoke to them sternly, and it was noticeable that his subordinates disliked him, then Colonel Nicholson was respected and honored. That is, thanks to the installation, something like a comparison was made.
Soundtrack
The music perfectly conveyed the mood that was impregnated with the film. On the one hand, it was an admiration because you marvel at these soldiers who don't give up despite all the humiliations. Music only enhances that feeling. You still have some sympathy for all the other things, for these soldiers, and especially for Nicholson, who is gradually going mad.
Result
There are movies that you watch, praise, but soon forget about them. And there are those who fall into the soul and make such a strong impression that there is a desire to watch this film again and again. The Bridge over the River Kwai is one of those movies. It doesn’t show war as cruel or anything else. It depicts what a man can reach in war.
10 out of 10
An epic canvas about the madness of the military of all stripes.
In a Japanese prisoner of war camp during World War II, Colonel Nicholson tries to force the Japanese command to comply with the Geneva Convention and not involve British captured officers in work. Japanese Colonel Saito sees the situation in a way that “everyone should work,” especially in light of the construction of the bridge. Having come to a reasonable, seemingly compromise, the British build the bridge so that all Japanese would be ashamed. At the same time, an American who escaped from this camp under pressure from the command is forced to return to the same places with the task... guess 3 times. That's right, blow up the bridge.
How it ends is not good to tell. All I can say is that cinema is valuable. The army there, in any case, is a crowd of madmen. One comrade is conjured up on the discipline of soldiers, another on the power over prisoners and fear of superiors (loyalty, if it is wrong), the third is just a kamikaze for himself and for that guy. The conflict itself (the film, by the way, is based on the novel by Pierre Boole - the author of "Planet of the Apes") already suggests that war is nonsense, and the military are mad. Some build a bridge, put their lives on it, while others lay down their lives to destroy it. The finale is a global metaphor. It all started with a conversation about civilization.
9 out of 10
The Second World War. The Japanese set up a prisoner-of-war camp on the Kwai River in Burma, the chief of which is Colonel Saito (Hayakawa). The task is to build a railway bridge across the river as soon as possible. At the disposal of Saito several hundred British prisoners, led by Colonel Nicholson (Guinness), who takes up the case with amazing enthusiasm. At the same time, British military forces are sending scouts to the area to blow up the bridge. This group is assisted by Commander Shears (Holden), the only one who escaped from Japanese captivity.
How often, shooting war films, directors and screenwriters do not refrain from the desire to make the characters monotonous and straightforward. If the hero is good, then almost the virgin Mary, if bad, then the embodiment of the devil. The bridge over the river Kwai is a pleasant exception. That’s what it attracts the most – there are no single villains or heroes.
At first, it may seem that the Japanese Colonel Saito is a spooky and sadist. But this is not so, his behavior is dictated, firstly, by Japanese upbringing, and secondly, by the fear that the task will not be completed on time and you will have to do yourself harakiri. Colonel Nicholson is also a very strange character. On the one hand, a brave warrior with his head held high, unbroken and loving his work. On the other hand, in his desire to show the enemy the honor and dignity of a British soldier, he eventually did such things that he did not even want to admire him. Again, Shears seems to be a brave man, who to look for, a patriot and a good man, but it is worth digging a little deeper, turns out to be a liar, arrogant and simply a jerk.
Despite the rather impressive timing, the film looks very dynamic: a very smooth and interesting plot, a beautiful acting, not template moves and characters, the lack of a clear separation of the warring parties on the basis of “good-bad”, in short, a very worthy example of American film classics. And 7 Oscars. You can't look at sin.