Just like the definition of tragedy: destroying a good thing for others to see, the bridge on the River Kwai is not only destroyed for you to see, but the film also shows the process of creating it.
There are three colonels in the movie, and there are four American soldiers pretending to be officers. Nixon, the British colonel in the prisoner of war camp played by Obi-Wan, should be the most topical one.
Before the climax of the movie, he did nothing wrong, and he did it to defend the laws of war and insist on the principle that officers do not participate in labor, which is reasonable.
With the development of the plot, it seems that there is no problem in participating in the construction of the bridge. After all, the laws of war do not seem to restrict prisoners of war from actively participating in labor, right? Therefore, it cannot be said that he was wrong.
Actively constructing the River Kwai Bridge, its positive value is explained in great detail in the movie: boosting morale, proving value, better treatment... In the Colonel's own words, the army should always have high morale, even if it is a prisoner.
There is nothing wrong with this attitude towards life, and it is also in line with the military spirit of the British, a veteran powerhouse that is still in decline.
The biggest controversy comes from the end of the movie, which is also the climax.
My understanding of this ending is that the colonel lost his identity at the moment when the bridge was about to be blown up, and his long life as a prisoner of war made him forget the background of this life-and-death war, and the fact that he was a soldier of the British Empire. The Japanese were taken prisoner in the enemy camp.
This bridge is not a military target with a political identity, but an ordinary transportation facility across both sides of the river.
All he remembered was that he was the builder of the bridge, and someone tried to blow it up, destroying the fruits of his labor. Eventually he came to his senses: "What have I done?" David Lean also cleverly arranged for him to destroy the bridge himself—though not in a sensible way.
Just like the lines the doctor has always said: "Crazy, crazy"
In fact, in the thinking of the River Kwai Bridge, the main focus is on the identity, including the identity of the bridge and the identity of the person.
A bridge is just a bridge, a tool to create wealth, benefit people and make the world a better place: "After the war, everyone who crosses this bridge will remember who built it"
But in the context of war, a bridge is undoubtedly equated with the military.
One more bridge can make Japan's war machine run one more point, and one more point the world suffers from war.
So bridge building and bridge bombing have perfect logic and motivation.
If the Bridge on the River Kwai is an anti-war movie, it is undoubtedly the most brilliant.
It conveys two contradictory but reasonable values in a very rational narrative, making the audience conflict and ask questions in their hearts.
Just like the definition of tragedy: destroying a good thing for others to see, the bridge on the River Kwai is not only destroyed for you to see, but the film also shows the process of creating it.
Perhaps the answer to the question seems obvious to many: the colonel should have been slack and sloppy, fooling the Japanese.
In this questioning film, the doctor also implicitly asked the colonel. But the Colonel's arguments against the doctor are all the same as I have stated above.
Or the colonel should be a little smarter: when he built it, he was full of energy, but when he found out that the friendly army was about to blow up the bridge, he turned a blind eye...then the bridge was blown up smoothly, and he didn't suffer any losses.
But this doesn't seem to fit the character's design, and it also makes the climax conflict less intense: the climax of an hour-long movie can be heard?
As a digression, the river Kwai railway project and its bloody history are mentioned in the movie, so I am afraid that there will really be conflicts like the captured officers in the movie being forced to work by the Japanese army. Then the idealized British prisoner of war came out victorious...
Personal opinion, does not represent the opinion of others - in the end, a good movie is really a good movie.
View more about The Bridge on the River Kwai reviews
