http://qfmeng.blogbus.com/logs/138041428.html
The Bridge On The River Kwai (Bridge on the River Kwai) 1957 I
saw it today Two tome films, one is the 180-minute "Mozart Biography", and the other is the 161-minute film "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Before I watched this film, I always thought that I had seen this film, but only after watching it did I realize that I had confused "Distant Bridge" with this film. It's also an old movie with a "bridge" in the same name. Can you not mix it up? This film is still listed as a film belonging to the IMDB250 series, and I have watched it a lot these days.
The story of the film is set in Burma during World War II and tells the story of a bridge. A group of captured British troops was sent to a Japanese prison camp where a bridge was being built. The Japanese army had to build a bridge within a limited period of time, requiring all British soldiers, including officers, to participate in labor. The leader of this British army is a man of principle. According to the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention, officers are not required to participate in labor. Therefore, the leader of the British army refused all officers to participate in labor, even if he was beaten and locked in a small dark room, he would not yield. The Japanese leaders who had no choice but to take a step back, found a reason for amnesty, and agreed not to let them participate in labor. So the principled leader of the British army set about building the bridge. Because he is a principled person, he really regarded the British army as a worker, worked overtime and finally built the bridge. At the same time, the film also describes the story of a fake US military officer who escaped from a Japanese prison camp. The person who managed to escape was seized by the British army because of the fake officer, so he had to follow the command of the American army and return to the camp to blow up the newly built bridge. On the one hand, the bridge is being built, and on the other hand, the bridge is to be bombed. The film describes these two opposite aspects. In the end, the British leader, who couldn't bear to blow up his masterpiece, stopped the two men who were going to blow up the bridge, costing them their lives. Seeing this result, the leaders of the British army suddenly realized, but it was also shot, fell on the bomb switch, and inadvertently blew up the bridge.
The film once again showed the cruelty of the war and the tragedy he caused. The theme around which the entire film revolves is a matter of principle. The leader of the British army is a man of principles. He does not participate in labor, so he confronts the Japanese leader; he does not run away, because he has to obey the order of his superiors to surrender; he admits that he is a prisoner, so he works hard; he He is a leader, so he wants to show the British army, so he is very serious and responsible for rectifying military discipline, that is, building bridges. There is nothing wrong with his choices, and they are all behaviors that are in line with common sense. The party who wants to blow up the bridge also does things in accordance with the principle. They are the British army, so they want to blow up the bridge, whether it is made by the Japanese army or the British army; The army is still the Japanese army; even in the matter of returning the Americans to the Japanese prisoner camps, it is considered according to human common sense - no one can predict what will happen in the future, and what will happen in the past. Even the Japanese army, they just asked the British army to build the bridge as soon as possible, and let the officers work as a last resort, although they did not expect that the British army officers who did not work were more capable of taking the lead than when they were working. In short, there is no right or wrong for the people in the movie, just as there is no right or wrong in war. When thinking about the same issue from different angles, there will be completely opposite conclusions. This is where war is cruel. There was no winner on either side of the war, leaving behind scenes of tragedy.
The film created three characters, an Englishman, an American, and a Japanese. The British are stubborn and stick to principles, the Americans are flexible and put their own interests first, and the Japanese are good-faced and focus on the overall situation. In addition to the less Japanese portrayal, the film mainly describes the remaining two. The image of the British stubborn and conservative is well known, and it is undoubtedly revealed in the leader of the British army in the film. His actions stand in stark contrast to Americans' innately optimistic, self-interested attitude to life. It is this contrast that makes them behave differently and view things differently. The Americans would rather lose face than die; the British would rather be beaten for the sake of face, and so on. This is the difference between the people of the two countries, although they ended up in the same way - died in Burma.
The film is very long and depicts every aspect of the story in great detail. However, there are some plots that have nothing to do with the main line of the plot and can be slightly cut. For example, the description of the two Americans in the title is too detailed, and the funeral language can be reduced. The American intimacy with the woman at the beach can be replaced by other scenes. According to the description of the current film, I thought that this woman would appear in the future, but who knew that she only appeared twice and never saw it again. In the process of returning to the prison camp, there is no need to show the mutual affection between the American and the Burmese girl. Does the film want to portray this American's merciful style? But he died at the end of the film, and showing mercy has nothing to do with his death at all. If you want to show his character, the previous content can already be explained clearly. The deletion of these redundant scenes has no effect on the understanding of the plot of the film. Or, the movies of that era were all in this mode, which required a very slow progression of the plot and a multi-faceted shaping of the characters. If this is the case, it can only be said that the fast-paced mode of Hollywood movies has made me unable to get used to the way of shooting in old movies.
It's a 1957 movie, and it's a long time ago. I'm not familiar with the actors in the film at all, so I won't say anything. However, the data shows that the actor Alec Guinness, who plays the leader of the British army, won the Oscar for best actor, and he deserves it.
In short, as a film of the 1950s, it is indeed a rare good film that can analyze the war so thoroughly. Beyond the times, it has become a timeless classic, which is worth seeing.
Sequence: 0407
[The Bridge on the River Kwai].The.Bridge.On.The.River.Kwai.1957.SUPERBiT.ULTiMATE.EDiTiON.iNTERNAL.DVDRiP.X264-KiSS
2011-06-19
View more about The Bridge on the River Kwai reviews
