Bridge On The River Kwai
Movie Review:
Bridge On The River Kwai
1
Movie Review: Bridge On The River Kwai
Were there parts of the movie that were confusing or hard to understand? o For example: a characters intention, sequence of events, etc?
A part in the movie which was confusing was when Nicholson decided to assist the Japanese in building the bridge. He becomes so obsessed in building the bridge (which he regarded as a symbol of British efficiency and resourcefulness, which will be remembered for times to come) that he fails to identify that he is collaborating with the Japanese even when he was informed by his own medical officer. He becomes so blinded by this that he, a man of principles and one who follows rules mentioned in the Geneva
Convention is willing to make his officers work for the timely completion of the bridge.
Saito tells Nicholson that it will not be necessary to bring the copy of the Geneva Convention and walks away making the silence/no-response response speak for him. Due to the indirect form of communication it is hard to follow if Saito means that Nicholson should not bring the book because he has previously read it and now that it has been brought to his attention he will not make the British officers do manual labour or that he has read the book but will still make the British officers do manual labour. Making silence speak instead of words and the indirect form of communication gives the essence of a reactive culture.
Another part of the movie which was hard to understand was when Nicholson fell on the detonator at the end of the film. It is unclear if Nicholson had an intention to destroy the bridge or if it was a mere accident.
His last lines “what have I done” do clarify his intent but due to the fact that he falls on the plunger there was no ample clarification for the same. There is a possibility that due to his love for the bridge built by the
British soldiers he had just proceeded towards the plunger to disconnect it,
Bridge On The River Kwai
1
Movie Review: Bridge On The River Kwai
Were there parts of the movie that were confusing or hard to understand? o For example: a characters intention, sequence of events, etc?
A part in the movie which was confusing was when Nicholson decided to assist the Japanese in building the bridge. He becomes so obsessed in building the bridge (which he regarded as a symbol of British efficiency and resourcefulness, which will be remembered for times to come) that he fails to identify that he is collaborating with the Japanese even when he was informed by his own medical officer. He becomes so blinded by this that he, a man of principles and one who follows rules mentioned in the Geneva
Convention is willing to make his officers work for the timely completion of the bridge.
Saito tells Nicholson that it will not be necessary to bring the copy of the Geneva Convention and walks away making the silence/no-response response speak for him. Due to the indirect form of communication it is hard to follow if Saito means that Nicholson should not bring the book because he has previously read it and now that it has been brought to his attention he will not make the British officers do manual labour or that he has read the book but will still make the British officers do manual labour. Making silence speak instead of words and the indirect form of communication gives the essence of a reactive culture.
Another part of the movie which was hard to understand was when Nicholson fell on the detonator at the end of the film. It is unclear if Nicholson had an intention to destroy the bridge or if it was a mere accident.
His last lines “what have I done” do clarify his intent but due to the fact that he falls on the plunger there was no ample clarification for the same. There is a possibility that due to his love for the bridge built by the
British soldiers he had just proceeded towards the plunger to disconnect it,