Confessions in the Jungle: Comparing The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) and Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence (1983) [Editorial]

Disclaimer: The article is filled with spoilers of both films. Please read it only if you have seen the movies.

If you had to operate on Saito, would you do your job or would you let him die? Would you prefer to see this battalion disintegrate in idleness? Would you have it said that our chaps can’t do a proper job? Don’t you realize how important it is to show these people that they can’t break us, in body or in spirit? Take a good look, Clipton. One day the war will be over, and I hope that the people who use this bridge in years to come will remember how it was built, and who built it. Not a gang of slaves, but soldiers! British soldiers, Clipton, even in captivity. ~ Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson

It's your gods. It's your bloody awful stinking gods. They made you what you are. May they rot in whatever filthy hell they came from! Damn them! Damn your gods! Damn! Damn them! ~ Colonel John Lawrence

With the category of World War II being all-time popular among academic scholars, it is not surprising that movies about POW experiences are constantly analysed and compared. With regard to the topic of Japanese campaign in Asia during the war, two movies are frequently mentioned alongside each other by film experts: David Lean’s The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) and Nagisa Oshima’s Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence (1983). After having revisited these war epics, I also decided to share my insight on them. Evidently, both productions present different visions of the conflict in Asia (one being a Hollywood motion picture, the other a Japanese one), yet they complement each other in evaluation of the POW situation and the ambiguous relationship between soldiers and their captors.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a war adventure epic based on the novel by the famous French writer Pierre Boulle (who took inspiration from his personal experiences during the war). The film tells the story of a group of British POWs, led by senior officer Lt. Col. Nicholson (Alec Guiness), who are transferred to a camp in Burman jungle, the supervisor of which is Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa) who employs despotic means in order to keep the camp in order. Nicholson intervenes numerous times, but he is subjected to torture. Saito’s goal which he must fulfill is to complete the construction of a bridge over the River Kwai that will become a part of the railway line between Bangkok and Rangoon. In view of the fact that building a bridge is an impossible task for Japanese engineers, Saito eventually gives in and starts cooperating with Nicholson. The British officer takes the matter personally and is determined to construct the most reliable bridge as possible. He does not know, however, that the British command is planning to blow up the bridge…

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a conservative story about conservative men who try to stay alive in the middle of the jungle. While conflicting over the matter whether the officers should work together with privates or not, Nicholson is subjected to a great deal of suffering because he wants to protect the dignity of his men, which is guaranteed by the Geneva Convention. Saito, on the other hand, does not care about Western rules. He is only focused on his own twisted understanding of honour and the Bushido code. To him, the British soldiers are literally nothing because they let themselves get captured (Nicholson clarifies later on that they were ordered to surrender by the higher-ups). Nicholson does not respond to Saito’s threats and gifts which are meant to win his favours. Consequently, Nicholson wins this battle of convictions simply because Saito does not have any more time to waste. The bridge has to be built from scratch within 12 weeks.

Through the act of building the bridge, Nicholson wants to prove the greatness of the British Empire. Under his skillful supervision, the soldiers erect an impressive construction which is meant to last 600 years. However, Saito’s personal pride is broken in the process. The Japanese colonel is crushed and put to shame by Nicholson’s resourcefulness and leadership efforts. Just as when he considers committing suicide, the two characters share an intimate moment, alone on the completed bridge. That is, Nicholson reflects on his war experiences which constitute the majority of his adult life: “I love India. I wouldn’t have had it any other way. But there are times when suddenly you realise you’re nearer the end than the beginning. And you wonder, you ask yourself, what the sum total of your life represents, what difference your being there at any time made to anything, or if it made any difference at all really. Particularly in comparison with other men’s careers. I don’t know whether that kind of thinking is very healthy, but I must admit I’ve had some thoughts on those lines from time to time.” Saito, being well-spoken in English, remains silent and perplexed having heard this unexpected reflection from the enemy.

The cast of the film (especially Alec Guiness) frequently clashed with David Lean over many matters while shooting the picture. According to them, the novel was too “anti-British” (source). In my opinion, Pierre Boulle’s story is neither anti-British nor anti-Japanese. The book as well as the film are actually about the death of Imperial Britain. That is to say, apart from the Nicholson-Saito conflict, there is a subplot focusing on “Major” Shears (William Holden) and Major Warden (Jack Hawkins) who are on a mission to blow up the bridge. Shears (being a man who successfully escaped from Saito’s camp) participates in the assignment unwillingly. What is more, he perceives Warden as a person who will do whatever it takes to get ahead. Warden is, in fact, a representative of “new” Britain; the one that does not care about the past, the glory of colonial days, and loyalty to the King. Indeed, Nicholson has taken the matter of erecting the bridge too personally, yet his tragic death (falling on the plunger) in the film’s finale marks an end of a historical era. Old Britain has sacrificed itself for a new generation. Clipton (James Donald), a medical officer, upon witnessing the destruction of the bridge states appropriately: “It’s madness! Madness! Madness!”

In Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, Nagisa Oshima tells, in a very subtle manner, a more intimate story about individual relations between men and the cultural clash between the East and the West. Interestingly, the movie was based on war memoirs of Sir Laurens van der Post, as described in The Seed and the Sower (1963), so the picture also had a literary source as in the case of The Bridge on the River Kwai.

The main protagonist of the film is Colonel John Lawrence (Tom Conti) who is kept in a prison camp on Java together with other British soldiers. Lawrence serves as a mediator between the Japanese and the British because of his unusual background (he had lived in Japan and has a Japanese wife). Because of his insight into the enemy’s culture, he is able to understand the vague decisions and nuances of his captors. He interacts on a daily basis with Sergeant Hara (Takeshi Kitano), an impulsive (yet at times considerate) officer whose actions often anger Captain Yonoi (Ryuichi Sakamoto), the supervisor of the camp.

According to the judgement of a shady military court, Major Jack Celliers (David Bowie) is incarcerated in Yonoi’s camp. From the very first moment of their encounter, Yonoi develops a kind of unhealthy interest in Celliers. He always asks about the prisoner and even observes him sleeping at night. Yet, Celliers himself does not respond to Yonoi’s fixation. Being a natural leader, he instigates a number of rebellious activities inside the camp, which greatly anger the Japanese. It turns out that both men suffer from personal trauma. Yonoi regrets not being able to participate in the 1936 coup d'etat in Tokyo, whereas Celliers cannot forgive himself that he allowed his younger brother to be bullied at school.

The plotline of the film is unfolding on these two linearities (Celliers-Yonoi; Lawrence-Hara) which run parallel to each other. Interestingly, Lawrence appears to be the unwilling confidant of the principal characters, hearing out their personal conflictions. As a result, I would argue that (instead of being a manifesto on homoerotics) the film is about the crisis of individuality. Captain Yonoi is incapable of thinking and acting for himself, whereas Celliers always steps into action because he wants to receive absolution for his past sins. The story’s culminating moment, when Yonoi is about to execute the spokesman of the POWs (Jack Thompson), but Celliers intervenes and kisses the captain on the cheeks, symbolizes the death of militarist Japan. Warmongering fanatics in charge of the Japanese Empire wanted to produce a whole generation of powerful and unbreakable patriots, but Yonoi as well as Celliers are, in fact, sensible men with strong wills, able to choose their own fate.

The complicated friendship between Lawrence and Hara cannot go unnoticed as well. However, it is not as pronounced and ambiguous as the Celliers-Yonoi one. Lawrence tries to maintain relatively healthy relations between the soldiers and the captors, but unfortunately things do get lost in translation (for instance, the case of a Dutch POW). Notice that Ruyichi Sakamoto’s memorable theme can he heard three times throughout the picture: 1) When Lawrence is escorted by Hara; 2) When Hara saves the lives of Lawrence and Celliers after the radio transmitter incident; 3) When Lawrence meets Hara (sentenced to death by the Allies) in 1946. Yonoi and Celliers may be prominently featured on the movie's poster, but the main theme belongs to Lawrence and Hara and serves to underline that both men are victims of unfortunate circumstances. Hara, albeit rough and unpredictable, did save Lawrence’s life, but the colonel is unable to return the favour. Lawrence comments on Hara’s situation in the following manner: “You are the victim of men who think they are right... Just as one day you and Captain Yonoi believed absolutely that you were right. And the truth is of course that nobody is right…”

Consequently, Clipton and Lawrence emphasise with their concluding expressions the futility of war. People had made a hell on earth for themselves in the name of abstract ideals. The only end result is the crisis of their individualities, regardless of whether they are from the West or the East. Nevertheless, this crisis can be amended by mutual understanding, or even friendship.

«Enjoyed this post? Never miss out on future posts by following us»