Because Alec Guiness's character is basically a traitor. When you're captured by the enemy, you don't help them. You do everything in your power to impede and hinder their efforts. He puts the morale of his own troops above the strategic importance of the bridge and the benefit it will be to the Japanese. Not only that, but he actively tries to make the bridge better in order to show the superiority of British engineering and British troops.
Not only that, when the Americans try to destroy the bridge, Guiness's character actively tries to stop them. I don't know if it's Stockholm Syndrome or what, but it's not until the very end of the movie that he comes to his senses. The question of whether he would have destroyed his own bridge is left ambiguous as he's hit by a mortar and his body falls on the detonator plunger, setting off the explosives and destroying the bridge.
Alec Guiness does an amazing job portraying a character that I just completely hate.
The Bridge On the River Kwai raises a good philosophical question regarding captured soldiers. Do they try to do anything they can in order to survive, even if it means helping the enemy? Or instead, do they do everything in their power to impede the enemy, even if it could mean the loss of their own lives.
Maybe it's an overly romantic and naive ideal, but no matter what the reason, you should never aid the enemy.
Dude, you have a real messed up view of what went down in the construction of the Burma Railway. I've seen pictures of my grandfather when he had just come back - seriously, apart from the tan, you'd think it was a picture of someone from Auschwitz or Dachau. Murder, mass killings and executions, torture, starvation, forced death marches, and cannibalism were all common. Chemical and biological weapon testing, human experimentation that would make even Mengele ill, they were also not uncommon.
You worked. You worked, or, if you were very, very lucky, you died.
Even so - it was common for men to do whatever little things they could to sabotage the railway, but it often wasn't much. The Japanese were, along with being monstrously cruel and inhumane, also fastidious, precise, and had the line regularly checked by Japanese engineers. Faults or sabotage being found meant death, and not a quick one.
Bridge over the River Kwai is a good movie. But it's not an accurate movie, because an accurate movie would make Hostel look like Pee-Wee's Playhouse.
Dude, you have a real messed up view of what went down in the construction of the Burma Railway. I've seen pictures of my grandfather when he had just come back - seriously, apart from the tan, you'd think it was a picture of someone from Auschwitz or Dachau. Murder, mass killings and executions, torture, starvation, forced death marches, and cannibalism were all common. Chemical and biological weapon testing, human experimentation that would make even Mengele ill, they were also not uncommon.
You worked. You worked, or, if you were very, very lucky, you died.
Even so - it was common for men to do whatever little things they could to sabotage the railway, but it often wasn't much. The Japanese were, along with being monstrously cruel and inhumane, also fastidious, precise, and had the line regularly checked by Japanese engineers. Faults or sabotage being found meant death, and not a quick one.
Bridge over the River Kwai is a good movie. But it's not an accurate movie, because an accurate movie would make Hostel look like Pee-Wee's Playhouse.
What happened during the construction of the Burma Railway has nothing to do with the Bridge on the River Kwai other than as a historical starting point for the movie.
In the movie, Alec Guiness's character takes pride in the fact that he and his troops are doing a better job than the Japanese. He thinks the Japanese construction is so bad that they actually switch locations for where the bridge should be built.
What happened during the actual construction of the Burma Railway has nothing to do with my views on the fictional movie and the character Guiness portrays. In the movie, the British troops don't suffer any of the things you listed and don't try to sabotage the railway. In fact, like I wrote earlier, Guiness's character actually tries to stop the destruction of the bridge until he has a last minute revelation as to what he was doing... right before he dies.
The events portrayed in the movie couldn't be farther from the truth of what actually happened during the construction of the Burma Railway. To even bring it up has almost nothing to do with the movie.
The events portrayed in the movie couldn't be farther from the truth of what actually happened during the construction of the Burma Railway. To even bring it up has almost nothing to do with the movie.
The Bridge On the River Kwai raises a good philosophical question regarding captured soldiers. Do they try to do anything they can in order to survive, even if it means helping the enemy? Or instead, do they do everything in their power to impede the enemy, even if it could mean the loss of their own lives.
The events portrayed in the movie couldn't be farther from the truth of what actually happened during the construction of the Burma Railway. To even bring it up has almost nothing to do with the movie.
The Bridge On the River Kwai raises a good philosophical question regarding captured soldiers. Do they try to do anything they can in order to survive, even if it means helping the enemy? Or instead, do they do everything in their power to impede the enemy, even if it could mean the loss of their own lives.
You're the one that bought it up, ya dingus.
I brought it up as an abstract philosophical question in relation to the events portrayed in the movie, not specifically regarding the Burma Railway. Nowhere in my original post did I mention the Burma Railway at all. You were the one who first mentioned it.
Can anyone really be expected to make a choice between a strategic advantage that they might not think of, and the torture and death they see around them every day?
In fact, can anyone really be said to have free will to make that choice at all?
Also, actually, I'll point out really quick that PoWs aren't supposed to do "everything in their power" to impede the enemy war effort. The only obligation that PoWs have from their own military is to escape, if it is possible, and to maintain the chain of command. You generally don't want to make being your side's PoWs more inconvenient than it has to be because your nation generally would prefer if the enemy was still okay with taking prisoners!
Now, prisoners aren't supposed to be employed in war work; you're allowed to make PoWs perform labour, but it has to be outside of war industry. Canada and the US employed German PoWs as farmhands, for example, and some prisoners in England stitched clothing. However, PoWs are not under any obligation to put up violent resistance against their captors because they are non-combatants after they are taken prisoner. The same rules that are supposed to protect them are conditional that they have ceased not just hostilities, but resistance. It's why you can shoot retreating foes or escaping prisoners, but not men with their hands in the air, men you have disarmed, or wounded soldiers incapable of fighting back.
All a bit moot on the Pacific front, save that a commander looking out for the well-being of his men in a prison camp is actually his job as a PoW. The military and international law specifically task captured officers with ensuring their men get fair treatment!
Also, actually, I'll point out really quick that PoWs aren't supposed to do "everything in their power" to impede the enemy war effort. The only obligation that PoWs have from their own military is to escape, if it is possible, and to maintain the chain of command. You generally don't want to make being your side's PoWs more inconvenient than it has to be because your nation generally would prefer if the enemy was still okay with taking prisoners!
Now, prisoners aren't supposed to be employed in war work; you're allowed to make PoWs perform labour, but it has to be outside of war industry. Canada and the US employed German PoWs as farmhands, for example, and some prisoners in England stitched clothing. However, PoWs are not under any obligation to put up violent resistance against their captors because they are non-combatants after they are taken prisoner. The same rules that are supposed to protect them are conditional that they have ceased not just hostilities, but resistance. It's why you can shoot retreating foes or escaping prisoners, but not men with their hands in the air, men you have disarmed, or wounded soldiers incapable of fighting back.
All a bit moot on the Pacific front, save that a commander looking out for the well-being of his men in a prison camp is actually his job as a PoW. The military and international law specifically task captured officers with ensuring their men get fair treatment!
Thank you for the clarification. Even if the only obligation that PoWs have is to escape, and even if captured officers are tasked with ensuring that their men get fair treatment, in my opinion, that still doesn't absolve Alec Guiness's character from basically aiding and abetting the enemy buy not only helping them build their bridge, but also improving it, AND trying to prevent American troops from destroying it.
Because of that, I hate his character, which is why I don't like Bridge On the River Kwai, even though I acknowledge it's a classic movie.
Did you ever think that maybe his character was meant to cause those feelings.
Of course his character was meant to cause those feelings.
That's why I keep saying that the movie is a classic, and Guiness is one of the best actors of all time. I acknowledge that the movie is great. I am not criticizing it in anyway or saying that his portrayal was bad. I am able to separate my personal feelings for the movie from its overall quality. For me though, I do not enjoy it.
I didn't enjoy the movie because the main character, not just one character, was someone I didn't like.
Why are you attacking me about my personal opinion? Why do you care that I don't like the movie?
As I keep saying again and again... and again, I acknowledge that the movie is a classic. Why are you confusing my dislike of the movie with me criticizing it?
I'm done responding to you. Either you genuinely don't understand how someone could not like something while still acknowledging that it's still good and one of the best movies of all time or you're a troll.
I didn't enjoy the movie because the main character, not just one character, was someone I didn't like.
Why are you attacking me about my personal opinion? Why do you care that I don't like the movie?
As I keep saying again and again... and again, I acknowledge that the movie is a classic. Why are you confusing my dislike of the movie with me criticizing it?
I'm done responding to you. Either you genuinely don't understand how someone could not like something while still acknowledging that it's still good and one of the best movies of all time or you're a troll.
Ok dude calm down. I was just asking because I wanted to know that was all, wasn't an attack or anything like that. I didn't understand why the dislike of one character, you can argue main but I'd go with a couple of strong character rather than one main, made you dislike a film. I just felt it was unfair to write it off for one character.
Comments
The first decent fan trailer for the new movie.
Not only that, when the Americans try to destroy the bridge, Guiness's character actively tries to stop them. I don't know if it's Stockholm Syndrome or what, but it's not until the very end of the movie that he comes to his senses. The question of whether he would have destroyed his own bridge is left ambiguous as he's hit by a mortar and his body falls on the detonator plunger, setting off the explosives and destroying the bridge.
Alec Guiness does an amazing job portraying a character that I just completely hate.
The Bridge On the River Kwai raises a good philosophical question regarding captured soldiers. Do they try to do anything they can in order to survive, even if it means helping the enemy? Or instead, do they do everything in their power to impede the enemy, even if it could mean the loss of their own lives.
Maybe it's an overly romantic and naive ideal, but no matter what the reason, you should never aid the enemy.
You worked. You worked, or, if you were very, very lucky, you died.
Even so - it was common for men to do whatever little things they could to sabotage the railway, but it often wasn't much. The Japanese were, along with being monstrously cruel and inhumane, also fastidious, precise, and had the line regularly checked by Japanese engineers. Faults or sabotage being found meant death, and not a quick one.
Bridge over the River Kwai is a good movie. But it's not an accurate movie, because an accurate movie would make Hostel look like Pee-Wee's Playhouse.
In the movie, Alec Guiness's character takes pride in the fact that he and his troops are doing a better job than the Japanese. He thinks the Japanese construction is so bad that they actually switch locations for where the bridge should be built.
What happened during the actual construction of the Burma Railway has nothing to do with my views on the fictional movie and the character Guiness portrays. In the movie, the British troops don't suffer any of the things you listed and don't try to sabotage the railway. In fact, like I wrote earlier, Guiness's character actually tries to stop the destruction of the bridge until he has a last minute revelation as to what he was doing... right before he dies.
The events portrayed in the movie couldn't be farther from the truth of what actually happened during the construction of the Burma Railway. To even bring it up has almost nothing to do with the movie.
In fact, can anyone really be said to have free will to make that choice at all?
Now, prisoners aren't supposed to be employed in war work; you're allowed to make PoWs perform labour, but it has to be outside of war industry. Canada and the US employed German PoWs as farmhands, for example, and some prisoners in England stitched clothing. However, PoWs are not under any obligation to put up violent resistance against their captors because they are non-combatants after they are taken prisoner. The same rules that are supposed to protect them are conditional that they have ceased not just hostilities, but resistance. It's why you can shoot retreating foes or escaping prisoners, but not men with their hands in the air, men you have disarmed, or wounded soldiers incapable of fighting back.
All a bit moot on the Pacific front, save that a commander looking out for the well-being of his men in a prison camp is actually his job as a PoW. The military and international law specifically task captured officers with ensuring their men get fair treatment!
Because of that, I hate his character, which is why I don't like Bridge On the River Kwai, even though I acknowledge it's a classic movie.
That's why I keep saying that the movie is a classic, and Guiness is one of the best actors of all time. I acknowledge that the movie is great. I am not criticizing it in anyway or saying that his portrayal was bad. I am able to separate my personal feelings for the movie from its overall quality. For me though, I do not enjoy it.
Why are you attacking me about my personal opinion? Why do you care that I don't like the movie?
As I keep saying again and again... and again, I acknowledge that the movie is a classic. Why are you confusing my dislike of the movie with me criticizing it?
I'm done responding to you. Either you genuinely don't understand how someone could not like something while still acknowledging that it's still good and one of the best movies of all time or you're a troll.
I mean its not Great Escape or anything. I only just noticed this, don't start this one Churbs its a rabbit hole we can't go down.
Art imitating life