MovieChat Forums > The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) Discussion > Would enlisted British really have been ...

Would enlisted British really have been so delighted with the officers?

posted 8 years ago by hobartz
8 replies | jump to latest

Col. Nicholson's point that he refuses to waver from is that under the Geneva Code, officers are not to be forced to do manual labor. Apparently that's only for the ungentlemanly enlisted men.

So would the enlisted men really have been so exquisitely delighted that their officers succeeded in not having to work, instead that the enlisted men themselves had to do what would have been the officers' share of the labor?

Especially when the OIC is clearly enabling the Japanese by forcing more and more work out of the British enlisted men for construction of the bridge?

Seems far-fetched to me, but then I don't know the mindset of British troops in that timeframe.

[–] Kojiro_Vance 8 years ago

I understand perfectly what you're trying to say. And indeed, it sure sounds elitist.

But, maybe people were different back then ? 

I'm just on my way up to Clavius.

[–] underhill-dm 8 years ago

The issue in question was whether the troops would have to work under the supervision of their own officers as opposed to the supervision of the Japanese. Clearly Nicholson was a superior choice for them than Saito as far as a foreman goes, so I would say it's pretty realistic.

[–] hobartz 8 years ago

So, if I'm understanding you right, you're thinking the unbridled joy of the enlisted men when the Colonel wins is because now they get to take orders from him instead of from the Japanese. Perhaps so. I suppose taking orders from a swagger stick carrying British officer could be more palatable than taking them from a sadistic Japanese officer. But maybe their joy is "WE won" rather than the japs won?

[–] perfect_peony 8 years ago

And also, try to get that rule of the Geneva Convention applied, and maybe other rules would follow (?).

[–] gschwertley 8 years ago

Good question. The regiment involved was part of the British Territorial Army, reservists, not regulars who'd been serving together for years. But as citizens of Hertfordshire, they may have had many previous interpersonal relationships that would reinforce military comradeship.

Military conformity notwithstanding, different officers inspire their men in different ways. The historical accuracy of the movie isn't complete, but perhaps the "real" colonel, Toosey, may have merited such respect from his men.

The "class separation" between officers and men hasn't always worked the same way in different situations. In WW2, generally the "them against us" was viewed as the Axis enemies vs. the Allied prisoners. All things being equal, my impression is that American enlisted men would side with their own officers over Axis captors. On the other hand, that didn't always transpire with Vietnam POW's, where the officer/EM antagonism sometimes existed within the camps. Which was exploited by the North Vietnamese.

[–] standrkm 8 years ago

I think they'd have been proud because it's a small victory for them. You also don't want to see your superiors who are older men busting their backs. I mean you do, but to see them struggle isn't good for morale. But of course I'm talking about officers the men respect.

"how's a fella go about gettin' a holt of the police?" -Karl

[–] Rolltide (964) 3 years ago

I agree. It seems very elitist-British that this was some rallying point for the film. I could never get behind that.

Officers can work just like everybody else.

[–] Ranb (9777) 3 years ago

Nicholson was for the most part collaborating with the Japanese. I think his men would have killed him for it.

In real life the Japanese engineers were very capable of building a bridge. So this film was just as insulting to the Japanese as it was to the POW's