@CheekyMonkey said:

Could not be made today, not because of the locations, acting or anything like that, but because today’s script writers are not able to process the ideas in this film.

Duty to your men, to your leader, purpose and living in resistance to self annihilation.

Worth revisiting. Quality film

Sorry to be jerky to you, but you come off like you cannot process the idea of correct grammar. Your wording is somewhat unclear. I did like the film a little, although I'm in no hurry to rewatch it.

@mechajutaro said:

@CheekyMonkey said:

Could not be made today, not because of the locations, acting or anything like that, but because today’s script writers are not able to process the ideas in this film.

Duty to your men, to your leader, purpose and living in resistance to self annihilation.

Worth revisiting. Quality film

You probably could remake this today, under the condition that the white British POWs spend most of the movie reminding the audience that we need to be more understanding of the maltreatment dealt out by The Japanese captors, who are inevitably maligning unarmed and vulnerable human beings. European colonialism is an irredeemable evil. When non-whites pull s-it like this though, they're not responsible; they're simply imitating what they learned from The White Man. In the same way that we don't need to take the kids away from the dope fiend down the road who flogs them with an extension cord, for spilling a glass of water on the floor. That dope fiend can't help what they're doing; his or her own mummy or daddy did bad things to him or her, and it's unconscionable for us to held DF to a high standard of behavior

I don't know what bubble you live in that you can think people excuse Japanese military activity in the 1920s to 1940s. Behaviour that many in Korea and China still loathe them for (much as China loathed European colonial activity prior to the Japanese arrival, like subjugating the Chinese by force to ensure they continued purchasing heroin).

Can you give examples of films that are too sympathetic to Japanese military aggression?

Can you give examples of films that you consider unduly harsh on European colonialism?

If not, could you perhaps consider your remarks a bit more thoroughly before posting? Although in fairness it made a change of pace from a juvenile observation about a female cast member.

@CelluloidFan said:

@CheekyMonkey said:

Could not be made today, not because of the locations, acting or anything like that, but because today’s script writers are not able to process the ideas in this film.

Duty to your men, to your leader, purpose and living in resistance to self annihilation.

Worth revisiting. Quality film

Sorry to be jerky to you, but you come off like you cannot process the idea of correct grammar. Your wording is somewhat unclear. I did like the film a little, although I'm in no hurry to rewatch it.

The first sentence is a compound sentence, with nested sentence fragments. I don't know what the English grammar terms are for that, but it is correct. It is simply not used often today, because people are not able to hold complex sentences in their minds easily. David Foster Wallace is known for constructing his sentences in this manner, often spanning half a page.

My second sentence was simply a list of the ideas I had referred to in the first. These ideas are so outside of the conception of current film writers that I cannot see them even attempt addressing them in a movie.

In fact, I think @mechajutaro 's ironic post brings up an interesting point. Even if they were told to address these ideas in film, they would need to reinterpret the entire context of the movie, thus defeating the main point of having these ideas in the movie in the first place.

You cannot take control of your destiny and find purpose in your own duty and in your own performance, when you see it as simply a punishment of an oppressor. You cannot transcend your POW status, by building something that will likely outlast your own life as a legacy to your group's efforts if you have a slave morality. It is their perspective and their effort that transforms what the bridge means to them, that transforms them from being mere POWs.

You don't find joy in the companionship of local women, if you don't find the joy in your own adventure.

The only thing that comes close to this movie from he contemporary era is Silence by Martin Scorsese from maybe a decade ago. It's a movie about a Christian missionary who goes to Japan and is met wit hostility by the authorities there who do not want this invading ideology to take hold in their territory and among their people. The themes of that movie are very different, but one thing that is shared is what @mechajutaro pointed to, the unapologetic portrayal of the reality of people at that time, without putting a contemporary explanation onto it.

@CheekyMonkey said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@CheekyMonkey said:

Could not be made today, not because of the locations, acting or anything like that, but because today’s script writers are not able to process the ideas in this film.

Duty to your men, to your leader, purpose and living in resistance to self annihilation.

Worth revisiting. Quality film

Sorry to be jerky to you, but you come off like you cannot process the idea of correct grammar. Your wording is somewhat unclear. I did like the film a little, although I'm in no hurry to rewatch it.

The first sentence is a compound sentence, with nested sentence fragments. I don't know what the English grammar terms are for that, but it is correct. It is simply not used often today, because people are not able to hold complex sentences in their minds easily. David Foster Wallace is known for constructing his sentences in this manner, often spanning half a page.

My second sentence was simply a list of the ideas I had referred to in the first. These ideas are so outside of the conception of current film writers that I cannot see them even attempt addressing them in a movie.

In fact, I think @mechajutaro 's ironic post brings up an interesting point. Even if they were told to address these ideas in film, they would need to reinterpret the entire context of the movie, thus defeating the main point of having these ideas in the movie in the first place.

You cannot take control of your destiny and find purpose in your own duty and in your own performance, when you see it as simply a punishment of an oppressor. You cannot transcend your POW status, by building something that will likely outlast your own life as a legacy to your group's efforts if you have a slave morality. It is their perspective and their effort that transforms what the bridge means to them, that transforms them from being mere POWs.

You don't find joy in the companionship of local women, if you don't find the joy in your own adventure.

The only thing that comes close to this movie from he contemporary era is Silence by Martin Scorsese from maybe a decade ago. It's a movie about a Christian missionary who goes to Japan and is met wit hostility by the authorities there who do not want this invading ideology to take hold in their territory and among their people. The themes of that movie are very different, but one thing that is shared is what @mechajutaro pointed to, the unapologetic portrayal of the reality of people at that time, without putting a contemporary explanation onto it.

Ah, it's an internet message board. One can expect there to be grammatical and spelling oversights and errors, and they should be forgiven. You couldn't defend your word choice with grammatical terms, but at any rate, I believe you. Now, on to my real issue.

I am an aspiring screenwriter, and I easily grasp the ideas in the film, inc. the ones you mentioned. Your tone in your original post is lofty and your message condescending, even borderline insulting to people like me. Thanks a lot for that. I anticipate that I will become a professional screenwriter, and I don't appreciate the shade from you.

Nothing is set in stone. Especially the future. I'm commenting on the way things are, not how they could become. Good luck with your writing.

Thanks, Cheeky.

@CheekyMonkey said:

Nothing is set in stone. Especially the future. I'm commenting on the way things are, not how they could become. Good luck with your writing.

BTW, I get what you mean that I'm not a pro scriptwriter yet, sure. What eludes me is how you can perfectly assess what the mental abilities of every professional screenwriter who's capable of writing a script (I'd assume for Hollywood?) are. You must be very intelligent and have godlike judgment.

@CelluloidFan said:

@CheekyMonkey said:

Nothing is set in stone. Especially the future. I'm commenting on the way things are, not how they could become. Good luck with your writing.

BTW, I get what you mean that I'm not a pro scriptwriter yet, sure. What eludes me is how you can perfectly assess what the mental abilities of every professional screenwriter who's capable of writing a script (I'd assume for Hollywood?) are. You must be very intelligent and have godlike judgment.

No, I mean that the current state of scriptwriting is unable to deal with the themes of this movie, evidenced by the lack of these themes being addressed in movies and in the wider culture at all. This is how things are, they could be changed in the future if scriptwriters with the depth of lived experience or appreciation of these themes get involved.

It wasn't meant as a slight at you.

OK.