Let's look at it from a consequentialist point of view. If Nixon followed the usual practice of other militaries and planned an escape or slack off, then it is conceivable that this prisoner unit would have died out under the torment of the Japanese army.
However, according to Nixon's approach, it turned out to be another result. The two armies were completely out of the enemy's state. The British army and the victorious Japanese army as prisoners worked together for the same purpose. The prisoners of war were no longer abused, injured and sickened. He was well looked after and volunteered to work even when he was sick.
The two groups of enemy teams became one group.
It can be said that for this unit, Nixon has no faults.
But what he thought, what he did, would be the pride of the British people, was bullshit. It's more or less a joke. He helped the enemy build a bridge, built a good bridge, and took the initiative to build a good bridge.
It can only be said that Nixon was too immersed in his own logic, and in the end he became obsessed with himself.
He should think about the bullshit logic of the British army helping the Japanese army build bridges to attack the British army.
The glory he considered himself was more like an Ah Q spirit, a life-saving straw for the world of thought, and an emperor's new clothes.
Until the end, he was superstitious that his bridge was his spiritual pillar, but he forgot his true mission as a British soldier and became a spiritual prisoner in the true sense.
During World War II, the Battle of Market Garden is a good example. British commanders competed for the command of the war and planned the Battle of Market Garden. On the contrary, because of the stubbornness and lack of flexibility of the British side in the war, the Allied forces were almost implicated in the next step. The attack ended in disastrous defeat.
This may be a common problem of ancient empires. The more it goes into decline, the less able it is to wake up. Instead, it grabs some rotten and festering things, such as many treasures.
The Brits believed in their principles, the Ottoman Orphans believed in fundamentalism.
As for China, this reminds me of Gu Hongming, whose integrity is admired by foreigners. But, isn't he like Colonel Nixon in the film, the nation is declining, but he refuses to bow to the powers. He spends his life praising the greatness of Chinese culture to the powers, but he never reflects on himself. If our culture is great, why? Is our nation lost?
From a certain perspective, it is a good thing to have principles, and to have faith can also make people kind. It is not wrong that a great culture has existed. But that's not the crux of all problems, the crux of all problems is ourselves, how we adhere to our principles, how we believe, how we spread our culture.
It is our nature that has changed. If we are pedantic, greedy, lazy, selfish, no matter how correct principles, no matter how lofty beliefs, no matter how great our culture, it will all be in vain.
To quote Sears as an epilogue,
This is just a game, this war.
You and that Colonel Nicholson. You're crazy with courage. For what?
How to die like a gentleman, how to die by the rules, when the only important thing is how to live like a human being!
View more about The Bridge on the River Kwai reviews
