Talk:The Bridge on the River Kwai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commander[edit]

Putting up a poster pic of that jackass Holden instead of Guinness is really cruel. It's US chauvinism all over again. And that part of the story is apocryphal! Bogart said Holden was the supreme jerk; this seems to be a trait shared by many of his countrymen
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.187.66 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [no signature]— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2010

As for William Holden being a "supreme jerk" -- this is hard to believe of a man who was respected for his professionalism, was not a part of the Hollywood in-crowd, and who was married to the same woman for 54 years. I would not consider Humphrey Bogart a jerk, either. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   Gosh, how long does it take for someone to chime in re Guinness's JQ? Inquiring Minds Want to Know!
--Jerzy•t 07:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

["Commander", still, but refactored w/ new sub-thread whose context is the character's sub-plot][edit]

I freely admit that cleaning up talk pages is pretty much a sign of terminal OCD, but i make it part of my work here, in the belief that it's good for the project that someone does so, since it can help for someone (who, if you will, "comes by it naturally") to have gone back and tried to sort out semi-coherent discussions into what others may eventually use to understand more detail than fits into a summary.
--Jerzy•t 07:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an inaccuracy in the entry: "Shears refuses, but then Warden drops a bombshell: the real Commander Shears was killed some years back". Actually if I recall the movie it is Shears that first admits his ruse to Warden (though Warden already knew). Shears first reveals how he took the real Commanders identity intitially in order to secrure better treatment for himself as a POW. He tells Warden the truth in hopes that it will him [Shear] from being recruited for the mission and having to go back going back.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.135.125 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2007‎

Correct. I just watched the film. "Shears" is the first to reveal he isn't an officer.
--Our colleague WilliamSommerwerck's 13:11, 24 November 2010 contrib has been broken in two by me, leaving his own contemporaneous sig after the part of his (originally contiguous) contrib that he placed it after.--Jerzy•t 07:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kwai March[edit]

The web page says the march is sometimes called the River Kwai March.

I thought there was a River Kwai March, which is the march with a new counter melody added, ie the two aren't the same thing.

--

As I've since found out - they AREN'T the same thing. The march in the film is an arrangement of Colonel Bogey written by Sir Malcolm Sargeant, and does indeed have a new counter-melody.

--

The Wikipedia article on the Conel Bogey March says the following:

Arnold also wrote a march of his own for use in this movie, which is called "The River Kwai March". This piece has nothing to do with the Rickett/Alford march, but, due to the fame of the film, many people now incorrectly refer to the "Colonel Bogey March" as "The River Kwai March".

--

Listen very carefully to the bird song during the introductory jungle footage and you will hear snatches of the famous march in the chirruping. No I'm not imagining it. A clever feat of sound montage by the engineers. But surely I'm not the first to notice this?



Btwied 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azon?[edit]

The "Historical accuracy" section says that the bridge was destroyed with an AZON bomb, but the "AZON" article disagrees, indicating that it was destroyed with four conventional bombs by an AZON team. Which is correct?

What was the river's name?[edit]

The river is called "Mae" in the beginning of the article, but is referred to as "Kwae" in the Death Railroad article which links to this article. Which one is correct?

The article says that the bridge is on the Mae Klong and not the Kwai, since the name of river changes at the confluence of the Kwai Noi and the Kwai Yai. But this map shows that the bridge is upstream from the confluence, and thus that the "River Kwai" location is correct. Adam 10:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bridges were built over what was then called the Mae Klong, upstream of the confluence with the Kwai Noi. This part of the Mae Klong was renamed the Kwai Yai river in 1960. Below the confluence the combined river is still called the Mae Klong. JMcC 15:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that

I have read that the 1960 name change came about as a result of tourists requesting - after seeing the movie, no doubt - to see the "Bridge on the River Kwai". Never underestimate Thai business acumen. Johnmc 07:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV?[edit]

On the other hand, taking into account the past and present day situation of many who ignore the Geneva conventions[...]

Isn't the paragraph that starts with the sentence quoted above opinative rather than descriptive? It feels out of place in the body of this article, independent of the fact that we may agree with it.--81.42.165.32 00:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The film added David Lean's jaundiced view of the Army...

The use of the adjective jaundiced is not appropriate, I think.

Final Words[edit]

What's with the 'final words' at the bottom of the article? Is this accurate? I doubt it.

If you mean the 'Last Line', I've no idea what that's meant to be about. I deleted it as apparent vandalism. Mark Grant 23:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the movie?[edit]

First I'd like to say that I think the Japanese army in the movie is depicted in a convincing way. What is more, Major Saito / Nicholson are shown to be very similar, they're sometimes both near insanity- thats the best theme in the movie. I quite liked the movie! But on the other hand... The movie is clearly on the side of the British army.

1) The Japanese army is shown as to be completely incapable of designing/constructing a bridge. By contrast, in reality they were very good at it and the allies underestimated their capabilities to a great extent. The idea of bringing "civilized techniqes" to the asian "japs" is a main theme of the movie and is not questioned at all. That is pure racism.

my english is poor, but i know mankind, see here, buddy, they were ordered to build a bridge fast (just as british commandos explain it when they see the bridge, 'fast technique' differs from the one they see) it was ment not to last for 9000+ years but to last for several trains to pass-on. t'is highly possible, for, you see, when jap (or nig, or whitearse, or any other, no matter) officer is ordered to build some stuff fast, it seldom plans to build monumental gargantuan golden-gate. no. one simply try's to cover his arse, so to say, to avoid punishment and dishonour. 89.169.158.169 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Furthermore, one central topic of the movie is the moral victory of the British battalion over the Japanese guards. Apart from that this seems to be a little bit unrealistic, it is very simple-minded. The moral victory lacks any ambiguity and just appeals to prejudices of moral superiority of the West over Asia.

--Jajaklar82 16:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read several accounts of the Thai-Burma railway, and I don't think I've ever heard The Bridge on the River Kwai being referred to in a favourable light. I do recall reading that majority of Japanese criticism concerns the portrayal of Japanese engineers as being incompetent, which ties in with your first point. It's probably why I've never actually seen the movie, and am not really inclined to, as I'm more interested in actual - rather than dramatized - accounts of the railway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmc (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think the Japanese portrayed here have any right to complain over this film. In the movie they were incompetent engineers, in reality they were brutal and unfeeling men who worked, starved and beat Prisoners of War to death with no sense of humanity or morality. This film certainly glosses over reality. But to say it is racist against the slave-drivers is frankly insulting.
I don't believe BOTRK is racist -- but I do believe it's simple minded. It's the old story. The White man knows how to build bridges, and the Japanese don't. It's condescending and patronizing -- especially since there's no historical basis for believing that the Japanese were anything other than competent engineers or depended upon British engineers to help them. How many movies, books, etc. have we seen or read where the white man demonstrates the superiority of Western civilization. It's a tired cliche -- not entirely false, but tired. Smallchief (talk 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which the film isn't on the side of the British army, it is anti-war. It shows the futility and madness of war. The Japanese guards and the British prisoners worked together to create a bridge. Then commandos come along and blow it up, thereby meaning that three months of back-breaking labour was in vain.--EchetusXe 21:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Blu-ray supplements, the Japanese generally built not-very-sturdy bridges, as they were working quickly. However, it seems highly unlikely they'd have been foolish enough to lay the pilings in soft soil without a proper foundation, thus breaking the fundamental rule of bridge-building. As for the film's themes... Though it's obviously anti-war, Bridge is more like Dr. Strangelove in being an attack on human stupidity. The story is ultimately a study of what happens when two antagonists feel obliged to stand by principles they unquestioningly accept. Bridge is one of those very rare films that encourages discussions of ethics and morality. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the allegations of racism. The movie shows only the Japanese on the site as incapable and never implies to my recollection that the Japanese as a whole could not have done it. There are incompetents in every country and every ethnic group. Merely identifying one person as being incompetent could not be construed by a rational person to mean that everyone of that type is incompetent. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The movie shows only the Japanese on the site as incapable and never implies to my recollection that the Japanese as a whole could not have done it. It's a great film. However, it also spreads the image of civilised and superior western culture.
The Japanese are disorganised: The Japanese Colonel is incapable of distributing POWs where they are needed. In fact they are working against each other and the Japanese don't even realise that while Major Hughes can see it at a glance: "Well, sir, not the way they're doing it. It's utter chaos, as you can see at a glance. It's a lot of uncoordinated activity; no teamwork. Some of those parties are actually working against each other."
The Japanese engineer (!) is incapable of building a bridge. He doesn't even have the slightest idea of some of the basics, e. g. solid ground or distance. This is not just incompetence. I just quote Major Warden: "I can't understand it. It's such a solid, well-designed job. Not like the temporary bridges the enemy usually throws together." Mind the wording: The enemy (not this particular troop!) doesn't build but "throws" a bridge together. The whole enterprise is a British construction. The Japanese seem to have no clue what the British engineers are talking about when they meet to talk the construction over. The British have the command while the Japanese Colonel just says "I have already given the order." So no wonder that the British colonel discovers that "the bridge has been mined". The Japanese Colonel just asks: "What?" So one really wonders how the Japanese even get a train running at the end of the film.--92.214.134.77 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:194ER57.jpg[edit]

Image:194ER57.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated rationale added to image article.Johnmc (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When and what censored?[edit]

I note from recently watching the film that one word is (fairly clumsily) censored, being replaced by a splash (Sir Alec Guinness is speaking in a scene where the British officers are being punted across the river under the bridge). Presumably the removed word was some kind of racial slur. Was this done in post-production, or is it a later change for more recent censorship requirements? Grutness...wha? 00:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary is not "too detailed".[edit]

This is a film with an incredibly intricate plot, rivalling even the Star Wars films. A plot summary can't do it justice without taking up over a screen of text. Besides, it came in handy for me because at the end of the film I got the characters mixed up and who was who eluded me.76.75.118.234 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. How do we get rid of that tag — just dump it? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight change in title from book -- Why?[edit]

Does anyone know why the book title "bridge over the river" was changed for the film to "bridge on the river"? Hcunn (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On" is the common English-language usage. "Over" sounds clumsy. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum P.I.[edit]

The movie version of this history is treated as factual through the character of Higgins in Magnum P.I.. Higgins spends time in early episodes building a model of the bridge in the movie and recounting tales of being a POW forced to work on the bridge. It's also played for comedy as several time Higgins' bridge model gets smashed. In later episodes the finished model is seen in Higgins' study/office. It could also be that Higgins is lying about it all and Magnum either doesn't know the real history or is just letting him get away with it. 66.232.94.33 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diegesis versus mimesis[edit]

I'm trying to figure out why the writer says the Kwai soundtrack is "diegetic". A motion picture is inherently mimetic -- unless we're seeing the story through one character's point of view (Amadeus), or there's narration (Sunset Blvd.). The relation of background music to this is unclear. Indeed, I'm not sure how one can draw a distinction between diegetic and mimetic music.

Bernard Herrmann said that music should make an emotional connection with the audience between what is happening on the screen and what the audience is experiencing (as opposed to simply Mickey Mousing the actions). I suppose the latter is diegetic (in almost the literal sense), but is the former mimetic? I can't figure it out.

In my Amazon review of Brokeback Mountain, I remark that Gustavo Santaolalla's score is probably the only score to win an Oscar for its non-existence. It's mostly "atmosphere", and hardly ever makes any comment on the emotions of the story. Well, Malcolm Arnold's Oscar-winning score for Bridge is similar, mostly atmosphere -- but on occasions when Nicholson is making decisions and giving orders, the score seems to be saying "This guy is nuts". This is unquestionably "diegetic" music, while the "atmospheric" music is probably mimetic.

Regardless, this section of the article needs rethinking, followed by removal or clarification. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel?[edit]

The opening of this article refers to 'Return to the River Kwai' as a sequel to the movie, but the article for 'Return to the River Kwai' quite clearly states that it is not to be considered a sequel to 'Bridge on the River Kwai'. Carnydog (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Madness, madness!"[edit]

(double post)

"Madness, madness!"[edit]

The plot section says: "As he witnesses the carnage, Clipton shakes his head uttering: "Madness!... Madness!"

Reading that sentence, it's not clear whether the combat is still underway, or over. I initially took it to mean the former. However, I just watched the end of the film on Australian free to air TV. When Clipton makes that statement, the bridge has exploded, the train has sunk, and the combat is completely over. Everyone is dead, has run off, or is in the process of leaving. The scene switches to debris floating down the river, then pans back, over some of the bodies, to Clipton. That is when he makes that statement.

Could we make it clearer that the combat is over when he makes that statement? Perhaps:

"The dazed colonel stumbles towards the detonator and falls on it as he dies, just in time to blow up the bridge and send the train hurtling into the river below. The combat is over. As he looks out over the resultant carnage, Clipton shakes his head uttering: "Madness!... Madness!" [changes bolded] 203.122.223.123 (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) TC[reply]

Error in scanning section[edit]

"The Original Negative for the feature was scanned at 4k (roughly four times the amount of resolution in High Definition), and the color correction and digital restoration were also completed at 4k."

HD TV is 1920 x 1080, rows x columns, and we by convention we denote resolution by the number of rows. So 2,073,600 pixels in total.

In the film industry resolution refers to columns, either 2K or 4K (4096 × 2160). So 8,847,360 pixels in total.

But is it not true that resolution is how small something can be and still be resolved, not the number of pixels?

In other words, to double the resolution you need 4 times the pixels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

So 4K is actually only twice the resolution of regular 1080p. Four times the file size, but only twice the resolution. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Men and Dog Tags[edit]

Why does the Popular Culture section mention that the Jon Hamm character makes a reference to the film....but that section doesn't mention that the Jon Hamm character becomes "Don Drapper" by switching dog tags with a dead lieutenant--the same thing that William Holden did in the film? I don't feel strongly enough about this point to make a change myself, but I'm curious to see what the principal author thinks about that..... Bill Abendroth (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds of Coquis in the first couple of minutes[edit]

These Coquis are native to the Caribbean (Puerto Rico). There is also an introduced/invasive population in Hawaii. The sounds are waaay are of place for background nature sounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.240.134 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so what, sound editors those days as well as novadays takes the first handy stuff they has (i do 4ex.) - peuple swallow, t'is called 'art' u knows, movie is not a 'wild planet' of bbs ffs? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.169.158.169 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CAST[edit]

This article needs to list the Thai cast, as they are shown in the credits at the end of the film. The one male has a role of substance and quite a few lines as a kind of local guide for the commandos. The 4 women (presumably Thai) perform very well in their roles as 'female load-bearers' also along on the commando trek. It would be interesting to note how the Thais were recruited, since the filming was done in Ceylon. It would be interesting to note if any of these 5 had other notable film roles or continued as actors.Starhistory22 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lewis joke[edit]

The following edit “* In the Jerry Lewis comedy The Geisha Boy, Sessue Hayakawa lampoons his role in The Bridge on the River Kwai. His workers are building a small bridge in his garden that greatly resembles the one in that film and whistling the familiar Colonel Bogey March. When Lewis stares in wonder at Hayakawa and the bridge he is building in his backyard, Hayakawa acknowledges that others have mistaken him for "the actor" and then says, "I was building bridges long before he was." This is followed by a brief clip of Alec Guinness from the film.“ has been reverted several times, on the basis that it is unreferenced. I argue that I have put in links to the reference in question, and as to whether it should matter if it has a reference or not. The Jerry Lewis dig is also mentioned on the Sessue Hayakawa article, and there is no reference there. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.91 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is borderline gibberish. If it's your intention to sway your fellow editors, you need to be clearer in what you're saying. Second, nothing can be included on WP that is not referenced. If this information is included in the Sessue Hayakawa article without a reference, it should be removed. I will do so immediately. Please do not add this information again without a proper reference. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casting section copyright violation?[edit]

@Binksternet: On what do you base this claim (and deletion of the section)? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After noticing one very bad instance of copyright violation by 8000 Saiyan, I started going through the user's other large additions to articles, a process which revealed a lot more copyvio problems. 8000 Saiyan made this large section addition to the article, back in May. I started looking at the addition, and when I found the following copyvio, I removed the whole section, assuming more copyvio in the parts I did not investigate.
  • Original text from 1976's Charles Laughton: An Intimate Biography, page 200: "...and because of the somewhat warlike, militant nature of the story."
  • Text added by 8000 Saiyan: "...and the somewhat warlike, militant nature of the story."
I'm sure there's a way to salvage the section, but it will involve a complete divorce from the wording of the sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The fact that the film is highly propagandist should be mentioned. It is a relevant fact in a film which implies a recreation of factual events. If no other contributors chip in, I intend to make a change. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

Surely the fact that this was primarily a post-war propaganda film ought be specified in the lede. The notion of Japanese civil engineers attempting to construct a bridge "on mud" is clearly ridiculous, as is the idea that British POW officers and NCO's would have been recruited as replacement architects of the project due to Japanese incompetence. The Japanese were experienced bridge-builders with a knowledge of civils that certainly equalled, if not indeed surpassed that of their British counterparts. Given that the entire premise is not merely concocted, but further seeks to undermine Japanese capabilities, this surely places it squarely in the category of propaganda (retroactive or otherwise), and it ought be described as such. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Post-war", "retroactive" propaganda? Seems rather pointless and also major WP:OR. By your premise, any war comedy, e.g. Advance to the Rear, would count as propaganda too. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken,though this is hardly a comedy. Furthermore, it took partial fact (I have visited the bridge at Kanchaburi) and fused it to an entirely fantastical yarn based on nothing more than wishful thinking. The fact that the bridge (in fact, several) were constructed in Thailand during this period, and that thousands of allied personnel died on the Death Railways makes the manufacture of this nonsense almost offensive. However, I realise this is a subjective view and defer to the WP:OR issue. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

I believe it was MAJOR Reeves, not CAPTAIN Reeves... Wikimvn1 (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Propaganda and Mass Persuasion 1500 to Present' (Cull, Welch and Culbert) cites it as an obvious example of 1950's propaganda. 'Encyclopedia of Media and Propaganda in Wartime' (Manning, Wyatt 2010) cites it also as propaganda, together with From Here to Eternity. Cinematyler.com "It was written as British propaganda". filmavclub.com (a well regarded source) states "The movie stacks the deck in favour of its British characters - the Japanese had many skilled engineers who could have easily completed the titular bridge". Prezi.com "Released in 1957, this cold-war propaganda film portrayed the conditions of POW's under the Japanese". That took all of sixty seconds on Google. I'll entertain counter-arguments before making the change, but I'd like to avoid an edit war, so if there is a counter case, please make it clearly and quickly. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made response, but it's under 'Cast'. Not sure of reason for misdirection. Hanoi Road (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda Film[edit]

I understand the issue has been tackled in another thread, but the article should mention this. The film was clearly propaganda, and this is both historically and culturally relevant. If no other contributions are forthcoming, I propose a change to the lead statement which includes this fact. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not without a reliable source which states exactly that. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda Revisited.[edit]

A year or so ago, I altered the lede description to include the word 'propaganda' (with two reputable sources, including the Ebert site). The edit was arbitrarily (and anonymously) reverted, despite these sources. I propose that the film is essentially a propaganda outing (this is supported in the Controversy section) and that its description as such carries more relevance than 'drama', 'war film', whatever. If nobody objects, I'll make this change again. If there are any objections, let's hear them now (again, in light of quality sources having previously been ignored and the change reverted). Hanoi Road (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the appropriate diffs so that I can review the situation? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Henry. Not an expert on Diff retrieval, alas. Maybe you could trawl back and take a look? I made the initial change over a year ago. I was aware the issue was contentious and so provided cast-iron sources (three, I think). The change was reverted without comment by whomever. Smacks of proprietary attitudes. Not the point of Wiki, surely. Best I can do. Sorry. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Henry? In any event, the article has no Controversy section, nor does that word, or the word propaganda, even appear in the article. You're claiming you made an edit that was subsequently reverted, but when asked for diffs (and linked to how to information on how to provide them) your response is to ask me to essentially do your work for you (FWIW I did do some review of the article's history before I even asked). You may be right, you may not, but without diffs as evidence that your additions were reverted, I feel as though I have to assume that there's no evidence of such. Now, if you want to argue that the lead should be updated to include the term propaganda, I'm open to hearing your arguments, but I'd like to see the sources that you found. In particular, are they sources that are typically used for film genre classification purposes? Even Casablanca doesn't include the word propaganda in the lead, so I hope my concerns are understandable. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such edit, going back three years. Grandpallama (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

scene between Holden and a nurse on the beach.[edit]

doesn't the actress deserve mention in the cast, or at least in that paragraph? Gjxj (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If she only appears in that one scene then it's hardly a principal role. DonIago (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Sears is listed on some of the movie posters. The scene is notable just for the well known fact that it was inserted just to get a woman on the cast list. I'm not going to argue about it but it just seems strange to mention it at all then not include the actress' name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai&oldid=1194421562"