A Bridge Too Far - Directed by Richard Attenborough
released 1977
I recently picked up a DVD of this flawed masterpiece. I'd seen it a few times before, but didn't have a clear recollection of what I'd thought of it. Having spent much of the past 15 years studying World War II and the culture and politics of war in general, I am much better-prepared to say something about it than I ever was, before.
For the 1st hour or so, it seemed OK. Although there was some weak and confusing dialogue, the main point seemed to be the common humanity of the German forces and generals - a theme often seen in the NATO Cold-war environment, where the Germans are now our allies while the evil Communists (Soviets) pose all the threats and moral hazard.
The film is based on the Cornelius Ryan best-seller of the same name. I've known people who thought it one of the best military histories ever. I haven't read it, but the film merely said "based on" Ryan's book. I have little doubt that Ryan might have repudiated many aspects of the film - at least in its final form.
There is also evidence of internal strife between the screenwriter and director, with the producer having his own agenda of what he wanted the film to "say." Not that I know anything specific about this, but as I said, I can see evidence of it. There are also conflicts between British (and surely German) ideas of military humor, if any, and the Norman Mailer or Joseph Heller type of American WWII bitterness and sarcasm. Even though Jews might have been the biggest losers of WWII, in terms of percentage of population and horrors experienced, it doesn't seem to have deterred them from perpetuating similar racist, fascist behavior towards their own "occupyees".
But of course this doesn't define the Jewish character or anything else. It's simply a validation of the principle that victims of past discrimination and persecution are not in a mood to forgive and forget. Few Jews that I know are happy about WWII or the Zionist domination of their history and culture. And they're especially upset by Israel's rogue nuke capability, and the fact that 40% of their economy (GDP) is military-related. Israel (as well as Sweden) are giants in producing the means for small, poor countries to kill each other in large numbers.
Contrary to what most Americans think, we don't act "defensively" at all - in SW Asia or anywhere else. Instead, our stated mission in the world is much like the Nazis - being the only "Superpower" (the Uberland), and exerting "full spectrum dominance" (including economic and cultural) over every other country in the world - friend and enemy, alike. Like, hey, this is our show. The rest of you peons have to follow our lead, even though we have the worst schools, the worst health care, and the worst environmental policies in the world. Aren't we great?
THAT, of course, is exactly what I spend most of my time opposing or debunking, often at risk to self and others. Even though I was not a "peace activist" during the Vietnam War, I was by the time it ended, and I always loathed LBJ and the "military Keynesians" who thought that war and military spending were "good for the economy." By the mid-1970's, prevailing sentiments were very anti-war, although in Montana, we expressed our opposition to war by ordering new weapon systems. It was a huge fight by the few Enlightened Ones among us even to show up and tell the Air Force that we really didn't want any. We thought it was all a conspiracy by the Republican fascists and war profiteers. Well, they had an answer to that: the Blue Dogs. Now we had to fight them for control of the Democrat Party, or else leave and be Voices in the Wilderness. In Montana, that's not a difficult choice..
Unlike the present, where every Republican poseur thinks he has to act like Rambo or the Terminator, this was a very anti-war environment in the mid-1970's. There weren't any good guys who supported or pursued mindless wars over ideologies or territorial conquest. So, the original idea of the book - to dissect and clarify one of the Allies' worst tactical disasters in WWII - ended up serving a different purpose. Once again, the Poles were sold out; the Airborne forces were told to follow the tactics and spirit of Custer in a cavalry charge (or better, Thomas Meagher, Montana's Irish hero who lost more men than any other Brigade commander in the Civil War), and everyone acted like they were in Catch 22 instead of a serious historical event.
I also saw Brewster's Millions for the first time a couple of years ago. It was similar in tone to Bridge, and preceded it, so I guess they thought that kind of "military humor" would sell tickets, and it did. Still, I can't help but feel sorry for the veterans who had to watch A Bridge Too Far thinking they would see something like the book which was so highly regarded.
Of course, that's a perennial battle among film and literary audiences and critics. Some stories make better books than films, and vice versa. I suspect that even Attenborough and the serious side of this production threw up their hands at the scope and logistics of doing what they did, before CGI's. Yeh, they could cut and paste the raw film to make it look like there were lots more people or planes in a scene than there actually were, but they needed a few, and it all had to be realistic, like the glider takeoff's behind C-47 Dakotas. That was really a difficult "stunt" in this day and age, or even in 1977, for that matter, although there were still WWII vets able to fly and otherwise assist, so it wasn't like they had to reconstruct something no one remembered how to do (like, say, the mores of the Belle Epoche as portrayed in James Cameron's Titanic).
Funny I should think of Cameron, but he is today's master of the giant epic with social implications - in fact, he may go down as the greatest thus far in this sort of epic realism over global (or galactic) issues. (Montana Democrats: what part of Avatar didn't you understand? This is the Tar Sands, and Cameron is a leader in the opposition to it).
Does he match Lean at his best (say, Dr. Zhivago?). Again, it's a different era with somewhat different politics, but our common humanity is a big theme in all three. Great film-makers is something we have in abundance, but little support for their work unless it is full of sex and violence....
============
Postscript
It's not exactly on message, but I've been suffering from a minor crisis in my belief that there is a future for the United States and organizations like us - giant nation-states, de-humanized to the point of hardly having any human values or qualities at all. I've also begun to speculate, for the first time in my life, whether or not I'm not one of those early alien-abduction implants, genetically modified with alien DNA. Of course, if they tested mine, I'm sure they wouldn't find anything (except, maybe, that I wasn't the natural son of my acknowledged father, and thus not connected with the Stephens family heritage, rich and interesting as it is - and usually quite admirable).
Although this demotivated me a bit, and made me more cautious about proclaiming what I thought was my real family's views and traditions, it wasn't until I started reading some recent publications on UFO history, which started at Roswell when I was in utero, and continued in Montana and around our nuclear missile base to the extent that the Air Force quit keeping any records or testimony about it, and destroyed some of the crucial evidence which was presented to them. The Little Green Men are real, here in GF, and one of the greatest sitings ever of a UFO was at the very baseball stadium where the Voyagers play, today. So, there!
There's long been talk that the British Royal Family are also aliens - "reptilian," more or less in the manner of the "V" series which was done twice. So, it's been a bit like Rosemary's Baby in these circles - would the new Prince bear signs of alien ancestry? No such luck.
