Anti War Ideology in "The Bridge"

The anti war film The Bridge (Bernhard Wicki, 1959, West Germany) retroactively reasserts the values of WW2 by illustrating the historical truth regarding young people’s views and beliefs of the war in comparison to the realities faced by soldiers in combat. The film emphasizes the main group of boys’ youth and immaturity through their excitement and aloofness of the dangers of war while simultaneously demonstrating the strong propagandist ideologies of war that ultimately lead to the boys’ deaths.

The first scene in the film where these false propagandist beliefs are present is at the very beginning when a military bomb goes off in a pond in the town. The bomb is heard by everyone in the area due to it being so close to the town and while the parents and adults appear fearful, the children are the opposite. Rather than fearful, they are excited about the bomb and the implication that the war is getting closer to them; they joke at school about how they wish it had gone off earlier so their math class could get canceled and organize with each other to go down to the area where it went off after school to view the aftermath of the bomb. From the beginning of the film, the children view war as a spectacle, almost as a game, as is illustrated by their amusement and light heartedness of the bomb going off so close to their home and school and their inability to consider the reality and horror of the war getting closer to them. In doing so, the film places emphasis on the disillusioned innocence of youth that will later be destroyed, both literally and figuratively, by the realities of war hidden by idealist propaganda.

This is further illustrated in the second act of the film, when the boys are drafted and at the beginnings of their military training. The boys are very excited to be drafted, sharing their draft notices with one another, encouraging each other to rush home to retrieve theirs in the mail, and even becoming annoyed with their parents for worrying. While the parents’ concerns are clear to outside viewers in the post World War II era, it is not clear to the boys due to the wartime ideology of military duty, sacrifice, and bravery being a measure of one’s manhood and and, almost more importantly, the idea that to not fulfill these roles is to be a coward and subsequently, less of a man (Basinger 104). This ideology is more explicitly portrayed through the higher up officers' teachings to the boys; that whoever defends even a square meter of German soil, defends Germany itself, and to only move forward, only battle, victory, or death. The influence of the officers’ words is then illustrated when they are repeated by the boys on the bridge as reasoning and motivation to stay and fight, despite the older troops retreating. It is this decision that results in all but one of the boys being killed, clearly marking these patriotic propagandist ideals as the fault of their deaths (Brockmann 312) and thus furthering the film’s antiwar message.

Prior to their demise, however, they are still portrayed as innocent and indifferent to the grim realities of war. A constant throughout the course of the film is the boys’ relation to school and their youth; when they are being disrespected by older troops by being told to go back to kindergarten, and even within their own circle during training when pointing out that cleaning their weapons that they would normally be in English class. Viewers are constantly reminded that they are children through moments like these that allow for possible moments of questioning of the ideology of war being put upon the backs of children. Another moment where this is shown is when one boy is caught by an officer for underage drinking and tries to get out of punishment by pointing out that he got drafted for the war and will be leaving soon. This moment demonstrates the cruel irony, the fact that they are considered too young and childish to drink alcohol, but mature enough to be forced to fight in war. This clearer example, as well as other moments relating the group back to their previous school schedule, illustrates their immaturity and their young age and thus further questions the propagandist ideologies pushed onto them.

The climax of the film when the boys are defending the bridge is when the message of antiwar is pushed the strongest. It is when they are finally truly exposed to the war, bombs, and their aftermath and when the influence of army ideology is most strongly illustrated. The boys choose to stay and defend the bridge rather than take shelter and protect themselves in hopes of proving their bravery to each other and to their commanding officers, using the officer’s claims regarding defending Germany as motivation to stay put and fight. The ideas of bravery and sacrifice that have been pushed onto the boys has been present throughout the entire film and it is during this final act that it begins to break down, starting with the death of the first boy, Sigi. His death is the beginning of the other boys’ final moments, and their first instance of seeing the grim realities of war, the beginning of war proving itself to not be the exciting game they had mistakenly viewed it as previously. After ducking for an overhead plane and being made fun of and called a coward by the other boys for doing so, Sigi does not duck down when the plane comes back a second time and is killed in the process. This moment is important to the film and its anti war message, as it not only showcases wartime ideology regarding bravery and sacrifice, it finally frames these ideas as deadly. Throughout the film the boys have believed in and wanted to uphold these ideals and it is with Sigi’s death that the reality of war and its effects are shown to them. Sigi’s fear of being labelled a coward was also present throughout the film, as he did not want his mother to send him away to avoid the draft, in fear of being deemed a coward. Sigi ends up dying due to this need to prove bravery that is arguably a result of wartime ideology. Specifically, the higher officer’s commands of not backing down and insistence on the defense of one piece of land equated to the defense of all of Germany.

This is true for the rest of the boys who were killed during the defense of the bridge, all of whom only stayed and fought due to the influence of the higher officer’s words. However, when the higher officers return to the bridge at the end of the battle, they scold the boys for their actions, calling them names and insulting them, rather than acknowledge the sacrifice these young boys made in the name of Germany. Additionally, the final shot of the film displays text across the screen explaining that this battle on the bridge was so unimportant, it was never mentioned in any war communique. The officer’s scolding along with the final text shows the harsh reality of war and the undeniable fact that the boys, despite wanting to be heroes, died in vain, all in the name of sacrifice, bravery, and defense of the fatherland that was so desperately pushed upon them throughout the entirety of the film.

It is here that the film comes full circle, in a disturbing way. At the beginning of the film, the boys were excited about war and the fact that it was getting closer to them. They did not consider the destructive realities that came with it. Rather, they viewed a bomb going off as a fun spectacle to see after school, as a way to get out of class and to impress each other and themselves through displays of bravery. They believed and wanted to fulfill the commands of their higher officers. Now, at the end of the film, they have gotten out of class, defended Germany, and they have seen the aftermath of war bombs, just as they had wanted at the beginning. Only now, they realize the horrors of war hidden by idealist propaganda, and the lone survivor, Albert, realizes that it is not just a game.