One of the surprising aspects of this movie is the absence of flashbacks to depict the events that took place in a POW camp during World War II. The director, Fred Zinnemann, opted for voice-overs in the famous "tunnel" scene, which ultimately proved insufficient in exploring the motivations of the characters.
Given the significant plot elements tied to the POW camp, I expected a more compelling reason for Frank Enley (Van Heflin) to trust the Nazis and sabotage the escape plan. It is uncommon to come across a World War II story where a US commanding officer in a POW camp decides to place trust in the enemy to save his men. In most war films, it is the commanders who willingly endure punishment to protect their soldiers. While Bridge Over the River Kwai depicted a form of "collaboration" driven by misguided pride, it differs significantly from actively seeking out the enemy and divulging escape plans.
Moreover, it has always been the primary goal of American POWs to escape captivity. Consequently, it was challenging to believe the notion that Enley would actively prevent his fellow prisoners from attempting an escape.
The inclusion of flashbacks would have allowed for a deeper exploration of Enley's personality and the other characters within the prison camp, potentially offering a more convincing motivation for Enley's betrayal. If the flashbacks had revealed Enley as a "coward," for instance, it could have provided a more plausible explanation. However, the depiction of Enley after the war presents him as a civic-minded family man and an overall good person who enjoys fishing with his neighbor. It would have been a stretch to portray him as a coward beneath that exterior.
If Enley genuinely wanted to prevent the escape attempt, an alternative approach could have involved a direct confrontation with Parkson before he entered the tunnel or creating a diversion where Enley would take the blame and be confined to the "cooler," reminiscent of Steve McQueen's character in a similar situation in the film "The Great Escape."
Another issue with the plot is the lack of clarity regarding how Parkson discovers that Enley set him and the other men up. If the Army investigators obtained this information from the Nazis after the war, it would have led to a court-martial for Enley. Unfortunately, this aspect is not adequately explained.
Parkson, as a character, feels underdeveloped, primarily driven by revenge. Additionally, it is difficult to comprehend why Mary Astor's character would bring a complete stranger back to her apartment. The film doesn't establish her initial interest in Enley beyond his vulnerable state when they first meet. It seems her actions are driven by a clichéd "heart of gold" trope.
Lastly, the ending lacks conviction. Parkson's overwhelming desire for revenge raises doubts as to why he suddenly appreciates Enley's intervention in saving his life by thwarting the gangster's attempt to shoot him. Throughout the film, Parkson appears indifferent to the consequences of his actions. Shooting Enley would result in his own imprisonment, but he seems unconcerned. Now, with Enley saving his life, Parkson's opinion of him suddenly changes? It is implausible that Parkson would be the one to break the news of Enley's death to his wife. This sudden shift in Parkson's character is unconvincing and undermines the film's credibility.
It appears that the writers felt compelled to kill off Enley as a form of atonement for his "mistake." However, the supposed naivety of Enley regarding the Nazis was not convincingly portrayed. Despite these flaws, the film maintains a brisk pace and manages to hold the viewer's interest, although it relies on a simplistic premise.
Given the significant plot elements tied to the POW camp, I expected a more compelling reason for Frank Enley (Van Heflin) to trust the Nazis and sabotage the escape plan. It is uncommon to come across a World War II story where a US commanding officer in a POW camp decides to place trust in the enemy to save his men. In most war films, it is the commanders who willingly endure punishment to protect their soldiers. While Bridge Over the River Kwai depicted a form of "collaboration" driven by misguided pride, it differs significantly from actively seeking out the enemy and divulging escape plans.
Moreover, it has always been the primary goal of American POWs to escape captivity. Consequently, it was challenging to believe the notion that Enley would actively prevent his fellow prisoners from attempting an escape.
The inclusion of flashbacks would have allowed for a deeper exploration of Enley's personality and the other characters within the prison camp, potentially offering a more convincing motivation for Enley's betrayal. If the flashbacks had revealed Enley as a "coward," for instance, it could have provided a more plausible explanation. However, the depiction of Enley after the war presents him as a civic-minded family man and an overall good person who enjoys fishing with his neighbor. It would have been a stretch to portray him as a coward beneath that exterior.
If Enley genuinely wanted to prevent the escape attempt, an alternative approach could have involved a direct confrontation with Parkson before he entered the tunnel or creating a diversion where Enley would take the blame and be confined to the "cooler," reminiscent of Steve McQueen's character in a similar situation in the film "The Great Escape."
Another issue with the plot is the lack of clarity regarding how Parkson discovers that Enley set him and the other men up. If the Army investigators obtained this information from the Nazis after the war, it would have led to a court-martial for Enley. Unfortunately, this aspect is not adequately explained.
Parkson, as a character, feels underdeveloped, primarily driven by revenge. Additionally, it is difficult to comprehend why Mary Astor's character would bring a complete stranger back to her apartment. The film doesn't establish her initial interest in Enley beyond his vulnerable state when they first meet. It seems her actions are driven by a clichéd "heart of gold" trope.
Lastly, the ending lacks conviction. Parkson's overwhelming desire for revenge raises doubts as to why he suddenly appreciates Enley's intervention in saving his life by thwarting the gangster's attempt to shoot him. Throughout the film, Parkson appears indifferent to the consequences of his actions. Shooting Enley would result in his own imprisonment, but he seems unconcerned. Now, with Enley saving his life, Parkson's opinion of him suddenly changes? It is implausible that Parkson would be the one to break the news of Enley's death to his wife. This sudden shift in Parkson's character is unconvincing and undermines the film's credibility.
It appears that the writers felt compelled to kill off Enley as a form of atonement for his "mistake." However, the supposed naivety of Enley regarding the Nazis was not convincingly portrayed. Despite these flaws, the film maintains a brisk pace and manages to hold the viewer's interest, although it relies on a simplistic premise.