What do I See, When Death Stops for Me?

By An Nguyen

When death finally stops for you, when does life end? Such a border between life and death is blurred
deeply in the Strange Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. Both in the short story written by Ambrose Bierce; and the
Twilight Zone episode, produced as a french independent film by Marcel Ichac, and Paul Roubaix. While both
follow the general plotline, both have a different way in telling the story, in terms of plot, and pacing and in turn, a
different way to send the message.

We start off with a southern gentleman being sentenced to hang on a bridge by the Federal U.S. Army. The
execution is carried out with military order, yet from there the story divides. In the short story, Bierce takes a
flashback to the perspective of the executed to give the background as to why the gentleman was hanged. In the
short story the gentlemen and his wife care for a Confederate soldier, who says they lost a bridge at Owl Creek. The
gentleman, a person of great patriotism for his country, expresses his wish to help, and asks for details. He had
intended to burn the bridge, but, in a twist of fate, the Confederate soldier was in fact a Union Federal scout in
disguise, and thus he was caught.

This is expressed differently in Ichac and Roubaixs film, however. In that they never show any sort of
flashback. Though, given that this was made for TV, on a 30 minute slot in the 60s, it is understandable that they
would have to cut some scenes out for time constraints. Though, as a consequence, the episode suffers from as
ambiguous reason as to why the gentleman was being hanged. Though again, that couldve been intentional, as is the
fact that at that point in time, the Vietnam war was beginning to become Americanized. As such the ambiguity of the
gentlemans charge could be in reference to the pointless death of war in general. Both the film, and the short story
express a lowing of time as the gentleman escapes his death by a broken rope and a swim to an escape, with an over
the top response via fire from cannon fodder and literal cannon fire. And both express the aftermath, in which the
gentleman escapes through the wilderness under gun fire, and then makes it home, only to be killed, and to be
revealed as a last hallucination of the gentleman before his neck breaks from the hanging.

It is interesting to note though, that the short film failed to have any sort of dialogue aside from birdsong
and the occasional orders. Everything is expressed through actions and editing, which at times could prove to be
even more difficult to do as an actor, since they have to express through actions not explicit words. The efforts on
part of the actors is well rewarded though, as the lack of dialogue doesn't detract from the story. Throughout the
film, the gentleman was able to accurately express his emotions, such as when he sits in the river right after escaping
as time slows down around him as the Union troops assemble to shoot him, his wide eyed look gives an accurate
shock one has when one has a near death experience, and the editing to slow down the film and the sound add to
that.

Other than that, the message has hardly been changed, both show the reality of war and patriotism vs
expectations and romanticism of war. The only difference being the effect, since the short story didnt change the
opinion of war, while the episode did help change the perspective on war. And both enraptured an audience with its
surreality, and in turn led us to question reality as we note it, even when we go to our grave.