The film makers obviously intended a memorial to the soldiers who fought and died in the Hurtgen Forest. Though this was not a docudrama, the story had to be true to the context, and for what I could tell, it definitely achieved that goal. The Battle was not a victory for the U.S. forces. The Germans pushed back the Allies during this battle, creating the "bulge" in the front lines. The Battle of the Bulge was a later victory, and it is duly remembered. But the Hurtgen Forest campaign, which was a defeat and by many commentators is viewed as a huge strategic blunder paid for in American blood, has largely been forgotten.
Why does everyone (including viewers) assume that Manning is a coward? Because he is the only survivor of his platoon? Perhaps that assumption accurately reflects the command mindset which caused so many deaths: death is so cheap that one more death is expected, in order to prove valor. (That is not a new concept, "The Red Badge of Courage" had it in a Civil War context; but it also seems to be a motivation for contemporary suicide bombers.) Contrast that with these soldiers' motives for the last mission--when the objective was clear: to save their own lives, rather than to make a noble but unavailing gesture.
Usually war films have more plot. But the Hurtgen Forest campaign was not as carefully plotted as a screenplay. Did any mission in this film seem to have any real point? The battle is accurately reflected here. This is not a compelling film, and it does not attempt to impart any great moral lessons, but it's best virtue is that it is honest.
My late father was in the "Bloody Bucket" (the 28th Infantry, Pennsylvania National Guard--note the red keystone insignia) during this battle, and he was fortunate to have survived. Decades later, he often would say to me that the trees could kill you. I was never really sure what he meant. This film showed me what he meant: the tree tops which were blown off by artillery fire would fall on the soldiers below.
Why does everyone (including viewers) assume that Manning is a coward? Because he is the only survivor of his platoon? Perhaps that assumption accurately reflects the command mindset which caused so many deaths: death is so cheap that one more death is expected, in order to prove valor. (That is not a new concept, "The Red Badge of Courage" had it in a Civil War context; but it also seems to be a motivation for contemporary suicide bombers.) Contrast that with these soldiers' motives for the last mission--when the objective was clear: to save their own lives, rather than to make a noble but unavailing gesture.
Usually war films have more plot. But the Hurtgen Forest campaign was not as carefully plotted as a screenplay. Did any mission in this film seem to have any real point? The battle is accurately reflected here. This is not a compelling film, and it does not attempt to impart any great moral lessons, but it's best virtue is that it is honest.
My late father was in the "Bloody Bucket" (the 28th Infantry, Pennsylvania National Guard--note the red keystone insignia) during this battle, and he was fortunate to have survived. Decades later, he often would say to me that the trees could kill you. I was never really sure what he meant. This film showed me what he meant: the tree tops which were blown off by artillery fire would fall on the soldiers below.