The Forgotten ‘Battleground’
by Schizoid Mann
Lest we forget, we are at war.
Men and women at this very moment are fighting for their lives and for the lives of those they took an oath to protect and defend.
There have been some recent films about war and what it means for the “average Joe” to be at war. A few of these are receiving deserving accolades for their realism. No, not the realism of blood and guts spilled, which is what war is, of course, but the realism of human behavior in adverse conditions, or as Hemingway put it, grace under pressure. This is the human condition that we all face, in one form or another, each and every day of our lives. Of course, most of us can face our pressures, make our decisions, get through our daily angst without wondering if a shell is going to go off five feet away, having the vehicle we’re riding in targeted for destruction or being exposed to combinations of chemicals not even named yet. No, we don’t have that extra worry. But some out there do.
One classic Hollywood film which articulates the stress of war with keen insight and wry humor, as well as pathos, is the often overlooked “Battleground,” directed by William Wellman and released by MGM in 1949.
“Battleground” is not just a great war film. It’s a great film by any standard, in any genre. Depicting the struggles of the 101st Airborne division at the historic Battle of the Bulge, director Wellman wisely puts the emphasis on characters not tanks, on people rather than explosions.
The title “Battleground” implies not only the physical place where these soldiers battle with enemies in different uniforms, but moreover, the mental terrain they must also traverse in order to survive the horrors, the fear, and yes, the inescapable boredom of war.
Disregard the critics who say there is “too much talk” in this film, as clumsy misfires coming from those who do not, nor ever had to understand the sublime contrasts of war. Theirs is the voice of the textbook mentality, too many classes and not enough life. They should be thankful that their experience on this subject is lacking.
Talk to any veteran of war, however, particularly WWII, and you will hear stories paralleling exactly those depicted in Wellman’s “Battleground”: moments of sheer terror interspersed with eternities of boredom and the dread of not knowing what’s going on. Such feelings of helplessness were cut down to size only by the chit-chat and banter of those brave souls in attendance who feared for their lives just like you or I would. Also disregard the cynics who say such scenes are unrealistic or worse yet, propaganda, as soldiers could not possibly be so introspective, so self deprecating, so insightful while under fire. These criticisms couldn’t be farther from the truth, or the historical record, for that matter. It is exactly these moments, in battle, between explosions when “foxhole chatter” turns to the insignificant topic just as easily and as often as it does to the crucial themes of life and death.
Ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances.
There are many great scenes in this movie, but when actor Leon Ames as the chaplain explains why they are there, freezing, hungry and dying, and not back home, and what could this fight possibly have to do with them in America, and as individuals, are words and sentiment that are as applicable today as they were in that far away, now non-existent world of Nazi occupied Europe.
Another part of the film often cited as deserving of ridicule, of committing that worst of crimes for the so-called sophisticated viewer, is the ending. “It’s corny,” is often heard. This segment, the “sound off scene,” as it’s sometimes called, is arguably one of the finest moments in the entire movie. Wellman knew enough, as did Edward Zwick who might very well have been inspired by this scene for his marvelous “Glory,” to show the importance of duty. Wellman illustrates this in heart-wrenching poignancy as the barely surviving men pass their fresh replacements on the road. If you are a man, and this scene doesn’t move you, I’m afraid you have no soul. That, or you’ve been watching too much parody.
“Battleground“ is not what is mistakenly called an anti-war film. That is a misnomer. Nonsense. All well made war films are, in essence, anti-war films. Just like all soldiers are against war, policemen against crime, doctors against illness. These soldiers don’t want to die. Neither do soldiers in other battles, other wars. To call any film ‘anti-war’ is to misunderstand the philosophy at the core of every fighting man and woman. Current fashion would have us believe that soldiers want to kill, maim, and loot. Current fashion would have us believe that all wars are evil, unnecessary, or exercises in national arrogance, or the newly revived terms, “colonialism” and “imperialism” (both particularly fashionable in descriptions of the previous administration’s actions and most likely banned from use or utterance by the major media outlets in describing the present one). Current fashion would have us believe that if soldiers complain, it can only mean that they don’t agree with the need to fight, the need to stop that opposing force, or defend one’s way of life: the need to do what needs to be done.
Those who follow current fashion will not be able to accept such paradoxes, nor be able to understand this film and its main themes of humanity, duty, perseverance, and doing a dirty, dangerous job in the face of overwhelming odds. Many will scoff at the notion that man is capable of this and can do so with moments of introspection, poignancy and humor. Unsurprisingly, many of our greatest novelists, filmmakers and artists spent time in settings very similar to the characters in this story. Current fashion would prefer that we didn’t remember that part.
Thank goodness that the men who fought in battles like those depicted in this film are, for the most part, mercifully spared the current fashion.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
56 Comments
Schizoid, it's interesting you should bring this up, about war movies being mistakenly labelled as anti-military, because we were debating this very topic the other day at the end of one of the threads. I agree that a movie is not necessarily anti-military just because it shows negative events or negative personalities. I think you have to look at how the other members of the squad and how the chain of command react. Do they sanction bad behavior or do they do the right things? To me, that's really the key.
I've seen Battleground and I did not take it as anti-military, but it certainly was a downer. I wonder if the min-series "Generation Kill" might be a modern version of Battleground. At times it was anti-Bush, at times it was anti-upper echelon, but at its core, it showed the average soldier as brave, decent, funny, disciplined, and honorable. (I just don't know if the good offset the bad sufficiently — guess I'm saying, I'm on the fence about that one.)
I had an uncle, now deceased that was at Bastonge with the 101st. He was hit twice survived the war through to taking the Berghoff and came home to a quiet, calm and long life. He spoke little of his time in Europe. I'd like to see "Battleground", having seen the experience at Bastogne in bits and pieces in films like "Patton". I'm not so naive to think that ever single soldier is always 100% virtuous, their human, my biggest problem is generally a cliche comtempt that oozes out of modern Hollywood for our military. Be critical where necessary, be fair always. What we get is almost always the inverse, critical always and fair from some directors and producers. There is an agenda and it's doctrinaire liberal anti-U.S. military. The sttream of box office bombs on Iraq prove this very clearly.
"Battleground" is one of those movies that always make you feel slightly unsettled. The reality is always more mundane and more horrifying than could ever be told or displayed but "Battleground" comes disturbingly close. The sense of not knowing and having to trust that someone who knows more and is more competent than most you see around you are in charge.
"Battleground" makes no apologies and needs none. War is fought by Guys and Gals whith the ones they live with. That is what "Battleground" does best is show that aspect of War.
In another life I sold cars in El Paso, Texas. El Paso is many things but hip and cool aren't it. It does however have one of he biggest U.S. Army bases in the entire world. It's growing daily. Our clientel includes many, many, new arrival G.I.s from privates up to Academy grads to senior officers. I can say unequivically that they are in the vast majority good people and great Americans. I long ago generation tried to paint the military as the job of last resort, the dregs, if you will. This is not even remotely true today.
one of the things to remember about the Battle of the Bulge- is that Gen Bradley figured he could keep his green troops in the Ardennes forest while waiting for Monty and Patton to drive the flanks for the final push to Berlin. He was caught flat footed by the German advance, and the elite SS panzer divisions slaughtered the youngsters savagely, culminating in the Malmedy massacre. That, as the saying goes, was a bridge too far and US trrops took revenge on the Nazis when the skies cleared 24 Dec… and the war was effectively over for Germany. 'Battleground' captures the surreal effect of soft silent snow falling amidst the carnage, as does 'Band of Brothers'.
This is a hugely important historical archive…
We had a strict policy that said "don't screw the troops". When I was the boss you better not have brought me a deal that was a blatant screw job. I'd throw it back in the salesman's face. We hired a liason guy that was retired military and treated the guys well. Guess what? They brought their friends and we sold them all cars too. Fair treatment for young military guys and women, many away from home for the first time. The left in general outrages me daily, but in regards to the military, being a military brat I'm a bit sensitive and I tend to err on the side of our military.
I wouldn't argue that "Battleground" was William Wellman's best film, that would be "The Ox-Bow Incident," but it is his finest work as a director.
agree absolutely. Like I said, though- 'The Story of G.I. Joe' isn't far behind…
In "Battleground" Ames played a Protestant chaplain (Lutheran, I think). The soldiers respectfully listened as Ames explained why it was necessary to face the horrors of war in order to stop an even greater evil. The soldiers were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and no doubt a few agnostics. As the bombs went off, it was clear they were all united in their thoughts, if not their faiths. Today, that scene would be denigrated as corny and simplistic, and there would be a few indignant cries that there were no Muslim soldiers (time-frames and context mean nothing to revisionists).
Today's Hollywood crowd is incapable of understanding the concepts of "duty, loyalty, country, honor." Their duty is to make money. Their loyalty is to their adoring fans. Their country is an America that has never existed, and hopefully never will. Their honor is non-existent. So even those few who are not intentionally anti-military produce anti-military movies by default. Even if a soldier is treated sympathetically, it will be because the military has turned him or her into an unwilling slave of the defense department which produces only psychos, serial killers, drug-addicts and general all-around losers who need help from the bleeding hearts. Present company excepted, of course.
If you want to get a good dose of reality quickly, talk to any veteran who has served in war. They never boast or speak about their battles with glee. My father served in WWII and we're lucky to even get him to talk about it. But when we do, and he does, you'll never experience a more humbling experience.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
Battleground is one of the BEST WWII movies made……."Thats for sure..Thats for dang sure".
Andrew, right, I wouldn't expect someone with your insight background to make that mistake.
But you wouldn't believe the amount of people I come across who lump Battleground in together with Catch 22, another fine film, but decidedly and inarguably a film that is purely against the war effort, any war effort. THAT is a real anti-war film. Even though it is a comedy, a black comedy, it does, like all good comedy, portray the truth in many ways: the truth of battle, the truth of command and the truth of confusion and doubt in war by those who are fighting it.
But Catch 22 – to continue to use this example because it, too, is a great film – goes beyond revealing truths and, with the captive audience already hooked, goes on to slay the very reasons why others felt that the war was necessary. It was necessary. Catch 22 never acknowledges this, but rather, condemns this idea. It's main theme is the unnecessary cost and ineffectiveness of war and who really profits in the end. All good points, but still do not add up to the conclusion that it proposes, that war is unnecessary. That is a mental destination only available to academics, fools and comics. The rest of us know war, as a last resort, like the chaplain explains in Battleground, is, however horrible, sometimes a necessity.
I recall during the Bush administration (seems long ago, doesn't it?) when soldiers complaining about a lack of armored-up humvees, etc. was used extensively in the press to show how the war wasn't supported by the troops, how they were forced to follow orders, but were all supposedly against the war effort. Horse cookies! It is the right of every soldier to complain, if not to his superior, then to whoever will listen. In this case, with our 24/7 news cycle that right was exploited. But, in every war since hominids touched that black monolith, soldiers have complained, because there is always something to complain about. The press knows this. But they manipulate it to serve their purpose, which is usually to criticize a leader and/or war effort as they did quite successfully this last time around.
For me, Battleground shows that soldiers can exercise their right to complain and yet be shown to do a superb job and support their command and leadership 100% when the moment of truth comes. The press and many liberal pundits either edit that part out, or 'just don't get it', as they like to say.
Very true.
My late father was in the Ardennes and told me that Battleground was the most realistic "Battle of the Bulge" movies made. He said It covered the conditions, the cold , the fog, the inadequate equipment , and the comradeship that he experenced. He said the movie showed how it really was.
Right. Wellman had a style all his own. His dialogue is often unexpected, sometimes awkward, and I like that.
I enjoyed, if that is the correct term to use, The Ox Bow Incident very much. But for me, Battleground is a more moving experience, perhaps due to the time period depicted and my relation to it, but that's just a sloppy guess, since I don't really like to analyze why I'm moved by a film too much beyond the superficial.
The Ox Bow Incident is a profound piece of work, certainly. It's in the same category and league as Lumet's 12 Angry Men, both masterful displays of human thought and reasoning, though, bringing up a different set of emotions than does Battleground – for me at least.
I watched 12 O'Clock High this weekend after having seen it years ago. Another great movie of men in war, under stress, trying to keep their men motivated and focused on their purpose. The two scenes that moved me the most were one of redemption and how all the ground crew stowed away on the B-17s (against the rules) on the first bombing mission over Germany. Too many stowed away for Gregory Peck to punish them all. And poor Peck's driver. But you also see what we learn in leadership class today: criticize in private, praise in public. If I ever taught a class in organizational behavior, I would make the students watch this in class and then write a 5-to-10-page paper on it.
My insight? You’re gonna give me a big head! ;-P
The Bush administration seems like it was decades ago, isn’t that strange?
I think you make some great points.
It is the soldier’s right to complain, and they’ve earned it. Moreover, I think it’s vital for moral. Not only is this an outlet for frustration, but these complaints carry with them the implicit or explicit statement “but we persevere.” Moreover, this complaining is like bulletin board material in sports, it’s the famous “nobody thinks we can do this, nobody gives us a chance” speech that is so successful at motivating young men to give more than they ever thought was possible.
Not to mention that because only the guys who have earned the right to complain can complain (complaints by rookies and visitors are met with disdain), it becomes a badge of honor that announces you as part of the unit family. I think Battleground shows how this builds the camaraderie the soldiers rely on to get them through an impossible situation.
(cont)
Catch 22 — as you very insightfully note — uses complaining in an entirely different way. Catch 22 uses it like whining. These guys aren’t saying, “the food stinks but I will persevere”, they’re saying, “what the heck am I doing here and how do I get out.” Whereas the guys in Battleground complain stoically, the guys in Catch 22 complain to express cowardice and doubt. I recognize Catch 22 as a good movie, but I really, really dislike watching it on a visceral level — I have no respect for the characters at all.
On the media, I agree completely. I think that many journalists simply don’t understand the military mindset and they try to equate it with the civilian world. This category would include the journalists who stare in confusion when they hear about a soldier going for a fifth or sixth tour. “Why keep putting yourself in danger? I don’t understand.” And that’s the truth, they don’t understand. That is something I thought Generation Kill was actually very good about, it showed how the soldiers “got” the idea that the journalists don’t get it.
(cont)
Other journalists, unfortunately, are much more cynical and look for anything to exploit for political reasons. These are the jerks who uncritically report propaganda from the other side, automatically downplay what out guys say, and try to dehumanize our guys by making them into killers or turning them into a body count (you’ll never see a human interest story done on our guys by one of these journalist). These same journalists looked for anything they could use to bash Bush. Keep in mind, he inherited a too small military from Clinton and, like all wars, we had to learn the new rules/procedures before things started to run smoothly. But the media demands perfection or they get out the sharp knives. Imagine how these journalists would have treated FDR (if he were a Republican). WWII was one disaster after another for years — Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, the Italian Campaign, Battle of the Bulge, etc. (not to mention our outdated equipment at the start of the war). I think it’s very likely, we would have cut a deal with Hitler had these guys had their way back then.
I agree about how fabulous "Battleground" is . 12 O'Clock High is an outstanding study in command. I also suggest "Pork Chop Hill" ,if for nothing else, a great story about perserverence in the face of hopeless odds and stupidity of "negotiating" with monsters at the fiat of fickle State.
Well stated yet again…and yes you do have a big head…
J/K full of wonderful insight.
In my opinion before any judgmental war time correspondent can even be allowed in with the troops they should have to do a tour themselves. Pick up a rifle strap on some body armor and prepare to defend your self and your squad mates. Get the true up front feel of battle and not the back seat perspective.
War is not pretty and war is not fun. What seems to get lost by these media folks is the over all objective for fighting in the first place. They focus on the human/civilian casualties and the barbarism of it all. What they fail to recognize is the barbarism of the enemy in general. Long before they got to ride around, the evil was already present and in force, in protected vehicles with a dangerous group of individuals protecting their hypocritical defeatist asses.
Personally I don't think we should have war time correspondents, they dilute the effort with their heresy. Leave the reporting of war time activities up to the military. I'd rather hear the war is going good and the heroics of our brave men and women as opposed to well we're struggling but all we're really doing is killing innocent civilians.
Battleground is a great movie, it dose not get the play like some of the others, after all it was released 60 years ago. Most kids these days would not know much of anything of the period 15 December 1944 to 28 Jan 1945. I knew a couple of veterans of that Battle and the whole of WW-II, One had a very nice blue ribbon with white stars that sat above the rest of the fruit salad as they would call it. Another, we he never talked of it till shortly before he died, he worn the field Grau of the Wehrmacht (Heer). They were two very different and two very mucy alike, they were old before there time. Both lived long lives. Patton's 3rd Army was the hammer to Monte's anvil, Withdrew from a Major winter battle turned 90 degrees, drove 90 + miles attacked two divisions the german flank in less than 48 hours. And then there was that Prayer. Victory came at a high price, You can go to Belgium today and you can follow their foot steps, the surprise is that not much has changed on the trail of Battle Group Piper.
Schizoid, it's interesting you should bring this up, about war movies being mistakenly labelled as anti-military, because we were debating this very topic the other day at the end of one of the threads. I agree that a movie is not necessarily anti-military just because it shows negative events or negative personalities. I think you have to look at how the other members of the squad and how the chain of command react. Do they sanction bad behavior or do they do the right things? To me, that's really the key.
I've seen Battleground and I did not take it as anti-military, but it certainly was a downer. I wonder if the mini-series "Generation Kill" might be a modern version of Battleground. At times it was anti-Bush, at times it was anti-upper echelon, but at its core, it showed the average soldier as brave, decent, funny, disciplined, and honorable. (I just don't know if the good offset the bad sufficiently — guess I'm saying, I'm on the fence about that one.)
'Battleground' is one of the great films of the modern era; certainly Wellman (the real 'GI Joe' director- the Ernie Pyle biopic) at the top of his game. How anyone can see the true story of the Battling Bastards of Bastogne as anti-military is beyond me- anti war is a different cat altogether. Any true depiction of combat should be terrible and wonderful at the same time; the sheer fact that ideals can be noble and are worth fighting and dying for are what separates us from apes… the 'Jody Calls' are great, and an appropriate ending to the film. Patton's Third Army had just driven 'up the gut' moving 200 kilometers in less than a week (that's a whole darn army- about 20,000 troops and six tank regiments) and relieved the weary paratroopers. When they stiffened up and showed the replacements that they could walk loud and proud-
migod, that is an impressive, and true moment in our history.
Bastogne is in Belgium, and they still, to this day, love American G.I.'s…
I agree that the debate is good to have. I would disagree that the intentions of many of today's filmakers aren't anti-military. Because I feel that many of today's filmakers are anti-military. I say this because of the way the left has treated our men and women since the 60's. Calling them baby-killers and spitting on them. And today, the left so much as saying that the men and women who join are dupes for falling for a failed policy by George Bush. I don't think a lot of todays films are about debate, but trying to poke a stick in the eye of George Bush. If you remember the films during the Clinton years never showed the military in a bad light. Mainly, I feel, because of who the Commander-In-Chief was. Look at "Behind Enemy Lines" which comes to mind.
I was at Fort Hood for 2 years and Korea for a year and a half. I was in the Coast Guard for 3 years and love the men and women I served with. And I hate to see the way the left today sees and treats them. They deserve much better. I will have to check out "Battleground"
Yes. By and large our western media is all too eager to help the enemy pinpoint our position, our weaknesses and our supposed lack of support back home. They trumpet these things to our enemies through the BBC, NY Times, etc. emboldening our foes far more than helping end the war, which is what they claim to want.
I truly believe that many journalists secretly cheer when a soldier goes down. I know that sounds harsh, but in my experience with journalists, though limited it is, I have seen and heard exactly that on too many occasions to be merely an exception.
What the Pentagon and the branches need to do more, is less. Less reporting to our media. Less cooperation. They bend over backwards to fill the press in. Forget it. Bad idea. They think it will lessen the criticism. It hasn't and never will. They use that info against the military every single time.
So, even though I'm not supportive of secresy, there is a time and a place for it. Does anyone think we would have succeeded against Nazi Germany if the New York Times and the BBC did a full spread on the upcoming invasion at Normandy, the island landings in the Pacific, the Manhattan project? Forget it. The press at that time would have kept quiet knowing the damage that their 'loose lips' would cause. They were responsible and had integrity. The press today is a joke, a complete joke. Regard them as such. Rely on them for only the most basic information, and even that should be taken with a grain of salt and a knowing eye that the source has more bias than any propagandist could ever hope for.
Oh yeah. That's a great flick. Very moving. So many great performances in that one. One of Peck's finest, as well. I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but I'll just say that that ending is brutal. Shows how indiscriminate the mental meat chopper is. Something's gotta give.
Yes, it is a little known, forgotten film, generally. Hence the title's double meaning, Forgotten Battleground. Most vets will not discuss what they did or saw unless really pressed and even then, they downplay their heroism. There was a documentary a few years ago, by a self described very liberal anti war PBS journalist. I heard him talking on NPR that his view of the war and of the men changed 180. He said that he had no interest in WWII at the outset of the interviews and regarded it as just another assignment. But was moved so much by these men's stories and their humility, which overwhelmed him, that he became completely enthralled by their bravery and modesty. His opinion was transformed completely. I wish I could remember his name or the project he was talking about.
Your post reminded me of this video.
(D-Day: Crisis On Omaha)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px_XBJHrs4I
The concept and ideas behind it are solid. Unfortunately, the production values are absolutely terrible.
So, ignore the terrible acting and stick with it.
Seeing as this is Big Hollywood, maybe someone here could make a better version of this.
Andrew, right, I wouldn't expect someone with your insight and background to ever make that mistake.
But you wouldn't believe the amount of people I come across who lump Battleground in together with Catch 22, another fine film, but decidedly and inarguably a film that is purely against the war effort, any war effort. THAT is a real anti-war film. Even though Catch 22 is a comedy, a black comedy, it does, like all good comedy, portray the truth in many ways: the truth of battle, the truth of command and the truth of confusion and doubt in war by those who are fighting it.
But Catch 22 – to continue to use this example because it, too, is a great film – goes beyond revealing truths and, with the captive audience already hooked, goes on to slay the very reasons why others felt that the war was necessary. It was necessary. Catch 22 never acknowledges this, but rather, condemns this idea. It's main theme is the unnecessary cost and ineffectiveness of war and who really profits in the end. All good points, but still do not add up to the conclusion that it proposes, that war is unnecessary. That is a mental destination only available to academics, fools and comics. The rest of us know war, as a last resort, like the chaplain explains in Battleground, is, however horrible, sometimes a necessity.
I recall during the Bush administration (seems long ago, doesn't it?) when soldiers complaining about a lack of armored-up humvees, etc. was used extensively in the press to show how the war wasn't supported by the troops, how they were forced to follow orders, but were all supposedly against the war effort. Horse cookies! It is the right of every soldier to complain, if not to his superior, then to whoever will listen. In this case, with our 24/7 news cycle that right was exploited. But, in every war since hominids touched that black monolith, soldiers have complained, because there is always something to complain about. The press knows this. But they manipulate it to serve their purpose, which is usually to criticize a leader and/or war effort as they did quite successfully this last time around.
For me, Battleground shows that soldiers can exercise their right to complain and yet be shown to do a superb job and support their command and leadership 100% when the moment of truth comes. The press and many liberal pundits either edit that part out, or 'just don't get it', as they like to say.
It is a fine line between secrecy and objective reporting I will grant you that. I just don't think that the media can be fully objective about horrible atrocities when any dead body looks like an atrocity. Don't get me wrong anyone that has died is an atrocity but in the scheme of war it's an unfortunate foot note.
The overall goal is far more humanistic than the unfortunate civilian casualties. Especially when civilians were killed by the government before we had embedded reporters to report it.
This seems to get lost in the feel good reporting society.
I'll say it again so I don't sound callous the loss of a humans life is terrible and unfortunate. The goal of this and all wars is to limit the civilian death toll. Our country spends billions of dollars to develop weaponry that minimizes this unfortunate side effect.
We look at the civilian casualties from battle as if no one had ever died in Iraq before we got there. That's where the medias depiction of the war gets twisted and convoluted.
"NUTS!"
-GEN Anthony McAuliffe
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue–and thoroughly immoral– doctrine that 'violence never solves anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The Ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Very Nice quote…. I will use it extensively…:)
Battleground is one of my war favorite films I especially love the ending and the "Jody" call ending. I wish they would issue a special edition DVD version of the movie. Since it's the 60th anniversary–maybe this year. Unfortuately, Whitmore, Montalban and Johnson died within the past year.
I'd have to agree with that my father is a Vietnam Vet. He never spoke about it unless directly asked about it.
I had to write a paper about Vietnam Vets in high school, which required interviewing a Vet. I interviewed my father and the experience was beyond humbling and still to some extent beyond my full understanding. There were many intense situations of which he spoke, yet never with a high and mighty, "we kicked some ass that day" bravado.
He told stories of undefinable luck and undefinable misfortune. The one thing that struck me the most during his somber description of the human extreme of war, was that there was no part of it that he didn't remember in vivid detail. As if it had happened the day before and I'd merely asked him to pull the scab off of a long unhealed wound.
I was fortunate enough to travel with my father to the Vietnam War memorial on a trip to visit Washington DC, I choke up now thinking about the pain and respect my father had in his eyes when he pointed out his friends on that wall and asked me to etch their names out with charcoal and paper.
I haven't seen Battleground but it's on the top of my list to watch next.
God Bless our troops they are the best that this country has to offer.
I think your sense is right. Remember the press adage, "If it bleeds, it leads." That statement alone is pretty telling. It tells us that they don't view suffering as a tragedy, they see it as an opportunity.
I think the other problems with the press are that (1) they long ago lost their dedication to facts and truth, (2) they have let their agenda's creep into all reporting, (3) they rarely understand the information they are covering, (4) there don't seem to be any editors anymore, and (5) despite being so intentionally opinionated in their reporting, they justify their bias by hiding behind the idea that they should be detached.
Sadly, I don't think there is a solution for the Pentagon. Secrecy is as dangerous as openness. I think the answer needs to come from reforming the media.
They certainly put their finger on it.
I also agree about the virtues of "Battleground" (Leon Ames clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnB1OMhETI&fe... The scene where Holley (Van Johnson), the popular private who has been battlefield "promoted" to Sgt, has a brief moment of panic in anticipation of a German attack, changes his mind when questioned by private Layton and then heroically leads a flanking attack that smashes the German probe is a favorite of mine. My only quibble with the movie is its over-reliance on Skorzeny's Germans in GI uniforms (not the G:I fears of that, but in the first half of the movie the only Germans you see are masquerading as GIs). Gerald Astor's oral "history" of the Bulge based on many GI interviews, "The Blood-Dimmed Tide" is a great companion to this movie: http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Dimmed-Tide-Battle-Fo... It's like being at the American Legion Hall and the guys open up about their experiences.
Another great WWII movie which truly honors the dedication, courage and sacrifice of the American service men and women is John Ford's "They Were Expendable." We weren't always winning the war, and this movie covers Americans hanging tough when defeat was inevitable. One of my favorite scenes in that: American doctors and nurses quietly doing their "work" in the bowels of the Corregidor fortress while the Japanese bombs and artillery shells rain down outside – although not depicted, you know the end for them is not going to be good.
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-Expendable-John-W...
"12 O'Clock High" is viewed by every Officer candidate in the US Air Force. We all watched it together at OCS. The best films on Bastogne are Battlefield, Battle of the Bulge, and Band of Brothers..
Ahhh! Starship Troopers!
LT Jaf, please…
The movie "Battle of the Bulge" with Robt Shaw? A wasted opportunity turned into a "typical" war movie.
I especially like that there are no trees in the Ardennes forest
What I like best about Battleground is how much the film is able to suggest without anything being too blatant. Sgt. Kinney picking up the German propaganda leaflets, then stalking off into the woods (a current movie would no doubt show him squatting and wiping); Marshall Thompson enjoying a morning smoke with the beautiful Belgian girl, and Van Johnson giving him a knowing look and saying "Today, you are a MAN!". It is a film that respects the audience, which is a rare pleasure. I watch it every year at Christmastime, as it gives me another reason to thank God for living in this country.
Schiz, Battleground is one of the best war movies ever, made a big impression on me as a kid. Your recognition of it as such is an invaluable service for which you deserve thanks and recognition for your cultural acumen.
I spent 4 years as a cadet at VMI and 24 in the active Air Force. Today my work brings me into contact with hundreds of GIs of all services every year. Despite what happens in DC and the chattering capitols of the US…you are all in good hands…
Excellent review of an excellent film. Great performances by James Whitmore, Van Johnson, and Ricardo Montabaln (sp?) all of whom passed away recently. And I couldn't agree more, if you aren't moved by the "sound off" scene at the end of the film, you indeed have no soul. Or you are a registered Democrat.
And another fantastic film released roughly 5-6 years after Battleground is, Attack. Starring Jack Palance, Lee Marvin, Buddy Ebson, and a tour de force performance by Eddie Albert. RUN, don't walk to see that one…
Yes – very good movie, saw it many years ago flipping through channels.
Watch Battleground first and then The Best Years of Our Lives second, they really compliment each other.
You'll be encouraged to know that "Twelve O'Clock High" is, in actual fact, used by numerous Fortune 500 companies as an object lesson in leadership. A factoid I've had confirmed by multiple persons in different fields of business endeavor who had to watch the entire film as part of mangerial courses.
Particular focus is given to the multiple styles used by Peck's character in dealing with different subordinates.
In doing some research for a paper in my Army officer's advance course I ran across a book about WWII movies in it was a chapter about the screen writer, Robert Pirosh, of Battleground. He was a first sergeant in the 327 Glider Infantry Regiment, 101 Airborne during WWII. The story is essentially that of his company. The same man wrote "Hell is for Heroes" based upon a true incident in the Colmar Pocket area a couple of hundred miles south of the Bulge at occured in Jan. 1945. Pirosh also created the tv series "Combat". There is a website that says Priosh was a 1st Sgt in 320 Inf, 35th ID, but lead a patrol into Bastogne. But he knew about combat in WWII
Oh yeah. That part on the waiting C47 when seats have to be given up is rough. Like you said, they all had seen plenty already to know what the Japanese were going to do to those left behind. Yet the "I'll just wait for the next one" false bravado showed the integrity and courage of many there.
Thanks a bunch. And it's good to know that. Though I already did.
In a previous life, in a galaxy far, far away, I spent a good spell at a sleepy little place called Otis.
Good stuff. Thanks for that.
Interesting. And poor Ken Toby in a very short, almost cameo appearance is the first to 'experience' the general's techniques at the front gate. He looked more scared of the "Pecking" order than he did any "Thing from Another World". Maybe because he knew that it was done with Gunsmoke and mirrors.
I know it's kind of geeky, but I love the way the american military is portrayed in Independence day and transformers. Yeah, I know they aren't real wars, but for once Hollywood got the true spirit of our men-in-uniform completely correct.
You must be logged in to post a comment.