Quand les clairons se taisent

WHEN TRUMPETS FADE is one of the very best recent WWII films. It doesn't have anywhere near the scope of something like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but it captures what it was like to fight as a typical "grunt" in Europe during the winter of '44-'45--and what it's like to fight in a war anywhere--about as well as any movie can. Appropriately enough, its setting is the bloody, intense Battle of Hürtgen Forest, the longest single engagement in the history of the United States Army and one that, ironically, many of the history books largely ignore. Many experts now believe that this battle should have been avoided altogether.

Ron Eldard gives a really fine performance as "Manning," a reluctant draftee-type who's "not about to take a bullet for anyone." One of the best aspects of this film is the way it shows the psychology--and irony--of how Manning's higher-ups use him via a combination of threats, flattery, and promotions just to take one small strategic spot during the battle. Just about everyone else in the film--American or German, I don't believe that there are any non-military characters --gives a commendably believable performance, but special mention goes to Zak Orth, who plays a typical replacement who, young, green, and unsoldierly though he may seem, turns out to be a fine soldier, and Martin Donovan as Captain Pritchett, a typically ruthless, uncaring commander to the men in his company but a bit of a Private Manning himself to his superior officers.

Like most of today's war films, WHEN TRUMPETS FADE is gory, disturbing, and, by necessity (since it's about an unpopular and rather ineffectual battle), somewhat depressing. Still, the dialogue, battle footage, and various other aspects are nothing if not realistic. WHEN TRUMPETS FADE captures the cynicism of war-in-general incredibly well.

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.

A tense and unforgiving war epic that follows David Manning (Ron Eldard), an American soldier in World War II who tries to get a discharge for being mental unstable although his superior officer, Captain Roy Pritchett (Martin Donovan) who immediately promotes him to be the squad leader of a platoon where all the members are new and inexperienced.

The performances here are nothing short of excellent, the battle scenes are well-executed, and Thomas Burstyn's photography isn't only gloomy, it also hides some unexpected surprises from Germans to mines, that are hidden in the ground.

Director John Irvin, who is no stranger to making effective and intelligent war films ("Hamburger Hill", "The Dogs of War") and turning raw talent into top-notch, has made another classic here. What this film has in common with the previous movies is that one or some of the characters are cynical or determined to survive. However, it's a shame that this film was only made for cable instead of being given a fair chance to gain some attention at the box office.

Surprised to find criticism here. This is a film for grown ups. Its about infantrymen, you know, the bulk of the troops in contact with the enemy. Watching other films you might be tempted to think that only Paratroopers and Rangers did any fighting, being made up of highly motivated men with a higher purpose on heroic missions. I note criticism that the cynical nonconformist type should not appear until Vietnam films. I would suggest that a very high proportion of those in combat in WWII also didn't want to be there - my father landed on Sword beach on D-Day and certainly would rather have been somewhere else. We can still respect their sacrifice even though they only wanted to survive, because we are grown up. We don't need a film packed full of sentimentality, directors manipulation and musical cues telling us what emotions to feel... and as to complaining about the plot, how do you defend the absolutely contrived plot of that other film I haven't named (but you can guess which one I mean). See this film. Rant over.

Two years ago a WWII veteran asked me if I saw WHEN TRUMPETS FADE, the story of the battle for Heurtgen Forest. He said that he was wounded in the battle, which history has almost forgotten because it was so overshadowed by the Battle of the Bulge starting several days later.

He informed me that it was chilling in it's dead-on accuracy, not only of the events within the battle itself but of the ferocity of carnage that permeated the senses 24/7 of everyone who was there.

After watching it, I realized this was not a "Let's travel to Middle Earth, and slay the dragon fantasy" but a testimony to the barvery, or lack of it, in battle, that men must endure to justify their existance, which is continually threatened by the enemy. There isn't room for sub-plots when all that is on your mind is staying alive; and at what cost?

All the performances are exemplary in this regard, Eldard creating a character that is not only believable but admirable in it's honesty.

It should be ranked among the new age of war classics of recent years. But please don't look for any love stories or soul searching introspectives, there wasn't any time for that when you are cursing the very ground to get lower than the bullets flying over your head.