I recall seeing the film on first release and being much impressed. It compared well to other war films of the 40's and 50's in terms of what I understood to be combat realism. Besides, the great Robert Ryan could make a one-man invasion appear believable. Now, it looks like an extension of the war films of that pre-Vietnam era, cut basically from the same triumphant cloth. Yes, there are the casualties, the guys we see and the guys we like. They die in a variety of inglorious ways—knife, gunshot, explosion. But they die cleanly, no screaming, weeping, or fetal positions. And, of course, the star survives, the guy we most identify with. Sure, the medal ceremony suggests certain ironies, but the sacrifices are not in vain—the objective is gained and the enemy annihilated.
My point is that in terms of combat realism and resolutions, the movie is very much a creature of its time. That's not to say the production lacks in dramatic values or entertainment. Running the artillery gantlet is genuinely nerve-wracking (though no one seems concerned with shrapnel spray) and so is the treacherous minefield (though that trails off inexplicably). However, I'm with the reviewers who find the assault on the hill poorly done, lacking in basic military intelligence on the enemy's part. And I agree that director Mann is much better at staging noir than at staging battle. Nonetheless, it's an excellent cast. Ray and Ryan play off one another very effectively, and there's none of that cutesy WWII banter that was so Hollywood. Other good touches for the time include the depiction of racial harmony (Morrow & Edwards) and passing glimpses of a fully human enemy.
However, fifty years have passed and I now better understand the gap between what's on the movie screen and what isn't, and, most importantly, why. Director Mann and the screenwriters worked as best they could within the constraints of budget and Cold War requirements. After all, too much realism or futility and people would be less ready to march off to war. Anyway, as a whole and within those limitations, the movie remains an entertaining artifact of its time.
My point is that in terms of combat realism and resolutions, the movie is very much a creature of its time. That's not to say the production lacks in dramatic values or entertainment. Running the artillery gantlet is genuinely nerve-wracking (though no one seems concerned with shrapnel spray) and so is the treacherous minefield (though that trails off inexplicably). However, I'm with the reviewers who find the assault on the hill poorly done, lacking in basic military intelligence on the enemy's part. And I agree that director Mann is much better at staging noir than at staging battle. Nonetheless, it's an excellent cast. Ray and Ryan play off one another very effectively, and there's none of that cutesy WWII banter that was so Hollywood. Other good touches for the time include the depiction of racial harmony (Morrow & Edwards) and passing glimpses of a fully human enemy.
However, fifty years have passed and I now better understand the gap between what's on the movie screen and what isn't, and, most importantly, why. Director Mann and the screenwriters worked as best they could within the constraints of budget and Cold War requirements. After all, too much realism or futility and people would be less ready to march off to war. Anyway, as a whole and within those limitations, the movie remains an entertaining artifact of its time.