Talk:Saints and Soldiers

Malmédy massacre and other issues

Seeing as how we do know that the massacre was far more tragic and less accident than shown in the movie, I was shocked that the historical consultants didn't blow a gasket. To quote Wikipedia here:

A tank pulled up, and a truck shortly thereafter. A single SS officer pulled out a pistol and shot a medical officer standing in the front row, and then shot the man standing next to the medical officer. Other soldiers joined in with machine guns. It is not known why this happened; there is no record of an order by an SS officer.

While I was bit surprised that Gould, as a medic, would pick up weapons (and turn out to be very good with them), it wasn't unheard of for a medic to quit being a medic and become an infantryman or vice-versa. The odd thing is that neither he, nor any of the other characters even feel the need to mention that he shouldn't be carrying any weapon while still having the red cross on his helmet and arm.

The British flight sergeant has handwritten notes he has taken, in a personal code. While he says "we" when talking about the flying, I'm not sure if anyone in a World War Two flight crew would be able to write in a small notebook. I also wondered why he would be writing in a personal code - that no one else knew. I can understand paranoia (the character demonstrated NO other paranoia), but that seems extreme.

Nonetheless, I think it's a great movie, especially for a million bucks. The rest of the historical accuracy (the visuals) works for me, but then, I wouldn't know a "farb" if I saw one. --Habap 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article after watching the DVD. There have been a lot of corrections (and clarifications) by others. I would welcome the addition of historical inaccuracies in the film; it should go in a section so labelled.

It was one of the Americans (Gould?) that called the writing a code. I figured (from the context of the movie) that the "code" was the Brit's own chicken scratchings, and (like others with bad handwriting) he is the only one that can read it. His writing was probably made even worse by trying to write in a moving fighter plane (being used for reconnaissance).

Before starting the article, I read the article on the Malmédy massacre. I decided that rather than try to interpret the movie in terms of that article, I would relate what was shown in the movie as closely as I could and include the dialog from the commentary track. I figured that someone could read both articles and make up their own mind. I read your edit to that section, and I think that it works. Val42 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the Flight Sergeant says "it's just the way I write" and I assumed that meant it was a personal code, but I hadn't considered illegibility.

I think you did a great job on the article. Perhaps it's a little more detailed than some people would expect, but you're "spot on". hehehe

We should see where we can fit the issue of the medic in....

I really liked the movie and had been surprised that I'd never heard about it - until I saw the stuff on the DVD about being from a small studio, with a tiny budget and living on film festivals. --Habap 13:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the history, I didn't start the article. However, I did write the "Plot Summary", "Religious overtones", "Malmédy massacre", "Actual events" and "Trivia", so I feel a special care for this article. All of the edits so far have been good ones to improve this article, which is what Wikipedia is about. I'm going to restructure to make a place for the information about the medic carrying a gun. You'll know because there will be another issue there. Val42 16:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article cited on the Malmady Massacre: "Several accounts claim the Germans only started shooting after several US soldiers tried to escape into the neighbouring woods. Furthermore, that the shooting of prisoners was started by an SS officer has never been confirmed; however, accounts claim there might have been warning shots fired." This is consistant with what they say in the commentary, namely that there are several accounts of the massacre. I would recommend revising the article; in its current state it seems to imply that the movie portrayal is innaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.30.94 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

While there are various contentions about how it started, none of the accounts state that the shooting was actually started by an American POW stealing a weapon and shooting a German soldier. The movie portrayal is grossly inaccurate, regardless of what the commentary says. --Habap 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The DVD commentary is the director (Little) and one of the writers (Whitaker). According to their commentary, the other writer (Geoffrey Panos) had done the research on the Malmedy massacre. They agree with you in that, "There are so many accounts about what happened." However, unlike your assertion, they didn't claim it was accurate. What they said was, "... we kinda decided that maybe more of a kinda neutral approach." So, if you were to make a movie, how would you portray the beginning of the Malmedy massacre? Val42 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How would I portray it? Well, I wouldn't have it start with an American shooting someone. Perhaps an appropriate manner would be to have the first shot not be in-frame at all. Have a lone shot and sudden panic with the massacre ensuing. I think that the method they chose is decided not nuetral. No accounts blame the start of it on Americans getting ahold of German weapons and resisting violently. They have added to the confusion of the existing accounts by creating an entirely new one. --Habap 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You did something I didn't think you'd do, come up with a reasonable way to portray it. I also agree that adding a portrayal of something like this will add to the confusion because people will remember what they saw in the movie better than whatever else they may have heard.

Now for something related but not so serious: We're totally (okay, not totally) forgetting about the four (plus one picked up later) fictional characters that we follow throughout the movie. What right do filmmakers have to write in new characters into history? (This is a question that I came up with as soon as I agreed with your implied question above.) I think you'll agree with me that putting these new characters in is okay, it's the point of most films. But significantly changing the start of the massacre isn't okay. I can't say exactly why though. Do you concur?

But either way, I think we're "Monday-morning quarterbacking" the way they made the film. Val42 04:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur completely. I loved the film, but, it is all "made up". I have occasionally thought of writing some kind of historical fiction but back away because there are so many actual stories that I would rather learn than simply invent. Nonetheless, I really enjoy reading that stuff or watching movies like this.

For example, in Gettysburg, the 20th Maine moves to the center of the Union line on the last day, when, in fact, they'd been moved onto Big Round Top. This is a far more painful error than the creation of Sergeant "Buster" Kilrain (though he does get lots of notes, letters and flowers left for him on Little Round Top.) Both were done for literary reasons, but having the regiment in the wrong place just grinds at me. I still enjoyed the movie. --Habap 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we began this discussion, the article on the beginning of the Malmedy massacre has been changed. Here is the relevant text that you will be interested in:

"For reasons which still remain unclear today, the Germans suddenly opened fire on their prisoners. Some Germans later claimed that some prisoners had tried to escape, others said that left alone in the meadow the prisoners had recovered their previously discarded weapons and fired on the German troops which continued their progression in direction of Ligneuville."

"Apparently no record of an order given by an SS officer to shoot the prisoners exists. However, some survivors testified that they had heard an order given to kill all the prisoners: Macht alle kaputt!"

This is closer to what was portrayed in the film: A prisoner grabbed the weapon from a German and shot him. But I would prefer that the Wikipedia article to be accurate than the film. This section of the article used to have just the Allied perspective, but has been rewritten to be from the German perspective. I want to hear from both sides, but I do want accuracy on both sides. Check it out. Val42 05:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Medics

OK, after reading more, I learn that it was simply probable that a medic in the ETO wouldn't carry a weapon. A recent article I read about a medic in the Pacific (a Navy corpsman serving with the Marines) indicated that he carried a weapon and most medics there did, but that he thought it was uncommon in the ETO. I think my confusion is due to the fact that conscientious objectors could agree to serve as medics, since medics are not required to carry weapons. However, nothing in the Geneva Conventions prohibits them from carrying firearms to defend themselves. --Habap 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking with some WWII Americans veterans this weekend, and one of them mentioned that 'Doc' Alden of the 509th PIB, who was a surgeon, always carried a sidearm AND would jump into combat with a Thompson or a carbine. --Habap (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is NO prohibition on medics bearing arms. Medics are allowed---and in many militaries are required---to carry weapons to defend themselves and the wounded they are caring for. What is prohibited is the use of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, etc) non-combatant markings to shield the carry and use of weapons for offensive purposes.

Any medic in Iraq or Afghanistan who did not carry weapons to protect himself and his wounded would be a damn fool and in violation of his duty to care for the wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.199.155 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

My dad was a field medic in the Korea-era US Army. He told me it was standard practice for field medics to carry Colt .45 semi-auto pistols. As he told the story to me, Army "policy" (whether formal regulation or just standing orders, I don't know) forbad medics to carry weapons, and they were told not to in Stateside training, but new guys in the field were immediately ordered by the experienced combat medics they met there to do it anyway. For what it's worth. Laodah 05:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

German language

I think that the place near the end when the jeep is stuck in the mud is a place where what is said in German is significant. Would someone with the DVD (who knows German) please put in the German along with an appropriate English translation? That same person could also do the same for any other sections where the German dialog is significant. Val42 16:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing here, but it's:

Deacon: "hurry, we're carrying a wounded to an infirmary"

Soldier: "Ok, pull forward just a bit, then turn to the left" (showing the sign pointing left)

Soldier to Gould: "Hey, you look familiar, weren't you in my elementary school class? What was your name again?"

Deacon interrupting with stalling car: "Not again! Hey, could I get some help?"

Soldier: "Oh yeah, of course."

Soldier when they miss their turn: "Hey, you missed the turn, stop. STOP!!!"

None of the German is particularly important. Well, ok, except MAYBE the German soldier Rudolph talking to the trio before they get the car. "Our troops are right over there. There's a jeep right back there, the keys are in the ignition. Go where you will... God be with you(plural) God be with you(plural)." --Puellanivis (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the line of the soldier speaking to Gould is 'interesting' if not important.... --Habap (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

101 airborne presence in Malmedy

Despite the explanation given in the movie, it is unlikely, if not impossible, that men belonging to the 101 US airborne could have been present at Baugnez crossroads (i.e. the place where the Malmedy massacre actually occurred) on 17 December 1944 at 2 p.m. (i.e. when the massacre was perpetrated by the German troops. In fact, at this time, the 101 Airborne division was still in its barracks of Reims (France) and didn't not receive an order to move to Bastogne from General Eisenhower before 8 p.m. the same day. The first troops of the 101 Airborne did not reach Bastogne before the early morning of the 19 December, although some senior officers, including General Anthony McAuliffe might have reached Bastogne a little earlier. Knowing that both St. Vith and Malmedy are located 80 km (i.e. 50 miles) further than Bastogne, it's actually difficult to imagine how these two men could have bee caught by the Germans in the morning of the 17th December,knowing that at this point of time the German had still not reached St. Vith nor Malmedy. Another Hollywood miracle? --81.241.154.59 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. I didn't even realize that. My recollection is that Gunderson states he was taking Deacon out of the front lines to St Vith, when in fact he would have had to be doing the exact opposite. The 82nd would be near St Vith, but not on the 17th. Well, at least it was an enjoyable movie, if egregiously inaccurate at many points. --Habap 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The 82nd arrived on the combat zone on 19th December, but was still 25 or 30 miles away from St Vith and 20 miles away from Malmedy. But in they helped to stop the "Peiper Group" (usually held responsible for the Malmedy massacre) in the vicinty of Stoumont and La Gleize.--Lebob-BE 14:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)(former 81.241.154.59)

What they got right

The purpose of this section is to root out some more historical inaccuracies in this film. First, I like this film, but the discussions above about the beginning Malmedy massacre, medics carrying weapons and the two characters from the 101^st Airborne have prompted me to question what else may be innacurate. (Those specific discussions should continue to occur in those sections.) Let's ignore that they made up specific characters to follow and the specifics of what happenned to these specific characters. Let's concentrate on if what was portrayed could have happenned during the few days portrayed in the film, including the flashback to the "little town in the Eisenborn Ridge." I've numbered my questions so that they can more easily be referenced once this discussion gets further downstream.

1. Given that the 101^st wasn't in the area, what unit was in the Eisenborn Ridge a few days before?
2. During WWII, would they have pulled someone from the front lines that was acting like Deacon (unable to sleep, jumpy, about to shoot at anything that moves)?
3. The Malmedy massacre article says that the American 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion made up most of the Allied troops in the massacre. What other units were represented?
4. After the massacre started, about half of the prisoners (about 60) were able to flee into the woods.
5. The Battle of the Bulge started on the 16^th, so it is conceivable that an Allied pilot could have been sent to gather intelligence and found out about the extent of the German offensive.
   1. Did any such flights occur?
   2. When did the Allies know about the extent of the German offensive?
6. Were there survivors of the Malmedy massacre that waited behind the lines until the front line went past?

Even if we don't find inaccuracies, we could find some additonal historical notes to add to the article. Val42 06:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd advice to get some quality information on the "massacre" first, I see some have done that ready elsewhere in the discussion. --197.228.62.55 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What else they got wrong

For a kid who likes to hunt from a town called Snowflake, he sure didn't know how to follow fresh tracks in deep snow. As far as that goes, the Germans should also have seen the tracks of our heroes many a time. I think the director must be from some southern California city, or perhaps has never walked in the snowy woods. Oversights like this gave the movie a bit of an earnest low brow feel. 76.170.86.78 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gould

Did anyone else have a problem with the medic (Who is obviously Jewish) being portrayed as a snide asshole for most of the film? This isn't quite Gary Busey in "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq," but it was definitely perturbing. Commander_PoppinFresh 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Watching it, I totally had the same offense. I couldn't help but think the entire time that this movie was just a big christian propaganda film, and that the notice at the beginning "based on true events" was entirely misleading. Let's make up people for a story, plop them in say... the WTC, and say it's based on true events, because we depict the collapse of the buildings. The characters are fake, and you're using them as tools to advance an ideology... that atheists are all pissed off at the Christian god, and just won't admit it. I initially thought, wow, how cool that they make the death bringer (sniper) the religious Mormon, and the life bringer (medic) the atheist... but I was grossly disappointed by the atheist being totally stereotyped into a nihilistic bastard. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoliers

Doesn't the final paragraph in the "Religious Overtones" section provide a spoiler when it says:

"During an exchange during the movie, Deacon offers Gould his book (which contains scriptures). At the end of the movie, Gould takes it."

It seems to imply the fate of the Deacon character. I don't think this paragraph is relevant to the article or the section. Trippz 03:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it acts as a spoiler, as a live Deacon could have offered it again to Gould, who "takes it" when it is offered. --Habap (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saints&Soldiers.jpg

Image:Saints&Soldiers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormon film company?

What in the world is a "a Mormon film company"? This phrase needs amplification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just pull up the page linked to by the production company name:

Excel Entertainment Group, Inc. is a media conglomerate based in Salt Lake City, Utah. Founded by former Disney executive Jeff Simpson in 1995, Excel began when four LDS-oriented record labels and the separate Excel Distribution company were acquired. Excel Entertainment Group is best known for its consistent flow of products targeted toward Latter-day Saints and particularly the distribution of many pieces of LDS cinema.

Do you really need more explanation than that? Did you even watch the film? It's a total propaganda piece advancing the Mormon Agenda. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Annoyingly, random users are swapping the references to the book Deacon offers to Gould between "Bible" and "Book of Mormon". I assume that it is the latter, but don't think it worth the effort to change it to say that, as one of the "Bible"-favoring editors would just change it back, and I don't think it a particularly important point. I agree with, you, Puellanivis, it is obviously a Mormon propaganda piece. --Habap (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by Saints at War?

There is a Mormon documentary called Saints at War (http://deseretbook.com/item/4348618/Saints_at_War) which deals with accounts about Mormons during World War II (and I?). I think there might also be a book. I have seen a clip of the documentary, and I'm pretty sure that the scene when Deacon shoots at Rudi and misses is parallel to a story that comes from this documentary. In fact, before the movie was released, I thought that it was going to be named Saints at War but was later changed. I did notice that there is no mention of the documentary during the credits, so maybe Saints and Soldiers didn't draw on material from Saints at War, but did use some of the same source material. Anybody know if and to what extent Saints at War was used as source material and whether it should be included in this article? Jefflithe (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefflithe (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessively bloated article

I've pruned down the amount of unnecessary detail in the article - esp the plot and cast. The Plot was far too detailed, and the individual bloated character notations in the Cast section was really not required. Londonclanger (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious overtones

I do not think that the religious overtones section belongs in this article. The maintenance tag says this section violates NPOV and I agree. As explained in the reception section and news sources, references to the LDS Church in this film are subtle and make up a small part of the movie. Having not seen the film myself, I am only speaking from what I see in the sources, in order to avoid bias and original research. Because of this, I think that the religious overtones section needs to be removed to prevent undue emphasis on a very small part of the movie, not even considering the fact that the section is not properly cited and high-quality sources on this film are difficult to find.

The film shows a character devoted to reading the Book of Mormon and the film mentions his "church-mission" and his standards. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not mentioned and the man is not identified as a member of the LDS Church in the film (only on the commentary track). That is up to the audience's interpretation, so I would highly disagree that this is a "Mormon propaganda piece". The filmmakers have a right to create a film that reflects their values and religious beliefs without it being called a religious propaganda piece.

Based on the research I have done, it seems that Little and Abel were interested in creating a WWII film that would be appropriate for LDS audiences rather than creating an overtly LDS film such as The Singles Ward and The Best Two Years. In a Daily Herald article about the film, Little and Abel discuss that they were hesitant to cast Heyborne due to his appearance in every "Mormon" movie, because they did not want to create a film that would be categorized as the latest "Mormon" movie. They ended up altering Heyborne's appearance drastically to avoid audience's immediate recognition of Heyborne as a frequent LDS film star.[1]

Due to everything I have discussed, I think the LDS Church can be adequately mentioned in a "see-also" section, per WP:Neutral Point of View. I can imagine keeping the information about Excel Entertainment, but moving it into the production section and editing the statement to better reflect the source. The source presented by the article does NOT say that "The Excel Entertainment Group is heavily influenced by the LDS Church", though that may be an opinion (original research). The source rather says that Excel Entertainment, "target[s] to a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints audience". Feel free to chat with me about it, but I am committed to upholding Wikipedia standards. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)