Hart's War - Am I missing something? (SPOILERS!- ending of movie discussed)

[daveleau]

AGAIN A WARNING!

I discuss the end of this movie in detail. If you want to see it and have not, please be aware of this before reading. I will spoil it for you if you have not seen it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

I just watched Hart's War. Good flick. I hated the ending though.


Am I the only one that wanted Hart to bite it in the end? I was sad when McNamara got it instead.

I saw Hart as the guy who sold out the US for his own security by giving the Germans the site of the fuel dumps. I also saw Hart as the one that spoiled the 35 men's escape and jeopardized the mission of blowing up the shoe factory. He thought of one man, (the Tuskegee airman's life) over the life of 35 men on a mission. While it is just to try and save everyone, he should have waited for deliberation, let the men escape and then tell his lie about being the murderer. The Colonel (McNamara) did not like the Tuskegee airmen, which is wrong, but was the way of society as a whole (totally wrong idea). This was his only crime though. He fought long and hard to keep his honor. He killed the treasonous Sgt who was dealing with the Germans. (In time of war, you kill men who jeopardize your escape and those who sell out to the enemy (treason).)

Am I the only one that saw this? It seems like the director was trying to paint Hart like he was a hero. I think he was anything but! He was a coward and a cheat and a treasonous pig. While the honorable (yet racist) Colonel gets killed.

[caddmannq]

Hmmm....Tough call. Good movie though. I loved it.

Re. the trial: It never would have gotten through deliberation. McNamera had to sneak out to bomb the factory.

Re. Hart: He had to learn something about honor and dificult choices, and he did...in the end. As legal council, his first duty was to his client. If not for that, what's the purpose of a military trial at all? The best thing for the company was just to hang someone & get on with it, and Hart knew that.

As far as treason: It happens. When it comes to being tortured (and I have this on the very good authority of a former CIC officer), almost everybody eventually talks. The ones who don't usually don't talk because they weren't "properly" tortured, or they didn't survive the torture. This is why almost everything is kept on a need-to-know basis, and why torture is rarely an effective practice. The guys getting caught just don't know much useful information.

In any event, Hart suffered. Perhaps he wasn't shot, but his lessons were learned the hard way.

[crazyray]

This is one of those (rare) occasions that I agree with Roger Ebert...

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_...02/021502.html

I don't think the director painted Hart a hero. The fact that the film is done from Hart's point of view limits what we know and when. (Although, it could be argued that this is another situation where the character's association with the practice of law places him in a moral neverland, unable to see the forest for the trees.)