San Pietro (1945) User Reviews

War, Dark and Gritty

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 19 May 2016]

This documentary movie is about the battle of San Pietro, a small village in Italy. Over 1,100 US soldiers were killed while trying to take this location, that blocked the way for the Allied forces from the Germans.

Huston and his crew were attached to the U.S. Army's 143rd Regiment of the 36th Division. Unlike many other military documentaries, it was claimed Huston's cameramen filmed alongside the infantrymen as they fought their way up the hills to reach San Pietro. (Huston's claim that the film was made during the battle was proved false by the research of Peter Maslowski.) Huston quickly became unpopular with the Army, not only for the film but also for his response to the accusation that the film was anti-war. Huston responded that if he ever made a pro-war film, he should be shot. And this coming from a man who served. I think that is a great statement. We can support the troops, especially when they are fighting the fascists, but that should not make us "pro-war". Whatever is between pro- and anti- war, that seems to be the right outlook.

Hard Fight.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 24 May 2010]

I don't know how this documentary ever managed to be released in 1945 while the war was still underway. Other examples of the genre always ended in victory. Allied dead were never seen except at funeral services with flags flying and officers making speeches and a solemn narrator telling us of their brave deeds.

Huston's documentary is different. The narration is by the director and is full of the logic of battle and lacks sentiment. The film is shot from ground level, the level of the foot soldier. A phosphorous shell explodes some feet away, the ground trembles, and the air is filled with bits of burning chemicals. An American soldier is shot in mid-stride and flops unceremoniously to the ground. There are multiple shots of American dead, some being bundled into mattress covers and lowered into hasty graves by the Quartermaster Corps.

Only one speech is delivered, by General Mark Clark at the opening of the film. He was in charge of American forces in Italy and always saw to it that the press referred to the Fifth Army as "General Mark Clark's Fifth Army." Clark points out that there was great sacrifice during the campaign and hints that it might not have been so great if the Army hadn't seen fit to rob him of resources for the invasion of France. Nevertheless, he observes, we kept many Germans pinned down in Italy. No mention of the fact that the Allies too were bottled up in Italy with the Germans acting as the cork.

Huston uses a simple map and pointer to illustrate the tactical situation. And his narration is blunt. The attack on the German's right was launched and not a man got more than 300 yards beyond his starting point. All our attacks were repeatedly repulsed with heavy losses. And when at last the Germans withdrew, they did so swiftly and according to plan, and took up new defensive position five kilometers away.

Five kilometers away. That meant a new battle against a new defensive line. And after that, another battle against another defensive line, with all the German artillery sighted in, and their positions camouflaged and mutually supporting.

There was nothing else to be done. The Italian boot seemed made for defense, with a high mountain range forming a spine down the center, and innumerable smaller ranges to the east and west, interspersed with rivers that swelled during the winter rains. The obstacles and mud often halted operations entirely.

I suppose that's one of the reasons why we don't see very much footage of combat from the Italian campaign on television. It wasn't colorful. It wasn't glamorous. It didn't end in a smashing victory. The Battle of San Pietro was an early one, and Monte Casino and the Gustav Line and other terrors still lay ahead.

The closest Hollywood ever came to capturing the misery associated with the Italian campaign was in William Wellman's "The Story of G.I. Joe" -- and even there, the despair these men must have felt is muted by the homespun voice over of Burgess Meredith as Ernie Pyle. Huston evidently staged many of the combat scenes but I still don't know how Huston's short film managed to get past the wartime censors.

Doesn't quite live up to its reputation.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 11 April 2009]

I was expecting quite a bit from this movie, as it's often being credited as being an intriguing WW II (anti)war documentary, that puts you right in the middle of things. It does feature some unique and straight-forward battle images but to me it just didn't all worked out.

To me this movie looks and feels more like a news reel than an actual documentary about the accounts of the battle of San Pietro. This might sound like a compliment but it isn't really. The movie tells a story and it features lots of footage but it all feels glued together. To me it's even doubtful if the narration and images even belong together. The entire narration tells how the battle progressed but I doubted that all of the footage got shot during any of those talked about events. My suspicion got confirmed by the end of the movie, when a disclaimer got shown saying some of the footage got shot before and after the battle but were put into the movie for continuity reasons.

The narration by John Huston keeps the movie going at all times but it makes things happen a bit too fast as well really. Guess this is not the creator's fault but more the war department's that heavily cut the movie down because the movie got considered to be too anti-war by them.

The movie is mostly considered to be anti-war because it's being pretty straight-forward and of course honest. You'll see death bodies in this movie and allies taking some heavy blows by the Nazi-enemy. This of course however this present day only works out as realistic and more interesting as well.

After watching this movie I still don't feel like I knew what happened all during the battle of San Pietro, or why this battle was considered to be such a distinctive or important one to the allied campaign. But this again is also mostly due to the movie its too high pace.

WW II-buffs will still 'enjoy' this movie for what it is, due to its unique footage but don't expect to learn much or to be blown away by any of the movie its images.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

An Impressive & Memorable Documentary

[Snow Leopard · 15 September 2005]

John Huston's World War II documentary on the battle of San Pietro is easily up to the high standard that he set with his numerous classic dramas. It is impressive in describing both the events and the atmosphere of a desperate and costly struggle, and it is memorable in preserving its effect on those who had to live through it.

Even on a purely historical level, this would serve as a valuable description of one stage in the grueling Italian campaign, one of the war's least-remembered and least glamorous aspects. The narration is very efficient in detailing what the battle was about, what happened, and why it happened. It puts everything into the perspective of the war as a whole, and it also provides a look at the nature of the Allies' slow, grueling, costly progress up the Italian peninsula.

On a dramatic level, it is even more effective and memorable. Without forcing anything, without resorting to ploys of any kind, it brings you into the world of the unfortunate foot soldiers on whose backs and blood the fate of the battle rested. Huston's narration is flawless, using evenly measured tones to describe events in such a way as to allow them and the pictures of them to speak for themselves - and they speak in a powerful way.

Most of the footage must have been taken at considerable risk, and while there is nothing fancy about the techniques, it's impressive how much it captures. The soldiers slowly crawling along rocky heights, the pounding of heavy artillery, the frightened civilians hiding in caves, and much more, are all vividly captured. It's hard to think of another documentary then or now that succeeds so well at what it set out to do.

Great Moments, Not the Most Interesting

[KyleLicht · 7/10 · 5 August 2019]

This is the next film in my US military propaganda films series. This film feels more like a documentary than a propaganda film though. I think Huston made this as an anti-war film but the military tried to use it as a pro-war film. Since the majority of the film is scenes of battle and showing military tactics on a map, the military most likely showed the horrors as a training video to take war seriously, rather than an anti-war film to scare people away from war. Many dead bodies and body bags are shown. Even though it is disturbing, I'm a bit dumb to this shock value with modern times, as beheading and school shooting videos are being released casually. So, the film itself isn't that interesting to me. Others may love it but it was narration over war footage, to put it simply. However, even though the entertainment factor was dull for me, I think it is wonderful that a documentary exists on this specific battle and shows so many soldiers' faces and documentation of the event. Lastly, there were three great moments at the end of the film that I think make the film a bit more interesting and earn a few more points. First, there different shots of Italian women carrying various things on their heads, some of them without using their hands! I liked that. Second, there were men either burying or unearthing a body in a bag and it was heartbreaking to see the one man grab at the body and start crying. Third, there were shots of children smiling at the camera which I found a very beautiful thing to see. They end the film with a hopeful note with footage of church goers and farming. The narrator says it's going to be a good harvest this year, implying that since the battle is over, they're going to have a period of peace and restoration. On a realistically disturbing note, he is correct. With all of the dead bodies in the earth, it will be a very nutrient-rich soil. Apologies to be graphic, but I was recently researching human composting and I couldn't help but notice this. So, this was the least propagandic film in the series so far and although there were some great shots, I wouldn't say it was the most interesting either.

Okay, but a bit disappointing. 6/10

[grantss · 6/10 · 10 May 2018]

John Huston's World War 2 documentary on the taking of the Italian town of San Pietro by US forces in December 1943.

Okay, but a bit disappointing. Was interesting as it covers a battle that you never hear about in WW2 documentaries or read about in books. In a way San Pietro was a sample of the type of attritional war fought in Italy.

However, like "Report from the Aleutians" the main problem is John Huston's narration. Dull, verbose, flowery, and quite irritating at times. Not as bad here as the aforementioned documentary, but still off-putting enough.

The Battle of San Pietro

[jboothmillard · 6/10 · 5 March 2010]

This short documentary might not be listed as a feature film in the Radio Times film book and stuff, but it features in the book 1001 Movie You Must See Before You Die, and that's good enough for me. From director John Huston, also narrating, this is real footage of the battle on San Pietro, a small village in Italy. It showed all the movements for the US soldiers and Allied Forces many battalions as they positioned themselves to attack the Germans. Over 1,000 of these soldiers were killed trying to take this location, but in the end, it was a successful operation, and even though some of the soldiers retraced their steps for the footage, it is captured well. I suppose it is a real life film about World War II that should be seen, especially as the army detested this film and Huston for creating something "anti-war". Good!

A U.S. Army Documentary but Maybe the Greatest Anti-War Film Ever

[marie_D · 10/10 · 27 December 2000]

This film is available on DVD -- as part of the "Treasures from American Film Archives" collection released this year. The collection has lots of gems on its four disks but "The Battle of San Pietro" alone would make it worth the price.

I watched this 30-minute documentary of one of many battles in Italy shortly after having viewed "All Quiet on the Western Front" for the first time. I thought the Milestone film was brilliant but it was this Huston documentary that made me cry. I don't know whether it is the matter-of-fact narration (by the director), the sight of all those G.I.s, or the Italian children that got to me but the sum of it all was almost overwhelming. Very highly recommended. 10/10

Just another war documentary

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 20 July 2015]

"San Pietro" or also "The Battle of San Pietro" is an American documentary that was made at the end of World War II, so 70 years ago pretty much exactly. It was directed by John Huston and also narrated by him. Huston was one of the most popular directors of his time and also won several Academy awards for his work. War movies were his most notable genre. And while I have to say that I was always interested in wars, my interest was still more focused on the political aspects that led to these wars than about the actual fights on the battlefield. This is maybe also the reason why I did not appreciate this film, which runs for over half an hour, that much. Still if your area of interest is more about battle scenes and you don't mind the black-and-white, then you will certainly have a better time watching. Still all in all, I cannot really recommend this short documentary movie.

the extra minutes are worth fighting for

[mynameisal · 9/10 · 20 March 2003]

i recently saw the approx. 40min version of this film and i must say, knowing what is missing from the 32min version, that it is indeed far more impactful and superior. images of more fallen soldiers in white body bags appear and reappear throughout to the point of it being a reocurring theme. i'm sure it's just as brilliant without the extra footage, but if you can, try to see the extra footage. while i have not seen the true original (running approx. 50min), i'm quite positive it's even better than the one i was fortunate enough to see. a great documentary film all-around (even if some of it was staged).

Not Very Good

[name99-92-545389 · 3/10 · 19 June 2021]

These WW2 US Military documentaries are all over the place.

The Frank Capra _Why We Fight_ series are interesting, if for nothing other than their "propaganda" value, showing you how the war was sold.

_Tunisian Victory_ is exceptionally good in terms of explaining strategy, and what the war felt like while it wasn't certain what the outcome would be.

Even the much weaker _Battle of New Britain_ does an adequate job of showing you the marine experience, both day to day and in the runup to battles.

But I honestly have nothing good to say about _The Battle of San Pietro_. It explains nothing, it shows nothing, it clarifies nothing. Some Americans fought someone (Germans? Italians?), they won some small skirmishes they lost some small skirmishes. They took some hills then lost them then took them again. How did this fit into the big picture? Who knows?

I don't know if John Huston was being passive-aggressive with this movie, or if he just didn't know how to tell a documentary story. But this is a seriously weak effort.

The story behind San Pietro

[robastyk · 5 August 2010]

One reviewer commented that he didn't know how this film ever got released during World War II. It almost didn't.

First, you need to know that Hollywood actors, directors and producers were heavily recruited by the War and Navy Departments (the Defense Dept. is a post war innovation). These celebrities got to know a lot of the senior military personnel through their activities in Stage Door Canteens, the USO, recruiting and bond drives. Few were closer to the military top brass than Orson Welles, a close friend of Houston's.

Welles told this story on, I believe, a Dick Cavett Show in the late 1960s or very early 1970s. I repeat it as I remember it.

According to Welles the War Department censors did not want San Pietro released. They felt that the film was too graphic and that it might have an adverse effect on support for the war. Through Welles' personal friendship with General George C. Marshall he and Houston arranged a private screening at the Pentagon for Marshall, his staff and the censors. Following the screening Gen. Marshall stood up and ordered that the film be released. He said that it was an accurate depiction and that war was horrible. He felt that the American people needed to know that horror lest they romanticize war and become fond of a monstrous act of inhumanity.

So San Pietro was released. If Welles exaggerated his role, I can't say. Certainly Houston didn't contradict him. If I have misremembered the tale in some particular, it does not change the fact that San Pietro owed its release to the intervention of Marshall.

Even today San Pietro is worth seeing. As has already been suggested, it is a good complement to Lewis Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front. I would suggest that it also ranks with two other great movies whose subject is World War I. Those movies are Jean Renoir's Grand Illusion and Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory. And, although it doesn't quiet rank with the three films already mentioned, Philippe de Broca's King of Hearts belongs in the insanity of war film festival we seem to be constructing here. Finally, I would point out that earlier wars are often stand ins for the more recent one as in M.A.S.H. Korea stood in for Vietnam.

John Huston: Yes it was an anti-war documentary,,If it was pro-war I should have been shot for making it!

[kapelusznik18 · 8/10 · 10 September 2015]

The reality of the War in Europe was brought to the American people in the John Huston shocking documentary "San Pietro" a forgotten battle in the hills and mountains of Central Italy that ended up costing as many US military battle casualties-some 1,200-as San Pietro's own population-1,400-in the 10 days of brutal fighting it took to capture it. We see here for the first time war in the raw with real footage that make people watching it stomachs churn. The film was unlike the movies that were released by Hollywood about the war to boost moral and make us-the US-look invincible compared to those we were at war with.

Released just -on May 3 1945- a week before the war in Europe ended the American people saw for the first time US servicemen in real life not in the movie killed fighting the enemy in far greater numbers then the US Government or War Department was willing to show them. Using stock footage as well as recreating the battle scenes director John Huston showed us the reality of war not at all to glorify it like the Hollywood studios did to hide it's shocking effects from the American public.

New at the time the war documentary opened the door to many more documentaries as well as movies to follow over the next 70 years in showing us that war is hell and mostly to those who have to fight it. Since then war movies out of Hollywood have become far more real in their depiction of war and less patriotic which is the best thing that the war documentary achieved. And it almost landed it's director John Huston behind bars for it's anti-war message that was considered unpatriotic and defeatist at the time of its release.

Thorough And Informative Documentary About The Battle Of San Pietro That Is Short And Sweet

[bellabanana93 · 8/10 · 25 October 2017]

San Pietro (1945) is a War Documentary directed and narrated by John Huston. This short film documents the Battle of San Pietro Infinite in December 1943. The narrator introduces you to the film by explaining the weather at the location of the battle at the time and the terrain of the location. It is a farming community called St. Peter's. The river was intense and the mountainous terrain made it hard to walk.

The footage is good and the documentary is informative. It explains how the soldiers prepare, what weapons they use, how they transported things they need, what their battle plans are, what obstacles they will face, how the soldiers communicated, exactly how each attack went, what important information German captives revealed, the weapons and tactics enemies used, the orders given, changes made as things went wrong, how the withdrawal was indicated, the demographics of the townspeople, and how the townspeople are coping with the aftermath of the battle. The footage is old, but it is sufficient at providing imagery and context to the film. Since it is short and full of information, it would be great for showing in history class.

Gritty and realistic...

[planktonrules · 17 July 2011]

I saw this film while watching my copy of the 4-DVD set "Treasures From American Film Archives"--a set of mostly ephemeral films that would have otherwise been lost.

"San Pietro" is a film assembled by the US War Department to chronicle one of many battles from WWII. Like so many government films made during WWII, it is narrated by a Hollywood star (director John Huston) and I assume it was made by film makers who were in military service for the war.

The film's narration and images are surprisingly blunt and free from extreme patriotism--making it highly realistic and gripping. In other words, the film is not all about American victory but shows casualties and describes how difficult this battle was--not some jingoistic rant meant to glorify war and make it seem like the troops were super-human. While some might have thought this would demoralize the folks at home (hence it was held for release for two years), it was direct, informative and well-constructed. At times, it felt almost as if you were there in the action and was very compelling--and a nice tribute to real sacrifices made by some very brave soldiers as well as an important historical record.

Only two ways to get into the Liri Valley

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 19 February 2018]

The war in Italy was measured in ground gain by yards as the documentary film, San Pietro will show. San Pietro was a village that was at the entrance of Italy's Liri Valley on the way to Rome. Only two ways to get there, over the mountains or through the pass and the Germans were prepared for both.

In and of itself the Italian campaign gave lie to Churchill's contention that the way to beat Hitler was the 'soft underbelly of Europe'. What it did do was tie a whole of troops down in Italy that might have been used repelling the Russians who were gaining back their country.

John Huston's rich narration is part and parcel of this film's value. A lot of the film was done on the scene, some with some stock footage and some scenes even reshot in Hollywood. It sure looks real enough and in 1945 it reminded Americans of the sacrifices made.

It should also be noted that Italy became a sideshow on June 6, 1944 the day after Mark Clark led the Fifth Army into reentering Rome. The cross channel invasion took place and the action really shifted to France. By the time of VE Day, Allied troops were just pouring into Austria.

Soft underbelly indeed.

San Pietro was another worthy World War II documentary from John Huston

[tavm · 8/10 · 28 May 2012]

In honor of Memorial Day, I decided to watch some John Huston documentaries made during World War II. Before the film begins, a General Mark Clark makes some comments on the worthiness of what is depicted in the picture. Then narrator Huston guides us through what went on in the title village of Italy as the American soldiers try to break the German blockade of our troops. Quite compelling battle footage even though a later disclaimer mentions how staged some of it was before and after the actual battle. There's also much somber footage of dead soldiers and many survivors digging graves. But there's also some joyful scenes of women and children smiling at their rescue and many grateful local men as well. I have to also note how surprised I was at some breastfeeding shots as well! This seemed even more worthy of this commemorative day than Huston's previous doc, Report from the Aleutians, as the stakes were higher. So on that note, San Pietro is recommended.

It's all in the perception

[chinaskee · 22 November 2003]

While I agree with another reviewer here that " All Quiet On The Western Front" is one of the greatest anti-war films of all time I don't see this documentary as anti-war at all. San Pietro was of strategic value to the Allied Forces and yes we took it at great loss of life and yes nobody wants to die in some war in a foreign country but these brave young men died for a good cause. To try and use this film to argue that wars should never be fought does a great disservice to all the young Americans who died to free Europe from the Nazis.

WW II film

[mpui_05 · 13 September 2008]

These comments helped me a lot' It is impressive in describing both the events and the atmosphere of a desperate and costly struggle, and it is memorable in preserving its effect on those who had to live through it.

This documentary movie is about the battle of San Pietro, a small village in Italy. Over 1,100 US soldiers were killed while trying to take this location, that blocked the way for the Allied forces from the Germans'

Well i do watched film not the whole of it but i cant get the documentary devices the filmmaker used, uniqueness in the film e.g in Triumph of the Will everyman has got Hitler' s hairstyle and how the editing together with shots relate to what the film is about. Also why is that women and children are shown smiling? Which type of shots are mostly used? What causes this battle? Who won the Battle and what are the effects brought by this fighting apart from people dying? What is the filmmaker trying to explain to the world?Please anyone explain to me.I will be happy... Really want to know about this film Thanks a lot

The Red Badge of Courage

[tieman64 · 3 September 2010]

This documentary, narrated and directed by John Huston, focuses on the costly battle to capture and liberate a strategic Italian village 40 miles southeast of Rome in 1943.

The film was heavily cut by the United States Government - much to Huston's anger - for being "anti-war". Huston's famous response to the American High Command when they accused him of being "against the War": "If I ever make anything other than an antiwar film, I hope you take me out and shoot me."

The film was notorious in the 40s for being gritty and hard hitting, but today the film's footage seems very sanitized. Sequences are obviously staged, the camera turns away from the battle's horrors, and though dead bodies are shown, the film dare not look upon the true face of war. We could chalk this up to the various Production Codes of the era, but even today, in our time of relaxed censorship, war footage remains either ridiculously sanitized or romanticized.

Still, the film closes with wonderful shots of the liberated villagers. These scenes aren't exultant: Huston thinks the whole affair is a trite, and very sad, waste of lives.

Incidentally, this film was produced by Frank Capra. The War Office has a history of suckering cinema's most "commercial" and "crowd pleasing" (ie dumb as rocks) directors into making propaganda films. Everyone from Hitch to Capra to Ford to Spielberg has been looped into this con game. Huston got sucked in too, and though he pretended not to play their game, his film would eventually be used/misappropriated by the US military for training purposes.

7.5/10 - The uproar over this documentary would lead Huston to make "The Red Badge of Courage", an anti-war film which was mercilessly cut to pieces (like Huston's own "San Pietro" and "In This Our Life") by fickle producers.

Good Doc

[Michael_Elliott · 2 March 2008]

San Pietro (1945)

*** (out of 4)

John Huston's second of three documentaries made during WW2. This one shows the graphic battle of San Pietro where more than 1,100 American soldiers died. I had heard a lot about this film over the years and while it was a good movie I was somewhat letdown due to some of the hype I had heard. I watched the 32-minute version, which was included on the Treasures from the American Film Archives collection, but I believe there are a couple other longer versions out there that feature more footage of the dead soldier. The U.S. government called this film "anti-war" and I wouldn't say that but the film does show the viewer the casualties of what's going on. The digging of the graves was an eerie sight. A lot of people praised Huston's narration but I found it to be quite distracting.

An enjoyable documentary

[oscar-35 · 20 September 2012]

*Spoiler/plot- 1945, The Allied and US forces attack the German strong hold that is just below of the hilltop fortress a Benedictine Medieval monastery of Monte Cassino to start their march through Italy to Germany.

*Special Stars- Director: John Huston

*Theme- The smallest of battlegrounds illustrates to us the great bravery that won WW2 for the Allied troops.

*Trivia/location/goofs- American documentary, a very famous documentary film of the time about the troops fighting in the Italian peninsula. Look for 36th Texas Infantry Division footage here along with other Allied units fighting in that battle area of the muddy Liri Valley, Po River, and Monte Casino. My father fought in this battle and lived!

*Emotion- An enjoyable documentary made up of live action combat or newsreel footage. However, there are the unpleasant shots of injured Americans and killed Germans with some blatant racist language. But it is extremely educational and does what a narrative simulated war film can do.