Saving Private Ryan is Great!
Norm
seen them all! I feel like I was there!
Tim Nielsen
I've
>seen them all! I feel like I was there!
A very good movie, but the ending sucked. The sound was awesome, although
deafening. I can't imagine what I nightmare it would have been to cut all
the gunshots for that movie.
Tim.
Tom Wootton
Spielberg's other films, a "mixed bag". On the weak side, the characters and
story were largely derivative, combining well-worn elements of A WALK IN THE
SUN (a small band of soldiers expected to trek far behind enemy lines to take
out an objective of marginal importance) and PORK CHOP HILL, and even perhaps
HAMBURGER HILL (in which soldiers are ordered to engage in utterly useless
missions, but the emotional value of the objective seems to grow along with the
casualties). On the plus side, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN boasts some of the most
harrowing and imaginative combat sequences ever put to film. Spielberg has
definitely produced some revolutionary work here, and the war movie will never
be the same again. Oscar material? Maybe. Definitely "A" level work, but I
think SCHINDLER'S LIST was integrated thematically far better than RYAN.
Tom Wootton
Amir Khan
beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
It just didn't fit.
Still though...the movie is definitely one of his best
Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
Mike
Olivier Kamienski
Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
>Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and
I've
>seen them all! I feel like I was there!
>
Raiders etc...) but I've been grately disappointed with his last efforts.
Saving Private Ryan has arguably the most horrifying war action scenes ever
made yet the story is shallow and cliché.
Ollie
TK
Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
>I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
>beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>
>It just didn't fit.
Did you not get that the old man was Ryan?
Spielberg chose that beginning because of an experience he had like that. He
was visiting, I believe it was Normandy Beach (or maybe Omaha, I've read so
much about this movie lately I'm getting my places mixed up) and he saw this
scene where a man was visiting the memorial, fell to his knees in anguish
and then his family swarmed around him. That image stayed with him to this
day and he chose to open the movie with it.
>Still though...the movie is definitely one of his best
>
Mr. Boy
>
> Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and I've
> seen them all! I feel like I was there!
I can't help feeling that the movie was a "half and half" type thing. It
was a fantastic piece of cinema in its scope and direction, but it
wasn't something that you can like.
It was a good film, but it still wasn't. It was a film where you want to
say "That was great!" but you can't because you're leaving the theater
with this gaping hole in your sole where Happiness used to live. You
walk away feeling so depressed and overwhelmed that you can't even think
straight.
It was a fine piece of Cinema, but it belongs in the separate category
with "Schindler's List": Movies that can't be compared to any other
without being biased and insulting the people for whom they stand.
I'd like to rate it on the top of my "Best Movies" list, but I can't. I
didn't enjoy the movie, no matter how much I liked it.
-Mr. Boy
http://www.mrboy.com/
"Love. Laugh. Cry. Die. Moldy Kitten is coming."
Norman Wilner
>
>I can't help feeling that the movie was a "half and half" type thing. It
>was a fantastic piece of cinema in its scope and direction, but it
>wasn't something that you can like.
>It was a good film, but it still wasn't. It was a film where you want to
>say "That was great!" but you can't because you're leaving the theater
>with this gaping hole in your sole where Happiness used to live. You
>walk away feeling so depressed and overwhelmed that you can't even think
>straight.
>It was a fine piece of Cinema, but it belongs in the separate category
>with "Schindler's List": Movies that can't be compared to any other
>without being biased and insulting the people for whom they stand.
>I'd like to rate it on the top of my "Best Movies" list, but I can't. I
>didn't enjoy the movie, no matter how much I liked it.
Remember that thread about the difference between "movies" and "films"? Here you go.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Bill Davis
<Okam...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
> >Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and
> I've
> >seen them all! I feel like I was there!
> >
> >Spielberg is slowly losing it. I used to be a huge fan (Duel, Jaws,
> Raiders etc...) but I've been grately disappointed with his last efforts.
> Saving Private Ryan has arguably the most horrifying war action scenes ever
> made yet the story is shallow and cliché.
>
> Ollie
Ollie,
You assume the story itself is important here.
In a good films, the story is often simply a device through which the
director lets the audience see familiar things in new and diferent ways.
(Star Wars is just a cowboy movie after all)
In GREAT films, while that's happening, we are forced to re-examine our
pre-conceptions and beliefs and confront who and what we are, and most
critically, and what we WANT to be.
RYAN does that, arguably better than all but the tiniest fraction of films
ever made.
I remember years ago, before I was a father, seeing and relating to kids
one way ... then later in my life, after I had a son, my view of kids
changed. I finally had context. That's part of what makes life so rich.
Perhaps some day, the trees will recede for you and the forest will appear.
--
Bill Davis
NewVideo
Togetherin
>Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
>>Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and
>I've
>>seen them all! I feel like I was there!
>>
>>Spielberg is slowly losing it. I used to be a huge fan (Duel, Jaws,
>Raiders etc...) but I've been grately disappointed with his last efforts.
>Saving Private Ryan has arguably the most horrifying war action scenes ever
>made yet the story is shallow and cliché.
>
>Ollie
How could anybody like Duel? He made that before he even met me. When he told
us what it was about (cause nobody'd seen it the previous autumn), we really
gave him H for it.
David Totten
I loved RYAN for the same reasons I liked "Amistad:" It is a movie about the
importance of history. Like "Shindler's List," the overriding theme is
"don't forget this."
The most amazing comparison to "Shindler's List" is that SL makes sense in a
new way, in the context of Ryan. If I were to watch Shindler again, I would
watch Ryan first.
The way I see it, "Saving Private Ryan" tells of the horrible sacrifices
that the world made 50 years ago. One of the most haunting shots is the
scene of the typing pool--scores of people typing letters to inform mothers
that their sons are dead. I can barely comprehend what it would be like to
live in an America where half-a-million of my neighbors had died. And for
what? Ryan is about the sacrifice. The movie ends with the soldiers still
not sure it was worth it [if you consider that Captain Miller's (Tom Hanks)
platoon is symbolic of America and Ryan (Matt Damon) represents the ideals
we fought for]. Miller tells Ryan to "earn this," to recognize the sacrifice
and find his own answers about whether or not it was worth it.
"Shindler's List" answers that question. This is the reason we fought. This
is why we had to win no matter what the cost. The tens of millions of people
killed around the world were indeed a fair price to pay to right this
injustice. Hitler's dream of a Europe made safe for Germans through slave
labor and factory murder could not have been permitted. The horrors that
Captain Miller and Private Ryan suffer are a fair price for that.
The question that haunts me, however, is the one that the old soldier asks
at the end: Have I earned what my grandparents gave me?
Anyway, I'll be watching this movie again.
--david totten--
tot...@alaskalife.net
Arodi S Lopez
the big screen,I felt like I was there too...Norm (stor...@gatenospam.net)
wrote:
: Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and I've
: seen them all! I feel like I was there!
--
Arodi S Lopez
d054...@dc.seflin.org
Arodi S Lopez
Tim Nielsen (tnie...@exo.com) wrote:
: >Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and
: I've
: >seen them all! I feel like I was there!
: A very good movie, but the ending sucked. The sound was awesome, although
: deafening. I can't imagine what I nightmare it would have been to cut all
: the gunshots for that movie.
: Tim.
--
Arodi S Lopez
d054...@dc.seflin.org
DogmaRatt
Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
>I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
>beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>
>It just didn't fit.
Didn't fit? It was the whole story! The movie was about Pvt. Ryan!
>
>Still though...the movie is definitely one of his best
>
>Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
Olivier Kamienski
Togetherin wrote in message
<199807270413...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>
>>Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
>>>Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and
>>I've
>>>seen them all! I feel like I was there!
>>>
>>Raiders etc...) but I've been grately disappointed with his last efforts.
>>Saving Private Ryan has arguably the most horrifying war action scenes
ever
>>made yet the story is shallow and cliché.
>>
>>Ollie
>
>How could anybody like Duel? He made that before he even met me. When he
told
>us what it was about (cause nobody'd seen it the previous autumn), we
really
>gave him H for it.
And you are...
W T Williams
----------
In article <6pi8tk$ed0$1...@excalibur.flash.net>, "DogmaRatt"
<Dogm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
>>I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
>>beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>>
>>It just didn't fit.
>
>Didn't fit? It was the whole story! The movie was about Pvt. Ryan!
>
This type of ending is becoming a Spielberg trade mark. Remember the ending
of Shindler's List with the survivors at the end, very powerful. It was
not quite as dramatic in Ryan, but it still pulled the entire scope of the
story together. The GI's died trying to save the world for Ryan's children
and their children. Is that hard to figure out? My only objection to the
ending was Spielberg allowing some movie making drama with Hanks lines to
Ryan at the end. This was a little too hollywood, but it fit with the story,
and it helped tie together with the ending. An Oscar contender for Best
Picture and it will win for Sound.
WTW
Togetherin
away and long ago.
Jeremy Sammons
>>>I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
>>>beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>>>
>>>It just didn't fit.
>>
>>Didn't fit? It was the whole story! The movie was about Pvt. Ryan!
>>
>
>This type of ending is becoming a Spielberg trade mark. Remember the ending
>of Shindler's List with the survivors at the end, very powerful. It was
>not quite as dramatic in Ryan, but it still pulled the entire scope of the
>story together. The GI's died trying to save the world for Ryan's children
>and their children. Is that hard to figure out?
I don't know if anyone caught it...but when the old Ryan at the beginning
begins to think back about the war, you can look in his eyes and see flames.
Spielberg used some cinematic trick to portray a little red light in his
eyes, and I thought as we started the battle scene, that he was remembering
a descent into hell, which is what it was.
Alan W. Blackmon
THX theater has learned where the volume control is. Whew! My ears were
not ringing after the movie.
alan
Alan W. Blackmon
counting for what these men did for him. Remember, he was told "Make it
count".
alan
Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
Alan W. Blackmon
Daniel Rush
love for those men who had to go through that hell 50 years ago.
Finally, a world War II movie has treated the true horror of that war in
it's most terrible light.
Tom Wootton
"horrors of war" in such a virtuoso and visually unforgettable style. This
view, unfortunately, tends to give weight to the notion that the film is easily
categorized as an anti-war film or a pacifist tract, which it most certainly is
not. Does anyone actually believe that RYAN argues that the crusade against
Nazi Festung Europa did not merit the cost incurred by the Allied armies?
Or could it not be that Spielberg lent his considerable talents (indeed, RYAN's
combat scenes are a work of revolutionary genius) to the enterprise of linking
modern audiences emotionally and intellectually with the sacrifices of the men
of the US Armed Forces during World War II so as to allow the audience to gain a
more personal appreciation of the ordeals soldiers endured? Actor Tom Hanks, in
any case, seems to have gotten the point. "This is what happens," he once
remarked, "when a couple of million guys set out to save the world." I do not
believe that Hanks was being facetious.
Tom Wootton
Loraine Wingham
<al...@wcinet.net> wrote:
>I loved the movie too. I was there too after seeing this film. The local
>THX theater has learned where the volume control is. Whew! My ears were
>not ringing after the movie.
>
I saw this brillaint film at a regular theatre with dolby sound.
Still, I had trouble hearing for about a half an hour after the movie
ended. I think I'll take some ear plugs the next time I go to see it.
Loraine
Michael McCoy
> In GREAT films, while that's happening, we are forced to re-examine our
> pre-conceptions and beliefs and confront who and what we are, and most
> critically, and what we WANT to be.
And this is *precisely* where SPR fails so badly. Spielberg's framing element
ends up being so cliched and, ultimately, such a feeble effort at justification
that I was left sitting there wondering, so why, exactly, did they bother? Why
was all the sacrifice, and especially the Captain's sacrifice, worth Ryan's life?
Spielberg utterly fails to answer this question with any sort of satisfying
explanation. "You're a good man," uttered by the non-understanding wife is just
pathetically weak.
This was some powerful, technical achievement. However, as a complete film it
falls frustratingly short.
--
Michael McCoy
mmck...@imsnet.net
---------------------------------------
All views expressed are my own and do not represent the views of any organization
that I'm aware of.
---------------------------------------
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.--Horace Mann
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.--Albert Camus
A pop fly hit down the third base line is the shortstop's play.--Peppermint Patty
---------------------------------------
Michael McCoy
> It fit perfectly. Ryan in the cemetary had to come to grips about his life
> counting for what these men did for him. Remember, he was told "Make it
> count".
No, he was told "earn it." And Spielberg utterly fails to show us any evidence
whatsoever that he did earn it and, having failed to do so, the film just
doesn't work--it's underlying story just crumbles away.
Keith L. Krinn
That, my friend, was the essence of the film!
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 03:39:03 -0500, "Amir Khan" <bad...@email.msn.com>
wrote:
>I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
>beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>
>It just didn't fit.
>
>Still though...the movie is definitely one of his best
>
Keith L. Krinn
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:33:55 -0700, "Alan W. Blackmon"
<al...@wcinet.net> wrote:
>It fit perfectly. Ryan in the cemetary had to come to grips about his life
>counting for what these men did for him. Remember, he was told "Make it
>count".
>
>alan
>Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
Keith L. Krinn
On 26 Jul 1998 20:57:55 EDT, "Mr. Boy" <moldy...@mrboy.com> wrote:
>Norm wrote:
>>
>> Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and I've
>> seen them all! I feel like I was there!
>
>I can't help feeling that the movie was a "half and half" type thing. It
>was a fantastic piece of cinema in its scope and direction, but it
>wasn't something that you can like.
>It was a good film, but it still wasn't. It was a film where you want to
>say "That was great!" but you can't because you're leaving the theater
>with this gaping hole in your sole where Happiness used to live. You
>walk away feeling so depressed and overwhelmed that you can't even think
>straight.
>It was a fine piece of Cinema, but it belongs in the separate category
>with "Schindler's List": Movies that can't be compared to any other
>without being biased and insulting the people for whom they stand.
>I'd like to rate it on the top of my "Best Movies" list, but I can't. I
>didn't enjoy the movie, no matter how much I liked it.
>
matrix
Daniel Rush wrote in message
<3573-35...@newsd-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
To which I must add the veterans of Korea and Vietnam as well
matrix
ckirste2
>
> No, the actual line was "Earn this". Sorry.
>
> Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
> >I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
> >beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
> >
> >It just didn't fit.
I thought he said "YOU EARNED IT" ???
ckirste2
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:30:05 -0700, "Alan W. Blackmon"
> <al...@wcinet.net> wrote:
>
> >I loved the movie too. I was there too after seeing this film. The local
> >THX theater has learned where the volume control is. Whew! My ears were
> >not ringing after the movie.
> >
>
> I saw this brillaint film at a regular theatre with dolby sound.
> Still, I had trouble hearing for about a half an hour after the movie
> ended. I think I'll take some ear plugs the next time I go to see it.
>
> Loraine
This was by far the most realistic (according to my uncle's father who
was there on that day in Normandy) war movie that grabbed every emotion
in you nad id not let go for 2 hours and 4o minutes that I have ever
seen. Every one in that cast did an awsome job!! Speilberg has truly
outdone himself here, make way for a flood of new awards for all
involved.
-chris
LIBERATOR
> was there on that day in Normandy) war movie that grabbed every emotion
> in you nad id not let go for 2 hours and 4o minutes that I have ever
> seen.
Hmmm.
> Every one in that cast did an awsome job!! Speilberg has truly
> outdone himself here, make way for a flood of new awards for all
> involved.
>
Shut-up, don't overglorify my SW so he loses his true sense of perception about
his abilities.
Togetherin
>Bill Davis wrote:
>
>> In GREAT films, while that's happening, we are forced to re-examine our
>> pre-conceptions and beliefs and confront who and what we are, and most
>> critically, and what we WANT to be.
>
>And this is *precisely* where SPR fails so badly. Spielberg's framing element
>ends up being so cliched and, ultimately, such a feeble effort at
>justification
>that I was left sitting there wondering, so why, exactly, did they bother?
>Why
>was all the sacrifice, and especially the Captain's sacrifice, worth Ryan's
>life?
>Spielberg utterly fails to answer this question with any sort of satisfying
>explanation. "You're a good man," uttered by the non-understanding wife is
>just
>pathetically weak.
>
>This was some powerful, technical achievement. However, as a complete film it
>falls frustratingly short.
>
>--
>Michael McCoy
Oh boy. Stevie is talking to you and you haven't finished thinking about it,
yet, Michael, that's the only trouble. You are frustrated because you just
haven't finished thinking about it yet. Now go finished thinking that very
thought you are on and get back to us, eh?
The nazis and the republicans are the same. When the reischstagg burned down
in the late twenties, the nazis had all sorts of "proof" that Jewish people did
it, that communists did it, that social democrats did it. The smears and
hatred got worse and worse as time went on, as it took more to outrage than it
did the last time. When will our America awaken? Must republicans be sucked
away into nazi hell?
Every republican mole in the White House has needed a pass to go down to the
laundry with a UV light these last 6 months. I imagine they have enough
Presidential semen to float a battleship by now.
The thing that scares me about republicans is their willingness to burglarize,
to spy, to lie for advancement in their party. What good is it if it is run by
the people who killed Kennedy, or forged letters to him from Marilyn Monroe? I
mean, if an organization advances criminals, isn't it a criminal organization?
Vince Foster was a fine,decent man. I knew him. By his own note, the
republican hatemachine killed him. Then they chained his body to the back of
their pickup trucks & used it to slander his childhood friend. Infinite flames
await all republicans.
Neil Munzinger
"Why was all the sacrifice worth Ryan's life? Spielberg utterly fails to
answere this question with any sort of satisfying explanation. 'You're a
good man,' uttered by the wife is pathetically weak."
Don't you think maybe that's the point?
Tom Wootton
The film's theme was, as I have argued before, a bit derivative. But that does not
mean it was a failure. The notion of pursuing a military objective with no intrinsic
or objective value (risking eight lives to save one) is not a new one, but I think
Spielberg did
OK with it. It is a real enough phenomenon on the battlefield. Sometimes, as the
costs go up in a fight for a questionable objective, many who participate in the
fighting tend to imbue the objective with greater value. They paid for it, and grow
even more determined to get it.
Tom Wootton
Tom Wootton
Red Dog wrote:
> what is she going to say - "you've led a miserable
> life, you dirty bastard?"
>
> Tom
>
I suppose if he had been a bastard, it would have been a reasonable response. The sense I
got from the scene, however, was that Ryan had led a thoroughly honorable, decent, and
courageous life (the potential of which one got from Ryan almost as soon as his character
appeared in the film), but whose witnessing of the terrible sacrifices made on his behalf
caused him to question the adequacy of his life. No one blessed with the faintest degree
of humility can fail to ask that question of himself or herself. Ryan was supremley
blessed in this regard, even if it caused him pain. As C.S. Lewis once noted, pain of
this kind is not too far from joy.
The scene worked, even if it was heavy handed.
Tom Wootton
Tom Wootton
"satisfying explanation" is never a criterion for good art. Deliberate
ambiguity is good for the intellect as well as the discipline of the soul.
Should Leonardo da Vinci have offered a "satisfying explanation" as to why LA
GIOCONDA displayed such a winsome and mysterious smile?
I am reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's response to those who found 2001: A SPACE
ODYSSEY mystifying. He merely recommended, "Read the book. See the movie.
Repeat the dose as often as necessary." I recommend the same for Michael and
Tom with SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
Tom Wootton
Red Dog
>Michael McCoy wrote:
>"Why was all the sacrifice worth Ryan's life? Spielberg utterly fails to
>answere this question with any sort of satisfying explanation. 'You're a
>good man,' uttered by the wife is pathetically weak."
>
I agree. I damn near laughed when he asked that question.
Tom
Red Dog
>The film's theme was, as I have argued before, a bit derivative. But that does not
>mean it was a failure. The notion of pursuing a military objective with no intrinsic
>or objective value (risking eight lives to save one) is not a new one, but I think
>Spielberg did OK with it.
Good point, but I don't think he did OK with it. At least give a
plausible story. This one is ridiculous. And show us some resolve to
the battle of 1 vs. 8. The woman telling the man he led a good life
is inadequate - what is she going to say - "you've led a miserable
life, you dirty bastard?"
Tom
Tom
DYNAMX
>
> And this is *precisely* where SPR fails so badly. Spielberg's framing element
> ends up being so cliched and, ultimately, such a feeble effort at justification
> that I was left sitting there wondering, so why, exactly, did they bother? Why
> Spielberg utterly fails to answer this question with any sort of satisfying
> explanation.
Who says he has to? The fact that there is no answer to questions like
that is one of the most tragic things about war, and one of the most
powerful messages that a war film can portray.
>"You're a good man," uttered by the non-understanding wife is just
> pathetically weak.
Yes, it *was* pathetically weak, and that was the point. Even the love
and support of his entire family was not enough to shake the burden of
those memories.
Doug Quarnstrom
: Red Dog wrote:
: > what is she going to say - "you've led a miserable
: > life, you dirty bastard?"
: >
: > Tom
: >
: I suppose if he had been a bastard, it would have been a reasonable response. The sense I
: got from the scene, however, was that Ryan had led a thoroughly honorable, decent, and
: courageous life (the potential of which one got from Ryan almost as soon as his character
: appeared in the film),
But this was not enough. Hanks wanted him to cure cancer or invent a better lightbulb.
Myself, I laughed at the ending, precisely because of the absurdity of a request for
an objective valuation of one's life from one's wife. I mean, what's she gonna say?
People in emotional turmoil will often say and do silly things, but I could not
help laughing out loud at that scene. This is typical of Spielberg's ineptitude
at theses sorts of things...
: but whose witnessing of the terrible sacrifices made on his behalf
: caused him to question the adequacy of his life. No one blessed with the faintest degree
: of humility can fail to ask that question of himself or herself.
Of COURSE. But don't ask your wife.
There is a difference between what one would do and what comes over well in a movie, and
the ending scene of Private Ryan was a big miscalculation in my opinion. It should have
been cut.
: Ryan was supremley
: blessed in this regard, even if it caused him pain. As C.S. Lewis once noted, pain of
: this kind is not too far from joy.
: The scene worked, even if it was heavy handed.
No, it evoked laugher from me, so for me it certainly did not work.
doug
Tom Wootton
spent too much of my youth as a brutal cynic, however, to laugh at overly earnest and,
admittedly, bathetic grasps at affirmation. Now that I am well into middleage, the desire for
affirmation can be an overwhelming one, even if it devolves into silly questions for which there
can be no "honest" answer. I also suppose that if any character, real or fictional, deserved to
ask such a question it would have been Ryan.
I question Doug's boasting of laughter, however, unless--heaven forbid--it was also a sneer of
contempt. Not even Upham's cowardice deserves that response.
Tom Wootton
Marvello
Michael McCoy wrote in message <35BDDBD2...@imsnet.net>...
>Alan W. Blackmon wrote:
>
>> It fit perfectly. Ryan in the cemetary had to come to grips about his
life
>> counting for what these men did for him. Remember, he was told "Make it
>> count".
>
evidence
>whatsoever that he did earn it and, having failed to do so, the film just
>doesn't work--it's underlying story just crumbles away.
>--
a peg, this would, without the 1998 wrapping. I even wished there was no
Ryan plot, just a story about how it happened to one group. He made this
mistake with SL - should have stopped at the color transition.
Tom_Ripley
society as a whole. Ryan questions whether he earned it or not, as we
should wonder whether we have earned the sacrifice that generation
made for us.
The question has no answer.
Tom
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:37:50 -0700, "Marvello" <marv...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Marvello
overt when all the death spoke for itself.
Tom_Ripley wrote in message <35c7934a...@news.usit.net>...
Marvello
you say uncle's father.
ckirste2 wrote in message <35C089...@ford.com>...
>Loraine Wingham wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:30:05 -0700, "Alan W. Blackmon"
>> <al...@wcinet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I loved the movie too. I was there too after seeing this film. The
local
>> >THX theater has learned where the volume control is. Whew! My ears
were
>> >not ringing after the movie.
>> >
>>
>> I saw this brillaint film at a regular theatre with dolby sound.
>> Still, I had trouble hearing for about a half an hour after the movie
>> ended. I think I'll take some ear plugs the next time I go to see it.
>>
>> Loraine
>
>
>This was by far the most realistic (according to my uncle's father who
>was there on that day in Normandy) war movie that grabbed every emotion
>in you nad id not let go for 2 hours and 4o minutes that I have ever
>seen. Every one in that cast did an awsome job!! Speilberg has truly
>outdone himself here, make way for a flood of new awards for all
>involved.
>
>
>-chris
Marvello
Tom Wootton wrote in message <35BDF818...@mail.wsu.edu>...
>The real value of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is not so much that is depicts the
>"horrors of war" in such a virtuoso and visually unforgettable style. This
>view, unfortunately, tends to give weight to the notion that the film is
easily
>categorized as an anti-war film or a pacifist tract,
Surely most accurate war films are inevitably anti-war. Imagine making a
pro-war film. You would have to go back to Nazi propaganda. As for the
Hollywood movies of the sixties, they are more like indifferent to war -
it's a peg for a plot. They don't care to comment about it. (They're likely
to be anti-Nazi, of course, but won't persuade you that 'war is good' or
'wars are bad'.
It depends whether by anti-war you mean
1 accurately horrible and thus anti war to any sane person
2 advocating the view that no war is worth fighting, all wars are wrong
3 or specifically anti WW2
SPR is 1, I think we would agree.
Most Hollywood movies about WW2 are made for entertainment and aren't really
pro or anti.
It's hard to think of examples of 2 or 3.
It seems to me that all war movies should be 1. So I should hope it was
antiwar in that sense.
Tell me if this is crazy!
Marvello
is baaad. Lets be more sophisticated..it's good if... it provokes ..it
entertains...it absorbs...it involves...it manipulates your emotions (except
to think, why the heck did I see this) ...many dimensions.
>>I'd like to rate it on the top of my "Best Movies" list, but I can't. I
>>didn't enjoy the movie, no matter how much I liked it.
Keith L. Krinn wrote in message <35c2b30b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Daniel Rush
failed to deliver. Maybe you need to open your eyes the next time you
sit in the theater? You know, open the lids?
ma...@sfu.ca
is baaad. Lets be more sophisticated..it's good if... it provokes ..it
entertains...it absorbs...it involves...it manipulates your emotions (except
to think, why the heck did I see this) ...many dimensions.
>>I'd like to rate it on the top of my "Best Movies" list, but I can't. I
>>didn't enjoy the movie, no matter how much I liked it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he meant that while he RESPECTED it, he didn't much enjoy it. Haven't there been movies like that for you? For me, that movie would be The Sweet Hereafter. I could see what Atom Egoyan was trying to do and I liked the acting, but emotionally, I was like...ehh.
Later,
Lewis.
Daniel Rush
you're just thick headed or you don't understand concepts too well.
molly ann wilkinson
I agree with you that SPR is 1, but not 2 or 3. WWII was a tragedy for
everyone involved, and scenes from SPR are anti-war in that they ought to
discourage anyone from ever starting a way. But, I don't think Spielberg
is arguing that no war is ever worthwhile, and I don't think he is opposed
to WWII. I think part of the tragedy of the film is that there was all
this senseless death and yet the war still did need to be fought. That,
to me, is the tragedy. In Vietnam, you could blame the government, but
WWII is different.
Is it possible to be anti-war across the board, or just anti-war with
respect to certain wars? I just wonder if 100% pacifism is a tenable
position. I was discussing this with some friends yesterday, both who
insist that we never ever need to fight a war, and that had we used
sanctions to stop Hitler from demilitarizing, then we never would have
made it as far as the Munich Conference in '38. But I'm not sure I agree.
I'd like to say that all war is bad, but I'm just not sure I can. I'm not
sure whether or not pacifism really works.
Any thoughts?
molly ann wilkinson
> discourage anyone from ever starting a way.[war] But, I don't think
Spielberg
> is arguing that no war is ever worthwhile, and I don't think he is opposed
> to WWII. I think part of the tragedy of the film is that there was all
> this senseless death and yet the war still did need to be fought. That,
> to me, is the tragedy. In Vietnam, you could blame the government, but
> WWII is different.
>
> Is it possible to be anti-war across the board, or just anti-war with
> respect to certain wars? I just wonder if 100% pacifism is a tenable
> position. I was discussing this with some friends yesterday, both who
> insist that we never ever need to fight a war, and that had we used
> sanctions to stop Hitler from demilitarizing [REmilitarizing], then we
Rose Marie Holt
> What you both seem to be missing is that Ryan is a substitute for
> society as a whole. Ryan questions whether he earned it or not, as we
> should wonder whether we have earned the sacrifice that generation
> made for us.
>
> The question has no answer.
That's a nice analysis. It fits better than having the command apply
*just* to Ryan about that mission.
Kolaga Xiuhtecuhtli
"Marvello" <marv...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Surely most accurate war films are inevitably anti-war.
No. The most accurate war films are anti-pain. Also,
they are anti-meanless-death.
Besides, there's always going to be wars as long as the
saucer mean don't show up to stop the human race from
it's little game of mass murder.
Somewhere in Africa the Hotses and the Footses will
get together to poke each other with sharp sticks
just like they've done for millenia. War seems to
be part of the human psyche. The only way to do
away with it is for everyone to be "high-minded"
but hardly anyone can get the least bit of power
and stay high-minded.
> Imagine making a
>pro-war film. You would have to go back to Nazi propaganda. As for the
>Hollywood movies of the sixties, they are more like indifferent to war -
>it's a peg for a plot. They don't care to comment about it. (They're likely
>to be anti-Nazi, of course, but won't persuade you that 'war is good' or
>'wars are bad'.
>
>It depends whether by anti-war you mean
>
>1 accurately horrible and thus anti war to any sane person
>2 advocating the view that no war is worth fighting, all wars are wrong
>3 or specifically anti WW2
>
>SPR is 1, I think we would agree.
>Most Hollywood movies about WW2 are made for entertainment and aren't really
>pro or anti.
>It's hard to think of examples of 2 or 3.
>It seems to me that all war movies should be 1. So I should hope it was
>antiwar in that sense.
>
>Tell me if this is crazy!
>
---
Remove the characters SPAMMENOT to reply via e-mail
Daniel Rush
E'glese with my dad in 1994 and had tears raining down his eyes. He
missed landing in the middle of that town full of Germans by 300 yards.
Ryan defines that hidden guilt that so many of these old guys still
keep locked away. They watched so many friends and buddies get killed
around them and it stayed with them to their death beds. Some times my
Gramps would get drunk and tell us kids about it, about wondering why he
lived while other, younger kids ended up being killed. I think he
regreted that to his dying day.
seven_...@my-dejanews.com
"Norm" <stor...@gatenospam.net> wrote:
> Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and I've
> seen them all! I feel like I was there!
>
>
of all battles. it was the best battle scene i've ever seen. Spielberg
fond his making in war pictures. what a movie!
-Man
--
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Alex V Isgut
>society as a whole
Allegory makes me itch.
a
Tom Wootton
How about people who seem to never to avoid always using annoying
alliteration?
I second Alex's point about the extensive search for "meaning" and
"symbology". That's why I'm a History major, I suppose, and not an English
Lit type. The search for "meaning" can be frustrating after a while. I
recall a German journalist questioning Charlton Heston about the
underlying political ramifications of his film EARTHQUAKE. The journalist
asked if Heston could be a little more specific about EARTHQUAKE's
political message. Heston replied, "The message is that Earthquakes are
dangerous to one's health."
Spielberg isn't above allegory, though. He once admitted that the scene
in SCHINDLER'S LIST, which depicted a tearful Oskar Schindler agonizing
over why he hadn't done more to save Jews, was entirely made up.
Spielberg, however, wanted to make Schindler ask that question on behalf
of everyone else. I'm not sure the allegory worked, but the scene
certainly did.
Tom Wootton
ka...@aol.com
> I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
> beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>
> It just didn't fit.
>
> Still though...the movie is definitely one of his best
>
> Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
> >Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and
> I've
> >seen them all! I feel like I was there!
> >
http://www.studentadvantage.com/entertainment/film/
"Saving Private Ryan Worth Watching if You Can Stomach Blood"
I wonder if it really is worth stomaching all the blood. I understand
that it is important to understand the historical significance of just
about everything. But do I really need to pay 8.00$ to feel disturbed
for the ?th time about one war that I wasn't even alive for. I got
enough problems with the present. Why do I need more?
Joseph Zorzin
Well, all meaning and symbolism aside, some people like me just like war
movies, and one this believable is a real "kick". And I hate war and
violence and guns of all kinds. Remember, it's "just" a movie.
Alex V Isgut
That's why we have ice cream and computer games.
>Heston replied, "The message is that Earthquakes are
>dangerous to one's health."
"Get your damn monkey paws offa my gun!"
>Spielberg, however, wanted to make Schindler ask that question on behalf
>of everyone else. I'm not sure the allegory worked, but the scene
>certainly did.
And that's when I "allow" allegory -- when it works without being allegory.
We're invested in characters as individuals, not representations of a larger
whole.
a
tommy lee johnson
> After reading all these posts and reading
> http://www.studentadvantage.com/entertainment/film/
> "Saving Private Ryan Worth Watching if You Can Stomach Blood"
> I wonder if it really is worth stomaching all the blood. I understand
> that it is important to understand the historical significance of just
> about everything. But do I really need to pay 8.00$ to feel disturbed
> for the ?th time about one war that I wasn't even alive for. I got
> enough problems with the present. Why do I need more?
If you are already sufficiently disturbed to take an active part preventing
this sort of generational blood-letting, then you may save your $8.00.
But those of us who weren't alive for one war or another, are usually the
ones who feel our silly political motives are adequate reason to send young
people off to die exactly like they did in the invaision scenes of SPR.
Jeffrey Wheeler
>I wonder if it really is worth stomaching all the blood. I understand
>that it is important to understand the historical significance of just
>about everything. But do I really need to pay 8.00$ to feel disturbed
>for the ?th time about one war that I wasn't even alive for.
Absolutely. That you were not around at the time makes it all
the more important to see this film. People died so you and I could be
born, and "Saving Private Ryan" is a motion picture that helps bring
the sacrifice to light. I am 18 years old; at my age during the war I
would have had to worry about the world falling to genocide,
enslavement, and all-around tyranny. It really puts my contemporary
teenage worries into perspective: I fret about zits, and they fussed
about being torn in half. By comparison, the pathetic blathering of
'90s teen angst is no more than tears of self-pity from a society of
mental sissies.
Jeffrey Wheeler
sha...@bellsouth.net
Alex V Isgut
>ones who feel our silly political motives are adequate reason to send young
>people off to die exactly like they did in the invaision scenes of SPR.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. WWI was started by people who remembered
the good old days of the Kaisers. WWII was started by Germans who fought in
WWI. I don't think any amount of movie-watching or past experience can
prevent the outbreak of war, as much as we'd like it to. Fact is people
think some stuff is worth dying over. They usually change their mind when it
comes time to pay the reaper, but then it's too late.
a
Gonigal
Wheeler) writes:
My God, if this movie is really having this sort of an impact on the Youth Of
America, what ever is Trent Reznor going to do? Will the next Nine Inch Nails
album be full of self-loathing angst over the fact that he's not worthy of the
wonderful lifestyle that his Grandparents sacrificed so much to provide for
him? Maybe this is why Swing music is so popular now; kids are rejecting the
Rock & Roll of their free-loading, narcistic, "Me Generation" parents and
embracing the music of the last generation that really busted their asses on
their behalf. I don't know, that's just too weird. I think we need another
Oliver Stone movie telling us how great the 60's were to even it all out.
Sorry. I happen to totaly agree with your comments, and felt the same way
leaving the theatre, but I'm 30. It's just kinda weird hearing that from a
teenager, and I'm not sure I like it. You're too young to realize how good you
have it.
-D.G.
Tom Wootton
> But do I really need to pay 8.00$ to feel disturbed
> for the ?th time about one war that I wasn't even alive for. I got
> enough problems with the present. Why do I need more?
Kana's post was just incredible. I was not alive for WWII either, but it
was fought by men who saved Western Civilization for the likes of me. I think
their sacrifices ought to be remembered. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN goes a long way
in concretizing those sacrifices.
Tom Wootton
Tom Wootton
stormed the beaches of Normany in June 1944. They were mostly conscripts, but
they were also willing and eager to fight. Their training and equipment were
superb, and they gave an excellent account of themselves in battle. Of the
four U.S. combat divisions deployed for Overlord, only two, the 1st US Infantry
Division, and the 82nd Airborne Division, had seen combat. None of the British
or Canadian divisions had seen combat before. They did pretty damn well in what
surely was one of the noblest crusades in human history.
I am sorry that Tommy Lee thinks that the extinction of Nazi Germany and the
holocaust was "a silly political motive."
Tom Wootton
Tom Wootton
Jeffrey Wheeler wrote: By comparison, the pathetic blathering of
> '90s teen angst is no more than tears of self-pity from a society of
> mental sissies.
>
> Jeffrey Wheeler
> sha...@bellsouth.net
I am a 46 year old fart, with misanthropic inclinations about the future
of mankind. Jeffrey's post goes a long way in correcting my cynicism.
Well done, Jeff.
Tom Wootton
Tom Wootton
Actually WWI broke out when a regional crisis, the assassination of the Austrian
heir to the throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb nationalist,
became a continental crisis. The German kaiser was absolutely terrified about
the outbreak of general war, but he countenanced the issuance of the so called
"blank check" to Austria to punish Serbia as Austria saw fit. It was a stupid
move, because Imperial Russia was committed to the integrity of Serbian
sovreignty, and could not possibly permit any Austrian move against Serbia.
France, of course, was allied with Russia. And Britain threw in with France
when Germany's war plan for France called for the invasion of Belgium...see how
simple it all is????
Tom Wootton
Daniel Rush
just once. What do you think about us in the armed forces and what do
you think freedom means?
Daniel Rush
today and how it seems to turn it's back on every moral and ethical
belief it once backed with actions and words, I think the baby boomers
and Gen X haven't earned a damn thing. The best word to describe them
both is "spoiled bastards with no brains."
Certainly the Generations that fought the Civil War and World Wars
I and II understood the concepts of earning their place. What great
trials have the boomers had? Vietnam? That hardly quals as a trial cept
to those that went and suffered despite the rest who stabbed them in the
back at home.
My Generation has fought engagements, not full scale wars. The Gulf
War was nothing, the Iraqi's were piss poor troops compared to those the
Germans had. Gen X has yet to face a great trial that would really test
their metal. We weren't deprived of our life savings, we never had to
scratch and dig to live the next day, we don't wear the same clothes day
after day and patch them when they get torn.
my Grandfather's generation was toughened by a rough childhood and
came of age in death and destruction. Gen X and the one after it are
coming of age in Nintendos, malls, Nervana, and pocket change. And many
of them don't even know where Normandy is by their senior year in
school.
The military of today may seem sharp and smart but I know if they
faced another Normandy, they'd run like rabbits. The U.S. Armed Forces
of today are poisoned with politics and polluted with poor disopline.
They're not even close to being able to handle a more major crisis than
Iraq, like North Korea.
So have we truely "earned it?" I don't think we have. It will take
another serious test against the very survival of America to see if I'm
wrong.
Dan Rush
Daniel Rush
out of an 18 year old. You seem to understand what SPR means.
Dan Rush
seven_...@my-dejanews.com
"Olivier Kamienski" <Okam...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> Norm wrote in message <6pb1ki$1v0c$1...@news.gate.net>...
> >Spielberg is back on top!This is the best war movie I've ever seen, and
> I've
> >seen them all! I feel like I was there!
> >
> Raiders etc...) but I've been grately disappointed with his last efforts.
> Saving Private Ryan has arguably the most horrifying war action scenes ever
> made yet the story is shallow and cliché.
>
> Ollie
>
>
arguably the most horrifying war action scenes ever
> made yet the story is shallow and cliché.
>> Seen it again and this time take the blindfold off...
-Man
>
--
Save a life--don't due drugs.
Cyrano
jimp...@webtv.net (Daniel Rush) wrote:
> Have we "earned it?" I don't think so. Certainly looking at America
> today and how it seems to turn it's back on every moral and ethical
> belief it once backed with actions and words, I think the baby boomers
> and Gen X haven't earned a damn thing. The best word to describe them
> both is "spoiled bastards with no brains."
Don't hold back. Tell us what you REALLY think. ;)
Seriously, I don't think there comes a day when someone can claim to have
"earned it" if we're talking about payback to someone who's died for us.
So I agree with that we haven't done that. It may just be a matter of not
forgetting that we owe and trying to live day-to-day as those who died
would have if they'd managed to survive. I can't imagine waking up one
morning and saying, "I've earned it". I can imagine waking up *every*
morning and saying, "Time to go try to earn it."
It's not fair, IMO, to blame generations for not having wars--or at least
congressionally approved wars to do the earning. Everybody knows that war
isn't the only thing that shakes the world. Fighting isn't the only human
activity that gives to others. I don't think it's even close to the
hardest way to earn the right to live. Some folks have really crappy lives
and they struggle every day to bring order and meaning and value into their
own world and into the lives of their children. They "earn it", I'd
suggest. Living is often a LOT harder than dying, don't you agree?
Don't you think you could be being a bit hard on generations--yours and
others? At least underestimating them? Why do I think that if you had to
put on fatigues, grab a rifle and about 15 magazines of bullets, you'd do
that and jump into the surf like our fathers and grandfathers did? I'm
sure you'd hate it and be terrified, but you'd do it. And if you did that
and survived, would you have earned it? Does it take THAT kind of trial?
I don't think so, anyway. Every generation 's had its Givers and its
Takers. Takers are a sorry lot if they don't give back--especially if they
are SO self absorbed that they don't even realize or care that they do OWE.
I think I hear you saying that same thing.
--
There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count and
those who can't.
Tom Wootton
typical and has been repeated time and again throughout history. I've
done it myself, but it can go too far. Who know what the future will
bring? The fighter pilots who saved Britain during the summer, fall, and
winter of 1940 had been dismissed only a few years earlier as "Britain's
Lost Generation"...brought up in a culture of cynicism, despair, and
pacifism. The prevailing culture in the twenties and thirties held that
only fools and cads cared anything about patriotism.
Dan's post reminded me of the opening sequence to Zoltan Korda's "The
Four Feathers" (1939) when aging General C. Aubrey Smith was lecturing a
young Clive Baxter about the exceptional rigours of war he had experienced
in his day. He thought the younger generation was soft and spoiled.
Baxter would later grow up to take part in the 1895 Sudan Campaign under
Kitchener, but Smith was unimpressed. "War was war in
those days." (he was speaking of the 1854-55 Crimean War).
Aubrey tossed off one gruesome line, played for laughs believe it or not.
"Faversham's father was killed at Inkerman...Grandfather blown up under
Nelson...an uncle scalped by red Indians...oh, a splendid record!...The
younger generation just isn't up to it."
Tom Wootton
Paul Richardson
> I am sorry that Tommy Lee thinks that the extinction of Nazi Germany and the
> holocaust was "a silly political motive."
It was hardly the motive of the allies to stop the holocaust. In fact, throughout
the war, the allies were pretty-much "shadow allies" of Hitler in these regards by
turning their back on the Holocaust, despite the influx of reports of what was
happening. There's a brilliant (and startling) documentary about this...and I
apologize that I do not remember the title.
The only country that came out of the war clean in regards to its treatment of the
Jews was Denmark, who refused to give up their Jews after Hitler took power. Hitler
gave in, and the Jews lived. France, Poland, Holland, etc. all cheerfully handed
over their Jews: they didn't like them any more than the Nazis did! Anti-semitism
was widespread in the western world in the thirties and forties...the Nazis just
went farther than anybody ever expected.
To say that World War 2 was about the Holocaust is like saying the Civil War was
about Slavery. Not only was there much more to it then that, but either cause was
hardly a true issue to the supposed "good guys."
Norman Wilner
>TK (tee...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>
>: Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
>: >I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
>: >beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>: >
>: >It just didn't fit.
>: Did you not get that the old man was Ryan?
>
>: Spielberg chose that beginning because of an experience he had like that. He
>: was visiting, I believe it was Normandy Beach (or maybe Omaha, I've read so
>: much about this movie lately I'm getting my places mixed up) and he saw this
>: scene where a man was visiting the memorial, fell to his knees in anguish
>: and then his family swarmed around him. That image stayed with him to this
>: day and he chose to open the movie with it.
>
> The movie was clumsy in establishing who the old man was. In the
>beginning the camera closes in on his eyes, and then shifts back
>in time to the Beach Landing, and since the main character we stay
>with on the Beach is the Tom Hanks character (Miller) we automatically
>assume that this is who the old man is. But it turns out that Ryan
>was a paratrooper who was dropped, by air, behind the beach somewhere.
>So this dramatic shift from the old man, presumably remembering, to
>the beach is confusing. For those claiming that he is a "brilliant"
>director, this is the sort of thing a "brilliant" director would
>not allow in a film.
Never say "we" when you really mean "I". Neither I, nor any of the people who
saw the film with me, thought the old man was Miller. We all figured he was an
older Ryan, based on his general resemblance to Matt Damon (same blue eyes, same
overbite) and his age. Miller would have had at least 15 years on Ryan, and the
man at the memorial wasn't pushing 90.
You jumped to a conclusion. Don't blame the movie.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Bruce
wrote:
>TK (tee...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>
>: Amir Khan wrote in message <#fLKlBHu9GA.91@upnetnews03>...
>: >I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
>: >beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
>: >
>: >It just didn't fit.
>
>
>: Did you not get that the old man was Ryan?
>
>: Spielberg chose that beginning because of an experience he had like that. He
>: was visiting, I believe it was Normandy Beach (or maybe Omaha, I've read so
>: much about this movie lately I'm getting my places mixed up) and he saw this
>: scene where a man was visiting the memorial, fell to his knees in anguish
>: and then his family swarmed around him. That image stayed with him to this
>: day and he chose to open the movie with it.
>
>
> The movie was clumsy in establishing who the old man was. In the
>beginning the camera closes in on his eyes, and then shifts back
>in time to the Beach Landing, and since the main character we stay
>with on the Beach is the Tom Hanks character (Miller) we automatically
>assume that this is who the old man is. But it turns out that Ryan
>was a paratrooper who was dropped, by air, behind the beach somewhere.
>So this dramatic shift from the old man, presumably remembering, to
>the beach is confusing. For those claiming that he is a "brilliant"
>director, this is the sort of thing a "brilliant" director would
>not allow in a film.
>
>Robert W.
I never for a moment thought that Tom Hanks was the old man.
Didn't cross my mind. The ending showed how Ryan had endured
a lifetime of survivor's guilt, wanting confirmation that he had lived
a good life.No need to make any more out of it than that.
Remove the underscore ( _) from my user name for email replies.
Rose Marie Holt
> A beginning is a very delicate time, ka...@aol.com...
>
> >I wonder if it really is worth stomaching all the blood. I understand
> >that it is important to understand the historical significance of just
> >about everything. But do I really need to pay 8.00$ to feel disturbed
> >for the ?th time about one war that I wasn't even alive for.
>
> Absolutely. That you were not around at the time makes it all
> the more important to see this film. People died so you and I could be
> born, and "Saving Private Ryan" is a motion picture that helps bring
> the sacrifice to light.
Yes, earn it, like the man said.
And if you go before 6 pm, it will be cheaper.
Tom Wootton
PRIVATE RYAN, then someone's going to have to put up a better arument than
Robert's
Tom Wootton
Tom Wootton
not among the primary strategic motives of the Allies in their operations against the
Germans, was that neither the extent nor the brutality of it were apparent until after
the Allies entered the extirmination camps themselves. The holocaust, if it was not
part of planning or even of motivation, certainly immediately assumed a supreme
justification for the war against the Nazis, even it is was an ex post facto one.
Paul, unfortunately, is on far weaker ground in his notion that the Allies indirectly
collaberated in the Holocaust. The charge of the allies being "shadow allies" of Hitler
in the perpetration of the holocaust, in fact, is ludicrous, and requires only the
observation that the rumors and reports, some substantiated, some not, were so extreme,
that few Allied diplomats and politicians wanted to give them credence. They were all
aware of the absurd atrocity propaganda the Allies had promulgated about the Germans
during the First World War and they did not want to weaken their moral agenda by
repeating what the neutral nations already regarded as a cheap trick. The fact that the
Nazis entirely lived up to the horrible reputation which the propaganda of the First
World War had tried to impart to the Germans was a hideous surprise to virtually
everyone except the planners and perpetrators of the Holocaust and their victims.
Next, and I recognize this should be more germane to a usegroup devoted to the American
Civil war, Paul leaves a very shaky impression when he asserts that the Civil War was
more than about slavery. This is true, but only on the peripheries. In fact, slavery
was at the core of many of the arguments the South employed for its separation from the
Union. Although it is true that the vast majority of soldiers fighting on both sides
would have considered abolition a cause hardly worth dying for, the movers and shakers
of the Southern Confederacy saw the maintenance and strengthening of Slavery as
absolutely crucial to the integrity and cohesion of southern society. Confederate Vice
President Alexander Stephens, in his famous "Cornerstone Speech" on 21 March 1861
declared, "The [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst
us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate
cause of the late rupture and present revolution." I am always cautious about drawing
comparisons and parallels, but as I believe that the Holocaust must remain at the core
of studies concerning World War II, slavery was also at the core of the American Civil
War. If for no other reason, than for this inescapable fact: The end of both wars
resulted in the end of both institutions.
Lastly, and partly because Paul deserves credit for getting something right, he is
entirely correct when he states that many nations defeated by the Nazis eagerly handed
over their Jews for destruction. This is particularly and sadly true for Vichy France
(I earnestly recommend Robert Paxton's book on the subject). Vichy wanted to ship their
Jews to Nazi Germany even before the Nazis were ready for it. Not all Nazi-occupied
nations cooperated, as Paul astutely points out. Hitler did not "give in", however,
Denmark successfully spirited virtually their entire Jewish population to Sweden before
the Nazis could deport them to the death camps.
I agree that anti-semitism was widespread throughout Europe and that it was not a German
problem alone. This is one of the reasons I disagree so vehemently with Daniel
Goldhagen, one of the most recent and popular Holocaust scholars.
Tom Wootton
Robert Whelan
Robert Whelan
: >>>I thought the movie was a great piece of work too...except for the very
: >>>beginning and very end....with the old man reminiscing at the cemetary.
: >>>
: >>>It just didn't fit.
: >>
: >>Didn't fit? It was the whole story! The movie was about Pvt. Ryan!
: >>
: >
: >This type of ending is becoming a Spielberg trade mark. Remember the ending
: >of Shindler's List with the survivors at the end, very powerful. It was
: >not quite as dramatic in Ryan, but it still pulled the entire scope of the
: >story together. The GI's died trying to save the world for Ryan's children
: >and their children. Is that hard to figure out?
: I don't know if anyone caught it...but when the old Ryan at the beginning
: begins to think back about the war, you can look in his eyes and see flames.
: Spielberg used some cinematic trick to portray a little red light in his
: eyes, and I thought as we started the battle scene, that he was remembering
: a descent into hell, which is what it was.
Except that the movie then switches back to the BEACH LANDING, which
was NOT where Ryan was, but where Miller (Tom Hanks) was! Pretty stupid,
if you ask me.
Robert Whelan
: I think Private Ryan left me walking away with a profound sense of
: love for those men who had to go through that hell 50 years ago.
: Finally, a world War II movie has treated the true horror of that war in
: it's most terrible light.
Though it left out the details of dying, gut shot GERMANS, crying
for THEIR mothers, and conveniently and inaccurately made all the
Germans middle aged and crease faced (indicating that they are more
evel than our more babyfaced and hair-styled Americans.) Oh, and
"steamboat Willie" could have just as easily been a Jew in a
Nazi propaganda film, begging for his life and mouthing "heil
hitlers" to his Nazi executors, only to return to kill them later.
This movie stinks of the same kind of propaganda techniques that
were used in Nazi Germany.
Robert W.
Robert Whelan
: Michael McCoy wrote:
: "Why was all the sacrifice worth Ryan's life? Spielberg utterly fails to
: answere this question with any sort of satisfying explanation. 'You're a
: good man,' uttered by the wife is pathetically weak."
: Don't you think maybe that's the point?
The point of the movie is that there is no good reason for going to
war? Really, you need to watch the movie more closely. The movie
IS weak in supporting its premise, but its weak because it depends
largely on an underlying theological assumption. We saw this
same theological assumption in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where
a rather petulant Old Testament God, contacted via an ancient
Hebrew artifact, destroys (fairly indiscriminately) the Nazi
enemies of the descendants of those Hebrew people. I'm afraid
that this movie is hampered by an intellectual blindness caused
by a childhood identification with the idea that the Hebrews
actually WERE the "chosen people" and that WWII was God's way
of rescuing the remainder. It's only if you make this theological
assumption that you can buy that "saving Private Ryan" actually
has a mystical, or spiritual significance. Ryan is the last of
4 brothers. The State, and Ryan's mother (the God representatives
in this film) want him back, because he is the only one left.
It's a childish and immature film based on a childish and silly
sentiment about who are God's "children". I sense it because I
was raised on Old Testament stories, and identify with the
sentiment. But it's the wrong sentiment to impose on a real
war, and real history.
Robert W.
Bill Davis
(Robert Whelan) wrote:
SNIP
> of rescuing the remainder. It's only if you make this theological
> assumption that you can buy that "saving Private Ryan" actually
> has a mystical, or spiritual significance. Ryan is the last of
> 4 brothers. The State, and Ryan's mother (the God representatives
> in this film) want him back, because he is the only one left.
>
> It's a childish and immature film based on a childish and silly
> sentiment about who are God's "children". I sense it because I
> was raised on Old Testament stories, and identify with the
> sentiment. But it's the wrong sentiment to impose on a real
> war, and real history.
>
> Robert W.
Robert,
You remind me of my early days as a music major in college. We'd take a
piece by Brahms, or Bach, and break it down note by note. I kept thinking
to myself... why are we taking this apart? Nobody writes music by writing
patterns of notes then hoping the sounds are correct. They "hear" the
music first, then later use notes only when they need to communicate with
others.
In both your posts I've read, you seem hell bent on de-constructing Ryan
in order to impose your personal sense of order (or disorder) on it. Fine.
You have every right to filter it through your pre-conceptions just as the
rest of us do.
But just like my growing displeasure at the notion of my professors trying
to chop up great music and labeling it's elements as "dissonant" or
"labored" my growing feeling is that you'll never see real "picture" that
Ryan can be since you're standing WAY too close and agruing about brush
strokes.
In particular, your last line could only be written by someone who has a
childishly egotistical view distilled to "my sentiments about this are
RIGHTER than YOURS"
Ryan successfully carried a historical time and SOME of it's lessons to a
generation unfamiliar with them. Perhaps the themes that interested
Spielberg don't fit your agenda. Too bad. When a movie is made, the only
agenda that ever gets up on the screen is the directors. If you don't
believe that go rent some of Oliver Stones stuff.
The fact that YOUR agenda wasn't reflected in Ryan is as obvious as it is
insignificant.
--
Bill Davis
NewVideo
Robert Whelan
: In article <6qiucu$4...@enews3.newsguy.com>, rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org
: (Robert Whelan) wrote:
: SNIP
: > of rescuing the remainder. It's only if you make this theological
: > assumption that you can buy that "saving Private Ryan" actually
: > has a mystical, or spiritual significance. Ryan is the last of
: > 4 brothers. The State, and Ryan's mother (the God representatives
: > in this film) want him back, because he is the only one left.
: >
: > It's a childish and immature film based on a childish and silly
: > sentiment about who are God's "children". I sense it because I
: > was raised on Old Testament stories, and identify with the
: > sentiment. But it's the wrong sentiment to impose on a real
: > war, and real history.
: >
: > Robert W.
: Robert,
: You remind me of my early days as a music major in college. We'd take a
: piece by Brahms, or Bach, and break it down note by note. I kept thinking
: to myself... why are we taking this apart? Nobody writes music by writing
: patterns of notes then hoping the sounds are correct. They "hear" the
: music first, then later use notes only when they need to communicate with
: others.
Oh well. I suppose it is just as pointless for linguists to analyze
and deconstruct language to understand how it works, or for doctors
to take apart the human body to understand how it works. After all,
people don't speak by assembling random words and hoping they mean
something, they just speak! And human beings don't deliberately
operate the machineries of their bodies, they just live! Musical
language can be analyzed and taken apart to see "how it works"
just as language can be, and as close study of language can result
in valid criticisms of its use...such as discovering contradictions,
or imprecisions in language, so can "dissonances" be discovered
in musical language.
: In both your posts I've read, you seem hell bent on de-constructing Ryan
: in order to impose your personal sense of order (or disorder) on it. Fine.
: You have every right to filter it through your pre-conceptions just as the
: rest of us do.
What is my personal sense of order (or disorder) do you think?
: But just like my growing displeasure at the notion of my professors trying
: to chop up great music and labeling it's elements as "dissonant" or
: "labored" my growing feeling is that you'll never see real "picture" that
: Ryan can be since you're standing WAY too close and agruing about brush
: strokes.
So you feel that myopia (blurred vision) is the best way to view a film?
To see a film, not as it is, but as a fuzzy general impression? I
admit that the purpose of this film is to deliver its message
myopically...not directly. All it's cues are subliminal, but support
eachother (the Praying Sniper, the emotional music during the decision
to send the rescue mission, etc.)
: In particular, your last line could only be written by someone who has a
: childishly egotistical view distilled to "my sentiments about this are
: RIGHTER than YOURS"
Uh oh. Is that the ultimate crime?
: Ryan successfully carried a historical time and SOME of it's lessons to a
: generation unfamiliar with them. Perhaps the themes that interested
: Spielberg don't fit your agenda. Too bad. When a movie is made, the only
: agenda that ever gets up on the screen is the directors. If you don't
: believe that go rent some of Oliver Stones stuff.
Oh, believe me, I have. I have similar bones to pick with Stone. I
remember deconstructing his horrible "Platoon". You might say that
Spielberg's film is a propaganda piece in response to Stone's
propaganda piece in "Platoon". Neither are attempting to tell
the truth.
: The fact that YOUR agenda wasn't reflected in Ryan is as obvious as it is
: insignificant.
Might makes Right? Very true, I suppose...but isn't that the lesson
that we ought to have learned from the Nazis, and deplore?
Robert W.
AB
Josh Joyce
> Myself, I laughed at the ending, precisely because of the absurdity of a request for
> an objective valuation of one's life from one's wife. I mean, what's she gonna say?
> People in emotional turmoil will often say and do silly things, but I could not
> help laughing out loud at that scene. This is typical of Spielberg's ineptitude
> at theses sorts of things...
> Of COURSE. But don't ask your wife.
> There is a difference between what one would do and what comes over well in a movie, and
> the ending scene of Private Ryan was a big miscalculation in my opinion. It should have
> been cut.
> No, it evoked laugher from me, so for me it certainly did not work.
>
> doug
I agree completely!
When I saw that scene it was like someone hit me with a 2x4. I wondered
if I was still watching the same movie. That one line absolutely ruined
the sentiment that they were trying to get across.
josh
Josh Joyce
> Oh, believe me, I have. I have similar bones to pick with Stone. I
> remember deconstructing his horrible "Platoon". You might say that
> Spielberg's film is a propaganda piece in response to Stone's
> propaganda piece in "Platoon". Neither are attempting to tell
> the truth.
>
> : The fact that YOUR agenda wasn't reflected in Ryan is as obvious as it is
> : insignificant.
>
> Might makes Right? Very true, I suppose...but isn't that the lesson
> that we ought to have learned from the Nazis, and deplore?
Robert,
I have read several of your posts and tend to agree with you. I thought
Platoon was incredibly overrated and romanticized. Just out of
curiosity, what did you think of Full Metal Jacket?
josh
Josh Joyce
> > The movie was clumsy in establishing who the old man was. In the
> >beginning the camera closes in on his eyes, and then shifts back
> >in time to the Beach Landing, and since the main character we stay
> >with on the Beach is the Tom Hanks character (Miller) we automatically
> >assume that this is who the old man is. But it turns out that Ryan
> >was a paratrooper who was dropped, by air, behind the beach somewhere.
> >So this dramatic shift from the old man, presumably remembering, to
> >the beach is confusing. For those claiming that he is a "brilliant"
> >director, this is the sort of thing a "brilliant" director would
> >not allow in a film.
>
> Never say "we" when you really mean "I". Neither I, nor any of the people who
> saw the film with me, thought the old man was Miller. We all figured he was an
> older Ryan, based on his general resemblance to Matt Damon (same blue eyes, same
> overbite) and his age. Miller would have had at least 15 years on Ryan, and the
> man at the memorial wasn't pushing 90.
>
> You jumped to a conclusion. Don't blame the movie.
>
> Norm Wilner
> Starweek Magazine
Did you call the Psychic Friends Network on a cellular while watching
the film? We weren't even introduced to Damon as Ryan yet. You shouldn't
have to know the cast and their facial features just to watch a movie. I
sure as hell thought the zoom on Hanks would fade back to the old guy
for a second.
Josh
Joseph Zorzin
>
> The movie was clumsy in establishing who the old man was. In the
> beginning the camera closes in on his eyes, and then shifts back
> in time to the Beach Landing, and since the main character we stay
> with on the Beach is the Tom Hanks character (Miller) we automatically
> assume that this is who the old man is. But it turns out that Ryan
> was a paratrooper who was dropped, by air, behind the beach somewhere.
> So this dramatic shift from the old man, presumably remembering, to
> the beach is confusing. For those claiming that he is a "brilliant"
> director, this is the sort of thing a "brilliant" director would
> not allow in a film.
>
The old man was to me obviously NOT Hanks, because he didn't look
anything like him, the way Ryan did- as you could see late in the movie
as the face of Ryan morphed back into the old man at the cemetary.
Robert Whelan
:
: Robert,
: Platoon was incredibly overrated and romanticized. Just out of
: curiosity, what did you think of Full Metal Jacket?
In retrospect, I feel it is one of the most realistic depictions of
the horrors of war I have ever seen. I need to see it again, since
it horrified me so completely that I never wanted to revisit it.
If I have any reservations, they are reservations I have for any Kubrick
film..in that the characters were so COLD. I felt that some chink of
humanity needed to be shown in the soldiers, even as they became hardened
and cruel. But Kubrick's film, I feel, truly tried to come to grips with
the dehumanizing effects that war had on real people...that female sniper
being a prime example. This, I suspect, is a much more accurate depiction
of sniper action and casualties than the pale example in "SPR", and
of the ambiguity of it all. Just Kubrick's dealing with the horror
of seeing a comrade slowly shot to pieces by a sniper in order to
draw out his buddies, to the finding of the sniper, who confounds
expectations by being a beautiful girl, the pain this girl sniper is
in, the mercy killing of this same girl, and the reactions of dismay from
the same soldiers at the mercy killing...There is a complexity in just
that scene alone that is more disturbing and powerful than the entire
effect of "Saving Private Ryan". SPR has NOTHING to compare to that one
scene, and Full Metal Jacket had more than that one.
Full Metal Jacket also dealt with basic training, and the way
basic training is designed to knock a lot of the individuality
out of you. Contrast this to the chirpy "griping" of SPR's group.
All of them were WAY too chipper for survivors of the worst fighting
of the invasion. They were Hollywood Cool, but with only minor
nods to realism, such as the contempt for the "new guy".
Honestly, I don't think I have ever seen as harrowing a film as
"Full Metal Jacket".
Robert W.
Tom_Ripley
<xnwi...@xidirect.xcom> wrote:
>Never say "we" when you really mean "I". Neither I, nor any of the people who
>saw the film with me, thought the old man was Miller. We all figured he was an
>older Ryan, based on his general resemblance to Matt Damon (same blue eyes, same
>overbite) and his age. Miller would have had at least 15 years on Ryan, and the
>man at the memorial wasn't pushing 90.
I'm always amazed at these people who get so upset over the movie
"tricking" them with the eye closeups, who never bother to notice that
Miller and Ryan don't have the same color eyes. Ryan's are blue,
Miller's are brown.
Tom
Gondola Bob
<red...@forestmeister.com> wrote:
I thought the dead opposite. The old man had EXACTLY Hanks' bulbous-tipped
nose and long face...and I didn't think he looked anything like the more
"cherubic" Ryan.
Also, I think Robert's above point is dead-on. Spielberg "cheated."
GB
Norman Wilner
Yes! Exactly!
And don't dare suggest that there's an element of ambiguity in the framing
sequence, either ...
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Norman Wilner
>Norman Wilner wrote:
>
>> > The movie was clumsy in establishing who the old man was. In the
>> >beginning the camera closes in on his eyes, and then shifts back
>> >in time to the Beach Landing, and since the main character we stay
>> >with on the Beach is the Tom Hanks character (Miller) we automatically
>> >assume that this is who the old man is. But it turns out that Ryan
>> >was a paratrooper who was dropped, by air, behind the beach somewhere.
>> >So this dramatic shift from the old man, presumably remembering, to
>> >the beach is confusing. For those claiming that he is a "brilliant"
>> >director, this is the sort of thing a "brilliant" director would
>> >not allow in a film.
>>
>> saw the film with me, thought the old man was Miller. We all figured he was
an
>> older Ryan, based on his general resemblance to Matt Damon (same blue eyes,
same
>> overbite) and his age. Miller would have had at least 15 years on Ryan, and
the
>> man at the memorial wasn't pushing 90.
>>
>
>the film? We weren't even introduced to Damon as Ryan yet. You shouldn't
>have to know the cast and their facial features just to watch a movie. I
>sure as hell thought the zoom on Hanks would fade back to the old guy
>for a second.
You don't have to know that the older man is Ryan to watch the movie, either.
But to conclude the older man is Miller based on a transition that doesn't
actually indicate what the original poster thinks it did is an error of
assumption on the _viewer's_ part, not the film's.
Besides, as I said (and has been posted elsewhere in this thread), Miller has
brown eyes. Ryan's are blue. So within a few seconds of the introductory
close-up of Miller's face, any viewer who's been paying attention will realize
he's not the same man we saw at the Omaha Beach memorial. (That, and the fact
that his head's a different shape.)
And then there's the matter of the veteran's Airborne patch, but as I didn't
notice that when I saw the movie I'll leave it to others to debate.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine