>Also, since when is "patriarchal" >automatically a criticism? I'm no gun-totin' patriot who loves U.S. >leaders and history, but I don't think our "patriarchal" ssytem was >some sort of horrible thing at the time.
>As far as I'm concerned, this critic is talking out his ass.
That's a fair assessment, and vivid. I quoted him mainly to get at Sam Fuller's view that war movies tend to act as recruiting tools, even when they strive to do the opposite. This echoes the thoughts of quite a different director, Francois Truffaut, who said that it's difficult to make an anti-war film because movies "glamorize everything and always argue for whatever behavior they show."
> A talking head on the History Channel, who knew Patton, said the other > day > that the last time he watched the movie PATTON he realized, with > considerable > discomfort, that he no longer remembered how the real Patton looked or > sounded. George C Scott had become George S Patton. Or vice-versa.
> kjf
Actually, when I went through basic training (ca. 1962), the statement about the other guy dying was pretty common. Patton may have defined the statement, but it was in wide use before the film.
>Actually, when I went through basic training (ca. 1962), the statement >about the other guy dying was pretty common. Patton may have >defined the statement, but it was in wide use before the film.
But the tautology of the symbolism achieved mythic proportion only when the identity, ergo the utterances, of George S was subsumed under the semiotic cine-poetic mantle of George C.
And that ain't generic rhetoric, pal. I read it in The New York Review of Books.
FISHE...@SNYDELAB.DELHI.EDU wrote: >>What is sprung and unsprung narrative?
>Since I supplied this quote, I suppose I bear responsibility for it. The >answer is, I don't have a clue. I imagine it refers somehow to sprung rhythm, >the verse structure championed by GM Hopkins that measures metrical feet >according to the stressed syllables, and ignores the unstressed. For instance, >a hexameter in sprung rhythm would contain six stressed elements but otherwise >be freed from conventional definitions of the metrical foot. Here's some >Hopkins s.r.
> What would the world be, once bereft > Of wet and wildness? Let them be left, > O let them be left, wildness and wet; > Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.
>What this has to do with 'sprung narrative' or FULL METAL JACKET I'll leave >to better men than I (and probably a few French critics).
>kjf
i haven't seen full metal jacket, but i read somewhere that the voice-over spoken by john garfield in force of evil (noir not war) is sprung narrative (written by abraham polonsky and ira wolfert). i've seen foe a few times and the narration does have a certain beat that might be described as poetic. it's not rhymed though-- free sprung verse maybe? chelsea
But weren't all of the units scrambled up (in the movie)? No one knew where anyone was, thus all the trouble tracking Ryan down. So wouldn't you think that they'd run into a Black guy or 2?
> -----Original Message----- > From: FISHE...@SNYDELAB.DELHI.EDU [SMTP:FISHE...@SNYDELAB.DELHI.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 5:10 PM > To: CINEM...@AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
> >(And, btw, this > >definitely belies my ignorance of the war, but didn't Blacks fight > too? > >Hispanics? Or were all American soldiers squeaky clean middle-upper > >class White boys?)
> The army was still segregated by unit. They could not accurately > include a > black soldier in a white outfit -- it just wasn't done. I don't know > if any > black units were among the US troops in Normandy. As I recall, there > is a > volume in the Army History of WW2 on his topic.
> * The units were segregated. That's why the group was all white. > I don't > * know what makes you think they were all "squeaky clean > middle-upper class > * White boys" though.
* Gotcha on the segregated point (tho I still think they'd have run up against other ethnicities at SOME point, wouldn't you?). I based the "squeaky clean middle-upper class White boys" comment on the fact that they were all well spoken and seemed fairly educated.
* You also mentioned something about Hank's rise through the ranks. Soldiers
> * moved up according to time served. Hanks survived, that's why > he advanced > * through the ranks. It had nothing to do with heroic acts on the > * battlefield.
Thanks for clearing that up! It does make more sense, since he didn't appear to be a "brilliant" soldier.
> -----Original Message----- > From: John Syron - Thomas Cooley Las School [SMTP:syr...@COOLEY.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 1:07 AM > To: CINEM...@AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
> In Time or Newsweek, it was mentioned that the basic incident really > happened -- a mother received three letters on the same day. But in > reality, the Army sent a chaplain to retrieve the remaining son.
> John Syron
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Tony Urban wrote:
> > > > 2) The premise: Sending 8 men into wartorn Europe to track down > 1 man, > > > > just b/c his brothers have died.....didn't seem worth it.
> > Well, it depends on your viewpoint. To the men sent in to save him, > it > > wouldn't have been worth their lives to save his.
> > But, to the woman that lost 3 sons, having her only living child > come home > > alive was certainly something worthwhile.
> > You also have to take into account the public relation ploy that the > > mission would have been, had it been real. It would have made the > front > > page of papers around the country "She lost 3 sons, now the Army > vows to > > save her last".
> > * The units were segregated. That's why the group was all white. > > I don't > > * know what makes you think they were all "squeaky clean > > middle-upper class > > * White boys" though.
> * Gotcha on the segregated point (tho I still think they'd have > run up against other ethnicities at SOME point, wouldn't you?). I based > the "squeaky clean middle-upper class White boys" comment on the fact > that they were all well spoken and seemed fairly educated.
I actually don't know if it really would have been likely to run across another unit of blacks or Hispanics. In the film, once they were on their way to search for Ryan, they didn't come across to many other American units. After your question, I called up my grandfather who was in WW II for four year(41-45). He said that he could only remember seeing 3 units of blacks in those 4 years, and that he hadn't seen any Hispanics. I'm sure it was more of a matter of where the soldiers were stationed.
As for the movie soldiers, I guess they were all well-spoken. That was probably more a failure of the screenwriter(writing dialogue which sounded the same for all the characters)than writing stereotypical characters.
The best thing ever invented: Movies. The worst TWO things invented: Movies that suck and call waiting..
---Okay, so maybe I over exagerated that Schindler's list got next to nothing.....I don't know what the hell I was really trying to say with that comment
_____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Yes, but in the film, the Army had no real idea where "Ryan" was. They're not going to send a chaplain into war-torn France to look for a soldier. In the real story, they knew exactly where the soldier was, and it was just "go there and fly him home".
> > In Time or Newsweek, it was mentioned that the basic incident really > > happened -- a mother received three letters on the same day. But in > > reality, the Army sent a chaplain to retrieve the remaining son.
> > John Syron
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Tony Urban wrote:
> > > > > 2) The premise: Sending 8 men into wartorn Europe to track down > > 1 man, > > > > > just b/c his brothers have died.....didn't seem worth it.
> > > Well, it depends on your viewpoint. To the men sent in to save him, > > it > > > wouldn't have been worth their lives to save his.
> > > But, to the woman that lost 3 sons, having her only living child > > come home > > > alive was certainly something worthwhile.
> > > You also have to take into account the public relation ploy that the > > > mission would have been, had it been real. It would have made the > > front > > > page of papers around the country "She lost 3 sons, now the Army > > vows to > > > save her last".
> > In a nutshell, I didn't like this movie. Yeah, yeah, the graphic
> Neither did I. And the more I hear people rave about it, the less > I like it and the people who rave about it. I hate hate hate hate hate > Siskbert.
Me too. Maybe it's the rebel in me, but I am certain to hate any movie that everyone else blindly loves. (Didn't catch Siskbert's comments...what were they?)
> > pieces-of-bodies-flying-around-war scenes were impressive...for > about > > the first 10 minutes of each battle scene. But how many screaming > bloody > > soldiers can make up for the problems with:
> It would've been a great film had it ended after the first half hour. > That was all you needed to know about the war, any war. But Spielberg > had more important things in mind. It isn't enough that war is hell; > it > also has to be Oscar-worthy.
Spielberg and Hanks could sit around lighting their farts and people would call it Oscarworthy...
> > 1) The characters: I found Tom Hanks to be far too wimpy and whiny > to > > make a believable captain leading his troops to war. Between him, > and
> And that trembling-hand routine drove me nuts. Give him the fucking > Oscar and get it over with. Geez.
Oh god, the hand. I forgot all about that. Such a tortured soul. Bleck!
> > I thought his Sargeant (played by????I forgot to check) was much > better > > in portraying a comfort with the war environment.
> Tom Sizemore.
What else has he been in? He's awfully familiar.
> > Additionally, none of the characters really endeared themselves to > me > > enough so that I was concerned for their welfare or crushed when > they > > died.
> A hodgepodge of war movie cliches. And their gross encounters of the > Third Reich were neither horrifying enough nor horrifyingly funny at > all. The Farrelly brothers could teach Spielberg a lesson or two about > the fine art of grossing people out. There's nothing Mary about Ryan.
I don't know, I thought some parts were funny. Like when the guy reached down, picked up his arm, and started walking away. Where're you going with that buddy? My fiance and I were laughing so hard, I felt like Leslie and Pricilla coming out of Platoon.
> > 2) The premise: Sending 8 men into wartorn Europe to track down 1 > man, > > just b/c his brothers have died.....didn't seem worth it. And the > movie
> Especially since it was MATT! they were saving. He's been in only > three > films so far and I'm already sick of him. I definitely miss Chris > O'Donnell.
Where the heck IS O'Donnell? Has he gone into hiding b/c of his Batman fiasco? I've seen MATT! in very little (School Ties is the only thing that comes to mind) and I have yet to be impressed. He looks like a little scruffy weasle to me.
> > Any comments?
> Yeah. Check out PARENT TRAP, EVER AFTER, THE NEGOTIATOR and THERE'S > SOMETHING ABOUT MARY, instead. More successful films than SAVING > PRIVATE RYAN, imho.
I did see Mary. I think that'll join my collection soon. Pretty funny twisted stuff. The Negotiator's next on my list.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Vickery [SMTP:vicke...@AIRMAIL.NET] > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 6:19 AM > To: CINEM...@AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
> >> SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
> No, I haven't had any wartime experience. However, I have studied a > lot on > it in my spare time and for various school projects back in the day. > I > still try to keep reading and watching educational programs about war > and > the military on Discovery and PBS and the like. BTW, I wasn't trying > to > come off as a veteran or anything...I realize now that is probably how > it > sounded when you read my post.
No, I didn't think you were one either...mostly I said that just to be obnoxious. (:
> >similar. So, I didn't object to the battle scenes per se...what I did > >object to was their length. Fine, its a war movie, I expected to see > >some fighting/explosions/etc, but 20 or 30 minutes at a pop frankly > >bored me. Not to mention that I frequently didn't understand the > battle > >strategy going on.....whether that is symbolic of my ignorance of war > >strategy itself or something lacking in the plot, I don't know.
> Okay, I will reluctantly concur on this point. The battle scene at > the > beginning was a mite too lengthy. And it scared me to death at first, > but > then the edge wore off, and I was able to view it with some sort of > morbid, > detached fascination. Please do NOT mistaken what I have just written > as > enjoyment. I did by no means enjoy those battle scenes, especially > the > first, but I was able to watch them with the sort of wonderment one > feels > when faced with so devastating and horrific a portrayal.
I agree completely....for a time I found myself sitting slack-jawed at the myriad of horrible ways people could be killed or wounded. But yeah, the edge did wear off, so by the end I was ready for Hanks to die just so the damn thing would END.
> Okay...rightly so. That is an excellent point.
Wow,.... thanks!
> Spielberg could have followed his own example on that part. When he > made _Schindler's List_, it > was hailed as a great departure from Spielberg's usual visual and > cinematic > effectiveness to more of a character's film. I think the quote was > "Spielberg, more of a visual effects maestro than an actor's director, > turns out this gripping tale of a Nazi..." Anyway, you get the > point. He > needed to stay focused on his character development and overall plot > development for SPR than how much background landscape he could get > into > the shot. Point being, SPR was a tad bereft of the "psychological > introspection" bit.
Definitely. Maybe if I HAD seen into the psyche of Hanks or Private Ryan, or hell, anyone, I would have been more inclined to buy the premise of the movie.
> >I would bitch and moan at any movie that I found lacking. I am
> I suppose we'll have to just agree to disagree here, because I > interpreted > your review to be anti-Spielberg, and that you would've found it to be > lacking in any respect.
Well, at this point I am on the verge of being anti-Spielberg, mainly b/c his films are so highly regarded just by virtue of his name. I feel like he's coasting along on the same trite mechanisms, like I can practically hear him rubbing his hands together in anticipation of his Oscar.....it just seems so calculated. But I didn't go into the movie expecting to hate it. If so, I would have saved my 7 bucks and waited for HBO.
> >especially prone to bitching and moaning when movies I don't see a > whole > >lot of value in being hailed as the 2nd coming.
> Well, I certainly didn't think it had THAT kind of potential. I found > it a > good movie. Not excellent, not ultra-quality...just good. Something > that > gave me a good slap across the face and made me realize what I really > view > as important in my life (here's where that priorities thing comes in). > I > thought that I was poor, I thought I was lonely, I thought I was not > doing > so well. But when I see what these men gave for us, how much I have > in > comparison, how lucky I really am to have everything I do have...well, > it > kind of trivialized my woes. And BTW, I know the army really never > sent in > 8 men on this mission. I'm just saying the war effort as a whole and > all > the lost lives is what caused this deep reflection.
Well I think that's great that you got so much from the film. I'm sure that's what they were going for with it, so I guess for some people it succeeded. And I guess there is inherent value in any movie that can make someone ponder life's priorities, beit from watching Saving Private Ryan or, say, Licensed to Drive.
> I don't think you realize how the military structure of command works > (and > frankly, I don't have a crystal clear picture either), but let me > attempt > to bring some light to this situation. He was not a leader because of > personal attributes. He was not a Captain (or whatever his rank was) > because he was "Captain material." He was of the rank because he had > survived others who had been killed on the battlefield. They needed > people > in those positions. Thus his insertion into that position. Let's say > you > are part of a group of people, and you are the third oldest member. > The > originator of the group leaves, the second becomes the leader. Then > he or > she moves to Jamaica. Now, assuming you do not leave as well, you > would be > the next in line for a head position. This is a gross > oversimplification, > but its premise is essentially on target.
Like I said in response to someone else's post, I'll buy that. But wouldn't you assume they'd send Hanks on this very special mission b/c he's particularly good at what he does? Or were there just too few people alive after the Normandy battle? (The way the US soldiers were dropping like flies, I had to keep reminding myself that we WON this battle...)
> I meant life priorities, not cinematic ones. See above. And I agree, > SPR > could have been better in the characterization area. The plot, well, > it > was believable if you stretched it a little. I think the cohesiveness > of > this particular story was not present. It seemed scattered and > cluttered. > But that may be what Spielberg and his production team were looking > for. > The war effort (and most war efforts for that matter) was (are) > incohesive > and scattered. They are at times grossly disorganized, and at others > very > much the opposite. I just don't know the answer here.
I'm not sure either. But I did feel like Hanks and his gang all knew what was going on....it was just me that was in the dark.
> >In terms of them being soldiers with faults, I agree. It would > >be entirely unrealistic for them not to have faults....we'd have > ended
> >up with 8 or 9 Schwartzeneggers trooping along. Foibles in characters > >are fine....and to be honest, I thought this group had too few. They > >were ALL kind, decent, extremely well-spoken men? C'mon, is THAT > >realistic? I found them all very bland and homogenous.
> Where do you get that notion? They were not all kind, decent, nor > well-spoken. There were a couple of real assholes in the group. It > was a > while ago when I saw it and it is 2:30 am right now, so maybe I'm not > remembering it lucidly, but I don't remember them being decent, clean > cut > young men.
Assholes? I don't think I'd have gone that far. There was the strong jaded sargeant (Sizemore), but he seemed to have it in the right perspective. The Ed Burns character who was outspoken, but not unreasonably so. The nice big lug, the nice Jewish boy, the nice photographer...I dunno, they also seemed pretty similar to me.
> >Hmm, well, I'll grant you that point, in that one particular > >scene he was a bit blase about death (is hardened=blase? I'm not sure > >that it is). But a lean mean killing machine, Hanks just aint.
> Yeah, I do think that hardened=blase in this case. Not in every case, > but > this is how Spielberg chose to portray that side of Hanks' character. > I > agree, lean mean killing machine are not the words I would use to > describe > the man. However, does one have to be that to be hardened? Must you > be a > Rambo-like macho man to be a good fighter? I'd hope not, because we > would > have lost within the first five minutes of WWII.
Nope, and I think a Rambo-like man is a lot less interesting a character than a soldier who is a little more introspective. But, while that's how Spielberg was trying to present him, I just didn't get enough introspection from Hanks...who he was, what he valued, moral dilemmas abt war....He just seemed to be a nice bland guy, putting in his time so he could go home to his wife and his hammock.
> >And maybe my problem was that it was Hank in the leading > >position. I'm not sure, I haven't fleshed out all of my thoughts on > the > >movie yet, but Hanks is too Forrest Gump/Sleepless in > >Seattle/Philadelphia to me to be convincing in this role.
> Perhaps you are letting his prior work seep into your views on this > particular film. Paul Verhoven (I am certain that is not how you > spell his > name, but it is way too late to worry about it) turned out a very VERY > bad > movie entitled _Showgirls_. Perhaps you've heard of it? Well, me > also > made _Starship Troopers_, which was by far and wide a much better > film. I > know that comparison is akin to looking at an apple and calling it > orange, > but I think you get my point. Just because someone has represented > some > character in some other work does not mean that whatever character > they > represent in a current work should be along the same lines. He is an > actor, and a versatile one at that. Now, I'll agree, he does better > in > movies like _Sleepless..._, but I think he did an excellent job in > SPR.
|
