Saving Private Ryan
JHNNY...@aol.com
1) I don't care for war movies.
2) I had to force myself not to view this as a Spielberg movie. I didn't
want my prejudices to affect (infect) my appreciation of the movie. I was not
completely successful - is that my fault or Spielberg's?
Saving Private Ryan is a war movie in most of the ways I think of the genre.
It's got men on a mission, bonding under extreme circumstances, forced to grow
up too soon and see horrible things no one should have to see. Graphically, I
got a pretty disturbing sense of the chaos and fear and mutilation that
surrounds someone in a battle zone. The films first half hour was
particularly effective. I really liked Spielberg's POV camera and sound work.
I have never been and hope never to be in a war, whether a soldier or occupied
citizenry, so I cannot say what's realistic or not. Throughout the movie, the
fighting looked realistic, but, (with the exception of the wonderful/horrible
scenes of bloody carnage)...
mostly it looked like every war movie I've seen. Very cliched set pieces,
stereotyped characters - the Jew, the Italian, the Guy from Brooklyn, the
Southern Boy, the Naive Writer. And leading them all the quintessential
everyman Tom Hanks. On a questionable mission to find and return with Private
Ryan, the troops encounter a veritable tableau of war - the besieged town, the
sniper, the machine gun outpost, and finally the bridge. Yes, I know this was
the European war experience for many, but I felt I had seen it before,
watching the TV show Combat as a kid and that's what I was thinking of half
the time - along with the other war movies like Sam Fuller's The Big Red One,
and Platoon. Some of these set pieces were better than others, (I liked the
dogtag episode), but every one seemed way drawn out, trying to get you to feel
it's poignancy. This is what I like least about Spielberg.
Things I liked: The cinematography was crisp and striking, neither messy nor
static. Maybe too much reliance on the hand-held shots. The respect for
memory that Spielberg seems to have - some of the shots were like photographs
and I felt almost nostalgic. The acting - again, the characters were so
cliched, I had trouble getting past that. But I was highly impressed by Ed
Burns - he brought an intensity to his role that I didn't expect from his own
self-impressed pretty-boy movies. Tom Hanks was really good too, not enough
to save the movie though.
Spielberg never let me get to experience this film on my own. He was always
pulling and tugging me in ways that I may have gone anyway. I'd be interested
to hear the opinions of those who have seen and enjoyed more war movies than I
have - or even veterans of WWII who can testify to the authenticity of the
emotions the film was trying too hard to depict.
josh
in Brooklyn
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>got a pretty disturbing sense of the chaos and fear and mutilation that
>surrounds someone in a battle zone.
>
Sam Fuller said if he ever tried to film what war is really like, he'd be
arrested. "One minute there'd be a guy standing next to you, then BLAM!
There'd just be a red splash and part of his ass left." Old Sam had a way
of cutting to the heart of the matter.
I wonder how RYAN'S aftershock will color the reception of other upcoming
WWIIers. It has certainly upped the ante for verisimilitude. Soon [?] we'll
get to compare it to Malick's Return, THE THIN RED LINE [here's a platoon --
Nick Nolte, John Travolta, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Woody Harrelson, Bill
Pullman, John Cusack, Elias Koteas, Mickey Rourke].
And batten down the hatches -- apparently the Coen boys are prepping a WWII
story. I predict with some confidence that it won't be much like Spielberg's.
kjf
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>
Speaking of Fuller, here's a 'graph from Jonathan Rosenbaum's Chicago Reader
review of RYAN [www.chireader.com/movies/archives/1998/0798/07248.html] --
I'll never forget escorting the late Samuel Fuller, the much-decorated
World War II hero and maverick filmmaker, to a multiplex screening of
Full Metal Jacket, along with another critic, Bill Krohn, 11 years
ago. Though Fuller courteously stayed with us to the end, he declared
afterward that as far as he was concerned, it was another goddamn
recruiting film--that teenage boys who went to see Kubrick's picture
with their girlfriends would come out thinking that wartime combat was
neat. Krohn and I were both somewhat flabbergasted by his response at
the time, but in hindsight I think his point was irrefutable. There
are still legitimate reasons for defending Full Metal Jacket--as a
radical statement about what conditioning does to intelligence and
personality, as a meditation about what the denial of femininity does
to masculine definitions of civilization, as a deeply disturbing
experiment in sprung and unsprung narrative, and perhaps as other
things as well. But as a piece of propaganda against warfare, it's
specious, providing one more link in an endless chain of generic macho
self-deceptions on the subject. The principal achievement of Saving
Private Ryan is to extend that sort of self-deception into the
90s--with patriotic and patriarchal slop ladled on top of it, but none
of the strengths or virtues of Kubrick's movie.
kjf
Paul Ryersbach
> experiment in sprung and unsprung narrative, and perhaps as other
> things as well.
What is sprung and unsprung narrative?
Paul Ryersbach
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>I've read, the depiction is that war builds character, matures you real fast,
>makes you feel you're part of something, and secures freedom for democracy.
>Movies still insist on making death seem heroic and meaningful. In that
>sense, this movie wasn't that bad.
>
Siskel remembered something Truffaut had said -- that it's difficult to make
an anti-war film because movies "glamorize everything and always argue for
whatever behavior they show." I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I do think
deglamorizing movie behavior usually requires conscious, concerted effort --
like the butchershop overkill in RYAN. It's tempting to imagine Truffaut and
Spielberg talking it over in days of yore.
kjf
Tony Urban
person can do, whether it be the police officers at the capitol, or a
soldier in war.
I think, SPR's biggest point is to show the reality of war. People die.
People die violently and painfully. It is not glorified. It is not noble.
It is terrible, but it is heroic. SPR shows this in the face of the old
John Wayne style film where the good guy kills all the bad guys and goes
home a hero. In reality, the good guy might kill some bad guys, and he
often goes home a hero, in a bodybag.
TonyU
>
> So yeah, like most any war movie to come out of Hollywood, and in many
books
> I've read, the depiction is that war builds character, matures you real
fast,
> makes you feel you're part of something, and secures freedom for
democracy.
> Movies still insist on making death seem heroic and meaningful. In that
> sense, this movie wasn't that bad.
>
> josh
> in Brooklyn
JHNNY...@aol.com
paraphrasing Sam Fuller's reaction to Full Metal Jacket in Rosenbaum's review
of Saving Private Ryan
<< But as a piece of propaganda against warfare, it's
specious, providing one more link in an endless chain of generic macho
self-deceptions on the subject. The principal achievement of Saving
Private Ryan is to extend that sort of self-deception into the
90s--with patriotic and patriarchal slop ladled on top of it, but none
of the strengths or virtues of Kubrick's movie. >>
An issue arises here for me, and I admit not being ready to tackle it in my
initial review. How much of my frustration with the movie is that it's not
the movie I wanted it to be? It's not an anti-war statement, it's not a
statement about the hypocrisy of militaristic solutions in a so-called
civilized society, it's not an examination of the machinations of the Hitler
regime and what options we (Americans, Allies) had to prevent war.
The closest Saving Private Ryan comes to any of those things is when the
"grunts" gripe, sort of a proletariat viewpoint making asides as to the sanity
of the mission, the sanity of the military brass, the sanity of following
orders that don't seem practical. But it's immediately washed away by the
next attack, the next assault, the perogative of obeying orders no matter
what. We see plenty of exasperated platoon leaders, exhausted troops, yet the
enemy is always "the enemy", faceless and ruthless and de-humanized. I won't
comment here on what happens the only time one of the Americans shows any
compassion to a German soldier...
JHNNY...@aol.com
<< Dying for your country is heroic. It is the most amazing thing that a
person can do, whether it be the police officers at the capitol, or a
soldier in war. >>
I disagree. It *can* be heroic, but as Vietnam showed us, going into war with
some heroic idea of saving your country and defending democracy without
questioning the reasons behind can just be tragic. Heroic acts do occur in
such circumstances, sure. But blind patriotism is foolish because it's
predicated on the notion of the country as an ideal. While I may believe in
the ideals of America, the forces moving it are just a body politic of mostly
rich white males quite fallibly representing us. Do I believe there are
things worth dying for? Certainly. Are there things worth killing for? I
don't know. So far, in my experience, not what my government has told me was.
In Saving Private Ryan Capt. Miller (Tom Hanks) says something like "Every
time I kill a man, home seems farther away." I thought that was a powerful
sentiment. The rest of the movie would've been better served by exploring
that theme rather than that of how ugly it looks when people die violently.
josh
in Brooklyn
ZzZzZz
>Spielberg never let me get to experience this film on my own. He was always
>pulling and tugging me in ways that I may have gone anyway. I'd be interested
>to hear the opinions of those who have seen and enjoyed more war movies than I
>have - or even veterans of WWII who can testify to the authenticity of the
>emotions the film was trying too hard to depict.
As someone who hasn't seen many war movies, I didn't notice how
cliche'd everything was until you pointed it out. The fact that the
movie had a variety of set pieces -- sniper, bridge, town, etc. --
didn't bother me. That's what I was expecting, and what I think was
proper: a well-rounded look at the war experience in that area, at
that time. The fact that the group consisted of several types -- Jew,
Italian, Brooklynite, etc. -- also didn't bother me. I mean, what do
you think they should have been? All the same? Largely indistinct? I
think you are making observations, not criticisms. If these
stereotypes had no depth beyond their stereotypes, then that would be
a valid criticism. But that wasn't the case at all. The Southern boy,
for example, was perhaps the most competent in the bunch, and he never
let out a single cornball statement about lovin' America or whatever.
That was not a criticizable stereotype.
I will agree that Spielberg is a manipulative director, and he
certainly didn't let up here. Quite the opposite. But once again, I am
not sure "manipulative" is a criticism. What else is this sort of film
supposed to do? Just present facts? He does push too hard at times,
going too far. Perhaps he feels it's better to go too far than not to
go far enough. Why make a movie at all if all you're going to do is
hold back. Why should any movie about war ever be subtle?
This is the most brutal movie I've seen in ages. I was completely
riveted. To be honest, I have to disagree that Spielberg always told
you what to feel. I think there were a lot of times when he let in
some ambiguity. What happens to the naive writer is very open-ended.
The key events are extreme, but Spielberg leaves you to fill in the
psychological details yourself.
There were a couple of times when I suspected Spielberg of doing a
big-budget, high-tech version of what I used to do as a kid: set up
army men in my back yard, blow them up with firecrackers, and film it.
But the characters, the story, and the themes (obvious though they
were) served to put those feelings mostly to rest.
I'll agree about Tom Hanks -- he was good, but not good enough. I
thought about it for a while, and I concluded that Hanks was cast
partially because of his clout. He'll get people in the theater. He
also has the down-home quality that the character requires. But Hanks,
to me, never seems 100% right in dramatic roles. I can never get his
humorous parts out of my head, and I think he goes a little sour when
he tries to be serious. It simply doesn't fit him.
Another strange thing, from an industry/casting perspective, was how
just about *every* young man Spielberg cast was somebody who has
proven himself in the Indy world. It almost felt to me like Spielberg
was trying to align himself with the hip, young clique -- or trying to
soak up some of their talent. Or maybe give them a reward/boost for
following the individualist filmmaking dream, as he was once known for
doing. In any case, through all the mayhem and violence, I couldn't
ever fully shake the sense of there being a subtext to the casting.
I think of Saving Private Ryan more as an experience than a movie.
It's hard to think of it as art, and it's hard to think of it as
entertainment. To see it is to go through something, and at times, for
me anyway, it was painful. The worst thing I can say about the movie
is that it's so much more successful at being terrifying than
emotionally wrenching. I was much more gripped than I was moved. But
damn, was I gripped!
And as for the idea that this movie is "important" (I hate when a
movie is supposed to be important, but why shouldn't movies try to
be?), I think there's some truth to it. That is, there's no denying
that our society has gone soft and takes many things for granted.
Perhaps shaking us up is the only way to make us understand. Subtlety
doesn't get results from jaded moviegoers anymore. I dunno. It *does*
seem that people take war veterans for granted; that's been the case
for as long as I remember. I hate the idea that you're supposed to
leave the movie wanting to go hug a war veteran or something like
that, but then again -- why is that a bad thing? Why go to a movie at
all if you don't want to be manipulated?
By the way, I bought the Saving Private Ryan soundtrack on CD. Turns
out the whole album is nothing but gunshots and explosions. Just
kidding.
ZzZzZz
>But as a piece of propaganda against warfare, it's
> specious, providing one more link in an endless chain of generic macho
> self-deceptions on the subject. The principal achievement of Saving
> Private Ryan is to extend that sort of self-deception into the
> 90s--with patriotic and patriarchal slop ladled on top of it, but none
> of the strengths or virtues of Kubrick's movie.
I don't think he substantiates his argument at all here. Saving
Private Ryan turns everything into generic macho self-deception? Where
is the argument for this? I don't think there was anything "generic
macho" about the movie at all. The macho people die just as
pathetically as the wimps. This critic also said that Full Metal
Jacket made war look "neat," and then implied this applied to Saving
Private Ryan too. Where does Saving Private Ryan make war look neat?
Just about every incident ended in misery. Even when they "won," it
wasn't a "woo hoo!" type of deal. Usually, the sentiment was, "We
won....but I feel like shit.....and we have to go bury half our men
now."
"Patriotic and patriarchal slop?" Bullshit. If acknowledging that it's
a part of American history is "patriotic," then I guess Amistad and
Platoon and Glory and, heck, while we're at it The Panama Deception
and Waco: Rules of Engagement are patriotic too.
Patriarchal? Does he say that because the movie shows that there's a
chain of command? Or is it because of the earnest way the military
leaders are represented? 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.
Leslie E. Phillips
>Does the film implicitly glorify World War II? Probably I haven't decided.
>But for me -- and I can barely believe I'm typing this -- it was the only film
>I've ever seen that successfully evoked a genuinely patriotic sentiment.
The somewhat riled Ms Rosenblum responded:
=Why? What did this film do that others =didn't? For me, it was trite and
=ordinary, boring and tedious in large part, =and wholly unmoving.
First of all, I'm speaking here of a quite personal reaction, rather than an
aesthetic judgment (that's below).
What did it do that others didn't? I have always avoided war films, so I may
not carry much baggage of context and reference. But what was ordinary or
trite or boring or tedious about the first half hour, particularly? First of
all, it's a big screen depiction of the greatest invasion in history presented
by a technical master. Within that backdrop you get a small group of soldiers,
quite human and terrified, their humanity and terror in tremendous tension with
the heroic acts surrounding them (and which they are performing). And then
there's the carnage, lots of it, and I hated seeing it, but it was utterly
necessary to communicate exactly what it meant to take that beach. I've simply
never had so complete a sense of what it means to be a soldier.
Are you objecting to the banality of naturalism? I very much respect your
opinions, my good woman, and I am genuinely struggling to understand why you
found all this banal and ordinary.
= I didn't
=feel for any of the characters as =individuals
They were types, with the possible exception of Hanks. It wasn't about people
so much as it was about war. Sometimes types serve a purpose.
=On the other hand, there have
=been many films that have made me ache =for the brutality of war -- and many
=that have made me feel proud of my =country and its ideals. This just did
=neither. Why do you think it affected you?
I don't know. I expected to like the film a lot, and I did. Didn't expect
the strong emotional reaction. Possibly because I teach history (occasionally)
and I think about the Second World War a lot. Possibly because I'm coming into
some revision of my own cynicisms. Which films made you ache for the brutality
of war, evoked your patriotism?
>Vietnam was an atrocity; I loathed the Gulf >War; don' t get me started on
>Reagan. But World War II bloody well was >the necessary war;
=*the* necessary war, not *a* necessary =war? What about the War of
=American Independence . . . think we should =have foregone that?
This Lexingtonian thinks it was a whole lot less necessary than World War II.
(Do you think we should have foregone the Civil War?) But I hereby withdraw
the definite article.
>But that's how Private Ryan would have spoken, what he would have
>said. I fought back tears.
=Tears? Really?
Yes. Why would I lie?
= Why?
I don't know, Shari; I'm not going to know.
= For what?
For every veteran of that war who survived and lived the rest of his life
hoping to be worthy of his dead colleagues, and of his country at its best.
If a rather poor film brought me to that reaction, I would credit it with some
value.
= What made him different from the =hundreds
=of other soldiers you've seen portrayed on =screen, before and after the
=battle scenes?
He's *not* different, the film was. And probably I'm different, as noted
above. What do you cry at, and why? I demand a full accounting!!
Les Phillips
James Frame
veterans who are supposed to be too unstable to "relive" such things.
I heard the same thing when PLATOON was released. I had real reservations
about seeing it, but I was able to seen it as a film, objectively. I thought
it was an honest view of the Vietnam war, certainly better than THE GREEN
BERETS (the most obscene movie I have ever seen) and much better than FULL
METAL JACKET (basic bullshit).
As for "heroism," well, we all have our own definitions of that word (so over-
used and prostituted).
Perhaps the real obscenity of war (aside from the obvious misery and atrocious
actions that it inspires and encourages) is that it turns ordinary, decent
young men (and now, tragically, young women) into killers.
encouraging you all to eschew violence,
jbf
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Does the film implicitly glorify World War II? Probably I haven't decided.
>But for me -- and I can barely believe I'm typing this -- it was the only film
>I've ever seen that successfully evoked a genuinely patriotic sentiment.
Why? What did this film do that others didn't? For me, it was trite and
ordinary, boring and tedious in large part, and wholly unmoving. I didn't
feel for any of the characters as individuals and was annoyed by the film's
contrivances (as I've written elsewhere). On the other hand, there have
been many films that have made me ache for the brutality of war -- and many
that have made me feel proud of my country and its ideals. This just did
neither. Why do you think it affected you?
>Vietnam was an atrocity; I loathed the Gulf War; don' t get me started on
>Reagan. But World War II bloody well was the necessary war;
*the* necessary war, not *a* necessary war? What about the War of
American Independence . . . think we should have foregone that?
>But that's how Private Ryan would have spoken, what he would have
>said. I fought back tears.
Tears? Really? Why? For what? What made him different from the hundreds
of other soldiers you've seen portrayed on screen, before and after the
battle scenes?
>But it's a great film -- and I try never to use that adjective without due
>deliberation.
It's an adequate film, with some technical expertise, and press both
advance and contemporaneous far far far far better than its writing,
acting, direct, and entire conceptualization deserve.
Shari
Shari L. Rosenblum
>I disagree. It *can* be heroic, but as Vietnam showed us, going into war
>with some heroic idea of saving your country and defending democracy without
>questioning the reasons behind can just be tragic.
Is it your contention that there was no heroism in Vietnam? Is it your
contention that because you disagree with the purpose of that war, those
who fought and died there were any less heroes of our nation than those
who fought and died in wars that you approve?
>Heroic acts do occur in
>such circumstances, sure. But blind patriotism is foolish because it's
>predicated on the notion of the country as an ideal.
Heroic acts, but insignificant?
Is there something more heroic than dying painfully and away
from home in the service of a nation that scorns you for your service?
Blind patriotism? Why are acts predicated on the notion of the country
as an ideal less valid than acts predicated on the notion that there is
no ideal? The soldiers who died in Vietnam -- as in WWII and WWI and
on both sides of the Civil War and so on and so forth -- died in the
service of their country -- our country. Whether they thought about
their place as deeply as you can from the comfort of your home, or
whether they risked their lives for us without thinking that they
might well be wrong, why might you deny them the honor they have
earned?
> While I may believe in
>the ideals of America, the forces moving it are just a body politic of mostly
>rich white males quite fallibly representing us.
Wait a second -- is it that you feel it just and righteous to reject ideals
you support because of where they come from? The ideals of this nation --
freedom, protection of our integrity from the forces of government,
a voice in justice, a sense of balance in our governance -- were ideals
set forth by (presumably) rich, certainly white, and unquestionably male
persons. But they are ideals that serve all of us. That they serve us
imperfectly is only one part of the equation -- that they ever endeavor
to serve us better -- that we have the power and the privilege to
demand that they serve us better -- those are the ideals, the actuality
that our soldiers have died for over the years.
If there have been errors in the wars we have chosen to fight, those
errors lie more with us, the voters and the naysayers, than they do
with the people we send off with guns and canteens to take the bullets
in our name.
>Do I believe there are
>things worth dying for? Certainly. Are there things worth killing for? I
>don't know. So far, in my experience, not what my government has told me was.
You would die for something that you would not kill for? The protection
of your children, for example? The lives of your parents, your friends,
your neighbors? If your pulling the trigger would save them, would you
sit back self-righteously and let them die because their lives were not
worth your having to suffer moral and cognitive dissonance?
Shari
Leslie E. Phillips
>An issue arises here for me, and I admit >not being ready to tackle it in my
>initial review. How much of my >frustration with the movie is that it's not
>the movie I wanted it to be? It's not an >anti-war statement, it's not a
>statement about the hypocrisy of >militaristic solutions in a so-called
>civilized society, it's not an examination of >the machinations of the Hitler
>regime and what options we (Americans, >Allies) had to prevent war.
>The closest Saving Private Ryan comes to >any of those things is when the
>"grunts" gripe, sort of a proletariat >viewpoint making asides as to the
sanity
>of the mission, the sanity of the military >brass, the sanity of following
>orders that don't seem practical. But it's >immediately washed away by the
>next attack, the next assault, the >perogative of obeying orders no matter
>what.
Isn't that because the only "practical" alternative is to fight and go on? I
think that SAVING PRIVATE RYAN showed a fairly complex range of attitudes
toward the war -- even the captain's attitudes were quite complex and textured.
> We see plenty of exasperated >platoon >leaders, exhausted troops, yet the
>enemy is always "the enemy"
Which was exactly how the vast preponderance of soldiers and civilians saw him
-- wouldn't it have been a distortion to present it in any other way?
Particularly when you're in the process of trying to take the beaches of
Normandy away from a massively armed group of men who are desperately trying to
kill you -- not really the time for reflection and balance.
>So yeah, like most any war movie to come >out of Hollywood, and in many books
>I've read, the depiction is that war builds >character, matures you real fast,
>makes you feel you're part of something,
Are you saying it *doesn't* do all of those things? Of course it does, World
War II especially. Even horrible atrocious wars do that for many soldiers.
>and secures freedom for democracy.
WWII didn't do that?
>Movies still insist on making death seem >heroic and meaningful.
I'm not sure whether SPR saw it as heroic and meaningful or merely necessary.
My reading of this film was approximately this: War is absolute hell.
Leaders are fallible beings who screw things up; there's tremendous moral
ambiguity hovering over all of the big and little decisions and actions of war
(i.e., the very best wars contain indefensible actions and decisions); the best
wars will bring to the fore some of the worst behavior and people as well as
the best. And the obscenity of war coexists with awesome power, majesty even
(the fact that the images of war can be majestic and awe-inspiring is
independently obscene, but still it's so). I don't think there's any explicit
normative statement about war in this film, even about this war. The war is
the given; the soldiers do what they have to do.
Does the film implicitly glorify World War II? Probably I haven't decided.
But for me -- and I can barely believe I'm typing this -- it was the only film
I've ever seen that successfully evoked a genuinely patriotic sentiment.
Vietnam was an atrocity; I loathed the Gulf War; don' t get me started on
Reagan. But World War II bloody well was the necessary war; if there is such
a thing as a "good" war or a "just" war, that was it, and, for all their
faults, thank God for Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. The final
scene has been criticized as cliche, and I can understand that -- there's
always that danger when you try to give fairly ordinary people realistic
dialogue. But that's how Private Ryan would have spoken, what he would have
said. I fought back tears.
There was some awkward dialogue. I didn't like the attempt at making the Tom
Hanks character some sort of tortured small-town aesthete. The young Private
Ryan was a perhaps a touch too heroic. A constitutional amendment banning any
more movie scores by John Williams is essential, a moral imperative.
But it's a great film -- and I try never to use that adjective without due
deliberation.
Les Phillips
P.S. *My* BARCELONA, just lately, is AS GOOD AS IT GETS.
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>heroic.
>
Specifically "the other poor dumb bastard."
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
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>
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
Roger Taylor
heroic.
Roger Taylor
Roger Taylor
> >such circumstances, sure. But blind patriotism is foolish because
> it's
> >predicated on the notion of the country as an ideal.
>
> Heroic acts, but insignificant?
>
> Is there something more heroic than dying painfully and away
> from home in the service of a nation that scorns you for your service?
>
> Blind patriotism? Why are acts predicated on the notion of the
> country
> as an ideal less valid than acts predicated on the notion that there
> is
> no ideal? The soldiers who died in Vietnam -- as in WWII and WWI and
> on both sides of the Civil War and so on and so forth -- died in the
> service of their country -- our country. Whether they thought about
> their place as deeply as you can from the comfort of your home, or
> whether they risked their lives for us without thinking that they
> might well be wrong, why might you deny them the honor they have
> earned?
>
of Glory? Kirk Douglas quotes Samuel Johnson..."Patriotism is
the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Tony Urban
That's a pretty piss-poor attitude.
In my heart, the men who were machine-gunned to death the very second the
boats landed on Normandy were heroes. Using your ideology, they were not.
In a related note, if anyone had trouble believing the opening Normandy
Invasion sequence, the local news here interviewed a soldier who stormed
the beach. He lost 96% of his group in 10 minutes.
TonyU
Richard J. Doyle
Richard J. Doyle
Access & Visual Basic Developer
CRW Systems
rdoy...@msn.com
ICQ# 9867240
JHNNY...@aol.com
<< Is it your contention that there was no heroism in Vietnam? Is it your
contention that because you disagree with the purpose of that war, those
who fought and died there were any less heroes of our nation than those
who fought and died in wars that you approve? >>
No, this is not my contention. What upsets me is the message that's conveyed
whereby young people are conditioned (gee, that sounds familiar, Mulan-wise)
into thinking it's cool to fight in a war. Granted some balance is given by
way of presenting real-looking gore and guts. Sometimes true patriotism is in
refusing to fight. This does not impugn those who do fight. And I'm not
saying that's true of WWII (and I'm not saying it isn't, not here). I'm just
saying Spielberg could've made a real anti-war statement and didn't.
<<The soldiers who died in Vietnam -- as in WWII and WWI and on both sides of
the Civil War and so on and so forth -- died in the service of their country
-- our country. Whether they thought about their place as deeply as you can
from the comfort of your home, or whether they risked their lives for us
without thinking that they might well be wrong, why might you deny them the
honor they have earned?>>
I would deny them nothing. Just as I don't deny the heroism in the parents
who suffer anxiously awaiting news of their children, or brave young sons and
daughters missing parents overseas. But showing the horrors of war should not
be diminished by depictions of the nobility of man. All I'm saying is, no
matter how corageous it is to just be in that situation, by showing it this
way you perpetuate the idea of militarism as a sane philosophy. Now, I'm no
poli-sci major, nor an articulate pacifist, I just resist war-mongering
disguised as flag waving sentiment. Yeah, and I'm cynical, too.
<< You would die for something that you would not kill for? The protection
of your children, for example? The lives of your parents, your friends,
your neighbors? If your pulling the trigger would save them, would you
sit back self-righteously and let them die because their lives were not
worth your having to suffer moral and cognitive dissonance?>>
The short answer is yes, I would die for something I would not kill for. As
for letting my loved ones die, I would posit that it's presumtuous to think
that "if pulling the trigger would save them..." is a common moral dilemna
when in fact it is more often the culmination of many blustering bludering
prideful greedy actions that yes, as you say, it is our responsibility as
voters and naysayers to prevent before the country ends up sending children
off to some desert somewhere.
josh
JHNNY...@aol.com
<< And the obscenity of war coexists with awesome power, majesty even
(the fact that the images of war can be majestic and awe-inspiring is
independently obscene, but still it's so). I don't think there's any
explicit
normative statement about war in this film, even about this war. >>
I don't disagree with you, that's my problem with it. I was hoping for
something more.
josh
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Shari - Remember that great quotation from Kubrick's film, Paths
>of Glory? Kirk Douglas quotes Samuel Johnson..."Patriotism is
>the last refuge of a scoundrel."
That scoundrels take refuge there, which I concede, does not
in any way diminish its greater value. Scoundrels, I understand,
may also find sanctuary in the house of the lord.
It is error to judge patriotism -- as all things -- by those who
lay claim to it. It is far more astute to judge it by the
qualities it has that make people lay claim to it -- cite it as
a justification. Is the same not true of love? Of sympathy?
Of honor?
In any case, it's not a question of patriotism; it's a question
of integrity.
We, as a nation, send soldiers to die for our values and our interests.
Whether they do so willingly, anxiously, proudly, hesitantly,
angrily, or unthinkingly, they do so in our name. We may not
take pride in our country or its ideals, we may not take pride
in the values and interests we send them to die for, we may even
scorn our country and eschew patriotism in name and in concept --
but even with all that, we have a debt of honor to those who
gave their lives because we asked them to.
Shari
chelsea corazon
>> >Heroic acts do occur in
>> >such circumstances, sure. But blind patriotism is foolish because
>> it's
>> >predicated on the notion of the country as an ideal.
>>
>> Heroic acts, but insignificant?
>>
>> Is there something more heroic than dying painfully and away
>> from home in the service of a nation that scorns you for your service?
>>
>> Blind patriotism? Why are acts predicated on the notion of the
>> country
>> as an ideal less valid than acts predicated on the notion that there
>> is
>> on both sides of the Civil War and so on and so forth -- died in the
>> service of their country -- our country. Whether they thought about
>> their place as deeply as you can from the comfort of your home, or
>> whether they risked their lives for us without thinking that they
>> might well be wrong, why might you deny them the honor they have
>> earned?
>>
>of Glory? Kirk Douglas quotes Samuel Johnson..."Patriotism is
>the last refuge of a scoundrel."
back when samuel johnson wrote, i don't think they had the term 'phony'
yet. 'bogus' is another word that comes to mind . . . i'm not saying one
*must* experience war to give a true account-- but some of my favorite
war movies so far are fuller's 'the steel helmet' and 'the big red one'
--and stone's 'platoon.' both happened to be former combatants in war
zones who wrote screenplays & directed films based on their experiences.
chelsea
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>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."
kjf
Roger Taylor
>
> 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
>
about the other guy dying was pretty common. Patton may have
defined the statement, but it was in wide use before the film.
Roger
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>>
>
>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.
kjf
chelsea corazon
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
Machtinger, Terri
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?
Hmmm, maybe not, who knows....
tm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FISH...@SNYDELAB.DELHI.EDU [SMTP:FISH...@SNYDELAB.DELHI.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 5:10 PM
> To: CINE...@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.
>
> kjf
Machtinger, Terri
> * 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.
tm
Machtinger, Terri
tm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Syron - Thomas Cooley Las School [SMTP:syr...@COOLEY.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 1:07 AM
> To: CINE...@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".
> >
Tony Urban
> > 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.
TonyU
Blake S. Egan
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]
Tony Urban
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".
>
> That sounds more realistic to me!
>
> tm
>
Machtinger, Terri
> > 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.
tm
Machtinger, Terri
> From: Jason Vickery [SMTP:vick...@AIRMAIL.NET]
> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 6:19 AM
> To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
>
> >>
>
> 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.
>
Ugh, yes, I have heard of SHOWGIRLS.....say no more......And I
did see STARSHIP TROOPERS, and it was a significantly more watchable
movie (tho certainly nothing special). I don't expect all actors or
directors or producers to produce the same characters/work/etc. In fact,
I think that's a sign of a real lack of creativity (hence part of my
problem with Spielie). But while I find Hanks somewhat believable in the
more touchy-feely roles, I didn't find him believable here.
> > Well sure, I wouldn't want all of the characters to be just
> like
>
> >him either. Just not just like each other.
>
> I did see some consistency in characterization, but I did not see them
> being essentially clones of one another. They were in a unit
> together, and
> had survived some awful, horrible things, perhaps even saved each
> other
> from some of those situations. That made them very close, almost like
> brothers. Do not get me wrong here. I don't mean to suggest that
> they
> loved each other with that ooey-gooey brotherly love some cliched
> versions
> of war stories portray. They probably fought and had just as many
> disagreements as they did agreements. I guess what my point here is
> that
> you perceived them as such similar characters just because they were
> close,
> like brothers. I hope I made that point clearly.
>
No, not clones, but as I pointed out before, not a whole heck of
a lot different either. I also thought the movie DID push the ooey-gooey
brotherly love thing.....remember "Coward Soldier" (as I've come to call
him), talking abt how he wanted to write a book about the brotherly
relationship between soldiers? And then the scene with them chatting by
the phonograph (where the hell did that come from anyway?)? I thought
Spielberg crammed that brotherhood thing down our throats!
> > I don't know if its a formula they use or not. Probably its
> just
> >good writing. If I have been sucked into a character's life, been
> able
> >to walk in his shoes, feel what he feels...that's a mark of a
> developed
> >character. Hell, I don't even have to LIKE the guy, but I do have to
> >have some sort of understanding of how he works. And that didn't
> happen
> >with any of these men.
>
> Again, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I felt as though
> I
> were walking in their shoes.
>
Yep, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Not one of those
characters made an impact on me, and certainly not a lasting one.
> >rescue him. I never was convinced that Ryan was a guy worthy of
> >rescuing....he certainly didn't appreciate being rescued...in the end
> >did it all really matter? I didn't feel that it did.
>
> Yeah, I agree. He wasn't all that worthy of rescuing...but I'll spare
> you
> the examples. But out of the thousands and thousands of soldiers out
> there, how did the army know that he was such a person? And even if
> they
> did, how could they justify not going after him anyway? What is the
> value
> of one person's life over another? There is no value, at least not
> one
> that is quantifiable by society's standards. So they had to save him.
> We
> would have to save anybody in this situation.
>
Do you think we would have to save anybody in this situation? Do
you think we would today? Did we in Vietnam? I kind of saw it as one of
those archaic 40's-type morality judgments, that wouldn't fly quite so
well today.
> >And of course I'd be bummed if my kids died, Vick, I'm not an
> >ogre. But why was Mrs. Ryan's mourning so much more important than
> every
> >other mother's?
>
> Her mourning was not more important, it was more potent. It was
> definitely
> more stress than any human can really handle at one point. That is
> why
> they had to get Ryan home. She had to have someone to hold, someone
> who
> could hold her. And neither of us would ever completely understand
> what
> that mother would have gone through, not even if the same scenario had
> occurred within our families, because her situation was different.
> She was
> a different person, with different needs, different wants, completely
> different outlooks on life, et cetera.
>
I don't know, I just don't think so. Is having 3 of 4 kids
killed worse than having your only child die? Is a child's death worse
than a husband's? You just can't tell....they all suck, but I'm not sure
her situation suced any worse than other people's. She definitely needed
someone to hold, someone to hold her.....but I'll bet lots of women and
mothers (and the men too) also did.
> >Maybe Vick, maybe. Who knows what Ryan was going thru, because
> >THEY NEVER SHOWED US!!!! I never knew Ryan, as a man, before, during,
> or
> >after the war. He ended up with a wife, some kids, some teeniebopper
> >granddaughters.....does that make his life more valuable than the men
> >who saved it? Not only do I doubt that it does, I wasn't convinced
> that
> >the movie delved deep enough into the question of whether or not it
> did.
>
> Okay, it is true they never showed us. I wish they had. Perhaps
> those
> scenes (if they were even shot, which I doubt) ended up on the cutting
> room
> floor. I don't know. And again, his life is not more valuable, per
> se,
> nor were the lives of the eight men in that unit. However, if those
> eight
> men died in an effort to save his, that makes their lives mean so much
> more
> to the "value" of the situation. I think that is the point the scenes
> with
> old Ryan were trying to make. He was realizing what those men gave,
> and it
> hit him like a freight train.
>
Why does it give their lives more value? B/c they were willing
to die b/c their orders said so, regardless of the silliness of the
mission? Blind patriotism or unwillingness to buck the system or simply
doing what you're told (or whatever drove the 8 men) confers value on a
person's life?
> > And puleese, the scenes at the beginning and the end were
> trite
> >cop-outs, don't you think??
>
> Perhaps just a little, but that may be Spielberg's creativity waning.
> He's
> done so many films and has had so much acclaim and accolade thrown his
> way
> that by now, he figures anything he drolls out will be hailed with the
> same
> trumpet and fanfare as everything else he has done.
>
Agreed. Wholeheartedly. And that what annoys the hell out of me!
> WHEW!!! Glad that's off my chest. I'm going to sleep now.
>
Me too. (The glad that it's off my chest part, not the going to
sleep part. Tho I'd love to, I suppose my boss wouldn't approve).
tm