Saving Private Ryan: Pro War, Anti-Malick, Progaganda
One of the Fascists
Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind? Not only is
"Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
this? "Saving Private Ryan" is an inferior film in almost every respect...
poor cinematography, poor characterization, poor acting. In the televised
hype for SPR we heard actors from that film talking about how amazed they
were that Spielberg shot every scene so quickly, with only one take. It
shows. So why the hype, why the mass-media bandwagon love for this film?
Two reasons. 1. The impending hostilities against Iraq. 2. The anti-war
implication of the impending "Thin Red Line."
Face it. The military dominated economy, and the people in power in these
United States do not have as easy marks as they did in World War I and
II. Vietnam is largely considered an unjust war by most members of the
population. This is a huge inconvenience for those in power who want to
excercise military force in the world for their own ends. To justify
brutal force, they must keep in the public's mind the idea that at least
SOME wars are justified, are worth the cost of human life. So far the
ONLY war that has remained successfully part of American Consciousness
as being a GOOD war has been World War II. The cruel and vicious
bombing, and embargo of Iraq, which has, to date, resulted in a horrendous
death toll of Iraqi civilians, needs to be justified. The worst thing
that the people in power can imagine is the appearance of another film on
the level with Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" which gives another punch to
the dehumanizing effect of war on the participants. While boats hang off
of Iraq with cruise missiles ready to punch more holes in the water
supplies and roads of Iraq, Malick's "Thin Red Line" was impending,
possibly to undermine the fairly successful propaganda effort to keep
the public on the side of the United States war effort, a war effort that
this time around they did not even bother to try to get U.N. approval for.
(the current attack on Iraq is without U.N. sanction, and in fact has been
condemned.)
So how do you undermine a film that is possibly going to undermine the
public's faith in the "goodness" of war? You do so by beating it to the
punch. You know that the upcoming film is going to be brutal in it's
depiction of death and hardship, so you try to be honest about it
yourself, only to put your own spin on it. Malick's film basically
avoided "moralizing" about the effects of war...he simply showed the
effects, and lets the audience make their own judgement about the
necessity of making such sacrifices. But Spielberg, sharing the attitude
of elite propaganda models, cannot allow his audience to make up their
own minds about the horror of war. He'll show it, yes...he has to show
it because otherwise his film will be shown to be a poor whitewash of
the war when the Malick film later comes out, but he heavy handedly
insists, all throughout, on a religious justification of the suffering
that transcends the suffering and dismisses it. His references to
the Holocaust, and the God-sanction involved in saving the remaining
Jews (as represented by Ryan and by private Mellish) tie quite neatly into
the current campaign in the Middle East, which the powers that be would
have you believe is about quashing a new Hitler who threatens to use
"mass destruction" on Israel and the rest of the world, (a sentimental
manipulation that is aimed both at Christian and Jewish members of the
audience), as opposed to what it truly is about...the maintenance of
control over the production of oil by the United States in service to
the multinational corporations who wish to maintain their control over
these resources, resources that Arab nationalism, of any kind, would
threaten.
It would be interesting to know exactly what series of conversations and
pressures were involved in encouraging Spielberg to produce this
reaffirmation of the "goodness" of war at this particular time.
Robert Whelan
Lee Aanderud
>
> Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
> anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
> that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
> theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind?
You left out "long in the theater". "quickie production"... how long
did it take to shoot, how long did Thin Red Line take to shoot? Not
that I really care... because only one movie was worth the money to
watch.
> Not only is
> "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
> amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
> this?
Because it's a great movie... one to put on the all time great list. My
opinion, which I know is greatly appreciated here, is that SPR is the
real masterpiece and that TTRL isn't fit for video. People can sit and
fight about this until the Academy Awards... but it's there where we'll
really find out what the public thinks... my prediction SPR - 7 or 8
(including best film), TRL - maybe 1 for the pretty pictures.
Yes, it was all a setup for Speilberg to take Malick's spotlight... kind
of a "This is a director (Speilberg), this is a director on drugs
(Malick).
Isn't it funny, that most of the people who use the word "fascist" are
also those pasty white people who don't get out much... too busy being
paranoid and perfecting the "geek" role in society.
Lee (who says the "propoganda" worked)
--
Old Soldiers Never Die... Your Mom Threw Them Away.
(GI Joe 1964-69)
TomRipley
<rwh...@amerika.new.world.order> wrote:
>Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
>anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
>that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
>theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind? Not only is
>"Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
>amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
>this?
Because it's by one of the greatest directors of all time? Because it
was an incredible movie? Because given it's near $200 million gross
at the box office, it seems that the vast majority of people don't
agree with your opinion?
Just guessing here...
Tom
--
"The last time I saw him, he was wearing a blue
sweater and an idiotic expression. The sweater
was new." -- Playing by Heart
Steve Tilson
One of the Fascists <rwh...@amerika.new.world.order> wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to know exactly what series of conversations and
> pressures were involved in encouraging Spielberg to produce this
> reaffirmation of the "goodness" of war at this particular time.
>
> Robert Whelan
>
>
LOL! What an awesome troll!
Steve Tilson
It was the BATF in the vanguard, as usual, backed up by FBI shock
troops... I saw the gold flag of the IRS and realized we would doubtless
have to face flamethrowers and chemical-biological warfare shells.
-Doom: Hell on Earth
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robert Whelan
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 03:04:09 -0500, One of the Fascists
> <rwh...@amerika.new.world.order> wrote:
>
> >Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
> >anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
> >that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
> >theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind? Not only is
> >"Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
> >amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
> >this?
>
> Because it's by one of the greatest directors of all time? Because it
> was an incredible movie? Because given it's near $200 million gross
> at the box office, it seems that the vast majority of people don't
> agree with your opinion?
>
> Just guessing here...
Hey, just because it's SUCCESSFUL propaganda, doesn't make it any less
propaganda. The "vast majority" loved Hitler too. Don't limit your
judgement of the film to it's "success", or you end up a victim of your
masters, just as the people of Germany were.
Robert Whelan
> One of the Fascists wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
> > anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
> > that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
> > theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind?
>
> You left out "long in the theater". "quickie production"... how long
> did it take to shoot, how long did Thin Red Line take to shoot? Not
> that I really care... because only one movie was worth the money to
> watch.
Oh, yeah, it's entertaining. That's why it's "long in the theatre." If it
had been about what war was really like, folks wouldn't be going back to
see the cool "guy with his arm off", "slobs we only know a minute or two
before the get machinegunned." "guys we don't know on fire", the idiot
who takes his helmet off, the ugly German atrocity victims, the evil
POW who comes back to kill Miller, the evil sniper, who gets it in the
eye....
Doesn't it bother you that the reason you are going back (and it is the
reason) is the same reason that you rewatch "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and
"Star Wars."? Because of the "adrenaline rush" of it, because the movie
provides a safe identification with Tom Hanks, who you know won't die,
even as the mayhem continues all around, just like Harrison Ford in
"Raiders."? Doesn't it bother you that, unlike "Raiders", this film is
trying to suggest that this "entertaining" ride is a reflection of what
war really was like? When it was not?
> > Not only is
> > "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
> > amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
> > this?
>
> Because it's a great movie... one to put on the all time great list. My
> opinion, which I know is greatly appreciated here, is that SPR is the
> real masterpiece and that TTRL isn't fit for video. People can sit and
> fight about this until the Academy Awards... but it's there where we'll
> really find out what the public thinks... my prediction SPR - 7 or 8
> (including best film), TRL - maybe 1 for the pretty pictures.
There were people predicting that Hitler would win the elections. And they
were right about that....but does that make them right to love Hitler?
> Yes, it was all a setup for Speilberg to take Malick's spotlight... kind
> of a "This is a director (Speilberg), this is a director on drugs
> (Malick).
Yes, in Germany Hitler's fans claimed that Hitler was a great leader, a
man who really understood what the people wanted, unlike those wimpy, sneaky,
intellectual, communist Jews.
> Isn't it funny, that most of the people who use the word "fascist" are
> also those pasty white people who don't get out much... too busy being
> paranoid and perfecting the "geek" role in society.
Whereas the Aryan ideals of manhood, such as yourself, glory in the
superior numbers of the masses, and long for a kick ass leader like Der
Fuhrer to entertain you perpetually.
> Lee (who says the "propoganda" worked)
You are partly responsible for being so receptive to it.
Robert W.
Andrew
: Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
: anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
: that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
: theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind?
Uh, no, I don't find it strange. I do find it strange how some people
see conspiracy in everything.
: Not only is
: "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
: amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
: this?
Because it was a DAMN good film! It is one of those rare Hollywood
films that works - so naturally it went over very well. That is
obvious to most of us.
: "Saving Private Ryan" is an inferior film in almost every respect...
: poor cinematography, poor characterization, poor acting.
In your opinion. I thought the acting ranged from adequate to very
good. The cinematrography was usually not beautiful - not what
Spielberg was going for. He of course want something more realistic
and gritty for the battle scenes, and what he got works perfectly.
You must be foolish if you think Steven Spielberg couldn't hire the
best cinetographer in the world to shoot the most beautiful scenes if
he wanted to. Anyone in the world would work with him.
: In the televised
: hype for SPR we heard actors from that film talking about how amazed they
: were that Spielberg shot every scene so quickly, with only one take. It
: shows.
I have never been a huge Spielberg fan, but it's obvious he's a gifted
filmmaker who knows his craft inside and out - I'm not surprised he
was able to get what he needed in a few takes.
: So why the hype, why the mass-media bandwagon love for this film?
: Two reasons. 1. The impending hostilities against Iraq. 2. The anti-war
: implication of the impending "Thin Red Line."
Why can't you accept that most people thought it was a damn good
movie? Not only the American public - almost every critic adored the
thing. It's a well-made, conventional Hollywood film that has deep
meaning for many Americans, who themselves fought at Normandy or whose
relatives fought there.
I don't expect you to like SPR, but I am amazed it isn't obvious why
most people loved this film. Hey, I didn't like "Forrest Gump" much,
but I could understand why the American public did. It was a fairly
well-made film that hit the right chords to resonate with the American
public. SPR does the same thing but is a much more important film for
Americans.
<snip more conspiracy drivel>
: It would be interesting to know exactly what series of conversations and
: pressures were involved in encouraging Spielberg to produce this
: reaffirmation of the "goodness" of war at this particular time.
Read the interviews. I'm sure you can get find out how the script
wound up in Spielberg's lap and why he decided to go for it. Oh, I
forgot, these interviews are published by the Pro-American
military-controlled media, so of course they're going to be just
propaganda. Yeah, keep digging, just like Joe McCarthy you'll find
"evidence" of Spielberg's "real intent" if you look hard enough.
Maybe Spielberg is just on the take from ex-KGB who want to revive the
cold war. Yeah, that's it...
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew andr...@bizave.com
Visit Andrew's Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
Louis
> > "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
> > amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
> > this?
> opinion, which I know is greatly appreciated here, is that SPR is the
> real masterpiece and that TTRL isn't fit for video. People can sit and
> fight about this until the Academy Awards... but it's there where we'll
> really find out what the public thinks... my prediction SPR - 7 or 8
> (including best film), TRL - maybe 1 for the pretty pictures.
The "public thinks" that a Big Mac is great "food"...doesn't make it so.
> Yes, it was all a setup for Speilberg to take Malick's spotlight... kind
> of a "This is a director (Speilberg), this is a director on drugs
> (Malick).
In actuality, Speilberg is a popularizing hack who'll be for the most part
forgotten in 50 years. He's a mile wide and an inch deep, even when he
attempts "Serious" subjects, subjects he himself has no real understanding
of nor genuine compassion about, they come out with cute little bows and
stickers on them proclaiming "I was made by a grade B movie director."
He's a mugwump - someone "creating" beyond his means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boy
> Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
> anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
> that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
> theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind? Not only is
> "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
> amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
> this? "Saving Private Ryan" is an inferior film in almost every respect...
> poor cinematography, poor characterization, poor acting. In the televised
> hype for SPR we heard actors from that film talking about how amazed they
> were that Spielberg shot every scene so quickly, with only one take. It
> shows. So why the hype, why the mass-media bandwagon love for this film?
> Two reasons. 1. The impending hostilities against Iraq. 2. The anti-war
> implication of the impending "Thin Red Line."
> <snippy>
> It would be interesting to know exactly what series of conversations and
> pressures were involved in encouraging Spielberg to produce this
> reaffirmation of the "goodness" of war at this particular time.
>
> Robert Whelan
They're movies. Lighten up.
--
Mr. Boy
President and CEO of Rigormortis Productions
The only company stupid enough to go to war against Dimension Films.
http://www.mrboy.com/meinc/rigormortis/
"May I direct Jurassic Park 3?"
Brandon Blatcher
Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
>> Lee Aanderud <aand...@infoave.net> writes:
>> One of the Fascists wrote:
>
>> > Not only is
>> > "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
>> > amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
>> > this?
>
>> Because it's a great movie... one to put on the all time great list. My
>> opinion, which I know is greatly appreciated here, is that SPR is the
>> real masterpiece and that TTRL isn't fit for video. People can sit and
>> fight about this until the Academy Awards... but it's there where we'll
>> really find out what the public thinks... my prediction SPR - 7 or 8
>> (including best film), TRL - maybe 1 for the pretty pictures.
>
>The "public thinks" that a Big Mac is great "food"...doesn't make it so.
The public thinks slavery is awful...doesn't make it so.
>> Yes, it was all a setup for Speilberg to take Malick's spotlight... kind
>> of a "This is a director (Speilberg), this is a director on drugs
>> (Malick).
>
>In actuality, Speilberg is a popularizing hack who'll be for the most part
>forgotten in 50 years. He's a mile wide and an inch deep, even when he
>attempts "Serious" subjects, subjects he himself has no real understanding
>of nor genuine compassion about, they come out with cute little bows and
>stickers on them proclaiming "I was made by a grade B movie director."
>He's a mugwump - someone "creating" beyond his means.
I wouldn't go that far, but he is limited.
--
Brandon
Andrew
:> Lee Aanderud <aand...@infoave.net> writes:
:> One of the Fascists wrote:
:
:> > Not only is
:> > "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
:> > amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
:> > this?
:
:> Because it's a great movie... one to put on the all time great list. My
:> opinion, which I know is greatly appreciated here, is that SPR is the
:> real masterpiece and that TTRL isn't fit for video. People can sit and
:> fight about this until the Academy Awards... but it's there where we'll
:> really find out what the public thinks... my prediction SPR - 7 or 8
:> (including best film), TRL - maybe 1 for the pretty pictures.
: The "public thinks" that a Big Mac is great "food"...doesn't make it so.
No, but if the public *and* nearly every restaurant and food critic in
the country thought so, some even calling it the best meal of its
kind ever, you'd have to wonder...
:> Yes, it was all a setup for Speilberg to take Malick's spotlight... kind
:> of a "This is a director (Speilberg), this is a director on drugs
:> (Malick).
: In actuality, Speilberg is a popularizing hack who'll be for the most part
: forgotten in 50 years. He's a mile wide and an inch deep, even when he
: attempts "Serious" subjects, subjects he himself has no real understanding
: of nor genuine compassion about, they come out with cute little bows and
: stickers on them proclaiming "I was made by a grade B movie director."
: He's a mugwump - someone "creating" beyond his means.
You could toss such aimless criticism out at any director living.
Care to back it up with, like, specific examples? And how could you
know whether he has "real understanding" or "genuine compassion" about
his subjects? Are you a mind reader?
Lee Aanderud
> Whereas the Aryan ideals of manhood, such as yourself, glory in the
> superior numbers of the masses, and long for a kick ass leader like Der
> Fuhrer to entertain you perpetually.
So "BOB" now I'm an "Aryan" and a Hitler supporter in your tiny little
mind... any idea where I can get some Jackboots and a swastica armband
there Mr. Nazi expert?
Lee (hmmm... I like SPR and now I get labeled as a Hitler supporter...
when in reality I was pulling for the Americans)
Lee Aanderud
> > Yes, it was all a setup for Speilberg to take Malick's spotlight... kind
> > of a "This is a director (Speilberg), this is a director on drugs
> > (Malick).
>
> In actuality, Speilberg is a popularizing hack who'll be for the most part
> forgotten in 50 years. He's a mile wide and an inch deep, even when he
> attempts "Serious" subjects, subjects he himself has no real understanding
> of nor genuine compassion about, they come out with cute little bows and
> stickers on them proclaiming "I was made by a grade B movie director."
> He's a mugwump - someone "creating" beyond his means.
I suggest you consider making a living other than comedian, you aren't
that good. Before Thin Red Line I'd never even heard of Malick... and
now that I have I hope he waits 20 more years before coming out with a
movie. As for Speilberg being forgotten in 50 years I wouldn't hold my
breath.
Lee
Cronan
>anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
I, too, find it very stange and want answers. Immediately.
Cronan
Cronan
>Hey, just because it's SUCCESSFUL propaganda, doesn't make it any less
>propaganda. The "vast majority" loved Hitler too.
No, they didn't.
At no point did Hitler or his party (the Weimar Republic was, after all,
parliamentary democracy) ever achieve anything more than a plurality.
Cronan
...debunking urban myths in violation of Godwin's Law
Cronan
>> Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
>> anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
>> theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind?
>
>did it take to shoot, how long did Thin Red Line take to shoot? Not
>that I really care... because only one movie was worth the money to
>watch.
VIRUS? Wait, no. I know this one. Ummm... PATCH ADAMS? Nah,
couldn't be. Gimme a hint?
Cronan
Lee Aanderud
>
> The world is a pretty nasty place, and what the US did to Iraq is
> despicable, but real countries don't run on the pat conspiracy tracks
> that Robert Whelan has proclaimed them to("Face It!")--in real life
> things aren't so demonically efficient or so easy to wrap up in such a
> childishly simple package.
I'm all for making Iraq a self-lighting glass parking lot... except I
think it'd be a terrible waste of good camels.
Lee (besides we gotta get rid of those Korean and Vietnam era munitions
somewhere)
John Harkness
One of the Fascists wrote:
Snip
> It would be interesting to know exactly what series of conversations and
> pressures were involved in encouraging Spielberg to produce this
> reaffirmation of the "goodness" of war at this particular time.
>
> Robert Whelan
There's something positively inspirational about this level of untrammelled
stupidity.
John
Robert Whelan
> One of the Fascists wrote
> >Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
> >anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
> [. . .]
>
> I, too, find it very stange and want answers. Immediately.
Oh, have mercy on impassioned typists...
Robert Whelan
Film buffs may still haul out "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Jaws" at
conventions, but that's about it for Mr. Spielberg. And he so desperately
wanted to be known for more....
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> > Whereas the Aryan ideals of manhood, such as yourself, glory in the
> > superior numbers of the masses, and long for a kick ass leader like Der
> > Fuhrer to entertain you perpetually.
>
> So "BOB" now I'm an "Aryan" and a Hitler supporter in your tiny little
> mind... any idea where I can get some Jackboots and a swastica armband
> there Mr. Nazi expert?
They aren't necessary, Lee. But I suppose your tiny mind can't really
understand what a Nazi is unless wearing the proper regalia.
> Lee (hmmm... I like SPR and now I get labeled as a Hitler supporter...
> when in reality I was pulling for the Americans)
That's right, Lee. You are pulling for the country that you love, the
country that is always right and good, and whose side God is on...you
know, just like the Germans did, under Hitler.
Cronan
> There's something positively inspirational about this level of untrammelled
>stupidity.
There's something positively stupid about this level of untrammeled
inspiration.
Cronan
...and you can quote him on that
Cronan
>The world is a pretty nasty place,
Lair. How can any place filled with candy canes and lollipops be
considered nasty?
> and what the US did to Iraq is
>despicable,
Says you. The US Army sure seemed to enjoy it. And keeping the US
military happy is, generally speaking, more important than the lives
of a few Iraqis.
> but real countries don't run on the pat conspiracy tracks
>that Robert Whelan has proclaimed them to("Face It!")
And if they did would we, as citizens, know?
--in real life
>things aren't so demonically efficient or so easy to wrap up in such a
>childishly simple package.
Ha! So you deny the White House-Teletubbies connection?
Cronan
Robert Whelan
> The world is a pretty nasty place, and what the US did to Iraq is
> despicable, but real countries don't run on the pat conspiracy tracks
> that Robert Whelan has proclaimed them to("Face It!")--in real life
> things aren't so demonically efficient or so easy to wrap up in such a
> childishly simple package.
No, real countries operate by the consensus and cooperation of the
powerful. Spielberg has acheieved enough success to hobnob with Clinton in
private conferences. Hollywood has been recruited before to help win the
hearts and minds of the people. Why would you think Spielberg, a
notoriously "safe" director, dedicated to "Family Values", is going to be
neglected by the powerful? Hey, he may have even volunteered his efforts.
Doesn't have to be a "conspiracy." Power is drawn to Power. Spielberg has
thrown his support on the side of the leaders, in his effort to manipulate
the masses to a certain point of view. Spielberg may sincerely believe in
that point of view. Given the sacharine and stupid sentimentality of
"Ryan", and it's ludicrous idea that God's will was what impelled the U.S.
to liberate Europe, I suspect he does believe it. (I suppose God also
wanted Hitler to kill the 6 million, but you won't see Spielberg approach
that little dilemma.)
> Most people didn't think TTRL would a huge success in the first place,
> and now Mr.Whelan says it would have undermined the US(Correctly unfair)
> war effort toward Iraq.
I'm saying that there has always been an effort to enlist Hollywood in
keeping the "proper" attitude towards war in the mind of the public,
whether with "Rambo" films, or with "Ryan". Some of these propaganda
efforts are lousy, and never become successes. Some, like "Rambo" and now
"Saving Private Ryan" do.
SPR in any case is probably a more brutal film
> than a lyrical masterwork like The Thin Red Line. Mr.Whelan even
> unapologetically drags out his "saving the jews" argument, although Ryan
> is "as American as apple pie." Just to put people in perspective, Whelan
> is also the fellow who called Upham a pacifist.
Ryan is the last of many brothers. A survivor whose family has been
decimated. Is that "as American as Apple pie?" No, it's more reflective
of the Jewish experience with Hitler. Yes, of course, Ryan is disgustingly
Norman Rockwell like in appearance, and in his depiction as an old family
man...but Spielberg makes sure this mainstream vision of American
Goodness is being paralleled by the "Mellish and the Hitler Youth Knife"
scene, and the "Mellish stabbed to death by SS guy while coward/pacifist/
isolationist/intellectual Upham stands by" scene. Yes, the Norman Rockwell
vison of Ryan dominates, and the audience isn't expected to pick up the
Holocaust subtext overtly, but it is expected to be a secondary emotional
manipulation of those religously open to it. In fact, one could say that
the film is hurt by these clumsy insertions, witness the mass confusion as
to the identity of the SS killer.
> Just how desperate is Whelan to cook up this cock-and bull story in
> order to explain Ryan's appeal anyway?
The reason Saving Private Ryan is successful has nothing to do with it's
timing. It could have been a bomb, and still be recognized as timed to
support Clinton's illegal actions against Iraq. The reason it's successful
is because Spielberg is a proven manipulator of emotions. You don't
produce propaganda using people who can't do this. Would you only agree
that it was "propaganda" if it bombed at the box office? As if
"propaganda" can't be amusing, can't be a fun ride!
Ryan came out first because
> Spielberg is the sort of Hollywood craftsman who assembles his movies
> efficiently and quickly. TTRL is the work of a brilliant but
> disporganized artist who takes his time and can never stop tinkering
> with his films--even after he's supposedly finished with them.
> Nick Nolte talked about how Malick was still frantically re-tinkering
> with his great film a week before it opened on the Charlie Rose show. I
> hope no one mistakes Robert Whelan's fanatic accusations for anything
> approximating real life--in his world you can connect all the dots you
> like and still have something that makes sense.
Malick is an isolated artist. Spielberg hobnobs with Clinton. How close do
the dots have to be for you to make some connection?
Robert Whelan
>
>
> One of the Fascists wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> > It would be interesting to know exactly what series of conversations and
> > pressures were involved in encouraging Spielberg to produce this
> > reaffirmation of the "goodness" of war at this particular time.
> >
> > Robert Whelan
>
> There's something positively inspirational about this level of untrammelled
> stupidity.
Please tell us all why it was so stupid. Remember, we are stupid, and
don't understand what is so blindingly obvioius to you.
Robert Whelan
> Mustafa Amanatullah wrote:
> >
> > The world is a pretty nasty place, and what the US did to Iraq is
> > despicable, but real countries don't run on the pat conspiracy tracks
> > that Robert Whelan has proclaimed them to("Face It!")--in real life
> > things aren't so demonically efficient or so easy to wrap up in such a
> > childishly simple package.
>
> I'm all for making Iraq a self-lighting glass parking lot... except I
> think it'd be a terrible waste of good camels.
Yeah, well, you are just trolling now. Still, if you are trying to prove
your Nazi sympathies, it's exactly the sort of "joke" your average joe
blow German might have made about those damn Jews. Thanks for showing your
colors, and putting yourself up as an example of the typical Spielberg
fanatic, Hitler-boy.
raymond gross
you make me sick. If you so hate America, I invite you to move to a country
that would more suit you, say, North Korea?
Raymond Gross..
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
> Hey, just because it's SUCCESSFUL propaganda, doesn't make it any less
> propaganda. The "vast majority" loved Hitler too. Don't limit your
> judgement of the film to it's "success", or you end up a victim of your
> masters, just as the people of Germany were.]
The Vast Majority Lived in Fear of Herr Schinkelgruber!
Sir Harry
Trent
>
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Lee Aanderud wrote:
>
> > >
> > > anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
> > > theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind?
> >
> > You left out "long in the theater". "quickie production"... how long
> > did it take to shoot, how long did Thin Red Line take to shoot? Not
> > that I really care... because only one movie was worth the money to
> > watch.
>
> had been about what war was really like, folks wouldn't be going back to
> see the cool "guy with his arm off", "slobs we only know a minute or two
> before the get machinegunned." "guys we don't know on fire", the idiot
> who takes his helmet off, the ugly German atrocity victims, the evil
> POW who comes back to kill Miller, the evil sniper, who gets it in the
> eye....
>
> Doesn't it bother you that the reason you are going back (and it is the
> "Star Wars."?
No.
> Because of the "adrenaline rush" of it, because the movie
> provides a safe identification with Tom Hanks, who you know won't die,
> even as the mayhem continues all around, just like Harrison Ford in
> "Raiders."?
> Robert W.
Come back when you have actually seen the movie. Then maybe you'll have
a clue.
----> Trent
Mustafa Amanatullah
despicable, but real countries don't run on the pat conspiracy tracks
that Robert Whelan has proclaimed them to("Face It!")--in real life
things aren't so demonically efficient or so easy to wrap up in such a
childishly simple package.
and now Mr.Whelan says it would have undermined the US(Correctly unfair)
than a lyrical masterwork like The Thin Red Line. Mr.Whelan even
unapologetically drags out his "saving the jews" argument, although Ryan
is "as American as apple pie." Just to put people in perspective, Whelan
is also the fellow who called Upham a pacifist.
Spielberg is the sort of Hollywood craftsman who assembles his movies
efficiently and quickly. TTRL is the work of a brilliant but
disporganized artist who takes his time and can never stop tinkering
with his films--even after he's supposedly finished with them.
Nick Nolte talked about how Malick was still frantically re-tinkering
with his great film a week before it opened on the Charlie Rose show. I
hope no one mistakes Robert Whelan's fanatic accusations for anything
approximating real life--in his world you can connect all the dots you
like and still have something that makes sense.
Uber-fascist extraordinaire
Bilge Ebiri
Robert Whelan wrote in message ...
>On 1 Feb 1999, Mustafa Amanatullah wrote:
>
>
>No, real countries operate by the consensus and cooperation of the
>powerful. Spielberg has acheieved enough success to hobnob with Clinton in
>Malick is an isolated artist. Spielberg hobnobs with Clinton. How close do
>the dots have to be for you to make some connection?
>
Robert, as someone who loves Malick's film, and as someone who tolerated
SPR, I have to say I disagree with you on most of the issues you raise. They
may be worthwhile as topics for further discussion, but you have a selective
memory of facts. Furthermore, until the last minute, TTRL was supposed to
have a White House premiere. Thanks to Clinton's troubles, and last minute
editing, however, they decided against it.
You can connect the dots any way you want. Malick >is< an isolated artist,
Spielberg >does< hobnob with Clinton. TTRL also has the Fox machine behind
it (propelled by, of course, Rupert Murdoch). Everybody draws their own
pictures.
love,
Bilge
To paraphrase Thomas Pynchon, sometimes the most terrifying thought is that
there might not be any kind of conspiracy at all :)
Theodore Georgakopoulos
Do you VOTE for the Oscars? NO. 5000 people you 'll never meet do. Ticket
sales - that's what shows what the public wants. However, I 'll never say
that the public is always right. They saw "The Waterboy", remember?
Lee Aanderud wrote:
> Because it's a great movie... one to put on the all time great list. My
> opinion, which I know is greatly appreciated here, is that SPR is the
> real masterpiece and that TTRL isn't fit for video. People can sit and
> fight about this until the Academy Awards... but it's there where we'll
> really find out what the public thinks... my prediction SPR - 7 or 8
> (including best film), TRL - maybe 1 for the pretty pictures.
>
> Yes, it was all a setup for Speilberg to take Malick's spotlight... kind
> of a "This is a director (Speilberg), this is a director on drugs
> (Malick).
>
> Isn't it funny, that most of the people who use the word "fascist" are
> also those pasty white people who don't get out much... too busy being
> paranoid and perfecting the "geek" role in society.
>
> Lee (who says the "propoganda" worked)
Robert Whelan
A typical Nazi response. The Germans had this attitude towards the Jews,
and eventually invited them all to relocate to Poland.
Lee Aanderud
<Pine.SUN.3.96.990131212322.18756D-100000@amanda>...
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Lee Aanderud wrote:
> > So "BOB" now I'm an "Aryan" and a Hitler supporter in your tiny little
> > mind... any idea where I can get some Jackboots and a swastica armband
> > there Mr. Nazi expert?
>
> They aren't necessary, Lee. But I suppose your tiny mind can't really
> understand what a Nazi is unless wearing the proper regalia.
Who really gives a shit... other than you. At the point where you called
me a Nazi and Hitler supporter I knew that you were nothing more than a
moron who probably doesn't have anything better to do with his life than
watch movies and chastize those who disagree with you by associating them
with hate groups. Get a life there movie boy.
> > Lee (hmmm... I like SPR and now I get labeled as a Hitler supporter...
> > when in reality I was pulling for the Americans)
>
> That's right, Lee. You are pulling for the country that you love, the
> country that is always right and good, and whose side God is on...you
> know, just like the Germans did, under Hitler.
You need help, if your little fantasy is fact, I know a whole nation of
Hitler supporters. I don't know much about Hitler, and really don't care
period. Unlike yourself who is mezmorized by this man and can't get past
the German Reich thing that happened over 50 years ago... move past it
man... there is a future out there.
Lee
Lee Aanderud
> Film buffs may still haul out "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Jaws" at
> conventions, but that's about it for Mr. Spielberg. And he so desperately
> wanted to be known for more....
Bob... unlike yourself, I really don't give a shit... because I've never
been to a film festival and personally wouldn't waste my time in attending
one. I don't care who produces, writes, directs, holds the microphone or
operates the camera in a film.
Lee Aanderud
> > I'm all for making Iraq a self-lighting glass parking lot... except I
> > think it'd be a terrible waste of good camels.
>
> Yeah, well, you are just trolling now. Still, if you are trying to prove
> your Nazi sympathies, it's exactly the sort of "joke" your average joe
> blow German might have made about those damn Jews. Thanks for showing
your
> colors, and putting yourself up as an example of the typical Spielberg
> fanatic, Hitler-boy.
Exactly what did I say to make you think that I was a Nazi sympathizer?
Personally I don't really give a shit about Nazi's, Jews in the 1940's,
Hitler supporters, etc. I don't know any of these people and don't really
understand what your obsession is with this subject... I simply said I
liked Saving Private Ryan, and in your little mind that means I'm second in
command for the next coming Hitler. If there is ever a second coming of
Hitler, I hope he plants his ass on your front door.
Anyone else find it strange that he calls me a "Speilberg fanatic" and
"Hitler-boy" in the same sentance? Bob, while you're at it why not just
call Speilberg a Nazi. "Robert"... isn't that a name from German
origin.... I think it might be... so you must be a Nazi, Hitler supporter,
Third Reich member, etc.
Get a life and quit e-mailing me.
Lee Aanderud
Anybody got this guys address... time to call the padded truck.
Joel Mack
> John Harkness wrote
>> There's something positively inspirational about this level of untrammelled
>>stupidity.
> There's something positively stupid about this level of untrammeled
> inspiration.
There's something stupidly untrammeled about this level of inspirational
positivity.
rco...@servicesoft.com
was not something that was slapped together. Also consider that the
Spielberg marketing engine will have always been superior regardless of
whether it preceeded or followed the Thin Red Line. Who has greater
box-office pull? Spielberg or Mallick? So what does it matter.
Of course the best argument against criticizing Spielberg for a political
agenda in SPR is the obvious political agenda of some who criticize him...
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990131022207.8266A-100000@amanda>,
One of the Fascists <rwh...@amerika.new.world.order> wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's long
> anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes out,
> that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
> theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind? Not only is
> "Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an incredible
> amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
> this? "Saving Private Ryan" is an inferior film in almost every respect...
> poor cinematography, poor characterization, poor acting. In the televised
> hype for SPR we heard actors from that film talking about how amazed they
> were that Spielberg shot every scene so quickly, with only one take. It
> shows. So why the hype, why the mass-media bandwagon love for this film?
> Two reasons. 1. The impending hostilities against Iraq. 2. The anti-war
> implication of the impending "Thin Red Line."
>
> Face it. The military dominated economy, and the people in power in these
> United States do not have as easy marks as they did in World War I and
> II. Vietnam is largely considered an unjust war by most members of the
> population. This is a huge inconvenience for those in power who want to
> excercise military force in the world for their own ends. To justify
> brutal force, they must keep in the public's mind the idea that at least
> SOME wars are justified, are worth the cost of human life. So far the
> ONLY war that has remained successfully part of American Consciousness
> as being a GOOD war has been World War II. The cruel and vicious
> bombing, and embargo of Iraq, which has, to date, resulted in a horrendous
> death toll of Iraqi civilians, needs to be justified. The worst thing
> that the people in power can imagine is the appearance of another film on
> the level with Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" which gives another punch to
> the dehumanizing effect of war on the participants. While boats hang off
> of Iraq with cruise missiles ready to punch more holes in the water
> supplies and roads of Iraq, Malick's "Thin Red Line" was impending,
> possibly to undermine the fairly successful propaganda effort to keep
> the public on the side of the United States war effort, a war effort that
> this time around they did not even bother to try to get U.N. approval for.
> (the current attack on Iraq is without U.N. sanction, and in fact has been
> condemned.)
>
> So how do you undermine a film that is possibly going to undermine the
> public's faith in the "goodness" of war? You do so by beating it to the
> punch. You know that the upcoming film is going to be brutal in it's
> depiction of death and hardship, so you try to be honest about it
> yourself, only to put your own spin on it. Malick's film basically
> avoided "moralizing" about the effects of war...he simply showed the
> effects, and lets the audience make their own judgement about the
> necessity of making such sacrifices. But Spielberg, sharing the attitude
> of elite propaganda models, cannot allow his audience to make up their
> own minds about the horror of war. He'll show it, yes...he has to show
> it because otherwise his film will be shown to be a poor whitewash of
> the war when the Malick film later comes out, but he heavy handedly
> insists, all throughout, on a religious justification of the suffering
> that transcends the suffering and dismisses it. His references to
> the Holocaust, and the God-sanction involved in saving the remaining
> Jews (as represented by Ryan and by private Mellish) tie quite neatly into
> the current campaign in the Middle East, which the powers that be would
> have you believe is about quashing a new Hitler who threatens to use
> "mass destruction" on Israel and the rest of the world, (a sentimental
> manipulation that is aimed both at Christian and Jewish members of the
> audience), as opposed to what it truly is about...the maintenance of
> control over the production of oil by the United States in service to
> the multinational corporations who wish to maintain their control over
> these resources, resources that Arab nationalism, of any kind, would
> threaten.
>
> It would be interesting to know exactly what series of conversations and
> pressures were involved in encouraging Spielberg to produce this
> reaffirmation of the "goodness" of war at this particular time.
>
> Robert Whelan
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jimin Gao
Lee Aanderud wrote:
> Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in article
> <Pine.SUN.3.96.990131212047.18756C-100000@amanda>...
> > Film buffs may still haul out "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Jaws" at
> > conventions, but that's about it for Mr. Spielberg. And he so desperately
> > wanted to be known for more....
>
> Bob... unlike yourself, I really don't give a shit... because I've never
> been to a film festival and personally wouldn't waste my time in attending
> one. I don't care who produces, writes, directs, holds the microphone or
> operates the camera in a film.
>
> Lee
> --
> Old Soldiers Never Die... Your Mom Threw Them Away.
> (GI Joe 1964-69)
Get out of here then!!
Kuru
Andrew
: Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in article
: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990131212047.18756C-100000@amanda>...
:> Film buffs may still haul out "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Jaws" at
:> conventions, but that's about it for Mr. Spielberg. And he so desperately
:> wanted to be known for more....
: Bob... unlike yourself, I really don't give a shit... because I've never
: been to a film festival and personally wouldn't waste my time in attending
: one.
Too bad. You are missing out on some great films.
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew andr...@bizave.com
Visit Andrew's Portland, Oregon Web Site: http://www.bizave.com
Lee Aanderud
<36B5E90D...@tc.umn.edu>...
> > Bob... unlike yourself, I really don't give a shit... because I've
never
> > been to a film festival and personally wouldn't waste my time in
attending
or
> > operates the camera in a film.
> Get out of here then!!
Is that what this newsgroup is about... directors, producers, grips, etc.?
I thought it was about discussing current films... afterall it is the
"rec.arts.movies.current-film" newsgroup. The only reason I came here was
to discuss the crappy film "The Thin Red Line"... and when I get done I'll
probably leave you and your no life movie going buddies alone. Just
because I've got a life and don't decide to spend it inside a dark theater
staring at the screen like a deer in headlights like a few here do is no
reason I can't post to the newsgroup. If we were all like you the human
race would probably be extinct after your generation dies...
Sorry if I offended any pasty-white, goober and 5 gallon sized popcorn
eating people who feel that this is the way life is meant to be lived.
By the way Jimin, how's the U of MN hockey team doing... I hear they're
getting their ass kicked by UND (my old school) on a regular basis?
Tejas
*Yawn*
Falcon
>Doesn't it bother you that the reason you are going back (and it is the
>"Star Wars."? Because of the "adrenaline rush" of it, because the movie
>provides a safe identification with Tom Hanks, who you know won't die,
>even as the mayhem continues all around, just like Harrison Ford in
"Who you know won't die"?
What film have you been watching? In the one I was watching, Tom Hanks died.
Every time!
Falcon
Bilge Ebiri
Falcon wrote in message <797fik$gt2$1...@romeo.dax.net>...
>
>Because of the "adrenaline rush" of it, because the movie
>>provides a safe identification with Tom Hanks, who you know won't die,
>>even as the mayhem continues all around, just like Harrison Ford in
>>"Raiders?
>
>"Who you know won't die"?
>What film have you been watching? In the one I was watching, Tom Hanks
died.
>Every time!
>
I think that, actually, he was referring to the opening sequence of the
film. Or it's quite possible that he hasn't seen the film. Either way,
though, the point stands that you pretty much know Hanks isn't going to buy
it in the first two hours of the film. And the guy you WANT to see get iced
(Edward Burns) gets to live right through the closing credits. War sure is
hell.
love,
Bilge
One of the Fascists
>
> >Doesn't it bother you that the reason you are going back (and it is the
> >reason) is the same reason that you rewatch "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and
> >"Star Wars."? Because of the "adrenaline rush" of it, because the movie
> >provides a safe identification with Tom Hanks, who you know won't die,
> >even as the mayhem continues all around, just like Harrison Ford in
> >"Raiders?
>
> "Who you know won't die"?
> What film have you been watching? In the one I was watching, Tom Hanks died.
> Every time!
Especially if you see it more than once, you know that Hanks (the only
recognizable face in the opening battle, and the only one focused on
at length...everyone who dies in that battle is unknown) is not goint
to die. This makes repeated viewing even more suspect as "thrill rides"
than first viewings, because first viewings are not quite sure what
to expect. Second viewings ARE sure, and can safely dismiss fear for
Hanks in order to more fully enjoy the "thrill" of being surrounded
by death and destruction, but from the "safe" point of view of the
magically invulnerable Hanks. The final battle passes this magical
safety zone to Private Ryan, who gets to go home, (and the audience
with him.) All in all, a delightful, fun ride, that shows the audience
death and destruction without really hurting them or scaring them
*too* much. Do you think people would enjoy rollercoaster rides if
rollercoaster rides advertised their thrills as "thousands die on
our rides each year! Come take your chances and experience the thrill
of actually risking your life!". "Saving Private Ryan" doesn't make
one feel truly involved in any of the characters (except perhaps
for Upham and his panic during the final battle, and those who most
enjoy SPR as a thrill ride tend to jeer poor Upham for spoiling their
fun for a bit), and when Hanks finally gets it, he does so in a
melodramatic (and apparently pain-free) long winded, preachy death.
A death that he manages to revenge in the magical explosion of
an advancing tank he is firing at... Spielberg makes Hanks death
seem fun!
Robert W.
Trent
>
> This makes repeated viewing even more suspect as "thrill rides"
> than first viewings, because first viewings are not quite sure what
> to expect. Second viewings ARE sure, and can safely dismiss fear for
> Hanks in order to more fully enjoy the "thrill" of being surrounded
> by death and destruction, but from the "safe" point of view of the
> magically invulnerable Hanks.
LOL! Wow, this is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen posted
on this NG in awhile. "Spielberg is such a jerk....the second time I
saw his movie, I knew what was going to happen!"
> The final battle passes this magical
> safety zone to Private Ryan, who gets to go home, (and the audience
> with him.) All in all, a delightful, fun ride, that shows the audience
> death and destruction without really hurting them or scaring them
> *too* much. Do you think people would enjoy rollercoaster rides if
> rollercoaster rides advertised their thrills as "thousands die on
> our rides each year! Come take your chances and experience the thrill
> of actually risking your life!". "Saving Private Ryan" doesn't make
> one feel truly involved in any of the characters (except perhaps
> for Upham and his panic during the final battle, and those who most
> enjoy SPR as a thrill ride tend to jeer poor Upham for spoiling their
> fun for a bit), and when Hanks finally gets it, he does so in a
> melodramatic (and apparently pain-free) long winded, preachy death.
> A death that he manages to revenge in the magical explosion of
> an advancing tank he is firing at... Spielberg makes Hanks death
> seem fun!
>
> Robert W.
The ending was portrayed as a Pyrrhic victory at best.
-------> Trent
James
kind!!!!!!!!!!! AND GET A LIFE CAUSE NO1 WITH ONE GOES TO DISCUSSIONS WHERE
PEOPLE OBVIOUISLY LIKE SOMETHING TO COMPOSE AN ESSAY ON HOW MUCH U HATE
IT!!!!!!!!!!!! THANKS AND NE1 REPLYING MY ADDRESS IS Uni...@yahoo.com
thanx!!
One of the Fascists wrote in message ...
Trent
>
> > Juha Vinnurva <vinn...@cc.hut.fi> writes:
> > One of the Fascists wrote:
>
> > > Especially if you see it more than once, you know that Hanks (the only
> > > recognizable face in the opening battle, and the only one focused on
> > > at length...everyone who dies in that battle is unknown) is not goint
> > > to die.
>
> > the first twenty minutes of the movie? That would have
> > been a _major_ artistic decision.
>
> >>>>
>
> One which Alfred Hitchcock took in Psycho...and one which a hack like
> Spielberg would dismiss out of hand.
>
Not quite. Leigh was developed as a character and THEN killed. This
was what made it so shocking. Hanks' character had not been developed
on the beach scene, so comparing that so Psycho doesn't really hold. If
Hanks found Ryan and then tripped on a stone and died, then that would
have been shocking.
I also don't feel Spielberg is a hack. I'll back up my argument with as
much evidence as you back up yours, i.e. nothing.
----> Trent
Louis
> One of the Fascists wrote:
> > Especially if you see it more than once, you know that Hanks (the only
> > recognizable face in the opening battle, and the only one focused on
> > at length...everyone who dies in that battle is unknown) is not goint
> > to die.
> Did you expect Mr. S to kill his top billing guy during
> the first twenty minutes of the movie? That would have
> been a _major_ artistic decision.
>>>>
One which Alfred Hitchcock took in Psycho...and one which a hack like
Spielberg would dismiss out of hand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis
> I also don't feel Spielberg is a hack. I'll back up my argument with as
> much evidence as you back up yours, i.e. nothing.
>>>>
Hack: "a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits for money, his
creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative
and trite work". Pg. 591 - The Random House Dictionary of the
English Language.
Stevie Spielberg is a HACK.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Brower
>> Trent <tlu...@bu.edu> writes:
>
>> I also don't feel Spielberg is a hack. I'll back up my argument with as
>> much evidence as you back up yours, i.e. nothing.
>>>>>
>Hack: "a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits for money, his
>creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative
>and trite work". Pg. 591 - The Random House Dictionary of the
>English Language.
>Stevie Spielberg is a HACK.
You are *so* much more convincing when you YELL.
It's only the most baited and reactionary of black-beret wearing TTRL
afficionados who would would call SPR "dull, unimaginative and trite
work". SPR is a great film. There's no reason to dis' it to inflate
ones appreciation of TTRL. SPR prodded me to read a pile of WWII
history, including tracking down my dad's unit history. Important to
me! Important to a lot of people! Probably a significant part of
Spielberg's intent, at which he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
*There is nothing wrong with that* *It is admirable*
At the same time, the film-lover in me is far more haunted by Malick's
film. I told my dad to go see it. Slow and talky, I said, but it
really showed pressure coming down. "Yeah," he said, "I saw that. If
you didn't produce, they got guys right out of there." He's not
generally a meditative type. It will be interesting to hear what he
says.
-dB
Alex Crouvier
>
> It's only the most baited and reactionary of black-beret wearing TTRL
> afficionados who would would call SPR "dull, unimaginative and trite
> work". SPR is a great film. There's no reason to dis' it to inflate
> ones appreciation of TTRL. SPR prodded me to read a pile of WWII
> history, including tracking down my dad's unit history. Important to
> me! Important to a lot of people! Probably a significant part of
> Spielberg's intent, at which he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
> *There is nothing wrong with that* *It is admirable*
Hey, dude, the war was over. Instead of rhapsodizing your imaginary
heroes, work today to condemn war. There is one going on right now, if
you care at all.
One of the Fascists
> One of the Fascists wrote:
>
> > Especially if you see it more than once, you know that Hanks (the only
> > recognizable face in the opening battle, and the only one focused on
> > at length...everyone who dies in that battle is unknown) is not goint
> > to die.
>
> Did you expect Mr. S to kill his top billing guy during
> the first twenty minutes of the movie? That would have
> been a _major_ artistic decision.
Of course I don't expect it. Not from Spielberg. Spielberg is about fun.
His top-billed actor is automatically expected to survive the mayhem. If
you don't recognize him as an actor, then the heavy handed "slow mo" view
of the battle, from his point of view, points him out as special, and
since the camera sticks with him from the beach landing onward, we are
cued to the fact that this is his experience. Also, the "flashback" from
the old man at the beginning, deceptively flashes back to the battle Hanks
is in, making it seem as if the old man IS Hanks, and that he survived
the war. This IS it's effect, even though it stupidly turns out that it
was Ryan who was the old man, not Hanks, making this "flashback" beginning
seem like silly misdirection on Spielberg's part.
Reagen Sulewski
Make up your mind. First you're complaining that he didn't trick you,
then you're compaining that he did.
One of the Fascists
No, I'm saying that the "flashback" reinforces the "safety" and the "fun
ride" of being with a character who survives the film. This does not
contradict that the "flashback" is stupid misdirection, which actually
lies to the audience about who is actually flashing back. The camera
actually tells the audience "this old man at the cemetery is flashing
back to the landing on Omaha beach". Had both Ryan and Hanks been
together on the beach, the death of one or the other might have been
a surprise, but it wouldn't contradict what the film has actually told
us via the flashback...that the old man participated in the boat landing.
The "fake flashback" is Spielberg saying "Ha, you thought it was Hanks!
But I lied! It wasn't Hanks, it was Ryan!" That's not clever, but stupid
and clumsy.
b2b...@users.realize.com
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, TomRipley wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 03:04:09 -0500, One of the Fascists
> > <rwh...@amerika.new.world.order> wrote:
> >
> > >Has anyone else found it stange that in the year in which Malick's
long
> > >anticipated, and long in production film "The Thin Red Line" comes
out,
> > >that the quickie production "Saving Private Ryan" was rushed to the
> > >theatres to get the first shot at influencing the public mind? Not
only is
> > >"Saving Private Ryan" rushed into production, it is given an
incredible
> > >amount of airplay and hype by almost every major news station. Why is
> > >this?
> >
> > was an incredible movie? Because given it's near $200 million gross
> > at the box office, it seems that the vast majority of people don't
> > agree with your opinion?
> >
> > Just guessing here...
>
> Hey, just because it's SUCCESSFUL propaganda, doesn't make it any less
> propaganda. The "vast majority" loved Hitler too. Don't limit your
> judgement of the film to it's "success", or you end up a victim of your
> masters, just as the people of Germany were.
>
>
> Haven't seen the film. I was told it wasn't very good.
---
Visit www.Realize.COM for Message Boards with Less Noise
Tom Wootton
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, One of the Fascists wrote:
> No, I'm saying that the "flashback" reinforces the "safety" and the "fun
> ride" of being with a character who survives the film. This does not
> contradict that the "flashback" is stupid misdirection, which actually
> lies to the audience about who is actually flashing back. The camera
> actually tells the audience "this old man at the cemetery is flashing
> back to the landing on Omaha beach". Had both Ryan and Hanks been
> together on the beach, the death of one or the other might have been
> a surprise, but it wouldn't contradict what the film has actually told
> us via the flashback...that the old man participated in the boat landing.
> The "fake flashback" is Spielberg saying "Ha, you thought it was Hanks!
> But I lied! It wasn't Hanks, it was Ryan!" That's not clever, but stupid
> and clumsy.
Yes, and especially clumsy was the fact that the elder Ryan was seen
sporting a "Screaming Eagles" pin on his person, indicating his status as
a veteran of the 101st U.S. Airborne division. Since Miller was a Ranger,
the audience simply had NO clue at all as to the identity of the aging
veteran in the wraparound story.
Tom Wootton
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would
take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place
and kill him."
----Mark Twain
FuzzyBunny
>
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, One of the Fascists wrote:
>
> > No, I'm saying that the "flashback" reinforces the "safety" and the "fun
> > ride" of being with a character who survives the film. This does not
> > contradict that the "flashback" is stupid misdirection, which actually
> > lies to the audience about who is actually flashing back. The camera
> > actually tells the audience "this old man at the cemetery is flashing
> > back to the landing on Omaha beach". Had both Ryan and Hanks been
> > together on the beach, the death of one or the other might have been
> > a surprise, but it wouldn't contradict what the film has actually told
> > us via the flashback...that the old man participated in the boat landing.
> > The "fake flashback" is Spielberg saying "Ha, you thought it was Hanks!
> > But I lied! It wasn't Hanks, it was Ryan!" That's not clever, but stupid
> > and clumsy.
>
> Yes, and especially clumsy was the fact that the elder Ryan was seen
> sporting a "Screaming Eagles" pin on his person, indicating his status as
> a veteran of the 101st U.S. Airborne division. Since Miller was a Ranger,
> the audience simply had NO clue at all as to the identity of the aging
> veteran in the wraparound story.
How does what you are saying contradict me? I mean, Matt Damon played the
old Man, and Matt Damon played Ryan. I would think THAT would clue us
to the fact that they are different people before looking to "screaming
eagles" pins. But the old man could have had a big sign on him saying
PRIVATE RYAN, and still, when we flash back to Omaha beach, the audience
is going to think that Ryan is on Omaha Beach, and is actually Tom Hanks.
Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
Cyrano
<rwh...@peppermint.forest.of.evil> wrote:
> Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
> uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
Nope, facts just don't matter to trolls.
--
There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count and
those who can't.
Peace Electric
> But the old man could have had a big sign on him saying "PRIVATE
> RYAN, and still, when we flash back to Omaha beach, the audience
> "is going to think that Ryan is on Omaha Beach, and is actually
> Tom Hanks.
I understand your annoyance with the transition, although isn't it
possible that Spielberg was trying to suggest that Miller and Ryan
were in many ways one and the same -- that, because of his sacrifice,
Miller continued to live through Ryan? I'd argue that Spielberg was
connecting the two characters not to confuse the audience, but to
tie them together emotionally (spiritually?).
Now if you want to complain about transitions, complain about that
final dissolve from the young Ryan to the old Ryan. I can't remember
who pointed it out (was it Rosenbaum?), but that transition was the
perfect example of Spielberg's insistence on spelling everything out
for the audience. He doesn't even let us make our own association.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
“Some critics see THEM! as an allegory of America’s fear of Communism.
Others as a cautionary tale of the dangers of scientific development.
I personally see it as a giant ant movie.”
-Tim Burton
Trent
> Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
> uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
I just love how all these anti-SPR people are criticizing technique.
"Spielberg tried to trick us! That BASTARD!" I mean, did you get
pissed off when Janet Leigh was killed in Psycho? Do you call Hitchcock
names for tricking you into thinking that she would be the heroine? It
is a director's job to shape the audience's perception of what happens
in a film (hence the name "director"). Don't be angry just because you
got fooled.
---> Trent
Robert Whelan
Where in "Psycho" did Hitchcock actually tell the audience that the Janet
Leigh character survived the film? Where did Hitchcock show an old lady,
close up on her eyes and fade to a scene with Janet Leigh, and actually
TELL the audience that Janet Leigh survived to become an old lady?
Hitchcock surprised his audience, but he never out and out lied to them
in *order* to surprise them. Spielberg's technique lied. It actually said
to the audience "The old man was on Omaha beach". Hitchcock depended on
the star status of Leigh to increase the shock when she died, but in no
way lied to the audience in the course of the story in order to increase
that "surprise".
All that would have been necessary to make this scene fair would have been
to cut away from Ryan WITHOUT the close up on his eyes. That way, the
action seen would not necessarily have been the old man's memories, and
even if we were surprised by Hanks death, it wouldn't have been because we
were lied to about his surviving, even if we had made the mistake of
assuming it.
Dashiell Christopher
It's Spielberg's heavy-handed use of the eye line match cut to make his point,
that's partly in dispute. Subtlety would have paid more dividends to an
audience that was *at least* paying attention to the straight ahead thematics
of the film.
--
"O childhood, o images slipping from us.
Whither? Whither?"
- Rainer Maria Rilke, CHILDHOOD (1903)
Robert Whelan
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990209152923.2488A-100000@amanda>, FuzzyBunny
> <rwh...@peppermint.forest.of.evil> wrote:
>
>
> > Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
> > uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
>
> Nope, facts just don't matter to trolls.
Logic doesn't matter to fanboys.
I just don't understand why folks on the spielberg group think that the
insignia on the old man's uniform is supposed to cue the audience that
Ryan is NOT on Omaha beach, when the fact that Matt Damon plays the old
man, and not Tom Hanks, is a much better argument. But neither argument
helps, because, even though Matt Damon plays the old man, and he wears
paratrooper buttons, or whatever, it's totally lost on the audience when
the cloeseup on his eyes, which fades to the Omaha landing, tells them
that, no matter who the old man looks like, or what insignia he wears, he
was on Omaha beach.
What, was it supposed to be a "trick question"? That only military buffs
were able to understand correctly? "I'm so smart that I KNEW he wasn't
on Omaha, even though the flashback made it seem so, because I noticed
the paratrooper insignia!" Ridiculous.
Bilge Ebiri
Robert Whelan wrote in message ...
Hi Robert,
Although I have my problems with SPR (tho' I generally liked the film) I'm
afraid I have to pick some bones here...
>the fact that Matt Damon plays the old
>man, and not Tom Hanks, is a much better argument.
Matt Damon does not play the old man. He just morphs into him at the end.
They're different actors, though they look somewhat similar.
>it's totally lost on the audience when
>the cloeseup on his eyes, which fades to the Omaha landing, tells them
>that, no matter who the old man looks like, or what insignia he wears, he
>was on Omaha beach.
Well, let's not put Spielberg beyond symbolism here. I personally read what
the old man was seeing as a "reimagining of Omaha beach", akin to what
Spielberg himself was doing with the film. In other words, more than Private
Ryan, the Old Man stands in for Spielberg and the generations that those who
fought in WW2 saved. And the elderly Ryan's imagining of their sacrifice is
what Spielberg is trying to do with this film. No, Ryan wasn't at Omaha
Beach, and neither was Spielberg. The conceit is the film itself, and I'm
willing to go with that. Yes, it starts off making us think it was Miller,
but the tone of the turnaround at the end is not, IMO, a "Ha! Fooled ya! It
was Ryan all along! Suckersss!" but more just an attempt to take this film
from the realm of the literal to the symbolic.
If I'm going to give Malick the benefit of the doubt with his similar
sounding voiceovers, I have to give Spielberg the same benefit of the doubt
with this "trickery".
I'll agree that the cemetery scenes are clumsily handed in general, and I'm
not this film's biggest fan. But I do think that Spielberg is more than
capable of eloquent symbolism. He's made far too many great films for his
motives to be so easily dismissed.
love,
Bilge
Tom Wootton
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, FuzzyBunny wrote:
> Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
> uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
>
Neither does fuzzbunny's recalcitrant and short sighted criticism make
any difference. The scene worked, because although Spielberg laid down
enough clues for the audience to have figured out the identity of the
character in the wraparound story, the editing reinforced the pitfalls of
making rapid assumptions about the thread of the narrative.
Could it be that Fuzzbunny is merely angry at having been fooled? (It's
not NICE to fool Mother Nature!!) Or rather angry that he wasn't (even
though Spielberg would doubtless be gratified that he may have picked up
on important visual clues)? I admit to have been taken in, even though I
noticed the 101 Airborne pin. But I found the device deft and skillful.
If fuzzy wants to stick with the "stupid and clumsy" line, that's
perfectly OK with me. It simply means that I appreciated the experience
much better than he did.
Tom Wootton
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Geoff wrote:
>
> Negatory. Your posts are what are stupid and clumsy. The fact that you failed
> to notice the details does not impress anyone in this newsgroup, nor does it
> support your fallacious argument. I guess you also didn't notice that the old
> man and Captain Miller had eyes of a different color? I knew immediately that
> the old man was NOT Tom Hanks. Does this mean that everyone who didn't it just
> an imbecile?
>
> Just wondering.
I thank Geoff for his argument. But I must confess to being entirely
taken in by Spielberg's deft editing. I, too, simply assumed that the old
man was Miller, despite the abundance of clues indicating otherwise, and
manged to put most of it together after it was already far too late (e.g.
Miller's death). I can only conclude that Spielberg was really, really
smart or I was really, really dumb. I trust Geoff will forgive me if I
find the former alternative more attractive. :)
rco...@servicesoft.com
Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Trent wrote:
>
> > FuzzyBunny wrote:
> > > Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
> > > uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
> >
> > "Spielberg tried to trick us! That BASTARD!" I mean, did you get
> > pissed off when Janet Leigh was killed in Psycho? Do you call Hitchcock
> > names for tricking you into thinking that she would be the heroine? It
> > is a director's job to shape the audience's perception of what happens
> > in a film (hence the name "director"). Don't be angry just because you
> > got fooled.
>
> Where in "Psycho" did Hitchcock actually tell the audience that the Janet
> Leigh character survived the film? Where did Hitchcock show an old lady,
> close up on her eyes and fade to a scene with Janet Leigh, and actually
> TELL the audience that Janet Leigh survived to become an old lady?
> Hitchcock surprised his audience, but he never out and out lied to them
> in *order* to surprise them. Spielberg's technique lied. It actually said
> to the audience "The old man was on Omaha beach". Hitchcock depended on
> the star status of Leigh to increase the shock when she died, but in no
> way lied to the audience in the course of the story in order to increase
> that "surprise".
>
> All that would have been necessary to make this scene fair would have been
> to cut away from Ryan WITHOUT the close up on his eyes. That way, the
> action seen would not necessarily have been the old man's memories, and
> even if we were surprised by Hanks death, it wouldn't have been because we
> were lied to about his surviving, even if we had made the mistake of
> assuming it.
>
>
Why.. you're right I've never felt so.. so.. betrayed before.
I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Why were you making
assumptions about the end of the movie when it was just beginning?
It's such a minor point.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tom Wootton
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Robert Whelan wrote:
<snip, most of Bob's ridiculous post, but then, I have come to expect
nothing better from this source.>
> Spielberg's technique lied.
Bob's huffy outrage only applies if the audience is blind, for Spielberg
left abundant visual clues as to Ryan's identity in the wraparound story.
But then, Spielberg is supposed to have won his formidable reputation
largely for being a visual stylist, so perhaps Bob can lambast Spielberg
for being a bigot against the visually impaired as well as for being a
"liar".
Bob will have to do better than this to begin sculpting an edifice of
credibility in this group.
Tom Wootton
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> Logic doesn't matter to fanboys.
Cyrano's infusion of emotive quality in appreciating Spielberg is
infinitely superior to the smug and bogus rationality of which Robert
would frequently have us believe he is the sole custodian.
Robert apparently cannot credit Ryan for having much of an imagination,
else the bonding between himself and Miller could not have been possible.
Just what stricture of convention requires that a fade out from Ryan's
eyes to Miller's face in the Higgins boat demands that the narrative MUST
be a flashback from Ryan's memory of his own experiences, instead of, just
perhaps, his recollections of what one or more of Ryan's squad's
survivors may have related to him afterwards? I admit this is speculation,
but is has just as much currency--as well as possessing the virtue of
assuming an artist's good intentions--as Bob's far too dispeptic
assumption that Spielberg was "lying" (now that's a novel accusation for a
crafter of a fictional story!!)
I'm surprised that Bob didn't blow off Spielberg's "lie" as another
example of "hype".
Robert Whelan
>
> Robert Whelan wrote in message ...
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Although I have my problems with SPR (tho' I generally liked the film) I'm
> afraid I have to pick some bones here...
>
> >the fact that Matt Damon plays the old
> >man, and not Tom Hanks, is a much better argument.
>
> Matt Damon does not play the old man. He just morphs into him at the end.
> They're different actors, though they look somewhat similar.
Good Lord.
> >it's totally lost on the audience when
> >the cloeseup on his eyes, which fades to the Omaha landing, tells them
> >that, no matter who the old man looks like, or what insignia he wears, he
> >was on Omaha beach.
>
> Well, let's not put Spielberg beyond symbolism here. I personally read what
> the old man was seeing as a "reimagining of Omaha beach", akin to what
> Spielberg himself was doing with the film. In other words, more than Private
> Ryan, the Old Man stands in for Spielberg and the generations that those who
> fought in WW2 saved. And the elderly Ryan's imagining of their sacrifice is
> what Spielberg is trying to do with this film. No, Ryan wasn't at Omaha
> Beach, and neither was Spielberg. The conceit is the film itself, and I'm
> willing to go with that. Yes, it starts off making us think it was Miller,
> but the tone of the turnaround at the end is not, IMO, a "Ha! Fooled ya! It
> was Ryan all along! Suckersss!" but more just an attempt to take this film
> from the realm of the literal to the symbolic.
But it makes no sense for Ryan, who had his own battle experiences, to be
"reimagining" the exploits of people he didn't really know. Had this
person been a non-combatant, his "imagining" makes sense. I don't see why
a soldier who'd had any significant part in combat himself would have
any believable motivation for "imagining" the combat experiences of
others. What about Ryan's actual buddies? The ones that he spent most
of his time alongside? They don't deserve an "imaginative" reconstruction
of their path to glory? Only Miller and Co., who Ryan didn't know,
deserve it because they saved Ryan?
It may be symbolic, but it just doesn't work, because it doesn't parallel
believable psychology. The film let's us know the old man is a veteran,
that he had experiences in the war...he flashes back to the war...and
he is imagining other peoples experiences, not his own. It makes no
sense. It's still clumsy and ridiculous. What you are suggesting might
have made sense, as I said before, if that old man had been a
noncombatant, or relative of a veteran, which would have given a valid
excuse for a total reimagining of other people's lives.
> If I'm going to give Malick the benefit of the doubt with his similar
> sounding voiceovers, I have to give Spielberg the same benefit of the doubt
> with this "trickery".
You can give Malick the benefit of the doubt over the voice-overs, which
are often confusing as to the characters doing them, because the thoughts
and feelings work just as well, interchangeably, for almost anyone in
combat, or can be accepted as working. But it doesn't work as well to
actual assign "memories" to a person that conflict with what would have
been his natural memories. Ryan was in combat. Ryan actually had people
he knew well that he could have memories about. But he has memories more
naturally expected to come from the Tom Hanks character, instead of
his own! In contrast, I don't see why it matters much if we are
occosionally confused as to who, in Malick's film, is having flashbacks
to their sweetheart. The flashbacks to a sweetheart are generic. Everyone'
has them. But not every soldier landed on Omaha beach, and then got
assigned a mission to "find Private Ryan". Particularly, Private Ryan
didn't have these memories. If it's "symbolic" it's really poorly thought
out symbolism, because of the problems involved in what would be natural
for Ryan, or Miller, to be remembering or imagining. Really good
"symbolism" doesn't contain this confusion, doesnt' conflict with
the reality as portrayed in the film.
> I'll agree that the cemetery scenes are clumsily handed in general, and I'm
> not this film's biggest fan. But I do think that Spielberg is more than
> capable of eloquent symbolism. He's made far too many great films for his
> motives to be so easily dismissed.
His motives for this film were, in petty jealousy of the fame of Malick's
reputation, to get a "meaningful" movie into the theatres, that out
gunned, and out gored the Malick films, and was stuffed with "symbolism",
so Spielberg could whack critics over the head with the idea that
Spielberg finally deserves an Oscar.
What "great films" has he made? He's made a few very entertaining ones...
"Schindler's List" was almost great, but falls short because of his
heavy handed inablity to let the material speak for itself...
Raiders and Jaws are classic entertainments, and will remain examples
of how to do shockers and action flicks for a long time. But "Great"
films? Fun, maybe. Great, no. He's incapable of the discipline
necessary to be truly great.
FuzzyBunny
>
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, FuzzyBunny wrote:
>
> > Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
> > uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
> >
>
> Neither does fuzzbunny's recalcitrant and short sighted criticism make
> any difference. The scene worked, because although Spielberg laid down
> enough clues for the audience to have figured out the identity of the
> character in the wraparound story, the editing reinforced the pitfalls of
> making rapid assumptions about the thread of the narrative.
What editing? How did "editing reinforce the pitfalls of making rapid
assumptions.." Examples please?
> Could it be that Fuzzbunny is merely angry at having been fooled? (It's
> not NICE to fool Mother Nature!!) Or rather angry that he wasn't (even
> though Spielberg would doubtless be gratified that he may have picked up
> on important visual clues)? I admit to have been taken in, even though I
> noticed the 101 Airborne pin. But I found the device deft and skillful.
> If fuzzy wants to stick with the "stupid and clumsy" line, that's
> perfectly OK with me. It simply means that I appreciated the experience
> much better than he did.
If you want to claim that a "device" that directly informs you of
something that is totally in contradiction to the actual events
described in the film, and you appreciate this effect as "skillful",
than who am I to argue with you? Though normally such a "device"
would be called a "continuity problem", not lauded as a clever
techinique. But have it your way.
FuzzyBunny
>
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Geoff wrote:
>
> >
> > Negatory. Your posts are what are stupid and clumsy. The fact that you failed
> > to notice the details does not impress anyone in this newsgroup, nor does it
> > support your fallacious argument. I guess you also didn't notice that the old
> > man and Captain Miller had eyes of a different color? I knew immediately that
> > the old man was NOT Tom Hanks. Does this mean that everyone who didn't it just
> > an imbecile?
> >
> > Just wondering.
>
>
> I thank Geoff for his argument. But I must confess to being entirely
> taken in by Spielberg's deft editing. I, too, simply assumed that the old
> man was Miller, despite the abundance of clues indicating otherwise, and
> manged to put most of it together after it was already far too late (e.g.
> Miller's death). I can only conclude that Spielberg was really, really
> smart or I was really, really dumb. I trust Geoff will forgive me if I
> find the former alternative more attractive. :)
How about this... you weren't "stupid" but merely trusting. You trusted
that what Spielberg told you at the beginning of the story was true. But
what Spielberg told you wasn't true. That's not clever editing, anymore
than offering a cayenne pepper flavored candy cane to a child is
clever.
"Here, honey, a nice sweet candy cane" "Heee heee, I sure fooled you!"
Look, on the wrapper it says "cayenne pepper", you are really stupid
to have believed me!"
I suppose it is slightly more clever to leave the cayenne pepper candy
canes lying around and laugh at people's assumptions that they are
sweet. But to actually TELL them that the candy canes are sweet, and
then be given credit for your lie as "clever" blows my mind.
This is what would have been clever. Old man at a cemetary. It's
obviously Tom Hanks. close up on his eyes. Flash back to Normandy.
Hanks gets killed at the end of the movie, flashes forward to the
cemetary,
where we see that Tom Hanks is actually a ghost, hanging around while
an old Matt Damon cries over Hanks' grave. Hanks places ghostly arm
around Matt Damon's shoulders and whispers, "You were a good man!"
We are still "tricked" but not LIED to. The movie tells us that
Tom Hanks was back on Normandy, and he was! The movie tells us that
Tom Hanks survived the war, and he did! As a ghost! There's a
difference between omitting vital information that leads the
audience to believe something not true, and let them discover their
mistake, and deliberately lying to them, and letting them discover
that you lied. Spielberg didn't "trick", he Lied. If he wasn't lying
but trying to tell us something else with that close up on the old
man's eyes, and the fade back to Omaha, then he is a clumsy and
stupid director, who doesn't know how to communicate with his
audience, and who tolerates flaws in his own work that confuses them.
Hichcock, in "Psycho" may have "tricked" his audience into thinking
Janet Leigh would survive the picture, because she was a star, but he
never actually LIED to them and said "Janet Leigh survives the picture."
Oops! I lied! She doesn't!
FuzzyBunny
> > Where in "Psycho" did Hitchcock actually tell the audience that the Janet
> > Leigh character survived the film? Where did Hitchcock show an old lady,
> > close up on her eyes and fade to a scene with Janet Leigh, and actually
> > TELL the audience that Janet Leigh survived to become an old lady?
> > Hitchcock surprised his audience, but he never out and out lied to them
> > in *order* to surprise them. Spielberg's technique lied. It actually said
> > to the audience "The old man was on Omaha beach". Hitchcock depended on
> > the star status of Leigh to increase the shock when she died, but in no
> > way lied to the audience in the course of the story in order to increase
> > that "surprise".
> >
> > All that would have been necessary to make this scene fair would have been
> > to cut away from Ryan WITHOUT the close up on his eyes. That way, the
> > action seen would not necessarily have been the old man's memories, and
> > even if we were surprised by Hanks death, it wouldn't have been because we
> > were lied to about his surviving, even if we had made the mistake of
> > assuming it.
> >
> >
>
> Why.. you're right I've never felt so.. so.. betrayed before.
>
>
> I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Why were you making
> assumptions about the end of the movie when it was just beginning?
> It's such a minor point.
Why was I making assumptions? Because Spielberg, with his close up on
the old man's eyes, and the fade to the Omaha landing, insisted that
I make that assumption. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the assumption,
or, if I had, I would have blamed myself only, and said "I made an
assumption, but Spielberg never indicated it was true."
Is it really a "minor point"? This "framing device" sets the stage
for the whole movie. It's a major flaw that intrudes on the
believability of the film by forcing people to think back and go
"wait a minute, I thought..." Is that what Spielberg wanted? How
does he "honor veterans" by making the audience confused by the
story he's telling?
Trent
>
> x-no-archive: yes On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:58:59 -0800, Tom Wootton
> <tw...@mail.wsu.edu> typed:
> >"Just what stricture of convention requires that a fade out from Ryan's
> >"eyes to Miller's face in the Higgins boat demands that the narrative MUST
> >"be a flashback from Ryan's memory of his own experiences, instead of, just
> >"perhaps, his recollections of what one or more of Ryan's squad's
> >"survivors may have related to him afterwards? I admit this is speculation,
> >"but is has just as much currency--as well as possessing the virtue of
> >"assuming an artist's good intentions--as Bob's far too dispeptic
> >"assumption that Spielberg was "lying" (now that's a novel accusation for a
> >"crafter of a fictional story!!)
>
> I haven't gone back yet to get one last look at SPR in the theater, but I saw it
> three times on first release (including an unforgettable opening night), and
> have to say, that to the best of my recollection, the fade/cut from old Ryan's
> eyes does NOT go to Miller's (Hanks) face, but rather to his hands shakily
> holding the canteen. I'll be checking that this weekend when I go for #4.
You're right. Sort of. The transition most definitely does NOT go from
old Ryan's face to Hanks. It goes from Old Ryan's face to the tide
hitting the shore on Omaha beach. And then there are a few other shots
before Hanks even enters a frame.
----> Trent
FuzzyBunny
> > Leigh character survived the film? Where did Hitchcock show an old lady,
> > close up on her eyes and fade to a scene with Janet Leigh, and actually
> > TELL the audience that Janet Leigh survived to become an old lady?
> > Hitchcock surprised his audience, but he never out and out lied to them
> > in *order* to surprise them. Spielberg's technique lied. It actually said
> > to the audience "The old man was on Omaha beach". Hitchcock depended on
> > the star status of Leigh to increase the shock when she died, but in no
> > way lied to the audience in the course of the story in order to increase
> > that "surprise".
> >
> > All that would have been necessary to make this scene fair would have been
> > to cut away from Ryan WITHOUT the close up on his eyes. That way, the
> > action seen would not necessarily have been the old man's memories, and
> > even if we were surprised by Hanks death, it wouldn't have been because we
> > were lied to about his surviving, even if we had made the mistake of
> > assuming it.
> >
> >
>
> Why.. you're right I've never felt so.. so.. betrayed before.
>
>
> I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Why were you making
> assumptions about the end of the movie when it was just beginning?
> It's such a minor point.
I'll take it that since you are waxing sarcastic, that you undersand
the point, whether or not you consider it "minor."
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
that they miss the Not So Subtle Points of a Film, Just Amazing.
Good Call TW, Keep him ducking.
Sir Harry
Tom Wootton wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, One of the Fascists wrote:
>
> > No, I'm saying that the "flashback" reinforces the "safety" and the "fun
> > ride" of being with a character who survives the film. This does not
> > contradict that the "flashback" is stupid misdirection, which actually
> > lies to the audience about who is actually flashing back. The camera
> > actually tells the audience "this old man at the cemetery is flashing
> > back to the landing on Omaha beach". Had both Ryan and Hanks been
> > together on the beach, the death of one or the other might have been
> > a surprise, but it wouldn't contradict what the film has actually told
> > us via the flashback...that the old man participated in the boat landing.
> > The "fake flashback" is Spielberg saying "Ha, you thought it was Hanks!
> > But I lied! It wasn't Hanks, it was Ryan!" That's not clever, but stupid
> > and clumsy.
>
> Yes, and especially clumsy was the fact that the elder Ryan was seen
> sporting a "Screaming Eagles" pin on his person, indicating his status as
> a veteran of the 101st U.S. Airborne division. Since Miller was a Ranger,
> the audience simply had NO clue at all as to the identity of the aging
> veteran in the wraparound story.
>
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> [One which Alfred Hitchcock took in Psycho...and one which a hack like
> Spielberg would dismiss out of hand.]
I Really do wish Individuals such as Yourself would quite trying to compare Two difference styles of
Directing & GENRES of Film!
How can You possibly even Believe that a Director that Specialized in Thriller/Murder Mysteries can be
compared to a Director who Specializes in Action Adventure/Thought Provoking Flicks? If you don't care
for SS and his Style..... I believe You are capable of Finishing the Sentence. I for one will no longer
be reading Your Hate Filled Diatribe....
And some wonder why some Mothers Eat their Young.
Sir Harry
Reagen Sulewski
<rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>On 10 Feb 1999, Bilge Ebiri wrote:
>
>>
>> Robert Whelan wrote in message ...
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Although I have my problems with SPR (tho' I generally liked the film) I'm
>> afraid I have to pick some bones here...
>>
>> >the fact that Matt Damon plays the old
>> >man, and not Tom Hanks, is a much better argument.
>>
>> Matt Damon does not play the old man. He just morphs into him at the end.
>> They're different actors, though they look somewhat similar.
>
>Good Lord.
>
Not sure if this statement is meant to dispute the fact or not. It's
very clear that the actor is -not- Damon. A quick trip to IMdb would
confirm that.
>
>> >it's totally lost on the audience when
>> >the cloeseup on his eyes, which fades to the Omaha landing, tells them
>> >that, no matter who the old man looks like, or what insignia he wears, he
>> >was on Omaha beach.
>>
>> Well, let's not put Spielberg beyond symbolism here. I personally read what
>> the old man was seeing as a "reimagining of Omaha beach", akin to what
>> Spielberg himself was doing with the film. In other words, more than Private
>> Ryan, the Old Man stands in for Spielberg and the generations that those who
>> fought in WW2 saved. And the elderly Ryan's imagining of their sacrifice is
>> what Spielberg is trying to do with this film. No, Ryan wasn't at Omaha
>> Beach, and neither was Spielberg. The conceit is the film itself, and I'm
>> willing to go with that. Yes, it starts off making us think it was Miller,
>> but the tone of the turnaround at the end is not, IMO, a "Ha! Fooled ya! It
>> was Ryan all along! Suckersss!" but more just an attempt to take this film
>> from the realm of the literal to the symbolic.
>
>But it makes no sense for Ryan, who had his own battle experiences, to be
>"reimagining" the exploits of people he didn't really know. Had this
>person been a non-combatant, his "imagining" makes sense. I don't see why
>a soldier who'd had any significant part in combat himself would have
>any believable motivation for "imagining" the combat experiences of
>others. What about Ryan's actual buddies? The ones that he spent most
>of his time alongside? They don't deserve an "imaginative" reconstruction
>of their path to glory? Only Miller and Co., who Ryan didn't know,
>deserve it because they saved Ryan?
>
He's 'reimagining' the tribulations of the group that came to rescue
him.
>
>His motives for this film were, in petty jealousy of the fame of Malick's
>reputation, to get a "meaningful" movie into the theatres, that out
>gunned, and out gored the Malick films, and was stuffed with "symbolism",
>so Spielberg could whack critics over the head with the idea that
>Spielberg finally deserves an Oscar.
>
Oh please. Provide evidence of this or shut up. Real evidence, not
this 'he shot stuff in one take' business.
Bilge Ebiri
Robert Whelan wrote in message ...
>His motives for this film were, in petty jealousy of the fame of Malick's
>reputation, to get a "meaningful" movie into the theatres, that out
>gunned, and out gored the Malick films, and was stuffed with "symbolism",
>so Spielberg could whack critics over the head with the idea that
>Spielberg finally deserves an Oscar.
I disagree with this. First of all, he got an Oscar. In fact, he got a
couple of Oscars, for Schindler's List. I really do not think that this film
was meant to disable Malick's film. Even though TTRL was greenlighted before
SPR, I know for a fact that Spielberg is a pretty big fan of Malick's (and
has become good friends with him since Malick's re-emergence). If anything,
he might, had he given it enough thought, stayed away from competing with
someone he so greatly admired. I agree that ANTZ was an attempt to rip-off A
BUG'S LIFE, but this is different.
>
>What "great films" has he made? He's made a few very entertaining ones...
>"Schindler's List" was almost great, but falls short because of his
>heavy handed inablity to let the material speak for itself...
Schindler is a very good film, though (IMO) a bit overrated. I'm going to
risk your further ire by listing what I think are Spielberg's greatest
films:
Empire of the Sun (severely underrated)
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Amistad
Jaws
The Sugarland Express
Duel
There are an assortment of good to very good films he has made as well :)
love,
Bilge
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
Anyone w/ any kind of Intellect is going to figure out that that's not the case.
Quite trying to put others in Your shoes, Just 'Cause You didn't catch it Doesn't
mean the Rest of the World is that Oblivious.
Sir Harry
FuzzyBunny wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Tom Wootton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, One of the Fascists wrote:
> >
> > > No, I'm saying that the "flashback" reinforces the "safety" and the "fun
> > > ride" of being with a character who survives the film. This does not
> > > contradict that the "flashback" is stupid misdirection, which actually
> > > lies to the audience about who is actually flashing back. The camera
> > > actually tells the audience "this old man at the cemetery is flashing
> > > back to the landing on Omaha beach". Had both Ryan and Hanks been
> > > together on the beach, the death of one or the other might have been
> > > a surprise, but it wouldn't contradict what the film has actually told
> > > us via the flashback...that the old man participated in the boat landing.
> > > The "fake flashback" is Spielberg saying "Ha, you thought it was Hanks!
> > > But I lied! It wasn't Hanks, it was Ryan!" That's not clever, but stupid
> > > and clumsy.
> >
> > Yes, and especially clumsy was the fact that the elder Ryan was seen
> > sporting a "Screaming Eagles" pin on his person, indicating his status as
> > a veteran of the 101st U.S. Airborne division. Since Miller was a Ranger,
> > the audience simply had NO clue at all as to the identity of the aging
> > veteran in the wraparound story.
>
> How does what you are saying contradict me? I mean, Matt Damon played the
> old Man, and Matt Damon played Ryan. I would think THAT would clue us
> to the fact that they are different people before looking to "screaming
> eagles" pins. But the old man could have had a big sign on him saying
> PRIVATE RYAN, and still, when we flash back to Omaha beach, the audience
> is going to think that Ryan is on Omaha Beach, and is actually Tom Hanks.
>
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
how many ways the can Try and Shred SS & SPR, It absolutely Amazes me. If one doesn't
care for someone's Work than don't bother w/ Viewing it. I for one would Love to see
these wannabe's Do anything Better, But all they are Capable of doing is be Armchair
Directors & Spew their Bile.
Sir Harry
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
read what he Writes, Just the same as someone talking to here themselves talk.
Sir Harry
Geoff wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:33:46 -0500, FuzzyBunny
> <rwh...@peppermint.forest.of.evil> typed:
>
> >"On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Tom Wootton wrote:
>
> >"> Yes, and especially clumsy was the fact that the elder Ryan was seen
> >"> sporting a "Screaming Eagles" pin on his person, indicating his status as
> >"> a veteran of the 101st U.S. Airborne division. Since Miller was a Ranger,
> >"> the audience simply had NO clue at all as to the identity of the aging
> >"> veteran in the wraparound story.
> >"
> >"How does what you are saying contradict me? I mean, Matt Damon played the
> >"old Man, and Matt Damon played Ryan. I would think THAT would clue us
> >"to the fact that they are different people before looking to "screaming
> >"eagles" pins. But the old man could have had a big sign on him saying
> >"PRIVATE RYAN, and still, when we flash back to Omaha beach, the audience
> >"is going to think that Ryan is on Omaha Beach, and is actually Tom Hanks.
> >"
> >"Stupid and clumsy. No amount of nitpicky realistic details about Ryan's
> >"uniform (which no one noticed) is going to make any difference on this.
> >"
>
> Negatory. Your posts are what are stupid and clumsy. The fact that you failed
> to notice the details does not impress anyone in this newsgroup, nor does it
> support your fallacious argument. I guess you also didn't notice that the old
> man and Captain Miller had eyes of a different color? I knew immediately that
> the old man was NOT Tom Hanks. Does this mean that everyone who didn't it just
> an imbecile?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> ---
> gburkman at erinet dot com
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
he went for a Close Up of the Eyes? Hmmmm, Old Ryan w/ light colored eyes, Cuts to
Beach landing several scenes then we Find Ryan, We see his eyes, Difference color. Oh
My, How Bloody Hard is That. If one wasn't so Bloody busy trying to find fault w/ the
Flick, how SS did it, and quit trying to second guess him, you might just get
something out of it.
Sir Harry
FuzzyBunny wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Tom Wootton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Negatory. Your posts are what are stupid and clumsy. The fact that you failed
> > > to notice the details does not impress anyone in this newsgroup, nor does it
> > > support your fallacious argument. I guess you also didn't notice that the old
> > > man and Captain Miller had eyes of a different color? I knew immediately that
> > > the old man was NOT Tom Hanks. Does this mean that everyone who didn't it just
> > > an imbecile?
> > >
> > > Just wondering.
> >
> >
rco...@servicesoft.com
If you mean when the movie faded from his eyes to the Normandy invasion that
it implied HIS story of the invasion began as opposed to THE story of the
invasion began, yes I see you're point but I still say it's a nit.
I'll admit it's been a while since I've seen SPR and I can't recall if I
was surprised by this inconsistency.
You know I thought SPR was a great war movie, one of the best, but it
definitely had some flaws. The graveyard scenes before and after were really
weak and the "US calvary saves the day" ending was pretty bad as well.
Still I thought the rest was very well done. The general theme of the
citizen soldier was very consistent with those relatives I knew who fought
in the war and were really just ordinary men. I think people who
dislike/hate SPR are going so overboard in their criticisms that
they are not to be believed.
Tom Wootton
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, FuzzyBunny wrote:
Me:
> > Neither does fuzzbunny's recalcitrant and short sighted criticism make
> > any difference. The scene worked, because although Spielberg laid down
> > enough clues for the audience to have figured out the identity of the
> > character in the wraparound story, the editing reinforced the pitfalls of
> > making rapid assumptions about the thread of the narrative.
>
> Fuzzbunny:
> What editing? How did "editing reinforce the pitfalls of making rapid
> assumptions.." Examples please?
Unfortunately, I have a well-merited reputation for shooting from the hip
and, almost a day after writing my last post to FB, I find that I regret
the phrasing "recalcitrant and short sighted criticism" I applied to FB.
That was overly harsh, and I beg his pardon. I agree that Spielberg may
have just indeed employed obvious editing to lead the unwary (as I was) to
automatically assume that the elder Ryan in the cemetary was Miller, but I
cannot fault Spielberg for "lying" any more than a mystery writer "lies"
when he laces his narrative with a red herring or two. I gratefully bowed
to an assumption of my own that Spielberg was using editing as a didactic
device and simply warn gullible folks like me not to conform too easily
with easy presumptions. Perhaps my enthusiasm for SPR and Spielberg
renders me not only admiring, but generous. I do not agree that the scene
shift constitutes a flaw, but even if it was, I don't think it was an
important one.
>
> If you want to claim that a "device" that directly informs you of
> something that is totally in contradiction to the actual events
> described in the film, and you appreciate this effect as "skillful",
> than who am I to argue with you? Though normally such a "device"
> would be called a "continuity problem", not lauded as a clever
> techinique. But have it your way.
Quite right. I am content to have FB have things his way as well, even if
I cannot agree with them.
Tom Wootton
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Geoff wrote:
>
> Now, dammit, Tom, there ya go! I was all set to fire off another volley of
> meanness at this thread, and YOU WENT AND MADE ME LAUGH!!
> How am I supposed to be cruel and vindictive when you do things like that?
>
> Regards,
> Geoff
LOL! I guess it is because I converted to Roman Catholicism as an adult,
and was not forced to endure cruelty and vindictiveness at the hands of
unsympathetic and cranky nuns in parochial school. Besides, I find it
convenient to obviate a needless flamewar with a soft and--I hope--funny
reply, especially when I've run out of arguments.
Pax,
Tom Wootton
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Geoff wrote:
>
> Tom:
> I haven't gone back yet to get one last look at SPR in the theater, but I saw it
> three times on first release (including an unforgettable opening night), and
> have to say, that to the best of my recollection, the fade/cut from old Ryan's
> eyes does NOT go to Miller's (Hanks) face, but rather to his hands shakily
> holding the canteen. I'll be checking that this weekend when I go for #4.
>
> Regards,
> Geoff
I have yet to see SPR even for a second time myself (I not have recovered
yet from the first exposure). When I muster up the courage to attempt a
replay, I shall look for the details of the scene change myself, as well
as attempt to verify or disprove the pernicious rumour that the German
sniper was Kevin Costner (or has that one already been settled?)
Pax
Tom Wootton
On 11 Feb 1999, Bilge Ebiri wrote:
> Schindler is a very good film, though (IMO) a bit overrated.
Not IMHO. SL was deserving of every honor it got.
> I'm going to
> risk your further ire by listing what I think are Spielberg's greatest
> films:
>
> Empire of the Sun (severely underrated)
Agree entirely! EOS was one of the greatest unappreciated films of the
eighties!
<snip, remainder of a good list>
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC
Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC wrote:
> [You're acting like a Wannabe Director again. SS goes for the Obvious, Why do you think
> he went for a Close Up of the Eyes? Hmmmm, Old Ryan w/ light colored eyes, Cuts to
> Beach landing several scenes then we Find Ryan, ]
Meant to write Miller instead of the 2nd Ryan.
Sir Harry
john...@hotmail.com
gbur...@erinet.com wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:03:47 -0800, Tom Wootton
> <tw...@mail.wsu.edu> typed:
> >"On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Geoff wrote:
> >"> Negatory. Your posts are what are stupid and clumsy. The fact that you
failed
> >"> to notice the details does not impress anyone in this newsgroup, nor does
it
> >"> support your fallacious argument. I guess you also didn't notice that
the old
> >"> man and Captain Miller had eyes of a different color? I knew immediately
that
> >"> the old man was NOT Tom Hanks. Does this mean that everyone who didn't
it just
> >"> an imbecile?
> >"> Just wondering.
> >"
> >"I thank Geoff for his argument. But I must confess to being entirely
> >"taken in by Spielberg's deft editing. I, too, simply assumed that the old
> >"man was Miller, despite the abundance of clues indicating otherwise, and
> >"manged to put most of it together after it was already far too late (e.g.
> >"Miller's death). I can only conclude that Spielberg was really, really
> >"smart or I was really, really dumb. I trust Geoff will forgive me if I
> >"find the former alternative more attractive. :)
> >"
>
> Now, dammit, Tom, there ya go! I was all set to fire off another volley of
> meanness at this thread, and YOU WENT AND MADE ME LAUGH!!
> How am I supposed to be cruel and vindictive when you do things like that?
>
> Regards,
> Geoff
>
> gburkman at erinet dot com
>
Anyway I still love this film.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Visit my web site: http://www.secrets2success.com/special3720
Tharsia
>convenient to obviate a needless flamewar with a soft and--I hope--funny
>reply, especially when I've run out of arguments.
>
>Pax,
>
>Tom Wootton
How utterly contrary to the spirit of Usenet! You ought to be h.d.q.!
<eg>
Tharsia
>
>Agree entirely! EOS was one of the greatest unappreciated films of the
>eighties!
>
>
><snip, remainder of a good list>
>
>Tom Wootton
>
Interesting -- Empire of the Sun is a favorite in my family, both brothers and
sisters (we like Christian Bale, too -- way better than LdC!)
But it's the reason I'm usually disappointed in Spielberg. I'd got used to him
being arm-twistingly manipulative with ET and such, and I found some of the
things in his movies otherwise _disturbing_ in ways I find hard to articulate
(frex: IJ's callousness and the propellor scene in Raiders -- I just can't make
myself like that movie the way I want to, or the way I just _like_ the much
less regarded Star Gate --and I'm an amateur armchair archeologist, so it isn't
accuacy that's bothering for either one!)
Then he made Empire of the Sun, and I didn't believe it was Spielberg at all,
until somebody showed me the credits.
So-- dammit-- why can't he be subtle and disturbing and haunting any more? In
fact TTRL reminded me very much of EoS.