Saving Pvt. Ryan, Ambrose, and US conduct.....
steven j forsberg
supplement to the Houston Chronicle. It was about the soon to be released
movie "Saving Pvt. Ryan" and included some commentary from Stephen Ambrose.
Among other things, Ambrose is quoted as saying "This is the best war film
ever made" and "I think 100 years from now, this will be the touchstone for
World War II."
The most interesting part, however, I will quote from the article:
xxxxxxx
"You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
surprised to find it in the movie. "It happened all the time. I've heard
stories that would just kill your heart."
For decades, American movies have shown enemy soldiers killing prisonersin the heat of battle, but Americans were never the ones who did it.
"The American public wouldn't have stood still for it in '45 or '55 or
'65," Ambrose said. "You'll never see it in a Zanuck film (Darryl F. Zanuck
made the famous D-Day film 'The Longest Day')."
xxxxxxxxx
Ambrose then goes on to make a moral argument that "Nobody's got a rightto judge men in combat, because there is nothing to compare it to. The
friendships that are formed, the hatreds, the misery, the degredation, the
exhaustion, the fear. These things are totally absent from civilian life."
This, of course, is moral relativism and a matter of some debate, to saythe least. However, it appears that the movie tries to make a faithful
recreation of what the war (especially D-Day) was like. For example,
American soldier who get 'hit' don't always clutch their chests, fall to
the ground, and then make a "Win one for the gipper" speech. Expect a lot
of cursing, bleeding, yelling, crying, and flying body parts.
At any rate, the movie will probably stir public awareness/conversation
of
World War II.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
sfor...@prodigy.net Wizard 87-01
R Weems Jr
: The most interesting part, however, I will quote from the article:
: xxxxxxx
: "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
: his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
Hey- there's some movie in which a German comes out with his hands
up saying "Bitte, bitte" and a GI shoots him and snarls "I wonder what
`Bitte, bitte' means". "The Longest Day" I believe.
: surprised to find it in the movie. "It happened all the time. I've heard
: stories that would just kill your heart."
In many cases it was somewhat understandable, IMO. After the 82nd
Airborne crossed the Waal River during Market Garden, they weren't
too keen to accept the surrender offers of the troops that had been
cutting them to pieces when they were helplessly rowing across the river.
I don't blame them.
I recall reading Lt. Bouck's account of his I&R platoon's famous stand
against the assaulting troops in the Battle of the Bulge. They killed
a huge number of Germans, and when they surrendered, Bouck wrote that
they expected to be killed, though they weren't, to the Germans' credit.
Still, I think all soldiers who have had to see their comrades killed
by another soldier have a natural hesitance to just let the enemy head
off smirking (as they see it) to a POW camp. I'm not saying it's what
should happen, just that it's understandable.
: At any rate, the movie will probably stir public awareness/conversation
: of
: World War II.
I can't wait for it to open- I'm a huge Spielberg fan.
Robert
Stephen Graham
steven j forsberg <SFOR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
>his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
>surprised to find it in the movie. "It happened all the time. I've heard
>stories that would just kill your heart."
Ambrose obviously didn't watch "A Midnight Clear", released in 1991.
--
Stephen Graham
gra...@ee.washington.edu
gra...@eskimo.com
Jay
> For decades, American movies have shown enemy soldiers killing prisoners
>in the heat of battle, but Americans were never the ones who did it.
> "The American public wouldn't have stood still for it in '45 or '55 or
>'65," Ambrose said. "You'll never see it in a Zanuck film (Darryl F. Zanuck
>made the famous D-Day film 'The Longest Day')."
"What does 'bitte, bitte!" mean?"
Has Ambrose seen "The Longest Day?"
Jay
Ottawa, Ontario
Remove the wildcard when replying by email.
J. Sproat
> The most interesting part, however, I will quote from the article:
>xxxxxxx
> "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who
has
>his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
>surprised to find it in the movie. "It happened all the time. I've heard
>stories that would just kill your heart."
A good example of a movie that does have a GI blasting a bunch of Germans
who have raised their hands in surrender is "The Longest Day"
The scene is where after the Rangers have taken Ponit du Hoc (sp?) and a GI
spots a bunch of Germans sneaking out of a bunker. The Germans see the GI,
start to raise their hands and yell out, "bitte, bitte."
Well, the GI shoots the Germans, then turns to his friends and asks, "I
wonder what bitte, bitte means?"
>
pet...@ms.com
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
> In article <01bdb311$aa7d5b80$762a9cd1@default>,
> >his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
> >surprised to find it in the movie. "It happened all the time. I've heard
> >stories that would just kill your heart."
>
>
But in Midnight Clear the soldier who shoots the
Germans as they try to surrender does not realize
what they are trying to do. And, if I remember
correctly, he may have been derranged at that point.
HTH
Pjk
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Brad Meyer
<SFOR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Ambrose then goes on to make a moral argument that "Nobody's got a rightto judge men in combat, because there is nothing to compare it to. The
>friendships that are formed, the hatreds, the misery, the degredation, the
>exhaustion, the fear. These things are totally absent from civilian life."
> This, of course, is moral relativism and a matter of some debate, to saythe least.
Then by all means debate it. I think Ambrose is right on. The bore of
an AK47 looks big enough to stick one's arm down when its pointed at
one. War is somewhat like sex in that, while you can explain it to a
virgin, it is not the same thing at all as the experience. One might
as well ask the blind to judge a flower show.
Brad Meyer
"It is history that teaches us to hope"
-- R.E. Lee
mike muth
R Weems Jr wrote:
> : "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
> : his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
> Hey- there's some movie in which a German comes out with his hands
> up saying "Bitte, bitte" and a GI shoots him and snarls "I wonder what
> `Bitte, bitte' means". "The Longest Day" I believe.
Big Red One? At the beginning and at the end, Lee Marvin's character
kills/tries to kill a German who is saying the war is over.
> In many cases it was somewhat understandable, IMO.
But still a war crime.
Mike
Doomster
Not very realistic movie, wouldn't you say? Didn't the
German counteroffensive start before XMAs? (I remember 12/17/44) Yet
in the movie, the Germans and Amis celebrate XMas together and then
the Germans warn the Americans of a pending offensive.
Doomster
Jimi Tubman
> his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
<snip>
> "The American public wouldn't have stood still for it in '45 or '55 or
> '65," Ambrose said. "You'll never see it in a Zanuck film (Darryl F.
> Zanuck made the famous D-Day film 'The Longest Day')."
There's a part in that film were the Americans are attacking a German gun
emplacement on top of a cliff. They used grappling irons and long ladders to
scale to the top.
At the top, two GI's see a group of German's run out of a bunker with their
hands up and shout 'Bitter bitter' (sorry for the spelling but I dont know
German) and one of the GI's proceeds to shot the Germans with his Thompson
SMG.
So, even GI's do it!! Evreyone in combat has done it!! It's just one of
those things that happens in war.
Jimi :)
David Jones
> > > "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
> > >his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'"
What about The Longest Day? Admittedly the German says "Bitte" not
"Kamerad" but the end result is the same.
Martin Rapier
In article <6p17v4$5...@dgs.dgsys.com>, gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu
says...
>In article <01bdb311$aa7d5b80$762a9cd1@default>,
>steven j forsberg <SFOR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
>>his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
>>surprised to find it in the movie. "It happened all the time. I've heard
>>stories that would just kill your heart."
>Ambrose obviously didn't watch "A Midnight Clear", released in 1991.
And Lee Marvin specialised in shooting surrendering Germans after the war was
over in 'The Big Red One', although they weren't actually saying 'Kamerad' so
I suppose the quote is correct.
In 'Attack' Jack Palances platoon just pushed the prisoners out of the door
and into the German machine gun fire...
Cheers.
Martin.
--
Martin Rapier, Database Administrator
Corporate Information & Computing Services.
University of Sheffield Tel 0114 222 1137
The opinions expressed here may be those of my employer, or they may not.
http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/
Steve Guthrie
>
> R Weems Jr wrote:
> > : "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
> > : his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
> > In many cases it was somewhat understandable, IMO.
>
> But still a war crime.
>
> Mike
Major General Chris Vokes, who commanded the 1st Canadian Infantry
Division and 4th Canadian Armoured Division in WW 2. He was involved
with the trial of Kurt Meyer's war crimes trial. He mentions that under
the Rules and Usages of War, the Geneva Convention says it is the
soldiers right to deny quarter. You don't have to accept his surrender.
But if you do, then the prisoner must be treated as per the Geneva
convention ie not shot.
Steve
swe...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6p8ujl$9...@dgs.dgsys.com>,
Steve Guthrie <steve....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Major General Chris Vokes, who commanded the 1st Canadian Infantry
> Division and 4th Canadian Armoured Division in WW 2. He was involved
> with the trial of Kurt Meyer's war crimes trial. He mentions that under
> the Rules and Usages of War, the Geneva Convention says it is the
> soldiers right to deny quarter. You don't have to accept his surrender.
> But if you do, then the prisoner must be treated as per the Geneva
> convention ie not shot.
I believe there is a fair amount of confusion about these conventions; the
Geneva Convention, as we know, is from 1949! During WWII, the Geneva
Convention was about the rights of the sick and wounded, the medical
personnel, Red Cross markings etc. The laws of land warfare were described in
the 4th Hague Convention from 1907.
It is true that you don´t have to accept surrender at all times, if you are
unable to do so, but that doesn´t give you the right to shoot surrendering
prisoners. You can show your refusal by firing warning shots or other means.
This may be a bit unrealistic in the heat of the combat, but you still cannot
simply say "Quarter denied" or "Too late chum".
Janne Glad
J. Kaufmann
about the plot. The previews show scenes from what is supposedly Omaha
Beach and soldiers with Ranger and 29th Division patches. Do they
explain in the film how a group of Rangers who landed at Omaha Beach
would be sent inland to rescue a paratrooper (who I assume was from the
82nd or 101st AB Div.) who was landed behind Utah Beach. I realize
there was a lot of scattering of AB units but even if he was
theoritically dropped behind Omaha Beach who would they know it? Also,
if they are searching behind in the peninsula behind Utach Beach who did
they get there? Since I will not be able to see the movie for several
weeks I am quite curious to how the writers tried to make this logical
or is it just as logical as John Wayne watching the sun set in the East
in GREEN BERETS? Too bad if so, since the movie really appears to be
well done.
J. Kaufmann
Espen Randen
On 21 Jul 1998 05:29:09 GMT, mjma...@joker.igs.net (Jay) wrote:
--snip--
>
>"What does 'bitte, bitte!" mean?"
In this context "bitte, bitte!" can be translated to "please, please!"
While in a pub you would say "Ein bier, bitte" or "one beer, please,"
Chhers and all,
Espen Randen
tor...@online.no
ICQ:7439986
-----------
Hiroshima 45 - Chernobyl 86 - Windows 98
Velovich
>The previews show scenes from what is supposedly Omaha
>Beach and soldiers with Ranger and 29th Division patches.
This occurred. the Rangers had a specific objective to support the overall
landings on that beach. the Coleville Battery, I think...
>Do they
>explain in the film how a group of Rangers who landed at Omaha Beach
>would be sent inland to rescue a paratrooper
Yes.
> who was landed behind Utah Beach.
Behind Omaha beach... Remember, the scattering...
<*>
Velovich
"Who IS Keyser Souze?"
NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter
II, 227, and all nonsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address is subject
to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.
yat...@my-dejanews.com
> Beach and soldiers with Ranger and 29th Division patches. Do they
> explain in the film how a group of Rangers who landed at Omaha Beach
> 82nd or 101st AB Div.) who was landed behind Utah Beach. I realize
> there was a lot of scattering of AB units but even if he was
> theoritically dropped behind Omaha Beach who would they know it? Also,
> if they are searching behind in the peninsula behind Utach Beach who did
> they get there? Since I will not be able to see the movie for several
> weeks I am quite curious to how the writers tried to make this logical
> or is it just as logical as John Wayne watching the sun set in the East
> in GREEN BERETS? Too bad if so, since the movie really appears to be
> well done.
>
> J. Kaufmann
The Rangers were tasked with taking positions between the two landings. By D+1
they *should* have already been (although in reality weren't) linked up and in
a good position to find them.
Phil
john melville
john
Rob Davis
Remove MAPSON if replying via email
> While in a pub you would say "Ein bier, bitte" or "one beer, please,"
No, we'd say, "one [pint of] bitter, please."
<g>
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489
abuse@localhost, postmaster@localhost
Jay
>On 21 Jul 1998 05:29:09 GMT, mjma...@joker.igs.net (Jay) wrote:
>>
>>"What does 'bitte, bitte!" mean?"
>
>In this context "bitte, bitte!" can be translated to "please, please!"
>While in a pub you would say "Ein bier, bitte" or "one beer, please,"
The quote marks indicate that I was quoting a movie, to be specific
The Longest Day.
In any case, "bitte" also means "you're welcome" in certain context.
E.F.Schelby
mjma...@joker.igs.net (Jay) wrote:
>In any case, "bitte" also means "you're welcome" in certain context.
But not in this context, believe me. It is an urgent request:
"please, please, don't!" Even if one doesn't understand such a
simple, universal word in another language, tone of voice and facial
expression shouldn't require translation.
ES
Kevin Douglas
mike muth wrote in message <6p7hgi$g...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>...
>
>
>R Weems Jr wrote:
>> : "You've never before seen a movie in which a GI shoots a German who has
>> : his hands up, saying ,'Kamerad' (comrade),'" said Ambrose, who was
>
>> Hey- there's some movie in which a German comes out with his hands
>> up saying "Bitte, bitte" and a GI shoots him and snarls "I wonder what
>> `Bitte, bitte' means". "The Longest Day" I believe.
>
>Big Red One? At the beginning and at the end, Lee Marvin's character
>kills/tries to kill a German who is saying the war is over.
>
>> In many cases it was somewhat understandable, IMO.
>
>But still a war crime.
That's another fascinting area which I'm not sure if the movie got right,
rather might have presented an extreme (prisoners are shot all the time) to
respond to some different extreme (all prisoners have their rights
respected).
It's possible both are wrong. It seems clear, reading accounts of veterans,
that surrendering was hard to do many times, if a battle had been tough
soldiers might just shoot, as was depicted in the film. But it's also
clear, I think, that soldiers respected or felt some sense of commonality to
those who they fought against, in some ways they were in the same situation,
and that, I think, created a powerful link, or some justification to accept
surrenders.
This shows up in accounts of combat all of the time. Battles which stop so
surrenders can be offered, people who go out of their way to protect
prisoners, some articulated sense that if a soldier had "fought well" a
surrender should be respected, which, admittedly, is a very difficult thing
to define, if things were at a fever pitch I'm sure people just shot out of
hand.
And some did. Read an account of a soldier at Normandy who had lost both of
his brothers in combat, his motto, take no prisoners, in one incident he's
running to complete some errand, an unarmed German soldier tries to
surrender (this is at the base, no battle going on), without missing a beat
he pulls his pistol in front of his commander, shoots the German dead, keeps
running, it's an afterthought (and nothing happened to him).
But read accounts of the battle of Arnhem, on the other hand, and it seems
clear that British soldiers were surrendering all the time after very hard
combat, the Germans respected those surrenders, the moment they were
disarmed there was some sense that they were "peers", one defeated, of
course, but there's something more here, some concept of professionalism the
film didn't catch.
The scene in the film where Hanks and his squad take out a machine gun nest
and then debate about killing their prisoner since they can't take him back.
Hanks, you'll remember, wants to kill him in the beginning. This struck me
as just wrong or incomplete. There was a powerful motive for Hanks not to
do this. First, he was a "good officer" and not shooting prisoners in this
way was the law, his duty.
But just as important, Hanks was a soldier, and there seems to have been
this complicated code that when someone was taken prisoner you had a duty to
bring that person to the rear, the situation, by that time, had settled, and
you didn't really have the choice.
Those officers who broke this rule, since it happened various times during
World War II, were regarded as having done something heinous by other
soldiers. Most German officers who were executed after World War II were
found guilty of this crime, ordered executions of prisoners, the
circumstances didn't matter.
So I'm not presenting something that's simple at all, to the contary I'm
suggesting that it's one of the most complicated areas of military ethics
which exists. But it does seem to exist. Not universally adhered to but
definately something soldiers during in World War II had to contend with.
Let's remember that all sorts of odd situations come up when there's this
juxtaposition, "On the one hand it's my job to kill people, on the other
that takes place within a specific context with rules".
An example which appears just as baffling on the surface, the incident where
General Patton was basically relieved of his command because he slapped two
American soldiers. That seems incredible in the context of things and yet
I'm suggesting it's part of a similar ethic.
Soldiers had a professional identity. Not to respect that in important ways
was a horrible offense. And some part of this was extended to enemy
soldiers.
The Big N
Velovich wrote:
> >The previews show scenes from what is supposedly Omaha
> >Beach and soldiers with Ranger and 29th Division patches.
>
> This occurred. the Rangers had a specific objective to support the overall
> landings on that beach. the Coleville Battery, I think...
>
> >Do they
> >explain in the film how a group of Rangers who landed at Omaha Beach
> >would be sent inland to rescue a paratrooper
>
> Yes.
>
> > who was landed behind Utah Beach.
>
> Behind Omaha beach... Remember, the scattering...
>
>
But they find him at a bridge across the Merderet, which is closer to Utah than
Omaha. After all, they were hading the 506thsprojected drop zones first, and
they all were on the Cotentin. I think they motored the ranger squad from Omaha to
Utah andthey started inland from there.
Velovich
>"please, please, don't!" Even if one doesn't understand such a
>simple, universal word in another language, tone of voice and facial
>
>expression shouldn't require translation.
>
>ES
While I agree, never having been in combat I feel that there is some room for
"intentional" error. That is, "My blood's up, my friends are dying around me,
the bad guy is beaten and he thinks he can just give up? Scew that - Charlie
had a new wife and five month old kid he'd never seen!"
In combat, this is something US Army NCOs and Officers are supposed to be on
the look out for. It's an important part of keeping cvontrol of the Unit
during the assault phase of a fight (when you have closed to close distance).
The closer you are when a guy tries to surrender, and the more violent the
fighting, the less likely the soldier will accept teh surrender.
Also, a very long ranges, acceptance of surrender is less likely. Shots
above thier heads to send them packing are common.
Velovich
>But they find him at a bridge across the Merderet, which is closer to Utah
>than
>Omaha.
> I think they motored the ranger squad from Omaha to
>Utah andthey started inland from there.
>
>nh...@io.com
Fair enough - I'll go there...
L. Lee
E.F.Schelby (sch...@kitsune.swcp.com) wrote:
> But not in this context, believe me. It is an urgent request:
> "please, please, don't!" Even if one doesn't understand such a
> simple, universal word in another language, tone of voice and facial
> expression shouldn't require translation.
To be fair for the Americans in TLD... the Americans were tending
their wounded when these Germans came out of a blasted bunker
right behind them. The American was surprised, turned around,
and immediately open fired with his Thompson SMG... and later replied "I
wonder what Bitta, Bitta mean ?". I think in this case... it was
a instinctive reaction rather than premeditated.
But if you want premeditated action.... there are well-documented
cases of Americans summarily execution POWs... like the American
soilder arrested by Gen. Patton in Sicily for executing 8 Germans
POWs... or the American POW guard in Utah that machined gunned
a tent of sleeping German POWs... or all the summarily executions of
Germans during the Ardenne Offensive 1944.
L.
Jay
>The scene in the film where Hanks and his squad take out a machine gun nest
>and then debate about killing their prisoner since they can't take him back.
>Hanks, you'll remember, wants to kill him in the beginning. This struck me
>as just wrong or incomplete. There was a powerful motive for Hanks not to
>do this. First, he was a "good officer" and not shooting prisoners in this
>way was the law, his duty.
Good summary of how morality actually has a place, if somewhat
twisted, in war. This point is too often missed by those who "monday
morning quarterback," especially if they haven't experienced it
themselves.
This particular event though, was the one that I found the most
disturbing in the film. Those who have seen it, and know the fate of
the German in question, may understand why. What sort of moral is
Spielberg trying to get across here?
Jay
sch...@kitsune.swcp.com (E.F.Schelby) wrote:
>mjma...@joker.igs.net (Jay) wrote:
>>In any case, "bitte" also means "you're welcome" in certain context.
>
>But not in this context, believe me. It is an urgent request:
>"please, please, don't!" Even if one doesn't understand such a
>simple, universal word in another language, tone of voice and facial
>
>expression shouldn't require translation.
<sigh>
I understand all of the linguistic nuances that so many seem to have
wanted to point out to me. I suppose, in the interest of avoiding
having myself look too much the fool, I'll explain myself for those
that seem to lack the understanding of what I wrote:
Back when this thread started someone claimed that "Saving Private
Ryan" was the first American film to depict US soldiers killing
surrendering Germans. In a fit of subtle humour I posted something
that included the line "What does 'bitte, bitte' mean?"
For those who lack a certain cultural exposure it was a direct quote
from an old movie "The Longest Day" (1960-something) which clearly
showed some US Rangers (ironic given the current film) killing some
surrendering Germans who were saying "bitte, bitte."
Ya ne znaiou pochemou ya eto zdelats.
Edbert
>disturbing in the film. Those who have seen it, and know the fate of
>the German in question, may understand why. What sort of moral is
>Spielberg trying to get across here?
$pielberg asks many questions with this film, and thankfully does little to
answer them within the confines of his medium. He has a deserved reputation
for cramming his "lesson" down the throats of his audience, I for one am
glad he left the answers blank here The main questions that I got from the
show were:
1.]Does mercy/kindness/compassion have any place on the battlefield? Witness
the killing of the surrendering Czech soldier with the Hitler Youth dagger
who said something to the effect "I didn't kill anyone" right before he was
shot. Witness what happened to the guy in the French town who was hit by the
sniper after forgetting himself due to the French family. Witness Upham's
action regarding Steamboat Willie and the consequences of said action (one
also wonders about the 4-5 he let go after shooting Willie).
2.] What can ANYONE do to earn the sacrifice these men made? Miller's dying
words about earning it apparently haunted Ryan into his old age. His feeble
search for affirmation with the desperate question to his wife "Tell me I am
a good man", as if that alone could account for the bloodshed. We the
audience were the target of that statement as well, what have WE done to
earn it? What could we do that would justify such actions.
3.] Is one man's life worth the loss of eight? At the final battle scene the
Rangers who had been complaining all along that this Ryan guy was not worth
it changed their opinions and stayed at his side for strategic reasons
rather than orders (which were to pull him out of the line of fire). In my
opinion it was the words of Ryan "I'm not going to leave the only brothers I
have left and head for safety" that made them (and me) decide he was worth
it. How many lives were worth the 30 million that were lost?
The fact that these answers cannot be found in the movie is IMHO what makes
this movie so good. How can unanswerable questions be answered by a
Hollywood production? I have not spent so much time thinking about a movie
after it was over as this one in quite some time.
Kudos Steven!
Jay
>The fact that these answers cannot be found in the movie is IMHO what makes
>this movie so good. How can unanswerable questions be answered by a
>Hollywood production? I have not spent so much time thinking about a movie
>after it was over as this one in quite some time.
I'm still thinking about it, and I'm still pondering the message of
Upham. I find him the most disturbing character in the film. I saw one
post suggest elsewhere that he "redeemed himself" at the end, yet I
still think that he was a coward right to the last. Perhaps that was
one of the messages. The message that I thought I saw though, was the
one that made it good to shoot a prisoner (not in the heat of a
battle, but after making him dig graves etc.) maybe that was the
paradox he was trying to show.
Brent
I have a few ideas I'd like to throw out. I think Upham is partly
intended as a reference point for all of the Nine to Fivers (myself
included) who went to see the film, he's plucked out of a very cushy
HQ job with no formal combat training (not since Basic anyway) and
sent into combat. I know how I'd feel and probably how I'd behave in
that situation...I'd ask a lot of questions and probably get in the
way too much because I'd be scared out of my mind and looking for
reassurance (not to say that the other soldiers weren't, they just had
the experience and training necesary to control it most of the time).
This make any sense?
Brent.
RJD9999
writes:
>I'm still thinking about it, and I'm still pondering the message of Upham. I
find him the most disturbing character in the film. I saw one post suggest
elsewhere that he "redeemed himself" at the end, yet I still think that he was
a coward right to the last. Perhaps that was one of the messages. The message
that I thought I saw though, was the one that made it good to shoot a prisoner
(not in the heat of a battle, but after making him dig graves etc.) maybe that
was the paradox he was trying to show. >
When discussing this with my friend, I too used the term "redemption scene" to
describe this, although that is hardly an appropriate (and narrow) perspective.
This, more than the gore, disturbed me more than any other facet of the film.
There is clearly more than one message here. At the radar station, Upham
portrays the typical rear echelon thinking of morality in war. At the end, he
displays behavior that is as callous and reactive, or worse, than that
displayed by the team earlier. Certainly, morality is another likely casuality
of war, and this is one part of the message, but there is more to this than
that.
As you point out, Upham may still be a coward, but we can't be certain of this.
He has certainly changed, permanently, from his experiences. The Upham at the
beginning of the film clearly no longer exists. He has been broken, as can be
seen during the climb up the stairs where he can barely put his feet on the
next step on the ascent to hell. After that, he finds some way to pull himself
back together and become functional once again. Perhaps the scene at the end
could be more accurately described as a metamorphisis.
It is probably important to decipher the German spoken during the metaphorisis
scene. If Upham understands that the prisoner is suggesting that they attack
Upham, or attempt escape, perhaps he is morally justified in his action (I, for
one, would be pretty circumspect about confronting four armed men in such a
manner - you'd have to take control pretty quickly or you'd certainly die).
This is, in itself, an act of bravery that Upham could not have performed only
a few minutes earlier. Shooting the prisoner is not an act of bravery, but a
calculated act by a soldier who has been pushed beyond the point of questioning
his conscience.
Rick
Velovich
>This make any sense?
Yes, it does. I can understand the confusion that Upham felt, the inability to
bond with the squad's other members, and the sudden exposure to the harshness f
combat.
This may be a valid point. Whoever it is in contact with Spielberg, check on
this!
Gerard
(Brent ) wrote:
> Generally, I only lurk in these parts, but being fascinated by Upham [snip]
I was too. Upham is more than a rookie, unlike the rest of the Rangers; he
is simply attached to them in the military sense. In other words, yes, he
would like to feel a part of this elite group, but after the mission is
over he goes back to translating/interpreting for the IR platoon, regt.
whatever. I think he realizes that. Also why did he want to bring his
typewriter? I think he wanted to write about something that he would never
get a chance to see again AND still have the chance to go back to his cushy
job. Again he must have ambivalent feelings: to feel camaraderie (by
quoting Emerson (?) but also feels detachment.
We also get a small glimpse of him through his language. He said he still
has a slight accent in French but his German is "clean as a whistle with a
touch of Bavarian." If I am right, isn't having Bavarian stock somewhat
aristocratic? Let's say he is of German parentage, I can't imagine the
self-loathing he has to go through by being at the front and actually
killing Germans who could be his relatives.
If he was American, there is also that ambivalence, how else could he have
acquired such a unique accent. No book teaches accent, you get it by
associating to a large degree with those with Bavarian accents, read
Germans! Now he now has to go kill the very same people, that taught him
his language. Personally, I can identify with this particular part, which
may explain my fascination with his character.
I also think it is significant that only in the end does he fire his rifle.
Didn't several historians, perhaps S. L. A. Marshall write that soldiers
in general usually shoot/kill in defense of their buddies. With the
possible exception of Capt. Miller, the others treat him like an outcast.
So in that light I am not surprised that he freezes in battle (in addition
to not having fired a rifle since Basic). In other words, those guys
aren't his buddies and really doesn't feel the closeness that is between
themselves.
Jay wrote:
>>I'm still thinking about it, and I'm still pondering the message of Upham. I find him the most
>>disturbing character in the film.
You and most of the audience.
> I saw one post suggest elsewhere that he "redeemed himself" at the end,
The first time I saw it, a good portion of the audience cheered and clapped
when Upham finally killed a German. So perhaps, he did "redeem" himself,
the German said,"he is no soldier." So he fired his rifle out of anger,
whether it was the SS dude or Steamboat Willie is beside the point. This
was the first time Upham felt real, tangible personal hatred to the enemy
(yes, despite watching other Americans dropping all around him).
> yet I still think that he was a coward right to the last.
I don't entirely disagree with you, however, let's say he stays with the
infantry full time (doubtful), I think everyday he'll wind up killing more
and more Germans just to redeem himself.
--
"Don't trust me, test me"
winter...@yahoo.com
> To be fair for the Americans in TLD... the Americans were tending
> their wounded when these Germans came out of a blasted bunker
> right behind them. The American was surprised, turned around,
> and immediately open fired with his Thompson SMG... and later replied "I
> wonder what Bitta, Bitta mean ?". I think in this case... it was
> a instinctive reaction rather than premeditated.
>
> But if you want premeditated action.... there are well-documented
> cases of Americans summarily execution POWs... like the American
> soilder arrested by Gen. Patton in Sicily for executing 8 Germans
> POWs... or the American POW guard in Utah that machined gunned
> a tent of sleeping German POWs... or all the summarily executions of
> Germans during the Ardenne Offensive 1944.
>
> L.
I think that was the point being made. That summary executions occured on all
sides of the participants...especially in the moments after a firefight.
I've heard of some vets stories where no quarter was given to captured german
soldiers simply because they were behind enemy lines and in no safe position
to take prisoners.
Kevin Douglas
Jay wrote in message <6q7dkv$hs8$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>This particular event though, was the one that I found the most
>disturbing in the film. Those who have seen it, and know the fate of
>the German in question, may understand why. What sort of moral is
>Spielberg trying to get across here?
I think Spielberg was trying to convey some sense that what might seem moral
in wartime in fact can have terrible consequences, what seems compassionate
sometimes isn't. Hanks did the compassionate thing by letting the soldier
go and later pays a consequence (not saying what that is but those who have
seen the film know what I'm talking about). Same thing with the soldier who
tries to save the little girl. Both did the "right" thing and paid the
price.
The scene I found most disturbing, by the way, was the one where the SS guy
(oh heck, no way I can describe this w/o a spoiler, those who haven't seen
the film stop reading) knifes the jewish guy. Not that this happened, it's
the way it happened. Spielberg went out of his way to make that last moment
tender, found the whole thing very twisted. And after thinking about it
here's how I interpret that scene.
It was made up. Spielburg very cleverly crafted a horrible situation, put
two emotions together which really didn't belong there (they were opposite
extremes, that made the scene so powerful). It's not that something like
that would have happened, but there's so much randomness and confusion in
combat that bizarre moments like that are probably in the experience of most
veterans.
Remember reading a piece in Paul Fussel's book about the Second World War
where some American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge are on a patrol
and they pass a house which is partially exposed because of artillery fire.
In the house was a dead family who were killed, apparantly, by the
concussion of the shell while having dinner, they didn't appear hurt at all,
were frozen, it was winter, and yet of course they were all dead.
And Fussel writes that the American soldiers who passed this scene didn't
say anything at all, they just kept walking, and decades past before someone
at a reunion mentioned it. "Do you remember that house we passed in the
Ardennes forest?" Turns out everyone remembered, of course, the house had
been in their nightmares for years.
This is what it means to be in a war, I think, part of the experience is
being exposed to things which just "don't go together". People aren't able
to process because what they see is outside of their experience, or draws
upon associations which are completely at odds.
I think that's what Spielburg was trying to convey in some scenes from that
film. His point, some things defy explenation. And on the subject of POWs,
by the way, I think the above might also explain why accepting a surrender
is such an important part of a soldier's professional identity (not that
they'll always do it, that's affected by circumstance, but it's not a small
issue).
Because when soldiers live day to day in a world of such randomness they
have to convince themselves, on some level, that there are "rules" for what
they are doing. It's a way of making sense of a situation which is often
senseless (I don't think this showed up much in the film at all).
Daniel Rush
was tired of guarding them. There are things about D-Day that no one
ever thought could happen, such as our tanks running down wounded GIs in
the Norman Bocades or landing craft running over flounding soldiers. War
is creul and without emotion because if you don't act fast, more men
will die than those you had to kill by accident or chance.
Jay
>The first time I saw it, a good portion of the audience cheered and clapped
>when Upham finally killed a German. So perhaps, he did "redeem" himself,
>the German said,"he is no soldier." So he fired his rifle out of anger,
>whether it was the SS dude or Steamboat Willie is beside the point.
While I think both are one and the same, you're right, it's
irrelevant. The fact is he "got the drop" on a group of Germans, and
he selected on specifically for murder (and it was murder). Why he did
is open to argument, but I think it was because he felt betrayed by
his kindness earlier (which is another reason why I think it was
"Steamboat Willie").
> This
>was the first time Upham felt real, tangible personal hatred to the enemy
>(yes, despite watching other Americans dropping all around him).
>
>> yet I still think that he was a coward right to the last.
>
>I don't entirely disagree with you, however, let's say he stays with the
>infantry full time (doubtful), I think everyday he'll wind up killing more
>and more Germans just to redeem himself.
He didn't kill out of necessity or a fear that the enemy would come
back and haunt him (as "Willie" had done). He let the others go. The
killing at the end was personal. He'd been betrayed. I still think he
didn't have the guts to be a combat soldier.
I suppose the reason that he disturbs me so much is that I have
similar feelings to what is right and wrong as what he voiced when he
objected to "Willie's" murder earlier on. I'd like to think that I'd
feel the same way. however, I'm disturbed by his cowardice in the
battle for the bridge. Is that cowardice tied to his compassion? Would
I fold under the same or similar circumstances? I'm a serving soldier,
and have a similar support role to what Upham "had." It hits way too
close to home for me (though I've seen angry shots before, it was
never really a test of my courage).
john...@istar.ca
Germans who are saying (pleading) "Bitte. Bitte." [German for please please,
pronounced "Bitt-uh"]
This is in Cornelius Ryan's book too, and is apparently a true incident. The
US soldiers remark, after firing, "What does `bitte' mean?" This has always
struck me as a more plausible mistake, since bitte is unclear in English,
whereas "kamarad" is unmistakably "comrade", even if you are a
unilingual anglophone.
Henry Eichel
Brent wrote:
Absolutely. As I remember seeing in an Army manual on small unit
infantry tactics: ``Courage is not the absence of fear; it is the ability
to overcome fear.'' Had Upham had infantry training and combat
experience, it's likely he would have performed well.
--
Henry Eichel
Columbia, S.C.
john...@istar.ca
gbri...@CUTTHISgmu.edu (Gerard) wrote:
> In article <6qci17$pbo$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, *whee...@nbnet.nb.ca*
> (Brent ) wrote:
> We also get a small glimpse of him through his language. He said he still
> has a slight accent in French but his German is "clean as a whistle with a
> touch of Bavarian." If I am right, isn't having Bavarian stock somewhat
> aristocratic?
Not in the least. Germany is quite regional actually, and Bavaria is simply
the largest southern province. In fact, if anything, the sterotypical image
of Bavarian is the exact opposite of aristocratic -- think of heavy set men
in lederhosen swing heavy one litre beer steins to an ompah-pah band at
Oktoberfest in Munich (Bavaria's capital).
john...@istar.ca
> intended as a reference point for all of the Nine to Fivers
Yes. I would further add that he seems to be a stand-in for what one might
call effete intellectualism. What exactly is Spielberg trying to say here?
Or, if he isn't really trying to say anything, what exactly is the tone this
character is setting?
I agree that Upham is the most disturbing part of the movie, including the
carnage of the landing scene. Is the movie endorsing the view that they
should have summarily killed Steam Boat Willie at the radar station? It is
worth pointing out that he did nothing "wrong" as a soldier. Indeed, as a
soldier it was his duty to rejoin his country's forces a fight in further
battles -- where he did nothing incorrect (such as shooting PoWs for
instance). I should be further noted that "Willie" would have had no choice
about this -- if found wandering around alone and unarmed, military
discipline would have compelled him into an ad hoc unit.
Henry Eichel
john...@istar.ca wrote:
> Even that old chestnut "The Longest Day" portrays US troops shooting
> Germans who are saying (pleading) "Bitte. Bitte." [German for please please,
> pronounced "Bitt-uh"]
>
I'll share with you a story my father told me more than 30 years ago. He
saw combat as an infantry sergeant in the Pacific Theatre, and he was
talking of the bitterness and the callousness that overtakes all combat
soldiers. As an example, he recounted to me what friends of his who had
fought in France had told him:
After the breakout from Normandy and trapping and killing many of the
remaining German units in the Falaise Pocket, our armored divisions were
pushing the front forward at 20 to 30 miles a day. If you got separated
from your unit, it could take weeks to catch up to them again, being
passed off from one outfit to another. Since you weren't one of them,
they stuck you with all the shit details -- and meanwhile, you were with a
bunch of strangers and not your buddies.
In the midst of this, Germans were surrendering all over the place, which
meant that they had be escorted under guard to the rear. It was a detail
that no one wanted to draw. So, to get out of it, GIs would take the
Germans a little ways and shoot them, then say they tried to run away.
My dad told me this pretty matter-of-factly, not approving of it, but just
as an illustration of how easy it is in combat to lose your soul.
--Henry Eichel
Nate Gordon
>In article <6qci17$pbo$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> *whee...@nbnet.nb.ca* (Brent ) wrote:
>> I think Upham is partly
>> intended as a reference point for all of the Nine to Fivers
>
>Yes. I would further add that he seems to be a stand-in for what one might
>call effete intellectualism. What exactly is Spielberg trying to say here?
>Or, if he isn't really trying to say anything, what exactly is the tone this
>character is setting?
I don't think Upham is to be regarded as a "morally superior" or a
"cowardly evil" character; he just was a soldier who, upon facing
combat for the first time (and remember, he wasn't trained for combat,
wasn't expecting combat, and was more of a clerk than a true soldier)
froze. Most soldiers were able to handle the task when it was
presented to them, but Upham couldn't. I don't think Spielberg is
saying that he should have done something different, but just showing
us that this is how he reacted to unimaginable conditions. Most of the
soldiers were able to handle the job presented to them, but Upham
wasn't.
Don't forget that the other soldiers don't expect Upham to take a
direct role in combat, either; he has an assigned rear position in the
assault on the morter position, and during the bridge assault his
responsibility is to carry ammo. He does risk his life in the latter
assignment, but finds himself unable to take direct action to kill
another person, even to save the life of his own comrades.
I would characterize him as sad and regrettable, but not despicable or
a judgment upon a class of "effete intellectualism"
Nate
Nate Gordon
cd00...@mindspring.com
"The sea was angry that day, my friends, like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli."
Ted Thompson
> I'm still thinking about it, and I'm still pondering the message of
> Upham. I find him the most disturbing character in the film. I saw one
> post suggest elsewhere that he "redeemed himself" at the end, yet I
> still think that he was a coward right to the last.
I didn't think Upham was "cowardly" at all. He never represented himself
as a combat soldier and Miller and company knew it.
Ted
Roger Peck
German unit instead of turning himself in to any allied forces as he was
ordered to do?
john...@istar.ca wrote in article <6qhpk5$k6r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
a...@dustdevil.com
>direct role in combat, either; he has an assigned rear position in the
>assault on the morter position, and during the bridge assault his
>responsibility is to carry ammo. He does risk his life in the latter
>assignment, but finds himself unable to take direct action to kill
>another person, even to save the life of his own comrades.
>I would characterize him as sad and regrettable, but not despicable or
>a judgment upon a class of "effete intellectualism"
The US army carefully studied the movies made a great cost on
assaulted beaches, and determined that only 10-15% of the soldiers
were acually returning fire. Rather alarming.
Now if a hundred men take aim on a MG position, somebody is going to
get him. I'm afraid there are many more Uphams among us than Millers.