tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post8566827801684637544..comments2023-03-30T16:56:53.692-07:00Comments on Icebox Movies: Saving Private Ryan (1998)Adam Zanziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-84100230866029627482014-10-19T16:08:04.567-07:002014-10-19T16:08:04.567-07:00Adam, a good debate, but I’m afraid you won’t conv...Adam, a good debate, but I’m afraid you won’t convince me its anything other than clever, crowd pleasing and highly commercial film making.<br />I think you do yourself a disservice describing yourself as Upham because he is just a cipher as with all the others. Wimpy intellectual, never fired his rifle, doesn’t know what FUBAR means – he could get a job on The Big Bang Theory.<br />Going back to you I’m sure you would do what you had to do – like so many normal guys did all those years ago (I hope I would) but I’d be scared stiff , nervy from the constant mortaring and seeing those guys from the 17th running back shouting the “Germans are coming”. <br />What I dislike about SPR is it claims to be something it’s not i.e reality; what - because it includes some gore? (Insulting us that we didn’t know what really happens when lead hits flesh) Thinking about it about it I found a quote from the now dead English actor Richard Todd who was an officer with the paratroopers who landed ahead of the seaborne attack – one of his companies suffering 80% casualties by the end of the day – his view of SPR’s Omaha scene – “rubbish - overdone”.<br />Then there’s Mr Speilberg the old salesmen, when it was first released saying it might not be commercially successful being so uncompromising – yeh right Steve. We can all sit in the cinema munching our popcorn thinking ‘ew isn’t it awful, aren’t we noble watching it, but wow look how great all those guys did, how sensitive their last words are, even the coward came good and then old glory at the end - “earn it!” - not a dry eye in the theatre. And then off home happy – what a film – can’t wait for Band of Brothers.<br />But true reality – men creeping along a sunken lane suddenly cut down by a hidden MG42 run back in panic and have to be held up by an officer with his 45 drawn, a French family with children run for cover but are gunned down by a marauding P47 mistaking them for soldiers, the little girl is hit in the stomach her intestines torn open, her mother screams helplessly at the pilot; a sergeant trying to get his men to break cover is throw into the air by a shell explosion and lands apparently uninjured dead from a broken neck, a medic refuses to endanger himself to save a wounded man whilst another runs out into heavy fire repeatedly dragging soldiers to safety. A lot of the “glorious generation” behaved wonderfully, most did what they had to, some behaved disgracefully. That’s what it was really like – but would people spend millions of dollars watching it – I’m not so sure.<br />Forgive me I sound a tedious bore – Mr Speilberg has made some great films but this isn’t one them. I too admire the men who fought to make us free and if I may be pompous try the books of Rick Atkinson (not Stephen Ambrose – he was another shameless crowd pleaser) or Anthony Beevor’s D-Day for the real nuanced story; or my current favourite for a British perspective of men in combat ‘Tank War’ by Mark Urban which features the real Pluto Ellis. <br />Take care.<br />Pluto Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13287213671135212355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-53717151865443948962014-10-18T14:24:25.955-07:002014-10-18T14:24:25.955-07:00I think I certainly have a lot more in common with...I think I certainly have a lot more in common with Upham than I do with the other characters. What I said was: the most cowardly thing he does in the movie is shoot an unarmed POW. Up until then, he's understandably afraid of combat. <br /><br />How are Miller's men in this movie "superheroes"? They all have their flaws. Miller admits that every time he kills somebody, he feels farther away from home and much less like himself. Wade and Caparzo miss their parents. Mellish loves to taunt POWs, but during the knife-fight with the Waffen-SS soldier, the scared kid in him comes out and he begs for his life. Private Ryan has committed to staying to fight at Rammel, but during the film's final moments, when he's run out of ammo and it appears all hope is lost, there is a slo-mo shot of him screaming because he knows he is going to die.<br /><br />You apparently watch this movie and see a recruitment film. I watch it and am so horrified, I would never want to go to war. At the same time, the movie makes me thankful that others did so that I wouldn't have to.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-32889632505464057252014-10-17T15:32:08.398-07:002014-10-17T15:32:08.398-07:00Thank you for this Adam: if you’ll forgive me, an...Thank you for this Adam: if you’ll forgive me, and at the risk of sounding pompous – this is my point. We are meant to take our history from formulaic war movies – and SPR is one - with added gore so we are in awe of its realism. The allied armies (there were others as well as the Americans) were huge and had to be filled with volunteers and conscripts – all the professionals were long since casualties. Many were barely 20 including the officers rather than the easily 30 we are shown – even elite units like the Rangers in Millar’s unbelievable rescue mission. They understood the reason to fight but they wanted above all to survive and go home – wouldn’t you? They weren’t super human or some glorious generation –but just like young men on a street or farm today. If you like the majority were like Upham rather than the other way round – this doesn’t make them cowards as the Hollywood standard character list has it – but all the braver for battling on to victory. This is my frustration really: this complex reality has always been ignored by Hollywood or HBO who would have us believe we owe our freedoms to hard charging Vin Diesels rather than the fearful flesh and blood who ground on day after day: and ultimately saved us.Pluto Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13287213671135212355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-63512499562212699552014-10-17T12:36:18.988-07:002014-10-17T12:36:18.988-07:00I'm not going to address your complaints abut ...I'm not going to address your complaints abut the film's historical accuracy because that's not my area of expertise. But this jumped out at me: <br /><br /><i>Now the emotional: in reality soldiers are men (well often boys) who would much rather go home – they don’t like fighting and do their best to survive. Always in Hollywood, and SPR is no different, they are hardened efficient killers – who leap up to take machine gun nests or blow up tanks as soon as an officer shouts “charge” – again and again. The reality was different the vast majority had to constantly make themselves go forward into risk, it was very common for officers to have to drive men forward – not because they were cowards but because they wanted to survive.</i><br /><br />First of all: Corporal Upham (the Jeremy Davies character) is EXACTLY this type of soldier. He has never fired his weapon outside of basic training and is terrified of combat. I am curious as to how carefully you were paying attention to the movie, since you're complaining about about the film lacking "soldiers who don't like fighting" despite the fact that Upham (one of the most important characters in the story!) is without question a soldier who would rather not be fighting. Not only that, but when he finally kills somebody at the end of the movie, he's actually killing an unarmed POW -- making him way more of a coward than he ever was.<br /><br />Second of all: this movie is about a rescue mission. Miller obviously wants the best men for his team. With the exception of Upham, who is only brought along as a translator, all the other men on Miller's team are brought onboard because he knows that with their toughness and sense of bravery, they are the guys who will get the job done. <br /><br />Do you seriously think he would want to recruit soldiers who are terrified of battle? Honestly, this makes me question how much of a WWII expert you really are. Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-78641232513913603332014-10-17T07:04:42.944-07:002014-10-17T07:04:42.944-07:00Believe it or not, I’ve just seen SPR all the way ...Believe it or not, I’ve just seen SPR all the way through. I’ve been avoiding it for what I believe it will be and I my fears where confirmed. I can’t argue as elegantly as some but I am in agreement in that I can’t see how it has become elevated to this mythical status of being unique in its fearless focus on reality.<br />Yes there are clever character developments and complex ethical arguments –but strip out the Omaha scene and it’s another crowd pleasing war movie except with a very famous - can do no wrong director.<br />Why is it not real? well 2 reasons I think one ‘factual’ if you like and one ‘emotional’<br />First the factual: For 3 months huge armies were locked in a grinding war of attrition (not just 20 minutes of Omaha) yet in SPR, 8 men can amble across Normandy in broad daylight meeting a machine gun nest and a solitary half-track – which were presumably doing the same thing till they met Tom and the boys. Any officer who put steel plates in a glider for personal protection and risking his men would be in very hot water from his superiors – but of course in Hollywood that’s what Generals do. Matt Damon and his, what looks like 6 mates, are all that’s protecting the most important river crossing in France (which looks as if a soldier could jump across if someone blew the bridge) the American army with its 1000s of men, tanks and artillery is off doing something else presumably. The Germans send a couple of tanks and a few men to take aforementioned bridge. Yes the Omaha scene is different in that is shows men being smashed by bullet and shell, with heart rending death scenes: but only our side – the Germans just drop down dead as they did in Kelly’s Heroes. And General Marshall has apparently been so busy worrying about Private Ryan he has forgotten to send a single Sherman tank over in the invasion.<br />Now the emotional: in reality soldiers are men (well often boys) who would much rather go home – they don’t like fighting and do their best to survive. Always in Hollywood, and SPR is no different, they are hardened efficient killers – who leap up to take machine gun nests or blow up tanks as soon as an officer shouts “charge” – again and again. The reality was different the vast majority had to constantly make themselves go forward into risk, it was very common for officers to have to drive men forward – not because they were cowards but because they wanted to survive. Some couldn’t do it – between 10 and 25% of the allied armies had to be treated for battle fatigue; the Germans had less of a problem but most historians agree that was because Officers had no hesitation in drawing their Luger for encouragement. Read any sensible history and you will meet this – it even happened to the Rangers on Omaha who were stopped by machine gun fire until senior officers led them forward. This huge complex argument of how most men (though not all) of citizen armies fighting in France, Italy, Burma and the Pacific screwed down their fear and battled onto victory is ignored by Hollywood and crowd pleasers like Band of Brothers. If a film included this it might start being able to claim reality.<br />Pluto Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13287213671135212355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-56491917267085440982014-09-20T16:49:43.234-07:002014-09-20T16:49:43.234-07:00Saving Private Ryan was a movie that rely shows th...Saving Private Ryan was a movie that rely shows the horror of the war, and I think, if you never fight in a war, you don't know what rely is. so don't comment if you don't knowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-69492038359189422742014-01-30T15:54:40.956-08:002014-01-30T15:54:40.956-08:00What a great discussion guys. You all made me thin...What a great discussion guys. You all made me think and re-examine what I consider to be one of the great war films ever made. My two-cents on the length of the Omaha Beach would be this: It may not have reflected the true length of the actual battle, but given the carnage and ferocity of war on display, many viewers, like me, came away feeling like it was the longest 25 minutes in film history. ~BBAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08107111463526200121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-29304428453854952013-08-12T18:46:36.950-07:002013-08-12T18:46:36.950-07:00Okay. Fine. It's just . . . this movie has n...Okay. Fine. It's just . . . this movie has never been a favorite of mine. I guess I wasn't interested in finding "decency and heroism" in warfare or how it got twisted . . . at least from Spielberg's point of view in 1997/98. In the end, I simply found the movie a bit too manipulative for my tastes. But that's just me.The Rush Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13667282586023023623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-58514682191028819902013-08-12T16:08:35.311-07:002013-08-12T16:08:35.311-07:00Rush, I don't know how you would've gotten...Rush, I don't know how you would've gotten that impression. This movie is not speaking about war in simple "pro" or "anti" terms. As Spielberg himself says on the D-Day edition DVD: "We <i>know</i> that war is hell. The other story is: 'How do you find decency inside the hell of warfare'?"<br /><br />That's precisely what Spielberg is interested in: decency and heroism in warfare, and how it can sometimes get twisted and lose its meaning (i.e. Corporal Upham). So if you're disappointed that Spielberg didn't succeed in making a mere antiwar film, I suggest you look a little deeper than that because that's *not* what the film is trying to achieve. I am reminded of what Kubrick once said about <i>Full Metal Jacket</i>: "<i>Full Metal Jacket</i> suggests that there is more to say about war than it is just bad."Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-359331265181129772013-08-11T23:06:09.873-07:002013-08-11T23:06:09.873-07:00I think that Spielberg tried to make an anti-war f...I think that Spielberg tried to make an anti-war film. But in the end, I think he failed. I just didn't buy. The movie came off as too pretentious to me, especially in the second half. He and Hanks didn't bother trying to make "BAND OF BROTHERS" anti-war, except in the two Bastogne campaign episodes. I feel that with "THE PACIFIC" they finally achieved in creating a production with a solid anti-war stance. Unfortunately, this is probably one of the reasons why the 2010 miniseries is not as appreciated as the 1998 film or the 2001 miniseries.The Rush Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13667282586023023623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-51356090884813444912011-11-09T23:36:45.562-08:002011-11-09T23:36:45.562-08:00From 2007: A thought-provoking defense of SPR from...From 2007: A thought-provoking defense of SPR from the House Next Door by Matt Zoller Seitz, in response to a negative review of the movie by critic Sean Gilman:<br /><br /><i>I don't think Gilman is saying that war is clean and perfect. I think he's saying that the narrative of "Saving Private Ryan" frames certain acts (acts defined as war crimes) to be necessary, and he objects to that.<br /><br />I love this movie (with certain major reservations) but I linked to Gilman's piece because it's an unapologetic contrarian view, and it intrigued me.<br /><br />I think he has a point about the movie presenting certain war crimes as necessary — particularly the whole subplot where the American GI's let the German prisoner go rather than kill him, and he turns up in the final act, fighting against them on the German side. I think Spielberg is saying, "Yes, the need to not face an enemy again is a very solid, self-interested reason to kill him while you can." But I also think he's saying, "But killing him would be wrong." Sometimes the right choice exposes us to great danger. The story of the movie — a platoon of U.S. soldiers die rescuing one man, mainly for PR reasons — raises many of the same conundrums on a larger scale.<br /><br />Critic Curtis White was disturbed by this as well: "I have discussed the movie with several distinct groups of friends as, it seems, many viewers of the film have, both in the privacy of our homes and on the messy public airwaves of "talk radio." I have been surprised that my friends–intelligent, sophisticated people on the whole–had no idea what I was talking about when I elaborated my understanding of the film's "lesson." At one level, Private Ryan is about a command not to kill a German prisoner who then goes on to kill several members of an American platoon. Thus the movie's frightening lesson (one that I've come to think of as archetypically North American) is: Always choose death, for if you do not, death will come anyway, later, multiplied."<br /><br />He goes on to write, " I think a reading can expose this film for what it is, a crypto-fascist work of historical revision. It's not even revision. It's: "Remember what we used to think? About patriotism? The glory of war? Let's think that again, and really mean it, so that it will be harder than hell to dislodge next time." Which is to say, this is a very dangerous movie."<br /><br />I think Spielberg portrays these killing as a necessary element of all war — not defensible, just a fact. I think he's aware of every irony inherent in the story and lets it be there so we can argue about it — that in other words, it's all done on purpose. Just because some viewers might come away reading "Ryan" as a simple, sentimental, gung-ho action movie that reinforces stale ideology doesn't mean the movie itself is doing that. The movie's not either/or, patriotic or questioning, middlebrow or sophisticated, familiar and new — it's all those things at once, and the contradictions are enfolded in the narrative. By the same token, "Goodfellas," an equally complicated popular movie — a sociopath's point of view on a life of crime — is sometimes enjoyed uncritically by people who think it's badass. That's not Scorsese's fault, either.<br /><br />Just more stuff to argue about.</i>Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-32356787918826854162011-06-15T16:40:49.565-07:002011-06-15T16:40:49.565-07:00Postscript: Matt Zoller Seitz tweeted about this b...Postscript: Matt Zoller Seitz <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/mattzollerseitz/status/19419151508447232" rel="nofollow">tweeted</a> about this back in December 2010.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-15239978615857953762011-05-25T18:26:55.612-07:002011-05-25T18:26:55.612-07:00Thank you for the recommendation, Alexei; I'm ...Thank you for the recommendation, Alexei; I'm not familiar with <i>The Men Who Fall Last</i>, but I did admire Elen Klimov's <i>Come and See</i> a great deal and I'm always seeking out good Russian films about WWII. <br /><br />With that being said, however, I'm curious to hear why you find <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> "stupid and childish" or why you charge that the opening battle sequence is "unrealistic". I can't think of many more ways to make that sequence realistic, personally. Spielberg pretty much pushed it as far as it can go.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-9016059606424201732011-05-21T18:25:42.091-07:002011-05-21T18:25:42.091-07:00You should see Russian film called The Men Who Fal...You should see Russian film called The Men Who Fall Last. It is just like Saving Private Ryan but less stupid and childish. It has opening battle too, and not as unrealistic as Spielberg battle.Alexeinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-38560668289420323052011-03-27T14:24:11.174-07:002011-03-27T14:24:11.174-07:00Sounds awesome, Mad Hatter. I'll read it somet...Sounds awesome, Mad Hatter. I'll read it sometime this weekend.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-85999721257258625112011-03-25T06:51:36.553-07:002011-03-25T06:51:36.553-07:00Hey Adam - All done and admittedly it was tougher ...Hey Adam - All done and admittedly it was tougher than I thought it would be. I struggle to write about my favorite films sometimes, as I find myself really having to push hard to get past "itsawesomeitsawesomeohbythewayitsawesome".<br /><br />Hopefully in your eyes it measures up!<br /><br />http://mcneilmatinee.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-day-saving-private-ryan.htmlRyan McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00440134802928893661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-90469239282376719062011-03-17T08:29:16.658-07:002011-03-17T08:29:16.658-07:00@ Adam... Based on this post and on the argument I...@ Adam... Based on this post and on the argument I had, I might very well create a post of my own in the next week or two. I think there's a lot about the film - good and bad - to be discussed, so hopefully it measures up.<br /><br />Perhaps I'll send you a link when it's done.Ryan McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00440134802928893661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-8968284075258727732011-03-17T08:11:45.483-07:002011-03-17T08:11:45.483-07:00Mad Hatter, thanks a ton. I wish this movie had mo...Mad Hatter, thanks a ton. I wish this movie had more ardent fans, because I tell ya: writing this was not easy. It's difficult to coalesce all of the thoughts one has about this film into one single blog piece, which just goes to show how complex a work it is.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-43221004425386099282011-03-17T04:24:00.316-07:002011-03-17T04:24:00.316-07:00Thank you for writing this detailed and thought-ou...Thank you for writing this detailed and thought-out piece. I got into an argument about this film last night and desperately needed to read something fleshed out about SPR.<br /><br />This was the perfect tonic.Ryan McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00440134802928893661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-5031174228584547592011-01-06T17:09:26.482-08:002011-01-06T17:09:26.482-08:00Hey Tom, thanks a million for your feedback here a...Hey Tom, thanks a million for your feedback here as well. I think our conversation here about <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> is one that's been long overdue in the blogosphere. You and Craig obviously had quibbles with the movie that you felt had to finally be brought out in the open, and I myself had wanted to address so much about the movie that hadn't gotten its due. Also Tom, I want to apologize to you if my comments about you 1998 review were insulting. Had I known you were so civil and esteemed a critic and debater, I would have kept my mouth shut. <br /><br />I know we've been beating this issue about the D-Day landing to death, but Spielberg does make it evident that there are a lot of casualties and survivors on the beach. True, we don't see American landing craft on the beach immediately when Miller's boats arrive, but then again this is all based on the angle Spielberg first shows of the beach by the time they've landed. The first shot of the men already dead on the beach doesn't show the entire beach, so it's safe to assume (from what Spielberg <i>doesn't</i> show us in the shot) that there are more bodies elsewhere. Of course, we can't know for sure, because once Miller and his men blend in with the already-dead GIs it's difficult to make out who has recently died, and who has been dead.<br /><br />Craig is probably correct when he charges that the length of the scene matters more to you and him; to be fair, I had never given deep thought to the matter before, since most critics of <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> I've encountered over the years prefer to snipe about the flag, the scenes with the old Ryan, the Steamboat Willie incident and the sometimes-soapiness of Rodat's dialogue. Those are all fair game, in my opinion. The problem I have with criticisms of the length of time of the D-Day sequence, however, is that Spielberg, well... doesn't ever make it clear that he's trying to present the battle from beginning to end, from point A to point B. There's not enough evidence in the scene to give convincing weight to that argument. Trust me, though: if Spielberg HAD committed such an offense, I'd probably be sniping alongside you guys. I certainly can't argue with the argument that the bookending scenes with the old Ryan are silly and superflous--though I appreciate that small moment when he saltues Miller's grave at the end.<br /><br />Sine I'm not a diehard WWII buff (although the subject fascinates me), I can't say the inaccurate detail about the Utah paratroopers bothers me enough to feel like it compromises the narrative. If such an inaccuracy occured in a Civil War movie I might be more considerate; but since WWII was such a massive war, and since D-Day was such a spaghettied battle, I'm willing to forgive Rodat that inaccuracy. I doubt it grinded very many of the nerves of the veterans who went to see the movie--other than those who <i>were</i> Utah paratroopers, of course.<br /><br />Anyway, without killing the conversation (because I have no desire to end it; it's fine with me if you guys want to continue debating the movie here, and I'll try to invite others to join in, too), I'm really enjoying the stuff we've said here so far. Good or bad, <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> is a film that benefits from an exchange of ideas from its fans and critics.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-10133573605003900272011-01-04T21:46:38.020-08:002011-01-04T21:46:38.020-08:00Hi, guys --
OK, just to clarify. If Miller and hi...Hi, guys --<br /><br />OK, just to clarify. If Miller and his men had landed in one of the later waves, there wouldn't be only "dozens of bodies" on the beach. It would have been crammed with casualties, survivors, vehicles, landing craft, etc., etc. -- you know, just an unbelievable mess. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be the first wave. <br /><br />We can also disagree about whether the Omaha/Utah confusion is a major or minor inaccuracy. To me, it's a major one -- sort of like having Pickett's charge take place at Chancellorsville instead of Gettysburg, just in case there are any Civil War buffs out there. Maybe that's just me. <br /><br />But in case I sound like a pedant, my big objection to the D-Day sequence is that it's *emotionally* untrue to the fact about Omaha Beach that I think is most moving. Namely, that those guys really did stay hung up there for hours in a state of shock as more and more of them landed and got killed -- and THEN they found the wherewithal to get up and move forward. By that time, the whole thing looked like such a nightmare to the commanders offshore that they were seriously debating whether to write off Omaha and evacuate everybody somewhere else. Then they found out they didn't need to.<br /><br />To me, the real Omaha landing's desperate conversion of what everybody thought was a disaster into victory is a million times more moving than the quick-time heroics we see in SPR. And I wouldn't have gotten nearly as annoyed if it weren't for the way everybody claimed Spielberg was showing us how it really was. Otherwise, Mr. Zanzie, congratulations on a really terrific post, comments thread included.Tom Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01008070887949992808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-63161794835718594922011-01-02T20:14:03.571-08:002011-01-02T20:14:03.571-08:00But you said in your last post that there was no o...But you said in your last post that there was <i>no one</i> on the beach! Is this the image you were talking about that time, too? Spielberg makes it ambiguous which wave it is, but the evidence in the scene of bodies on the sand indicates that whatever wave it is, it can't be the first wave. <br /><br />And this shot is also fairly small; it only shows 2 Higgins boats and a handful of the dead bodies (not every boat and every body on the beach), so this shot alone can't be used to make a case that Miller's men arrive on Omaha at the very beginning.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-47931016873140987792011-01-02T17:40:26.409-08:002011-01-02T17:40:26.409-08:00One last time: Here is the image in question. Yes,...One last time: <a href="http://tualatinvfw.com/new/wp-content/uploads/ryan06.jpg" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the image in question. Yes, there are some bodies on the beach. Realistically, though, does it look like it's meant to be a first wave, second wave, third wave, or last wave?Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-90389042752098650152011-01-02T16:02:19.937-08:002011-01-02T16:02:19.937-08:00Craig, are you sure you're not looking at the ...Craig, are you sure you're not looking at the wrong frame or something? The first time we ever see the angle from the German POV (right under their turret gun), there are bodies of dead GIs scattered around all over the sand right when Miller's Higgins boats arrive. So I'm not sure if you're looking at a pan-and-scan version or what. For all we know, Miller and his men could be part of the second or third waves.<br /><br />I mean, true, there are some inaccuracies in the scene. Not just the matter of the Utah paratroopers, which Tom already pointed out, but also the irony of how there are no Allied ships behind Miller's boats as they're driving towards the shore. These <i>minor</i> inaccuracies don't hurt the narrative, though, and the matter of time spent on the beach is never skewed into such a way as to explicitly suggest the BEGINNING and END of the Omaha beach assault; if that were the case; Spielberg would have done what Zanuck did with <i>The Longest Day</i> and showed Germans on the beach flying into panic after first seeing the boats coming straight at them.<br /><br />Spielberg doesn't do that, though. He just tells the sequence from the perspective of boats that are caught somewhere in the middle (the end?) of the battle, thus avoiding any major inaccuracies that would give great weight to your and Tom's criticisms regarding the portrayal of the length of time.<br /><br />You're probably correct that I don't see the portrayal of time spent on the beach as so jaw-droppingly essential to the narrative as you do, but then again I don't think the issue is ripe for any convincing criticism as it's played out in <i>Saving Private Ryan</i>. I've looked at the scene again, and I don't see anything to suggest that Spielberg is trying to show D-Day from beginning to end; I see a sequence that's only showing part of it. Now, criticisms of the bookending scenes of the aged James Ryan? I'll give you that. <br /><br />Also, can you and I please trade places for one day, Craig, so that I can be the guy who gets to see <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> during its theatrical release in 1998 and you can be the 2nd grade kid begging his parents (unsuccessfully) to let him see <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> at the movie theater in the Downtown Disney square during a vacation to Orlando, Florida? I'll even endure those lectures by Stephen Ambrose and his fellow veterans demanding that I enjoy the movie, dammit!Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8545661733980837263.post-44416007778974880592011-01-01T20:12:32.470-08:002011-01-01T20:12:32.470-08:00The question is whether Spielberg fudges up the ac...<i>The question is whether Spielberg fudges up the actual time spent on the beach. Because there are already bodies on the beach we can assume Spielberg is only showing the end of it.</i><br /><br />I just watched this again tonight. When the doors of the first transport open, there is <i>no one</i> on the beach. There's even an angle from the German POV that confirms this. They are clearly among the first wave. <br /><br />Now, if we abandon the Miller's-unit-got-there-late argument, we're back to the more valid artistic point: No movie can show everything about a historical event, it has to pick and choose. Fair enough. I think the time spent on the beach -- or lack thereof -- is important, if not essential, for reasons already discussed. Clearly, you don't.<br /><br />I come at <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> based on my memories of 1998. I kid you not: You <i>could not</i> say one bad word about this movie without hell raining upon you. An aggressive PR blitz let us know how many weeks that Hanks, et al spent in boot camp, that this was the "most realistic WW2 movie ever," that Stephen Ambrose gave it his seal of approval. On and on it went. Then I go to the theater and see the movie start with the flag in our face and this horrible elderly actor and then the flashback where American soldiers storm up the beach in 25 minutes and everything else that happened after that and I think..."What are they talking about?" I try not to let what's said or done offscreen affect what's onscreen, but when the filmmakers themselves bring authenticity into the discussion, then I think it's only fair to call bullshit when their work doesn't measure up to that.<br /><br />That's why I was so grateful to read Tom Carson's piece when it came out -- to know that I wasn't the only one who disliked this picture. (Tom, if you're still reading this, let me thank you directly here.) It became fashionable to accuse Miramax of buying the vote after their upset Best Picture win at the Oscars, but I've a hunch that a lot of other people genuinely (privately) didn't like the movie either. You're coming at it after the backlash, but that wasn't always the case.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.com