In trying to create the most powerful anti-war experience ever made on film, Spielberg fails miserably. This is an unpopular claim, but I stand by it. My first epinion to say this was a rant that (though I say it myself) had some good points in it, but I’m not particularly proud of the way it’s written; I’ll try to write a calmer, but no less forceful, review here. The original will be included at the bottom.

The main talking point of the film has been the battle scenes that bookend the film. True, they are very well staged. But for me, they hold no emotional impact, particularly the first one. I’m prepared to believe that it is realistic, and the hand-held, gritty camerawork is meant to make me feel as though I am among the soldiers, but it doesn’t. The sight of actors falling all around me doesn’t affect me half as much as the offscreen death of Guido Orefice in La Vita e Bella . The same is true of Schindler’s List , although that is a truly great film, and easily Spielberg’s best: that killing a character that we care about, that we hope for, and that we feel we know very well, is far more powerful than the deaths of ten thousand nameless characters. The first twenty-five minutes are terribly violent and well put together, but they are gratuitous.

(I’ll talk about the final battle scene later, mostly because I find so many problems with it)

The other sequences that bookend the film are that of the old man, revealed to be Private Ryan, visiting the grave of Captain Miller (Hanks). Here, Spielberg’s message is clear, that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the soldiers who fought in World War Two, which is true. But why does he have an American praising those soldiers? America, other than the attack on Pearl Harbour, was hardly, if at all, threatened. It would make more sense to have a Frenchman, or a German, or even a Brit visiting Miller’s grave, as their countries suffered much more during the war. I realise that American audiences probably couldn’t accept a non-American Private Ryan, or the army sending a platoon to save a non-American (and they probably wouldn’t, little more than they would send a platoon to rescue one American), but it would be closer to the realism and truth Spielberg wants.

The American flags used in those sequences are pure (pardon the pun) overkill. I suppose Spielberg is trying to tell me that what America did was noble. I agree – the Third Reich needed to be stopped. But Spielberg’s love of country clouds his thinking. Let’s not forget that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel and a virtue of the vicious(Ben Johnson and Oscar Wilde respectively). And when we get down to what actually happened, is war noble? I’ll come to that later.

As it is, Spielberg’s message is weakened by the lack of restraint that made Schindler’s List so good. The old man begins to cry, a sight that brings forth emotion from the audience. When he salutes the grave, it is Spielberg compelling the audience to hear his message, rather than leaving us to find it and make up our own minds. If he had removed the old-man and American flag bookends, Spielberg’s message would have been stronger, and he wouldn’t have grabbed the audience’s hand to make it so.

The actual plot is about as standard as you can get. I know that in judging a film, you need to look at how , and not what , but if Spielberg wanted to create something ten times more powerful than anything we’d already seen, why did he choose a path that has been covered numerous times? Private Ryan is a McGuffin, a poor excuse for a story, and as for the ethnically diverse platoon they sent out for him, the characters are right out of War Movies 101. Grizzled, experienced captain (Hanks), young, inexperienced private (Davies), philosophical soldier (Pepper), and a Jew who’s obsessed by his being Jewish (Goldberg), a sergeant whose attitude is that he’s seen everything before (Sizemore), and the kid from Brooklyn (Burns). They may not be characters in every movie platoon, but they’re characters we’ve seen in other movies and are comfortable with. Of course, good dialogue and performances can overcome such clichéd roles, but screenwriter Rodat’s characters never go beyond stereotypes.

The subplot is even less convincing. Concerning Captain Miller’s origins, it does not matter where he comes from, so long as people are interested. Spielberg is here trying to give us a glimpse of life pre-1941 (I use that date because that is when America joined the war), and, by making Miller an ordinary English teacher, he is showing us the effect war has on an Everyman. That it strips us of what makes us human and worthwhile. In a symbolic act, before the final battle the soldiers listen to music, they are redeemed, and made human. The problem is, they cannot be redeemed as they have not had their humanity stripped by war, because their attitude is that every kill is a minor victory. In one scene Miller speaks at length that every kill takes him further away from Pennsylvania, and that rescuing a soldier may be his saving grace, and so he is the only one in this platoon who is really affected by war.

The best scene in the film is when the platoon are searching through the dog tags as other soldiers look on. They display the lack of respect for human life that is integral to war, especially when they think they’ve found Ryan. They look happy that he’s dead, until they realise that it’s a different soldier, and that they have to continue searching. When they realise how amazingly insensitive they are being, they are surprised, and ashamed, as they’ve tarnished the image of the soldier we’re supposedly trying to respect. Other than this scene, I found the film largely dull and uninteresting (that includes the battle scenes).

But the film that tries so hard to be realistic becomes laughable when it comes to details. No matter how young and inexperienced a soldier is, if he’s gone through basic training, he’ll know what FUBAR stands for. Soldiers dreamt of going back home, sure, but unlike the Vietnam War, here soldiers knew why they were fighting (to stop the Third Reich), and felt that they were fighting for the greater good. It wasn’t as though they didn’t understand the reason behind the war. Could Private Ryan, after all his military training, refuse an order? And why wouldn’t he want to return home, if all soldiers gripe and hate the war (given that war is hell)?

It was very well received that Saving Private Ryan symbolised a return to the war film where the soldiers are proud to fight, and proud to sacrifice themselves. Rather than sending a platoon out to wipe out a particular area, here they are sent to save a man’s life. It also signalled a change for Spielberg, having a father figure who was not shying away from responsibility to his (metaphorical) sons. But this also has the side effect of showing war to be noble. Now, I believe that World War Two needed to be fought (by 1939, even though the whole thing could probably have been avoided. That’s another story though), but I also believe war to be a complete abandonment of human principles. It is for this reason that I believe Private Ryan should have died in the final battle, and I also believe that Captain Miller should have killed him for causing his own death. This would have shown human life to be worthless in war, and would avoided the portrayal of Americans as all things good. As it is, we are meant to cheer when Upham finally finds the strength to kill, rather than be horrified that he kills in cold blood.

Which leads me to the point about the treatment of Germans. Yes, they are the enemy in most World War Two films, and I’m sure some soldiers, if not many, were Nazis hell-bent on taking over the world. But in the time the film is set, 1944, the fortunes of war had turned greatly against Germany, such that most soldiers were more concerned about surviving than destroying human life. Spielberg ignores this. His Germans are either faceless killers of the EVIL EVIL kind, or one soldier who betrays his word to Upham, and tries to manipulate him into not killing him. If war is truly hell as Spielberg wants us to see, it is hell for everyone fighting, not just Americans sent to do a noble deed. For that matter, the lack of any soldiers from any other nation is just as inaccurate. Why exactly are there no French resistance fighters, or British soldiers? Sure, there is little reason to include Japanese, or Russians, because they weren’t fighting in the area, but again, if war is hell, that principle goes for anyone and everyone fighting or trying to live during it.

Where I do not fault the film at all is from a technical standpoint. The film is finely edited (although overlong), the sound effects are appropriately loud and mind-numbing. The battle scenes are somewhat exciting, but not at all moving. The draining of colour in the film is a good move – it’s unusual to watch, and it keeps our eyes working. Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography is excellent, and although it is perfectly suited to the film, I did prefer John Toll’s work for Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line ,as it reflected that film’s theories on war, rather than this one’s bludgeoning the audience.

I realise that most of the faults I find in the film are to do with the ideas it has, and not the story it tells. But changing the story would have had clearer messages and a more powerful film. But in going for “The Greatest Anti-war Film of All Time”, as Saving Private Ryan is often lauded, he makes war exciting, patriotic, noble and in every way worthwhile, with the downside that people die. Without intending to, Spielberg has made the greatest pro-war film of all time.




Check out the other Re-Write Off participants:
1truluv adjensen arada392 bermudabum bmcnichol cartman_2k ChrisJarmick colldy ed_grover eplovejoy fallyn96 jankp jcvsmom jo.com joubert lynnzop machkick magenta321 msmorvay naphtalia nfp proeditor quasar saxguy scmrak sloucho Social14 tinasamuels

Apparently, you can also reach the new opinions from eplovejoy’s page:
http://www.epinions.com/user-eplovejoy

Original review: (August 27,2000)

"Saving Private Ryan" has to go down as one of the most overrated movies ever made. It just has nothing going for it. I cannot list all the reasons as to why I hate it, but here are just some.

The cliche - USA gets a stock platoon: tough experienced guy, loser inexperienced guy (who can kill at the end), and a few soldiers who are there to become corpses; and their job is to recruit the most patriotic soldier the world's ever seen. If war were really complete hell, what soldier wouldn't accept a ride home? Incidentally, why is it that in American war films, there are no soldiers from any other Allied countries?

Also, the story, desperately in need of a subplot decides to have the flimsy device of where Captain Miller comes from. It really doesn't matter where it is, just so long as people can keep talking about it. Couldn't we have had a decent story?

"Ryan" is dull. 169 minutes, with one good scene - where the soldiers are going through dog-tags and getting stared at. Even the much publicised violence is completely without emotion (I realise this is debatable). I was looking at my watch 10 minutes in.

On the plus side (and I'm reaching for one) it is technically a masterpiece. Editing, sound...all of that. Except I preferred John Toll's camera-work in "The Thin Red Line" (a far superior, if philosophical war film).

Spielberg was trying to create the most powerful anti-war film ever made, agreed? His message is garbled. The film shows us that it is not only noble to fight for your country, but noble to die. Look at "Paths of Glory" - Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Also - why not show war to be futile by having Ryan die? Even better - have Miller kill him for causing his own death. That would have shown war to be a complete abandonment of all human principles, and left us with a better film.


Recommended:
No

Video Occasion: None of the Above