Is "Saving Private Ryan" pure entertainment and nothing more?

[Alex]

Originally posted by SoulJacker:
Hey, Saving Private Ryan is pure entertainment...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I find this fascinating in a "I don't agree or disagree" kind of way.

[emjen]

First let me say that Saving Private Ryan is one of my favorite movies.

Let us define 'entertainment' first. I think entertainment and ?commerciality' can both do with and without each other. If a film is very entertaining (maybe it?s more, but lets just talk about the one aspect of entertainment here) it will be a commercial succes. When a film is very commercial, that means the ?makers? have done their best making it as entertaining as possible.

And as for saving private ryan, i don?t think they?ve made it as entertaining as possible. In fact, I recall one of my friends saying after he saw SVP ?Man, I actually don?t really like this movie. I didn?t like it when I saw it`. What he meant was that he felt so shjitty watching the invasion of normandy. (he?s kind of a wuss too. He?s afraid of Chucky)

Steven Spielberg is in a way comparable with Hitchock, master of mainstream. SVP has good scenes, the film is good. I don?t find it an entertaining film. Terminator 3 was entertaining, that was just a bunch of action scenes with some funny one liners packed together, but it had no real heart.

Hurrah.

[Alex]

I'd like to outright say that "Saving Private Ryan" is more than pure entertainment because the film is about a war that probably was one of the top three defining periods from the last century.

Also, for us to call it pure entertainment may be very callous and disrespectful because frankly, those events had worldwide signficance and that war probably prevented other World Wars and therefore have spared many others from having to go to war in subsequent years.

On the other hand, I've never seen Saving Private Ryan from the beginning to end, and yet every time I've watched it, no matter how far along the movie was when I clicked on it while channel surfing, I have been immediately engrossed.

Is that not entertainment? [img]redface.gif[/img]

Can a film be entirely entertaining and still be more than entertainment?

[Kev Owens]

Posted by Alex because the film is about a war

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SPR is not about a war, it is a fictional story told within the backdrop of a real event (being World War II).

If it were more concerned about being more real and less entertaining then perhaps we'd see more than just the stars and stripes at the start and finish of the movie to signify that in fact it was not just: USA Vs. Germany.

At the very least I believe SPR attempts to give the viewer some idea of the horror of war.

[An interesting comparison are two previous Spielberg movies Indiana Jones (Raiders and Last Crusade) which are also fictional events based during world wars and directly involving 'those pesky nazis'- but they couldn't possibly be any more different. ]

But if the film weren't entertaining then would anyone watch it?

[miker]

Not entirely fictional.

Perhaps we are too used to seeing the enemy drop dead when they are shot.

What about the evil found in Schindler's List ... entertaining? Or fascinating?

Both are chilling IMO.

[Kev Owens]

[CLARIFICATION] I used 'fictional' because the boundaries of what's true and what's not is often too blurred to claim it as a true story(especially with Schindlers List). Perhaps 'dramatised' is a better word. [/CLARIFICATION]

[miker]

dude, you should read the link I posted all the way through ;-)

I just wanted to point out that SPR was 'inspired' by the truth - but your original assessment is largely accurate.

my bad phrasing of hyperlinks, lol

[Alex]

Originally posted by miker:
Not entirely fictional.

Perhaps we are too used to seeing the enemy drop dead when they are shot.

What about the evil found in Schindler's List ... entertaining? Or fascinating?

Both are chilling IMO.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I found this quote from your link...

"But remember, it is not reality even though the first 20 minutes of the film is probably the best depiction of combat ever brought to the screen. The film conveys the terror, the horror, and the brutality of combat extremely well. The reality was far worse. In the real battle for Normandy there 237,966 allied casualties and 200,000 German".

-------------------------

"the first 20 minutes of the film is probably the best depiction of combat ever brought to the screen."

Hmmm, that's got to put it above the "pure entertainment" category.

[SoulJacker]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SoulJacker:
Hey, Saving Private Ryan is pure entertainment...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this fascinating in a "I don't agree or disagree" kind of way.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, I was waiting for someone to pull me up on this. The above quote (imo) is nothing more than an 'in-joke' with Miker.

If you've been here a while, I suspect you may know what I'm on about...

[GREATwarEAGLE]

It seems to me that there only two things about SPR that separate it from previous (lack of a more specific term) "war" movies and are probably the reason for the majority of its success. And both are highly superficial.

1. Offset shutter speed.
2. Muted gray color scheme.

Since SPR, just about every Hollywood war film has copied these two cinematography tricks.

However, the issue of "pure entertainment." Most veterans of that war have responded with deep respect for the film. Which I think says something of its magnittude. But you could argue that WW2 veterans aren't very well educated in filmmaking and are naive to how much better the story could have been told in a cinematic medium.

I myself thought the movie was okay, but am not at all in love with the film. I don't own it.

The following two quotes were taken from this guy's opinion on SPR - click here to read the whole thing. I think he makes some solid observations.

"The basic point of "Ryan," I'd say, is: War is h*ll. The basic point of "Amistad" is: Slavery is bad. Steven Spielberg likes to shoot fish in a barrel, or perhaps he just doesn't like to argue, because his themes are without opposition. I don't think you'll find anyone around that will dispute that war is h*ll or slavery is bad. If there's no dispute, however, then there's no drama, and if there's no drama, then what the h*ll are we left with? Spielberg manages to make big movies on important subjects that once you've left the theater there is absolutely nothing to discuss. ("You know, war is h*ll." "It sure is, where do you want to eat?")"

"...the entire Normandy invasion is dramatically unnecessary. Admittedly, it's the best thing in
the film by a mile, but if you cut it off you wouldn't dramatically miss a thing. Therefore, it is exactly the definition of an "exploitation movie" - "the dramatically unnecessary taking of human life to achieve visceral thrills or shocks."

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 19, 2003 03:42 PM: Message edited by: GREATwarEAGLE ]</font>