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

[Kev Owens]

"...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 size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously not posted by any members; but I have to disagree with that. Okay so in terms of the story we have a scene that isn't pushing the narrative forward leaps and bounds but I'd seen it as the film attempting to depict the harshness of war AND setting the scene for the rest of the film- war; for the battling soldiers is hopeless, pointless, depressing and nobody can win- it ends when someone else says so. [The setting of the scene] Where's the humanity is what I believe the rest of the film attempts to answer. Therefore the idea of SPR as exploitation is bu11shit in my view.

HOWEVER, as I've mentioned before- with so much focus on what REALLY happened- why the 100% focus on American troops (plus the stars and stripes start and finish) and the no-show of any other allied troops of different nationalities? Nothing else stands out as much to make it appear fictional.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

I would agree that the opening sets the tone, but...

This is like, what, the nine millionth WW2 movie made. The "war is h*ll" thing is a cliche by now. As is the notion that in war "nobody wins." This is nothing new. Does the audience need to be reminded of this in the beginning? And it's not like the rest of the film doesn't illustrate this point.

I'm tempted to say that Spielberg came pretty close to treating Normandy in the same way that Bruckheimer and Bay treated Hawaii. Except of course he did it first. But because he's practically filmmaking royalty no one's gonna say anything. And the fact that he did degrade the images and didn't parade the pretty boy actors.

I suppose this would raise the question, "Is the recreation of intense inhumane battle scenes always exploitation?" I'd say it depends on the context. But I'll use the 9/11 example again - When someone finally makes a mainstream movie about 9/11, and we all know it'll eventually happen, will it be absolutely necessary to recreate the planes smashing into the WTC? Haven't we all seen it enough times on CNN, etc? Again, depending on context.

The storming of Normandy has been captured on film before SPR.

[Kev Owens]

Posted by GREATwarEAGLE: Does the audience need to be reminded of this in the beginning?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As a film-maker you don't allow other films that have been made to set the scene, tone or narrative for your film. Why should that be different here? The audience are not being reminded of anything at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan, it is setting the scene for THIS film.

And it's not like the rest of the film doesn't illustrate this point.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree- I don't think the rest of the film illustrates this point in the same way at all.

Plus, I think your argument here:

This is like, what, the nine millionth WW2 movie made. The "war is h*ll" thing is a cliche by now.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">... is redundant. How many gangster films are there, westerns, horror etc. as well as war films? All convey generic conventions of their genre. Here we have; 'War is he11'- what exactly would you expect? You can't ignore the true horror that occurred and convey a message of the war was great and everyone loved fighting it- so I'd have to disagree that it was cliche.

I think the real cliche is the American heroes...

[Xendar]

While I found SPR very entertaining, I also found the main action sequences very disturbing as they (to me anyway) seemed so realistic. I haven't ever seen anything else that I imagine could convey what it must have been like on the battlefield. Had the beach landing been any longer than 20 minutes then I don't think I could have watched anymore, so disturbing as it was. If the film is meant to be saying "war is **** " then the beach landing is essential to illistrate this point and show how futile the war was.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

There are no rules in filmmaking, I think we can all agree. But there are common accepted guidelines and suggested "do's" and "don'ts". And I agree, fillmmakers shouldn't get into the habit of relying on other movies to tell their story. But they often do, sometimes it's called homage. I'm not a fan of it, though. Read here for more on that.

Using gangster, westerns as an example of reoccurring themes. Consider the variation of the specific plots among these movies. How many of them continue to recreate the same old thing? And if they do, I'd ask the same thing - is it necessary for plot & character?

SPR does focus on a different aspect of the war, but drags Normandy into the picture. It's not relying on other movies, its relying on human history - it's not a fictional story that only exists in Spielbergs imagination. It can be found in a wide variety of sources:

Books
Magazines
Newspapers
TV nightly news
Schools
Internet
Other movies
Documentaries
Music
TV news magazines
And even video games

The true story of WW2 and Normandy can be found in all the above resources, and has been even way before SPR was released, with exception to video games. But the stories of most fictional films are entirely new ideas.

Just as "not relying on other movies" is a suggested guideline, I think so is "not dumbing down your script to appeal to the lowest common denominator." ALL MOVIES rely on public awareness. Of course when the filmmakers make films, there is the realization that not EVERYBODY is going to get the message. Not everybody is going to completely understand what's going on. Language is an example. I'm Amercian so therefore I will make films where the charcters speak English. I don't concern myself with those who cannot speak English. OR dialect. Before the Full Motny, I, being American, had never heard of the term "quid". But the filmmakers assumed that their general audience would understand what quid meant. They didn't spell it out. Most films deal with specific cultural and societal issues that will always be foreign and probably misunderstood by outsiders. Otherwise, EVERY film ever made would have to start at the beginning of time, including all of mankind's inventions, discoveries, and achievements up until the actual film story begins.

In the DARKO AND DIRECTING thread, I agree that the film should not rely on the website or even DVD commentary to fill in the gaps. Because it's a fictional film. But take one scene for example where Donnie's teacher (Noah Wyle) has to end the time travel discussion because it's heading in the direction of religion. I'm sure a few people may not have understood what that meant, but I did, and I appreciated not being spoon-fed. The director didn't "dumb it down" - he relied on public awareness of an actual law that says religion is not to be taught in the classroom.

I'm a huge fan of Micheal Mann. But I don't always 100% agree with how he tells his stories. ALI for example. I thought it was unnecessary to actually show Malcom X getting shot. There were a million other ways to do this other than just blatantly cramming it in our face, not only because Spike Lee had just done it 10 years earlier but because obviously 99% of ALI's audience knows the details of that ACTUAL HISTORIC incident. And obviously the majority of the audience for ALI had seen MALCOM X. It's naive to deny that. Again, these are films based on recorded history.

However, in the beginning of the film, when ALI fights Sonny Liston, we don't actually see the liniment (medication) being poured on Liston's gloves, only Ali reacting to the burning. I thought that was good.

If the purpose of every war film is to generally remind us of how bad it is, then that's quite silly. The filmmakers are preaching to the choir.

But to illustrate specific events or aspects is something else. Which is what SPR is, how an entire family could be wiped out and how heroism prevented that from happeneing. That basic premise is entirley intact without Normandy. The war is still h*ll without Normandy - it is h*ll because one mother is left with only one son.

Pretty much all of SPR is combat, illustrating war is h*ll. And the scene, for me, that demonstrates this even better than the Normandy invasion is the intimate chest-stabbing towards the end of the film. It's not random gunfire or anonymous grenades - it's personal. The poor kid is pleading for his life while the German whispers to him, "Sssshhhhhh" and sticks the blade into him. That scene was far more gripping and intense than anything on the beach. But, just my opinion, which is what this whole discussion is.

Nothing personal is being said- we're just exchanging and offering different perspectives. Good clean fun that is a good exercise in sharpening our own filmmaking ideologies, which is never a bad thing. Maybe we'll learn from one another - maybe we won't.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 20, 2003 07:46 PM: Message edited by: GREATwarEAGLE ]</font>

[Alex]

Originally posted by Xendar:
While I found SPR very entertaining, I also found the main action sequences very disturbing as they (to me anyway) seemed so realistic. I haven't ever seen anything else that I imagine could convey what it must have been like on the battlefield. Had the beach landing been any longer than 20 minutes then I don't think I could have watched anymore, so disturbing as it was. If the film is meant to be saying "war is **** " then the beach landing is essential to illistrate this point and show how futile the war was.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with everything but the very last line.

"and show how futile the war was".

Lets not forget that there probably was no choice when one talks about World War II, so to say it was a futile war might be considered a nonsequeter. (I have no idea how to spell that word)

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 23, 2003 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[The Cavity]

Did anybody actually read that essay? Josh Becker is so hypocritical it's frightening I share the ideas offered by GREATwarEAGLE in the same post from his website. I have totally repremanded my previous statements: SPEILBERG IS GOD.