Log in

View Full Version : In Defense of "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN" - Click here only if you



American Kid
17th July 2002, 05:32
Hey everyone.

Vox put a link onto one of his posts. It brought me to a review of "Saving Private Ryan", my favorite movie, sorry, "film", of all time.

"Private Ryan" means a lot to me. I could get into it, and be on the computer until two in the morning, but I'll state simply that I truly adore and hold dear every frame. And I consider my first viewing of it, a few years ago when it first came out, to be one of the penultimate moments of my maturation into adulthood. Yes, the Kid knows big words. It opened me up to what would become one of the true passions of my life, WW2, and left me determined to go back and trace my grandfather's own combat duty during his time as a paratrooper in Europe, particularly during the Battle of the Bulge.

Vox's review was written by a gentleman named Howard Zinn. A hardcore, welfare endorsing right-winger myself, I'd never heard of him before. And I take from it that he's a vet himself. The review was well-written, the punctuation and grammar were impeccable, becoming of any reputable critique (my "Fight Club" review from "chit chat" being an example of the other side of this how-to equation). But it's content (or *ahem* therum, if you will) however, left me shaking my head.

He condemns war. Which is understandable. I've never been in combat. I've hardly ever been in a fistfight. I'm a hemopheliac, I try to avoid conflict at all costs (maybe why I'm so quick with my words, eh?). But his condemnation of the film, and suggestion that it brings up topics and discussions best left swept under the rug and never spoken about again is OUTRAGEOUS.

"I watched the movie's extreordanarily photographed battle scenes, and I was thoroughly taken in. But when the movie was over, I realized that it was exactly that- I had been taken in."


I was taken in also. And, more significantly, I was also scared shitless. Steven Spielberg, through cinema alone, achieved what scientists probably will not for thousands of years, if ever: time travel. This film is not fucking entertainment. It is graphic, and stomach-churning, and disturbing and terrible and I describe my first viewing of it to people as being like being trapped in a nightmare. And that's what he aimed for. It is truly a miraculous pair of sequences, the beginning and ending. Just by staring at a screen, whether it's TV or canvas, you are placed back fifty years in history. Of course, no one, save the poor boys, German and American, who were there, could ever REALLY know what it was like, but after watching it through Spielberg's lense, you understand enough. You understand through the quickening of your pulse, the sweat in your palms, and squirming in your seat. You come away, and thank God it's over. That's the magic of cinema.

"Some viewers have asked, how can anyone want to go to war after seeing such horror? But knowing the horrors of war has never been an obstacle to a quick build-up of war spirit by patriotic political speeches and an obsequious press."

So what does Zinn suggest we do? Burn all the negatives? Send storm troopers in formation to ransack every Blockbuster video nationwide for copies of this counterrevolutionary propaganda thereby saving the youth of this country from being seduced into joining the military by it's images of limbs being blown off and young men dying in the arms of their friends, deleriously beckoning their mother.....?

Obviously not. But it's a rediculous, pointless whine nonetheless. This was actually the most disturbing snippet of the review for me. How dare he play thought police. He thinks us youth are so dumb that we're going to be lured into the glory of death and mass murder- that is war- by watching this movie. And it couldn't be farther from the truth. I've never spoken to anyone who saw the movie and heard them say: "Private Ryan? Dude, that's why I joined the army." Everyone, EVERYONE I've ever spoken to who's seen that movie says the same thing: "It made me never want to go to war...." That's the truth, Vox. I'm a catholic, and I'll swear on a bible.

This is also one of the reasons I was so insulted by you suggesting I get kicked out of here. By doing that, you would SUCCEED in doing what exactly it is Zinn here is suggesting is for the better: silencing the opposition. I can't believe it, but Zinn is actually saying this film is better off never having been made. That it's a fucking larf, proof of how dumb the "vulgar masses" are, and how paramount it is their puny, impressionable minds are protected from such nonsense.

"Our culture is in deep trouble when a film like "Saving Private Ryan" can pass by, like a military parade, with nothing but a shower of confetti and hurrahs for it's color and grandeur."

No, but seriously I hate being condescended. Firstly, I've no idea what confetti or hurrahs he's talking about. Perhaps he mistook this for the celebration that was going on his head as he wrote this, basking in the glory of his own self-serving fashionable counter-culture pessimism. Watching Private Ryan is never a party, and when it was out in theatres, people weren't out partying at the bar down the street afterwards, giddy and warm with nationalistic pride, toasting to uncle sam, filled with vigor and high-spirits. Personally I remember my friends and I didn't speak the whole ride home afterwards. We were all sort of in a state of shock. When I got home I couldn't sleep. The next day I called my friends and we talked about it for hours. We weren't high-fiving each other- we were mournful. The conversations were probably more remeniscent of things you'd hear after a wake, as opposed to after watching a 300 million dollar- grossing Hollywood movie.
I have the DVD and these days, when I watch it, I make sure I won't be interrupted. I turn the fucking ringer off. I sit there in the dark, and I too, like Mr. Zinn, let the movie take me. But when it's over, I don't jump up and cheer and feel great about the world. Usually I'm pretty choked up and sometimes I end up crying.

"Saving Private Ryan" is an important film. It changed my life, and many other people's too. Howard Zinn's review of it is mind-boggling. It makes sense to me, though, Vox, why you're such a big fan of his. I now see where you draw your inspiration to knee-jerk react and attempt to sweep things under the rug, when you don't agree with them. How far does Zinn expect his beliefs to be implemented, practically-speaking, in this world, I wonder? If Zinn had his way, would someone like Spielberg be allowed, legally, to make this sort of film. Or would he be "silenced" I wonder......Well, we all know what would happen to me, if you had your way.

But I'm still here.

-American Kid

(Edited by American Kid at 6:14 am on July 17, 2002)

vox
17th July 2002, 06:14
Zinn is an historian and, after re-reading the piece I linked, I don't see how you can say that he would not allow the film to be made. He doesn't even hint at that. Rather, he wrote an essay in "The Progressive." That's the free exchange of ideas, not a call for censorship at all. The mind boggles at the very allegation.

Much of your post is about how seeing this movie made you and your friends not want to go to war. That's good. However, it's hard to discredit Zinn's assertion that "'Saving Private Ryan,' aided by superb cinematographic technology, draws on our deep feeling for the GIs in order to rescue, not just Private Ryan, but the good name of war." And certainly, that was never questioned. When we saw the flags waving as the bombs were dropping on civilians in Afghanistan, we knew that most people, and this includes people who saw SPR, supported this action.


Considering that much of what you write has to do with not joining the Army, perhaps we should look at what people who actually are in the Army think about killing in a war:

"When a helmeted captain-- seated at the controls of a helicopter-- speaks about being part of the Army's "air cavalry," her voice is a blend of military fervor and adolescent zest. "The mission of the cav is to spot the enemy," she says. "It's cool, too, because we get to engage the enemy as well with the guns and everything on our aircraft. It's a challenge and it's really, it's a lot of fun. Heck, what other job can you fire weapons in?" She laughs."

That's from a recruitment video (http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020711.html) given out, for free, by the US Army. And the Army spent a lot of money on this, it wasn't simply slapped together. According to Linda Wolf, the CEO of the Army's main private ad agency, Leo Burnett Worldwide, "The key with any advertising is understanding the target that that advertising is directed at... We dug into our target and really understood them."

So it looks like the horror of war is still being glossed over, and cheered on by the, to use your term, "vulgar masses." Indeed, it's being used as a selling point in a recruitment video.

But you're a film fanatic, right? Great. What did you think of "All Quiet on the Western Front?" The original 1930 version directed by Lewis Milestone, of course. I thought that was an outstanding film which conveyed the true horror of war.

vox

death b4 dishonour
17th July 2002, 06:32
I have seen both Saving Private Ryan and All Quiet on the Western Front, and I agree that they both showed the horrible aspects of war, and like AK, I felt somewhat matured after seeing them and realizing that war isnt all that much fun. ( I think I was 12 or sumthing when i first saw Saving Private Ryan, and 10 when I first saw All Quiet on the Western Front). I think the image that disturbed me the most and haunted me for quite some time was the ending of All Quiet, when the young german is shot by a sniper while looking at the butterfly.

American Kid
17th July 2002, 06:33
I really like "All Quiet" a lot. It's funny, I always think of my Grandmother when I think of it because she loves that movie. Before it's time, too. "All Quiet" is still quite graphic and violent and disturbing. "Paths of Glory" is similarily an amazing film.

Lookit, the children in Afghanistan being bombed, it's abhorrant. Do I think carpet bombing a la Berlin '45 was the way to go? Negative. We should've sent in ground troops. We would've found these bastards we were looking for, but hat's beauacracy for you. We fight from far away, with remote controls. Can't let "our" boys get hurt. No, I think it's stupid, and you'll never find me arguing on the side of "Yeah, let's kill 'em all!" any day.

Your army recruitment video is amusing though. I haven't watched it yet, but I can imagine. I pictured it in my head, complete with the toothy, shit-eating grin and a thumbs up for the camera. Please don't compare that shit to "Private Ryan" :) Lookit, I think you have me wrong in some ways here, Vox. I'm not 100% for war, or necessarily for US foriegn policy across the board, unconditionally. Though I do stand by my government, and even if I don't agree with their methods, it's the convicitons behind them I do not doubt. We had to go to Afganistan and get those motherfuckers. We carpet-bombed, so be it. But I'm not going to go dis-owning my country because of it. I truly feel bound to........choose sides.

And lastly, in further defense of "Private Ryan", the thing that really strikes me about it, is Spielberg has more money than God. As of 1998, he'd already achieved everything anyone can in the world of film. He'd had unparralleled success, box-office-wise, and he'd made a number of artistically satisfying films and won the directing oscar for "Schindler's List." He ran his own studio (with partners, Dreamworks), and basically was on top of the world. He had every reason to throw in the towel on filmmaking, hang up his bullhorn and beret, and spend out the rest of his days sipping margaritas in the Carribean. But he didn't. He rolled up his sleeves, went out to Ireland and made "Saving Private Ryan". And that's why he's my hero.

-Kid


(Edited by American Kid at 6:36 am on July 17, 2002)

ID2002
17th July 2002, 06:34
War is nothing to be proud of. But I do like a good solid action flick once and a while ;)

"Saving Private Ryan" was a good film... I agree!

death b4 dishonour
17th July 2002, 06:58
I have a question for AK, the resident Saving Private Ryan Expert. Is the German at the radar site that Tom Hanks and his group take prisoner the same guy in the town at the end of the movie that the guy who is afraid to shoot anyone shoots?

American Kid
17th July 2002, 07:19
Yep. Corporal Upham blows him away. This is symbolic I suppose of the death of the comradarie between men which is one of the countless nasty, fatal by-products of war. This is a guy who Upham gave himself to in a time of need, connected with on a human level, when everyone else was ready execute him on the spot. Basically, Upham saved his life, but only for him to live to kill Capt. Miller (Hanks), and then for Upham to ultimately have to end up killing him himself anyway. Very, very tragic, intense stuff. It's indicitive of the "character" that violence is portrayed as throughout the entire film: as a random mass murderer, as a force of nature-during war- which is more powerful than anything.

ALSO, he's NOT the guy who kills Mellish (the jewish guy who gets stabbed through the heart; a scene not without it's own profound symoblism; not an accident on Spielberg's part, I would imagine) while Upham has a breakdown on the stairs. EVERYONE thinks it's the same guy. But it's not. I've actually taken the time and examined this, frame by frame. I sort of wish it was though, it would give a nice elliptical aspect to the storyline. Though I suppose it has one anyway, with the guy actually showing up soon after that (conspicuously without helmet, also).

I always thought it would have been cool at the end of "Full Metal Jackett" if the chick sniper had turned out to be the whore they all gang-banged before. Again, ellipticallness......osity.....Still a good flick, though.

I know, Vox. Academia.......We'll talk some other time.

-pfc Kid

death b4 dishonour
17th July 2002, 07:38
Thank you for the explaination AK.

"I always thought it would have been cool at the end of "Full Metal Jackett" if the chick sniper had turned out to be the whore they all gang-banged before. Again, ellipticallness......osity.....Still a good flick, though. "

yea i thought about this too, that woman was a really good shot tho. that had to be at least a 150-200 metre shot on those GI's with an AK47....

American Kid
17th July 2002, 13:43
Ha.....meters.....I'm American, you might as well be speaking Chinese!

Your welcome though

-Kid

RedCeltic
17th July 2002, 14:23
150- 200 m is about = 492 - 656 feet ( slightly rounded off)

Anonymous
17th July 2002, 14:31
well war movies are grat, buit bether tahn war movies are the documentary! because in movies no one dies, in documentarys you really see death, also no film can give you the feeling of battle, all they can do is describe that feeling also all movies of war normally show only the allies side, well they dont talk what is too be in the nazis skin, see that in germany they had to recruit, and during that process they were brain washed, somethimes they didnt liked what they were doing, but they had to do it, and dont forget the east front, all nazis were afraid of the east front! and until today all i have seen is a movia that tells the story of a russian sniper, they didnt shoewd up how the soviets killed the german snipers, (the soviets trained dogs not to rescue people but to follow german snipers and kill them!) thats how the famous german sniper in the "enemys at the gates" were killed!

vox
17th July 2002, 17:47
"Though I do stand by my government, and even if I don't agree with their methods, it's the convicitons behind them I do not doubt. We had to go to Afganistan and get those motherfuckers. We carpet-bombed, so be it. But I'm not going to go dis-owning my country because of it. I truly feel bound to........choose sides."

What "convictions behind them?" Like holding US citizens incommunicado? Like tax cuts for the rich and tax hikes for the poor? I guess the destruction of the Bill of Rights is a conviction, but not one I support.

No, Kid, I think I understand pretty well. You don't agree with Bush, but you support him. Have one of those stickers that says "Bush Supporter Since 9/11?" It's quite clear, really--cheap jingoism masquerading as principled decision.

So be it, indeed. How vile.

vox

vox
17th July 2002, 17:52
"Please don't compare that shit to 'Private Ryan.'"

I didn't, and anyone who reads my post can plainly see that.

vox

American Kid
17th July 2002, 18:49
Touche. But it still seems like there's an inference that you're making it guilt by association.

"But it still seems like there's an inference that you're making it guilt by association."

But I'm not. You can see that clearly in my post. Anyone in their right mind would. Go back and read it again, American Kid

(figured I'd do it for you) (if you're going to fight with your aces up your sleave, then so am I:)

I heard it through the uh..............GRAPEVINE, Vox, that uh.............Okay, let's say I frantically recieved a mysterious, unexpected message via courier last night. It contained word that you were, well, that you were squirting a few over my.........quote.

Ha.................ha, ha ha. Funny, I was about to change it anyway. Ironic. Well, the protocol usually in that situation is I don't change a fucking thing. But I don't dictate my life according to dickhead know-it-alls with obnoxiously single-sylallbled monikers on the internet.

But my sincerest condolences.

By the way, next time you can come directly to me, instead of whining by behind my back to others, moderators, et al........

By the way, during my "incident" with you, I recieved quite a few messages from people telling me to relax, it wasn't a big deal. And I can tell you, factually, that you're not particularly "loved" around here, either, Vox......

-the troll

ps, hopefully this is the one that makes you stop talking to me

vox
18th July 2002, 01:23
Stop talking to you? Nope. No reason to do that. Although you don't seem to have much to say, but then, you're just trolling at this stage. Pathetic.

As for people not liking me, too damn bad. I'm not here to make friends.

vox

American Kid
18th July 2002, 03:04
Well then you're batting a thousand.

I fucking hate you.

-The Kid

Ian
19th July 2002, 03:51
Penultimate means 2nd last or last thing before the ultimate, not how you used it.

American Kid
19th July 2002, 03:53
The next day, after I saw "Ryan" I whacked my first snitch for Fat Tony. That is when I became a man.

That's why watching "Saving Private Ryan" was but "penultimate".

-La Cosa Kid

(Edited by American Kid at 3:54 am on July 19, 2002)