Post by Capo on May 26, 2009 14:04:45 GMT
Just so as not to clutter the currently cluttered Spielberg thread...
I haven't seen it in ages, but think that the problems I had with it, if once minor, would now prove gaping flaws.
I think its action set-pieces are superbly controlled. The beach scene is numbingly intense, but its the battle scenes and shootouts in the worn-down towns that are most effective; the one with the sniper and the finale - both are masterclasses of tension, atmosphere and editing.
That's the formalistic question. But other things are more problematic. To start with, the narrative's bookended with present day scenes of the elderly Ryan. The graves are all shot and aestheticised to some beautiful harmony, of a history somehow complete (the graveyards themselves in reality are designed like this; a film which frames them in 2D does so even more). Of course, the American flag blows in the wind; everything is sunny. Spielberg foregrounds as early as this opening sequence the productivity of individual courage: he foregrounds the "contemporary American family" - none of whom we get to know, conveniently, but they're young and blonde and transgenerational and everything's real cosy.
Furthermore, why have such scenes beyond all that abstraction? The story is about Miller and his company, and how they risk their all to save one man; Ryan's quite secondary. But as it's presented in the film, the story unfolds as if it were from Ryan's memory. That's very problematic, considering he doesn't appear till two thirds in.
Other things bother me, too. To try and characterise eight men throughout an episodic account of wartime (each scene presents a "battle" if not a battle per se) is not easy, but most of the stuff is insufficient. Miller reveals he's a teacher after one of his men is killed, which deflates the horror of death with the poignancy of nostalgia; Hanks almost pulls it off (I think his performance is amazing), but the starting material lets him down. Spielberg finds himself conflicted between "getting on with the story" and allowing us the time to absorb the reality of death. It doesn't help that in the brief time we're allowed to mourn Wade's death, we do so because of the convenient (contrived) previous episode, in which he recalled a memory of his mother, sitting by candlelight in a church, the sound of battle in the distance. This is a better film than Schindler's List, but perhaps only because structurally, it's harder to notice the kitsch on display.
It gains much from its cast, but like Hanks, they're largely wasted. The script has been too crafted to make each character distinctive; as a result, the group consists of the Usual Cartoonish Suspects. When Hovarth pulls his gun out on Reiben, it's nearly laughable.
The film ignores, and keeps itself very far from, any questions of morality or perspective. The Germans are typically faceless, and what ones we do spend any time with, prove themselves to be evil cowards. I'm thinking specifically of the German who puts a knife through Mellish's heart; the direction of this scene is careful to linger on how slowly the knife is forced, on how much the Germany almost seems to relish it. Likewise, moments later, Upham's own cowardice is dwarfed (and cast aside) when juxtaposed with the German's. There's no question as to whose side Spielberg is on.
The film questions even less the war itself. It's patriotic and celebratory with regard to D-Day, and Private Ryan's own stubbornness to leave his post (which ultimately gets our protagonist in Hanks killed, and prepares us for the existential dilemma of the coda: "Tell me I've lived a good life!") is soon cast aside and rendered into a brave, courageous act. Ryan's selfishness turns into selflessness, and the film turns to questions of sacrifice. We may forgive our youth. We must strive to help them and protect them, and to secure the way for them.
Hm. I'd need to think a little more on that last paragraph.
May 25, 2009 7:22:49 GMT Blib said:
What do you guys think of Saving Private Ryan? I don't see it mentioned much, even though it has pretty good ratings by most of you.I think its action set-pieces are superbly controlled. The beach scene is numbingly intense, but its the battle scenes and shootouts in the worn-down towns that are most effective; the one with the sniper and the finale - both are masterclasses of tension, atmosphere and editing.
That's the formalistic question. But other things are more problematic. To start with, the narrative's bookended with present day scenes of the elderly Ryan. The graves are all shot and aestheticised to some beautiful harmony, of a history somehow complete (the graveyards themselves in reality are designed like this; a film which frames them in 2D does so even more). Of course, the American flag blows in the wind; everything is sunny. Spielberg foregrounds as early as this opening sequence the productivity of individual courage: he foregrounds the "contemporary American family" - none of whom we get to know, conveniently, but they're young and blonde and transgenerational and everything's real cosy.
Furthermore, why have such scenes beyond all that abstraction? The story is about Miller and his company, and how they risk their all to save one man; Ryan's quite secondary. But as it's presented in the film, the story unfolds as if it were from Ryan's memory. That's very problematic, considering he doesn't appear till two thirds in.
Other things bother me, too. To try and characterise eight men throughout an episodic account of wartime (each scene presents a "battle" if not a battle per se) is not easy, but most of the stuff is insufficient. Miller reveals he's a teacher after one of his men is killed, which deflates the horror of death with the poignancy of nostalgia; Hanks almost pulls it off (I think his performance is amazing), but the starting material lets him down. Spielberg finds himself conflicted between "getting on with the story" and allowing us the time to absorb the reality of death. It doesn't help that in the brief time we're allowed to mourn Wade's death, we do so because of the convenient (contrived) previous episode, in which he recalled a memory of his mother, sitting by candlelight in a church, the sound of battle in the distance. This is a better film than Schindler's List, but perhaps only because structurally, it's harder to notice the kitsch on display.
It gains much from its cast, but like Hanks, they're largely wasted. The script has been too crafted to make each character distinctive; as a result, the group consists of the Usual Cartoonish Suspects. When Hovarth pulls his gun out on Reiben, it's nearly laughable.
The film ignores, and keeps itself very far from, any questions of morality or perspective. The Germans are typically faceless, and what ones we do spend any time with, prove themselves to be evil cowards. I'm thinking specifically of the German who puts a knife through Mellish's heart; the direction of this scene is careful to linger on how slowly the knife is forced, on how much the Germany almost seems to relish it. Likewise, moments later, Upham's own cowardice is dwarfed (and cast aside) when juxtaposed with the German's. There's no question as to whose side Spielberg is on.
The film questions even less the war itself. It's patriotic and celebratory with regard to D-Day, and Private Ryan's own stubbornness to leave his post (which ultimately gets our protagonist in Hanks killed, and prepares us for the existential dilemma of the coda: "Tell me I've lived a good life!") is soon cast aside and rendered into a brave, courageous act. Ryan's selfishness turns into selflessness, and the film turns to questions of sacrifice. We may forgive our youth. We must strive to help them and protect them, and to secure the way for them.
Hm. I'd need to think a little more on that last paragraph.