Hey Paul (and Karen):
In regards to your letter concerning Private Ryan. I saw it opening
day with Jenn here at the new Regal Cinemas that just opened a few
miles from our house.
For the most part, I agree with your letter; however, I don't think
that there was much of a movie beyond what you and everyone else I've
read reviews from liked about it. True, there were spectacular scenes
of war and violence and you really felt like you were there and in
battle and being shot at and running up the beach and sneaking through
villages and about to be shot at any moment - but aside from this -
where was the story? The plot - pssf - you've got to admit, it was
pretty dull and there wasn't much to it. The characters? So many of
them got lost in all the shuffle that I felt nothing for any of them
when any and many of them bought it. Of the 8 men who made this
journey, the only ones I felt were real and human at all were Hanks
and Davies. And Davies was so annoying I wish he would have been shot.
And to digress to that point - the major story flaw I found was Davies
not being killed by the German soldier as he left the building after
killing the Jewish guy. What kind of message is this telling us?
That if you are a whinning, scared cry baby you'll survive a war? I
know, he had to be around to kill the German that they let go later on
in the movie, but I thought that that was REAL weak.
The rest of the people I didn't really care about. Nor did I feel I
was given a reason to. The only one I felt anxious to care about was
Ryan, and he wasn't anything too worth of my emotions either.
I thought that whenever the movie tried to be emotional that it was
too forced. Kind of like, "Okay, let's stop the war now so we can get
some close-ups of these guys faces and let them practice their
monologues." The whole church scene was like this for me.
And private Ryan? After one short little protest scene and a clip for
the oscars where he talks about the last time he saw his brothers,
what else was there to him? Just those corny bookends and the
beginning and end of the movie where I think the older actor did a
better job of displaying a sense of character that Damon did during
his whopping 40 minutes of screen time.
To sum up - Yes I thought it was a great movie. It had wonderfully
shot scenes that looked spectacular and was exciting to watch. It was
supurbly directed and edited, and had a very realistic look and energy
about it. It just had no story, or rather a stupid story that was
pointless and contrived and very little character development. I
wasn't really bothered by any of the violence either. It was very
well done, and I loved the randomness and chaos of it all, but I
didn't find any of it "Shocking" like so many of the reviewers have
decreed. I guess maybe I was expecting more having read all that
about it, and was really prepared for something a lot worse.
Definitly a must see, if for no other reason that to appreciate the
attention to detail that went into this and the degree of skill
involved in making it. Top ten list? Maybe now, but we'll see what
comes out later. Best picture? No thanks. It needs to be more well
rounded that that to get my vote there.
By the way, Jenn HATED Private Ryan, and said she just couldn't get
into the movie at all. I've seen this reaction from a few other women
who've seen it too, although most were turned off by the first 25
minutes. Jenn wasn't bothered by this, she just thought it went on
too long. She agreed with me about the other aspects of the film, and
since she wasn't into the war scenes, that didn't leave her much to
enjoy I guess.
Anyway, got to get going, I took a break from work to respond, so I
should get back to what I have to do.
Talk to you soon.
Mark
HOLY SHIT!!!!!
The plot, my friend, is that 8 men, having survived the hellish nightmare of the Normandy invasion are then asked by their government to GO BACK into the battle to find as they call it "a needle in a stack of needles". You've seen this before? That's a story, and there is nothing dull or unoriginal about it. They also, as they go, have to fight a war. What they're up against is pretty damn heavy! The first 25 minutes of the movie can establish what frame of mind our troop it going to be in when they go, thus causing the debate of "should 8 men risk their lives for one?". Well, these men sum up the entire purpose and existence of war. Men go overseas and die so that the country can live on. Whether you agree with it or not, that's what happens. We all need to 'earn' the priveleges we've gotten from men who've died in combat. Some people say you're not patriotic if you won't die for your country. The horrors on the beach of Normandy really put that patriotism to the test. Plus, half the men don't even KNOW the guy who's leading them. There's alot of stuff happening, perhaps you took it for granted.
The men aren't "STOCK MOVIE CHARACTERS NUMBERS ONE THROUGH EIGHT", and I'm happy for that. There isn't time to feel for them, you're right. The whole movie is summed up when Hanks says, "We're not here to do the decent thing, we're here to follow orders!" These men are soldiers, they left their "character" back in the states. It's always been this way in war films. List all the quirky personalities found in characters from "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket"(2nd half) and "Schindler's List". You only get a few per film. (And for the record, if old-time war movies had personalities like John Wayne, this movie blows the myth of their unshaking heroism out of the water, and gives the WWII soldier a realism, thank God). This film's quirkiest characters were the sniper who felt God gave him the gift of killing and Jeremy Davies. And I think you're WAY OFF with him. He embodies the fear that no doubt 90% would have in combat. In fact, he's the one who attempts to be human, to be cordial, to be personable, finding there's no time for it. His "frozen in fear on the staircase" scene is riveting. I felt that way in my seat after the knifing of the Jewish guy, which I found to be one of the most disturbing scenes I've ever seen. By killing the German he let go, he's finally arrived at a really scary place in his life where he can finally take the life of another man. Make sense? I can't type as fast as I'm thinking of shit to say...
Calling Ryan not worth your emotion is to miss the whole point of the film. Seven men died to bring him home, to lead a relatively unspectacular life. Again, the theme of the film, death for life. He didn't cure cancer, he didn't go on to end the war as a politician or become a great writer. His normalcy is key. This brings about the question at the gravesite of whether he "earned" the sacrifice of the strangers he met in World War 2. But he had a family, wife who loved him and those things are to be treasured and his life went on. That's heavy-duty retrospection and calculation of a life's worth, MAN!!!
I have to admit, I don't remember much of the church scene. I didn't find it forced, however. It was just different to not see these beat-up guys wandering through rubble with bullets everywhere. It's the only scene of rest in the film. I can't believe you, who didn't think you knew enough about the characters, would scoff at the only scene that slows down to get to know them! For forced emotion, see Glory when the swelling score demands you cry now. Williams' score was irrelevant during 90 percent of this film. I was worried when it seemed overbearing at the very beginning when Ryan was walking to the gravesite, but it immediately calmed and stayed calm in the flashback.
I recently read a review of Lone Star that called it script-bound. Stating that it needed a balance on the side of technical achievement. There's something said for that. I think that's why Citizen Kane gets all the laurels it does. It has SCRIPT, ACTING and TECHNICAL BRILLIANCE. Other films I think to have this are The Godfather and Goodfellas. Gone With the Wind, for example, has maybe 2 of the three. Kudos deserve to go to a director that excels in technical brilliance and Spielberg is at the top of his form. The sensory bombardment is unmatched in Saving Private Ryan. Cameron is another master at this. If you don't get what I'm saying, Michael Bay is BAD at this, having technical style, but no brilliance, his work can't make a film. So even if the dialogue in this film didn't have the candor of Full Metal Jacket, the vision, the locale, the SMELL, and the monumental presence of quickening death, are FERAL, thanks to the director.
WHEW! Your turn....
Write back!
-Paul
What are you THINKING!!!??!
I think you took a bit of what I said about Private Ryan out of
context - or maybe thought that I didn't enjoy it as much as I did.
You were right about a lot of what you replied to, and I concur that
the movie did have depth in other areas besides the scenes of war. My
immediate reaction to the film upon leaving the theatre was the same
as yours. I was blown away. But after reflecting upon it for a few
days, I found that the only thing that stayed with me was those scenes
of war and action and chaos - nothing else. It was for this reason
that I faulted the film for not instilling a stronger character base
(ie. - giving me someone to care about in this film), and a storyline
that was more involved than it was. When I stepped back away from it
and said, "Gee, what really happened in this movie?" my answer,
besides a lot of batttles and fighting, was "not much." When I
thought about the characters in this movie, more of them pissed me off
than inspired me. Is that a fault of the movie? I guess not. The
characters themselves were just those types of people, and not
somebody you'd have to be friends with were you there. I suppose I
was more disappointed by this, but I don't think the movie fails
because of it.
As far as my problem with Davies character: I didn't think he was
terrible because of the way he acted, nor did I think it wasn't
believable. Hell, I'm sure many people would act the same way. I
merely think that he should have been shot and killed by the German
soldier who passed by him on the stairs. To me, that would have been
more believable, and sent a message that no-one is immune from the
horrors of war - everyone dies, not just the brave ones, but the
scared ones too. The fact that he pissed me off as a character
throughout the movie and that he was annoying was an attribute of his
character, and I'm not faulting the movie for that - mere stating that
this was how I felt about him. Of course I know that if he'd been
shot in that stairwell, he wouldn't be able to shoot the German he let
go at the end of the movie, and I understand and appreciate this whole
turn of events - my feeling is that the scene on the stairwell should
have been shot differently so that he was hidden or that the German
never saw him, etc.
I agree with your comments about the forced scores of films like Glory
trying to tell you what to feel, etc. In so far as the church scene
goes, I'm not faulting the picture for trying to let me get to know
the characters, etc, just how it went about it. I prefered the way
Hanks let everyone know about his past and the way Davies told about
his writing plans while walking on the trail, etc. I just thought
that the whole monologue the medic had about sleeping in his bed while
his mother stood outside the door, etc was misplaced and out of
context. For this reason, I felt like the movie was trying to force
some kind of feelings for this guy on us, instead of making us care
about him through some other more meaningful way, like his
frustrations trying to save those men he knows he cannot help, which
in turn would have been more symbolic when he himself dies and is
trying to be helped by his men. That scene by the way, was probably
the most disturbing one for me. I found it also the most unnerving in
terms of the violence. Something about seeing all the blood oozing
from the holes in his chest and stomach really unsettled me.
To sum up my response to your response - don't get my comments wrong -
I really loved this movie - I was just curious to hear reactions to
the other elements of the film besides the war and battle scenes,
which are so good they don't even warrant citisizing here. Every
review and comment I've read sounded much like yours. I know those
scenes were good and horrific, etc, but what about the story? What
about the characters? Were they just as good? I guess my opinion
scale of those factors falls a little lower than yours.
Well, gotta go. I'm sure I'll hear more from you on this later.
Talk to you soon.
Tooch
I find myself thinking of the band U2 in their early "rebel" days. You
know when they sang crap like Sunday Bloody Sunday. They seemed like
rebels, but they really didn't take much of a stance or have much of a
point. But they had a good beat that you could dance to. I'm wondering
if flick is no more than a careful avoidance of a point so as to inspire
discussion and controversy while being somewhat vacant. Or if that is
the point.
Leave it to Rob to tie things up
The movie works if for no other reason than that it inspires so much
discussion. Or is it just sensationalist clap-trap.
Read this like a war-torn soldier: The conversation of these men may not mean a hill of beans in this crazy world, but I found it damn interesting. - Paul