Saving Private Ryan (1998)

reviewed by
Thomas Glebe


Though I liked this movie overall, though there are some outstanding shots, sequences, and effects, and though I would probably recommend it to friends and acquaintances as one of the better cinema treatments about World War II, my expectations were too disappointed to engage in high praise of this work. I had many serious "problems" with SPR from the very opening shot of the American flag. This image, which was also used at the end as a frame, imparted upon the movie a kind of amoral "patriotism" which politically I do not share, and which actually contradicted itself, in my opinion, during the entire film. In other words, either Spielberg was making some sort of subtle sarcastic/ironic comment with this flag shot (which would "work" for me within the context of the film itself), or he wasn't. I suspect the latter.

The opening scene of Ryan as an old man visiting the Normandy cemetery was fine except for one very annoying factor, which was to excruciatingly reappear throughout the film, the music. It was archetypal John Williams, lush, overly-sentimental BS pretension, which we've heard 100 times already, and in almost every scene in which this score swelled, I felt it was inappropriate. I would've much rather have heard no music whatsoever throughout the film, or at least a very different style, from another composer. Some of the scenes in the film in which Williams' score was most evident (and annoying), were very powerful and emotionally tugging in themselves, and no music at all was needed. At the very least, an utterly subtle form, quiet and unassuming, would've worked nicely. However, with most Spielberg films, and most John Williams scores, "subtle" is obviously not in their respective dictionaries.

For instance, when we are in DC with the military brass, or when Ryan's mother is being notified of her other three son's deaths, the music is quite overblown and ridiculous. Sometimes, it almost smothers the actual dialogue. I don't really like being manipulated like this. The scene where an army notification car rode up to mother Ryan's home, as she fell to her knees when a priest tried to comfort her, was very powerful stuff. Why not just leave it that way without this obtrusive, blaring soundtrack of trite music we've heard over and over again? One could've easily substituted this entire soundtrack for the ET score, for Jurassic Park, for virtually ANY Spielberg film really.

I mention and highlight the music because this is an example of where the film goes wrong for me, seriously wrong. Each time the soundtrack music swelled like it did, it completely ruined my experience of the sometimes overwhelming visuals. It also completely destroyed my "suspension of disbelief" that I was actually watching just another war movie, and this is the film's main failing for me. SPR tries to be two things at once, a "real" glimpse of war, and a typical Hollywood piece of entertainment. Perhaps this duality isn't really possible when touching upon the reality and horror of war, but I do think other films have given it a much better shot than SPR. The most striking example of the film's almost soulless failure to do justice to its apparent agenda (to show how utterly abominable real war is), brings me to perhaps my main complaint. The film's cinema verite, shaky documentary camera style. NYPD Blue on amphetamines...

A little of this "style" can go a long way. Drenching entire scenes lasting several minutes, was totally ineffective and pretentious to me. Like the stereotypical Williams score swells, the jerky camera was so overdone and manipulative, that it seemed to undercut itself finally. Some of this specific technique is fine, in the right place, the right time, and used sparingly to highlight something in particular about the image which the director is trying to point our attention to. But in the numerous combat sequences in SPR where it was completely appropriate and where it should have been effective, it was so collateral, that the camera style itself overwhelmed the content and power of the images. Several times, I really felt so beleaguered, that I wish I could've reached up onto the screen and just stabilized the shot for a moment. Generally, I am suspicious of Spielberg's motivation for doing this in the first place. In many ways, this is a "false" and outdated "style" to begin with, and its use should always be frugal, if used at all. In short time, SPR's constant camera jerkiness becomes superfluous to the point of actually undercutting the meaning intended for its use in the first place.

I had other problems. From the start, I felt Tom Hanks as lead was a bad choice. His performance was great, don't get me wrong. I loved his acting throughout. But the whole "documentary" type feel which Spielberg constantly kept trying to hit us over the head with throughout the film, was constantly undercut for me, by seeing a well known actor in the part. An unknown should've gotten this part, actually, all of the parts. Hey, it's been done. Would Spielberg do it though? Would Paramount go for it? Hardly. It was all part of some complex "deal," of course. More Hollywood marketing, what's going to sell, what isn't. Star appeals, profit margins, "business." And yet, didn't the whole concept of SPR in a way, call for something more than just another "vehicle" by which Hanks will possibly grab another of those oscar statues? There are 10's of 1000's of OTHER actors in Hollywood, with just as much "talent" as Hanks, I am sure. Why not give them one of them a shot at this? Why spend so much money trying to convince an audience that they are watching something "real," then thrust into our consciousness good ol' Forrest Gump again?

The problem is, that like the music, like the shaky camera, and like the "patriotism" expressed, the images and subject matter, which "deserved" something much better, were undercut by Tom Hanks in the lead. I very rarely ever believed what Spielberg was trying so hard to get me to believe with the great images, sets, and action sequences he stages. Even at the end, when Hanks is sitting there dying and shooting a gun at a Tiger tank, I saw Tom Hanks, actor, "best actor." At one point, Ted Danson appears. Again, an unknown actor should've played this. I hardly heard a word Hanks or Danson said during their brief encounter, nor did I believe they were soldiers, nor did I accept any longer the reality of the destroyed French town they were walking through. It suddenly just became a "set" again. My suspension of disbelief, which so many powerful scenes in the film evoke, was broken once more. Hey, there's the guy on Cheers, I said to myself. It is true that Spielberg casts some unknowns (or hardly-knowns) in other roles, but even then, their characters are so stereotyped that the unfamiliar faces never got in the way of feeling at all times that I was simply watching a Hollywood movie.

Within all of this criticism, one may have noticed some positives mentioned. Yes, there were many. Some of the wobbly camera in the opening sequence, was very potent, like the troops running towards the beach. This gave the viewer a real sense of being there, of being in a frantic state of confusion, attempting to move forward into a frightening and imposing blur of horror and motion. However, a bit later, when Hanks and his men are using a mirror at the end of a rifle to try to find out where a particular German machine gun is firing from, why shake the camera? When the medics are trying to fix up wounded men on the beach, why shake the camera? If one were there watching these things, they would simply not be seeing it from this perspective. Again, this whole technique was so overused to me, that it eventually subverted its intended purpose. Why? Is this just typical over the top Spielberg? Were the horrible images in themselves not horrible enough that we needed this constant "gimmick" thrown in our faces over and over again? Was such blatant manipulation of his audience really necessary? Like the music, the shaky camerawork, for this viewer at least, ended up simply interfering with the effect on me I think Spielberg himself intended. In many ways, SPR seemed like Spielberg shooting himself in the foot, to escape the real horror he said he wanted to convey all along. I have to seriously wonder why. Was he "afraid" to show us what he was certainly capable of about the reality of war? Or would that not be "entertainment" any longer? Would it not be part of the "deal," or would it cut into potential profits? Of course. But oh, what a shame and a cop out. And so even when trying to concentrate on "positives" in SPR, I am again drawn to criticize it.

What's so disappointing about SPR is that it just could've been done so much better, in so many areas, that the collective result, is frustrating. One of the most notable exceptions when Spielberg seemed to "get it right," was one "sound dissolve" early in the film, which really sent chills through me. This was when he showed it beginning to rain, the drops falling onto leaves, trees, and ponds, the sound of which slowly changed into that of approaching gunfire and bombs, which it all turned into soon visually. The sound editing was generally great in SPR, however, that distinctive "sound dissolve" was fantastic. One visual gem around that time in the film, also stood out for me, which was a shot of the men walking on a hill, silhouetted against a blue dawn sky filled with distant (and not so distant) mortar and bomb blasts. My, if only more of the film could've held such qualities. It would've then easily approached "Apocalypse Now" (my all time favorite "war" film) and achieved true "masterpiece" status. It is interesting to compare the two films actually, if only in intent and success. "Apocalypse Now" clearly attempts with each shot, each element, to be flowing in some uniform whole, all to portray war as utter madness. On that level, it is clearly unequaled in my opinion, and succeeds brilliantly in what it tries to do. SPR on the other hand, whose clear intent seems to be to show us how horrible war is, cloaks that horror in typical Hollywood cliché and hokum, ending up not only doing disservice to its very subject, but undercutting its own effectiveness. The two examples in SPR given above, the sound dissolve and the silhouette image, were only hints of what greatness Spielberg could have accomplished, but did not. Unfortunately, moments such as these were far and few between in SPR, whereas in "Apocalypse Now" for instance, almost every frame, every sound, every element actually, seems carefully (and lovingly) thought out. It was thus sad to witness, that each time SPR began to approach "art," it quickly became just more Hollywood "entertainment." Given the subject matter, and the supposed "tribute" Spielberg seemed to desperately want to convey, the film clearly betrays its own values. I suspect that the possibly faulty "values" of the director himself, are the sole blame for this, but his politics being what they obviously are, I won't "go there."

Another SPR positive however, and a whole sequence which for me, seemed as if it almost belonged in another movie (a great one?), was that of the whole "radar installation" attack scene, which lasted about 15 minutes. This singular part of the film was absolute brilliance. It started with Hanks' men questioning whether they should attack this area, or just go around it. For the first time in the film, I felt as if I were actually watching real people, and not just actors. Before this point (and sadly, after the sequence was over), I again felt as if I were just watching a cast playing parts. This was especially evident in the earlier walking/chatting part, where we are "introduced" to the various characters (I guess that was Spielberg's intention). This was pure corn, out of a dozen other WWII films, and I didn't buy it for a moment. Wasn't there some other way for the filmmaker to make us more familiar with the characters than something so consummately unimaginative?

The truly outstanding radar attack sequence, when compared to much of the rest of the movie, seemed to strangely stand out for me, so much so that I almost wonder if someone else directed this part. The characters were given a REAL identity to me during this portion. And for all the talk (hype?) of blood and gore and entrails in SPR, to me, the only really powerful depiction of the horror, came in this one section of the film, specifically in the segment when one of the GI's chests was pumping gushes of bright red blood. Before dying, where he meekly mouthed the words "Mama, mama" in a haze of morphine shots, Spielberg leaves all the million dollar effects and stages and sets behind, relying on something the rest of the film seems not to want to delve too deeply in, namely, real death. For all the blood and carnage SPR shows throughout, little of it ever really made an impression on this viewer. It was mostly just typical "Hollywood" war movie nonsense, rows of German soldiers being mowed down by one single American, men getting shot and falling over, dead immediately, and lots of bandaged wounded, exhibiting very little actual pain or suffering. When the lone GI died in the arms of his fellow comrades, SPR clearly for me succeeded in what it seemed to want to do from the start, powerfully and emotionally display the actual results of all of this flying hot metal and debris, which real combat is.

Why wasn't there so much more of this however? When the little French girl is handed down to a GI amidst a hail of German sniper fire, I fully expected to see the girl's head blown off, or at least something truly horrible happen. Earlier in the film, in the much hyped opening 20-25 minute sequence, there is a long beach shot of the bloody aftermath of the landing, showing waves of blood, dead men, and dead fish. Good enough. But weren't some of those poor souls still alive? Why not show their utterly horrible pain and suffering? When one of the men gets his arm blown off and goes to retrieve it in a nightmarish way, I wanted Spielberg to show us this man a bit later on, to show us the real consequences of what had happened. Typically however in SPR, Spielberg "chickens out" in doing such things, and in doing so, for whatever reason, he continually disappoints. For myself, the only "bloody" scene in the entire movie which had any kind of real effect, was the dying man whose seemingly stray fire wounds, resulted in an unstoppable sea of red gore, the life force itself, draining from his body. In essence, there was really nothing else in the film, despite the high tech and obvious on-screen high budget, which stayed true to the film's own purported intention to actually show the real horror of war, as this one solitary scene did.

There was more to the horror of these events however, than simple blood and gore. SPR seems a bit more successful in displaying such, although again, it seems to undercut itself whenever possible. One particularly great little fragment of the movie when it did not, was again, in this specific section of the film. Following their friend's slow and bloody death, Hanks goes over by himself, and he is shaking, crying, trying to hold back the emotion of what he's just witnessed. There is subtle music this time. There is also a lingering effect to the camerawork, a slow zoom. Spielberg lets the actor ACT here, and even though it was Tom Hanks, my suspension was complete. Here, like the earlier scene where we experience up close and personal someone's bloody death, the true nature of war was brought home to me, more powerfully than any series of high-priced Hollywood FX.

After Hanks cries, the entire Axis prisoner scene, was also good. There was a real tension here, and I easily felt myself not watching a movie anymore, but feeling as if I had some sort of personal stake in what I was watching. In SPR, Spielberg's more delicate and subtly discriminating touches, were clearly the best moments of the film. All the blood and violence and special effects of the opening and closing sections, never came close for me, to displaying the real horror of war, than this one little middle section, which culminated in two men on the same side, almost killing each other because a POW was being released. In this one short sequence, to me, the film not only gave me a sense of the real horror of war, but it also had a real moral center and soul. The subtle nature of Spielberg's touch here was also the real power of the effect. This was to be lost afterwards however, and especially near the end of the film. If, and I emphasize that word, any real tribute to basic humanity and the values and ideals which made "our" side the "good" side in WWII, was present in SPR, it was only present in this one section, seen through the eyes of the translator, and eventually Hanks. This whole concept was utterly blown to bits at the end of the film however, and throughout other sections was given only lip service at best. Had SPR truly explored such ideas however, I guess that would've cut into the special effects and explosions, and we couldn't have that now, could we?

Overall, SPR's standard MOP seems to be cliché exaggeration and more. There are few real surprises in this film. For all the unique things in it, there is little very original or thought provoking, and time after time, Spielberg just does not seem willing to take chances. A lot of SPR actually feels more like your standard, formula episode of television's WWII series from 60's, "Combat." That series in fact, which used to be a favorite of mine, kept entering my head throughout SPR. The men walking in the field chatting and wisecracking, the quiet whispering in the church at night, the whole French girl/sniper/dying soldier in the middle of the road scene, and most of the last half hour at the bridge, seemed regulation Vic Morrow material to me. In SPR, about the only added element to this 2 and ½ hour episode of "Combat" was clearly money spent on sets and effects.

So many archetypal scenes like this, I felt, were simply missed by Spielberg, that is, their POTENTIAL to be presented in a truly original, superlative, and powerful manner, was missed. Even the opening landing sequence, which has been commented on by many as so "gory," came nothing close to what I expected (and hoped for). One of my chief complaints about ALL war movies, let alone WWII ones, is that none have very effectively portrayed (for me) what combat must really be like. SPR did so in some respects, better than most. But some of the images were laughable to me. The singular shot of the guy laying there screaming, with half of his guts hanging out on the sand, was something out of a cheap horror movie. It wasn't believable at all. The shot of the man trying to retrieve his shot-off arm, was also not effective. Many of the so-called "gore" shots, seemed simple FX to me, and nothing of their real import or pain was portrayed effectively by Spielberg. WAY TOO MANY shots for me of Americans mowing down whole groups of German soldiers, like as if this was a standard scene out of WWII (it wasn't). It IS a standard, stereotypical scene out of WWII MOVIES however. I had hoped for much more however, in SPR. Guys riding up onto tanks and armored cars throwing in hand grenades, more rows of Germans mowed down by a single man, Generals quoting Abraham Lincoln with schmaltzy music swelling, the wiseguy from Brooklyn, the tough sergeant, the scene where the WRONG Private Ryan was notified of his brother's deaths were all predictable, boring, and totally cliché to me. All of these things were plain old stock WWII movie nonsense. This might've worked 20 years ago. I expect more today. If a man gets his arm blown away, I want to "feel his pain" for a few moments, before moving on to the next FX shot. If German tanks were as formidable and frightening as those who fought them have testified, why was taking them out so "easy?" Hollywood, that's why. I saw only ONE shot near the end, where they fire a mortar or bazooka at a Tiger, when the shell only bounced off harmlessly. Otherwise, in Spielberg's fantasy WWII world, whole German squads can easily be mowed down by a single GI, and tanks and other weapons can be disabled with nothing more than some good old GI Joe bravery. For all the effects, for all the blood and guts that ARE shown, SPR continually refuses to step over certain lines. It wants to be two things at once, which is its ultimate undoing, to show the "reality" of war, but to do it in an entertaining Hollywood story suited for mass consumption. Whenever Spielberg gets close to one side of it, the reality side, he once again becomes the Hollywood entertainer. It's as if he were trying to put menacing sharks or dinosaurs in the middle of "Schindler's List." SPR felt that way generally to me throughout. A schizophrenic movie, no doubt about it.

Three parts of the film (though there are others) were particularly annoying in this manner. When the decision to hold the bridge is made, and Hanks comes up with the sock bomb/sniper in the tower/middle of the road lure/plan, the men begin putting this into action. So what do we get? Not a sense of the real desperateness of their plight or their fears, but more over the top music, quick cuts and shots of the preparation (right out of Jaws), and more MOVIE MOVIE stuff. Then a much too long, extended "lull" sequence as the troops await the German's attack, which SHOULD depict some sense of impending doom and death, but which concentrates more on triviality. I simply didn't buy it. And by the way, was Hanks so out of touch and unable to reach his superiors at this time, that he would not/could not try to find out what THEY wanted him to do when Ryan refused to go back? What was it that completely turned Hank's character and motivation at this time, from getting the mission accomplished, to playing hero? This was bad writing to me, or just unrealistic movie heroics. In real life, I don't think this would've played out at all like it did in the film. Again, cliché, audience manipulation, and Hollywood crapola.

Who can take the death and final heroics of Hanks vainly shooting his pistol (Hanks, the sudden "hero"?) at the Tiger seriously, when at the very last moment, the "Calvary" arrives and the tank is blown away by a plane? All is right with the world. Happy ending. Nonsense. I laughed out loud when the plane arrived to blow the tank away. I couldn't believe how corny and predictable this was, and still can't believe Spielberg utilized this hackneyed concept at all, let alone in such a crucial part of the film. Wasn't this scene a direct copy of the one in "Jurassic Park" where the people are just about to be eaten by the two vicious Raptors only to be "saved" at the last moment by the T-Rex? Corn…unoriginal corn. Hank's death after this, was also totally unmoving to me, and was also completely predictable at this point. His death seemed quite contrived, and like so many other parts of SPR, quite expected. I fully expected Hanks to die from about mid-point in the film, exactly as he did. I even guessed at what he would say to Ryan in his dying breath.

However, what WAS NOT expected (for me at least), and what eventually made me throw up my hands with the film as a whole, was when the meek translator, who had acted so afraid and cowardly up until this time, calmly shoots the earlier released POW who had been part of the last battle sequence. This was the same man which the translator had befriended, the same human being which he pleaded with Hank's to spare over "moral" issues, and here, near the end of the film, Spielberg has the ONLY true moral character in the film (the American translator) calmly murder the smiling, hands-raised, unarmed prisoner. This was done so casually, and obviously shown intentionally that way by Spielberg, that ANY sort of patriotic feelings I myself held at this point, were totally wiped out. Why did this man shoot the prisoner? Spielberg seems to be trying to make some point here, some "subtle" one at best, that such horrible insanity all around has even turned the meek but moral coward into just another part of the vicious madness, and yet, any such "point" is totally negated by yet another "cheat." We are never really given any reason for this behavior, are not shown any consequences of it, and it totally contradicts the whole concept of the film itself. Throughout SPR, we are constantly bombarded with this idea that all of this horror and violence is real and appalling. And yet, at the end, when the translator murders the unarmed POW, I was left to wonder what was the point of ANY single "patriotic" element in the film? How anyone could proudly show an American flag flowing in the wind AFTER this, and really expect any decent human being to feel the slightest sympathy with the filmmaker's own biased (nationalistic) viewpoint, is beyond me. Could it be that the very immoral and materialistic "soul" of SPR, clearly revealed to myself at least, is only a reflection of what's lacking in the "soul" of its creator? I have no other interpretation at this time, and would have to say yes. As a whole, SPR fails for me as anything but entertainment. To read into the film anything "deeper" than that, feels as disingenuous to me as reading same in most of Spielberg's other works.

Summing up, I walked out of this film hardly thinking afterwards of it, except for dwelling on my disgust for the wasted effort and money. Like so much of Spielberg's other "enjoyable" work (Jurassic Park, ET, and the Raider sequels), it is digestible filler candy for awhile, but there are no great ideas here, no true moral or political or philosophical "center" or soul. I have not found myself thinking much about anything in this film subsequently, except for the few brief positive moments mentioned above. I think only the easily manipulated, or those who were there back then and find some common experiences depicted, think this is truly a "great" film. It is not. It is average. And to me, in many ways, it contradicts its whole subject in the first place. Maybe Hollywood WILL "get it right" someday, but SPR didn't. As a film about WWII, it is an above average one, but it comes nowhere near others, such as "Bridge on the River Kwai," "The Great Escape," "Stalag 17," "A Midnight Clear," and is even inferior to the last "blockbuster" made about this event, "The Longest Day." Hell, at least THAT one was up front about its jingoistic, sloppy sentimentality. SPR dwells in a similar sensibility, but denies doing it to its audience every step of the way. In this day and age, and considering what Spielberg had to work with, what the film clearly does wrong, cannot in the final analysis, overcome the few things it does right. Entertaining? Yes. Transcendent? Only if one is easily prone to hype, whether political, or cinematic. This viewer is neither.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own


The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews