In a true masterpiece, it should only take a few minutes for film viewers to be drawn into a “great” movie. Although I’ve watched more movie clips in class over the past two weeks than I can count with two hands, only one of them truly stuck out to me: “Saving Private Ryan”. Upon reading Kenneth Turan’s review (published in the Los Angeles Times) I was unexpectedly shocked to find out he did not enjoy the same things I did. Both of us can agree that “Saving Private Ryan” is one of Spielberg’s masterpieces, but Turan came to that conclusion for different reasons than I did. Turan writes than “Ryan’s” greatest strengths are its battle sequences.
I agree a war movie would be lacking without terrific battle scenes. “Saving Private Ryan” does not have that problem, as it does an excellent job of capturing the confusion, terror, and chaos of war. But while the fighting certainly adds excitement and realism to the movie, this is only half of what makes “Saving Private Ryan” a masterpiece. Turan obsesses with the accurate presentation of combat and the realistic gore. He describes in detail of soldiers catching on fire or men with their intestines hanging out but at times his writing sounds like that of a gitty thirteen-year-old boy. This can easily be misinterpreted by readers making them think that the movie is shallow beyond it’s ability to thrill. What drew me into the story was the dynamic between the characters and how Spielberg portrayed them as normal people cast into roles they didn’t want. Turan disregards this and claims the movie has a poor script.
He overlooks the fact that the soldiers in “Saving Private Ryan” are regular Joe’s plucked from the streets and thrown into combat. Captain Miller is an 8th grade English teacher. He isn’t supposed to enlighten the audience to the meaning of life; he’s a soldier who’s fighting to stay alive. The dialogue between the soldiers is written to capture what people actually say on the battlefield. I find it hypocritical that Turan applauds the realism in the combat scenes, but can’t appreciate the realism in the dialogue. Perhaps someone needs to explain to Turan that a war story is as much about the people in the war as it is the war itself.
Hypocrisy aside, Turan and I can both agree that “Saving Private Ryan” is a testament to Spielberg’s skill as a director.
I was unaware, and was somewhat shocked to find out, that Spielberg was the director behind “Saving Private Ryan”. I am guilty of having written him off as a kid’s director whose greatest work was E.T. This discovery is certainly exciting for me as I am now eager to explore what other movies bear the Spielberg name.
A powerful and impressive milestone in the realistic depiction of combat, Saving
Private Ryan is as much an experience we live through as a film we watch on
screen.
I agree a war movie would be lacking without terrific battle scenes. “Saving Private Ryan” does not have that problem, as it does an excellent job of capturing the confusion, terror, and chaos of war. But while the fighting certainly adds excitement and realism to the movie, this is only half of what makes “Saving Private Ryan” a masterpiece. Turan obsesses with the accurate presentation of combat and the realistic gore. He describes in detail of soldiers catching on fire or men with their intestines hanging out but at times his writing sounds like that of a gitty thirteen-year-old boy. This can easily be misinterpreted by readers making them think that the movie is shallow beyond it’s ability to thrill. What drew me into the story was the dynamic between the characters and how Spielberg portrayed them as normal people cast into roles they didn’t want. Turan disregards this and claims the movie has a poor script.
As the squad moves through crises toward the elusive Pvt. Ryan, what impacts us
most are invariably scenes of action: sometimes fire fights, sometimes
unexpected deaths, but never the dialogue the men trade. Just as the soldiers
speculate that Capt. Miller has been artfully reassembled from old body parts,
so "Private Ryan's" script has been put together from familiar and shopworn
material.
He overlooks the fact that the soldiers in “Saving Private Ryan” are regular Joe’s plucked from the streets and thrown into combat. Captain Miller is an 8th grade English teacher. He isn’t supposed to enlighten the audience to the meaning of life; he’s a soldier who’s fighting to stay alive. The dialogue between the soldiers is written to capture what people actually say on the battlefield. I find it hypocritical that Turan applauds the realism in the combat scenes, but can’t appreciate the realism in the dialogue. Perhaps someone needs to explain to Turan that a war story is as much about the people in the war as it is the war itself.
Hypocrisy aside, Turan and I can both agree that “Saving Private Ryan” is a testament to Spielberg’s skill as a director.
"Saving Private Ryan" is a startling reminder of exactly how spectacular a
director Spielberg can be when he allows himself to be challenged by a subject
(in this case World War II) that pushes against his limits.
I was unaware, and was somewhat shocked to find out, that Spielberg was the director behind “Saving Private Ryan”. I am guilty of having written him off as a kid’s director whose greatest work was E.T. This discovery is certainly exciting for me as I am now eager to explore what other movies bear the Spielberg name.
5 comments:
The Ryan B,
you have a point about speilberg(sp?). i hadn't really thought about it, but a lot of his movies are generally more...childish. haha. but this is a movie that i feel like i need to see. it just looks so...good. and normally i don't really care for war movies all that much...
~PSH
great review man really in depth analysis haha for sure. i liked it and it sounded very professional keep it up
You do a good job of saying what a good war movies should be, comparing that to "Saving Private Ryan" and mixing in critics about the review.
I agree, the movie had a depth to it about how the people were just normal people and put into the war. The battle scenes were great but the most capturing part of the movie was the character dynamic.
Ryan: Well-written and well-argued. I hate to say it, though, but I agree with Turan -- I thought once you got past the intense Omaha Beach opening, the movie fizzled because of cardboard characters and stilted dialogue. I actually prefer Spielberg's more childish movies like "Raiders of the Lost Ark," though I suppose it's hard to argue with "Schindler's List," and I've heard "Munich" is good, too. I don't mean to rain on your parade (it's not like I take away points for different opinions) -- just my $.02.
Post a Comment