 | | Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | The Guardian has today published a number a letters written on and around D-Day by those involved. They are mostly from the UK nationals, but also from some the USA, France & Germany This paragraph stood out as it sums up the popular perception of (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) I haven't seen Private Ryan so I can't debate you on this one. Is it OK form in here to just say thanks for the interesting link? Don (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) As long as you're not to cordial about it--we've spent months cultivating this as an acrimonious forum. It just won't do to inject politeness at this late date. Dave! (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I'm not exactly sure why SA titled his post the way he did, but I can say that the beginning of that movie is the most powerful and moving bit of moviemaking I have ever seen. I found myself moved to tears; humbled; and felt such a sense of (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | Those who have older relatives that were in WW2 have no problem respecting veterans. Unfortunately, the # of people with {living} WW2 vets is quickly decreasing. It doesn't help that a lot of WW2 vets have never discussed their experiences in the (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes. Frankly, I am more than a little bitter that I was not taught this respect at an early age. Instead, I was schooled to despise the military. That is just not right. (...) The humility. The willingness to answer the call of duty. To serve (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The attempts of the pro-war right to link George “AWOL” Bush’s illegal war in Iraq to WW2 never fail to leave me bemused. (...) They did not make sacrifices; they were "sacrificed". Many of us have yet to be convinced that they died for (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) (snip) (...) You should signal your turns. What is "AWOL"? "A Winner Over Lefties?" (...) Calloused and insensitive semantics. Par for the course. (...) Oh really. And what would it take to convince you of that? The safe $$$ is on nothing; (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I can't remember Bush winning anything... certainly not medals in Vietnam. ;) (...) It is not semantics. There is a gulf between making a sacrifice and being sacrificed. Think about it. (...) The truth is becoming clearer day-by-day; your (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Actually, in this case, you're wrong and (shudder), Scott is right. This is NOT semantics. "Made sacrifices" pertains to the Iraqi people as a whole. "Were sacrificed" pertains to the ones actually killed. HUGE difference, don't try to pave it (...) (20 years ago, 30-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Well, if they were sacrificed, then by whom to whom? (...) You know, pro-Bush folk would probably be a lot less "rah-rah" if the Left weren't so virulently hateful of Bush as a person, much less as a politician. JOHN (20 years ago, 30-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Again, this isn't new; it existed with Clinton, too, though the positions were often reversed, and I'd argue that there was much more "yeah, he's a slimeball sex fiend" admission on the Left during the Lewinsky matter than there is acceptance (...) (20 years ago, 30-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I managed to catch the start of a dedication ceremony for your WW2 war memorial on Saturday evening. The whoops which greeted Bush, on what I expected to be a reflective event, forced me to switch channel... It may be a cultural thing, but I (...) (20 years ago, 31-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The folks that 'whooped it up' should be ashamed of themselves. I read it as 'scoring political points' by showing avid support for Dubya, instead of being, as Scott said, 'reflective', with thoughts of the past and those that sacrificed (...) (20 years ago, 31-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) There have been wars since WW2 where veterans were just as brave. Have you read ChickenHawk, Dispatches or Nam? (...) Indeed. The BBC has an (URL) excellent project> underway which hopes to record personal accounts from people who were there. (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) I think you mean the 2nd scene; the film starts in a cemetery... still a very moving scene. Once they break through the Atlantic Wall the film nosedives. (...) Saving Private Ryan is basically Holywood's version of events; I'm not a big fan of (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | (...) Me neither. Probably why I didn't go see it. That and the bit about sitting in one seat for 3 hours. (...) I did watch most of BoB since it was already paid for on the cable TV. Very absorbing, but the digital film artifacts gave me headaches. (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) I've never quite understood this criticism. How is a movie that covers the action of little more than a squad supposed to cover Juno, Gold, and Sword? D-Day is all of 20 minutes of the film. Doesn't Britain have it's own film industry? Can't (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The film is longer than 20 minutes. Even so, were the pathfinders on all the beaches not Brits? Also, in WW2, what would the chances of a black guy (Diesel) being in a frontline squad be? Were non-whites not relegated to logistics (as they (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Your command of the obvious is impressive. (...) What the heck is your point? You really will argue about anything! (...) Again, it is a movie, not a documentary. (...) Again, what the heck is your point? (that is a rhetorical question because (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | John I can’t help but think you are over-egging this. You force feed your teenagers this flick if you wish. I’ll focus on why D-Day had to happen, why men had to die & what would have happened if D-Day had failed. Scott A (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You were complaining about D-Day. As I said, the D-Day sequence is all of 20 minutes of the film. The rest is a squad searching for an american paratrooper which were generally dropped behind the american beaches. (...) Were they with the (...) (20 years ago, 30-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think "randomly dropped” would be a better descriptor. ;) (...) The landing craft's pilot would probably have been a Brit. (...) I see your point, perhaps I was just been overly cautious of the movie industry re-writing history. As an aside, (...) (20 years ago, 31-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Flung about willy-nilly? Snafu was the order of the day, and it was up the skill, intelligence, and daring of those involved to make order out of chaos. (...) I can't say that I recall one way or the other, but I presume that they would be (...) (20 years ago, 31-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Unique Selling Point. I understand he ticks all the correct ethnic minority boxes in one swoop. This means there is no need for other minorities to have a token presence in a movie, thus allowing more room for white guys! (...) I knew fine (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think you need to make up your mind whether he is black or a "USP", which would imply you should have known to check the character's name. :-O And clearly you haven't seen his movies (which may be a blessing) in regards to the accusations (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Sure--just like Blue Velvet. Dave! (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) How would 40's America have viewed him. (A genuine question). (...) You mean like your name implies your Irishness? ;) (...) Did I? I'll take your word for it... you certainly have noted your Irishness a few times. (...) I'm not about to watch (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But an utterly non-relevant one! :-) (...) Don't wanna admit that you identified the character as black incorrectly, eh? :-) (...) Right there earlier in the sequence quoted above! (...) But never by the phrase "Irish-American". And I believe (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That depends on what relevance one attaches to the character’s name alone. (...) I'm happy to admit to not having watched the film enough to know the character's name. I'm happy to admit to not knowing what typical African-American surnames (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If the character was "passing for Italian (descent)" the film probably would have made a point of it. I just think you are making a mistake in presuming that since Vin Diesal is black/part-black, that he is only going to play a character that (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well you have identified yourself "Half-Irish". Why is it a problem for me to remind you of that? Scott A (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Searching under the phrase you place in quotes yields no messages that I can find where I said such. Wouldn't be accurate anyway since I am not half-Irish. The problem lies in that you keep ascribing phrases to me that I didn't use to back up (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Search for "(URL) bruce half irish>". It is not the phrase i place in quotes, but you do say you are half Irish! (...) I see your point: I've been sloppy with my "quotes" when I should have used use 'these' to parenthesise terminology I wished (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not another word safari! If you have an exact cut and paste quote, I can figure it out. I'm 1/4 Irish. The most I can figure is that I was sloppy and said something about the Irish "half" of the family because I only deal with the German and (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | Actually, Scott's got you, Bruce: (URL) (This mindset was > originally more than just language--the Commonwealth as > it exists today was in fact less ambitious than the original > schemes for Imperial Federation, which could not guarantee > that (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmmm...mmm, well......... I lied. :-) And I didn't say Irish-American. Nyahh. Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh! -->Bruce<-- 1/2 German, 1/4 Irish, 1/8 Norwegian, 1/8 Dutch, 100% 'Merican Mongrel. (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Moving, but also problematic. The camera zooms in on the Elder Ryan's tear-filled eyes as he meditates over the graves of his comrades. The film then immediately jumps, flashback-style, to Miller in the landing craft and proceeds from there. (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) It was meant to hide his real identity, and thus disguise the fate of Captain Miller. Not all flashbacks are necessarily that of the character in question, though it may be regarded as a sneaky bit of story-telling subtrafuge and implied (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I thought the pasta-loving Vin was only shot once? (...) Talking of snipers, I love the scenes in SPR where our heroes tramp across open fields and cross the crests of hills as they are too brave to use cover! Scott A (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Not sure if this is fitting in .debate, but I have a cool story on this subject: I worked in a hobby store for a few years in the late 90's, and we sold a fair range of plastic military models and detailing handbooks. There were a few (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Cool story Dave! But unless the photo has been reversed on that page, the contributor Rob Kirkwood doesn't know port from starboard ;) ROSCO (20 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Terry Prosper
|
| | | | (...) Yeah. I cried too. I suddendly realized I was the same species as those butchers who sent men get butchered there that day. Both sides. If Europe and N. America had solved the problem with diplomacy BEFORE it got out of hand, none of this (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) I think it's fair to say that Europe ignored our advice at the end of WWI, so I'm not sure where the U.S. should accumulate any blame: "We told ya so!" :-) (...) The campaign in Italy wasn't working - the man who came up with the WWI Gallipoli (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Hitler aside, in 1939 Germany had the most impressive military machine the world had ever seen. However, I don't believe the GB cowered; if anything we took the fight to Germany. We (with the help of our allies) moved on from Dunkirk in (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
