Subject:
|
Re: Not Saving Private Ryan.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:48:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
921 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
The Guardian has today published a number a letters written on and around
D-Day by those involved.
|
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?
|
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 awe and gratitude for what was sacrificed for me.
|
I think you mean the 2nd scene; the film starts in a cemetery... still a very
moving scene.
|
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. To me, this is a jarring inconsistency; Ryan hadn’t met Miller at
that point, and there was no evidence of a discussion between them to bring Ryan
up to speed. Sure, we can assume that Ryan had 50+ years to fill in the blanks,
but that’s still a sloppy pseudo-flashback. If it wasn’t meant as a flashback,
then there should have been a clearer distinction between the scenes.
While I’m at it, I hate hate hate when a handheld camera is used to simulate the
POV of an on-the-ground soldier. It looks nothing like a real first-person
view, and the technique utterly throws me out of the story (especially when
they’re used in sporadic and inconsistent fashion, as in this case.)
| |
Once they break through the Atlantic Wall the film nosedives.
|
Nosedives? I don’t know. But it definitely becomes a largely non-descript war
movie, IMO. Two other points of note IMO:
1. When they’re near the bombed-out French house and one of their number is
wounded, the sniper keeps shooting the downed man to draw the others out into
the open to be shot. Though I expect that this really occurs in combat, the
same idea was shown on film in Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (and probably elsewhere).
2. When Giovanni Ribisi is shot in the gut, his buddies OD him on morphine to
put him out of his misery. This same idea was also shown in the Hughes’
Dead Presidents.
Does this blunt the effect of the film overall? I guess not, but it bothers me
that two of the film’s moments of pathos are more or less lifted from other
films in the genre.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Not Saving Private Ryan.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
