This is one of my all time favorite films. As a history nerd who knows way to much about military campaigns, I can confidently say that while this movie is one of the most well made films of all time, it makes absolutely no logical sense plot wise and suffers from massive geographical plotholes. It is also very propoganda-ish. Looking forward to a spicy take here.
Spielberg’s greatest flaw is that he can’t portray war as horrific as it is (despite that iconic opening sequence) both because of his thematic sensibilities and his genuine sense of patriotism especially surrounding WWII. Wonder why he’s never made a Vietnam War film? Because he can’t make it “okay” or morally clear. He could never make a film like Come and See for instance.
Still deserves Best Picture over Shakespeare in Love (or maybe Life is Beautiful, another dark yet comedic take on World War II). Geez, am I still one of those people who get mad at that win….
That’s why it is illogical. It is a paradox. That’s the point. I have been in wars and non-sense shit happens all the time for no other reason than orders. Totally plausible.
10:36 Holy shit. I'd heard the basics of the Sullivan brothers' story before, but this is the first I've ever heard of the aftermath of the Juno's sinking. That's actually horrific. Forget about Saving Private Ryan, _that_ is the kind of "war is hell" story I could get behind. We spend the first act of the movie meeting the Sullivan brothers during their enlistement and early deployment, then a little ways through act 2 BAM, ship sinks, they all die, and we following the surviving supporting cast as they're numbers dwindle, juxtaposed against scenes of the incompetence of their commanders as rescue is delayed. Movie ends with a somber look at how the higher-ups sensationalize the Sullivans' deaths to fuel the war effort, while all those men they left to die at sea are covered up and forgotten. EDIT: I paused to make this comment before the bit about the 2 brothers that actually survived the initial sinking. I can't believe it somehow got _worse._
And the thing is, they made it the captains fault. Like he should have been zigzagging. But, he wasn't under any orders to do so. Didn't he suicide? It was BS what they did to him, like it's his fault that the ship was torpedoed.
The Juneau had been severely damaged in the battle that occurred the previous night, a battle which was absolute chaos and would've made for a Hollywood directors wet dream (destroyers charging battleships and duking it out at spitting distance, friendly fire on both sides, and no well-defined track chart of the action so liberties could be taken with what ships are where). She was limping alongside the other heavily damaged ships of her task force when the submarine I26 fired at the San Francisco (flagship of the task force) but hit the battered Juneau instead. The communication errors that lead to the survivors languishing in the water weren't anyone's specific fault, this was way before satellite phones and good quality communications, the task force personnel believed it was seriously unlikely anyone had survived the Juneau as the ship hadn't really sunk as much as it had just completely detonated, Juneau was a new type of ship and she had an absurd amount of firepower and magazines and almost no real armor to speak of, so when she blew up it was pretty horrific and no one thought anyone could've survived. Captain Gilbert Hoover of the Helena was the acting commander of the task force and he didn't want to break radio silence to draw further Japanese attention, so he blinkered a message to a B-17 flying overhead that the Juneau had been sunk and rescue parties should be sent. Hoover did not conduct rescue operations himself because his force was severely damaged and he had only 1 single intact ship, the destroyer Fletched, which was needed to escort the remaining ships home, men who were there generally agree that Hoover made the right decision to not further expose his force to submarine attack by turning back to search for survivors or prosecute an attack on the submarine. The message from the B17 took a long time to be delivered and decoded and sent to anyone who could do anything about it, and search and rescue teams from Guadalcanal were busy with ships from the same battle that damaged the Juneau that were left in the battle area; Juneau's sister ship Atlanta had to be evacuated and then scuttled, USS Portland had to be towed by tug to Tulagj for emergency repairs and was almost attacked by US PT boats, so the Juneau wasn't the only one in need and it was the least likely that anything could be done about itm there's also the fact that the battle wasn't over, fighting around Guadalcanal would continue that night when Japanese cruisers bombarded the island and again when they attempted the same the following night but were intercepted by task force 64 and the last heavy surface units available to Halsey. Aircraft were in desperately short supply as the US was down to a single carrier (the damaged Enterprise) and the planes on Guadalcanal were busy trying to sink Japanese transports attempting to land on the island, so there wasn't much to send to search for Juneau survivors, especially since she was sunk far from the area where most ships had been lost.
@@berenscott8999The captain of the Juneau wasn't blamed and he died when the ship exploded. What you're thinking of seems to be a composite of two men. The first is Gilbert Hoover, captain of USS Helena and the acting task force commander of the group Juneau was in, it was his decision to not search for survivors after the Juneau exploded (and she did explode violently, she didn't just sink, most witnesses thought there could be no survivors), the task force had just been through a horrific night battle off Guadalcanal and every ship but one was heavily damaged and limping back to port, Hoover had to weigh the lives of any possible survivors against those of the men on the battered ships under his command that would be easy pickings for the Japanese submarine hunting them if he turned back. He did flash a blinker light signal to a B17 flying overhead later in the day but it took far too long for that message to be delivered and decoded. Hoover didn't break radio silence to transmit further messages about the Juneau for fear of attracting more Japanese attention to his bedraggled task force. Hoover had a stellar war record up to that point but an officer on Haley's staff wanted him fired for some reason and did his best to tank the man's career, Halsey would recommend Hoover be removed from seagoing command and given shore assignment, he wasn't fired or punished but the thought was that he was war-weary and his judgement had become impaired, Halsey would later express deep regret over this decision and noted that he and Hoover still had a great personal relationship. The other man you're likely thinking of is Howard Bode, captain of USS Chicago at the disastrous battle of Savo Island, his command failures helped contribute to the loss of 4 allied cruisers and he was the main scapegoat for this (I honestly don't remember how culpable he personally was), he too was removed from seagoing command and sent to Panama if I remember correctly, he found out that the investigation into the Savo disaster had placed him as the main culprit, and he killed himself shortly thereafter.
Fun fact only tangentially related to the video; When Major (ret.) Richard Winters (A member of the 101st airborne division, and one of the key officers from Band of Brothers) was asked how he would have handled the battle of Ramelle as depicted in the film, he answered that he would have just blown up the bridge before the Germans even got there and moved on. But hey, ya need a cool final battle!
He probably would have been wrong to do that--the fiction battle of Ramelle takes place in the preparatory stage to the breakout from Normandy, at the Allies were consolidating and expanding their beachhead Thus, destroying the bridge would be 1. What the Germans would probably want to do 2. Make another mess for the engineer corps to either repair and/or construct a pontoon in place of In that case, destroying the bridge would only have been acceptable if the Germans were about to overrun the guard and take it anyways
Why did they stay to defend a bridge they were going to blow up anyway? Was there some line in the film addressing this? Otherwise feels like a zombie film where they could just drive away, but decide to arbitrarily hold out for 6 hours. THEN drive away. Not to mention the battle feels even more pointless when it's resolved by the Air force just blowing all the Germans up.
@@warlordofbritannia The film takes place between D-Day+3 to D-Day+4 (June 9-June 10). The Breakout won't happen until the 25th of July - a month and a half away. They have more then enough time to repair any bridge they need to before the offensive. The 101st Airborne already destroyed multiple bridges to prevent German counterattacks - one more ain't gonna matter. Honestly mate, where do you get off trying to "well ackshully" a decorated war hero, who actually fought in the war?
My favorite detail: The two guys who are trying to give up on the beach before being executed, are not Germans. They are Czechs, screaming "Please don't shoot, We Are Czechs, we never killed anybody" They were unarmed support personnel from annexed part of Czechoslovakia, who were forced to be there by their occupants. They seen the Americans as their saviors and only hope of freedom.
I like that it wasn't subtitled. There's no doubt that some people in the audience just saw two surrendering German soldiers and thought "fuck em, rot in hell" so if you rewatch knowing this fact you get to have your own beliefs checked. If it was translated you'd rob people of a good lesson in empathy.
Your final point about the conflicting themes of being heavily critical of the military while also romanticizing it struck me. Because while I doubt it was intentional, that on some level really does capture some of the double think that comes with being in the military; trying to reconcile a flawed, monolithic system you have little to no control over with the camaraderie and purpose you can find within it. Almost certainly by accident, but an entertaining observation from my perspective.
Ok, I understand your points but I think I have a reasonable argument to make in defense of the thematics of the film: DUDE WASN'T IT FUCKING SICK WHEN THE AMERICANS WERE CLIMBING ON THE TIGER TANK AND THEN A 20MM FLAK GUN SHOWED UP AND FUCKING BLEW THEM APART?! THAT WAS FUCKING SICK BRO!
I have no idea what my dad thought when he took 10 years old me to watch this movie in theater with him... I have no idea how I was allowed to watch this movie with him. It was shocking, to say the least- and as a result, this movie stayed with me on nigh primordial level. what I do have to say is that at the very least, Saving Private Ryan made war look dangerous, ugly, and scary and it gave me nightmares- so... maybe it was the correct impression of war for a 10 years old? a negative impression, and not the sanitized puply "fun war" that so many movies from the past, especially about how WWII was portrayed.
Macarbe : details how logically it makes no sense for military command to make such absurd logistical and tactical decisions for one guy. Me, a veteran : Whats so unrealistic about that?
My experience in the service was my chain of command authorizing new chairs, desks, tables, a remodel of the break room and a TV for our one yearly briefing while refusing to buy new repair equipment because "you can fix it, that's your job." Even if the thing that needed fixing was the thing used to do the fixing. Then if you complained they'd say "What would you know about funds allocation, your job is to repair what we say to repair."
I was in the Army back from 2002 to 2006 and did one year in Tikrit, Iraq. One thing I learned very well as do all soldiers I'd imagine, is how any one person or more could be tasked to do some of the most crazy, non-sensical shit if it just so happens that the guy giving the orders from up high is totally fucking batshit. Back in WW2 when America seen themselves as the force of good I could believe that some General too caught up in wanting to maintain the image might decide to do something silly or worse. Sending a squad to rescue one soldier under those circumstances might be seen as doing the greater good since Ryan is the last male surviving in his family. I would very strongly disagree, but the movie is definitely fantastic. Glad you talked about this one! It's not something you see often so it's much appreciated!
At some point while racing towards Berlin, Patton put some unit at substantialy even greater risk to race even further ahead and rescue some relative of some big deal politicians from a P.O.W. camp behind enemy lines. Idk all the details, but I remember it was not at all a success, lots of extra American solders were killed. And, I think, he would have been court martialed and fired if he had been anyone but Patton.
@@MacabreStorytelling I know I may be asking too much, but I really think that some shows you should review and analyse, in Future videos, are: Agents of Shild(A show that constantely reinvents itself), True Blood(With a finale as hated as Game of thrones'), Dexter(especially the new season that is gaining a lot of hate for the finale) and Oz(One of Hbo's pionners in adult content).
@Jonny Bensonitis (Greek origin?) a key difference in the officercorp is the rotation. If interested, there's a video called "why our generals were more succesful in ww2" here on the Tube.
I really appreciate the recognition the movie gave the the O'Sullivan family who lost all their sons and kick-started the "one must survive thing". I live near their ancestral home :)
I think the intention behind the final interaction between Ryan and Miller, is that its symbolic of the obligation those who come back from war feel they have to those who didn't. Because of the nature of war, its often arbitrary who lives and who dies - often coming down to chance, rather then any decisions one person makes. Ryan indeed wasn't different in any meaningful ways then the men who died for him, except for one key part; he lived, and they didn't. Thus, like countless real world combat vets, he feels he has to "payback" those who died instead of him, by living a good life - something his comrades wouldn't get the chance to. It's pretty clear - at least to me - that Ryan would have felt exactly the same in his later years, if Captain Miller had died of his wounds before Ryan came up to his body - afterall, countless real-world veterans didn't need to be explicitly told "Earn This" in order to feel they had to. Of course, its alot more powerful and cinematic to have it said rather then implied, so I appreciate why Spielberg chose to have that interaction. If it helps, I guess you can imagine that the final conversation is how the aged Ryan remembers it, not what actually happened.
Saving Private Ryan was censored and "managed" by the Military-entertainment complex, if you wanna make a war movie with military vehicles and weapons in USA you have to allow the military to censor and change the movie how they want. There were more then 1.800 movies that were altered and censored, some minor changes (Like adding more USA flags) some major changes like changing the whole script to give a better light to USA military like in the movie "American Sniper" were the original shot the sniper killed the teenager who was unarmed but look suspicious (A Common War Crime, in the USA Iraq invasion), and in the rewrite, is now a kid, grabbing a "hand grenade" and the Sniper "Needs" to shoot him and the mother who used her kid, and really reinforce that this was hard for the main character to do... because USA would never do such a crime... Saving Private Ryan had similar changes, the original script, the general did this mission only to do a Stunt to boost War Bonds sales, and he did not belive anyone would survive, the others with him protested, but it was an order, men were send to die in a suicide mission, only to boost sales... I can give you the links with the source, but UA-cam has a tendency to think you are a bot if you send links and Shadow Bans you. Soo if you wanna know more i can show but you have to use the wayback machine due to how news aboth the CIA and Military-entertainment complex involvement in Hollywood is actively banned. Watch the "The Subtle (and Not So Subtle) Military Propaganda in Movies" Video by Vice Or go the source "Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon, CIA and NSA" By "INSURGE intelligence - Medium" US military intelligence agencies have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows "Washington DC’s role behind the scenes in Hollywood goes deeper than you think" By "The Independent" On television, we found more than 1,100 titles received Pentagon backing - 900 of them since 2005, from ‘Flight 93’ to ‘Ice Road Truckers’ and ‘Army Wives’
A friend of mine who is a veteran said that the thematic dissonance makes it more realistic as a war movie. They said that war is often portrayed as straightforward or heroic when it’s at best a mixed experience that denigrates and sacrifices participants before being interpreted into something worthy.
While that is an interesting point, the problem is the movie doesn't embrace amd explore that dissonance, it tries to hide it and pretend it's not there. Your friends idea could have worked, but it doesn't feel like it's what the movie was going for.
I coped with drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, whatever, for years… Like a dozen of my old teammates killed themselves… Survivor’s guilt is crippling. Him being an old married man with a lovely family that talks to him was the most unbelievable part of the movie:/
Hey, I'd love you do a similar treatment for "Enemy at the Gates". It pissed of a lot of real russian veterans who defended Stalingrad, to a point where they damanded the movie banned as a slander. To point out a few cranberries (a russian slang for western propaganda) - love story bs, lack of rifles and ammo, senseless mass charges against fortified german positions, NKVD shooting retreating soldiers (Stalin's order 227 "no step back" was aimed at officers who abandoned their posts (only 1% of all detained by NKVD were shot). Stuff like that cheapens the sacrifice of the men who gave everything to stop the germans.
I always thought that movie was trash despite others hyping it up so much. The final sniper duel was literally the only thing I thought slapped. Glad to know I’m not going crazy lol
I'm glad I'm not the only one bothered by Saving Private Ryan. For as much as Spielberg succeeds in pulling those all important heart strings as well as his sheer technical mastery, he seemed too in love with showing how *BADASS* WWII is. That final battle is *BADASS* but it kinda conflicts with the solemnity of what he's going for and of the subject matter.
When you hear some stories veterans tell about what occurred during WWII, it gives you a much different picture of war. The casual brutality, inhumanity and war crimes committed (yes, by American troops) is shocking. This is not to say any of the participants were good, or righteous, or blameless. When the History Channel was constantly showing documentaries from WWII, and they were interviewing ex-Nazi soldiers, my thought was always, "Too bad that SOB didn't die for his country."
You don't need to hear personal stories from veterans to know we did some awful stuff. Everybody knows about us dropping the nukes, but most people don't realize we killed a lot more civilians with fire bombing of Tokyo. Similarly we fire bombed Dresden even though it didn't have much strategic significance. The decision to deliberately attack civilians comes down to whether somebody believes the civilian population is complicit in supporting the war effort.
@@methos1999 I'm glad some people actually acknowledge these bombings. I've read that attacking purely civilian targets probably prolonged the war. As a German I think the brutality of war needs to be addressed on both sides. I'm grateful that the Nazis were defeated but the narrative that a war can ever be morally pure and that anyone can be the "good guy" in a war is so dangerous and just leads to more wars.
@@methos1999 The channel Potential History did a whole video on Dresden, and basically it was definitely a military target. From what I remember, it was a major hub for supplying the army on the Eastern Front.
@@methos1999 Both Tokyo and Dresden had major strategic significance. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also major strategic targets. When the Allies bombed cities, they did it out of strategic importance. When the Axis bombed cities, they often had no strategic importance. The idea that the Allies committed war crimes is overblown and used by Axis sympathizers to make it a both sides thing. The Allies weren't going around killing a massive number of civilians in the goal of ethnic purity or to "advance" science. The Allies weren't going into cities and butchering and raping the population. The war crimes the Allies were doing were mostly killing Prisoners of War, and the majority of those killings took place after the camps were found in Europe and the POW camps were found in the Pacific, which is understandable as the Allies were furious with what the found.
I was thinking throughout this whole video "well what do you expect from the guy who wrote _The Patriot?"_ and then you mentioned that exact thing towards the end! 🤣
Love the pop-up of old Normie, took me off guard. I think a lot of historical(ish) military movies run into this problem, it's hard to make a message of the various curfuckles of war while also making it a medium that is meant to be entertainment. Though if you want a movie that REALLY gets this point across watch Johnny Got His Gun, just mentally prepare yourself before you watch it.
5:10 I disagree with the opinion that "the odds of finding Ryan is slim to none." They know he is in Baker Company, 101st Airborne Division, 1st Battalion 506th infantry regiment and the entire army is supportive of this mission. Although he is dropped in a wrong location and the situation is chaotic, it's not like he is hiding in a jungle or a fugitive. By asking anyone who had a contact with his company, I would be surprised if they can't find him sooner or later.
I love your premise with the PR nightmare the higher ups could have. That's really interesting and adds a lot more gravity to the plot If you ask me. More realistic too.
I like how you actually take potential counter-arguments into real consideration and offer your own, reasonable responses; too many video essayists/reviewers just bring up strawmen and either dismiss them, or just mock the people making the arguments.
Great video addressing the thematic dissonance throughout this film, and the way the script and direction are often seemingly at war with each other. I remember in college having to read an essay/review by screenwriter William Goldman in a similar vein to this, and he makes a particularly pointed example out of the role of the Steamboat Willy character in the film. It basically went like this; "So Miller lets him go, and then he comes back at the end and kills him. This is classic Hollywood emotional manipulation. But it's not ok here, because it ruins what made the film great. The previous battle scenes authentically depict war as an awful, chaotic, meaningless struggle for survival beyond human comprehension. This refutes that. It delivers the audience the clearcut message that if you spare the enemy, they will come back and kill you. It turns the film from being about opposing sides in a hellish tragedy into being about the good Americans vs the evil Germans."
I don't know, as German considering the historical situation I always thought Steamboat Willy returning at the end was realistic and tragic as he is killed by a coward who is angry that Willy didn't keep a promise he could never hold up to (except for if he wished to be shot as a deserter).
The scene where Steamboat Willy begs for his life always seemed like a power fantasy for the audience to me. It just served the purpose to reinforce the "good and brave guys vs the evil and cowardly guys" narrative. I like that Inglourious Basterds has a scene with a German prisoner that was a bit more morally gray. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the nazis in ww2 - it's just that on the individual soldier vs soldier level it was a bit more nuanced than good vs evil and a "anti-war" film should reflect that.
Always thought a much better version of the ending would've been Ryan dying due to his decision to stay, and Miller, despite himself, feels guilt over it because him failing the mission makes him feel at fault, regardless of Ryan having been right to stay and dying due to his own decisions. Feels like it would've much a much more powerful ending
@Macabre Storytelling Since the movie opened with a somber old man standing before a nameless grave, I couldn't shake the feeling throughout the entire ending that it would've been more powerful if Miller and Ryan changed places, that while the theme is proven that Ryan's life doesn't matter any more than any of the others, Miller ends the story unable to see it that way, since he saw getting the kid out of France as his responsibility. Plus there's the whole "the men who died on the mission literally died for nothing", not just figuratively as they do in the final version. Having them all die for a pointless mission that fails anyway removes any chance of it being construed as anything other than a wasteful sacrifice of lives, which as an anti-war film you'd think they'd want to lean towards.
@@esyphillis101 Well that's kinda the problem isn't it. What made the Omaha sequence so good was that nobody who dies in it does so in any kind of heroic fashion, they're gunned down seemingly at random while none of them are in the middle of doing anything of consequence. For an anti war film, this makes perfect sense to show off, it portrays war as cruel, chaotic, and ultimately futile. So if he's that capable of portraying it that way in the first act, I don't think that excuse flies for the rest of the movie
At the end there are two cliche metaphors given for what Spielberg did with the original script: slapping a coat of paint on it, and having one's cake and eating it too. I offer a less familiar, more archaic but far more apt cliche metaphor: *making a silk purse out of a sow's ear*
I bet this video is about the conflict between pro-war and anti-war sentiments in this movie. But hey that is war after all, we despise it yet enjoy watching Star Wars or Arnold Schwarzenegger movies.
This is why having a firm grasp on storytelling is so key to writing memorable and tight stories. Honestly, I personally think Spielberg tends to rely on grand visual or sonic displays of emotion that accompany the film instead of telling compelling, thought-provoking stories. He only seems to scratch the surface not pierce the walls. I believe he’d be even more of a memorable filmmaker if he placed more importance on the storytelling and theme department. This might be a controversial one, but I think you should do a video on Schindler’s List. I believe that’s an extremely technically proficient film that does rely on emotionalism and manipulation/exploitation at times to tell a story about a piece of history that wasn’t entertaining at all. Michael Haneke, in an interview, mentioned how Spielberg tended to force people to feel a certain way with regards to the Holocaust instead of allowing them the opportunity to come to their own conclusions, basically treating them as adults. I can see the parallels between how Spielberg depicted the Holocaust in Schindler’s List and how he depicted World War 2 in Saving Private Ryan. What are your thoughts?
I thought the point of the mission, though I don't remember if this is actually directly said in the film, that all three brothers dying would be "bad PR" for the war effort. Support for joining the war in Europe was not universally high in the US if I'm not mistaken. Most people just wanted to kick the Japanese after Pearl Harbour. So I think looked at it like that, sending one squad to avert a potential big backlash of opinion against sending Americans to fight in Europe does make sense. It was never just about Ryan as an individual. But of course from the point of the people on the mission, it's pretty FUBAR. *Edit I guess you addressed this in the video
I never really cared for this film and I love quite a few war films. This one with it's characters complaining all through about how stupid their mission is is like a giant Neon sign saying "This plot is senseless!". The action and effects are great don't get me wrong but I just cannot get past the absurdity of the script.
Yeah I’m big fan of war movies and this one was never near the top of my list. After the initial shock of the opening sequence wears off there’s not much to get excited about. Yeah there’s realistic action and costumes and effects, but they basically unlimited money with one of the best filmmakers of all time. It’s not like an indie crew punching above their weight. Idk never made me feel much compared to my favorite war movies.
you would probably hate most war films cause almost all of them get war wrong.The plot may be unrealistic or senseless as you put it but doesnt contradict anything present in the film.
@@jeffreywaugh926 There is alot of conflict amongst the team sent to save ryan, which are the best scenes in the movie. The beginning was action packed and made you invested in the characters experience but the rest of the movie builds on that further on why should they be so bothered to save one man. Yeah its not an indie crew punching above that weight but if it was would that make you like the movie much more, and if yes does the process to make the movie matter more than the finished product?
When I first saw this I took my grandmother, who was alive at the time of WW2. The theater was full that afternoon and everyone there except two young girls (who I'm sure were there to see Matt Damon) were the WW2 generation. At the end of it, they rose and gave it a standing ovation. Many were in tears. I will never forget that. I wanted to point out the major idea I took away from the movie. While it's not hidden in the movie, many overlook the Upham character transformed from a coward to a murderer because of his experiences.
Also, it wasn't Miller's squad that saved Ryan, it was the allied reinforcements. Had Miller and company not come along, they probably would have blown up the bridge and withdrawn when the tanks came rolling in and then the Germans would have gotten blown up by the allied reinforcements that arrive deux es machina style. The P-52s saved Ryan, not Miller. At best Miller saved the bridge (even though he ironically got shot trying to blow it up). He should be telling the bridge to "earn this." And that leaves aside Upham's war crime. The ending is a real mess.
@@russian_knight i get you bro. But i don't know it just made me cry like i haven't since i was a toddler prolly. Maybe i was just dealing with too much shit then it all came out at once. That one line from Tom Hanls stuck with me though "Earn it" It's kinda become a motivational line for me now haha
@@russian_knight You can cry for reasons other than sadness. Strong, raw emotions of any kind can cause someone to cry (also yawning, but that doesn't count).
Universally beloved film... maybe in America. It's a fine movie and deserves the praise. But, the best war film EVER - "Come and See". It's a killer watch. I cried, was horrified. I have no idea how the child actor survived even playing in the movie. Psychologically draining.
Very interesting video. I think I probably had a similar feeling that something felt just off, so this was a great analysis. Beyond the changes from the original script I think I have another explanation for the thematic dissonance. It all comes down to who Spielberg is and what period of time he grew up in. It's no secret that Spielberg tends to lean towards "feel good" movies, bordering on schmaltzy. In Spielberg movies we're never left wondering who the good guys are or who the bad guys are. I don't think this is a controversial statement. But then you have to look at when he was born and when he grew up - he was born in 1946. It makes him well aware of both WWII and Vietnam. So for Spielberg, war is hell and large bureaucracies (such as the military or Hollywood studios for that matter) can be FUBAR... BUT WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. The feel good nature of Spielberg won't allow him to tell truly complex war story because that would imply we aren't as good as we think we are. But of course he knows we're not perfect, so it's not like he's going to do straight up propaganda either.
The reason Spielberg doesn’t frame a mission risking eight men to save one as foolish is because it isn’t. Comparing this mission and its authors to famously lampooned leaders in film, like Paths of Glory or Dr. Strangelove is just incongruent. The US military does actually employ a “no man left behind” policy. They routinely expose soldiers to harm in the recovery of dead or separated soldiers. The story of Saving Private Ryan presents a thesis: there is such a thing as “too much to ask” with regard to the state’s relationship to her citizens. And, more pointedly, that risking the lives of a greater number of men in the recovery or rescue of fewer is not merely justifiable, but also a core aspect of our values. The movie follows a handful of hardened, if cynical, troopers who appraise the mission in purely mathematical terms. They’re frustrated by its apparent absurdity. The arc of the story, however, is their gradual move toward that most sacred of realizations: “Men are not potatoes.” This excerpt is a common one among light infantrymen. It’s from the book “Starship Troopers.” The teacher asks the class, if you were pushing a wheelbarrow full of potatoes along a precarious path, and suddenly a bump knocked one of the potatoes out, would you risk losing control of the whole load to recover that one lost potato? The class agrees they would not. So the teacher then asks why the military will often risk the lives of its members to rescue a captured comrade? Why do they risk harm to so many to rescue or recover a few? No man left behind and all that… The students posit numerous theories, all of which fall short in some way or another. Finally, after some discussion and frustration, one of the students states simply, “Men are not potatoes.” This is, in my estimation, the very heart of the movie. Anyways, my two cents:/ take care. P.S. Love your content!
"The US military does actually employ a “no man left behind” policy." No. The US military does NOT have such a policy or anything like it. I suggest you research the battle of Wake Island, the Mayaguez incident, POWs abandoned in Vietnam, the cases of Lance Corporal Jason Rother, Captain Michael Scott Speicher, Private Kristian Menchaca and Private Thomas Tucker.
Something to think about too. This movie came out before 9/11 and the wars. Vietnam was decades behind us, and had no direct effect on Gen X and us youngster millennials. SPR hit the right notes at the right time for the greatest generation. If it came out 10 years later I think all that hokey moral bs would have been done differently.
Finally I'm glad someone has done a video on SPR. Apart from the awesome battle scene which are some of the greatest in war movie history the actual story never made sense to me. Totally agree with your analysis.
yep, this movie is weird and im not ready to talk about it yet, but i think u nailed it. and that story about the 5 brothers, wow, im not american and its the first time i hear about it... truly macabre.
Damn, thanks I rewatched this movie recently and I was barely able to bear the whole part with the general sending 8 people to most likely die just for one private and the “feels” Still a great movie, but that scene really soured the rest of the experience for me Another point about the “earn this”, though: you are absolutely right, in my opinion, that Ryan didn’t need to prove anything, but as shown in the ending he certainly didn’t feel that way. Imagine spending forty, fifty years of your life with the idea that you MUST prove that all those people didn’t die in vain for you, that you NEED to be worthy of their sacrifice, and the only person that could tell you that you were able to had died many decades before. That just feel tragic to me
Good point. As uplifting as the final scene is it could actually be viewed through a sort of messed up lens in the sense he has been struggling with survivor’s guilt that was sort of forced upon him.
Ironic how that film was released in the same year with Saving Private Ryan and Life is Beautiful. Sheesh, 1998 is basically the year for WW2 movies, that want to make us cry.
This has been my main problem with the movie for a long time. It's so close to making a statement about the bureaucracy of war and become one of the best war movies of all time, but it just doesn't go all in. Still a great movie, but I often feel like I need to ignore the story to enjoy it.
I see what you mean and in retrospect it would have been so painfully easy to paint the brass back in home a villain to add more coherent and nuanced commentary to the film. That would have made hanks' character an even more bittersweet and relatable, a man torn between his duty to both his men and to the greater war effort. It could have been him that paints the noble idealism on this cynical pr stunt to pull his troops together and through their sacrifice throw shade at the brass sending them on such a mission. Heck, by the end of it their pointless self sacrifice could have still happened and with them being fully on board and aware of the absurdity it might have hit some full metal jacket vibes.
Its a beautifully made film with incredible production values and a first act like few others. However from that point on its just full of stock characters running through the usual war movie men on a mission tropes with one very annoying continuity error. When the group is seen leaving the beach in a jeep and trailer yet the next scene is seen on foot, hinting at an un-filmed scene is something Ive never understood how the scene with them leaving the beach stayed in the film.
@@MacabreStorytelling Like many on initial viewing it was an incredible viewing experience. Its only after a few viewings that you spot the jeep and presumably the radio they would've needed but is never mentioned. Its only then that you realise that there must be a scene missing that explains the plot device of them having to travel on foot so the audience can get to know the individual characters involved, when there would've been an abundance of vehicles made available to them given how important the mission was. After Omaha beach its a well made but pretty overrated war movie.
This is why film critique is a good thing, and doesn’t mean that you’re slamming a film. Being able to analyze a film’s message is a skill any film viewer should try to sharpen.
I always thought the senselessness of of sacrificing 6 guys to save 1 was a meta-commentary on the sacrifices others have given for all of us (as well as survivor’s guilt), as is demonstrated in the line “earn this.” It’s not a commentary on incompetence in the top brass. It’s an homage to the horrible violent deaths many gave so that others could come home.
While on the topic of Thematic Dissonance, I should *REPORT* on another film. What's another Spielberg hit that sweeps all it's plot holes and philosophical contradictions under the rug with fantastical futuristic production and execution, that also got critically adored with only a *MINORITY* disagreeing?
Wow. I wasn’t expecting this. But damn, you really did articulate why I never liked the bureaucratic set up scenes. Impressive as always. Now I just wanna see the real story on film. It could be great in the right hands.
My favorite trivia about the movie is apparently the surrendering soldiers they execute after the beach landing are speaking Czech, and saying they're not German. Presumably they were among the many people captured and forced to fight by the Germans.
Ironically... I'm torn on that. Like... was it supposed to imply that since they weren't actual Germans, gunning them down while they were surrendering was somehow less egregious? I get the soldiers obviously didn't know or care, but yeah.
First time I saw this movie I was sold from start to finish. And I was taken in by the flag-waving, and thought it was an actual event, basically. Spielberg sure knows how to build an emotional ride. It was first later that I started analysing its flaws, and I've seen another video about it, and this one have a good take on some of the problems. Subscribed! :)
I think Spielberg had to make the film look good towards the military, because I remember reading somewhere that if a big blockbuster movie has the military involved(especially the U.S) they have to be shown in a good light and not have villainous intent. It could show that there's one bad egg but not the entire industry if that makes sense.
I dunno, I kinda like the idea of everyone in the story acting in what they themselves think is an honourable and morally defensible manner. Frankly I wish more war films could present a conflict but not have an identifiable villain.
I’d say the thematic dissonance comes from the funding. I could be wrong here but the us military funded the movie, not Hollywood. As a result I’d understand why a critique of said military or a or nightmare story would’ve been impossible to make. Is it right? No. But that’s why the film is how it is. P.S. I haven’t finished the video yet.
I found the premise slightly hard to understand even as a kid honestly. I remember thinking what was so special about some random soldier I had never even heard of in real life.
I've never wached Saving Private Ryan and was only briefly familiar with the plot (private dude gets saved with a cost of many other dudes' lives), not knowing the motivations at all. I always thought that Ryan was a general's son or that operation was a PR move(as proposed in the video). I am quite shocked to see its really that the motivation is THAT strange and unrealistic (doesn't mean i wouldn't watch the movie now. In fact, i intend to watch it tonight because of footage shown in the video)
I watched SPR maybe six months ago, and I remember feeling a weird clash between the battle scenes (especially the first one) and much of (though not all of) the rest of the movie. The battle scenes feel cynical and cosmicist. It's pure chaos, death is wanton and arbitrary. Survival is mostly luck. Soldiers and surrendering and then being killed anyways, but there's never any room to breathe, so the violence feels blunt and shocking. But other parts of the movie feel traditional and have plenty of classic Spielberg cheese and sentimentality, so while I see why people love the movie a lot and I love aspects of it, I wasn't sure how to feel overall.
When you consider how much intervention the military has with film making for over 80+ years, it makes sense that Spielberg's sentimentality clashes with the "'Murica, hell yeah" attitude that they soooo want to portray with literally any movie with the military involved.
Saving Private Ryan was one of those movies I always wanted to explore in theaters. I couldn’t because I was born the year I was born. However, the film seemed off to me somehow plot-wise. This video laid it out beautifully. Well done.
I think the film simply conveys the following sentiment: -THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS! Note that the film even humanizes the individual Germans (a lot more than previous films). But it all ends up as FUBAR - type, moral dilemmas. The film goes "out of its way" to NOT give a CLEAR solution, perhaps because it didn't feel like it had one .. ? One of the last lines: "Maybe saving Private Ryan is the one decent thing we did in this war" shows the IRONY of it all. They were struggling to make the hell of war decent, and this was all they could muster .. because war is not "a hero's journey" it is quicksand that turns even decent intentions on it's head ..
The theme of the movie is pretty clear and does not have any issues whatsoever. And the metaphorical question is about the evaluation of the life of specific soldiers, which are clearly explained and answered during the film - no thematic dissonance at all. Let me explain: The war is a horrific situation not only for the soldiers or civilians affected, but for the armies, too. In the regular circumstances, Army officials cannot value the particular soldiers and their lives. Every soldier, every troop is an asset - if the 6-men troop is eliminated, but 20-men troop survives instead, that's the success for the army. The only circumstance when the value of the individual soldier increases beyond the soldiers rank and mission is when something horrific happens. Something more horrible than war. For example the disappearance of the entire family. It is sad and it is not fair, but it is the truth. Regularly, Ryan would have been valued less than most members of the Miller's troop given his low rank. But the terrible circumstances about his family members make his life more valuable than the entire troop. Ryan is an exception. The members of Miller's squad do not receive such special treatment and they are angry, rightfully so from their own perspective. War has not been fair for them, giving this fubar mission to this team is not fair by any means. But neither is the fact that some soldiers landed on the Omaha beach during the massacre, while others did not, that some have to defend the bridge which is not defendable given their manpower, while others are located in safer and better armed divisions. All the Miller's crew members remain assets in the eyes of the army officials, but death of 3 Ryan brothers give them opportunity to make not tactical, but human choice for once. Choice not for the greater good - since more people die by this mission than are rescued, but for the less evil - the only surviving son is the only hope left for the mom back in US who gave her all to the country. Ryan's decision to stay with his troop is a different story. This is his perspective, not the Army officials'. Staying the only one alive from his troop because his brothers have died does not seem right for this young man. And he chooses to fight for that damn bridge. It also does not feel right, that 6 man have died to rescue him. But the choice he makes moving forward is not to grief the loss of these 6 man or his own brothers, but to celebrate their lives with the remainder of his life. US army made an exceptionally human decision because of the tragedy of Ryan's family, and the sacrifice from the soldiers involved fueled him to become the best possible version of himself. When I watch Saving Private Ryan, I appreciate the story first and the filmmaking afterwards. The message of the movie has come to my heart on my first watch and stayed with me upon many rewatchs, even though I am not American and do not have any specific relation to WWII. Sorry for the long comment :)
"US army made an exceptionally human decision because of the tragedy of Ryan's family, and the sacrifice from the soldiers involved fueled him to become the best possible version of himself." Except while I understand the larger thematic point, this conflicts with the actual details of the story. If Wade and Caparzo were only children, or even if they weren't, I don't see how this is coherent.
@@MacabreStorytelling as mentioned, this is not for the greater good, this is for the lesser evil. The main point is, the only time US army officials are allowed to act on their emotions is when something worse than war happens.
How exactly is the general's life given precedence over the other men that died in the plane? They didn't plan for the plane to crash. They obviously must have thought that it would fly. Also the general died as well. They didn't allow the men to die in order to keep the general alive.
25:42 Script just says "Fourty two hundred" doesn't explicitly state *Yards* Could it be feet instead? that would make much more sense. Honestly just eyeballing the distance based on the frame from the movie Four thousand *Feet* seems about what it is or plausible anyway.
@@MacabreStorytelling ah ok then that is definitely questionable. But does it look more like 420 FEET to you as well? cuz it does to me. maybe it's a script writer mistake for measurement
I disagree, I think the nonsensical nature of the mission works fantastically as an allegory for our position in all this as the viewer. It absolutely is absurd that the unprecedented peace, stability and prosperity we enjoy today in western countries is built on the grueling sacrifice of countless soldiers and civilians in events like WW2. Is there is a good reason for me to be able to sit in my mother's basement and play video games all day while not even a hundred years ago men had to go face events like the Normandy landing? History is unjust, cruel and often arbitrary. There is no meaningful difference between me and them, and I think that's exactly what the film is trying to say. And the conclusion the film reaches is that the only way to even begin repaying this sacrifice is to... "earn it". To try to live the best life you can, one that maybe even would have made proud the people who gave up theirs. Personally I didn't even see this film as American propaganda, the US army was just the most convenient "vehicle" for the mostly American audience of this film. I'm from Romania, and while the country isn't exactly as rich or developed as most western countries, it is right now by far at its richest, freest, most prosperous and stable point in history. And to whom is this unprecedented stability owed? Well mostly to those who unjustly died and/or suffered opposing Hitler, then Stalin and USSR imperialism, then Ceausescu's brutal dictatorship, and even today those who find themselves in the neighboring buffer state that (tragically) is Ukraine who risk their lives on the Russian border even as I type this. I could go on and on with examples, but the film left me with the impression that I should remember all of it, the immense injustice that was done to them, and the great debt I owe them, regardless of nationality.
Even in 1998 I thought it was a little tooo nostalgic. The Omaha beach scene was absolutely fantastic filmmaking, but its at points unrealistic. Soldiers never use automatic weapons like that, they'd run out of ammunition in 1 min. Best scene is when the mom gets the news about her sons. Not a word is spoken and it's so powerful. Something only greats like Spielberg can do.
Just got to the scene in the movie in the church where Miller talks about justifying the death of his men by believing he is saving 10-20 men He is being tested to flip that calculation how many lives is a single mans life worth “This Ryan better be worth it”
The next important scene is before assaulting the mg nest when Miller decided to take what is conceived by his squad as an unnecessary risk But the point Miller argues is that it is their duty to take risks To protect those who follow from falling into an ambush This highlights the questionable math he has lived by he is risking his men (and loses wade) but did that save 10-20 men? He is testing the justifications he has lived by
After reiban and the sarge have their spat Miller says Ryan is nothing to him he is just a name Finding Ryan ie doing his duty is so that he can earn the right to go home
I think the best part about the film is that it's mostly character building the entire time, and it doesn't do it in an over the top exposition way. Most the film is doing this. The action whilst big at parts, is mostly a backdrop.
I wonder if you will ever do a video on Django: Unchained. I feel like there is a lot that saves the movie like performances and character writing but there's historical inaccuracy that people complained about I find interesting. I know the movie is kind of an exploitation film but it would be cool to hear a balanced view of the pure entertainment value and inaccuracies. I have yet to fully see Saving Private Ryan but had an assumption of it being one of those movies you watch at school that isn't completely true to historical events. A last bit I considered about writing is sometimes you get locked in a groove where it gets tedious to make everything logical. Creativity is a weird balance of logical and spontaneous and I try keeping that in mind even when criticizing art.
This is one of my all time favorite films. As a history nerd who knows way to much about military campaigns, I can confidently say that while this movie is one of the most well made films of all time, it makes absolutely no logical sense plot wise and suffers from massive geographical plotholes. It is also very propoganda-ish. Looking forward to a spicy take here.
Spielberg’s greatest flaw is that he can’t portray war as horrific as it is (despite that iconic opening sequence) both because of his thematic sensibilities and his genuine sense of patriotism especially surrounding WWII. Wonder why he’s never made a Vietnam War film? Because he can’t make it “okay” or morally clear. He could never make a film like Come and See for instance.
@@YungM.D. no body is perfect I guess.
Still deserves Best Picture over Shakespeare in Love (or maybe Life is Beautiful, another dark yet comedic take on World War II). Geez, am I still one of those people who get mad at that win….
That’s why it is illogical. It is a paradox. That’s the point. I have been in wars and non-sense shit happens all the time for no other reason than orders. Totally plausible.
@@osmanyousif7849 _The Thin Red Line_ is the greatest film of 1998 and should have won Best Picture, imho.
10:36 Holy shit. I'd heard the basics of the Sullivan brothers' story before, but this is the first I've ever heard of the aftermath of the Juno's sinking. That's actually horrific. Forget about Saving Private Ryan, _that_ is the kind of "war is hell" story I could get behind.
We spend the first act of the movie meeting the Sullivan brothers during their enlistement and early deployment, then a little ways through act 2 BAM, ship sinks, they all die, and we following the surviving supporting cast as they're numbers dwindle, juxtaposed against scenes of the incompetence of their commanders as rescue is delayed. Movie ends with a somber look at how the higher-ups sensationalize the Sullivans' deaths to fuel the war effort, while all those men they left to die at sea are covered up and forgotten.
EDIT: I paused to make this comment before the bit about the 2 brothers that actually survived the initial sinking. I can't believe it somehow got _worse._
And the thing is, they made it the captains fault. Like he should have been zigzagging. But, he wasn't under any orders to do so. Didn't he suicide? It was BS what they did to him, like it's his fault that the ship was torpedoed.
The Juneau had been severely damaged in the battle that occurred the previous night, a battle which was absolute chaos and would've made for a Hollywood directors wet dream (destroyers charging battleships and duking it out at spitting distance, friendly fire on both sides, and no well-defined track chart of the action so liberties could be taken with what ships are where). She was limping alongside the other heavily damaged ships of her task force when the submarine I26 fired at the San Francisco (flagship of the task force) but hit the battered Juneau instead. The communication errors that lead to the survivors languishing in the water weren't anyone's specific fault, this was way before satellite phones and good quality communications, the task force personnel believed it was seriously unlikely anyone had survived the Juneau as the ship hadn't really sunk as much as it had just completely detonated, Juneau was a new type of ship and she had an absurd amount of firepower and magazines and almost no real armor to speak of, so when she blew up it was pretty horrific and no one thought anyone could've survived. Captain Gilbert Hoover of the Helena was the acting commander of the task force and he didn't want to break radio silence to draw further Japanese attention, so he blinkered a message to a B-17 flying overhead that the Juneau had been sunk and rescue parties should be sent. Hoover did not conduct rescue operations himself because his force was severely damaged and he had only 1 single intact ship, the destroyer Fletched, which was needed to escort the remaining ships home, men who were there generally agree that Hoover made the right decision to not further expose his force to submarine attack by turning back to search for survivors or prosecute an attack on the submarine.
The message from the B17 took a long time to be delivered and decoded and sent to anyone who could do anything about it, and search and rescue teams from Guadalcanal were busy with ships from the same battle that damaged the Juneau that were left in the battle area; Juneau's sister ship Atlanta had to be evacuated and then scuttled, USS Portland had to be towed by tug to Tulagj for emergency repairs and was almost attacked by US PT boats, so the Juneau wasn't the only one in need and it was the least likely that anything could be done about itm there's also the fact that the battle wasn't over, fighting around Guadalcanal would continue that night when Japanese cruisers bombarded the island and again when they attempted the same the following night but were intercepted by task force 64 and the last heavy surface units available to Halsey. Aircraft were in desperately short supply as the US was down to a single carrier (the damaged Enterprise) and the planes on Guadalcanal were busy trying to sink Japanese transports attempting to land on the island, so there wasn't much to send to search for Juneau survivors, especially since she was sunk far from the area where most ships had been lost.
@@berenscott8999The captain of the Juneau wasn't blamed and he died when the ship exploded. What you're thinking of seems to be a composite of two men. The first is Gilbert Hoover, captain of USS Helena and the acting task force commander of the group Juneau was in, it was his decision to not search for survivors after the Juneau exploded (and she did explode violently, she didn't just sink, most witnesses thought there could be no survivors), the task force had just been through a horrific night battle off Guadalcanal and every ship but one was heavily damaged and limping back to port, Hoover had to weigh the lives of any possible survivors against those of the men on the battered ships under his command that would be easy pickings for the Japanese submarine hunting them if he turned back. He did flash a blinker light signal to a B17 flying overhead later in the day but it took far too long for that message to be delivered and decoded. Hoover didn't break radio silence to transmit further messages about the Juneau for fear of attracting more Japanese attention to his bedraggled task force. Hoover had a stellar war record up to that point but an officer on Haley's staff wanted him fired for some reason and did his best to tank the man's career, Halsey would recommend Hoover be removed from seagoing command and given shore assignment, he wasn't fired or punished but the thought was that he was war-weary and his judgement had become impaired, Halsey would later express deep regret over this decision and noted that he and Hoover still had a great personal relationship.
The other man you're likely thinking of is Howard Bode, captain of USS Chicago at the disastrous battle of Savo Island, his command failures helped contribute to the loss of 4 allied cruisers and he was the main scapegoat for this (I honestly don't remember how culpable he personally was), he too was removed from seagoing command and sent to Panama if I remember correctly, he found out that the investigation into the Savo disaster had placed him as the main culprit, and he killed himself shortly thereafter.
Fun fact only tangentially related to the video;
When Major (ret.) Richard Winters (A member of the 101st airborne division, and one of the key officers from Band of Brothers) was asked how he would have handled the battle of Ramelle as depicted in the film, he answered that he would have just blown up the bridge before the Germans even got there and moved on.
But hey, ya need a cool final battle!
OMG Winters was badass
He probably would have been wrong to do that--the fiction battle of Ramelle takes place in the preparatory stage to the breakout from Normandy, at the Allies were consolidating and expanding their beachhead
Thus, destroying the bridge would be
1. What the Germans would probably want to do
2. Make another mess for the engineer corps to either repair and/or construct a pontoon in place of
In that case, destroying the bridge would only have been acceptable if the Germans were about to overrun the guard and take it anyways
Why did they stay to defend a bridge they were going to blow up anyway? Was there some line in the film addressing this? Otherwise feels like a zombie film where they could just drive away, but decide to arbitrarily hold out for 6 hours. THEN drive away.
Not to mention the battle feels even more pointless when it's resolved by the Air force just blowing all the Germans up.
@@warlordofbritannia Irrelevant if the Allies can't hold the bridge.
@@warlordofbritannia
The film takes place between D-Day+3 to D-Day+4 (June 9-June 10). The Breakout won't happen until the 25th of July - a month and a half away. They have more then enough time to repair any bridge they need to before the offensive.
The 101st Airborne already destroyed multiple bridges to prevent German counterattacks - one more ain't gonna matter.
Honestly mate, where do you get off trying to "well ackshully" a decorated war hero, who actually fought in the war?
My favorite detail: The two guys who are trying to give up on the beach before being executed, are not Germans. They are Czechs, screaming "Please don't shoot, We Are Czechs, we never killed anybody"
They were unarmed support personnel from annexed part of Czechoslovakia, who were forced to be there by their occupants. They seen the Americans as their saviors and only hope of freedom.
“Look Ma, I washed for supper! That’s a great point. I wished that they had translated that for the audience.
A good reason to learn english.
I like that it wasn't subtitled. There's no doubt that some people in the audience just saw two surrendering German soldiers and thought "fuck em, rot in hell" so if you rewatch knowing this fact you get to have your own beliefs checked. If it was translated you'd rob people of a good lesson in empathy.
Your final point about the conflicting themes of being heavily critical of the military while also romanticizing it struck me. Because while I doubt it was intentional, that on some level really does capture some of the double think that comes with being in the military; trying to reconcile a flawed, monolithic system you have little to no control over with the camaraderie and purpose you can find within it.
Almost certainly by accident, but an entertaining observation from my perspective.
Ok, I understand your points but I think I have a reasonable argument to make in defense of the thematics of the film:
DUDE WASN'T IT FUCKING SICK WHEN THE AMERICANS WERE CLIMBING ON THE TIGER TANK AND THEN A 20MM FLAK GUN SHOWED UP AND FUCKING BLEW THEM APART?! THAT WAS FUCKING SICK BRO!
I relent
Rule of Cool: The Movie: WWII Edition
Opening scene is one of the greatest in cinema history, portrays the horrors of war better than almost any piece of media I’ve ever seen.
I have no idea what my dad thought when he took 10 years old me to watch this movie in theater with him... I have no idea how I was allowed to watch this movie with him. It was shocking, to say the least- and as a result, this movie stayed with me on nigh primordial level.
what I do have to say is that at the very least, Saving Private Ryan made war look dangerous, ugly, and scary and it gave me nightmares- so... maybe it was the correct impression of war for a 10 years old? a negative impression, and not the sanitized puply "fun war" that so many movies from the past, especially about how WWII was portrayed.
Macarbe : details how logically it makes no sense for military command to make such absurd logistical and tactical decisions for one guy.
Me, a veteran : Whats so unrealistic about that?
My experience in the service was my chain of command authorizing new chairs, desks, tables, a remodel of the break room and a TV for our one yearly briefing while refusing to buy new repair equipment because "you can fix it, that's your job." Even if the thing that needed fixing was the thing used to do the fixing. Then if you complained they'd say "What would you know about funds allocation, your job is to repair what we say to repair."
Lol govt. In a nutshell glad I'm out of the cluster fuck
Glad I'm just starting, it's boutta be a great few years, HOO-YAH
He never said that an illogical command was unrealistic in itself.
I was in the Army back from 2002 to 2006 and did one year in Tikrit, Iraq. One thing I learned very well as do all soldiers I'd imagine, is how any one person or more could be tasked to do some of the most crazy, non-sensical shit if it just so happens that the guy giving the orders from up high is totally fucking batshit. Back in WW2 when America seen themselves as the force of good I could believe that some General too caught up in wanting to maintain the image might decide to do something silly or worse. Sending a squad to rescue one soldier under those circumstances might be seen as doing the greater good since Ryan is the last male surviving in his family. I would very strongly disagree, but the movie is definitely fantastic. Glad you talked about this one! It's not something you see often so it's much appreciated!
❤
Be ashamed of your mistakes. Don't proclaim your criminality.
At some point while racing towards Berlin, Patton put some unit at substantialy even greater risk to race even further ahead and rescue some relative of some big deal politicians from a P.O.W. camp behind enemy lines. Idk all the details, but I remember it was not at all a success, lots of extra American solders were killed. And, I think, he would have been court martialed and fired if he had been anyone but Patton.
@@MacabreStorytelling I know I may be asking too much, but I really think that some shows you should review and analyse, in Future videos, are: Agents of Shild(A show that constantely reinvents itself), True Blood(With a finale as hated as Game of thrones'), Dexter(especially the new season that is gaining a lot of hate for the finale) and Oz(One of Hbo's pionners in adult content).
@Jonny Bensonitis (Greek origin?) a key difference in the officercorp is the rotation. If interested, there's a video called "why our generals were more succesful in ww2" here on the Tube.
I really appreciate the recognition the movie gave the the O'Sullivan family who lost all their sons and kick-started the "one must survive thing". I live near their ancestral home :)
I think the intention behind the final interaction between Ryan and Miller, is that its symbolic of the obligation those who come back from war feel they have to those who didn't.
Because of the nature of war, its often arbitrary who lives and who dies - often coming down to chance, rather then any decisions one person makes.
Ryan indeed wasn't different in any meaningful ways then the men who died for him, except for one key part; he lived, and they didn't.
Thus, like countless real world combat vets, he feels he has to "payback" those who died instead of him, by living a good life - something his comrades wouldn't get the chance to.
It's pretty clear - at least to me - that Ryan would have felt exactly the same in his later years, if Captain Miller had died of his wounds before Ryan came up to his body - afterall, countless real-world veterans didn't need to be explicitly told "Earn This" in order to feel they had to.
Of course, its alot more powerful and cinematic to have it said rather then implied, so I appreciate why Spielberg chose to have that interaction.
If it helps, I guess you can imagine that the final conversation is how the aged Ryan remembers it, not what actually happened.
no that is what happened cause its not a story told from his perspective.
Risking 8 lives for one guy is insane. Not gonna when watching it for the first time I thought this is exact thing.
Saving Private Ryan was censored and "managed" by the Military-entertainment complex, if you wanna make a war movie with military vehicles and weapons in USA you have to allow the military to censor and change the movie how they want. There were more then 1.800 movies that were altered and censored, some minor changes (Like adding more USA flags) some major changes like changing the whole script to give a better light to USA military like in the movie "American Sniper" were the original shot the sniper killed the teenager who was unarmed but look suspicious (A Common War Crime, in the USA Iraq invasion), and in the rewrite, is now a kid, grabbing a "hand grenade" and the Sniper "Needs" to shoot him and the mother who used her kid, and really reinforce that this was hard for the main character to do... because USA would never do such a crime... Saving Private Ryan had similar changes, the original script, the general did this mission only to do a Stunt to boost War Bonds sales, and he did not belive anyone would survive, the others with him protested, but it was an order, men were send to die in a suicide mission, only to boost sales...
I can give you the links with the source, but UA-cam has a tendency to think you are a bot if you send links and Shadow Bans you. Soo if you wanna know more i can show but you have to use the wayback machine due to how news aboth the CIA and Military-entertainment complex involvement in Hollywood is actively banned.
Watch the "The Subtle (and Not So Subtle) Military Propaganda in Movies" Video by Vice
Or go the source
"Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon, CIA and NSA" By "INSURGE intelligence - Medium"
US military intelligence agencies have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows
"Washington DC’s role behind the scenes in Hollywood goes deeper than you think" By "The Independent"
On television, we found more than 1,100 titles received Pentagon backing - 900 of them since 2005, from ‘Flight 93’ to ‘Ice Road Truckers’ and ‘Army Wives’
A friend of mine who is a veteran said that the thematic dissonance makes it more realistic as a war movie. They said that war is often portrayed as straightforward or heroic when it’s at best a mixed experience that denigrates and sacrifices participants before being interpreted into something worthy.
While that is an interesting point, the problem is the movie doesn't embrace amd explore that dissonance, it tries to hide it and pretend it's not there. Your friends idea could have worked, but it doesn't feel like it's what the movie was going for.
Imagine being Ryan after the war, with the pressure of having to live his life in a way that makes it worth to sacrifice 6-8 other people for it.
Now THAT'S a movie I wanna see!
Get Damon on board PRONTO!
I coped with drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, whatever, for years… Like a dozen of my old teammates killed themselves… Survivor’s guilt is crippling. Him being an old married man with a lovely family that talks to him was the most unbelievable part of the movie:/
Hey, I'd love you do a similar treatment for "Enemy at the Gates". It pissed of a lot of real russian veterans who defended Stalingrad, to a point where they damanded the movie banned as a slander. To point out a few cranberries (a russian slang for western propaganda) - love story bs, lack of rifles and ammo, senseless mass charges against fortified german positions, NKVD shooting retreating soldiers (Stalin's order 227 "no step back" was aimed at officers who abandoned their posts (only 1% of all detained by NKVD were shot). Stuff like that cheapens the sacrifice of the men who gave everything to stop the germans.
I always thought that movie was trash despite others hyping it up so much. The final sniper duel was literally the only thing I thought slapped. Glad to know I’m not going crazy lol
I'm glad I'm not the only one bothered by Saving Private Ryan. For as much as Spielberg succeeds in pulling those all important heart strings as well as his sheer technical mastery, he seemed too in love with showing how *BADASS* WWII is. That final battle is *BADASS* but it kinda conflicts with the solemnity of what he's going for and of the subject matter.
When you hear some stories veterans tell about what occurred during WWII, it gives you a much different picture of war. The casual brutality, inhumanity and war crimes committed (yes, by American troops) is shocking. This is not to say any of the participants were good, or righteous, or blameless. When the History Channel was constantly showing documentaries from WWII, and they were interviewing ex-Nazi soldiers, my thought was always, "Too bad that SOB didn't die for his country."
You don't need to hear personal stories from veterans to know we did some awful stuff. Everybody knows about us dropping the nukes, but most people don't realize we killed a lot more civilians with fire bombing of Tokyo. Similarly we fire bombed Dresden even though it didn't have much strategic significance. The decision to deliberately attack civilians comes down to whether somebody believes the civilian population is complicit in supporting the war effort.
@@methos1999 I'm glad some people actually acknowledge these bombings. I've read that attacking purely civilian targets probably prolonged the war. As a German I think the brutality of war needs to be addressed on both sides. I'm grateful that the Nazis were defeated but the narrative that a war can ever be morally pure and that anyone can be the "good guy" in a war is so dangerous and just leads to more wars.
@@methos1999 The channel Potential History did a whole video on Dresden, and basically it was definitely a military target. From what I remember, it was a major hub for supplying the army on the Eastern Front.
@@methos1999 Both Tokyo and Dresden had major strategic significance. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also major strategic targets. When the Allies bombed cities, they did it out of strategic importance. When the Axis bombed cities, they often had no strategic importance.
The idea that the Allies committed war crimes is overblown and used by Axis sympathizers to make it a both sides thing. The Allies weren't going around killing a massive number of civilians in the goal of ethnic purity or to "advance" science. The Allies weren't going into cities and butchering and raping the population. The war crimes the Allies were doing were mostly killing Prisoners of War, and the majority of those killings took place after the camps were found in Europe and the POW camps were found in the Pacific, which is understandable as the Allies were furious with what the found.
Oh boy, this sounds like it’s gonna be *spicy*
I was thinking throughout this whole video "well what do you expect from the guy who wrote _The Patriot?"_ and then you mentioned that exact thing towards the end! 🤣
Love the pop-up of old Normie, took me off guard. I think a lot of historical(ish) military movies run into this problem, it's hard to make a message of the various curfuckles of war while also making it a medium that is meant to be entertainment. Though if you want a movie that REALLY gets this point across watch Johnny Got His Gun, just mentally prepare yourself before you watch it.
5:10 I disagree with the opinion that "the odds of finding Ryan is slim to none." They know he is in Baker Company, 101st Airborne Division, 1st Battalion 506th infantry regiment and the entire army is supportive of this mission. Although he is dropped in a wrong location and the situation is chaotic, it's not like he is hiding in a jungle or a fugitive. By asking anyone who had a contact with his company, I would be surprised if they can't find him sooner or later.
I’m gonna be furious if he isn’t saved by the end of this review.
Spoiler Alert: He is.
@@TomEyeTheSFMguy LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I love your premise with the PR nightmare the higher ups could have. That's really interesting and adds a lot more gravity to the plot If you ask me. More realistic too.
Wow, never realized Bryan Cranston is in Saving Private Ryan.
Oh, the less you know, the better….
Bryan Cranston been in a lot of shit lowkey
I like how you actually take potential counter-arguments into real consideration and offer your own, reasonable responses; too many video essayists/reviewers just bring up strawmen and either dismiss them, or just mock the people making the arguments.
Holy hell, that original draft of the script. Im rollin'
Top notch work as always Mac. Even better than your vid on The Departed.
❤
This movie has been on my watchlist for way too long now I feel obligated to see it before I can watch this video
I'll allow it...
Yes please do
It’s an Absolutely fantastic film
But even great movies have flaws
Which this video goes to show
@@MacabreStorytelling forgive me, and thank you. I’ll be back. Lol.
Great video addressing the thematic dissonance throughout this film, and the way the script and direction are often seemingly at war with each other.
I remember in college having to read an essay/review by screenwriter William Goldman in a similar vein to this, and he makes a particularly pointed example out of the role of the Steamboat Willy character in the film. It basically went like this;
"So Miller lets him go, and then he comes back at the end and kills him. This is classic Hollywood emotional manipulation. But it's not ok here, because it ruins what made the film great. The previous battle scenes authentically depict war as an awful, chaotic, meaningless struggle for survival beyond human comprehension. This refutes that. It delivers the audience the clearcut message that if you spare the enemy, they will come back and kill you. It turns the film from being about opposing sides in a hellish tragedy into being about the good Americans vs the evil Germans."
I don't know, as German considering the historical situation I always thought Steamboat Willy returning at the end was realistic and tragic as he is killed by a coward who is angry that Willy didn't keep a promise he could never hold up to (except for if he wished to be shot as a deserter).
Heheh…”at war with each other” heh
The scene where Steamboat Willy begs for his life always seemed like a power fantasy for the audience to me. It just served the purpose to reinforce the "good and brave guys vs the evil and cowardly guys" narrative. I like that Inglourious Basterds has a scene with a German prisoner that was a bit more morally gray. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the nazis in ww2 - it's just that on the individual soldier vs soldier level it was a bit more nuanced than good vs evil and a "anti-war" film should reflect that.
Always thought a much better version of the ending would've been Ryan dying due to his decision to stay, and Miller, despite himself, feels guilt over it because him failing the mission makes him feel at fault, regardless of Ryan having been right to stay and dying due to his own decisions. Feels like it would've much a much more powerful ending
That sounds pimp
@Macabre Storytelling Since the movie opened with a somber old man standing before a nameless grave, I couldn't shake the feeling throughout the entire ending that it would've been more powerful if Miller and Ryan changed places, that while the theme is proven that Ryan's life doesn't matter any more than any of the others, Miller ends the story unable to see it that way, since he saw getting the kid out of France as his responsibility. Plus there's the whole "the men who died on the mission literally died for nothing", not just figuratively as they do in the final version. Having them all die for a pointless mission that fails anyway removes any chance of it being construed as anything other than a wasteful sacrifice of lives, which as an anti-war film you'd think they'd want to lean towards.
This is actually a fantastic point. But obviously too cynical for someone like Spielberg.
@@esyphillis101 Well that's kinda the problem isn't it. What made the Omaha sequence so good was that nobody who dies in it does so in any kind of heroic fashion, they're gunned down seemingly at random while none of them are in the middle of doing anything of consequence. For an anti war film, this makes perfect sense to show off, it portrays war as cruel, chaotic, and ultimately futile. So if he's that capable of portraying it that way in the first act, I don't think that excuse flies for the rest of the movie
At the end there are two cliche metaphors given for what Spielberg did with the original script: slapping a coat of paint on it, and having one's cake and eating it too.
I offer a less familiar, more archaic but far more apt cliche metaphor: *making a silk purse out of a sow's ear*
noice
I bet this video is about the conflict between pro-war and anti-war sentiments in this movie. But hey that is war after all, we despise it yet enjoy watching Star Wars or Arnold Schwarzenegger movies.
Surprisingly not really. I actually think the film does a good job of demonstrating that war is hell, but it is necessary sometimes.
This is why having a firm grasp on storytelling is so key to writing memorable and tight stories. Honestly, I personally think Spielberg tends to rely on grand visual or sonic displays of emotion that accompany the film instead of telling compelling, thought-provoking stories. He only seems to scratch the surface not pierce the walls. I believe he’d be even more of a memorable filmmaker if he placed more importance on the storytelling and theme department. This might be a controversial one, but I think you should do a video on Schindler’s List. I believe that’s an extremely technically proficient film that does rely on emotionalism and manipulation/exploitation at times to tell a story about a piece of history that wasn’t entertaining at all. Michael Haneke, in an interview, mentioned how Spielberg tended to force people to feel a certain way with regards to the Holocaust instead of allowing them the opportunity to come to their own conclusions, basically treating them as adults. I can see the parallels between how Spielberg depicted the Holocaust in Schindler’s List and how he depicted World War 2 in Saving Private Ryan. What are your thoughts?
never realized they snuck Bryan Cranston in there before
I thought the point of the mission, though I don't remember if this is actually directly said in the film, that all three brothers dying would be "bad PR" for the war effort. Support for joining the war in Europe was not universally high in the US if I'm not mistaken. Most people just wanted to kick the Japanese after Pearl Harbour. So I think looked at it like that, sending one squad to avert a potential big backlash of opinion against sending Americans to fight in Europe does make sense. It was never just about Ryan as an individual. But of course from the point of the people on the mission, it's pretty FUBAR.
*Edit I guess you addressed this in the video
I never really cared for this film and I love quite a few war films. This one with it's characters complaining all through about how stupid their mission is is like a giant Neon sign saying "This plot is senseless!". The action and effects are great don't get me wrong but I just cannot get past the absurdity of the script.
Yeah I’m big fan of war movies and this one was never near the top of my list. After the initial shock of the opening sequence wears off there’s not much to get excited about. Yeah there’s realistic action and costumes and effects, but they basically unlimited money with one of the best filmmakers of all time. It’s not like an indie crew punching above their weight. Idk never made me feel much compared to my favorite war movies.
you would probably hate most war films cause almost all of them get war wrong.The plot may be unrealistic or senseless as you put it but doesnt contradict anything present in the film.
@@jeffreywaugh926 There is alot of conflict amongst the team sent to save ryan, which are the best scenes in the movie. The beginning was action packed and made you invested in the characters experience but the rest of the movie builds on that further on why should they be so bothered to save one man. Yeah its not an indie crew punching above that weight but if it was would that make you like the movie much more, and if yes does the process to make the movie matter more than the finished product?
When I first saw this I took my grandmother, who was alive at the time of WW2. The theater was full that afternoon and everyone there except two young girls (who I'm sure were there to see Matt Damon) were the WW2 generation. At the end of it, they rose and gave it a standing ovation. Many were in tears. I will never forget that.
I wanted to point out the major idea I took away from the movie. While it's not hidden in the movie, many overlook the Upham character transformed from a coward to a murderer because of his experiences.
Also, it wasn't Miller's squad that saved Ryan, it was the allied reinforcements. Had Miller and company not come along, they probably would have blown up the bridge and withdrawn when the tanks came rolling in and then the Germans would have gotten blown up by the allied reinforcements that arrive deux es machina style. The P-52s saved Ryan, not Miller. At best Miller saved the bridge (even though he ironically got shot trying to blow it up). He should be telling the bridge to "earn this." And that leaves aside Upham's war crime. The ending is a real mess.
Hands down the most beautiful movie i've ever watched. I was legit sobbing at the end of it AND an hour after it, like i had just lost a loved one
Sobbing? I get the ending was sad but it wasn't that sad
@@russian_knight i get you bro. But i don't know it just made me cry like i haven't since i was a toddler prolly. Maybe i was just dealing with too much shit then it all came out at once. That one line from Tom Hanls stuck with me though "Earn it"
It's kinda become a motivational line for me now haha
@@russian_knight You can cry for reasons other than sadness. Strong, raw emotions of any kind can cause someone to cry (also yawning, but that doesn't count).
Universally beloved film... maybe in America. It's a fine movie and deserves the praise. But, the best war film EVER - "Come and See". It's a killer watch. I cried, was horrified. I have no idea how the child actor survived even playing in the movie. Psychologically draining.
Very interesting video. I think I probably had a similar feeling that something felt just off, so this was a great analysis. Beyond the changes from the original script I think I have another explanation for the thematic dissonance. It all comes down to who Spielberg is and what period of time he grew up in. It's no secret that Spielberg tends to lean towards "feel good" movies, bordering on schmaltzy. In Spielberg movies we're never left wondering who the good guys are or who the bad guys are. I don't think this is a controversial statement.
But then you have to look at when he was born and when he grew up - he was born in 1946. It makes him well aware of both WWII and Vietnam. So for Spielberg, war is hell and large bureaucracies (such as the military or Hollywood studios for that matter) can be FUBAR... BUT WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. The feel good nature of Spielberg won't allow him to tell truly complex war story because that would imply we aren't as good as we think we are. But of course he knows we're not perfect, so it's not like he's going to do straight up propaganda either.
The reason Spielberg doesn’t frame a mission risking eight men to save one as foolish is because it isn’t. Comparing this mission and its authors to famously lampooned leaders in film, like Paths of Glory or Dr. Strangelove is just incongruent.
The US military does actually employ a “no man left behind” policy. They routinely expose soldiers to harm in the recovery of dead or separated soldiers.
The story of Saving Private Ryan presents a thesis: there is such a thing as “too much to ask” with regard to the state’s relationship to her citizens. And, more pointedly, that risking the lives of a greater number of men in the recovery or rescue of fewer is not merely justifiable, but also a core aspect of our values.
The movie follows a handful of hardened, if cynical, troopers who appraise the mission in purely mathematical terms. They’re frustrated by its apparent absurdity.
The arc of the story, however, is their gradual move toward that most sacred of realizations: “Men are not potatoes.”
This excerpt is a common one among light infantrymen. It’s from the book “Starship Troopers.”
The teacher asks the class, if you were pushing a wheelbarrow full of potatoes along a precarious path, and suddenly a bump knocked one of the potatoes out, would you risk losing control of the whole load to recover that one lost potato?
The class agrees they would not.
So the teacher then asks why the military will often risk the lives of its members to rescue a captured comrade? Why do they risk harm to so many to rescue or recover a few? No man left behind and all that…
The students posit numerous theories, all of which fall short in some way or another. Finally, after some discussion and frustration, one of the students states simply, “Men are not potatoes.”
This is, in my estimation, the very heart of the movie. Anyways, my two cents:/ take care.
P.S.
Love your content!
"The US military does actually employ a “no man left behind” policy."
No. The US military does NOT have such a policy or anything like it.
I suggest you research the battle of Wake Island, the Mayaguez incident, POWs abandoned in Vietnam, the cases of Lance Corporal Jason Rother, Captain Michael Scott Speicher, Private Kristian Menchaca and Private Thomas Tucker.
That alternate opening reminds me of Predator 😂
Something to think about too. This movie came out before 9/11 and the wars. Vietnam was decades behind us, and had no direct effect on Gen X and us youngster millennials. SPR hit the right notes at the right time for the greatest generation. If it came out 10 years later I think all that hokey moral bs would have been done differently.
Finally I'm glad someone has done a video on SPR. Apart from the awesome battle scene which are some of the greatest in war movie history the actual story never made sense to me. Totally agree with your analysis.
yep, this movie is weird and im not ready to talk about it yet, but i think u nailed it. and that story about the 5 brothers, wow, im not american and its the first time i hear about it... truly macabre.
Band of brothers is much better. It utilizes all that top tier technical filmmaking and special effects for a more worthy story.
👆
Damn, thanks
I rewatched this movie recently and I was barely able to bear the whole part with the general sending 8 people to most likely die just for one private and the “feels”
Still a great movie, but that scene really soured the rest of the experience for me
Another point about the “earn this”, though: you are absolutely right, in my opinion, that Ryan didn’t need to prove anything, but as shown in the ending he certainly didn’t feel that way.
Imagine spending forty, fifty years of your life with the idea that you MUST prove that all those people didn’t die in vain for you, that you NEED to be worthy of their sacrifice, and the only person that could tell you that you were able to had died many decades before. That just feel tragic to me
Good point. As uplifting as the final scene is it could actually be viewed through a sort of messed up lens in the sense he has been struggling with survivor’s guilt that was sort of forced upon him.
_The Thin Red Line_ is a better film, to me. A true work of art, which should've won Best Picture.
Ironic how that film was released in the same year with Saving Private Ryan and Life is Beautiful. Sheesh, 1998 is basically the year for WW2 movies, that want to make us cry.
This has been my main problem with the movie for a long time. It's so close to making a statement about the bureaucracy of war and become one of the best war movies of all time, but it just doesn't go all in. Still a great movie, but I often feel like I need to ignore the story to enjoy it.
I see what you mean and in retrospect it would have been so painfully easy to paint the brass back in home a villain to add more coherent and nuanced commentary to the film. That would have made hanks' character an even more bittersweet and relatable, a man torn between his duty to both his men and to the greater war effort. It could have been him that paints the noble idealism on this cynical pr stunt to pull his troops together and through their sacrifice throw shade at the brass sending them on such a mission.
Heck, by the end of it their pointless self sacrifice could have still happened and with them being fully on board and aware of the absurdity it might have hit some full metal jacket vibes.
Its a beautifully made film with incredible production values and a first act like few others. However from that point on its just full of stock characters running through the usual war movie men on a mission tropes with one very annoying continuity error. When the group is seen leaving the beach in a jeep and trailer yet the next scene is seen on foot, hinting at an un-filmed scene is something Ive never understood how the scene with them leaving the beach stayed in the film.
I for one never realized them on the jeep and only came across that detail in making this vid lol
@@MacabreStorytelling Like many on initial viewing it was an incredible viewing experience. Its only after a few viewings that you spot the jeep and presumably the radio they would've needed but is never mentioned. Its only then that you realise that there must be a scene missing that explains the plot device of them having to travel on foot so the audience can get to know the individual characters involved, when there would've been an abundance of vehicles made available to them given how important the mission was. After Omaha beach its a well made but pretty overrated war movie.
This is why film critique is a good thing, and doesn’t mean that you’re slamming a film. Being able to analyze a film’s message is a skill any film viewer should try to sharpen.
I always thought the senselessness of of sacrificing 6 guys to save 1 was a meta-commentary on the sacrifices others have given for all of us (as well as survivor’s guilt), as is demonstrated in the line “earn this.” It’s not a commentary on incompetence in the top brass. It’s an homage to the horrible violent deaths many gave so that others could come home.
It definitely is an homage but the larger thematic point clashes with the actual events of the film.
While on the topic of Thematic Dissonance, I should *REPORT* on another film. What's another Spielberg hit that sweeps all it's plot holes and philosophical contradictions under the rug with fantastical futuristic production and execution, that also got critically adored with only a *MINORITY* disagreeing?
Check out Rob Ager's videos on the film. He has pretty good breakdowns in the negatives of the film.
Wow. I wasn’t expecting this. But damn, you really did articulate why I never liked the bureaucratic set up scenes. Impressive as always. Now I just wanna see the real story on film. It could be great in the right hands.
My favorite trivia about the movie is apparently the surrendering soldiers they execute after the beach landing are speaking Czech, and saying they're not German. Presumably they were among the many people captured and forced to fight by the Germans.
Ironically... I'm torn on that. Like... was it supposed to imply that since they weren't actual Germans, gunning them down while they were surrendering was somehow less egregious? I get the soldiers obviously didn't know or care, but yeah.
First time I saw this movie I was sold from start to finish. And I was taken in by the flag-waving, and thought it was an actual event, basically. Spielberg sure knows how to build an emotional ride.
It was first later that I started analysing its flaws, and I've seen another video about it, and this one have a good take on some of the problems. Subscribed! :)
Even tho the plot is a bit messy it’s still a great movie
I think Spielberg had to make the film look good towards the military, because I remember reading somewhere that if a big blockbuster movie has the military involved(especially the U.S) they have to be shown in a good light and not have villainous intent. It could show that there's one bad egg but not the entire industry if that makes sense.
Finally! I have always hated this movie. It's amazingly well acted rubblish.
I dunno, I kinda like the idea of everyone in the story acting in what they themselves think is an honourable and morally defensible manner.
Frankly I wish more war films could present a conflict but not have an identifiable villain.
I’d say the thematic dissonance comes from the funding. I could be wrong here but the us military funded the movie, not Hollywood. As a result I’d understand why a critique of said military or a or nightmare story would’ve been impossible to make. Is it right? No. But that’s why the film is how it is.
P.S. I haven’t finished the video yet.
Holy shit soph is a patron, that's dope.
Is Spielberg the right man to tackle moral grey zones? This movie and Munich make me wonder
You need to rewatch the scene where the general reads Lincoln’s letter
I found the premise slightly hard to understand even as a kid honestly. I remember thinking what was so special about some random soldier I had never even heard of in real life.
I've never wached Saving Private Ryan and was only briefly familiar with the plot (private dude gets saved with a cost of many other dudes' lives), not knowing the motivations at all. I always thought that Ryan was a general's son or that operation was a PR move(as proposed in the video). I am quite shocked to see its really that the motivation is THAT strange and unrealistic
(doesn't mean i wouldn't watch the movie now. In fact, i intend to watch it tonight because of footage shown in the video)
Make sure to like, comment, and SHARE!
Very glad I clicked this video. I always felt that sort of weirdness about it but did not know how to frame it. This did it extremely well.
I know you're right. I've always known it. Okay here we go...
I always preferred the thin red line anyway
Based
What does that mean?
@@evilincoln23 if you have to ask…
To me the best war movie is "Come and See". Haunting, disturbing and hypnotic!! For those who didn't watch it yet, give it a shot
I watched SPR maybe six months ago, and I remember feeling a weird clash between the battle scenes (especially the first one) and much of (though not all of) the rest of the movie. The battle scenes feel cynical and cosmicist. It's pure chaos, death is wanton and arbitrary. Survival is mostly luck. Soldiers and surrendering and then being killed anyways, but there's never any room to breathe, so the violence feels blunt and shocking. But other parts of the movie feel traditional and have plenty of classic Spielberg cheese and sentimentality, so while I see why people love the movie a lot and I love aspects of it, I wasn't sure how to feel overall.
Private Ryan is like an American fantasy set in realistic WW2 as Inglorious Basterds is a Jewish satire set in realistic WW2
You want American fantasy? Watch Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.
When you consider how much intervention the military has with film making for over 80+ years, it makes sense that Spielberg's sentimentality clashes with the "'Murica, hell yeah" attitude that they soooo want to portray with literally any movie with the military involved.
Saving Private Ryan was one of those movies I always wanted to explore in theaters. I couldn’t because I was born the year I was born.
However, the film seemed off to me somehow plot-wise. This video laid it out beautifully. Well done.
I think the film simply conveys the following sentiment: -THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS!
Note that the film even humanizes the individual Germans (a lot more than previous films). But it all ends up as FUBAR - type, moral dilemmas.
The film goes "out of its way" to NOT give a CLEAR solution, perhaps because it didn't feel like it had one .. ?
One of the last lines: "Maybe saving Private Ryan is the one decent thing we did in this war" shows the IRONY of it all. They were struggling to make the hell of war decent, and this was all they could muster .. because war is not "a hero's journey" it is quicksand that turns even decent intentions on it's head ..
4:05 No... as soon as I saw the title, I knew it was true...
The theme of the movie is pretty clear and does not have any issues whatsoever. And the metaphorical question is about the evaluation of the life of specific soldiers, which are clearly explained and answered during the film - no thematic dissonance at all.
Let me explain: The war is a horrific situation not only for the soldiers or civilians affected, but for the armies, too. In the regular circumstances, Army officials cannot value the particular soldiers and their lives. Every soldier, every troop is an asset - if the 6-men troop is eliminated, but 20-men troop survives instead, that's the success for the army.
The only circumstance when the value of the individual soldier increases beyond the soldiers rank and mission is when something horrific happens. Something more horrible than war. For example the disappearance of the entire family.
It is sad and it is not fair, but it is the truth. Regularly, Ryan would have been valued less than most members of the Miller's troop given his low rank. But the terrible circumstances about his family members make his life more valuable than the entire troop.
Ryan is an exception. The members of Miller's squad do not receive such special treatment and they are angry, rightfully so from their own perspective. War has not been fair for them, giving this fubar mission to this team is not fair by any means. But neither is the fact that some soldiers landed on the Omaha beach during the massacre, while others did not, that some have to defend the bridge which is not defendable given their manpower, while others are located in safer and better armed divisions. All the Miller's crew members remain assets in the eyes of the army officials, but death of 3 Ryan brothers give them opportunity to make not tactical, but human choice for once. Choice not for the greater good - since more people die by this mission than are rescued, but for the less evil - the only surviving son is the only hope left for the mom back in US who gave her all to the country.
Ryan's decision to stay with his troop is a different story. This is his perspective, not the Army officials'. Staying the only one alive from his troop because his brothers have died does not seem right for this young man. And he chooses to fight for that damn bridge. It also does not feel right, that 6 man have died to rescue him. But the choice he makes moving forward is not to grief the loss of these 6 man or his own brothers, but to celebrate their lives with the remainder of his life.
US army made an exceptionally human decision because of the tragedy of Ryan's family, and the sacrifice from the soldiers involved fueled him to become the best possible version of himself.
When I watch Saving Private Ryan, I appreciate the story first and the filmmaking afterwards. The message of the movie has come to my heart on my first watch and stayed with me upon many rewatchs, even though I am not American and do not have any specific relation to WWII.
Sorry for the long comment :)
"US army made an exceptionally human decision because of the tragedy of Ryan's family, and the sacrifice from the soldiers involved fueled him to become the best possible version of himself."
Except while I understand the larger thematic point, this conflicts with the actual details of the story. If Wade and Caparzo were only children, or even if they weren't, I don't see how this is coherent.
@@MacabreStorytelling as mentioned, this is not for the greater good, this is for the lesser evil.
The main point is, the only time US army officials are allowed to act on their emotions is when something worse than war happens.
This video is tremendous. Something about this movie always felt hollow for me, and now I finally know what it is.
I’m gonna invest in cryo tech so I can get unfrozen when you have enough videos for me to binge watch for a week!
Great video as usual mate!
I appreciate this whole different perspective on such a movie. Keep doing what you're doing bro
How exactly is the general's life given precedence over the other men that died in the plane? They didn't plan for the plane to crash. They obviously must have thought that it would fly. Also the general died as well.
They didn't allow the men to die in order to keep the general alive.
25:42 Script just says "Fourty two hundred" doesn't explicitly state *Yards* Could it be feet instead? that would make much more sense. Honestly just eyeballing the distance based on the frame from the movie Four thousand *Feet* seems about what it is or plausible anyway.
Nah in the script the previous line was Upham saying 4000 yards but then Jackson correcting him. Good point pointing that out though 👍
@@MacabreStorytelling ah ok then that is definitely questionable. But does it look more like 420 FEET to you as well? cuz it does to me. maybe it's a script writer mistake for measurement
Maybe but given he also penned The Patriot and that was insanely historically inaccurate idk if accuracy was his first priority.
@@MacabreStorytelling He's a Hollywood actor in a blockbuster Famous Hollywood film, so he must be the most badass sniper ever of course right.
this gon be good
I disagree, I think the nonsensical nature of the mission works fantastically as an allegory for our position in all this as the viewer. It absolutely is absurd that the unprecedented peace, stability and prosperity we enjoy today in western countries is built on the grueling sacrifice of countless soldiers and civilians in events like WW2. Is there is a good reason for me to be able to sit in my mother's basement and play video games all day while not even a hundred years ago men had to go face events like the Normandy landing? History is unjust, cruel and often arbitrary. There is no meaningful difference between me and them, and I think that's exactly what the film is trying to say. And the conclusion the film reaches is that the only way to even begin repaying this sacrifice is to... "earn it". To try to live the best life you can, one that maybe even would have made proud the people who gave up theirs.
Personally I didn't even see this film as American propaganda, the US army was just the most convenient "vehicle" for the mostly American audience of this film. I'm from Romania, and while the country isn't exactly as rich or developed as most western countries, it is right now by far at its richest, freest, most prosperous and stable point in history. And to whom is this unprecedented stability owed? Well mostly to those who unjustly died and/or suffered opposing Hitler, then Stalin and USSR imperialism, then Ceausescu's brutal dictatorship, and even today those who find themselves in the neighboring buffer state that (tragically) is Ukraine who risk their lives on the Russian border even as I type this. I could go on and on with examples, but the film left me with the impression that I should remember all of it, the immense injustice that was done to them, and the great debt I owe them, regardless of nationality.
Could you do an analysis on the critically acclaimed sequel, "Shaving Ryan's Privates"?
Even in 1998 I thought it was a little tooo nostalgic. The Omaha beach scene was absolutely fantastic filmmaking, but its at points unrealistic. Soldiers never use automatic weapons like that, they'd run out of ammunition in 1 min. Best scene is when the mom gets the news about her sons. Not a word is spoken and it's so powerful. Something only greats like Spielberg can do.
I’m the spirit of keeping an open mind I will rewatch it with your thesis in mind
Just got to the scene in the movie in the church where Miller talks about justifying the death of his men by believing he is saving 10-20 men
He is being tested to flip that calculation how many lives is a single mans life worth
“This Ryan better be worth it”
The next important scene is before assaulting the mg nest when Miller decided to take what is conceived by his squad as an unnecessary risk
But the point Miller argues is that it is their duty to take risks
To protect those who follow from falling into an ambush
This highlights the questionable math he has lived by
he is risking his men (and loses wade) but did that save 10-20 men? He is testing the justifications he has lived by
After wade dies Miller breaks down
Perhaps he could no longer justify his math
After reiban and the sarge have their spat Miller says Ryan is nothing to him he is just a name
Finding Ryan ie doing his duty is so that he can earn the right to go home
And the more people he kills the farther from home he feels
Both American Sniper and Patton -- movies separated by 45 years -- show both respect and criticism of the military.
the worst is the _deus ex machina_ finale
I think the best part about the film is that it's mostly character building the entire time, and it doesn't do it in an over the top exposition way. Most the film is doing this. The action whilst big at parts, is mostly a backdrop.
That thematic dissonance is the theme of the film.
I laughed hard at the thought of Abraham Lincoln saying the words "get fucked" to someone. If anybody though it would be McClellan for sure.
Saving Private Ryan : The one time you can see Tom Sizemore collecting cans of dirt and not have a meth binge beling the underlying cause
I could take your points....
Or I could just say FUBAR.
I wonder if you will ever do a video on Django: Unchained. I feel like there is a lot that saves the movie like performances and character writing but there's historical inaccuracy that people complained about I find interesting. I know the movie is kind of an exploitation film but it would be cool to hear a balanced view of the pure entertainment value and inaccuracies.
I have yet to fully see Saving Private Ryan but had an assumption of it being one of those movies you watch at school that isn't completely true to historical events.
A last bit I considered about writing is sometimes you get locked in a groove where it gets tedious to make everything logical. Creativity is a weird balance of logical and spontaneous and I try keeping that in mind even when criticizing art.