14 votes

Movie of the Week #22 - Saving Private Ryan

Last movie not winning Best Picture is Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan from 1998. It won for directing, cinematography, film editing, sound effects and sound editing

IMDb
Letterboxd
Wikipedia

Besides any thoughts on this movie, have you seen the other nominees that year and do you think this deserved the win instead?

The other nominees:

  • Shakespeare in Love (winner)
  • Elizabeth
  • Life is Beautiful
  • The Thin Red Line

The schedule for April is:

  • 1st: Moonstruck
  • 8th: The Silence of the Lambs
  • 15th: Run Lola Run
  • 22nd: Aliens
  • 29th: Fargo

12 comments

  1. DavesWorld
    Link
    Story exists because we need it. And sometimes, a story will take as subject something that’s not fluffy kittens and birthday parties. War is among the most horrific things humanity has ever...
    • Exemplary

    Story exists because we need it. And sometimes, a story will take as subject something that’s not fluffy kittens and birthday parties.

    War is among the most horrific things humanity has ever wrought upon itself. Yet it’s a common choice for a story. The scale between exploit and education is an eternal debate for almost any example one can find, where a storyteller choses to appropriate such a setting for something that, at some level, is intended as entertainment.

    For a long time in the history of movies, war was often painted with a light, sanitized touch. Many stories would put the war off-screen, and characters would simply speak of battles. Sometimes they’d won those, sometimes not, but what audiences were presented with rarely delved into the depths that war holds. And when action, when the war itself was put in frame, it would often be not just simplified, but rendered inoffensive so as to avoid turning the audience away.

    With Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg upended that calculus. Where a lesser filmmaker (such as Bay with Pearl Harbor) sought only to dial up the thrilling excitement of battle, Spielberg found a way to wield the horror of war as a surgeon operating on a patient might employ a scalpel.

    He rejected the notion that war is too grisly and disturbing to reveal to an audience. But he also refused to embrace a gratuitous depiction. He found a balance every bit as delicate as that of a doctor striving to save a life where the slightest wrong cut in either direction would be a slice too far.

    Saving Private Ryan is a brutal experience, so much so that it almost immediately began to be heralded as true enough to haunt veterans of the battlefields it utilized in its story. Yet every instance of violence and gore, of inhumanity and insanity, has a purpose on the screen.

    For example, it’s common to hear someone say “I love Saving Private Ryan, except for the bookends. They’re so boring.” Or something similar. It’s almost fashionable when you read online commentary about the film, to see people putting in such comments. Discounting the scenes that aren’t set directly in the brutality of war.

    The opening bookend shows us an old man, with who we presume is his family following, at a cemetery. The shots are clean and clear. Row after row of grave markers.

    There are a lot of them.

    But you don’t tend to look at them, at the cemetery, and think of them as deaths. You categorize it into something more clinical, like cemetery. Something that’s easier to deal with. You do it unconsciously. And for entirely understandable reasons. After all, who can go through their life battered and beaten by an unending wave of emotion?

    Saving Private Ryan only then, after that opening “bookend”, cuts to what a lot of discussions consider the “true” opening of the movie. The war. The landings at Normandy. We only see one beach, but it’s not at all difficult, or inaccurate, to extend most of what we see, perhaps even more than what we see, to the others that aren’t directly depicted onscreen.

    It’s famously brutal. Proclaimed to be one of the most horrifically realistic war sequences every assembled on film. The death is front and center, and goes on even after you think Spielberg might have perhaps made that point.

    And then it goes on some more. The machine guns raking through the landing boats as their loading ramps drop. The artillery shells blowing men apart. Bullets ripping across the sand seemingly at random. Characters are spared a miss by one, then taken by another.

    The bunker that has been killing their fellows on the beach below, a beach they themselves just crossed, being engulfed in flame as the only way to stop the killing. Or at least some of it.

    With more killing.

    Some of the characters onscreen cower, some cry, some seemingly go a little numb, some persevere. Captain Miller himself cycles through this; caught off guard by the terror of the slaughter. For that’s what it was. It was a human wave attack pushed through the very teeth of a prepared defensive position. The entire attack, by design, accepting brutal initial casualties to get follow on units into assault position, and then seeing those units savaged and torn apart in turn to get those behind them into position to take the beach.

    It’s exciting to some. Shocking to others. And in either event, horrific to think you’re not merely watching something made up. Something a writer sat down and decided to explore. War is real. World War II is real. The deaths were real.

    Spielberg shows it in a way that breaks it out of that nice, easily compartmentalized category we so often keep it in on the occasion we might think of it.

    This theme is explored through Saving Private Ryan. Miller is haunted by what he’s been brought to do. What he has done, what he might do. He holds the power of life and death over his men, and simply by calling their name at a certain moment, or not, their lives are forever altered.

    Leadership is one of those subjects humanity will probably never come to terms with. If you’re “in charge” of leading a group of revelers to the next bar, it’s not the same kind of leadership as picking out four men to round a corner with rifles in hand as machine gun pours bullets down upon it.

    Yet as Miller says when his company sergeant points out the terrible consequences of the orders that send those men into that fire, “it’s the only way to get everybody the hell out of here.”

    Then, later, Miller finds himself swept up with an almost fever for fighting the war. For a moment he decides that perhaps this mission to find a man, to find and spare him and his family the added weight of a fourth death after three brothers have already fallen, is a waste. He could be fighting the war, not gallivanting about France looking for one lucky soul who’s got a ticket home.

    It’s easy to simply bow to empathy, and stop at the conclusion that the Ryan family has earned, deserves, their sole surviving son back. That this family has, as the Bixby letter read by the Army Chief of Staff states, “laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.” They’ve done their part. They’ve paid their price.

    But, as the squad debates up until Miller’s confession in the aftermath of Wade’s death and the doubt it triggers within his men, how is it right to sacrifice them? For someone they’ve never even met? As Miller says, in that very confessional, “I don’t know Ryan. I don’t care.”

    Ryan himself, when he’s found, protests why him. Even with tears in his eyes from the news he’s now an only child, he raises up his fellow soldiers and proclaims they’ve all fought just as hard as him. Why do these deaths earn him the right to withdraw, to leave them in the lurch and face their own deaths without his aid?

    For that’s what they’d be doing. As the final battle sequences shows us, in the same thrilling and brutal manner as the others, the battle is intense. Victory is not assured. The cost of defeat in that little battle would be a not inconsequential complication in the Allied European war effort as they seek to land heavy forces via a proper port.

    It’s not explicitly discussed, but by the most trivial of inference it’s no challenge or stretch at all to assume that the Germans capturing that bridge would lead to Allied deaths on a broader scale. One beyond a single patchwork unit struggling to hold an improvised desperate defense.

    Ryan’s plea to not abandon the men he’s defending with sways Miller, and the squad joins the defense at great cost. Only two of Miller’s men survive, and Miller’s not one of them.

    But Ryan does, which Miller seems to find something of a comfort. Perhaps comfort is too strong of a word. It might just be a poor attempt at a consolation prize, seized upon by a dying man, but in Miller’s final moments he wants the sacrifice to be worth something. He’s not going home. Ryan is.

    No soldier wants to see a sacrifice to be in vain.

    Saving Private Ryan stands alone amid scores of war stories Hollywood has presented over the decades of movie making. It tackles a terrible subject with brutal honesty that wins you over rather than turning you away. It doesn’t shy from the horror of the subject, but neither does it shame you for finding it thought provoking and interesting.

    Veterans of World War II are known to refuse to talk about their experiences. As is their right. They served, they paid, and as such it was entirely up to them whether or not they wished to go back to the places they were required to in that conflict. Not even in conversation.

    Storytellers sometimes help bridge the gap between reality and fantasy. Saving Private Ryan’s bridge is more a vantage point. Jutting out from a dry, clinical telling of history sanitized for easy consumption, and toward the terrible truth of reality. Offering viewers a place where they can consider for the length of a movie the horror of history.

    A triumphant feat of storytelling, tackling such a subject, such an event, and showing us the lessons a detached reading of the subject might be unable to connect us with.

    And it’s a crime against the arts it wasn’t recognized as such by The Academy.

    8 votes
  2. [2]
    cloud_loud
    (edited )
    Link
    This might be a long post. I vividly remember seeing this for the first time. I was 13 years old, I was barely getting into movies for the first time. This was playing on cable, which we had at...

    This might be a long post.

    I vividly remember seeing this for the first time. I was 13 years old, I was barely getting into movies for the first time. This was playing on cable, which we had at the time, and I loved it. So many parts of this movie stuck with me. The opening D-Day sequence, of course, Vin Diesel's death, when they first meet Matt Damon, and Tom Hanks's death scene. I've re-watched parts of it since that first viewing but this was the first time I rewatched the whole thing. Bryan Cranston, Ted Danson, and Nathan Fillion all threw me off, I had no idea they were in this.

    I've always loved the texture of this film. The desaturated colors, the grittiness of how it looks, all the handheld. It's one of my favorite Spielberg films, and it's wild that this started off as a less serious film that was more of an action adventure than a Drama, that is now considered what of the most realistic war films ever made.

    Going right into awards. This was the front-runner to win Best Picture, as I understood it, it basically swept all the precursors, with the exception of SAG Ensemble which went to Shakespeare in Love. Pretty sure this was before AFTRA when the guild was only composed of actors as I imagine the current organization would award Saving Private Ryan these days.

    This was an influential year for the Oscar's. Harvey Weinstein was obsessed with them and would aggressively campaign his films. He realized the monetary value of these awards, as well as recognizing that more talent would want to work with him if he kept his awards track up. The campaign budgets for both Saving Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love were really big, and ballooned throughout the season as there was a sort of arms race to see who can win Best Picture, these large campaign budgets would become the norm thereafter. Weinstein even started a whisper campaign that the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan was the only part of the film that had any value. Obviously, Weinstein's tactics ended up working and Shakespeare in Love went home with Best Picture. This year gave birth to the modern day Oscar campaign.

    What makes this interesting to me is that this is not a Crash/Green Book/CODA situation. Where a crowd-pleaser beats out a more artsy film that was appreciated for it's directorial prowess rather than people having passion for the film. This was a comedic crowd-pleaser beating out a dramatic crowd-pleaser, which was also a blockbuster that grossed over 400M worldwide. Like there was no reason why people should have voted for Shakespeare in Love instead, other than all the campaign tactics that Weinstein utilized.

    I know Shakespeare in Love is considered one of the worst Best Picture winners. In this WatchMojo video it ranks second. That video overall is weird because How Green Was My Valley, Chicago, and Dances with Wolves all placed despite being great films outright. But that reputation has stuck and unlike say, Chicago, Shakespeare in Love has not had a reappraisal to give the film any credit.

    I like Shakespeare in Love and I think it gets way too much hate simply because it won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan. But if you separate that, it's a good prestige studio romcom. This hate also extends onto Gwyneth Paltrow's win for Lead Actress, that also has something to do with Platrow's own Goop personality, but there seems to be no breathing room allowed for this film to be good. It's better than a lot of Best Picture winners.

    I also saw Elizabeth and The Thin Red Line for the first time specifically for this. Elizabeth sucks so hard. It is boring, meandering, and lifeless. People saying Blanchett should have won for this over Platrow, again, I think are more anti-Paltrow than pro-Elizabeth. I was not prepared for how much of a bore this film was.

    The Thin Red Line was excellent. I was under the impression that the film was about Vietnam, but it's actually about WW2, meaning there are three Best Picture nominees this year set during WW2. Here's a good video from an old Hollywood Reporter Roundtable where Christopher Plummer and George Clooney talk about working with Terrence Malick. In it they bring up that Adrian Brody was originally the lead of The Thin Red Line. Which you don't get the impression of, his final cut role in the film was a glorified extra. I know this was the artsy choice to win Best Picture, like if you thought Saving Private Ryan was too commercial for you you were stanning this.

    If I had to rank the nominees:

    1. Saving Private Ryan
    2. The Thin Red Line
    3. Shakespeare in Love
    4. Life is Beautiful
    5. Elizabeth

    Also, if there were ten nominees this year: The Truman Show, Gods and Monsters, Out of Sight, Primary Colors, A Simple Plan.

    Edit: I wanted to add that I think this years Oscar campaign could make a pretty decent movie itself. With Katzenberg and Weinstein as the leads.

    5 votes
    1. winther
      Link Parent
      I haven't rewatched Shakespeare in Love but I do remember as decent enough. In general, diving into the nominations this year I was confirmed in my belief that in general most movies nominated for...

      I haven't rewatched Shakespeare in Love but I do remember as decent enough. In general, diving into the nominations this year I was confirmed in my belief that in general most movies nominated for best picture are good movies worth watching. The actual winner is less important. Though it is pretty clear that this particular year was a sad example of campaigning and not proper merit for the film.

      It is interesting how we get three very different WW2 movies the same year. I like all three, perhaps with a slight preference to The Thin Red Line. In my opinion it got deeper into the soldiers mind and their mental state and it had more interesting characters, whereas Saving Private Ryan captured the physical aspects of war better. I agree that Elizabeth is flawed though not a total bore. It tried to make her story into a feminist story, but all the politics confused the narrative. And yes, The Truman Show should at the very least have been nominated.

      1 vote
  3. [4]
    Vito
    Link
    I love Spielberg and this is a great film, the cinematography, the acting, the editing are all great. My only problem is that whenever I watch it, it really forces me to suspend disbelief. I want...

    I love Spielberg and this is a great film, the cinematography, the acting, the editing are all great. My only problem is that whenever I watch it, it really forces me to suspend disbelief. I want to believe that the military cares about a poor mother about to lose her last son. They not only care, they are willing to spend resources and risk the lives of many other men for that mother. I struggle with the idea and even when the script gets really good later I can't forget that everything happening comes from that first concept. Maybe I'm wrong and stories like this have happened.

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      Delgalar
      Link Parent
      I can agree it's a bit unbelievable, and whilst the movie (obviously) dramatizes a lot of the events, it's loosely based on a real event, and a real policy...

      I can agree it's a bit unbelievable, and whilst the movie (obviously) dramatizes a lot of the events, it's loosely based on a real event, and a real policy

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niland_brothers

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sole_Survivor_Policy

      8 votes
      1. Vito
        Link Parent
        Thank you so much for the info!

        Thank you so much for the info!

        1 vote
    2. winther
      Link Parent
      I see it is a Spielberg aiming for the same sort of message as in Schindler's List with "One who saves one person, saves the world*. Filmmakers are often sacrificing historical accuracy to get...

      I see it is a Spielberg aiming for the same sort of message as in Schindler's List with "One who saves one person, saves the world*. Filmmakers are often sacrificing historical accuracy to get something more specific across. I think it is within the spirit of accuracy with how the war involvement was ultimately about sacrificing people so other people could live.

      1 vote
  4. [3]
    TooFewColours
    (edited )
    Link
    I'd seen 'Band of Brothers' twice through before I watched Saving Private Ryan, which I put on to try and scratch that itch after it finished the second time. I was really disappointment with it,...

    I'd seen 'Band of Brothers' twice through before I watched Saving Private Ryan, which I put on to try and scratch that itch after it finished the second time. I was really disappointment with it, and while it captures a lot of the horrors of war in an honest (if a little bit hollywood) way, 'Band of Brothers' uses its longer run-time to really show how the lives of each of the men is affected by the war, making the death of each one tug a little harder at your heartstrings. At the end of BoB something felt so unfair about which characters lived and which had died. I don't know if there was a character in SPR I found myself caring about more than any single man in Easy Company. I'd be curious if anyone here enjoyed SPR more than BoB - I get that BoB can be a little worthy at times.

    I also couldn't shake the feeling that the final set-piece really felt like, well, a set. It's a long part of the film too, and I feel like we barely see more than a hundred yards across - like it felt weirdly as though it had been dropped right in the centre of somewhere, and had almost Tim Burton-esque proportions. Maybe some of the shots they couldn't turn the camera as much as they'd like without revealing the catering van.

    I saw Thin Red Line last year, and it sits somewhere in the middle. I embrace every criticism against it, but I think it made some unusual choices that didn't quite work, and I'm glad it took those risks. But man, by the time I got to Thin Red Line I was completely de-sensitized to the scene where a soldier is bleeding out and another soldier tells them he'll send a letter to his Mom, while the dying soldier starts saying they feel the opposite temperature that they would normally be feeling in the current environment. I guess they couldn't get enough of that in the late 90s.

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      domukin
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Couple of things. Band of Brothers came after SPR and as I remember it, the word of mouth was this is a long format WW2 show in the vein of SPR. They definitely banked on the success of one to...

      I guess they couldn't get enough of that in the late 90s.

      Couple of things. Band of Brothers came after SPR and as I remember it, the word of mouth was this is a long format WW2 show in the vein of SPR. They definitely banked on the success of one to launch the other. You kinda watched them “backwards”, which may explain your experience. Kinda how my wife thought Star Wars was the parody because she watched it after Spaceballs.

      It was very common to have competing movies about the same subject come out around the same time, it still happens but less so. Armageddon and Deep Impact, SPR and the thin red line, a bugs life and Antz. You’d pick a side and preach it at the school cafeteria / water cooler.

      5 votes
      1. TooFewColours
        Link Parent
        Don't worry I'm totally read-up on the production of Band of Brothers and how it launched from SPR, but yes I'm probably in the minority experiencing them backward, and I'm certain that changed...

        Don't worry I'm totally read-up on the production of Band of Brothers and how it launched from SPR, but yes I'm probably in the minority experiencing them backward, and I'm certain that changed how I viewed them. What I don't really know is the general consensus comparing the two. Both seem beloved by their fans, and there seems to be a big overlap.

        4 votes
  5. [2]
    gowestyoungman
    Link
    I grew up in a pacifist home and still hold pacifist beliefs but I credit Saving Private Ryan for changing my attitude toward veterans. Before seeing it I didn't have much understanding or much...

    I grew up in a pacifist home and still hold pacifist beliefs but I credit Saving Private Ryan for changing my attitude toward veterans. Before seeing it I didn't have much understanding or much acknowledgement of our WWII vets. I didn't know a single person who had family who served and Remembrance Day came and went without much of an impact.

    But after watching SPR that changed significantly. Seeing the landing scene where the men are being picked off by enemy fire before they even make it to shore, or some of them drowning because they were just in deep water or barely making it onto the beach before being shot really hit home. I think I understood the horror and the fear that those young men must have felt for the first time. It was shocking and eye opening.

    It definitely gave me a lot more respect for what they went through, the sacrifices that they made and how much of a price some of them paid and it changed the way I view Remembrance Day. It means something to me now and I try to honor their memory in some way every Nov. 11.

    Can't say many movies have had a lasting impact on my life, just a couple hours of entertainment, but that one has.

    4 votes
    1. winther
      Link Parent
      I can relate to that. When I first saw it, those scenes hit hard because it was basically kids my age being slaughtered within seconds of reaching enemy territory. Now the beginning didn't hit me...

      Seeing the landing scene where the men are being picked off by enemy fire before they even make it to shore, or some of them drowning because they were just in deep water or barely making it onto the beach before being shot really hit home. I think I understood the horror and the fear that those young men must have felt for the first time. It was shocking and eye opening.

      I can relate to that. When I first saw it, those scenes hit hard because it was basically kids my age being slaughtered within seconds of reaching enemy territory. Now the beginning didn't hit me as hard because I knew it was coming, but then there is that scene later where the French family is trying to hand over their daughter to the soldiers. That was rough. Movies often have very different effects on you at different stages in life.

      2 votes