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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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).
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 RUclips 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’
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.
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
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?
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.
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:/
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.
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 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.
@@methos-ey9nf 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.
@@methos-ey9nf 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.
@@methos-ey9nf 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Great video picking apart something I had noticed as well, but had never been able to put my finger on so finely. There is in the finished film this seeming clash between scenes that point to the absurdity of war (and the absurdity of the particular premise of the film), jostling next to scenes where the patriotic music swells and the filmmaker seems to be trying to make you feel sentimental for the sacrifice the soldiers are making. I had always thought it was that the film was written as a really vitriolic criticism of war, with a premise akin to Anthony Mann's Men in War or Apocalypse Now (in those cases the thematic thrust of the films is to show war as patently insane and destructive to the internal life of the people who wage it), and then the Spielberg of Hook and E.T. got his hands on it and tried to make it sappy and celebratory of American sacrifice in war--but after your analysis, it seems more complicated than that. The writing in a lot of scenes sounds somewhat at odds with the direction still. The scene in the church, where Hanks and Sizemore remember all the quirky soldiers they've had in their platoon that have already died is played as emotional, like the filmmaker is trying to pluck at your heartstrings. But it's crosscut with the medical officer rewriting all of the fallen men's letters home, so that the letters themselves don't have blood on them. It seems at almost every point in the film there is this irony present, this kind of persistent contrast between the war as it is and the war as it's being sold to the people not fighting it--hence the "whitewashing" of the bloody letters home in this scene, and in general the nature of the soldiers mission is that same absurd idea of presenting an "image" that overwrites a reality. And the scene ends with a potentially really ironic line, where Hanks says something like: "This Ryan better be worth it. He'd better go home, cure some disease, or invent a longer-lasting lightbulb or something. Because the truth is I wouldn't trade ten Ryans for one Vecchio or one Caparzo." The "longer-lasting lightbulb" bit really caught my eye. There is something both flippant and angry in the way the line reads on the page. But in the finished film the irony is not stressed, and instead we have this kind of soft, emotional quality to the scene. There is so much ironic content loaded into this scene, and yet it plays as nakedly earnest and emotional. It's a weird, weird contrast for me. But learning now about the earlier screenplay, I wonder if both the sardonic tone and the sappy one at war in this movie both come from Spielberg? Because it doesn't seem plausible either tone comes from the author of The Patriot.
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*
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!
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.
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.
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.
this is how today's managers think about their employees.. the top brass Gen Marshall was looking to get his name in headlines and some free publicity for the army for this outstanding act of of saving one soldier...! But in a manager's view sending other employes "soldiers" to their death diddn't made much difference as this was their JOB "duty" anyway!!! Saving private Ryan could had been an general or just capture an enemy spy. Therefore the hole movie is just a publicity stunt for the army!
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 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.
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! :)
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.
Love your videos, but you’re wrong on this one. The ending conversation of the old man feeling shame and asking his wife if he’s worth it is the whole point
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 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.
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.
I watched this video last night and checked out almost immediately. I felt like the movie was trying to glorify the military while also insulting my intelligence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Risking 8 lives for one guy is insane. Not gonna when watching it for the first time I thought this is exact thing.
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’m gonna be furious if he isn’t saved by the end of this review.
Spoiler Alert: He is.
@@TomEyeTheSFMguy LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
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.
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.
Holy hell, that original draft of the script. Im rollin'
Top notch work as always Mac. Even better than your vid on The Departed.
❤
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).
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 RUclips 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’
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.
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
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?
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.
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:/
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.
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 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.
@@methos-ey9nf 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.
@@methos-ey9nf 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.
@@methos-ey9nf 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.
Band of brothers is much better. It utilizes all that top tier technical filmmaking and special effects for a more worthy story.
👆
Oh boy, this sounds like it’s gonna be *spicy*
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Check out Rob Ager's videos on the film. He has pretty good breakdowns in the negatives of the film.
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?
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.
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
_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.
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.
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)
Can you stop ruining all my favourite films plz
No. You will face the truth and like it.
Make sure to like, comment, and SHARE!
Is Spielberg the right man to tackle moral grey zones? This movie and Munich make me wonder
I know you're right. I've always known it. Okay here we go...
Even tho the plot is a bit messy it’s still a great movie
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 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.
Great video picking apart something I had noticed as well, but had never been able to put my finger on so finely. There is in the finished film this seeming clash between scenes that point to the absurdity of war (and the absurdity of the particular premise of the film), jostling next to scenes where the patriotic music swells and the filmmaker seems to be trying to make you feel sentimental for the sacrifice the soldiers are making. I had always thought it was that the film was written as a really vitriolic criticism of war, with a premise akin to Anthony Mann's Men in War or Apocalypse Now (in those cases the thematic thrust of the films is to show war as patently insane and destructive to the internal life of the people who wage it), and then the Spielberg of Hook and E.T. got his hands on it and tried to make it sappy and celebratory of American sacrifice in war--but after your analysis, it seems more complicated than that.
The writing in a lot of scenes sounds somewhat at odds with the direction still. The scene in the church, where Hanks and Sizemore remember all the quirky soldiers they've had in their platoon that have already died is played as emotional, like the filmmaker is trying to pluck at your heartstrings. But it's crosscut with the medical officer rewriting all of the fallen men's letters home, so that the letters themselves don't have blood on them. It seems at almost every point in the film there is this irony present, this kind of persistent contrast between the war as it is and the war as it's being sold to the people not fighting it--hence the "whitewashing" of the bloody letters home in this scene, and in general the nature of the soldiers mission is that same absurd idea of presenting an "image" that overwrites a reality. And the scene ends with a potentially really ironic line, where Hanks says something like: "This Ryan better be worth it. He'd better go home, cure some disease, or invent a longer-lasting lightbulb or something. Because the truth is I wouldn't trade ten Ryans for one Vecchio or one Caparzo." The "longer-lasting lightbulb" bit really caught my eye. There is something both flippant and angry in the way the line reads on the page. But in the finished film the irony is not stressed, and instead we have this kind of soft, emotional quality to the scene. There is so much ironic content loaded into this scene, and yet it plays as nakedly earnest and emotional. It's a weird, weird contrast for me. But learning now about the earlier screenplay, I wonder if both the sardonic tone and the sappy one at war in this movie both come from Spielberg? Because it doesn't seem plausible either tone comes from the author of The Patriot.
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
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!
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.
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.
Finally! I have always hated this movie. It's amazingly well acted rubblish.
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.
this is how today's managers think about their employees.. the top brass Gen Marshall was looking to get his name in headlines and some free publicity for the army for this outstanding act of of saving one soldier...! But in a manager's view sending other employes "soldiers" to their death diddn't made much difference as this was their JOB "duty" anyway!!! Saving private Ryan could had been an general or just capture an enemy spy. Therefore the hole movie is just a publicity stunt for the army!
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 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.
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'd love to see you break down Paths of Glory.
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!
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.
Love your videos, but you’re wrong on this one. The ending conversation of the old man feeling shame and asking his wife if he’s worth it is the whole point
Nah I’m right
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.
Holy shit soph is a patron, that's dope.
That alternate opening reminds me of Predator 😂
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.
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.
I watched this video last night and checked out almost immediately.
I felt like the movie was trying to glorify the military while also insulting my intelligence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
God dammit he’s right again folks
Its not about saving a soldier, its about the propaganda effect of saving the last remaining brother. There is no real "dilema".
Eh wasn’t really touched on in the film.
@@MacabreStorytelling Kinda implicit. The Army doesnt took so much trouble just for a poor mother.
4:05 No... as soon as I saw the title, I knew it was true...
Could you do an analysis on the critically acclaimed sequel, "Shaving Ryan's Privates"?
never realized they snuck Bryan Cranston in there before
Yo looking through the comments Ive sensed that you liked Band of Brothers, will you ever talk about how shit The Pacific was compared to it?
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.
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.
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.
Ahhhhh yes another great macabre take. Excited to watch this in bed later. Been watching since youtube recommended the watchmen show video.
I always preferred the thin red line anyway
Based
What does that mean?
@@evilincoln23 if you have to ask…
Hot take of the week.
Both American Sniper and Patton -- movies separated by 45 years -- show both respect and criticism of the military.
I've never ever have liked this movie. I'm glad to see that I'm not crazy.
I wonder why no one ever says "we're doing this for his mother, not for him".
this gon be good
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 laughed hard at the thought of Abraham Lincoln saying the words "get fucked" to someone. If anybody though it would be McClellan for sure.
Very good essay.
Well-argued. Good research. Fair weight given to opposing views.
A+