15 years ago tonight

[mjjason]

Says who?...The engine of the film, and the concept that inspired it, is about a kid who's brothers got killed in combat, so he got a free ride home.

The whole Private Upum conversation about him writing a book about the bonds is the basis of the film. He wants to explore the bonds forged between soldiers but the other ridicule him as he has never served in a group. Upum is the new member of the team and throughout the ordeal he observes the unit but never quite grasp the true bond as he has not developed the type of bond these man had together.

Also, the quest for Ryan is only the vehicle that propels the story forward and is the method to observe the bond. Its only a mission, one of many that this group has performed together.

 

[10s]

I agree the depth of the story is the realtional bonds. The part where they're in the church at night and the medic tells about his mother and the things he wanted to say. The next day he's dead at the radar station attack. This rips the team apart and they let their POW go. All of this tears apart Capt. Miller, his shakes get worse. This is a story about a band of brothers, especially for those in the audience who can relate to a time in their own life when they too were bound together with others in similair conditions. Like I said this is actually a very deep story. Remember the 1st two weeks of its release, the effect it had on the audience? That's why we humans tell stories, because we need to make meaning of our experience.

 

[Batutta]

I agree the depth of the story is the realtional bonds. The part where they're in the church at night and the medic tells about his mother and the things he wanted to say. The next day he's dead at the radar station attack. This rips the team apart and they let their POW go. All of this tears apart Capt. Miller, his shakes get worse. This is a story about a band of brothers, especially for those in the audience who can relate to a time in their own life when they too were bound together with others in similair conditions. Like I said this is actually a very deep story. Remember the 1st two weeks of its release, the effect it had on the audience? That's why we humans tell stories, because we need to make meaning of our experience.

If that was what the story was about, then why have such a mechanical plot MacGuffin at all? When you put an engine like that in your story, with such a strong narrative arrow, it sets up expectations that need to be met. I think you guys are letting Band of Brothers influence your thoughts on this film. It's easy to let them blend together as visually they seem all of a piece, but Saving Private Ryan WAS an action film, not a drama. It is structured and paced like an action film.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I agree but they wanted arc, so they chose this! Horror/Action genres have a tough time with character arc. Maybe that's because the genre is primal, run, kill, save your skin.

I absolutely hate it when films stretch their reality too far, like the little girl taking on a raptor. What were they thinking? Lucas did this on some of the star wars episodes and it diminishes the reality of the story. When this happens, what they're doing is "Marketing" for four quandrant appeal, and it stinks. Like a conquering Roman general crossing the Rubicon after victory, successful directors need someone beside them in their chariot, as it parades down the street of fans cheering, whispering in their ear "cut the cute crap, you too can turn out a piece of garbage."

SPR is great drama with wonderful questions and statements about America, especially now with our military commitments around the world.

It opens with a soldier's daily life, taking Omaha beach! Then the captain gets a mission, go find this average Ameican guy, and in doing so only two of the squad members survive. The captain dies but finishes his mission, just what good soldiers do. This speaks volumes about our society, values, etc... it's actually a deep story. The combat is dressing. The tribulations and sacrifice of the American citizen soldier fighting to save foreigners from invaders on foreign soil speaks volumes. Read Stud Terkel's books to gain insight on this topic. SPR is about American ideals. How about letting the German soldier they capture and let go. This is the same guy in the end shooting Capt. Miller and killing him. We're doing the same thing today with Gitmo POWs.

Side note: A few weeks ago I spent time talking to an elderly woman who was 19 years old in Norway under Nazi occupation. It was fascinating to hear about the brutalities and also the humanity of their German invaders. She told me of the nice Jewish people in town that ran a clothing store. They dissappeared one night. She also spoke of the Soldiers that occupied a farm house next to her families farm and the fear she and her sisters went through. She had much to say about her fellow Norwegian collaborators and what happened after the war. What an amazing time period. My dad flew B-24s, my friend's dad survived the Battan Death March and slave labor in Japan [ he was fun to watch WWII movies with, he'd always yell, "that's fake!" during batttle scenes]. Another friend from Germany, his dad was a Waffen SS tank commader. They moved here in the 1970s, once we went out on their boat and his father drove it, just like a German Tank commader, standing tall stiff, at attention. All he needed was his uniform.

Excellent post.

Both of my grandfathers were in the big one; one was a plane mechanic in the Air Corp (351st Bomber Group) and Clark Gable was in his unit. The other a tank mechanic in Africa.

I am fascinated by WW2 and the entire Era.

Saving Private Ryan was based around the bonds forged between a a group of man. This was later expanded upon with Band of Brothers. So having them find Ryan earlier would have changed the basis of the film to more of an action film than a character and bond study.

Aren't all War films ?

It wased loosely off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niland_brothers

 

[Blaine]

Spielberg makes awesome spectacles, but as a master storyteller I'm afraid he peaked with E.T.

E.T. was one of the Spielberg movies I just couldn't get behind. I think as far as story telling goes, it would be hard to beat Schindler's List.

In Hudson terminology, Jurassic Park was a great popcorn movie and the dinosaurs absolutely blew me away the first time I saw them.

 

[dmc]

If that was what the story was about, then why have such a mechanical plot MacGuffin at all? When you put an engine like that in your story, with such a strong narrative arrow, it sets up expectations that need to be met. I think you guys are letting Band of Brothers influence your thoughts on this film. It's easy to let them blend together as visually they seem all of a piece, but Saving Private Ryan WAS an action film, not a drama. It is structured and paced like an action film.

Excellent post Batuatta.

I particularly agree with your comment regarding the structure and pace of SPR.

I would also add that most of the dramatic/emotional depth of the film occurs as a direct result of the circumstances that these young men (boys?) found themselves in (action), and not necessarily because of growth of character (drama). In many ways the characters fulfill the classic battalion archetype (not in a bad way) so that the audience can quickly compress a great deal of backstory into the film, identify with these men, then watch them die as they fight towards a questionable goal. I'm certainly not suggesting that the characters are flat, 2 dimensional props but I would say that they are there to serve the action. BoB had the luxury of 10 hrs to develop more fully realized character arcs while set against a similar action backdrop.


10s - I also really, REALLY liked the scene in the church precisely because it gestures towards Medic Wade's real character - one of the few character motivated "set-pieces" in the film.

For me, as much as I enjoyed the huge battle scenes (VERY impressive!), I feel that the comparatively smaller/personal moments - the church scene, Miller finally confessing to his teaching profession and the very brutal stabbing death of Pvt. Mellish (sp?) held far more resonance, partly because they were more sparsely used in the film.

Regardless - I still think SPR is an excellent film.

 

[10s]

...
Both of my grandfathers were in the big one; one was a plane mechanic in the Air Corp (351st Bomber Group) and Clark Gable was in his unit. The other a tank mechanic in Africa.

I'd love to hear the inside scoop on the North African Campaign when Patton took over. That was a hugly important time period for American troops. During that small time period we transformed from a rag-tag thrown together group into an army capable of confronting the Nazi war machine that just plowed through the West.

If he's around talk to him ASAP! ... record if you can... I kick myself for not interviewing all these vets I've known including WWI vets. I watched the PBS doc by Ken Burns on WWII and the people I've known had far better stories than what I was watching... and now the world will never know these stories... I'm a fool.

Had a relative tell me about the 800 mile retreat in North Korea. He was a Navy guy and didn't know how to fire a gun. The Marines showed him and other sailors how and for the next 800 miles they wiped rows of Red Chinese human waves as they retreated from hill top to hill top. The Chinese would shoot any of their own who turned back. Another relative was a Seal in Nam. He even went into China so we could steal a new Chinese MIG. They took a pilot in there and he flew one out! A school friend was A LRRP in Nam also, thought he'd die so he decided to go out as John Wayne. His friends died, he came home. He said the battle scenes in movies like Platoon are tiny compared to the real stuff. That messed him up for over ten years after.


Also, I met and talked with a Jap Zero pilot, he lived not too far away from me. His story is absoultely amazing. He flew out a Rabul in the South Pacific. He had a picture of him in front of his Zero standing at attention with all these other Zero pilots doing the same.... great pic. He spoke of the depression he had loosing all his friends to the Americans, in the air and the massive bombing of their bases. He was a fearless spirit. He lived because his plane was on fire so he tried to Kamikazee into a US ship but missed. An Australian destroyer pulled him out of the drink and took him down under for the next few years. The best way to describe him was, like the terminator, life didn't mean anything, duty did.

Back to SPR, the story is basically Seven Samuari. Is that a klunky story?

Jurrasic Park, I think I can understand why our ancestors drew all those wonderful pictures on their cave walls and told stories of capturing horses, fighting cave bears, running from a saber tooth tiger and just trying to find a meal while the ice age sets in. It's tough enough for me sometimes finding a gas station and paying for it.

The stories they must have told....

 

[10s]

If that was what the story was about, then why have such a mechanical plot MacGuffin at all? When you put an engine like that in your story, with such a strong narrative arrow, it sets up expectations that need to be met. I think you guys are letting Band of Brothers influence your thoughts on this film. It's easy to let them blend together as visually they seem all of a piece, but Saving Private Ryan WAS an action film, not a drama. It is structured and paced like an action film.

Can you explain this further? Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[Aroon_Narayanan]

Another thought on a previous topic: if you want to see how far we haven't come in terms of CGI, go back 15 years from Jurassic Park. Viable CGI was unheard of! In 15 short years, technology was developed to create realistic CGI dinosaurs on computers. 15 years after Jurassic Park, computers may have gotten faster, but the effects look no more realistic.

 

[Loki]

Regarding JP's ending: think about it from a storytelling perspective. They set us up to believe Sam Neill was this dinosaur expert, who spent his entire life devoted to dinosaurs. When he finally encounters them, what does his experience and his life's devotion do for him? Jack crap. He doesn't use his skills in any way.

Now, in the original screenplay, he actually has to kill the last raptor himself. And that could have been quite powerful: the scientest who loves them the most, who is most fascinated by them, has to extinguish them. That's a character arc.

But in the film version? It's just a chase scene, where they get bailed out by luck. That ain't a character arc. If the T-Rex hadn't arrived, they'd be dead.

In the screenplay, he breaks off the brontosaurus' skull and crushes the raptor, taking action to bring about the resolution of the conflict. Then, as the helicopter is taking off at the end, the T-Rex bursts through and grabs it by the skids, and he has to spray it with a fire extinguisher or something to get it to let go and save them. In both cases the hero is active and resolving the conflict, in Raiders Indy's pretty much totally out of the story for the entire third act. He's a passive observer. And in JP, they're all just chase victims.

Compare that to the ending of Jaws (which Spielberg FOUGHT Benchley for). Scheider, terrified of the water, his life on the line, kill or be killed, takes the shot. Scheider does it. If spielberg remade jaws, I'd half expect that while Scheider's lying there on the boat and the shark is charging, in the remake I bet he'd have some big killer whale swim in and kill the shark. A world of difference.

It'd be like in the end of Star Wars, if Luke didn't take the final shot, but instead Tarkin ordered them to fire and the system shorted out and blew up. Yes the death star would still have been blown up, yes the end of the story (the way it turns out, that is) would stay the same, but -- that's the wrong ending.

Spielberg makes awesome spectacles, but as a master storyteller I'm afraid he peaked with E.T.

I really think the ending of Jurassic Park would have been pretty bleh if that scripted ending had been the case.

Sure, you could argue about character arc... but that wouldn't come off as character arc.. it would come off as Grant killing a dinosaur and the movie ending..

The idea they built up around control of nature in the beginning.. with all the technology of the park.. its structures... end up meaning nothing when they lose control.

I think the ending shows rather well who is in control, and provides a nice sense of turned tables if you will. A nice comment on man vs nature.

I don't think grant could realistically kill a Raptor.. or rather.. I don't think I would buy it.

God creates man.
Man Destroys God.
Man Creates Dinosaurs..



Dinosaurs eat man..

Woman inherits the earth..

 

[Batutta]

Another thought on a previous topic: if you want to see how far we haven't come in terms of CGI, go back 15 years from Jurassic Park. Viable CGI was unheard of! In 15 short years, technology was developed to create realistic CGI dinosaurs on computers. 15 years after Jurassic Park, computers may have gotten faster, but the effects look no more realistic.

Yeah, it seems to be 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Probably the best, most photorealistic CGI work I've seen is in Pirates 2 & 3, specifically Davy Jones.

But for every awesome piece of work like that, we get 4 Jar Jar Binks'.

 

[Aroon_Narayanan]

I agree. Davey Jones' head is the best CGI work in the 21st century, so far.