I was seriously annoyed at the previews, which implied that
saving Ryan to spare the mother the grief of losing another son
is the right thing to do.
Instead, the rationale for the order for Hanks and his men to go
in and get Ryan is, in effect, the central theme of the film. As
in Schindler's List, he doesn't provide an answer, which is the
wise move for a simple guy like Spielberg. For me, Ryan gives
what I think to be the right answer. But there are several to
take your pick from, and in the end, it really doesn't matter.
I remember staying up and watching late shows on WWII with the
real footage used, and that feel is captured here. If it did
nothing else other than capture, for 25 minutes, what it was like
to go up that beach, it'd be worth it. But more than that, for
me, it gave a sense of the insanity and how, still, one could
operate within it and slowly force order upon the chaos. I always
felt that war was like that, but none of the war movies I've seen
have ever caught that before.
The middle of the film is the journey to retrieve Ryan. There
were so many ways they could have screwed this up. But they
didn't overplay the "I'm from Brooklyn", "I'm from
Omaha", give you insights into each of the characters'
personalities so we could see how they overcame it in the end.
No. In fact, the one background story that was told could have
been avoided. Although it's not dreadful--just unnecessary.
Instead, the focus is on the shit that they have to deal with on
the way to find Ryan. Episodic in a way, naturally so. The
business of war.
The script was not great, but that wasn't it's job. It didn't get
in the way. There were no wincing moments of Jesus, that's hoky.
Not that I remember right now. Cinematography is rightfully
touted as phenomenal. Open note to Spielberg--will you for
CHRISSAKES drop Williams, you schmuck! While the swelling,
schmaltzy score didn't often actively get in the way, it was an
active irritant to someone who is aware of how often Williams
just fucks up a movie. But then, Spielberg lets him. Go figure.
In general, the reviews are accurate. This is a great film. I
found it extremely moving. My one pushback to the standard wisdom
is to those who say that this has somehow redefined the war film.
No, to me this *is* like other war films. It builds on tradition.
Rightfully so. Platoon, The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, even
Apocalypse Now--they all push the boundaries and redefined what
war films were. Not this one.
But then, that's not what Spielberg is about. He's a storyteller.
The one film that I haven't seen mentioned that this one is in a
class with is "Glory".
Performances in Ryan:
Hanks is wonderful. It is *so* easy to sell people like Hanks and
Harrison Ford short. Holding the center of a film like that is
fucking hard work. And Ford hasn't picked a worthy vehicle for
his talents since The Fugitive, IMO. Hanks is choosing roles
well.
Sizemore--Van Johnson in Battleground. Awesome. Never once looks
like he's acting, slips right under the radar.
Burns--very good. I was impressed. Pretty much had the Cassavetes
role from The Dirty Dozen. The most thankless part. And he pulled
it off.
Matt Damon filmed this before he was a big star, which is
apparent--the role wasn't a showcase by any means. He's good.
Unremarkable--but then he's not supposed to be noticed.
The others all looked familiar, yet except for Adam Goldberg, who
had a great part in Chicago Hope last year, I don't know any of
them. Goldberg was superb. Apparently, the kid who plays the
medic is Phoebe's brother on Friends. The sniper kid owned his
part. Defined it without overstating it.
Jeremy Davies does it exactly right. I thought it was interesting
that he overplayed neither the guilt nor the gutting it up. And
the part was written so that he wasn't a complete geek.
Ted Danson has a nice cameo. Other acting by grunts is great--the
IMD doesn't have the complete cast list yet, so I haven't been
able to look anyone up yet. A lot of familiar faces, though. I
was disappointed by Harve Presnell as Marshall.
In the trailers, the order to get Ryan is presented in somewhat
romantic terms, like--"aww, isn't it great that in the
middle of all that ruthless killing, the army still cares?"
I was happy to see that the movie *wasn't* about that. That the
order was propaganda was *never* in doubt--that was made evident
in the first minutes of the discovery.
At the same time, as I said, Spielberg doesn't provide any easy
villains. I'm a mom. I can't imagine losing a son. Ask the mom
who might get a son back whether it's a bad decision.
On a personal level, my feelings aren't mixed, although I prefer
the movie for *not* trying to present just one POV.
I've talked to people in re the decision to retrieve Ryan. I
often hear the "yeah, but the poor mom. It was the right
thing to do. You make these decisions as the need arises."
Bullshit. It's war. Make your rules, declare the hierarchy of
value of your soldiers, and stick to it. Pragmatism is a
necessary evil if wars are to be fought.
But don't throw sentiment into the mix. Particularly when it's
arbitrary.
The decision wasn't presented as being made lightly. But let's
face it--any number of parents could have lost three or four or
more sons (or daughters) and not gotten the special service. All
those men were risked because an observant secretary noticed the
names.
