SCREEN-L Archives

September 1998, Week 3


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Rick Moody <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:16:05 -0700
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (65 lines)
Alright, since some brave souls had the audacity to suggest they "hated"
somewhat overly-praised SPR, lets deal with it.  I agree that
there is really no reason why anyone could "hate" SPR...however, it is
irritating that many critics are tending to label it the greatest WWII film
ever and berate prior efforts made by filmmakers WHO ACTUALLY HAD BEEN IN
THE WAR as fluff.  While the first forty-five minutes is harrowing stuff,
the other two hours is basically two episodes of "Combat!" edited together.
 Not bad, but certainly not original.
        Too, there is a more elemental problem.  While many of us older film
students are aware of the fact that men involved in war were perhaps
"numbed" by the day-to-day struggle to survive due to insufficient sleep
and constant tension and the constant loss of comrades, the movie itself
does not delineate this state of affairs for the unenlightened.  I
sincerely doubt whether the rising generation would understand these
Take, for example, the aftermath
of the Omaha Beach incident.  These men have just been through literal
"hell," and understandably stagger away, but then seem to snap back into
line as if they were unfeeling automotons.  Moments later the only residual
manifestation of this trauma is Tom Hanks' trembling hand.  Are they
kidding?  Surely someone would have started crying, shaking, cracking up,
etc. I mean I don't expect a freak-out on the scale of Ken Russell, but
some upset....?
> From: Joshua Redmond <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Translating Private Ryan
> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 1:34 PM
> Robert J Vest wrote:
> >
> > Scott Hutchins <[log in to unmask]> on 09/14/98 12:04:41 PM
> >
> >> The obvious reason to hate the film is Private Ryan the all-American
> >> soldier boy that keeps the film from being a truly an anti-war film,
> >> do other aspects of the film.
> >
> > I must have been seeing a different movie. What possible reason could
> > have for 'hating' this movie? (I know you are not the original poster,
> > I used your response to reply to the list) The 'all-American soldier
> > 'a truly anti-war movie'? I may deft here, but I don't get these
> > Reply off-list if you would like, but I thoughthe movie was a veritible
> > masterpiece.
> You're right, Bob.  SPR was a masterpiece that no one could reasonably
> deem to be pro-war.  Anyone's reasons for thinking otherwise will be
> amusing.
> - Josh
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama.
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.