SCREEN-L Archives

September 1998, Week 3


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

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

Print Reply
Scott Hutchins <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:55:01 -0500
TEXT/PLAIN (33 lines)
We were to watch this film for my history class, and the suggestion the
prof, Annie Gilbert Coleman ([log in to unmask]), had was, as I understand
it, that if James Frederick Ryan had been the Ryan they were looking for,
it would have been about war's detrimental effects on people, yet the fact
that James Francis Ryan was the all-American soldier boy who did not want
to leave, and the fact that Cpl. Upham had to kill "Steamboat Wille" to
make the transition to become a soldier suggests that the war and serving
your duty is the right thing, without question.  In that respect, it is
difficult to view it as an anti-war film, despite the intense carnage and
realism of being entrenched in the battle with the camera eye looking
about as if part of the crowd.  It is for this reason I can also imagine
people hating this film.  I never said I did, but I understand well the
point, if this is the reason.
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Carolina Trujillo wrote:
> There was a great article in The Economist (believe it or not) on why "Saving
> Private Ryan" fails as an anti-war film compared to "The Deer Hunter" and
> others.
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama.
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite