How do you start on a film that describes some of the most relevant events of the last century? This is what I've been struggling with and it's the reason this post is so long in the making. In fact if there's a record for the longest time a post has been a draft and no one has clicked that little publish button...I think I might win.
You've probably read something about the opening minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" and how it's violent and extremely intense. Well that's partially correct. There is quite a bit if very intense action at the beginning of the movie and it starts about six minutes in. Make no mistake...at six minutes and twenty seconds you will be affected by the sudden intensity and randomness of armed conflict. In the next ten minutes or so the brutality of war takes center stage. Remember this is Omaha Beach. This is one of the first waves of D-Day and this is one of the very first waves of troops landed. Omaha Beach was the most fortified of the landing beaches and the casualties were significant.
During The landing scenes the film runs the risk of being too violent and having that violence work against telling the story. There was a negative reaction to the level of violence shown but it was portraying violent acts. This isn't antiseptic war. It isn't about showing those nasty "other guys" and the whiter than white American troops. I hope I never see that level of violence in real life. In fact, I wish it were possible for no one to ever see it.
I've often wondered and talked to others in my family on the reality of being in one of those boats. Would I have the courage to get on to one of them with the full knowledge my chances would be 50:50? Not sure. I can't see most of my contemporaries doing it. This, at least for me, drives home the argument the generation that were young adults in World War II were the finest generation produced in modern times.
It would be hard to argue they weren't the best generation produced. The US troops on Utah and Omaha, the Canadians on Juno and the British on Sword and and Gold. Since I'm Canadian I do have to mention that almost 10% of Canada's population (1.1 million of the total population of 12 million at wars end) served during WW II and I find that to be a staggering statistic. As pointed out by my wife, the US had more than 10% (around 16 million of 132 ish million) Conscription wasn't started in Canada until 1944 and a division was sent to Europe in 1940. Given the largely rural nature of Canada at that time I find it surprising
Anyway, on to the movie. Based very loosely on the situation and sacrifice of Agnes Allison who lost four sons during the Civil War (A monument to her was seen by Robert Rodat in 1994) and the Niland Brothers who it was believed to have lost three during action in the Second World War, the movie follows the events after a reading of a letter by then Army Chief of Staff George Marshall. Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, the leter was written to Lydia Bixby whom it was believed lost three sons in battle during the Civil War. The authorship of the letter is in question, and it turns out, also the disposition of the sons. Two of the sons deserted and one was captured and later honorably discharged on his return to the union. Anyway the letter is remarkable and isn't diminished by the circumstances nor the possible change in authorship.
At the end of the first day of battle you see, through the haunted eyes of Hanks, a body lying on the bloodied beach with "S. Ryan" on his back. Since the name of the film is "Saving Private Ryan" it's reasonable to assume that's not the eponymous Ryan. James Francis Ryan was serving in the 101st Airborne and his 3 bothers have died recently in battle. The Army Chief of Staff learns of this and orders the surviving Ryan be found and shipped home. The rest of the movie follows the squad tasked with finding Ryan.
Ribisi's very memorable scene after the squad takes out a machine gun nest again communicates this isn't antiseptic war. Vin Diesel's big scene (Casparza) and the performances from Danson and Giamatti don't point to clinical. The movie uses its immense cast to shape and play off the story. The ability of Hanks to stand up to the incredible cast is a testament to his talent. Not bad for a guy that got his big break wearing drag on "Bosum Buddies" almost 20 years before. I think it was Penny Marshall that called Hanks a national treasure after "Big" and while it's the wrong nation I can't argue with the sentiment.
The movie is paced well and has some of the most powerful combat footage ever shown. A hand to hand in the village they finally find Ryan in is simply chilling. No not chilling. Take chilling and astounding and powerful and amazing and combine them. Whatever word that is. Chillastounerfulzing.
This film will be watched for a hundred years and I haven't done it even close to justice.
Snagged the Oscar for Best Cinematography, Director, Sound Effects Editing, Film Editing and Sound. Also picked up the nominations for (winners in brackets) Best Picture (Shakespeare in Love), Best Actor - Tom Hanks (Roberto Benigni), Best Original Screenplay (Shakespeare in Love). Time to once again face palm at the Academy. Do you think there is ANY chance Shakespeare in Love will show up on a "Best Movies" list? I mean if there was a list the best movies dealing with a playright who's name rhymes with...Beer...and lived in England in the 16th and 17th centuries....sure!
No comments:
Post a Comment