THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR
|
Saving Private Ryan is quite simply one of the most outstanding film of the 1990s since Schindler's List. Forget about Martin Scorsese or Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg in just 20 minutes of film making has eclipsed what any of them have put on film. If ever you wanted proof that there is a special place for the movie theatre and the cinematic film then this film is it. Not since Apocalypse Now have we witnessed such an astonishing use of sound in a motion picture. Not since Schindler's list have we appreciated the full horror of such a dark age in history, and not since Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" have we realised that no life is insignificant. The almost senseless sacrifice men my age (and younger) made is the most powerful message against war and against the degredation of humanity than any previous war film I have seen (sorry Oliver Stone). Steven Spielberg is at his best here, and this film will be studied for a long time to come. |
The first thing I have to say is that I totally reject the notion that in a movie you can't have emotionalism, even if it is manipulative. Cinema as a form is manipulative. When people say "I found that irritating" (in reference to the opening and closing sequences of the film), it totally misses the point. When World War Two veterans go to the graves in Normandy, do they stand there all cynically and laugh (and if it is so irritating, why is it that the veterans themselves have been coming out of the cinemas in tears after the "flag beating and emotional speeches"). Many of the most seasoned and toughest combat fighters break down in tears - almost like a child. And you can understand why after watching the things that happenned in the following sequence set on Omagha beach in France. Anyway enough of that - but I think the cynical "high brow" critics are being very disrespectful to dismiss the notion that people react that way in real life. I for one did not see anything being over done, the movie is extremely moving.
TECHNICAL MERIT 10.0
The first thirty minutes have been overly hyped by the press. People are expecting it to be totally sickening - but if you're accustomed to the gratuitous violence, then you won't be chucking up your food. However, you will be genuinely shocked at some of the stuff you see. The cruelty of war, and the sheer stupidity and futility of sending thousands of young men as human pawns in a grab for territory is painfully exposed in the most technically proficient exercise in film history. The randomness of the deaths, the sheer frenzy and terror and bombardment is filmed with such great skill that you forget that each frame was meticulously crafted by probably the only person on the planet who could film something this complex and chaotic. The camera work, in combat style, is beyond criticism. We, the audience are the camera - we sink into the water, we hear the mayhem around us and we advance with the men lucky to have their lives intact. Often the camera produces different rhythms due to shutter speeds, and then in moments of surrealism, we get to see how Captain John Millier is reacting to all of this. The editing in this sequence is masterful - there's a reason why Spielberg hasn't changed editors in his films - Michael Kahn. Surely he will win the oscar for best editing. The cinematography, done by Janusz Kaminski is outstanding. Spielberg said he cut 60% of the colour out of the print - and you can tell - it's authentic footage, and very appropriate.
And as for the sound design. Well, wow. Sound editing oscar is already in the bag. No film this year can possibly be better programmed. The pinnacle of the five channel digital surround sound era has been reached with this film (Star Wars will be the first film to employ a back speaker). Spielberg in cutting to shots uses brilliant sound editing techniques, often to highlight a fear/security dichotomy. We hear the sounds of the bullets on the beach (invoking fear); but in the security of the office we hear similar sounds, but it is the typewriters (security). The film noir aspect of rain underscoring dramatic action is literally taken with the direct link between rain drops and gunfire/battle. Other sound techniques repeated from previous films include using classic music as a backdrop to impending harm. I refer here to Schindler's List where children's songs play while the kids are being separated (i think). In SPR, we have Edith Piaf singing about her boyfriend who has left her (the separation Hanks related to), and then we hear the sounds of those tiger tanks. Spielberg conjures up fear so perfectly that one forgets how hard it is to pull off. The sound of those tanks are like the oncoming Tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park. And as far as design of sound goes, with all the bullets wizzing by us, I think that with this film, sound editing has reached its pinnacle. Hours must have been spent on even the most miniscule scenes where we were given sounds of what is going on around us as well (adding a very important spatial dimension not covered by the screen).
Another aspect of the editing is that there is quite often a continuity of a flame burning in the background (usually of burnt buildings - often towards the top left or right hand side of the screen). This may be a type of tribute to the fighters (the eternal flame). Also another continuity is the strong feature of the cross as a religious metaphor. Laying down one's life for a stranger and the relationship between religion and war is discussed briefly in the narrative and I think more explicitly in the film. It is a good coincidence that the sniper's aim is a cross shape and that the sniper is the one that extols God's name in killing. Window frames, churches and those things on the omaha beach (which eerily make it look like a cemetry) add to the continuity of the cross shape (whereas in Schindler's List it was a circle shape that permeated throughout). This movie being about sacrifice therefore lends itself to christian ideas. I always find it surprising how many christian overtones can be read from such a jewish director. Another thing is that there are so many small pieces that link in this movie - often narrative to visual links, or visual to visual links. For example, when Captain Millwe is talking about one of the men that died under his command, he mentioned how he used to pee a "V" sign on the back of the soldiers' jackets (v being his surname and v for victory). Then they talk about Cordoza, and we cut to a shot of one of the soldiers writing out Cardoza's letter. Surprise surprise, the letter is a V-mail (look at the bottom). Such very small pieces of continuity are rife throughout. I'm sure there's lots I've missed. Of course there are the obvious visual links, like the Hitler youth knife that the jewish soldier (melish) takes after the omaha landing being used by the German to kill him. Such consumate attention to detail is the reason why the film is superior to others - because in the end, what is rewarding in a film is that detail that even though we don't instantly pick up, adds to the sense of the richness and integrity of a film.
The lighting here is typically Spielbergian (taken to the extreme of his lighting style though). I always mention how brilliant Spielberg lights his scenes - OK, you may say it is the lighting director or the cinematographer - but Spielberg tells them what he wants and they do it (otherwise, bye bye). He never shies away from shining light straight into the screen - this adds to the fear element (in lost world, with torches flashing all over the place, it adds to the uncertainty we feel when flashed at us: in Empire of the Sun, Jim flashes his torch at the ships and the ship attacks, and ET, Close encounters make use of these techniques). In Saving Private Ryan he has purposefully overexposed some of the shots - so that not only is the light pouring into the screen, it is destorting the images in an almost camcorder like fashion (adding to the reality of the combat footage). Spielberg never fails to forget that at its most basic level, cinema is about manipulating light. By pouring light into the screen he FORCES us to look at it, he invites us into the action, and with this movie, as sick as some of the scenes may get, we are almost mesmerised by the filmic action. It is worth noticing how he overexposes the shots. As I mentioned earlier, the scenes in George Marshall's office are so overly bright it's like heaven in there. It's like God is ordering Ryan's removal from the war scene. But the scene also shows how detached they are from the decision making process - and in subsequent viewings you realise that Marshall's citations of Abe Lincoln are so very easy in the comfort of an arm chair (even though their words are noble and great). Another aspect of the lighting is how in his films he often makes dangerous things look very beautiful. In Empire of the Sun, when Jim looks at the atom bomb, he sees it as something so very beautiful. Similarly, as the soldiers leave the church, the sky is lit by night bombing which we can mistake as thunder - the clouds covering the sky are indistiguishable from the smoke that is no doubt billowing out of those places being bombed. Of course, the use of smoke to indicate uncertainty or fear is yet again repeated in this film on a number of occasions.
To conclude the technical merit section, this film is the most meritous technically of any other film of the nineties. It's just outstanding. The battle scenes alone warrant an accolade of this standing. Schindler's list could be said to be overall a better film, but while technically brilliant, SPR beats it hands down, quite simply because of the subject matter at hand and how it has gone about in filming it.
NARRATIVE: 9.5
ACTING: 9.5
Ok. So it's true that Soldiers wouldn't normally talk while in enemy territory - but hey, this is the moofies, and though Spielberg would've been a great silent director, he has to use narrative, since the film is shot almost entirely while in the search. The narrative also features your typical bunch of soldiers - but then again, every group has some that fit into the stereotypes. The characters are given enough time to develop, and there are three stand outs and all would normally be contendors for Supporting Actor Oscar nominations - Jeremy Davies is probably the best of the supporting cast, mainly because his role is extremely well written and has a coherency that beats all other ironies in the film. Another reason for the Davies character being so well developed is that he is the Spielberg stand in - just like Hitchcock, there's always a bit of Spielberg in each of his films. Notice that Captain Miller is a 'father figure' for the Davies character - Spielberg has quite an affinity with these characters - see E.T., Empire of the Sun, Lost World). Ed Burns as the Brooklyn wise cracker, puts in a great performance, influenced by all the great talent around him. The actor who plays Jackson is brilliant as the catholic sharp shooter - A very powerful performance that is made more powerful by some brilliant point of view shots that make us feel like we're there. As for Tom Hanks, he will be the person to beat for his THIRD OSCAR in a decade (this would have to be unprecedented). It's an amazing performance, far superior to Forrest Gump because he couldn't hide behind a disability in this role (well, the twitching hand may count). What could be a cliched role was turned into a very meaningful and well developed character (After thinking about the way in which he was written, I really can't fault it - in fact, the whole script is much better than I first thought). Only a few will not be convinced by this performance. Jim Carrey was brilliant in the Truman Show - but Tom Hanks may get over the line on this one. If there was any weakness in the script, the cast overcame it in a powerful performance. Also, this is a quite realistic film: so there are naturally long sequences where all they will do is talk - it can't be battle after battle after battle. In these sections too, there is some quite brilliant photography, and the dialogue doesn't seem forced or out of place.
The narrative raises some very important issues. The most obvious are stated by the characters in the film. What is the value of one life? Why risk eight or even a hundred men for a propoganda exercise? Why risk all these men for one life? Some may even interpret this movie as a glorification of war. However, I certainly do not. In "It's a Wonderful Life", the main character before he is to commit suicide is taken by an angel to see how the world would be like if he hadn't lived. The world was a much worse place. Every life is of importance. Some lives change the world, others influence only a small amount of people - but every individual counts. When we see the crosses on Normandy, and we see the family gathered around the veteran (identity withheld until a couple of months) in the epilogue, the message is made loud and clear in the visual sense - all these individuals had a contributiion to make but it was sacrificed in the sickening warfare. This is not a pro-war film - it is more anti-war than Oliver Stone is because it more successfully communicated the senselessness of war (and had a far greater reach to a world audience than Plattoon and Born on the Fourth of July put together). However SPR does so with subtlety, never treading on the honour of the men who fought. This is why it is so great. Also, notice how even the US soldiers were not portrayed entirely in glowing colours. While their reactions may be understandable, one great line from Miller about feeling "far away from home" was yet another example of well placed and meaningful dialogue and about how thoroughly away from the human condition war makes us. Also, it's not anti-german. If anything we realise that the people on the other side are also humans too (Hence the feeling of shock when the American soldiers pretend to not understand the germans in the scene after the omagha landing is over). Be very careful to criticise this film because it is too patriotic. The film opens and closes with the American flag, but what it says is entirely up to the viewer. Did the men that fought in the war really die for their country? Is the flag that powerful that thousands of men would perish? These are all incidental themes to the main one of the life of the individual. Spielberg is also making even more implicit in his films (see Amistad) at least symbolic overtures to Christianity. The Jewish references are also quite strong, with one of the saddest scenes of the film employing a Nazi youth knife.
The film is also filled with irony and visual symbolism, and this often eliminates the need for words (I was browsing through the novel based on the script, and dialogue often left out would have made the movie much worse if it was put in). The ending itself has a triple irony:
1. Melish is killed by a Hitler youth knife (in the heart no less - the symbolism of that being obvious)
2. Captain Miller is killed by the German he ultimately set free
3. Upham kills the german whom he so strenuously defended. It is as though he lives to be tormented by the rest of his life for his actions during that time.
If anything, Spielberg understates the undercurrents operating in the film, allowing the viewer to decide for themselves how to read certain scenes. People may read the scenes involving the generals as a heroic portrayal - however, one could also interpret the scene as proof that the joint chief of staff was out of touch with what was going on the ground. One must not forget the general incompetence implied in the organisation - and the filming of Marshall back in the USA ordering these men to go searching for Ryan, is perhaps indication of that unthoughtful detachment from the ground.
MUSICAL SCORE: 9.0
The score by John Williams is also very good. The perfect military type score, it is unlike most of what we're used to. The brazen trumpets are replaced with muted French Horns and wind instruments. The Timpani drum rolls are replaced with the military snare. The music is usually kept firmly in place, hardly ever overshadowing the action. This is one film where score music was hardly necessary - and on many occasions I didn't even notice it while it was playing. Often we just have a clarinet and bassoon playing notes in contrary motion - at other times we have a cello chorus - while in other parts a more mushy sort of accompaniment is given. The end credits hymn is also a nice way to close up the film - though original material left to the end credits is in a way a bit disappointing because most people don't stay to listen to the end credits. However, as a whole, the music is no better than the Schindler's List music, but that is a matter of taste.
CONCLUSION
I can't see a better film coming out this year than the one I saw in the cinema today. Terrence Mallick will have to come up with another work of genius to eclipse what I saw. Spielberg has demonstrated yet again that no-one understands the visual medium better than he does. The technical brilliance alone should win it a multitude of Oscars. The amazing Omaha scenes should win it best film - but I believe the film gets better after that opening, and that the concluding scenes are just as good. Saving Private Ryan is an honest tribute to all those who died. In many ways, the United States and Australia had no interest whatsoever in being there - but they sent thousands of troops to be slaughtered on D Day. The film raises many questions - one of which is that of the worth of aan individual. One of Spielberg's running themes in his movies is that of the 'individual'. If you understand this, then you will see the point of the epilogue. The epilogue is especially sad, because for every one of those crosses you see in Normandy lies an individual - a husband, a family, a society - lost.. We will never know how those people could have contributed to our society - and to see them strewn across the beach like animals is the most powerful anti-war message. Sure the film honours the dead, it doesn't demean their fight, it questions the motives - but the values of honour and following orders are so distant from our reality, it is difficult to understand how men could have sacrificed their lives. Spielberg leaves that an open question - he honours the dead but also lets us ponder on the family pictured in the epilogue about just what could've become of any of those bodies lying under the white crosses. I was expecting a great film here, and my expectations were suprpassed. This movie will be forever on the top ten wor movies list - and as far as I'm concerned, it goes straight to number one on mine. I hope no one ever degrades what any WWII veterans went through, from now on, I don't think it will ever be possible to portray what happenned in World War Two as 'fun'. This movie should be compulsary viewing in all schools... I think that Spielberg has done us a favour because after this, we realise what war is really about - he could've made himself another Indiana Jones film, and racked up a billion dollars; but he took a gamble on a serious film and it has been commercially successful as well as almost revolutionary in the technical sense - so much for education, entertainment and art not being able to be mixed. There is nothing more indicative of the greatness of this film than when after the final note of the film, the screen goes to black, and their is utter silence in the cinema. Whether mesmerised or numbed by the experience, the majority of audiences and cinema goers will not help but recognise this work of art achieved.
95/100
In an essay I did on Steven Spielberg's film style (see Film USA section of this web site), the reason why I thought his films were filled with greatness was because their seeming "simplicity" was overlooked by high minded critics more concerned about textual context than symbolic or visual context (I didn't take the easy option and accuse the film maker of "emotional manipulation" - whatever that means). That is, he tells his stories via the visual text and then the written text. An understanding of visual text and the possible interpretations thereof make it far more interesting for the viewer than a word - which in many instances has a definite meaning and a definite context. In Jurassic Park, chaos theory is demonstrated in the action of the film rather than in long and boring speeches that may be scientifically accurate (even in scenes where there is science explained, strong visual language supports it) - but largely incomprehensible to the young kids watching it. In Saving Private Ryan, you can have one person saying it glorifies war, while in a more enlightened context, another could say it is clearly anti-war. Here is what Roger Ebert had to say about SPR (at least one critic understands!):
"Spielberg and his screenwriter, Robert Rodat, have done a subtle and rather beautiful thing: They have made a philosophical film about war almost entirely in terms of action. Saving Private Ryan' says things about war that are as complex and difficult as any essayist could possibly express, and does it with broad, strong images, with violence, with profanity, with action, with camaraderie. It is possible to express even the most thoughtful ideas in the simplest words and actions, and that's what Spielberg does. The film is doubly effective, because he communicates his ideas in feelings, not words."
95/100 Reviewed 19 November 1998.