Is it worth it?
Is it worth risking the lives of eight soldiers by sending them behind enemy lines to save one man just because his three brothers have all been killed in battle?
Is it worth it?
Is it worth making a movie about risking the lives of eight soldiers by sending them behind enemy lines to save one man just because his three brothers have all been killed in battle?
No. To both questions.
Why would any general make this decision? It's a waste of time and a waste of lives.
"Saving Private Ryan" wastes a lot of time too, not to mention good acting and some fantastic camera work. All for what? I don't know.
Why would you send eight men to save one person - a person who isn't even pivotal in the war? For sentimental reasons? Because his mother shouldn't have to suffer anymore? No, because General George Marshall has a thing for Abraham Lincoln.
Like that explanation? I don't either. And neither should the eight poor saps sacrificed by Marshall.
Of course some of the grunts bi--h (censored by MOVIE MOJO) a bit, but no one seriously questions this mission, until after a costly encounter with a German machine-gun nest. Then Eddie Burns, playing the smart-ass from Brooklyn (Yay Brooklyn!!) decides everything is just too crazy for him. And the situation gets tense.
Here's where Spielberg could have really made a substantial film. War can occur when people believe enough in what they're doing to justify or ignore the fact that they're taking the lives of other human beings. When soldiers begin to question why, the machine breaks down and there is chaos.
Well, here comes chaos. Burns threatens. Sizemore threatens. Everyone's screaming all at once. Now we got ourselves a war movie. Until Tom Hanks speaks up and talks about Mom and apple pie. Hiss.... The pressure eases. And sentimentality saves the day.
But Spielberg doesn't stick with this.
DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM!!!!
There's the scene near the end when the translator guy locks up and can't do anything. He crumbles on the stairs and listens to his friend get killed. If Spielberg were going for the old "Good always win" bit, that guy would have taken a deep breath, march up the stairs and shot himself a Nazi. But he's Hamlet on the stairs. And I watch and I feel frustrated and sad for the guy getting knifed and sad for the guy on the stairs because he's gonna get shot by the Nazi when he finishes upstairs.
Yet Spielberg spares Private Translator. In fact, he lives through the whole thing. And he fires his gun only once - when the same Nazi who spares him tries to beg for mercy. (EW has proved it is not the same man. The man who was saved and the man who killed Mellish are not the same. The man who was saved and the man who shot Miller is. Confused?)
I'm confused. Does Spielberg want to be a sentimentalist or a realist? He seems to be trying for both, sometimes in the same scene.
Take the scene where Burns threatens to desert and Sizemore threatens to shoot him. The tension is nearly unbearable. You really don't know what will happen. And then Hanks starts talking about the company pool. Oh geez, here we go. Schmaltz to the rescue.
Well, at the end, schmaltz wins. Hanks dies a heroic death, whispering words of wisdom to Damon which sets up a gratuitous morphing scene and some old guy wondering if he's lived a worthy life.
All this work for that? Why make a three-hour movie to answer rhetorical questions? War is terrible. We know. You should make the most of your life. We know. It's stupid to send eight guys out of their way to get one unimportant guy. We know.
Wait, I'm not a total grouch. The battle sequences were the best I've ever seen. It's fascinating how the Normandy Invasion scene began with chaos and slowly inched towards order while the bridge scene began with order and broke down into chaos. Kudos to the cameraman, Janusz Kaminski, and all the actors for excellent work. Hanks was fantastic, although his crying scene should have been one take.
*The comments in the parentheses were made by MOVIE MOJO.