The Silver Screen Oasis

Spoiler Alert

When i saw Saving Private Ryan i was reminded of To Hell And Back, a biopic of the teenage Audie Murphy, who played himself, in his war yrs.
both are very similiar war movies with Ryan rated by many as the greatest ever war movie with Murphy's movie almost forgotten by modern day audiences.

however, i think THAB is the better movie. i admit the D-Day beach landings in SPR are the most brutally realistic ever to to be put on film, but i have a problem with the film when Tom Hanks and his troop went inland. is it feasable that a troop would be sent, at great personal risk, to bring back Mark Damon (Ryan) back to safety because his brothers had been killed in action. it said it didn't want a mother to lose her last survivng son, but in the end how many mothers ended up grieving for the boys who lost their lives saving Ryan

THAB started out as a pro army movie with a General introducing the film and Audie as a young man, being told by his employer that he could do nothing better than join the armed forces. however, despite the fact the hero of the film, Murphy, went on to become the U.Ss most decorated soldier, the movie as it progressed became close to being antie-war.
while Audie collected his medals, almost all his pals were killed. the death of Marshal Thompson's Johnson was almost comic. he thought he'd been wounded as he felt something running down his back. 'Murph, i've been hit.' a can of i think soup had been pierced, as he Murphy and the gang took a cottage. then having been kicked out of the cottage, he fell and said 'It's just a scratch.' before he died.
however, it's the death of Charles Drake's Brandon that's the films highlight. Bannion had been killed by a sniper with Murphy looking on (in his book Audie said it was a miracle he wasn't killed in the brief seconds he looked at his pals body). then in a miracle act of bravery and an element of luck Audie killed several German soldiers in an open field, before going back to greive for Brandon. then when joined by the troop he picked up his rifle and moved on.

"Saving Private Ryan" made me think of "Combat" as well. In particular, the movie reminded me of one "Combat" episode in which a cowardly GI was part of a patrol that captured a German who spoke English and could thus tell people that the coward was a coward who had let his buddies down. It reminded me of the relationship between the German-speaking GI in Ryan and the prisoner.

Hard to believe that it has been about 10 years since "Saving Private Ryan" came out. They haven't been especially good years for Spielberg, I guess.

JohnM said:

Other than Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Duel, I don't count myself among Spielberg's fans. I've only like those three films.

Those are the same three I like, plus AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, which I associate more with Kubrick, but it was Spielberg who pulled it off.

I thought Schindlers List (1993) was OK till the end when it got overly sentimental (I could have saved five more!). I'll also say that I thought Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) was a nice homage and great escapist fare, but I disliked how this film and Star Wars (1977) changed modern cinema.

As for Saving Pvt. Ryan (1998), there is no doubt that the opening scene is very well done, but the rest of the film is nowhere near as good. The film's form seems to have some inspiration in Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch (1969) which opens and closes with massive gunbattles while we learn about the characters and their codes of honor in between. Spielberg is no Peckinpah though, and his characters don't have the depth of Pike and his men. I also thought Tom Hanks was totally miscast here with an awful performance to boot.

Peckinpah's lone war effort, Cross of Iron (1976), is the masterpiece Spielberg tried to achieve, but failed. I highly reccomend it.

The mention of Sam Fuller reminded me that Fixed Bayonets, The Steel Helmet and The Big Red One seemed to have more realism (on a much smaller budget) than Saving Private Ryan, but, having known some men who had experienced D-Day, they felt that the Spielberg film did do a good job showing the ghastly intensity of that day during that opening sequence. Though the nightmare-inducing consequences brought it all back for some again. At their ages of 80-90, it makes me wonder if seeing this was a good or necessary thing.

My older friends pointed out one of the major fallacies of Private Ryan:
No one in their right mind would hump across the top of the ridge in a field in a line, making themselves a lovely target for any snipers, (including friendly fire--even if it did make a nicely photographed image on the side of a hill against the sky, à la the end of The Seventh Seal).

Maybe kids seeing the Spielberg movie for the first time would find it revelatory.

Stuart:

Private Ryan is based on a true story where To Hell and Back is a true story. I believe that even to this day, Audi Murphy is still the most decorated U.S. military personage ever. If you Google him, you can see a list of all the medals and awards he received not only from the American government, but also the French, English and several others. Audi was only 15 when he signed up (lying about his age), and just short of 19 when the war ended, plus the fact that he was only about 5'4" in height. He's one of my heroes. Even though the scenarios have a romantic Hollywood spin on them, they are relatively true since Audi lived through them, and he assisted in the writing of the screenplay which was based on his auto-biography.

As for Private Ryan, there was also a naval family where the four brothers all died during combat. That movie was called The Fighting Sullivans, and again, the things that happened were based on truth, but not necessarily true. Most of my uncles are gone now, but the one I have left, I asked and he agreed the beginning of Private Ryan was the most realistic he had ever seen, and I agree that at 89 it isn't really necessary to have those memories brought to light again.

Anne

Dear Mrsl,

There were five Sullivan brothers, not four. All five were serving aboard the USS Juneau (CL 52) when it was torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine during the Battle of Guadalcanal on November 13th, 1942. Four of the brothers, Albert, Francis, Joseph and Madison were killed in the initial explosion. The fifth, George, made it to a life raft but died of his injuries five days later. Although the Navy had a strict policy against family members serving together, the brothers appealed that policy and were granted permission to serve aboard the same ship. To date, the Navy has never again rescinded that policy. In their memory, the Navy has commissioned two ships bearing the name "USS The Sullivans." The first in 1943, which had originally carried a different name, and the second in 1995. My nephew Erick is currently serving aboard the USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) based in San Diego.

I'm confused by your use of the word "necessary" in the latter part of your posting. Movies serve to entertain and educate, and as such, it's never necessary that they be made at all. That's a decision made by the film maker and it seems to me, purely a subjective one based upon his belief that there will be an audience for his work. My dad was also a D-Day survivor and I know for a fact that the last thing he would have wanted was to be reminded of the horrors of that day. While I'm a big fan of "war movies," I've yet to see my first film based upon the Vietnam War. Your statement begs the question "Why would your uncle go to see "Saving Private Ryan" in the first place?" That wasn't necessary. Had whe stayed away, the memories wouldn't have been brought to light.

As far as "To Hell and Back" is concerned, I've rarely seen a more sanitized version of warfare. Artistic license was taken quite liberally. It spared the viewer almost all of the real terror that's very much a part of any armed conflict. Had it not been released when WW II was still relatively fresh in most people's minds (1955,) I doubt that there would have been much of an audience for it at all. That in no way detracts from the accomplishments of Second Lieutenant Audie Leon Murphy. He remains the epitome of what a "battlefield hero" is.

As always,

Hollis

Hi Hollis:

I had forgotten all about that 5th Sullivan brother, thanks for the reminder. The business about 'necessary' was actually a response to moirafinnie's comments.

The sanitation of To Hell and Back was a little overdone but to me that's better than a lot of blood and guts, but I was prepared for Sgt. Ryan so not too shocked, plus the difference in time frames. One thing I did like about TH&B was the tracking of his troop across Italy and the different milieus they ran into, then at the end of the movie, they showed the ceremony of issuing the Medal of Honor, rather than little snippets all along of how he received them from all the other countries, which would have become boring.

Anne