The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Monotreme

03-29-2008, 04:26 AM

I have arrived, so fuck you all! :P

Seriously, though, I really, really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY do not understand how Saving Private Ryan is cheesy or sentimental in any way.

*Spoilers*, in case anybody complains afterwards

First of all, I just have to throw this out and mention again that SPR is BASED ON A TRUE STORY. And I don't know any off the bat but I'm sure the history of the army, especially in WWII, is full of stories of the army pouring exaggerated resources into doing something seemingly trivial, like returning a private from behind enemy lines or delivering crates of chocolate, I don't know. So I wasn't surprised by the premise because it makes sense and because it's a true story.

Secondly. Most of the bulk of the film is made up of endless and indescribably intense and realistic battle scenes; from the Normandy beach to the scene at the antenna to the village at the end. It's just intense battle scene after intense battle scene. And in each of these scenes, at least one person dies so that by the end practically everyone is dead. And none of the deaths are glorified with a crescendo in the music or whatever. Because during the battle scenes there really isn't music at all if you think about it. They just happen, some of them quite brutally.

And if your problems are with the cheesy sentimentality of the cemetary scenes. I'll just ask you this: Have you ever met a war veteran and got him to talk about the war/his comrades and friends who died for him on the battlefield? Have you ever been with a war veteran to a military cemetary? I have. Spielberg NAILED it.

SPR is the grittiest, most resonant and realistic war movie ever made. Apocalypse Now is the superior film, but it's a wild, insane fantasy - a brilliant one, but a fantasy nonetheless. And you know what else is a fantasy? The Thin Red Line. This isn't The Gulf War. in WWII, soldiers weren't doing much else but fighting. They weren't sitting around, looking at the trees and going through philosophical ramblings. Do you know what kind of people volunteer to the U.S. marines? People like the ones in SPR, or Band of Brothers. simple folk, or people who don't have an education or a living so they volunteer into the army to get one. NOT people who ruminate about life's deepest, darkest philosophies while they're on the battlefield. I'm sorry, but in terms of realism, SPR takes the cake.

Buck Turgidson

03-29-2008, 05:18 AM

Other than the epilogue that takes place in present day, how is Saving Private Ryan mawkish and sentimental and sappy?I've run over my reasons for believing that, in depth, several times now. Just follow the links. You will also see that I have never mentioned the cemetary scene, which I really have no special problem with.

You can't really compare a film starting with the forgodsakes Normandy Invasion landing, one of the largest and most pivotal operations of it's kind in history and the subsequent week or so, with much of anything else in terms of relative amount of action. It's going to outdo most any period you can name. Having said that, anybody who knows anything about the day to day proceedings of any army in combat knows that that is the exception, rather than the rule.

There is one hell of a lot of down time, of differing levels of intensity and emotional anticipation, punctuated by sudden outbursts of sheer terror and confusion. Neither depiction in the two films is "right", in that sense, because they show two seperate campaigns in two dispirate parts of the world, even though they're roughly contemporary. Each one reflects the reality of it's situation accurately. I have never once written anything negative about the way SPR depicts combat, which I think is dead on and the film's best aspect, by far.

(I feel compelled to mention that the storyline of TRL is very similar to the one PTO veteran Norman Mailer used in The Naked and the Dead, as are many of the details of day to day life. So much for the "realism" thing.)

Finally, I don't think that anyone's inner thoughts, as depicted by Malick, really rang false. They were mostly the prosaic day to day musings of people who wanted to get home in one piece and see their loved ones again. Just because you might not have a high level of formal education doesn't mean you're automatically dull witted or unreflective.

Besides which, all kinds of people served on the front lines in that war. WWII had a draft which acted as a great social leveler, unlike the one in effect for Vietnam, which, like the one for the Civil War, rewarded the privelliged and fell heavier on those lower on the ladder.

Tony_Montana

03-29-2008, 09:25 AM

Monotreme

03-29-2008, 11:26 AM

I'm on the Private Ryan camp on this one. Private Ryan for me is one of the best war movies period. But Thin Red Line was just so fucking boring, unfocused and has a fucking weird cameo by John Travolta (??). Although if I have to give TRL something, it does have some beautiful cinematography...

That's true, but even TRL's cinematography doesn't hold a candle to the insanity that is Janusz Kaminski's cinematography in SPR... absolutely mind-blowing.

Come on! I know there are other SPR supporters out there! Let's win the battle against TRL once and for all!

ListersParanoia

03-29-2008, 12:11 PM

I've only seen TTRL once and it was YEARS ago so I feel weird passing judgement on it but from what I do remember, the scenes that are suppose to leave you stunned and saddened actually had me snickering a little.

*SPOILERS*

Harrelson: "I blew my butt OFF!!!" That's the line? Really?

I think that SPR was extremely well done, but I do agree with some posts above that it got a bit too "sentimental" in parts. The depiction of the Normandy invasion was breathtaking. The chaos and the blood, the screaming and the confusion. I also thought that a few of the characters were a bit on the cliche side and I'm sorry but I DON'T buy Adam Goldberg as a "trash talkin" tough guy hahaha when he talks shit in that movie I'm always shocked the receiving character doesn't just shove his 135lb frame the ground....slight miscast in my opinion.

DaMovieMan

03-29-2008, 02:47 PM

Fucking hell this thread is making me need to sit through Saving Private Ryan AGAIN, I remember i saw it as soon as it came out and never again and I remember comparing it immediately to the superior Thin Red Line because of the setting and genre. Ah, I don't need to see Thin Red Line again, saw it 3 times since the first viewing and it's just absolutely stunning in every sense, especially the music and cinematography, I mean it's on another level than Saving Private Ryan in that respect.
A friend of mine owns Saving Private Ryan, I'm gonna get my hands on it tonight and watch it either today or tomorrow and I will come back with a list of scenes that are forced and sentimental and down right cheesy. Thin Red Line is unbalanced? I don't think so. SPR went down hill from the brilliant D-Day, I know that much.

I'll be back.

hoojib127

03-29-2008, 08:25 PM

Saving Private Ryan reeks of sentimentality. Spielberg has always had that problem in his films. It's breathtakingly realistic and visually outstanding, but other than that I wouldn't say it ranks above any other war movie. In fact, I would never watch it again if given the chance.

Actually, I didn't think "Munich" had any sentimentality in it at all -- making it probably his first film since the 70s to do so. And while I thought the end of "A.I." was sentimental, I also found it simultaneously bleak and perverse.

As for SPR vs. TTRL, as with "GoodFellas," the characters in SPR just didn't do much for me. You could have a drinking game for every time one of them whines 'This Ryan better be worth it.' :rolleyes: TTRL was far more interesting since the characters were secondary to the tone and atmosphere (as it is with all Malick films).

electriclite

03-29-2008, 09:05 PM

I'm gonna go with TRL, mainly because I've watched it a lot more than SPR because of the length.

I still own both movies on VHS, and I tend to go for the one that's only 1 tape..... and not 3 hours long. There are some amazing-in-a-depressing-way bits in SPR: D-Day invasion and the stabbing scene with Goldberg and the sheer murderous frustration with Pvt. Upham, but a lot of SPR plays like a lot of previous war films, and I'm not a huge war film fan. Personally for me there's a slightly different approach with TRL and there is of course so many layers to unravel in TRL which keeps it fresh and new for me everytime I watch it.

Cosimo

03-29-2008, 09:40 PM

the problem with munich was it was freakin boring

oh my dear god southland tales is so painful. watching at mo! i might just shoot myself before this film finishes

deer hunter, rescue dawn, thin red line, d-day landing svp, parts of apocalypse now

Brando @$$ Fat

03-29-2008, 09:41 PM

I will give Saving Private Ryan this much: it is one of only a few Spielberg movies that doesn't have blatant and shameless product placement.

corran horn

03-29-2008, 09:46 PM

While I thought both were well-done, I liked SPR more--for the same reasons Monotreme did (are you stealing my brainwaves? ;) ). Malick is very hit-and-miss for me. TRL was very well done (interesting how so many of the cast members went on to be nominated for and win Oscars), but The New World was a disappointment, and Days of Heaven was good but ranks right in the middle of Malick's films.

I do agree with ilovemovies that the epilogue (and prologue) are WAY too sappy, and I think could have been left out. Had Spielberg done so, SPR would have been ideal.

BTW, people often rip the 'Berg for messing up the endings of his movies. However, having seen a lot of them, I have to say that is only true for his most recent ones, beginning with SPR (excluding Minority Report, which I thought ended fine) and continuing up to MUNICH (the very last scene--Avner's argument with Ephraim--was excellent but the juxtaposition of the athlete's being massacred and Eric Bana galloping in sex was simply strange and one wonders what went through Steven's head when he had Michael Kahn edit it that way).

bigred760

03-29-2008, 10:12 PM

I have not jumped in yet because I have not seen Thin Red Line, but Saving Private Ryan is one of my all-time favorite movies and probably my favorite Spielberg movie. I found the battle sequences to be very realistic, all the characters to be very interesting, and the direction and (of course) the cinematography to be excellent.

Badbird

03-30-2008, 03:29 AM

Thin Red Line was a boring, three hour mess that contained a decent 90 minute movie in the middle of it. And I'm being generous with that.

Saving Private Ryan was good, but I wouldn't call it great. I thought it was going out of its way by killing off everyone to try and be as ultra bleak as possible. It was also too long.

I actually prefer the bridge battle much more than the famed D-Day invasion - even if it was ultimately pointless. Juts blow up the bridge and move on.

I don't know if you can find it, but William Goldman wrote a great article in Premier way back when and he just ripped SPR to shreds. It was hilarious.

As far as war movies go, Black Hawk Down beats them both. Hell, so does Starship Troopers.

DaMovieMan

03-30-2008, 07:19 PM

Other than the epilogue that takes place in present day, how is Saving Private Ryan mawkish and sentimental and sappy?

Saving Private Ryan is cheesy?!:confused:
Did we watch the same film?

I just finished watching Saving Private Ryan again, my last time watching the film probably. And here's why I think the movie is cheesy and forced, and not a great film at all.

1. The film begins and ends with the American flag flapping. This immediately calls to mind a message that what you're about to see is an American war story, something that should make the audience feel proud to be an American etc..if it wasn't so concentrated on the flag in the beginning and the end I would have shrugged my shoulders, but Spielberg holds the shot for a while, I can't think of any other reason than the one I mentioned above. But ok, it's an American story let's move on...

2. I don't think I've ever been more annoyed by the use of music in a film. John Williams really outdid himself here with the sorrowful notes and melancholy horns that are cued any time a character says something profound (Miller's talk after releasing the German is a good example, there are many more). But if you're going to single out one aspect where the music was meant to tug at your emotions and felt forced, sappy and downright cheesy was how it never stopped from when we find out about Ryan's brothers all up until the General's decision to get Ryan out of there. The General by the way, who keeps a letter in his drawer from Abe Lincoln and has it memorized just for the occasion.

3. There's a perfect moment right before Miller gets the mission that is quintessential Spielberg. Miller waits for Dennis Farina's character, and spots a sandwich. Cue music, shot of the sandwich looking delicious, cut to Miller's hungry face, shot of the sandwich again...this is as subtle as Spielberg gets which, to me, is not very subtle at all, it's an instance that could of been done in so many different ways not to make it look cheesy.

4. The men chosen for the mission are cliches and stock characters. Vin Diesel the tough Italian who does the stupidest thing in the movie because the kid "reminds him of his niece" (Jesus Christ!), weird nerd/pussy who nobody welcomes in the beginning and befriends afterward, the skeptic from Brooklyn (Burns), the phanatic who equates guns with religion and starts citing the Bible everytime he kills somebody (he's such a good shot, he kills one sniper through his own scope and into the eye (really? it looked cool, but REALLY?), the Jewish wise-cracker etc.
Boring, unrealistic, they exist solely to entertain us and pull our emotional strings. Perfect example: Ribbisi with that story about his mother and a long silence...next scene he dies and cries for his mother, I mean come on! That doesn't feel formulaic, fixed and unnecessarily sappy?

5. The whole 'mystery' around Miller. Nobody knows where he's from, nobody knows what he does. That's not realistic, it's more like manipulating the audience so that when we do find out that he's just a teacher from Philly we go "oh, he's just a regular Joe fighting the good fight, let's continue the mission because of him" (that was his way of convincing the men to continue the mission when Burns wanted out, the skeptic who after all that fuss got swayed after a one minute speech). The whole thing about his shaking hand, how everyone notices it when they're going through the tags, again, Spielberg takes his time with scenes like this and that's what I mean by forceful directing. We get that his hand shakes, we've seen it 5 times already, MOVE ON or else you make it cheesy. He made it cheesy.

6. After two of his men die and he gets to Ryan, he decides to fuck the mission and hold a bridge (which gets blown up anyway), a decision that kills him and almost his whole platoon. And his last words are just so overly sentimental and sappy: "Earn it, earn this". I was rolling my eyes because I couldn't believe that a man just died and found the perfect words to say at a great moment, words, that OF COURSE, stay with Ryan his whole life...aww. I'm speechless with the ending, "Tell me I've led a good life, tell me I'm a good man" made me really chuckle, the wife's half-assed response "You are" and how she just leaves him made me chuckle even harder and then the obligatory salute and the flapping of the American flag, all while the sad Williams music takes the spoon and feeds you goosebumps. This is true American spirit, pride and glory for the men who fought so that they can save lives and families like Ryan's.

7. The film's biggest flaw is BY FAR the script. It's really terrible, with lines like "I was going to take them fishing when I got home" (when they accidentally told the wrong Ryan, which was made a more powerful scene then when they actually told the real Ryan..hmmm), "It's a tough mission, that's why you got it." and "Find him, get him home, I mean it"..aarghh, enough already, we get the point, why do you treat your audience like automatons who can barely think and connect things for themselves without cheesing out on dialogue, long unnecessary takes and numbing music?

8. There's positives in the film, of course, the battle scenes are awesome although I don't know how anyone can like the village battle more than D-Day which was spectacular in the way it looked and how it was filmed. Some scenes are good and deaths too (I was personally a little delighted to see Pepper get blown off in smithereens after thinking he's God, I was waiting for that to happen) Mellish' death was the most powerful definitely, with the translator shitting his pants on the stairs (i was really annoyed that he got balls in the absolute last minute though) and so on. The cinematography is good, I don't see how it can be compared to the majesty of Thin Red Line which relies more on nature than computer graphics most of the time, but alright.

Formulaic, forced (most of the crying scenes, we really didn't need so many), over sentimental, cheesy at points and sometimes really predictably unbelievable (the SAME German comes back after being left by them, i mean I'm sure the whole world saw that one coming but still, it's highly unlikely)

How anyone can think this is the best war film ever made is really beyond me. There are many good, realistic war films that don't manipulate the audience with cliches, long-winded takes, cheesy dialogue and stock characters and tell much more universal stories about the impact of war on man than the impact of war on Private Ryan or Captain Miller.

6/10 for Ryan. Just above average for entertaining and teaching me with its battle sequences, Spielberg's essential "adventure" arc which is always a good time-killer, Tom Sizemore, and showing me what kind of war film Hollywood eats up like hotcakes.

KiKrusher99

03-30-2008, 08:04 PM

I'm sorry but I DON'T buy Adam Goldberg as a "trash talkin" tough guy hahaha when he talks shit in that movie I'm always shocked the receiving character doesn't just shove his 135lb frame the ground....slight miscast in my opinion.

Personally, I was hoping he would be attacked by Clint from Dazed and Confused.

bigred760

03-31-2008, 03:46 AM

1. The film begins and ends with the American flag flapping. This immediately calls to mind a message that what you're about to see is an American war story, something that should make the audience feel proud to be an American etc..if it wasn't so concentrated on the flag in the beginning and the end I would have shrugged my shoulders, but Spielberg holds the shot for a while, I can't think of any other reason than the one I mentioned above. But ok, it's an American story let's move on...

The flag shots were "borrowed" from a German documentary called Tag der Freiheit - Unsere Wehrmacht.
The point of the movie is to remind audiences of the sacrifices made by American soldiers during WWII. And I don't see how Spielberg was trying to make audiences feel proud to be American when I sincerely doubt only Americans were going to see the movie.

3. There's a perfect moment right before Miller gets the mission that is quintessential Spielberg. Miller waits for Dennis Farina's character, and spots a sandwich. Cue music, shot of the sandwich looking delicious, cut to Miller's hungry face, shot of the sandwich again...this is as subtle as Spielberg gets which, to me, is not very subtle at all, it's an instance that could of been done in so many different ways not to make it look cheesy.

I don't know how that's quintessential Spielberg. That would be more like exciting action sequences, characters being at a 90 degree angle to each other, characters in "interesting" shots (shot of Ribisi talking about his mother, the shot of the soldiers coming up over a hill in silhouette). The shot of the main character being hungry after fighting a major battle - it's character development.

4. The men chosen for the mission are cliches and stock characters.
Boring, unrealistic, they exist solely to entertain us and pull our emotional strings. Perfect example: Ribbisi with that story about his mother and a long silence...next scene he dies and cries for his mother, I mean come on! That doesn't feel formulaic, fixed and unnecessarily sappy?

You'll have to name some movies that have these "cliched" characters for me. These characters drive the story (they are "saving Private Ryan"), they're deep, have back stories, and show the brotherhood that soldiers developed while serving together in combat.

5. The whole 'mystery' around Miller. Nobody knows where he's from, nobody knows what he does. That's not realistic, it's more like manipulating the audience so that when we do find out that he's just a teacher from Philly we go "oh, he's just a regular Joe fighting the good fight, let's continue the mission because of him" (that was his way of convincing the men to continue the mission when Burns wanted out, the skeptic who after all that fuss got swayed after a one minute speech). The whole thing about his shaking hand, how everyone notices it when they're going through the tags, again, Spielberg takes his time with scenes like this and that's what I mean by forceful directing. We get that his hand shakes, we've seen it 5 times already, MOVE ON or else you make it cheesy. He made it cheesy.

He made it interesting. He was the leader of a group of men trying to save one man, and all he cared about was getting back to his wife. He convinced them by saying that he didn't care about anything - the German, whether or not his men wanted to continue with the mission, and so on - he wanted to complete the mission, so he could be one step closer to his wife.
His shaking hand is brought up a few times, but only talked about once - with Tom Sizemore in the church. It's a character trait . . . his men see it and we see their expressions and how they feel about it. And it comes up at the end as we and Burns realize he has died when his hand stops shaking.

6. After two of his men die and he gets to Ryan, he decides to fuck the mission and hold a bridge (which gets blown up anyway), a decision that kills him and almost his whole platoon. And his last words are just so overly sentimental and sappy: "Earn it, earn this". I was rolling my eyes because I couldn't believe that a man just died and found the perfect words to say at a great moment, words, that OF COURSE, stay with Ryan his whole life...aww. I'm speechless with the ending, "Tell me I've led a good life, tell me I'm a good man" made me really chuckle, the wife's half-assed response "You are" and how she just leaves him made me chuckle even harder and then the obligatory salute and the flapping of the American flag, all while the sad Williams music takes the spoon and feeds you goosebumps. This is true American spirit, pride and glory for the men who fought so that they can save lives and families like Ryan's.

Again, this movie is meant to show the sacrifices of the men that fought in WWII. "Earn this." is the theme of the movie. What this small group of soldiers did is a metaphor for what all of them did.

(I was personally a little delighted to see Pepper get blown off in smithereens after thinking he's God, I was waiting for that to happen)

How does he think he's God? Quoting scripture before killing people doesn't make him think he's God; he praying - for guidance, precision, skill, and probably forgiveness. He's obviously a deeply religious man and asks God for help on a consistent basis.

This movie has great realistic action sequences, deep and interesting characters, and a very important message for its audience. Spielberg made Schindler's List for his mother and Saving Private Ryan for his father. There was no WWII Memorial until after this movie, as well as after Spielberg and Hanks pushed for funding (from the government and elsewhere). There is now one in Washington, DC.

This movie's message is the most important thing, that the sacrifices made by soldiers in WWII are not to be forgotten. It is one of, if not the, greatest war movie ever made.

Buck Turgidson

03-31-2008, 06:23 AM

You'll have to name some movies that have these "cliched" characters for me. Trust me, they're stock characters that appear in most every American WWII film depicting a platoon-size group of Army infantry soldiers in the ETO up until @ 1972. There are usually some slight differrences, but there's always an ethnic and temperamental balance (I know I pointed out that the WWII American armed forces were diverse, but having one, and only one, type of person in each platoon, is ahistorical and silly. It's a mark of sloppy, lazy casting and writing.)These characters drive the story (they are "saving Private Ryan"), they're deep, have back stories, and show the brotherhood that soldiers developed while serving together in combat.They're two dimensional writer's constructs. They are, by far, my biggest problem with this film. I've listed my problems in the other threads, several times.

I'm not as completely dismissive of this film as DMM is. I prefer to use a 1-4 (I'll go up to a fifth star for truly transcendent stuff like the first two Godfather films, but I try to leave it at 4...) star scale rather than a 10, so I would call this one a *** film. I have problems with it, as I do most Spielberg films, but I still like a lot of it. It's just that I adore TRL completely and unreservedly, like I do all of Malick's films.

DaMovieMan

03-31-2008, 06:13 PM

The flag shots were "borrowed" from a German documentary called Tag der Freiheit - Unsere Wehrmacht.
The point of the movie is to remind audiences of the sacrifices made by American soldiers during WWII. And I don't see how Spielberg was trying to make audiences feel proud to be American when I sincerely doubt only Americans were going to see the movie.

They may be "borrowed" from an unknown documentary but they're still there to make a point (and i seriously doubt it's just for an homage, usually homage's are done for films that people recognize). Of course the whole world would see it, doesn't mean the film wasn't targeted or made for a certain group or a certain audience (in Spielberg's own words, this film was for the American veterans)

I don't know how that's quintessential Spielberg. That would be more like exciting action sequences, characters being at a 90 degree angle to each other, characters in "interesting" shots (shot of Ribisi talking about his mother, the shot of the soldiers coming up over a hill in silhouette). The shot of the main character being hungry after fighting a major battle - it's character development.

It's quintessential Spielberg because those kinds of shots are found in every single film of his. Since not every film of his has "exciting action sequences" (The Terminal, Catch me if you Can etc.) those kind of fail to be quintessential. I really don't know what you mean by characters standing 90 degrees to each other. I will agree that his movies have some interesting shots, although the two you mentioned from SPR I didn't find interesting at all (the silhouette thing was used MANY times before). The dust covering the translator was an interesting shot.
How is that shot character development? Isn't it common sense and logic to know that soldiers are hungry after battle? And the point is not what Spielberg was trying to convey but how he conveyed it.

You'll have to name some movies that have these "cliched" characters for me. These characters drive the story (they are "saving Private Ryan"), they're deep, have back stories, and show the brotherhood that soldiers developed while serving together in combat.

Like Buck said, the characters are standard one-dimensions taken from previous war films and placed in one platoon. I would love for you to explain the depth of these characters, since I think none of them have any back story apart from Miller. Talking about how you regret treating your mother when you were younger is not a back story, it's a cliche.

He made it interesting. He was the leader of a group of men trying to save one man, and all he cared about was getting back to his wife. He convinced them by saying that he didn't care about anything - the German, whether or not his men wanted to continue with the mission, and so on - he wanted to complete the mission, so he could be one step closer to his wife.
His shaking hand is brought up a few times, but only talked about once - with Tom Sizemore in the church. It's a character trait . . . his men see it and we see their expressions and how they feel about it. And it comes up at the end as we and Burns realize he has died when his hand stops shaking.

It was interesting to have that mystery around, but not very realistic as I think not knowing where your Captain is from or what he does for a living back home is a bit of a stretch to me. I would of been more convinced about him wanting to go back to his wife if his final thoughts were on his wife and not to give us the theme of the film. The shaking hand was over-done, character trait or not it's there to derive sympathy from the audience and the fact that it's so emphasized makes it overdone. I don't know about anyone else but I didn't need to see his hand not shaking to know he was dead at the end, it was pretty obvious when he stopped talking and died.

Again, this movie is meant to show the sacrifices of the men that fought in WWII. "Earn this." is the theme of the movie. What this small group of soldiers did is a metaphor for what all of them did.

I understand it's the theme, but you don't find it a little contrived and "Hollywoodized" when you have the main character dieing with those last words?

How does he think he's God? Quoting scripture before killing people doesn't make him think he's God; he praying - for guidance, precision, skill, and probably forgiveness. He's obviously a deeply religious man and asks God for help on a consistent basis.

Okay, it's an overstatement to say he thinks he's God. But his explanation of how he thinks God put him on this earth to fight or whatever, how the only companion he needs is bullets and guns, the constant reciting of the Bible and his intense facial expressions whenever he shoots that rifle all made me think that he thinks that he's (at least) the messenger of God or something. I just didn't buy that whole character at all because he's one-dimensional and brings nothing new or fresh to the idea of religion and war.

This movie has great realistic action sequences, deep and interesting characters, and a very important message for its audience. Spielberg made Schindler's List for his mother and Saving Private Ryan for his father. There was no WWII Memorial until after this movie, as well as after Spielberg and Hanks pushed for funding (from the government and elsewhere). There is now one in Washington, DC.

I am happy to hear that there is a memorial now after this film (that's pretty crazy considering this film was made in the 90s and says something about the government but anyway, if this film was the reason for the memorial then that's great). Deep and interesting characters is one thing this movie does not have. The only deep and interesting character is Captain Miller.

This movie's message is the most important thing, that the sacrifices made by soldiers in WWII are not to be forgotten. It is one of, if not the, greatest war movie ever made.

Apocalypse Now, Platoon, The Thin Red Line, Full Metal Jacket, Paths of Glory, All Quite on the Western Front, The Big Parade, Bridge on the River Kwai, Glory and many others, not even including foreign films (some of which I am positive have better representations of war and man's relationship to it) are all better than the slightly above average Saving Private Ryan. All show us that these men made sacrifices that shouldn't be forgotten. Have Hanks and Spielberg attached to a project with such a touching subject and theme, and you get your memorial.
SPR is definitely not the best war film ever made. It probably has the best visual effects in a war film ever made but that's about it.

bigred760

03-31-2008, 10:31 PM

They may be "borrowed" from an unknown documentary but they're still there to make a point (and i seriously doubt it's just for an homage, usually homage's are done for films that people recognize). Of course the whole world would see it, doesn't mean the film wasn't targeted or made for a certain group or a certain audience (in Spielberg's own words, this film was for the American veterans).

Yes . . . it was a tribute for WWII veterans, but not meant to be seen only by them. I agree with you that the flag is meant to say that this is an American story, but I'm not sure that its meant to instill pride for Americans in America, but to instill pride in those veterans that Spielberg wants to pay tribute.

It's quintessential Spielberg because those kinds of shots are found in every single film of his. Since not every film of his has "exciting action sequences" (The Terminal, Catch me if you Can etc.) those kind of fail to be quintessential. I really don't know what you mean by characters standing 90 degrees to each other. I will agree that his movies have some interesting shots, although the two you mentioned from SPR I didn't find interesting at all (the silhouette thing was used MANY times before). The dust covering the translator was an interesting shot.

Could you list some examples. When you say "those kinds of shots," I think 'Tom Hanks looking hungrily at a sandwich with music playing in the background' and you and I know that is not in every Spielberg movie. (By "90 degrees to each other," I mean one character's posture is facing the camera, while we can see only a profile of the other character - I've never been able to explain that all that well, still can't).

How is that shot character development? Isn't it common sense and logic to know that soldiers are hungry after battle? And the point is not what Spielberg was trying to convey but how he conveyed it.

Maybe character development is the wrong word, but you see that the character being human; if he had just kept walking, and listening to Farina - I think audiences wouldn't have connected with him as much.

Like Buck said, the characters are standard one-dimensions taken from previous war films and placed in one platoon. I would love for you to explain the depth of these characters, since I think none of them have any back story apart from Miller. Talking about how you regret treating your mother when you were younger is not a back story, it's a cliche.

One is a Jew fighting Nazis (and he seems to take it personally), one is a Christian who believes God has given him a gift, one is a very book smart translator with no war experience - who's trying to fit in. You don't get much screentime from Vin Diesel, but from the whole group, you get that sense of "Band of Brothers" - which is what we're supposed to get out of them. What other movies do you see these in? Platoon, Full Metal Jacket,Bridge on the River Kwai? It's been a while since I've seen the first two, but since the theme and message that they offer are different than SPR, I don't think the characters would be that similar anyway.

It was interesting to have that mystery around, but not very realistic as I think not knowing where your Captain is from or what he does for a living back home is a bit of a stretch to me. I would of been more convinced about him wanting to go back to his wife if his final thoughts were on his wife and not to give us the theme of the film. The shaking hand was over-done, character trait or not it's there to derive sympathy from the audience and the fact that it's so emphasized makes it overdone. I don't know about anyone else but I didn't need to see his hand not shaking to know he was dead at the end, it was pretty obvious when he stopped talking and died.

Why isn't it realistic? Why is it a stretch? The Captain felt he didn't need to share his personal life to his men in order to do his job or complete their mission(s). Why is that so difficult to imagine?

The shaking hand was only brought up three or four times: when we first see the character (when he's holding a canteen on the boat), when he's talking about it to Sizemore, when his men notice it, and when he dies. Yes we don't need to see his hand shaking to know he's dead, but it's a characteristic we associate with him and without that touch, that aspect of Miller would've been incomplete and unfinished.

I understand it's the theme, but you don't find it a little contrived and "Hollywoodized" when you have the main character dieing with those last words?

No . . . because it's the theme of the film. Private Ryan, while only in the film for 15-20 minutes, is talked about through the entire movie, how apparently his life is worth the sacrifice of 8-10 men, of which only two survive. Miller knows this, he knows he will never see his wife again, and probably resents Ryan a little for it. He completed his mission, but still wouldn't be able to see his wife.

Okay, it's an overstatement to say he thinks he's God. But his explanation of how he thinks God put him on this earth to fight or whatever, how the only companion he needs is bullets and guns, the constant reciting of the Bible and his intense facial expressions whenever he shoots that rifle all made me think that he thinks that he's (at least) the messenger of God or something. I just didn't buy that whole character at all because he's one-dimensional and brings nothing new or fresh to the idea of religion and war.

I'll give you that he probably believes he's an instrument of God, but I don't think I would use the word "messenger." I don't think he represents religion in war; he's not preaching Christianity or anything like that. He's a character in a platoon that believes in God, moreso than his fellow soldiers (on the surface anyway).

I am happy to hear that there is a memorial now after this film (that's pretty crazy considering this film was made in the 90s and says something about the government but anyway, if this film was the reason for the memorial then that's great). Deep and interesting characters is one thing this movie does not have. The only deep and interesting character is Captain Miller.

I thought as a unit, as the "band of brothers," they were interesting. The stories they told, their arguments, their picking of the new kid. The fact that all but two of them died for one man resonates with me.

Apocalypse Now, Platoon, The Thin Red Line, Full Metal Jacket, Paths of Glory, All Quite on the Western Front, The Big Parade, Bridge on the River Kwai, Glory and many others, not even including foreign films (some of which I am positive have better representations of war and man's relationship to it) are all better than the slightly above average Saving Private Ryan. All show us that these men made sacrifices that shouldn't be forgotten. Have Hanks and Spielberg attached to a project with such a touching subject and theme, and you get your memorial.
SPR is definitely not the best war film ever made. It probably has the best visual effects in a war film ever made but that's about it.

Very true, but the messages and themes of those movies weren't those sacrifices. They were more the loss of innocence and the madness of war. The loss of innocence is a subtheme of SPR, embodied by Jeremy Davies' character, but that's about it. And there never was as big a movie about WWII than Saving Private Ryan . . . still isn't.

The Heart Collector

03-31-2008, 10:33 PM

both movies are solid.

Buck Turgidson

04-01-2008, 01:12 AM

One is a Jew fighting Nazis (and he seems to take it personally),Which is, I admit, something relatively new. Goldberg's character is about the only one I buy and the only one I find myself really caring about (which lends nearly unbearable intensity to his fight with the Wermacht soldier after they run out of ammunition.)one is a Christian who believes God has given him a gift, one is a very book smart translator with no war experience - who's trying to fit in. You don't get much screentime from Vin Diesel, but from the whole group, you get that sense of "Band of Brothers" - which is what we're supposed to get out of them. What other movies do you see these in? Platoon, Full Metal Jacket,Bridge on the River Kwai? It's been a while since I've seen the first two, but since the theme and message that they offer are different than SPR, I don't think the characters would be that similar anyway.None of what I've written about really applies to any of those films. I'm talking about the endless stream of what were, essentially, run of the mill adventure films that used WWII as a background that were released from the time of the war itself until the late 60's and early 70's, when people starting taking cinematic depictions of war more seriously.

If there had been a long line of formulaic films about Vietnam pumped out by studios, as there was of films featuring WWII, then there may have been a pool of clichéd stock characters in them. But that was a different war and it was understood differently, so that didn't happen.

I was thinking about this last night, and in all honesty, I've never been completely sure that the SPR characters weren't structured that way purposefully by Spielberg as an homage to that kind of film, rather than a failure of imagination on his part. If so, that was a bit of a poor aesthetic choice. It's hard to know because he's always frustratingly unforthcoming about the creative process (usually falling back on that Walt Disney-Doug Henning jabber about "spoiling the magic.")

I like Steven, I really do, but he frustrates the living hell out of me sometimes.

bigred760

04-01-2008, 01:22 AM

I was thinking about this last night, and in all honesty, I've never been completely sure that the SPR characters weren't structured that way purposefully by Spielberg as an homage to that kind of film, rather than a failure of imagination on his part. If so, that was a bit of a poor aesthetic choice. It's hard to know because he's always frustratingly unforthcoming about the creative process (usually falling back on that Walt Disney-Doug Henning jabber about "spoiling the magic.")

I'll give you that.

I like Steven, I really do, but he frustrates the living hell out of me sometimes.

I feel that way when it comes to the fact he never does any DVD commentaries.

DaMovieMan

04-02-2008, 12:27 AM

Could you list some examples. When you say "those kinds of shots," I think 'Tom Hanks looking hungrily at a sandwich with music playing in the background' and you and I know that is not in every Spielberg movie. (By "90 degrees to each other," I mean one character's posture is facing the camera, while we can see only a profile of the other character - I've never been able to explain that all that well, still can't).

Maybe character development is the wrong word, but you see that the character being human; if he had just kept walking, and listening to Farina - I think audiences wouldn't have connected with him as much.

Those kinds of shots....hmm, they are quick and I like to forget them when I watch Spielberg's films because they honestly annoy me (plus I haven't really seen a Spielberg film in a long time apart from SPR now), but every time i see a Spielberg movie i notice AT LEAST one sequence of shots similar to the one i described in SPR, i.e. unnecessary emphasis for sentimental purposes. Cheap, in a way. Again, it's not about why he did it, i know he wanted the audience to connect with him, to humanize the character etc. but the way he did it I don't like.

One is a Jew fighting Nazis (and he seems to take it personally), one is a Christian who believes God has given him a gift, one is a very book smart translator with no war experience - who's trying to fit in. You don't get much screentime from Vin Diesel, but from the whole group, you get that sense of "Band of Brothers" - which is what we're supposed to get out of them. What other movies do you see these in? Platoon, Full Metal Jacket,Bridge on the River Kwai? It's been a while since I've seen the first two, but since the theme and message that they offer are different than SPR, I don't think the characters would be that similar anyway.

Not in those films coz those films are original although you do get a sense of "Band of Brothers" in Full Metal Jacket except better (imo) but as you say they're two different war films. I just don't find any character in SPR, save from Miller, believable at all, mostly due to their one-dimensionality which makes them just gimmicks/unrealistic characters that exist to amuse not reflect. Mellish, the Jew, as I said before has the best and most intense death because of him being a Jew and all, that was a great sequence and original but I still didn't buy the character because of how he burst crying in the beginning and was all of a sudden a tough guy all through-out the movie.

Why isn't it realistic? Why is it a stretch? The Captain felt he didn't need to share his personal life to his men in order to do his job or complete their mission(s). Why is that so difficult to imagine?

Because I'm assuming he's been their Captain for a while, or at least with Sizemore' Sargent or so we're led to believe. Men share things in war, this is a fact that I know from films, my grandfather, books, etc. And for those two who seemed pretty close not to know fundamental things about each other...I didn't buy it, I felt like it was an excuse for the whole build-up of the mystery behind Miller and I think they could have handled that mystery in a better way, well that's the writers fault (as i say, the film's major flaw is undoubtedly the script)

The shaking hand was only brought up three or four times: when we first see the character (when he's holding a canteen on the boat), when he's talking about it to Sizemore, when his men notice it, and when he dies. Yes we don't need to see his hand shaking to know he's dead, but it's a characteristic we associate with him and without that touch, that aspect of Miller would've been incomplete and unfinished.

We see it a few more times as well, Ryan notices it at one point and Miller pretends like he's snapping to the beat. It was overdone. Have it in the beginning, have the men see it, and have it at the end. That would of been alright and not overdone with a layer of cheese on it.

No . . . because it's the theme of the film. Private Ryan, while only in the film for 15-20 minutes, is talked about through the entire movie, how apparently his life is worth the sacrifice of 8-10 men, of which only two survive. Miller knows this, he knows he will never see his wife again, and probably resents Ryan a little for it. He completed his mission, but still wouldn't be able to see his wife.

Again it's an issue of realism. Are you trying to make a film that portrays reality or are you trying to make a film which has a message? That just might be the fundamental problem i have with Spielberg. He prioritizes the message coupled with emotion over reality. When a man dies in war, it's more logical and more akin to common sense to have his last thought be of home or his wife, not give a message that encapsulates the whole movie and gives Private Ryan something to think about for the rest of his life. That's a fairytale not a war-drama.

I thought as a unit, as the "band of brothers," they were interesting. The stories they told, their arguments, their picking of the new kid. The fact that all but two of them died for one man resonates with me.

I can see that and it's a good story which I would resonate with as well. I just can't because I feel like it could of been written and directed much better.

Very true, but the messages and themes of those movies weren't those sacrifices. They were more the loss of innocence and the madness of war. The loss of innocence is a subtheme of SPR, embodied by Jeremy Davies' character, but that's about it. And there never was as big a movie about WWII than Saving Private Ryan . . . still isn't.

I'm assuming you mean big in the mainstream/successful sense? Coz the thread is comparing it to another WWII film which, though not as successful or big-budgeted, is a better film over-all. My opinion, of course.

bigred760

04-02-2008, 02:09 PM

I'm assuming you mean big in the mainstream/successful sense? Coz the thread is comparing it to another WWII film which, though not as successful or big-budgeted, is a better film over-all. My opinion, of course.

Well, they both came out the same year (don't know which one was released first), but since then there have been quite a few released. before then, yes, there weren't any war films about WWII; Bridge on the River Kwai was set during the war, but it was about the POW camp.

JoeCool

04-03-2008, 01:59 PM

So, i dont even understand how this can be an argument

both films are amazing in their own right.

You have Saving Private Ryan showing one side of WWII

and The Thin Red Line showing another.

For me since i am a WWII buff, i would take Saving Private Ryan over TRL because every veteran says that there is nothing more realistic with that movie.

For saying that the beginning is overly sentimental, have you ever tried to talk to a veteran about what happened?

Who wouldn't react like that, after seeing your best friends you ever had die

But for my all time favorite war experience ill take Band of Brothers over either of these

That IMO is one of the greatest movie experiences EVER.

Go out and buy the book by Stephen Ambrose called Citizen Soldiers, that will show you just how realistic SPR and TRL both are.

Tuukka

04-03-2008, 02:11 PM

Monotreme and I went a bit off topic in another thread and I brought in The Thin Red Line as a good counterpoint to Saving Private Ryan's cheesiness.

I'll answer you Monotreme in this thread,

How is the film all-over the place? By having so many characters? Isn't that a more accurate depiction of war and man's relationship to it then having a focused narrative about a mission to rescue a private? Either way, there were at least four characters that we followed through-out Thin Red Line (Caviziel, Nolte, Penn and Cusack)
I don't know how you can say unbalanced and non-confident when the film oozes with balance between the different characters, their thoughts and the beautiful foreign land they've invaded. Could you explain what you mean by the film not having confidence?

I just find the Thin Red Line to be a MUCH more accurate depiction of war, on a universal level. Saving Private Ryan is a pure American story that is at times; forced, sappy and cheesy.

What do you schmoes think about these two WWII films?

The only sappy scene that actually hurts Saving Private Ryan is the last scene. And even there my problem is with the execution, and not with the content.

Anyway, who gives a shit if it's sentimental, or Hollywood-esque, or whatever. It's a good MOVIE.

Thin Red Line is barely a movie. It's a radio play with accompanying pictures. It has no story. No drama. No emotion. It's lifeless. Yeah, it has pretty pictures and good acting... And that's pretty much what it has going on for it.

So it's a "MUCH more accurate depiction of war"?

...Who gives a shit?

Since when is that an artistic achievement in itself? If you want to see accurate depictions of real life, stay away from movies as they are by their nature designed to give a heavily dramatized, biased, inaccurate and unrealistic view into life and the world. They are like that INTENTIONALLY. That's the whole point. That's why movies are being made, and that's why most people watch movies. Anyone who goes to movies to see accurate depictions of pretty much anything is completely missing the point of this artform.

When I watch a movie, I want to see a good story, well told. And this is where Saving Private Ryan beats Thin Red Line 10-0.

Tuukka

04-03-2008, 06:11 PM

I The cinematography is good, I don't see how it can be compared to the majesty of Thin Red Line which relies more on nature than computer graphics most of the time, but alright.

What are you talking about?

Look - Saving Private Ryan REVOLUTIONIZED the visual language of action and war movies. It did things that nobody had done before. It invented a whole new look for movies.

Try to let that sink in:

It. Revolutionized. The. Visual. Language. Of. Movies.

...Saying that something like that is merely "good" is the understatement of the century. And the cinematography in Saving Private Ryan relies on computer graphics? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously?

Sure, the cinematography in The Thin Red Line is impressive. It's handsome. It's very, very pretty. It's the best thing about the movie. That shooting location would for sure make a nice place for a vacation.

But: That's all it is. It's pretty. It's travelogue cinematography. It has no substance. It's concerned only about looking pretty. And no matter how amazingly impressively pretty it is, that's still the only thing it is.

Saying that the cinematography in Thing Red Line is somehow more impressive than the cinematography in Saving Private Ryan equals saying that looking pretty is the highest form of cinematic expression.

Buck Turgidson

04-03-2008, 06:31 PM

Backstabba

04-03-2008, 06:39 PM

My two cents.

I prefer The Thin Red Line. In my opinion it was just beautifully shot, the acting is amazing (the cast is HUGE. I'd KILL to see the 6 hour cut) and it had some very dramatic and emotional moments.

That's not to say I disliked Saving Private Ryan. I loved SPR. The only problem is that it starts with a bang and begins to meander. The opening 20-30 minutes are AMAZING, like Tukka said, it basically changed cinema. But then the story begins.

And after that we rely on a select few great moments and then just the same thing over and over again. Remember, I said there WERE some great moments after, but other than them it felt like..

"5 guys finding one guy?"
"Yeah, that makes no sense."
"*random story about something back home*"
"This makes no sense! 4 guys finding one guy!"
*Random story*
*random story*
*random story*

I haven't seen the whole thing in three years or so but that's what I remember. It was entertaining, it was well made, well shot, but it just got repeative.

Tuukka

04-03-2008, 06:59 PM

^ That's all quite subjective and more than a little dogmatic.

It's interesting to me that many of SPR's critics have problems with certain aspects and details of it, but still find it worthy and interesting, while many of TRL's critics either dismiss it out of hand as too boring to put up with, or go on an extended exegesis about how it's not really a movie (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean...I guess by those standards Tarkovsky never made a movie, either),.

I'm suprised you find it hard to understand "what the fuck" I mean by saying that TRL is "not really a movie"...

Because I didn't even say that. I said that it's BARELY even a movie, which is not the same thing as saying it's not a movie at all. More than that, I explained what I mean in the very following sentence:

"Thin Red Line is barely a movie. It's a radio play with accompanying pictures. It has no story. No drama. No emotion. It's lifeless. Yeah, it has pretty pictures and good acting... And that's pretty much what it has going on for it."

...Like you can see, I explained myself in detail.

or (even better), that it's something that somehow got away from Malick, as if he attempted a conventional story but just couldn't pull it together because of a lack of skill.)

I never claimed that.

...Because I'm well aware of the fact that Malick didn't really have a slightest clue about what story he was making while filming. He went to great lenghts to not have even a chance of any sensible story.

It's reminiscent of the people who point out that the dialogue in 2001 is stilted and present it as evidence of Kubrick's artistic failure..

I've never said that. Besides, the fact that dialogue in 2001 is stilted is very much a point in the film, as it tries to make the human characters seem dehumanized.

There is a linear narative to the film. They show up, they fight for the island and they eventually take it.

An outline of a story is hardly a story.

Just because every second of footage isn't explicitly dedicated to advancing the plot, doesn't mean it's just a random series of images. All of Malick's films move, they just don't effectively stand up in the saddle every second yelling "Hey, look...we're advancing the plot!"

TRL was shot with no proper script. Malick mostly just shot lot of random scenes, then tried to make a semi-coherent whole out of it in the editing room. That's how the film was made, and that's how it comes off as. A great deal of it in fact WAS shot simply as random series of images. Then they had to find ways of cutting that footage together by adding voiceovers.

He works on the assumption that you are paying attention and don't need to be constantly reminded of what's happening, since it's being demonstrated on screen. This is a perfectly valid aesthetic choice.

Actually it's not demonstrated on the screen. It's explained by the voiceovers. You couldn't follow TRL worth a shit just by looking at the screen. Malick is not a visual storyteller - like for example Spielberg. Malick likes to have handsome cinematography, yes, but he is not interested in telling a story with shots.

Hitchcock used to say that drama was life with all the mundane parts taken out. That's perfectly cool, but it's not the only way to do things.

Which brings us to my earlier comment that SPR beats TRL 10-0 when it comes to telling a good story, well told.

If someone thinks that a good story isn't important, that's their pregorative. I like some occasionaly non-story driver films myself, but only rarely.

People like Malick, Kubrick, Tarkovsky and David Lynch, don't operate by those rules. I admire Lynch's dedication to pursuing his own ends in his films. The reason I dislike most of them is that I'm not interested in going where he wants to go with the people he wants to take me there, but I'll never deny his audacity in doing it his own way. And I would never dismiss any of his films as "Not being a movie" (again, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.)

That seems pretty presumptuous, to me.

...And it's also a misquote you are using, as I never said it in the first place, and I explained myself in detail.

Warhol's "Sleep" is also a movie, but in my opinion just barely. It certainly isn't a good story, well told, which for me is a key issue in quality of a movie.

Tuukka

04-03-2008, 07:15 PM

BTW, as for your comparisons to other filmmakers: Kubrick in fact was nearly always a pretty story-driven filmmaker.

Tarkovsky and David Lynch would be good comparisons to Malick... IF their movies would have constant voicevers commenting everything we see on the screen, commenting every single though and emotion that the characters go through.

Thank god they don't. Because you see, I often love Tarkovsky and Lynch (And Kubrick, of course). They are deeply cinematic filmmakers, they want to tell stories (even if they are unconventional) with pictures, they want to evoke emotions with pictures.

I can only imagine how much worse their movies would be if someone would add a 2 hour voiceover tracks to their films...

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..."

DaMovieMan

04-03-2008, 09:30 PM

The only sappy scene that actually hurts Saving Private Ryan is the last scene. And even there my problem is with the execution, and not with the content.

If that was the only sappy scene the film would be way better. I guess you and I have different definitions of sappy...Vin Diesel's character trying to rescue a little girl just because 'she reminds him of his niece' is beyond sappy..it's idiotic. Ed Burns acknowledging Ryan with a soldierly nod after all the smack he talked about him is beyond sappy it's cheesy bordering on hilarious. That's just two scenes..

Anyway, who gives a shit if it's sentimental, or Hollywood-esque, or whatever. It's a good MOVIE.

Well it seems like you're not bothered by the Hollywood formula, or over emphasized sentimentality or whatever, just as long as the story is good. Shit, if all it took was a good story there would be countless and countless of amazing films out there.. It's an entertaining movie, I'll give you that. It's just all-right when you weigh all the pros and cons.

Thin Red Line is barely a movie. It's a radio play with accompanying pictures. It has no story. No drama. No emotion. It's lifeless. Yeah, it has pretty pictures and good acting... And that's pretty much what it has going on for it.

So it's a "MUCH more accurate depiction of war"?

...Who gives a shit?

lol...Well I do for one, and it seems like some others do too. When I watch a war film i want to be transported into that world, visually, I want to connect with characters that seem real to me. SPR failed to do that because of all the above posts I've written, Thin Red Line did that and then some. To call it "barely a movie" is almost laughable, of course it's a "whole" movie. No drama? No emotion? What are you on bro? It's full of drama and emotion, i would of sympathized more with your statement if you said it was too much emotion or drama (it's not for me but I can see how for some people it could be). Soldiers of all kinds and all different thought processes, war, dehumanization...lifeless? Are you kidding? I guess putting a platoon together of one-dimensional cardboard characters to save Matt Damon is full of life and emotion?

Since when is that an artistic achievement in itself? If you want to see accurate depictions of real life, stay away from movies as they are by their nature designed to give a heavily dramatized, biased, inaccurate and unrealistic view into life and the world. They are like that INTENTIONALLY. That's the whole point. That's why movies are being made, and that's why most people watch movies. Anyone who goes to movies to see accurate depictions of pretty much anything is completely missing the point of this artform.

There's a limit. What you say there about intentionality is a given for the medium of motion picture, no one's denying that and there's hardly a point in stressing it so much. But there's a limit and I don't know what you've heard, but usually the closer to reality a movie is the better for it ESPECIALLY when it comes to connecting with characters, people look for themselves in characters when they read, watch etc. SPR fails miserably in that respect. TRL does not.

When I watch a movie, I want to see a good story, well told. And this is where Saving Private Ryan beats Thin Red Line 10-0.

Good story, sure. Well told? No way. SPR is nice looking, the battle sequences are amazing and it could of been much better over all had it not been for the weak script and the emphasized Hollywood/Spielberg formulas through-out.
Thin Red Line is a journey, of course there's a story (you can call it an outline or whatever ... it's a story) but the film is working on another level than that. It's trying to put you inside these men's thoughts as they experience the trauma of war and you experience it with them. It relies on voice-over, yes, but that's Malick's way of connecting you to the characters. It also relies heavily on visuals, more so than Spielberg.

DaMovieMan

04-03-2008, 09:43 PM

What are you talking about?

Look - Saving Private Ryan REVOLUTIONIZED the visual language of action and war movies. It did things that nobody had done before. It invented a whole new look for movies.

Try to let that sink in:

It. Revolutionized. The. Visual. Language. Of. Movies.

Yeah that's all well and good but what the hell are we talking about here? I, personally, don't really care if it revolutionized war and action movies. It brought something new and orginal to the visual language of film, I don't think that necesserily counts as a "revolution" of the visual language of movies, that's a slight overstatement. BUT even if it did, again, it doesn't help the weak script and it doesn't make me go "oh shit that looks sick, now I don't care that this film is trying to force-feed me a message coz they think I'm an idiot.."

...Saying that something like that is merely "good" is the understatement of the century. And the cinematography in Saving Private Ryan relies on computer graphics? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously?

Just saying good is an understatement, I agree. It's excellent, but it doesn't move me and transport me as much as Thin Red Line's visuals that's for sure..
Bah I don't know if cinematography is the right technical aspect to attack with that, but when the camera moves during battle or some time even when the men are just moving and it looks all artificially hand-held? What is that?

Sure, the cinematography in The Thin Red Line is impressive. It's handsome. It's very, very pretty. It's the best thing about the movie. That shooting location would for sure make a nice place for a vacation.

But: That's all it is. It's pretty. It's travelogue cinematography. It has no substance. It's concerned only about looking pretty. And no matter how amazingly impressively pretty it is, that's still the only thing it is.

Saying that the cinematography in Thing Red Line is somehow more impressive than the cinematography in Saving Private Ryan equals saying that looking pretty is the highest form of cinematic expression.

I would say more like looking real is the highest form of cinematic expression. Some people like the grainy/gray effect of SPR's visuals but I'm more for thing looking natural and that's what TRL does. To say it's just "very, very pretty" is a big understatement (maybe not of the century but you know, it's big :D) because it's much more that that. When I was watching Private Ryan there were times when, during battles especially, i was watching a trailer for a Call of Duty video game..

BTW, as for your comparisons to other filmmakers: Kubrick in fact was nearly always a pretty story-driven filmmaker.

Tarkovsky and David Lynch would be good comparisons to Malick... IF their movies would have constant voicevers commenting everything we see on the screen, commenting every single though and emotion that the characters go through.

Thank god they don't. Because you see, I often love Tarkovsky and Lynch (And Kubrick, of course). They are deeply cinematic filmmakers, they want to tell stories (even if they are unconventional) with pictures, they want to evoke emotions with pictures.

I can only imagine how much worse their movies would be if someone would add a 2 hour voiceover tracks to their films...

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..."

Malick evokes emotions with pictures and voice-over (I don't have to tell you that you're grossly exaggerating when you say that he uses V.O. on 'every single thought and emotion' do I?) . It's unfair to try and imagine Malick's voice overs in other films, to say the least. They only work in his movies because that's the way he makes them.
Maybe Spielberg should of put some V.O's in his lifeless characters instead of giving them sound-bites.

Tuukka

04-03-2008, 11:00 PM

Yeah that's all well and good but what the hell are we talking about here? I, personally, don't really care if it revolutionized war and action movies. It brought something new and orginal to the visual language of film, I don't think that necesserily counts as a "revolution" of the visual language of movies, that's a slight overstatement. .

It's not an overstatement in any way.

Maybe you just don't understand how hard it it, or how much of a exceptional genius it takes to basicly re-invent the visual language of war and action cinema, evolving them into something that (when executed well) can make war and action cinema much more powerful than before.

It's staggering that someone is able to do that after 100 years of cinema. Staggering. It's something we see very, very rarely. It's something that only true, exceptional geniuses can do.

Just saying good is an understatement, I agree. It's excellent, but it doesn't move me and transport me as much as Thin Red Line's visuals that's for sure..
Bah I don't know if cinematography is the right technical aspect to attack with that, but when the camera moves during battle or some time even when the men are just moving and it looks all artificially hand-held? What is that?

That's a camera trick that has been available as long as there have been cameras, but nobody ever thought of using it like Spielberg did. It's simply playing with shutter speed. Something that is done IN-CAMERA, on location.

I would say more like looking real is the highest form of cinematic expression. Some people like the grainy/gray effect of SPR's visuals but I'm more for thing looking natural and that's what TRL does..

Looking real is the highest form of cinematic expression? Well, why bother creating art at all, if (again) looking real is the best thing we can have? After all, the purpose of movies is the diffuse the real world through some type of a lense so that it becomes a heightened version of reality. Sometimes prettier, sometimes uglier, but ALWAYS different.

But anyway:

Real world looks mostly dull. It doesn't have perfect light, or perfect composition. It doesn't always have ideal weather conditions. Real world doesn't have tracking shots. It doesn't have elaborate lighting gear to make things look prettier. TRL doesn't look real AT ALL. It's the glamourous version of reality. The pretty version of reality.

To say it's just "very, very pretty" is a big understatement (maybe not of the century but you know, it's big :D) because it's much more that that. When I was watching Private Ryan there were times when, during battles especially, i was watching a trailer for a Call of Duty video game....

Are you trying to claim that SPR borrowed it's visual look from a Call Of Duty video game? That makes very little sense to me. Sure, SPR had huge influence over other art, that still continues to today, and will keep on doing so. But the fact that it influences other movies, and even video games, is hardly something that can be held against it, eh? I mean, it's a sign of great art more than anything.

TRL is very, very pretty. But SPR was revolutionary. You think pretty is better, fine. But the thing is, out of the two, it's easier to do.

Re-inventing cinema and making it better: That's insanely hard that only truly exceptional people can do.

Making pretty pictures: That's something a lot of people can do. Even if the pictures are indeed awesomely pretty, there are still many people who can do it. It's not THAT hard.

Malick evokes emotions with pictures and voice-over (I don't have to tell you that you're grossly exaggerating when you say that he uses V.O. on 'every single thought and emotion' do I?)..

Sure, it's an exaggaration, but it's making a solid point: TRL is based on voiceovers. That's the storytelling method. The movie doesn't tell it's (loose) story with visuals, it tells its story with voiceovers. If you mute the film, it just turns into a montage of random, pretty pictures.

I haven't counted how much voiceovers the film had, but it definitely felt as if at least 1/3 of the movie was someone... Having... A... Slow... Voiceover... I... Guess... They... All... Must... Have... Been... High... As... A... Kite...

It's unfair to try and imagine Malick's voice overs in other films, to say the least. They only work in his movies because that's the way he makes them. Maybe Spielberg should of put some V.O's in his lifeless characters instead of giving them sound-bites.

Malick's voiceovers don't seem to work even in his own movies.

bigred760

04-03-2008, 11:16 PM

I would say more like looking real is the highest form of cinematic expression.

I disagree; I've never seen TRL so I won't comment on how it looks, but reality is not the highest form of cinematic expression. A perception of reality is higher. The "grainy/gray style" (though I remember it being more green than gray -anyway) is still real; these guys are still running and ducking from gunfire - it's somebody's point-of-view, what they see, their perception of reality. It's putting the audience into the action.

Buck Turgidson

04-03-2008, 11:27 PM

Because I didn't even say that. I said that it's BARELY even a movie, which is not the same thing as saying it's not a movie at all. That's splitting hairs. There isn't anywhere near the difference between those two statements that you seem to think there is.More than that, I explained what I mean in the very following sentence:

"Thin Red Line is barely a movie. It's a radio play with accompanying pictures. It has no story. No drama. No emotion. It's lifeless. Yeah, it has pretty pictures and good acting... And that's pretty much what it has going on for it."

...Like you can see, I explained myself in detail. Great. So there's really "no story"? At all? It doesn't follow any linear narative? People don't show up, do things, and have their lives flow forward at all?

I'm also at a loss to understand how somerthing can have good acting, yet no life, no drama and no emotion. All of those things are present in my definition of good acting.I've never said that.Which is why I wrote "Reminiscent of the people..." and not something like "Tukka always says..." I was suggesting an analogy. Besides, the fact that dialogue in 2001 is stilted is very much a point in the film, as it tries to make the human characters seem dehumanized.Exactly. It was an artistic choice of his, as are the voiceovers that Malick chose to use. You may not like them and think they're lifeless, but they're a perfectly valid aesthetic tool. Kubrick used them on more than one occasion himself.An outline of a story is hardly a story.TRL was shot with no proper script. Malick mostly just shot lot of random scenes, then tried to make a semi-coherent whole out of it in the editing room.That's how the film was made, and that's how it comes off as. A great deal of it in fact WAS shot simply as random series of images. Then they had to find ways of cutting that footage together by adding voiceovers.So Jones' novel and characters aren't involved? He just made it all up out of the whole cloth? You have an aesthetic gripe with Malick's results and in exploring that, you seem to feel the need to demean his talent as an artist. That's why I wroteor (even better), that it's something that somehow got away from Malick, as if he attempted a conventional story but just couldn't pull it together because of a lack of skill. You denied claiming that, then wrote ...Because I'm well aware of the fact that Malick didn't really have a slightest clue about what story he was making while filming. He went to great lenghts to not have even a chance of any sensible story.How are those any different?

He doesn't shoot with a tight script and he relies on editing to put it all together...so what? The fact that it doesn't appeal to you is perfectly fine, but the dismissivness of your judgements are ill-suited to someone of your intelligence.Actually it's not demonstrated on the screen. It's explained by the voiceovers. You couldn't follow TRL worth a shit just by looking at the screen.Really? So it's like there's a static shot of a lagoon with a waterfall for five minutes as Nolte and Koteas explain how they took the ridge in voiceover?

It's a linerar story told from several perspectives. That is always going to be a bit messy.Malick is not a visual storyteller - like for example Spielberg. Malick likes to have handsome cinematography, yes, but he is not interested in telling a story with shots.That seems to be completely contradictory, to me.

Again, I find it weird that you seem to want to completely obliterate TRL as a work of art while you're defending SPR.

Ultimately, it's not all that important to me, really. Ten years on, after multiple viewings of each, I'm very clear in my mind how I feel about both films.

Tuukka

04-03-2008, 11:44 PM

If that was the only sappy scene the film would be way better. I guess you and I have different definitions of sappy...Vin Diesel's character trying to rescue a little girl just because 'she reminds him of his niece' is beyond sappy..it's idiotic. Ed Burns acknowledging Ryan with a soldierly nod after all the smack he talked about him is beyond sappy it's cheesy bordering on hilarious. That's just two scenes.

I didn't say that it's the only sappy scene in the film, I said that it was the only sappy scene that hurt the movie as a whole.

Naturally that's a subjective opinion.

...But I fucking HATE the final scene of SPR. I think it's rubbish, and it feels as if it was lifted from another movie. And since it's the last scene, it obviously leaves a bad aftertaste.

Well it seems like you're not bothered by the Hollywood formula, or over emphasized sentimentality or whatever, just as long as the story is good. Shit, if all it took was a good story there would be countless and countless of amazing films out there.. It's an entertaining movie, I'll give you that. It's just all-right when you weigh all the pros and cons.

Of course I'm not bothered by Hollywood formula. If I would be, I would be bothered by films such as Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Die Hard, Aliens, Bourne Ultimatum, Silence Of The Lambs, L.A Confidential, Casablanca, Rear Window, etc.

...Just a few out of the top of my head. It's generally just as hard to make a good movie inside Hollywood formula, as it is to make a good movie outside it.

A question: Have you watched a lot of arthouse movies? Because TRL is an arthouse movie. And it follows the FORMULA of many arthouse movies, with it's loose story, deliberate pace, emphasis on voiceovers, an so forth. Inside it's own genre it's just as formulaic as SPR is inside it's own genre.

I don't think one formula is superior over another one. I think the better movie is the better movie, regardless of the formula.

lol...Well I do for one, and it seems like some others do too. When I watch a war film i want to be transported into that world, visually, I want to connect with characters that seem real to me. SPR failed to do that because of all the above posts I've written, Thin Red Line did that and then some.

It was referring to the comment that has been running through this thread from the start, that TRL is a more realistic depiction of war. It might be, I don't know as I've never been in war.

But I DO know that it's not realistic. It's a movie, and like every movie, it only shows a heavily distorted version of reality. It might show a version of war that you *assume* is more realistic than the version of SPR shows, but you dont' really know either way, because you have probably never been to war either.

If you want to experience something realistic, turn off the computer and go outside. Movies are never going to be able to repeat the realism you see in real world.

And they don't try, either.

To call it "barely a movie" is almost laughable, of course it's a "whole" movie. No drama? No emotion? What are you on bro? It's full of drama and emotion, i would of sympathized more with your statement if you said it was too much emotion or drama (it's not for me but I can see how for some people it could be). Soldiers of all kinds and all different thought processes, war, dehumanization...lifeless? Are you kidding? I guess putting a platoon together of one-dimensional cardboard characters to save Matt Damon is full of life and emotion?

I'm talking about the film's ability to make the audience feel the drama, to feel the emotion. To engage the audience to an extent that they are biting their nails, they are crying, they are in shock and awe, having their hearts ripped out.

SPR drew that kind of reactions from audiences. TRL made me feel NOTHING at all, and generally even people who like the film seem to feel the same way. I have very rarely heard the supporters of the film state that TRL would be very exciting and suspenseful. Or that it was so sad they had a lump in their throats.

There's a limit. What you say there about intentionality is a given for the medium of motion picture, no one's denying that and there's hardly a point in stressing it so much. But there's a limit and I don't know what you've heard, but usually the closer to reality a movie is the better for it ESPECIALLY when it comes to connecting with characters, people look for themselves in characters when they read, watch etc. SPR fails miserably in that respect. TRL does not.

Nonsense.

You are essentially claiming that people can't connect to characters in fantasy and scifis film to the same extent that they can connect to characters in realistic dramas, because those genre movies aren't "close to reality".

Nonsense. It's simply a case of good storytelling as opposed to bad one.

A lot of people connect to characters in Harry Potter books, yet don't connect at all to people in some bulgarian kitchen sink drama film.

Good story, sure. Well told? No way. SPR is nice looking, the battle sequences are amazing and it could of been much better over all had it not been for the weak script and the emphasized Hollywood/Spielberg formulas through-out.

SPR isn't perfect, but it's leagues above TRL.

Thin Red Line is a journey, of course there's a story (you can call it an outline or whatever ... it's a story) but the film is working on another level than that. It's trying to put you inside these men's thoughts as they experience the trauma of war and you experience it with them. It relies on voice-over, yes, but that's Malick's way of connecting you to the characters. It also relies heavily on visuals, more so than Spielberg.

Try this:

Mute both films, and then watch them.

You can follow what happens in SPR very well, but you can't really follow the story in TRL. This is pretty much definitive, undeniable proof that the storytelling in SPR relies on visuals, where as the storytelling in TRL relies on voiceovers.

So SPR relies more heavily on visuals than TRL.

And I have to say that TRL really failed to put me inside the men's thoughts as they experienced the trauma of war. Maybe that's because I don't smoke pot. I mean: Nobody thinks like that, unless they are severely stoned.

The inner monologues people have are FAST. And the way we think, use words and voabulary, and the things we think, are very different than what TRL has:

What's this war in the heart of nature ?
Why does nature vie with itself?.
The land contend with the sea?
ls there an avenging power in nature?
Not one power, but two?
l remember my mother when she was dying.
Looked all shrunk up and gray.
l asked her if she was afraid.
She just shook her head.
l was afraid to touch the death l seen in her.
I heard people talk about immortality,
but I ain't seen it.
l wondered how it'd be when l died.
What it'd be like to know that this breath now
was the last one you was ever gonna draw.
l just hope l can meet it the same way she did.
With the same... calm.
Cos that's where it's hidden -
the immortality l hadn't seen.
Kids around here never fight.
Sometimes.
Sometimes when you see them playing
they always fight!

I don't remember if that's a 100% accurate quote, because I lifted it from some netsite, but:

That's just fucking awful. Read it aloud. It's crap. Nobody thinks like that. Nobody has thought like that in the history of mankind. That's 1st grade film student's idea of "poetic" inner monologue. You know, the student who is still so young and stupid that he doesn't yet have a proper grasp of REAL humans, REAL dialogue (or monologue) and REAL humanity.

That monologue is shit.

Even the delivery in the film isn't realistic. REAL people have pretty rapid, fast, incredibly disjointed inner monologues. In fact we think faster much than we talk. Yet everyone in TRL thinks in eeeeeeeeexxxxxxtttttrrrreeeeemmeeeelly ssssssllllllooooooowwwww manner.

And because the film has no REAL character development, or REAL depth to it's characters - They are just puppets in pretty locations - the film tries to establish some substance by having inner monologues. As a cinematic device it's as clumsy as having the characters talk to camera, explaining who they are so that the characters would have some depth.

Mute the film, and you'll see how shallow the characters are.

Tuukka

04-04-2008, 12:07 AM

That's splitting hairs. There isn't anywhere near the difference between those two statements that you seem to think there is. Great. So there's really "no story"? At all? It doesn't follow any linear narative? People don't show up, do things, and have their lives flow forward at all?

I'm also at a loss to understand how somerthing can have good acting, yet no life, no drama and no emotion. All of those things are present in my definition of good acting.Which is why I wrote "Reminiscent of the people..." and not something like "Tukka always says..." I was suggesting an analogy. Exactly. It was an artistic choice of his, as are the voiceovers that Malick chose to use. You may not like them and think they're lifeless, but they're a perfectly valid aesthetic tool. Kubrick used them on more than one occasion himself.So Jones' novel and characters aren't involved? He just made it all up out of the whole cloth? You have an aesthetic gripe with Malick's results and in exploring that, you seem to feel the need to demean his talent as an artist. That's why I wrote You denied claiming that, then wrote How are those any different?

He doesn't shoot with a tight script and he relies on editing to put it all together...so what? The fact that it doesn't appeal to you is perfectly fine, but the dismissivness of your judgements are ill-suited to someone of your intelligence.Really? So it's like there's a static shot of a lagoon with a waterfall for five minutes as Nolte and Koteas explain how they took the ridge in voiceover?

It's a linerar story told from several perspectives. That is always going to be a bit messy.That seems to be completely contradictory, to me.

Again, I find it weird that you seem to want to completely obliterate TRL as a work of art while you're defending SPR.

Ultimately, it's not all that important to me, really. Ten years on, after multiple viewings of each, I'm very clear in my mind how I feel about both films.

Um, I'm confused about what you mean.

I never said that Malick tried to do a traditional narrative, and failed.

Like I said, I'm well aware of the fact that when he started making the film, he wasn't planning to do a coherent narrative anyway. It's not something that interests him.

He had a 300-page script, which equals to roughly 6-hour movie with traditional 1 page / 1 minute count. And then he proceeded to re-write even that 300-page script completely during the shoot and the post.

I haven't read Jone's novel, but I've read in various places that it's very different than the movie.

Anyway:

While it's obvious that the approach Malick took with TRL was intentional and part of his style, that doesn't make the film any better. The best I can say about is that Malick was succesful in making a bad movie.

TRL has strong acting, handsome cinematography and striking production values. And obviously as a director Malick knows how draw good performances and capture handsome pictures.

...But I think that TRL is one of the worst written major Hollywood release in the last 10 years. The script is beyond awful. It's painfully bad. The film has very little story, and very little actual character depth.

But worst of all it's extremely heavy on pretentious, dull-witter voiceovers monologues, that are some of the very worst writing I have ever witnessed. There is not depth to them, there is no wit, and they are completely unrealistic. They are the very definition of a 1st year film student's attempts at being profound, but failing.

They suck insanely bad.

I mean I just posted the opening monologue from the film in my post aboce. If people don't notice how atrocious writing that is, then I can't really convince them otherwise.

DaMovieMan

04-04-2008, 02:05 AM

It's not an overstatement in any way.

Maybe you just don't understand how hard it it, or how much of a exceptional genius it takes to basicly re-invent the visual language of war and action cinema, evolving them into something that (when executed well) can make war and action cinema much more powerful than before.

It's staggering that someone is able to do that after 100 years of cinema. Staggering. It's something we see very, very rarely. It's something that only true, exceptional geniuses can do.

That's amazing, I've always respected Spielberg's movies for their action sequences and Saving Private Ryan is no exception. I'm sure I don't understand how hard it is (I've yet to work in the film industry), but again, that's the technical aspect of the film which I've always said was stellar. I'll concede and say it was revolutionary. Now back to comparing the two films...

That's a camera trick that has been available as long as there have been cameras, but nobody ever thought of using it like Spielberg did. It's simply playing with shutter speed. Something that is done IN-CAMERA, on location.

That's cool, it didn't resonate with me but thanks for pointing that out.

Looking real is the highest form of cinematic expression? Well, why bother creating art at all, if (again) looking real is the best thing we can have? After all, the purpose of movies is the diffuse the real world through some type of a lense so that it becomes a heightened version of reality. Sometimes prettier, sometimes uglier, but ALWAYS different.

But anyway:

Real world looks mostly dull. It doesn't have perfect light, or perfect composition. It doesn't always have ideal weather conditions. Real world doesn't have tracking shots. It doesn't have elaborate lighting gear to make things look prettier. TRL doesn't look real AT ALL. It's the glamourous version of reality. The pretty version of reality.

*sigh* you took it way too literally. Every film is a glamorized version of reality which is, again, a given. Art reflects and mirrors society in infinite ways, all I'm saying (and this is also for you bigred coz I see you've responded to that quote of mine) is that films/art should make you feel like you're watching a reality. Be it space, jungle, Alexander the Great's brothel, whatever, filmmakers go to great lengths to portray their worlds as realistically as possible (usually, unless their intent is otherwise, and i think we all know that in this case both wanted to portray the realism of war)
And in that initial statement of mine, it is the looking and not the real which should be emphasized.
Also note that I specifically highlighted characters and that they should appear to be real because that is how audience's connect with them. This is SPR's fundamental problem.

Are you trying to claim that SPR borrowed it's visual look from a Call Of Duty video game? That makes very little sense to me. Sure, SPR had huge influence over other art, that still continues to today, and will keep on doing so. But the fact that it influences other movies, and even video games, is hardly something that can be held against it, eh? I mean, it's a sign of great art more than anything.

It's a sign of great technical achievement in art. And I am not trying to claim that SPR borrowed it's look from Call of Duty, i meant that some points in the battle made it look like i was watching a video game. I'm sure that between the span of when i first watched it and when i re-watched it just last week the video game trailers I've seen and some games i've played might be influencing my second viewing, but there were points when I just didn't think I was watching realistic combat (some instances...so don't go crazy :D), the shutter-speed effect and the gray/green filtering plus the ILG visual f/x all play a part in that. However, the battle sequences are definitely the best aspect of SPR, by far.

TRL is very, very pretty. But SPR was revolutionary. You think pretty is better, fine. But the thing is, out of the two, it's easier to do.

Re-inventing cinema and making it better: That's insanely hard that only truly exceptional people can do.

Making pretty pictures: That's something a lot of people can do. Even if the pictures are indeed awesomely pretty, there are still many people who can do it. It's not THAT hard.

Easy, hard, again what are we talking about here? I'm afraid we've completely veered off topic because this thread is meant to be discussing the two films as wholes, how they work in the war-genre..not how hard or easy it was to make them. I'm sure Spielberg's film was harder to make and I'm sure he had more people and more resources at his disposal to make it "revolutionary" in the technical sense. I will always applaud what SPR did for bringing something new and fresh to war/action sequences and influencing other films/games after it, that's amazing (and I won't say it again because I'm boring myself repeating it.)
"Re-inventing cinema" is a hard pill to swallow though because the film is faaaaar from perfect and it certainly did not reinvent the whole medium, it reinvented the method of portraying battle sequences and it's not like every war film that came out after SPR went with that same formula after it.

Sure, it's an exaggaration, but it's making a solid point: TRL is based on voiceovers. That's the storytelling method. The movie doesn't tell it's (loose) story with visuals, it tells its story with voiceovers. If you mute the film, it just turns into a montage of random, pretty pictures.

Pretty pictures...that tell a story. It sounds like you just can't accept the fact that TRL has a solid story because it seems so general or "loose" to you, that a story can be nothing more than a group of soldiers going on an island and invading it. If you mute it, all you lose is the character's thoughts and interactions and that is not the whole movie nor is it the whole story. Again, if you notice I said that Malick uses visuals AND voice-over to tell his stories, they are both equally important. Try this, watch TRL with a blindfold and tell me how much of the actual story you get.

I haven't counted how much voiceovers the film had, but it definitely felt as if at least 1/3 of the movie was someone... Having... A... Slow... Voiceover... I... Guess... They... All... Must... Have... Been... High... As... A... Kite...

hahaha, first time I actually read someone saying that about the voice overs. They are slow, but they are slow for a reason. They're not meant to portray the actual human thought process during war perfectly, how fucked up and jumbled would THAT be? That would be taking realism too far and, as you pointed out, that would defeat art's purpose. I think we've established by now that TRL is not your typical movie. It's more like a film/surreal poem and Malick has been called more things than just a filmmaker, i.e. philosopher and poet. It's slow for art's sake, for their meaning to sink in both for the character and for the audience. It's verbalizing the innate feelings of the characters, their subconscious if you like, so you shouldn't be thinking about it in such black/white terms.

Malick's voiceovers don't seem to work even in his own movies.

You say something later about subjective opinions?

KcMsterpce

04-04-2008, 02:44 AM

Agreed.

And then it immediately becomes a colossal cheesefest, with a bunch of stock characters out of a 50's Republic Studios B-movie, a lot of absurd coincidences and manipulative, writer's construct bullshit. It still has occasional moments of intensity (I swear, I find Goldberg's hand to hand fight with the Nazi near the end every bit as intense as the opening sequence), but mostly it just peters out.

WOW! That is exactly my thoughts on SPR as well. D-Day kicked ass, and hit hard.
The only other time I found myself respecting the movie after that was the hand-to-hand fight.

******* SPOILERS ***********

I hated pretty much everything else. It was like watching THE SANDS OF IWO JIMA. Full of one cliche and over-sentimental load of shit after another.
It felt like an endurance race of my patience versus the end credits.
I hated the mother washing her dishes, and then the reflection of a black car spewing dust through the kitchen window. Her falling down in despair... oh dear, that's not been done 1000 times before.
The bating sniper scene... which didn't even work in FULL METAL JACKET was beyond frustrating to watch because it went on for SOOO LONG, and people were being fucking stupid as hell about it.
The dying young soldier... barf.
The brooding Platoon leader (Hanks) who shows a bit of humanity to the group during a time of quiet introspection... much like John Wayne's letter being read after his death in IWO JIMA. Heck, all of these guys were one-dimensional. The only added dimension is that they have family "back at home". That makes the relatable. Otherwise, they all have their place in the story and enough of a personality difference to make them all stand out.
Tom Hank's death reminded me of DAS BOOT, except I wasn't enjoying myself as much.
I hate the bookends so much that I couldn't even laugh. Especially the blue eyes looking out into the past and spewing tears; the family standing like some fucking Normal Rockwell knockoff, and him saying his final words. Topping off all that melodramatic bullshit with the (cue up "God Bless America") American flag.

Oh God, this movie is a bad example of "fine film making". I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because it seems like I'm the only one who doesn't see how shallow this movie is. I don't like it when manipulative war dramas - especially WWII and Vietnam war films - get praised and adored by the same cheap ploys of heartstring tugging done in any other generic and/or well regarded war movie from before.
I was blown away for that first half hour. Afterwards, I couldn't stop scoffing. I was thinking "dude, you're just being a little too harsh." But then ten minutes later, I'd once again see another war movie punchline that makes me laugh and cry all at once.

I haven't read any posts after this quote, but I'm going to now.

DaMovieMan

04-04-2008, 03:27 AM

I didn't say that it's the only sappy scene in the film, I said that it was the only sappy scene that hurt the movie as a whole.

Naturally that's a subjective opinion.

...But I fucking HATE the final scene of SPR. I think it's rubbish, and it feels as if it was lifted from another movie. And since it's the last scene, it obviously leaves a bad aftertaste.

A good film shouldn't have any sappy scenes bro come on! Or at least keep it to a low minimum if you must use it for dramatic effect or something (there are those who don't use it at all and that's more laudable in my book)

Of course I'm not bothered by Hollywood formula. If I would be, I would be bothered by films such as Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Die Hard, Aliens, Bourne Ultimatum, Silence Of The Lambs, L.A Confidential, Casablanca, Rear Window, etc.

...Just a few out of the top of my head. It's generally just as hard to make a good movie inside Hollywood formula, as it is to make a good movie outside it.

I guess I'm not bothered by it either (too much) if it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb and the script actually has good, realistic dialogue in it. Unfortunately for SPR, that's not the case.

A question: Have you watched a lot of arthouse movies? Because TRL is an arthouse movie. And it follows the FORMULA of many arthouse movies, with it's loose story, deliberate pace, emphasis on voiceovers, an so forth. Inside it's own genre it's just as formulaic as SPR is inside it's own genre.

I don't think one formula is superior over another one. I think the better movie is the better movie, regardless of the formula.

I've seen some art-house films, not as much as I've seen Hollywood films although the art-house formula as you've described it there seems to invite films with a deeper meaning to them than Hollywood's formula so in my mind it is a bit superior. Ultimately, I agree, the better movie is the better movie and in this case, TRL is the better movie.

It was referring to the comment that has been running through this thread from the start, that TRL is a more realistic depiction of war. It might be, I don't know as I've never been in war.

But I DO know that it's not realistic. It's a movie, and like every movie, it only shows a heavily distorted version of reality. It might show a version of war that you *assume* is more realistic than the version of SPR shows, but you dont' really know either way, because you have probably never been to war either.

If you want to experience something realistic, turn off the computer and go outside. Movies are never going to be able to repeat the realism you see in real world.

And they don't try, either.
I've explained what I've meant by realism, you've overblown it to huge proportions. People watch films to escape their reality but they want to see something realistic. The reason why I find TRL more realistic than SPR is because the characters felt more real to me, because the film flowed better and didn't spiral downward like SPR, because it didn't rely on grand battle sequences to wow me and because it felt like a more accurate depiction of war and man's place in it (the theme obviously is on a much higher level than the one Spielberg was working on with SPR so that shouldn't be compared).

I'm talking about the film's ability to make the audience feel the drama, to feel the emotion. To engage the audience to an extent that they are biting their nails, they are crying, they are in shock and awe, having their hearts ripped out.

SPR drew that kind of reactions from audiences. TRL made me feel NOTHING at all, and generally even people who like the film seem to feel the same way. I have very rarely heard the supporters of the film state that TRL would be very exciting and suspenseful. Or that it was so sad they had a lump in their throats.

It was definitely sad at points. But yeah, TRL is definiitely not a nail-biting experience although there are intense moments there although they are rare. The point is Malick obviously didn't want to make a movie like the one you're describing, a movie like SPR. It's not an audience-friendly movie AT ALL, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't move you emotionally. You don't always need spectacles in order to feel the emotion of the characters or the drama they're going through. The fact that TRL made you feel nothing at all is just unfortunate because trust me it makes you (the general sense of the word) feel plenty..

Nonsense.

You are essentially claiming that people can't connect to characters in fantasy and scifis film to the same extent that they can connect to characters in realistic dramas, because those genre movies aren't "close to reality".

Nonsense. It's simply a case of good storytelling as opposed to bad one.

A lot of people connect to characters in Harry Potter books, yet don't connect at all to people in some bulgarian kitchen sink drama film.

No, I'm not claiming that at all. We're back at that issue of reality that you've misunderstood or that I didn't word properly. The characters have to seem real in their world, wherever it is, that's how the audience will connect with them. The characters in SPR didn't feel real because they were stock, cliches and one-dimensional. It almost feels like there was some deus ex machina involved when throwing them all together in one platoon.

SPR isn't perfect, but it's leagues above TRL.

Only technically speaking.

Try this:

Mute both films, and then watch them.

You can follow what happens in SPR very well, but you can't really follow the story in TRL. This is pretty much definitive, undeniable proof that the storytelling in SPR relies on visuals, where as the storytelling in TRL relies on voiceovers.

So SPR relies more heavily on visuals than TRL.

I think you could follow the basic stories of both films if you cut the sound off, you just lose all (if any, in SPR's case) character development since this isn't the 1920s and we're not talking about silent movies. I was initially wrong to say Malick relies on visuals more because they both rely on visuals, I think the reason why I said it is because Malick's visuals just have more impact on me.

And I have to say that TRL really failed to put me inside the men's thoughts as they experienced the trauma of war. Maybe that's because I don't smoke pot. I mean: Nobody thinks like that, unless they are severely stoned.

The inner monologues people have are FAST. And the way we think, use words and voabulary, and the things we think, are very different than what TRL has:

I actually answered this in my previous post, sorry about that. I don't smoke pot either (anymore, but I never smoked when watching TRL) and I was definitely inside their heads.

What's this war in the heart of nature ?
Why does nature vie with itself?.
The land contend with the sea?
ls there an avenging power in nature?
Not one power, but two?
l remember my mother when she was dying.
Looked all shrunk up and gray.
l asked her if she was afraid.
She just shook her head.
l was afraid to touch the death l seen in her.
I heard people talk about immortality,
but I ain't seen it.
l wondered how it'd be when l died.
What it'd be like to know that this breath now
was the last one you was ever gonna draw.
l just hope l can meet it the same way she did.
With the same... calm.
Cos that's where it's hidden -
the immortality l hadn't seen.
Kids around here never fight.
Sometimes.
Sometimes when you see them playing
they always fight!

I don't remember if that's a 100% accurate quote, because I lifted it from some netsite, but:

That's just fucking awful. Read it aloud. It's crap. Nobody thinks like that. Nobody has thought like that in the history of mankind. That's 1st grade film student's idea of "poetic" inner monologue. You know, the student who is still so young and stupid that he doesn't yet have a proper grasp of REAL humans, REAL dialogue (or monologue) and REAL humanity.

That monologue is shit.

Even the delivery in the film isn't realistic. REAL people have pretty rapid, fast, incredibly disjointed inner monologues. In fact we think faster much than we talk. Yet everyone in TRL thinks in eeeeeeeeexxxxxxtttttrrrreeeeemmeeeelly ssssssllllllooooooowwwww manner.

again all of that I've answered above. It's not about representing the real human thought-process, no film has even done that because human thoght process is as you say disjointed rapid etc. It's about the string of consciousness, put together for the viewer to understand and connect/reflect with, it's the soldier's subconscious or innate feelings being verbalized. It's an aesthetical choice and not meant to be taken the way you seem to have taken it.
Which brings me to that bit of dialogue you posted. This is a Malick film, it's not your typical movie and it will be heavily influenced by poetics/philosophy etc. because that's his background, if you were familiar with Malick before watching the film you would of not been so surprised. So it's not narration that forwards the plot or has a perfect place within the structure of a screenplay but it's deep and meaningful. I study Literature and when I read those words i didn't find them horrible at all. It's just different then what you're used to and it's not meant to be used as an example of what a 'successful screenplay' should look like (i know you didn't say that but it just seems like you're looking at it through the strict rule-heavy lenses of screen writing when that is not the point)

And because the film has no REAL character development, or REAL depth to it's characters - They are just puppets in pretty locations - the film tries to establish some substance by having inner monologues. As a cinematic device it's as clumsy as having the characters talk to camera, explaining who they are so that the characters would have some depth.

Mute the film, and you'll see how shallow the characters are.

Lol, mute any sound-film and you'll see how shallow the characters are. Character development usually relies on dialogue (with yourself or with others) and not just action. If you wanna look at it that way, they would be as shallow as the soldiers in SPR. The film has character development (the Nolte character especially, Koteas etc.) and depth through their thoughts and interactions with other soldiers, so you're completely off point there, it is eons better in that department than SPR and it would be an injustice to even compare them in that respect.

NOTE/PS: Too tired now, but I will quote what Scorsese says tomorrow (he find TRL to be the second best film of the 90s btw) about Thin Red Line, it pretty much perfectly summarizes why the film is so important and ultimately better than something straight-up like SPR...

Buck Turgidson

04-04-2008, 05:38 AM

NOTE/PS: Too tired now, but I will quote what Scorsese says tomorrow (he find TRL to be the second best film of the 90s btw) about Thin Red Line, it pretty much perfectly summarizes why the film is so important and ultimately better than something straight-up like SPR..http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/specials/bestof90s.html

Some good background on Terry's faithfulness to Jones' novel, and a fine essay on the film itself:

http://www.reverseshot.com/legacy/julyaugust03/TRL.html

Tuukka

04-04-2008, 01:15 PM

Lol, mute any sound-film and you'll see how shallow the characters are. Character development usually relies on dialogue (with yourself or with others) and not just action. If you wanna look at it that way, they would be as shallow as the soldiers in SPR. The film has character development (the Nolte character especially, Koteas etc.) and depth through their thoughts and interactions with other soldiers, so you're completely off point there, it is eons better in that department than SPR and it would be an injustice to even compare them in that respect....

Character development doesn't rely on dialogue, either with yourself or with others.

People are not what they think they are. They are not what they say they are. People are what they DO. Because the thing is, our thoughts, our words, and our actual actions are often completely contradictionary. But it's that final step, the call to action (no matter how small it is), is what defines us.

For example:

You're not a killer if you think of killing someone. You're not a killer if you say you will kill someone. You are a killer only once you actually DO kill someone. Anything before that is just foreplay, that might lead you killing someone, or might lead you to realization that you are not even capable of killing anyone.

Actions tell the truth of human nature. That's why good writers usually express character through action (not necessarily always, but usually).

I've seen some art-house films, not as much as I've seen Hollywood films although the art-house formula as you've described it there seems to invite films with a deeper meaning to them than Hollywood's formula so in my mind it is a bit superior.

Yeah and literature is a superior artform than music, because literature more easily invites "deeper meaning".

Right?

And some random emo band is better music than Mozart, because it more easily invites deeper meaning.

Right?

That makes little sense to me from an artistic point of view, but to each his own.

In the following I'm taking several quotes from you, because they all refer to same point:

I guess I'm not bothered by it either (too much) if it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb and the script actually has good, realistic dialogue in it. Unfortunately for SPR, that's not the case.

-

The reason why I find TRL more realistic than SPR is because the characters felt more real to me,

-

When I watch a war film i want to be transported into that world, visually, I want to connect with characters that seem real to me.

-

The characters have to seem real in their world, wherever it is, that's how the audience will connect with them. The characters in SPR didn't feel real because they were stock, cliches and one-dimensional.

And so on, you have repeated this point of TRL having more realistic characters throughout this thread...

Read again that quote from the movie I posted. The inner monologue that opens the film. No human has ever spoken or thought like that. Nobody. It's COMPLETELY unrealistic dialogue.

How can you claim that it's realistic? More realistic than SPR? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Sure, many of the characters in SPR are caricatures. They talk occasionally in cliches. But you know what: Many people in real world come off as caricatures. Even more people talk in cliches. Hell, people borrow cliches from movies and use them in real life. Some people intentionally try to build the exterior of their personality to come off as some movie character they know.

What I'm getting at is this:

The characters in SPR *could* be people in real world.

But many characters in TRL could *never* be people in real world. They just couldn't. They are so far removed from reality, from the real way people think or talk.

So to put it simply:

SPR has more realistic characters than TRL. And about the characters in SPR...

It almost feels like there was some deus ex machina involved when throwing them all together in one platoon. .

The characters in SPR are a collection of cliches, because that's the tradition. In the end, at it's heart, SPR is a genre movie. And in a war movie like this it's the tradition that a team is assembled, and each member of the team is representative of a different archetype soldier, presenting a different aspect of war.

Not necessarily a good tradition to have as it does lead to more shallow characters, but it's worth pointing out why the film is like it is.

And then comes this:

Which brings me to that bit of dialogue you posted. This is a Malick film, it's not your typical movie and it will be heavily influenced by poetics/philosophy etc. because that's his background, if you were familiar with Malick before watching the film you would of not been so surprised. So it's not narration that forwards the plot or has a perfect place within the structure of a screenplay but it's deep and meaningful. I study Literature and when I read those words i didn't find them horrible at all. It's just different then what you're used to and it's not meant to be used as an example of what a 'successful screenplay' should look like (i know you didn't say that but it just seems like you're looking at it through the strict rule-heavy lenses of screen writing when that is not the point) .

And you are correct here.

But the problem is, this is in direct contradiction with what you posted earlier on. TRL can't have poetic dialogue AND realistic dialogue at the same time. Because REAL dialogue in REAL world isn't poetic.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The inner monologues in TRL are just bad poetry, not realistic in the slightest.

DaMovieMan

04-04-2008, 03:45 PM

Character development doesn't rely on dialogue, either with yourself or with others.

People are not what they think they are. They are not what they say they are. People are what they DO. Because the thing is, our thoughts, our words, and our actual actions are often completely contradictionary. But it's that final step, the call to action (no matter how small it is), is what defines us.

For example:

You're not a killer if you think of killing someone. You're not a killer if you say you will kill someone. You are a killer only once you actually DO kill someone. Anything before that is just foreplay, that might lead you killing someone, or might lead you to realization that you are not even capable of killing anyone.

Actions tell the truth of human nature. That's why good writers usually express character through action (not necessarily always, but usually).

It doesn't only rely on action. The development of a character also includes what he says at given moments or what he thinks, these instances make up who he is. If the killer always thinks about killing someone then he's not a killer, but he's a man who has psychological problems and is potentially dangerous, if he finally kills someone but it's by accident, say he runs over someone, his thoughts and interactions with passers-by are telling us that he didn't mean it (this time)...then he's not just a killer, is he? All of a sudden it becomes deeper and the development of that character becomes more complex.
In the strict, rationalized sense of the word though, you are right. Action develops character best, and if you were to mute TRL and watch it you would surprise yourself at how much the action of the characters develop them, Koteas' preformance and action telling us that he won't listen to Nolte's orders which lead to him being pulled out, Cusack stepping up to lead the men , that soldier (i forget the actor's name now) being scared shitless and then so happy when he actually hits someone etc. Many, many instances, you are being way too harsh on TRL.

Yeah and literature is a superior artform than music, because literature more easily invites "deeper meaning".

Right?

And some random emo band is better music than Mozart, because it more easily invites deeper meaning.

Right?

That makes little sense to me from an artistic point of view, but to each his own.

That makes little sense to me too. I don't understand why you are bringing in other art-forms into the mix. Some random emo band will never invite more deeper meaning than Mozart, but again, music is a totally different world and you're going waay off topic bringing it in. We're talking about the medium of film right now. I'm just point out that you could make a deeper film with that art-house formula than with the Hollywood formula because the latter is based on artificiality, mainstream, conformity etc.

you have repeated this point of TRL having more realistic characters throughout this thread...

Read again that quote from the movie I posted. The inner monologue that opens the film. No human has ever spoken or thought like that. Nobody. It's COMPLETELY unrealistic dialogue.

How can you claim that it's realistic? More realistic than SPR? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

There seems to be a problem of communication here. I never said humans speak like that, on the contrary I said that it's not normal human thought process but the subconscious and inner feelings of the characters being verbalized, it's art and it steps into that realm of film where everything is possible. Just like poetry rarely has stanzas that mimic perfectly human thought or speech. It is the feelings they evoke that are real and which make TRL more realistic than SPR.

Sure, many of the characters in SPR are caricatures. They talk occasionally in cliches. But you know what: Many people in real world come off as caricatures. Even more people talk in cliches. Hell, people borrow cliches from movies and use them in real life. Some people intentionally try to build the exterior of their personality to come off as some movie character they know.

And this makes SPR more realistic? It's just easier too pull off and write, it's boring, unexciting, predictable, redundant and, eventually, non-enjoyable to have characters like that. Why do you think writers usually stay away from cliches and stock characters? Some people do talk in cliches in the real world, some people do come off as caricatures, but they are still original people and they are not compared to past people you've met like the characters in SPR are compared to other characters of the same make-up. Ultimately, it is unbelievable and pure Hollywood idealism to have these men be in the same platoon together on a mission, that's taking the formula too far and making the film a cheesefest.

What I'm getting at is this:

The characters in SPR *could* be people in real world.

But many characters in TRL could *never* be people in real world. They just couldn't. They are so far removed from reality, from the real way people think or talk.

So to put it simply:

SPR has more realistic characters than TRL.

The characters in SPR "could" be people in the real world, but they could never be thrown together into one platoon. That's just too perfect and it's the shit that make people say "that shit happens only in the movies". TRL has more realistic characters because of their actions and attitudes. Harrelson's fatal mistake, Notle's crazed general, Koteas' backing down and not following orders, Caviziel's connection and admiration for the aboriginals etc. this is what makes them real. Their thoughts, which I've explained before should not be taken in the strict sense of the word as "that is what they are thinking and how they think at those precise moments" but more in metaphorical and poetic sense. So their thoughts only add more depth to the film as a whole, and to the characters as it is their feelings being verbalized (even though as Scorsese points out, it doesn't matter who's voice over it is, 'it's everybody's voice over'). So, TRL characters are more real in the world Malick depicted and SPR's characters are less real in the world Spielberg depicted, thus, TRL has more realistic characters.

The characters in SPR are a collection of cliches, because that's the tradition. In the end, at it's heart, SPR is a genre movie. And in a war movie like this it's the tradition that a team is assembled, and each member of the team is representative of a different archetype soldier, presenting a different aspect of war.

Not necessarily a good tradition to have as it does lead to more shallow characters, but it's worth pointing out why the film is like it is.

That's a good point, but it still fails to defend the film's poor characters because it doesn't make them any more real to me now than it did then. Going with tradition is always the easiest and safest route, another reason why I respect what Malick did much more than Spielberg.

But the problem is, this is in direct contradiction with what you posted earlier on. TRL can't have poetic dialogue AND realistic dialogue at the same time. Because REAL dialogue in REAL world isn't poetic.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The inner monologues in TRL are just bad poetry, not realistic in the slightest.

If you read carefully I never said TRL has realistic dialogue, as the kind of film it is (i.e. dream-like in a sense and of almost metaphysical nature) most of its spoken word will be poetic, metaphoric, etc. and not realistic in the coldly rational sense of the word. However, the dialogue between the men on the ground, when they are actually conversing IS realistic and if you deny that then there's not much I can do to help you understand but since I think you're only thinking about the voice-overs; it's poetic language and it's not meant to be taken as "that is how people think and that is what people think in times of war", like I said before it's their subconscious and inner feelings being verbalized for the audience as a deliberate aesthetic choice of Malick's. Let that sink in and then figure out if you appreciate that kind of style or if you dismiss it completely. To call it a bad movie in the way you are calling it and attacking it is simply, to not understand what Malick is doing. And that's a whole different thing.
That's not bad poetry, it's poetry that is intended to be listened to while you're watching certain visuals, as a stand alone poem it's not great, as it is in the film it's perfect. Poetry is not meant to be rationalized and rendered completely realistic, if so then John Dunne's poem "Flea" would be attacked because it's "not realistic for a marriage between two people to be sanctified within a flea, because that doesn't happen". Come on dude, poetry is the language of emotions, feelings, beliefs etc. highly metaphorical and allegorical at times.

notchreturns

04-04-2008, 04:00 PM

TRL spoke to me on many more levels.

It just has so much more going on with it's characters, the performances, story, direction and so on.

Unlike any "war" film I've ever seen.

Cass Money

04-04-2008, 07:17 PM

I liked Saving Private Ryan, especially the opening. It was amazing.
I even went to see it twice, being the war movie girl I am.
But I DID find it....wait for it......................Cheesey.
A couple of super sappy parts, especially the grave scene at the end and I was like, peace, I'm out.

hoojib127

04-05-2008, 07:19 AM

Then there's those who still bitch over the fact that "Shakespeare in Love" beat out SPR for Best Picture at the '98 Oscars. Personally, I enjoyed SiL more than SPR, but I thought both TTRL and "Elizabeth" were superior to both (still haven't seen "Life Is Beautiful").

DaMovieMan

04-05-2008, 11:45 AM

Thin Red Line should of won best picture, director and cinematography. I'm not too surprised though, it's no secret how I feel about the Academy and their choices.

Buck: That's a good article, shows the critics of TRL how faithful he is to the book, and how the realism of TRL has more to do with the psychology of war. Good shit.

Incidentally, for the talk about Spielberg's realism of battle in SPR, the film gets most attacked for its unrealistic potrayal of WWII in the two major battles. The British are nowhere to be found in the D-Day landing which emphasizes the fact that again, this is an American interpretation and the second battle has historical inconsistencies that Spielberg admitted he glossed over for dramatic effect. This is all in the wiki page for SPR.

hoojib127

04-05-2008, 06:44 PM

Incidentally, for the talk about Spielberg's realism of battle in SPR, the film gets most attacked for its unrealistic potrayal of WWII in the two major battles. The British are nowhere to be found in the D-Day landing which emphasizes the fact that again, this is an American interpretation and the second battle has historical inconsistencies that Spielberg admitted he glossed over for dramatic effect. This is all in the wiki page for SPR.

Mind you, I really don't give a rat's ass about historical/factual accuracy when the film in question is presented in a fictional context (if it were a documentary, then I'd be worried).

As for presenting brutally realistic combat on screen, wasn't "Braveheart" more of the bar-raiser in that category anyway?

Topweasel

04-07-2008, 10:23 PM

Well it seems a bit stupid to create an account to post on one thread but I felt I needed to support SPR a little here.

First action item. Art. At first you have to remember movies with few exceptions are meant for entertainment. That said in normal Art their are two big variations Realism and Abstract. I am not going to say which is better but some of the most well known art pieces are the realist kind (Mona Lisa, The David, The Venus De Milo). In fact some of the most well known Abstract art, m ost of its fame was in trying to figure out what the artist was trying to convey or what was going through the artists mind during its creation. So while both have their value one is actually on the quality of the work and another is focused more on the Artist itself. For this reason and why what we consider art films will never be mainstream I personally think that the movie that stands on its own wins. In this case I think SPR has the advantage of being a realism picture as apposed to an abstract movie like TRL.

Characters. I don't think either is better then the other on this but honesty I would rather have some stereotypical characters get fleshed out, thats how the world works. How many times do we as a person make judgments on a person within a couple minutes? How many times are we wrong? Me its just about every person I meet, and I would say about 50% of the time. Thats how SPR works. As for the ethnic makeup group, if they were all alike people would be complaining about the lack of diversity. You can't make everyone happy and in a movie a close nit group of different people gives the public a better perception of the bonds formed in a fox hole than a bunch of people who look like they could be brothers. TRL on the other hand wasn't to far from SPR but added on the inner monologue. Its the one thing that connects scene to scene but its also the one thing that makes it hard to believe, because its the directors feelings and not the feelings of a person who has gone through this.

Affect on Film making. A truly great movie can be a thing of Art but still Create waves, change the ways people approach movies both in the genre or even better across genres. SPR did this, TRL did not. He introduced level realistic brutality to the movie theaters that even Michael Mann didn't use till after SPR's release.

While I don't discount TRL as a good movie in its own right. SPR in my opinion is a much better movie, TRL will be a movie that fades away as people get farther and farther from its release. I hate to end on this but I feel I must say it, I can not stand TRL personally.