In comparing the depiction of combat violence in Saving Private Ryan to older films, most historians and scholars would cite one primary factor in the difference: censorship. No one talks, and no one munches popcorn or rattles candy wrappers. Today's audiences are shocked into silence while watching. Medics are forced to make ruthless decisions about the wounded ("Routine!" "Routine!" "Priority!") as they advance among what appears to be every soldier on the beach, all apparently dying. Men drown, are wounded, and are shot and killed in a chaotic atmosphere of fear and bewilderment. The elimination of sound is particularly effective, since it is both logical in the narrative (the captain's hearing could have been damaged by the shock of battle noise) and psychological (it physicalizes the emotional trauma he is undergoing).Īs the action unfolds, the audience sees blood, vomit, dead fish, dismembered arms and legs, wounds spurting fountains of blood, torsos disintegrating while being dragged to safety. All are simultaneously internal and external, and all are clearly understood by the audience to be what they are: the stress of the combat experience.
Spielberg anchors the audience in Tom Hanks (as Captain John Miller), and provides three recurring motifs for Hanks/Miller's response to war: the elimination of sound (cinematic), a shaking hand (performance), and a resistance to explaining his prewar background (narrative).
Spielberg's mastery of sound, editing, camera movement, visual storytelling, narrative flow, performance, and color combine to assault a viewer, to place each and every member of the audience directly into the combat experience.
The violence of Saving Private Ryan's opening sequence (the D-Day landing on Omaha Beach) is overwhelming. This issue is by far the most significant. Taking an overview based on actual screenings, where does Saving Private Ryan fit? It has been defined by modern critics as groundbreaking and anti-generic, "the desire to bury the cornball, recruiting poster legend of John Wayne: to get it right this time."1 The primary differences that have been cited are (1) its realistic combat violence, (2) its unusual story format in which soldiers question leadership and the point of their mission, and (3) its new and different purpose. The issue to be discussed is not combat accuracy (or the quality of the movie) but rather accuracy about the history of the World War II combat genre and Saving Private Ryan's place in that history. Ambrose (author of Citizen Soldiers) and Dale Dye, a retired Marine Corps captain who acted as his chief military adviser. He closely consulted with historian Stephen E. There is also no question but that Spielberg has achieved integrity in his images. No one is going to argue with the WWII veterans who have stated that Saving Private Ryan is the most realistic presentation of combat they've seen. Although there is no question that Spielberg made a fine film or that Tom Hanks and the rest of the cast have done an excellent job, there are issues of film history to be addressed in evaluation. For the combat movie, this means if there's no blood and guts, there's no glory. The truth is not that simple, and Saving Private Ryan represents another case in the ongoing struggle for film historians, who must constantly deal with modern critics who judge artistic events by the standards of their own times. The bottom line of the positive critical evaluations is this: Saving Private Ryan is a new and different World War II combat film because it finally refutes the dishonesty of previous Hollywood movies of the genre. All that is left is the cleanup at the box office and the final awarding of medals such as the Oscar for Best Picture. In late July 1998, Steven Spielberg landed on the American public with his World War II film Saving Private Ryan, which won the war of critics, veterans, scholars, historians, and the general moviegoing public.
0 kommentar(er)
