Saving Private Ryan - Thin Red Line
11-13-99 | 08:18 PM
#26
Mod Emeritus
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sfasdfdfsafddfaasdfa ...whatever,
Yes it was ironic that the German soldier they showed pity on went on to kill someone in front of the man who begged for him to be spared. So what, big deal, what deeper meaning is this? The irony of war? Who cares.
Are you saying you felt no hatred for that man while he slay the U.S. soldier and shushed him like a baby? Just doin' his job, that's what war is all about? Yes, that is true, and it was ironic, I mean the odds it would have been that same soldier are extremely high. That soldier's life shouldn't have been spared and he should have been gunned down, as innocent as he appeared when he was digging the grave. He is a grunt, but he kills with a smile on his face, cold blooded and deadly, he's your typical young innocent man like the rest of them, and he should have been filled with lead because he came back to kill the story's man characters. So why do you think the movie should have followed up on his character? I didn't see the French family with the little girl after that scene, I didn't see Ten Danson after his scene, basically it followed the troup on their mission. Had they not had him come back and do that, basically he would have been any other person fighting the war, but he does come back and murders characters whom the audience has come to care about, and does so cold bloodedly (the U.S. soldier tries to reason with him while he's killing him). You may think nothing of him, but he certainly appears to be a villain of the movie, someone whom the audience can freely hate for his actions.
You can have the last word if you want, go ahead and talk down to us again, but it doesn't really help your point.
Yes it was ironic that the German soldier they showed pity on went on to kill someone in front of the man who begged for him to be spared. So what, big deal, what deeper meaning is this? The irony of war? Who cares.
Are you saying you felt no hatred for that man while he slay the U.S. soldier and shushed him like a baby? Just doin' his job, that's what war is all about? Yes, that is true, and it was ironic, I mean the odds it would have been that same soldier are extremely high. That soldier's life shouldn't have been spared and he should have been gunned down, as innocent as he appeared when he was digging the grave. He is a grunt, but he kills with a smile on his face, cold blooded and deadly, he's your typical young innocent man like the rest of them, and he should have been filled with lead because he came back to kill the story's man characters. So why do you think the movie should have followed up on his character? I didn't see the French family with the little girl after that scene, I didn't see Ten Danson after his scene, basically it followed the troup on their mission. Had they not had him come back and do that, basically he would have been any other person fighting the war, but he does come back and murders characters whom the audience has come to care about, and does so cold bloodedly (the U.S. soldier tries to reason with him while he's killing him). You may think nothing of him, but he certainly appears to be a villain of the movie, someone whom the audience can freely hate for his actions.
You can have the last word if you want, go ahead and talk down to us again, but it doesn't really help your point.
11-13-99 | 08:47 PM
#27
Uber Member
Gallant Pig,
The German soldier who killed the US soldier with the knife is NOT the same guy Hanks let go free earlier in the movie. Someone in another thread said they'd even heard Speilberg say (in an interview) that he regretted not using someone more physically different for the knife killing role. Also, if you look at the guy again, his head and hair are slightly different (bigger and darker) than the freed German.
As to the deeper meaning of this scene (the freed soldier killing Capt. Miller) my first post in this thread was a response to your first comments on this scene.
But I don't think this movie was meant to be very deep. Speilberg had a message he was trying to convey to the masses, not "arthouse critics" who's idea of fun is to sit down and figure out the deeper meaning of a film. That doesn't make it a bad film though. Just one with a different purpose.
------------------
-David
The German soldier who killed the US soldier with the knife is NOT the same guy Hanks let go free earlier in the movie. Someone in another thread said they'd even heard Speilberg say (in an interview) that he regretted not using someone more physically different for the knife killing role. Also, if you look at the guy again, his head and hair are slightly different (bigger and darker) than the freed German.
As to the deeper meaning of this scene (the freed soldier killing Capt. Miller) my first post in this thread was a response to your first comments on this scene.
But I don't think this movie was meant to be very deep. Speilberg had a message he was trying to convey to the masses, not "arthouse critics" who's idea of fun is to sit down and figure out the deeper meaning of a film. That doesn't make it a bad film though. Just one with a different purpose.
------------------
-David
11-13-99 | 10:59 PM
#28
Mod Emeritus
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Blade, I'll have to watch it again to see for sure for myself, for some reason I thought for sure it was him.
As for the message, yeah you are probably right: its power comes from its images of war.
Later on...
As for the message, yeah you are probably right: its power comes from its images of war.
Later on...
11-14-99 | 02:12 PM
#29
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gallant Pig You state: "but Germany certainly wasn't crippled after WWI like they were after WWII, thus leaving them the ability to fight one of the fiercest wars ever a couple decades later."
Although the German industrial infrastructure was not destroyed by bombardment in “The Great War”, I think it should be noted that the incredible debt payments included in the terms of the treaty of Versailles led to the conditions that made Hitler’s rise to power possible.
Germany was saddled with debt payments it had no possibility of making. The solution was simply to print more money. The result was hyperinflation, the likes of which are difficult to imagine.
From Albert Speer’s Inside The Third Reich, 1923: “Very cheap here! Lodging 400,000 marks, and supper 1,800,000 marks. Milk 250,000 marks a pint. Six weeks later, shortly before the end of the inflation, a restaurant dinner cost ten to twenty billion marks.”
Money became virtually worthless. There are anecdotal accounts of thieves stealing purses bulging with money and dumping the money to facilitate their getaway, the purse being more valuable than its contents.
Hyperinflation decimated the middle class. It tore the center out of the shaky Weimar Republic, leaving Communism on the Left and Fascism on the Right. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles insured the failure of the Weimar Republic.
Even then, if perhaps the Allies had acted when Hitler seized the Ruhr, Germany would not have had the industrial base necessary to launch World War II.
Although the German industrial infrastructure was not destroyed by bombardment in “The Great War”, I think it should be noted that the incredible debt payments included in the terms of the treaty of Versailles led to the conditions that made Hitler’s rise to power possible.
Germany was saddled with debt payments it had no possibility of making. The solution was simply to print more money. The result was hyperinflation, the likes of which are difficult to imagine.
From Albert Speer’s Inside The Third Reich, 1923: “Very cheap here! Lodging 400,000 marks, and supper 1,800,000 marks. Milk 250,000 marks a pint. Six weeks later, shortly before the end of the inflation, a restaurant dinner cost ten to twenty billion marks.”
Money became virtually worthless. There are anecdotal accounts of thieves stealing purses bulging with money and dumping the money to facilitate their getaway, the purse being more valuable than its contents.
Hyperinflation decimated the middle class. It tore the center out of the shaky Weimar Republic, leaving Communism on the Left and Fascism on the Right. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles insured the failure of the Weimar Republic.
Even then, if perhaps the Allies had acted when Hitler seized the Ruhr, Germany would not have had the industrial base necessary to launch World War II.
11-14-99 | 06:26 PM
#31
DVD Talk Legend
just rented & watched TTRL this weekend. i thought it was a great war movie. it really is unfair to compare it to SPR b/c they are really 2 different movies entirely. funny, i thought SPR went downhill after the first half hour & i thought that TTRL got better after its first half hour. either way, both could have been edited down some more. i believe both will be added to my collection.
11-17-99 | 11:25 AM
#32
Member
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NYC
Guys, (and girls)
you seem to be forgeting one thing - the German soldier in question is not a "grunt" he is Waffen SS. Highly trained and very fanatical forces. If I remember correctly the SS forced in Normandy were the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler and "Dead head" division one is Hitles personal guards and the other is HIGHLY accomplished panzer division. They were mostly (if not all, I do not remember volonteers)
Makes a difference in my book
Eugene
you seem to be forgeting one thing - the German soldier in question is not a "grunt" he is Waffen SS. Highly trained and very fanatical forces. If I remember correctly the SS forced in Normandy were the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler and "Dead head" division one is Hitles personal guards and the other is HIGHLY accomplished panzer division. They were mostly (if not all, I do not remember volonteers)
Makes a difference in my book
Eugene
11-17-99 | 03:46 PM
#33
Uber Member
elipkin,
I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but the kind of soldiers the Germans were was not mentioned at all in the movie. None of our guys were saying "Hey he's SS he's trained to lie," when Miller was making the decision to let him go.
So while it may be true that these German soldiers were highly trained I don't think that it makes any difference in their portrayal in the film.
Unlike many of Speilberg's other films the Germans in this film are largely treated as the soldiers on the other side and not as evil monsters.
------------------
-David
I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but the kind of soldiers the Germans were was not mentioned at all in the movie. None of our guys were saying "Hey he's SS he's trained to lie," when Miller was making the decision to let him go.
So while it may be true that these German soldiers were highly trained I don't think that it makes any difference in their portrayal in the film.
Unlike many of Speilberg's other films the Germans in this film are largely treated as the soldiers on the other side and not as evil monsters.
------------------
-David
11-18-99 | 10:43 AM
#34
Member
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NYC
Blade,
First, the SS were not trined to lie - they were trained to kill.
I might be wrong, I need to revisit the movie, but I thought I saw the SS markings on his uniform (in the later part of the movie) Also remember when the burnd a half-truck, one of the paratroopers said that it was a recon element of 2nd Panzer SS, and my recollection tell me that there were mostly SS troops on Omaha and couterattacking
Eugene
First, the SS were not trined to lie - they were trained to kill.
I might be wrong, I need to revisit the movie, but I thought I saw the SS markings on his uniform (in the later part of the movie) Also remember when the burnd a half-truck, one of the paratroopers said that it was a recon element of 2nd Panzer SS, and my recollection tell me that there were mostly SS troops on Omaha and couterattacking
Eugene
11-18-99 | 03:00 PM
#35
Uber Member
Okay, I deserved that. 
My point was that the movie didn't make a big deal about them being SS. Do you really think the average movie goer was expected to see the scene where they let the guy go and think to themselves "What an idiot. Doesn't that Captain realize that this is an SS soldier? How could he be so foolish as to let such a highly trained killer go?" There was no effort made by Speilberg to highlight any of this throughout the film.
That the insignia are there is simply an attempt at historical accuracy.
------------------
-David
My point was that the movie didn't make a big deal about them being SS. Do you really think the average movie goer was expected to see the scene where they let the guy go and think to themselves "What an idiot. Doesn't that Captain realize that this is an SS soldier? How could he be so foolish as to let such a highly trained killer go?" There was no effort made by Speilberg to highlight any of this throughout the film.
That the insignia are there is simply an attempt at historical accuracy.
------------------
-David
11-19-99 | 12:16 AM
#36
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: LA, CA
Wait a minute. If the German soldier who stabs the American soldier to death at the end is not the same guy who Hanks let go earlier in the film, then why didn't he kill the little dude on the steps who was the one who convinced Hanks to let the soldier go?
I thought the whole point was that he killed that one American soldier because that was his job, but he let the little guy live because the little guy had let him live (sort of).
--Apparition
I thought the whole point was that he killed that one American soldier because that was his job, but he let the little guy live because the little guy had let him live (sort of).
--Apparition
11-19-99 | 05:40 AM
#38
Uber Member
Well, I've finally watched The Thin Red Line and have to disagree with the statement that it's a boring movie. What this movie (in my opinion) is trying to do is to get you to think about why we do what we do, and whether we are really justified in our actions. And for what it is attempting it is very interesting.
But I think it fails in it's attempt for a few reasons. First and foremost, for the reason Aslan states above: the movie comes across as more of a freshman seminar course in philosophy. secondly, I kept thinking this was a movie about the Vietnam war. Lastly, the tone just didn't fit with everything we know about the men who fought in WWII. And this creates a sense of dislocation that detracts from the movie.
I think Saving Private Ryan is a better movie for what it is trying to accomplish. It's trying to reach a large audience and also trying to convey the physical sacrifice these men made for our freedom. The incredible accuracy of the battle scenes accomplished the first goal, and I think the story and the battle scenes served to accomplish the second. In a sense, the American people are Private Ryan. I felt that the first bookend was to cause us to think that Capt. Miller was the main focus of the story. We follow him and grow to admire and like this character. Through his eyes we see all the horror that these soldiers went through.
Then in the end, he's killed. This is quite a shock since we've all been thinking that the old man was Miller. But by havig Miller die, Speilberg is able to show Private Ryan experiencing first hand the sacrifice that was made for him. The final bookend, in my eyes, is what turns it around to us. When he asks his wife if he was a good man, the question is really "Have we earned the freedom that these men gave their lives for? Have we 'made it count'?"
Sure it's a little heavy handed, but it's a war movie meant for a large general audience.
In the end I felt that SPR did a much better job than TRL at doing what it set out to accomplish.
------------------
-David
But I think it fails in it's attempt for a few reasons. First and foremost, for the reason Aslan states above: the movie comes across as more of a freshman seminar course in philosophy. secondly, I kept thinking this was a movie about the Vietnam war. Lastly, the tone just didn't fit with everything we know about the men who fought in WWII. And this creates a sense of dislocation that detracts from the movie.
I think Saving Private Ryan is a better movie for what it is trying to accomplish. It's trying to reach a large audience and also trying to convey the physical sacrifice these men made for our freedom. The incredible accuracy of the battle scenes accomplished the first goal, and I think the story and the battle scenes served to accomplish the second. In a sense, the American people are Private Ryan. I felt that the first bookend was to cause us to think that Capt. Miller was the main focus of the story. We follow him and grow to admire and like this character. Through his eyes we see all the horror that these soldiers went through.
Then in the end, he's killed. This is quite a shock since we've all been thinking that the old man was Miller. But by havig Miller die, Speilberg is able to show Private Ryan experiencing first hand the sacrifice that was made for him. The final bookend, in my eyes, is what turns it around to us. When he asks his wife if he was a good man, the question is really "Have we earned the freedom that these men gave their lives for? Have we 'made it count'?"
Sure it's a little heavy handed, but it's a war movie meant for a large general audience.
In the end I felt that SPR did a much better job than TRL at doing what it set out to accomplish.
------------------
-David
11-23-99 | 04:11 PM
#39
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apperition:
The German with the knife is not the same one who was let go. This is easily discernable after repeated viewings or by switching back and forth between chapters to compare. Also, Spielberg has said that they are not the same guy or were intended to be.
I think everyone is missing a big piece of symbolism involved in this. Oppum was basically the only reason the 1st German was let go in the earlier scene, he does this out of compassion and pity. The OTHER german with the knife does the SAME THING for Oppum, seeing that he is helpless and incapable of fighting (at least mentally, at that point) showing pity and going on even though he doesn't know him.
The German with the knife is not the same one who was let go. This is easily discernable after repeated viewings or by switching back and forth between chapters to compare. Also, Spielberg has said that they are not the same guy or were intended to be.
I think everyone is missing a big piece of symbolism involved in this. Oppum was basically the only reason the 1st German was let go in the earlier scene, he does this out of compassion and pity. The OTHER german with the knife does the SAME THING for Oppum, seeing that he is helpless and incapable of fighting (at least mentally, at that point) showing pity and going on even though he doesn't know him.
11-25-99 | 07:22 AM
#40
New Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Diego, CA, USA
SPR was a great movie although it drags at times. As with Schindler's List, something is missing. The Characters seem fake.
I just watched Apocalypse Now again on DVD, and I felt much more involved. When I watch Spielberg movies, I'm always painfully aware, I'm watching a movie the whole time I'm sitting there.
TTRL has some great moments. Nick Nolte as the agressive commander is some of the best acting I've seen in a movie. This movie has the potential to be as good as any movie made on the subject. What screws up this movie royal, is all those stupid dream sequences, especially about the guy and his girl back home. A flash back, or narration could have got the point across. Instead they beat the thing to death. It seems like half the movie is some kind of fantasy dream sequence. After about 15 minutes or so, I was wishing this daydreamer would catch a stray bullet to the head. Bad movies don't piss me off, but screwing up something with such potencial kinda does. It kinda makes me wonder, what this movies could have been if it didn't waste an hour or so on nonsence.
I just watched Apocalypse Now again on DVD, and I felt much more involved. When I watch Spielberg movies, I'm always painfully aware, I'm watching a movie the whole time I'm sitting there.
TTRL has some great moments. Nick Nolte as the agressive commander is some of the best acting I've seen in a movie. This movie has the potential to be as good as any movie made on the subject. What screws up this movie royal, is all those stupid dream sequences, especially about the guy and his girl back home. A flash back, or narration could have got the point across. Instead they beat the thing to death. It seems like half the movie is some kind of fantasy dream sequence. After about 15 minutes or so, I was wishing this daydreamer would catch a stray bullet to the head. Bad movies don't piss me off, but screwing up something with such potencial kinda does. It kinda makes me wonder, what this movies could have been if it didn't waste an hour or so on nonsence.
