I'm still watching SPR as I type this but I'm curious as to how TRL compares to it

Personally I prefer TTRL to SPR. It's a matter of taste, they are both stunning movies about WWII on two different fronts. TTRL is less graphic, but for me, more powerful. It doesn't show the enemy as being the enemy, most the time you can't see the enemy and when you do, it's when they are being captured it's in a sad light.

The story in SPR is a lot more contrived than the story in TTRL.
*****SPOILER*****
I didn't like it that the german they set free in SPR was the one that came back to kill them... To me, that was the worst part of the movie.

[This message has been edited by Gallant Pig (edited 11-09-1999).]

I agree with Gallant Pig both on both posts (: I liked both movies, but found TTRL to be a better war movie and SPR to be a better hollywood story thats a lot like a war movie.

I'm not ripping on SPR, I really liked the movie and was totally blown away by the DTS version, which is easily the best sounding disc in my collection and a great movie anyways.

I just found I got more involved in TTRL, it evoked more emotions and showed much more how the war really affected people. My brother this History major much prefers SPR, but points out that the reason for such a stark contrast between the two movies is because they were showing very different fronts of the war, and fighting in Europe was not at all like fighting in Asia...

In the end I just thought SPR was a little too much Hollywood.

I'm sure other people have mentioned this, but the whole German guy getting set free thing is more to prove a point than to actually be believable. Something to the effect of "sometimes you have to do what you have to do in the face of war". Or whatever Hollywood-like. Still, I don't have any problems with that part once I figured out that line of rationalization http://forum.dvdtalk.com/ubb/smile.gif

*SPOILER*
The reason I didn't like the German let go being the same German that comes back is that he is no longer an innocent young kid fighting for his life like the American soldiers are, he becomes another evil enemy with a german accent in an american movie. One feels truly bad for this young man facing his death, fighting a war he had no choice to fight in, just like the Americans. One could sympathize and identify with him, thus showing that war truly sucks, that war is about killing people like you or I and not some cruel, evil enemy. But Spielberg doesn't let us feel sorry for any German in the end, in the end this man is the most evil figure in the movie. Perhaps one could say he is a metaphor for Germany itself. After being captured in the first world war, Germany is helpless like this man, whom we feel bad for and let go free, then they come back to seriously injure us last on, just like this man.... Kinda Ironic, kinda metaphoric, but I prefer the first message more, it's truly a more anti-war message.

I think it's easy to see that Spielberg hates those the Americans are fighting against much more than Malik does (his portrait of the enemy is without hatred and more filled with pity).

Yeah, the anti-German portrait was a little bit Hollywood cliche, a shame after Schindler's List. I don't buy the analogy: history shows that Hitler's rise to power largely came about because of the hyperinflation the victors of WWI forced on Germany. Ultra-nationalism begins to look good when it takes buckets of currency to buy a loaf of bread.

yeah, but the Germans weren't stupid either. I believe most of them knew that Jews were being led off to death camps or at least had the idea that it was happening...


I'm not saying that all the Germans who supported the war were evil, but it does make you feel a little less pity for any of the german soldiers. I just don't buy the whole -- German were in a bad time and Hitler gave them a promise of a better life -- excuse. cause thats what it is... an excuse.

Just like people rationalizing the encampment of the Japanese during WWII.

I dunno. My opinion. I loved SPR -- and haven't seen TTRL.

It might not be a perfect analogy, 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.

As for having no pity for Germans, certainly the nazis committed many terrible atrocities, but not every 18 year old German was responsible for the holocaust and an evil bastard. I mean sure in the higher ranks there were some terrible people, but grunts are grunts on any side.

[This message has been edited by Gallant Pig (edited 11-09-1999).]

I've only seen Saving Private Ryan once, but I didn't think that the purpose of letting the German go and having him come back as part of the forces that kill Capt. Miller was to show that the Nazi's were evil bastards.

I felt that Speilberg was trying to show that this is war and not the place for giving someone the benefit of the doubt. That doing things like that can get you killed.

I also felt that it was a statement on all the negative press heaped on American soldiers (in other wars) for "atrocities". Of course it's wrong for them to do these things, but this is war, not a debating society. If you make mistakes out there you get people killed.

I initially didn't see this film in the theaters because I thought it was going to be a special effects laden anti war message. I'm kind of sorry now that I didn't see it in the theater, because you just can't beat the big screen. But I definitely don't think that this film was pro or anti war. I don't think that Spielberg has any question in his mind as to whether WWII was a good war or not. I think he was more trying to convey two things: the soldier's experience of being in the middle of the fighting and the debt that we owe to these men for the sacrifices they made to us (this last was, in my opinion, the true purpose of the bookends).

Perhaps these messages were put out a in a heavy handed manner, but that didn't make them any less effective for me.

I haven't seen The Thin Red Line yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing this too. Should be a very interesting experience as the war in Asia was indeed very different from the war in Europe.

------------------
-David

hung lo:

I liked both films, though I do prefer The Thin Red Line. As other people have said, the two films are nothing alike. Saving Private Ryan is like a Tolstoy short story, while TTRL is like a Pynchon novel. (In fact, I think it is pretty obvious that in terms of character and plotting Malick was very influence by Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow .)

I also think you should know that, for all practical purposes, TTRL isn't a war film. It is more concerned with the mind-body problem than with combat or historical accuracy.

Gallant Pig:

I agree with you. It seems Spielberg wanted to have the perspective of an anti-war person coming to terms with the sometimes necessity of war, but he pretty much overshot there and it came out being way too contrived.



------------------
"If it were all in the script, why make the film?"--Nicholas Ray

I must also agree that while I liked the two films, TTRL was the better of the two. SPR would've been great if it weren't for the silly ending and beginning.

Zizz, how interesting.. I thought that was the movie's strongest parts, showing the harsh ugly reality of war, the rest of the movie was filler.

Saving Private Ryan is by far better than The Thin Red Line. I did like TRL, but Malick's poetic look at war just didn't connect. War is not supposed to be poetic or full of art. War is death, fear, courage, etc. Saving Private Ryan gives you the plain truth about war and forces you to watch it. The Thin Red Line is too busy reciting poetry. The Oscar voters felt SPR was better, since it won 5 Oscars and was nominated for 11. The Thin Red Line got 7 nominations and won zero. It was the "only" Best Picture nominee to not record a win. Poor Malicky. http://forum.dvdtalk.com/ubb/smile.gif

I definitely preferred SPR over TTRL. SPR was a lot more powerful emotionally and really showed the chaos and horror of war. TTRL tried to sound deep with its quaint little observations and (oftentimes senseless) philosophizing, but, having nothing really to say, ended up sounding more like a Calvin Klein commercial. However, TTRL did have some gorgeous cinematography. I'm just sorry they wasted it with a meandering storyline bogged down with pseudo-philosophical blathering.

But that's just my opinion. http://forum.dvdtalk.com/ubb/smile.gif Just be warned, TTRL appears to a much smaller category of people than does SPR.

--Apparition

Gallant Pig:

I think The Zizz was referring to SPR's bookends set in the present day, not the battle scenes.

Mr. Cinema:

Are you actually suggesting that the Academy voters are able to discern good films from bad?

------------------
"If it were all in the script, why make the film?"--Nicholas Ray

Blip - OK makes sense now.

Apparition - are you saying that probably the most graphic violence to ever be shown in a movie appeals to more people or maybe it's just Tom Hanks?

Run Forest!!

just finished SPR today and...it's an amazing cinematic http://forum.dvdtalk.com/ubb/biggrin.gif take on D-day, a bit too much hollywood here and there.

in anycase, I appreciate all the candor and I'll probably get TRL anyways to make the comparision myself, just wanted the take from you guys http://forum.dvdtalk.com/ubb/smile.gif

Gallant Pig--I think it's the combination of the great acting (not only by Hanks but also by several members of the supporting cast), the compelling storyline, the excellent pacing, and the superb direction (including its epic scope) that led most people to prefer SPR over TTRL. I'm not sure the graphic violence had a whole lot to do with it. For example, once SPR is edited for TV, I'm sure it will still pull in great ratings.

--Apparition

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I'm not saying that all the Germans who supported the war were evil, but it does make you feel a little less pity for any of the german soldiers. I just don't buy the whole -- German were in a bad time and Hitler gave them a promise of a better life -- excuse. cause thats what it is... an excuse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spoken like a person who doesn't understand much of what happened in that time in history. What you had at that time was a Germany that was being heavily punished, and somewhat unfairly I might add, there was not only quite a bit of resentment on their part, but the punishing sanctions placed on them, esp. by the French, sealed it. That, added to their depressionary times bred chaos. You thought the Great Depression was bad? They had it quite a bit worse at that time in Germany. Desperation breeds many things. I do believe that the Nazi atrocities were pretty well hidden, and even for what was not...do you think the general populace was really in a position to care? Realistically?

Here's my two cents - The Thin Red Line, though beautiful, was perhaps one of the more boring movies I've seen. Not once did I buy that these soldiers were thinking those thoughts. It was like listening to a college freshman philosophy report. I kept expecting the movie to end, but it was relentless.

I must admit, the scene where they charge the hill was incredible.

did anyone feel real thirsty during the flick? I saw it in the theaters and drank a lot of water after seeing this.

oh yeah...the movie was very long and drawn out. But after the viewing, it made me think about how war changes people. It made me realize what oppum was going through 4 months earlier in private ryan

I have now seen both films I bought SPR, rented TTRL. I am happy with my choices. I enjoyed both, but I see myself wanting to watch SPR more often than TTRL. TTRL is a bit to artsy and introspective. When I want a war movie, I want a war movie. If I ever do buy it it will be because of the disc. In one word, it is stunning.
Was that Nick Nolte doing is impression of George C. Scott doing Patton? I guess that is the next three hour war flick to watch.

dfjkl,

Actually, I've been to Dachau, and it was right in the middle of a town. I find it hard to believe that the residents didn't have any idea what was going on. I'm sure the smell of burning human flesh should have made them wonder. Do I think they should care? Absolutely. I think this is why many German residents were forced to dig graves after the Allies took Germany.

I understand that Hitler gave the people a scapegoat... I just don't agree that they should have so openly accepted it.

But you are right though, I don't know much about their economic hardships and I might have thought differently if I was among them.



[This message has been edited by DodgingCars (edited 11-11-1999).]

If you want a german anti-war film, try Stalingrad (1994). Not all Germans in the army were pro-hitler and probably a lot of them had no idea of the Holocaust.

As for which film is better, I think it is a matter of taste. TRL is more about the soldiers and their relationship with each other, while SPR is more about "realism" (although the ending seemed a little over the top).

Everyone:

I completely disagree with your assessment of the returning Nazi soldier as a Hollywood stereotypically evil Nazi grunt. Rather, this serves as an example of the irony of war.

None of the soldiers in the movie were good or evil - they're all just men doing a job. If they'd shown this guy raping and killing women and children or working in a concentration camp after he'd been released, that'd be one thing. But he just became a soldier again. One of the American soldiers argued that this would happen when they released him.

Would it have helped if they'd show a 30-second clip of the released Nazi wandering back into town and getting forcibly reinstated?

I don't see the Nazi soldier as evil in any way. Okay, so he killed Tom Hanks. He was a soldier, fighting just like every other Nazi and American in the field. It's irony, folks... I-R-O-N-Y.

- David Stein

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.

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

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...

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.

SPR is your typical hollywood war flick. Full of cliche characters. People with A.D.D. prefer this film over Malick's TRL.

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.

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

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

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

Okay, I deserved that. http://forum.dvdtalk.com/ubb/wink.gif

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

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

Apparition,

My feeling was that the soldier felt that that sad excuse for a human being wasn't worth wasting a bullet on.

------------------
-David

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

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.

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.