Topic: Saving Private Ryan

easyaction · February 4th, 2005

Saving Private Ryan is certainly a film to start discussions - even arguments!
Why is that? It should be regarded as a well made drama, ( which it is), but it fails to satisfy many - why is that?
Is it trying to be history? It certainly gives that impression, whatever Spielberg claims to the contrary. As has already been stated in this forum some of the US forces on D-Day were landed by RN personnel - some are still alive today. Spielberg, I believe, has claimed there were no Brits on Omaha. To my understanding some British personnel were landed on the beach.
I have read criticisms about factual irregularities in the film.
But, does it matter if this is simply Hollywood entertainment?
Well I don't think this film is intended simply as fictional drama.
It does lay claim to a factual foundation.
So - if Tom Hanks shouldn't be sheltering under fire on Omaha beach and wondering how the Brits are getting on, why does he discuss overall tactics with another US officer later in the film.
In the middle of his own small war he discusses the failed tactics of Montgomery.
I suspect this one short unnecessary part of the film is what gets some Brits going!
Whether Tom Hanks character liked it or not Monty wasn't just a foreign officer down the road.
By Allied agreement he was Overall Land Commander. In real terms he was in control of all land sea and air forces going into Normandy.
This only changed when Bradley assumed command of his own army and it ended when Eisenhower arrived to take command as Supreme Commander.
For all his faults, (and he had them), Monty was mostly right about Normandy. Any daring advance early on risked swift punishment from the enemy.
Penetration inland was important - capturing vital places was important.
But securing five beaches, joining them together, defending this 50 mile stretch of territory was more important.
Once this was done - and with movement inland - and with more resources being landed by sea than the Germans could supply for their army by road - then Overlord was almost certain to succeed. And with the passage of time success in Normandy was guaranteed - it was just a matter of time.
So let Private Ryan be what Spielberg claimed it was.
Personally I would rather he made a film about ordinary G.I.'s - the regular infantrymen. Being by turns bored, wet, hungry, scared and wanting to go home!

February 4th, 2005
easyaction Tirones	Saving Private Ryan is certainly a film to start discussions - even arguments! Why is that? It should be regarded as a well made drama, ( which it is), but it fails to satisfy many - why is that? Is it trying to be history? It certainly gives that impression, whatever Spielberg claims to the contrary. As has already been stated in this forum some of the US forces on D-Day were landed by RN personnel - some are still alive today. Spielberg, I believe, has claimed there were no Brits on Omaha. To my understanding some British personnel were landed on the beach. I have read criticisms about factual irregularities in the film. But, does it matter if this is simply Hollywood entertainment? Well I don't think this film is intended simply as fictional drama. It does lay claim to a factual foundation. So - if Tom Hanks shouldn't be sheltering under fire on Omaha beach and wondering how the Brits are getting on, why does he discuss overall tactics with another US officer later in the film. In the middle of his own small war he discusses the failed tactics of Montgomery. I suspect this one short unnecessary part of the film is what gets some Brits going! Whether Tom Hanks character liked it or not Monty wasn't just a foreign officer down the road. By Allied agreement he was Overall Land Commander. In real terms he was in control of all land sea and air forces going into Normandy. This only changed when Bradley assumed command of his own army and it ended when Eisenhower arrived to take command as Supreme Commander. For all his faults, (and he had them), Monty was mostly right about Normandy. Any daring advance early on risked swift punishment from the enemy. Penetration inland was important - capturing vital places was important. But securing five beaches, joining them together, defending this 50 mile stretch of territory was more important. Once this was done - and with movement inland - and with more resources being landed by sea than the Germans could supply for their army by road - then Overlord was almost certain to succeed. And with the passage of time success in Normandy was guaranteed - it was just a matter of time. So let Private Ryan be what Spielberg claimed it was. Personally I would rather he made a film about ordinary G.I.'s - the regular infantrymen. Being by turns bored, wet, hungry, scared and wanting to go home!