Saving Private Ryan

Band of Brothers is a true story. I had the honor of chatting with 2 guys from E Company, 506 INF REG. They told me that there were extensive interviews with all of the survivors before there was any filming. They said Hanks and Spielberg wanted to get things as accurate as possible. It was good to hear the stories of WW2 from the actual people who fought it.
 
Theres a passing mention in one of the Stephen Ambrose books to the central idea - a soldier being pulled from combat because two of his brothers had been killed on the same day. The name wasnt Ryan though, and theres no mention of any dramatic searches.

There's also mention in "citizen soldiers" by the same author of a lieutenant who might be the prototype of the Tom Hanks character - exceptional performance getting men off the beach at Omaha.
 
SPR is accurate in terms of it being the most technologically advanced WW2 film made. The battle at the end when you can hear the Tigers rumbling in the distance is scary. Having visited the Normandy beaches and the American and British cemetries the appreciation of the film is greatly enhanced.

However those in Britain who take an interest in the historical accuracy of the film and its veterans were irate (and that is putting it politely) that the only mention of the British on D-Day (40% land forces, 35% airborne troops, 50% aircraft and 75% of naval forces + the three main operational commanders 1. Land = Monty 2. Air = Lee-Mallory 3. Naval = Ramsay) get one mention in the whole film 'I think that Montgomery is overated'

Such 'inaccuracy' does a great diservice to the effort of all concerned. Why? The Yanks thing it was just them liberating Europe not GB and Canada to. The Canadians and the Brits then react by talking down the sacrifice of thousands of young Americans at Omaha and across Normandy.

Conclusion, = realistic is not the same as accurate. Battle scenes helped by disgital sound, computors etc, historically accurate in the narrow sense, not in the broader perspective

Finally - I think that games such as Medal of Honour on PS2 and so on although fantastic in their realism and gameplay profit from those horrendous days. Children and the youth of today do not see it as 'learning' about the horrors of war but shoot em up entertainment.

Spielberg should hang his head in shame
 
I really don't believe it was an intended slight towards the British or the Canadians. The movie was about a U.S. Army Ranger detachment (fictional) searching for a 101st private (fictional).
The primary battle scenes were on Omaha beach (American Sector).
The comment concerning Monty unfortunately was a pretty common assement of him by American troops.

I doubt that had the film been made in the UK concerning a group of Commandos searching for a Para the makers of the film would have delved the total invasion. It would have been a little part of the UK forces total operation just as SPR was a small part of big war theme.

Spielberg and Hanks did not set out to make a sweeping docu-drama of the entire operation.
 
Rufus Excalibur said:
However those in Britain who take an interest in the historical accuracy of the film and its veterans were irate (and that is putting it politely) that the only mention of the British on D-Day (40% land forces, 35% airborne troops, 50% aircraft and 75% of naval forces + the three main operational commanders 1. Land = Monty 2. Air = Lee-Mallory 3. Naval = Ramsay) get one mention in the whole film 'I think that Montgomery is overated'

Such 'inaccuracy' does a great diservice to the effort of all concerned. Why? The Yanks thing it was just them liberating Europe not GB and Canada to. The Canadians and the Brits then react by talking down the sacrifice of thousands of young Americans at Omaha and across Normandy.
Click to expand...


I believe this self-pity is a waste of time (not you specifically, Rufus, but those who get "irate" as you put it about things like this move). As 03USMC said, the movie had nothing to do with the British or Canadians because it took place in units and sectors where the other Allies were not operating. It takes nothing away from the technical accuracy of the movie, and does a "disservice" to none of the men who were involved.

As for that accuracy, the only specific thing I have heard that was technically inaccurate in the movie was that instead of plastic bags to protect the rifles from the elements, condoms were used.
 
You will note that I compliment SPR on aspects of its accuracy and so on, my great fear is that the youth of today who take Hollywood films as exact historical retellings believe D-Day was an all American Show.

I note the comment on Monty, why though did Spielberg need to throw it in?

It is an awesome film (bit slow in the middle) just feel Hollywood is rewriting History as never before
 
Firstly, If kids get their knowledge solely from movies, we have bigger problems than SPR...
Secondly, the Monty comment is historically accurate. The Americans did think he was overrated, so their is nothing wrong about it being in the movie. Also, there were and will be movies about the British side of things. Ofcourse, most movies will be on the US Army because the movies are made in the USA...
 
Kids (perhaps age 13) should see the first 30 minutes of SPR. It is a lot more telling than what is written in their history book or what a documentary shows. Perhaps they'll gain a better understanding of what these men went through at Dog Green for example...and maybe even develope a greater degree of respect for these men as well. According to vets that were there, its the most accurate film ever made (regarding the beach scenes).
Patrick
 
A great film. Very authentic from what I have read.

It is a pity national pride gets in the way of judging the film on its merits.

Omaha was the biggest bloodbath on D-Day so it does tell the story of the pity of being a soldier at its worst.

Don't want to sound cynical, but a film about a British unit on Sword beach starring Jeremy Irons is not going to make the same sort of money in the US cinemas. The US public usually want US heroes, particularly at the moment.
 
Whilst i dont disagree that the battle scenes in "Saving Private Ryan" seem to be the most realistic in any movie i have seen i think people can pick up the wrong impression of the overall events of the day from this movie alone. Actually this is something i have noticed with the war movies of the last few years. "Saving Private Ryan" presents the bloody battle faced by the US forces storming Omaha beach. However from what i have read the opposition met by the forces on other beaches was significantly less than that experienced at Omaha. Also as has already been pointed out there is no mention of the british and canadian forces taking part on the day in "Saving Private Ryan". Whilst this movie and others of recent years give very harrowing and realistic impressions of combat experience i think they do so at the expense of giving an overview of historical events. For example, the battle sequences in "Saving Private Ryan" are more accurate than "The Longest Day" but "The longest day" gives a better overview of all the events and characters of the day. Similarly whilst the aerial combat scenes in "Pearl Harbour" are a very realistic depiction of generic world war 2 aerial combat and bombing i think no-one would disagree that "Tora Tora Tora!" gives a more historically accurate overview of events in this case.
Don't get me wrong i am not denouncing these modern movies totally but there are some people who will see just these movies and won't read a few books or watch other movies/documentaries to get a fuller picture of what happened.
 
the film doesnt piss me off as much....more the fact that american kids are growing up thinking that they alone fought in WWII
 
Saving Private Ryan's selling points were

1) The Omaha beach landing. My opinion is that it's got to be one of the most realistic battle sequences on film. But historically, not all that accurate.

2) It's a good story about a guy who's only justification of ordering men to their deaths is gone by the nature of the new assignment. He felt that whenever a man under his command died, he died so ten or twenty could live. But when it comes down to having men killed to save one man it changes. But ironically in doing this one right thing for a woman he's never met (Private Ryan's mother) he finds peace within himself about his life and his death.

On another note, such an incident did happen, but in far less dramatic fashion to a soldier of the 506th PIR 101st AB Division. But he agreed to go home and I dont' think there was much incident. It is in Steven Ambrose's book "Citizen Soldiers."


Imrael said:
Theres a passing mention in one of the Stephen Ambrose books to the central idea - a soldier being pulled from combat because two of his brothers had been killed on the same day. The name wasnt Ryan though, and theres no mention of any dramatic searches.

There's also mention in "citizen soldiers" by the same author of a lieutenant who might be the prototype of the Tom Hanks character - exceptional performance getting men off the beach at Omaha.
Click to expand...

I guess we know that a lot of the inspiration for Saving Private Ryan came from Citizen Soldiers.
 
03USMC said:
The comment concerning Monty unfortunately was a pretty common assement of him by American troops.

.
Click to expand...
Not at D-day it wasn't.
Most of the damage to Montys reputation came after Normandy.
Before he put his foot in it with the US forces with his comments at the Battle of the Bulge and his post-war credit grabbing, he actually had a high standing with all the Allied forces not just the Commonwealth ones.
Remember at this time he hadn't suffered a single setback as a commmander. There was no reason for them to dislike him.

The comment has all the hallmarks of the rabid anti-Monty 'historian' Stephen Ambrose behind it.
 
I believe that the damage to Monty's reputation came after Operation Market-Garden in October 1944. Monty proved that he could screw up an operation by being too bold as well as by being too cautious. Let's face it, Market-Garden all-in-all was a rather slapdash affair. out of the 10,000 Brits of the 1st Airborne Division that landed at Arnhem, less than 2,000 escaped alive. It deprived the Allies of precious fuel, airplanes, and men. Had the High Command taken the time to be more thorough, a major breakthrough could have been achieved in the South with Patton's 3rd Army. Also, the 101st Airborne troopers seemed to me to have been portrayed as green kids, inferior in training to the Rangers. While the Rangers were pretty tough guys, so was the 101st. They proved their valor 3 times, in Normandy, in Holland, and in the Ardennes forest. Just my thoughts.
 
On Market Garden:
Failure to take intel seriously was the key.
The reason why the Dutch underground's reports were disregarded was because the Dutch underground was penetrated by Nazi spies before. But disregarding the aerial photography was also poor.
The other was reliance on good weather for too long. Anyone who knows Holland will know that weather rarely stays good for any decent period of time.
 
beardo said:
the film doesnt piss me off as much....more the fact that american kids are growing up thinking that they alone fought in WWII
Click to expand...

I for one didn't grow up that way. But thats just me. What would have been the solution to this?

While they are pinned down on Omaha Hanks turning to Sizemore and saying.

"Gee Sarge wonder how the Brit's and Canucks are faring on Juneau , Gold and Sword Beaches?"

"Gee Captain I don't know."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top