The "ANTI" in the expression "Anti-War-Movie" and why SPR is not one.

Rating: 7/10 (11 September 1999)

First of all, I consider this movie a very good war movie.
But, after all, it IS a classic American war movie resembling other classic war movies like Bridge On The River Kwai etc. What disturbed me, is the general view of this movie being an Anti-War-movie. The origin of this categorization is without a doubt the acceptance of Steven Spielberg as a sophisticated director. If another director had created a movie with such realistic scenes as featured in SPR, the movie would probably be seen as violent and war-glorifying. Spielberg does SPR and it is automatically an Anti-War-movie, that `realistically displays the cruelty of war, showing us what never may happen again'. How can it be otherwise? It is a Spielberg movie. In my eyes ridiculous and unfair to the directors who are not as established as Spielberg.
In a movie against war the first thing that should be dropped is Patriotism in order to reflect on war objectively. SPR starts with an American flag waving in the wind. There is hardly more Patriotism possible. An objective movie does not require clichees like the evil Nazi soldier who cold-heartedly shoots American soldiers even after they spared his life. Despite of the indubitable fact that the Nazi regime was one of the most gruesome periods in world history, we also have make the assumption, that in battle all soldiers are the same: Humans fighting for a country.

By the way, the only movie I have seen that definitely could tell a war story without sticking to just one side was The Thin Red Line. The problem was that Terrence Malick is not Steven Spielberg.
So, again, in my eyes a really great movie. But let us see things as they are: Just because Spielberg made it doesnÂ´t make it a sophisticated Anti-War-movie.