A War Movie That Adds Nothing to the War Genre

Rating: 4/10 (16 April 1999)

One of the great things about seeing a film twice is that it allows you to go back and see the flaws that flew right on past you the first time you saw it. When I first viewed "Saving Private Ryan", I enjoyed the film, but at the time I didn't really think about why. I walked out of the screening not really thinking about the film at all. First bad sign! Later on, at home, I began to think about the impact that "Saving Private Ryan" had on me. I started to feel as though the film had no impact on me what so ever. Second bad sign! How could this be? How could a film acclaimed by so many as one of the best war films ever made, have no effect on me? So, in a couple of days, I went and watched it again and then everything became clear. "Saving Private Ryan" is Steven Spielberg through and through. When I first saw the film, I had thought that Spielberg had risen above the many poor works of his past, but I was dead wrong.
Steven Spielberg is a master at pulling the wool over the eyes over his momentous audience. He made many of us feel that we really needed another epic WWII film, such as what he has created. He has done the same thing with other films such as "Schindler's List" and "Amistad". While I admire "Schindler's List" for its historical merits and its importance of topic, I hardly regard it as the high form of cinematic art that so many have claimed it to be. My opinion of "Saving Private Ryan" does not change too much from this.
The film does nothing to add to the war genre. Much of it is a regeneration of older, and much better war films. Not only this, "Saving Private Ryan" blatantly contradicts itself. The film is obviously meant to be perceived as an anti-war film. I suspect that Spielberg would not have filmed the opening battle scene in the manner he did, if it wasn't. No doubt, most people will see this as an anti-war film, but is it really? I think not. If a film is to be truly ant-war, then there can be no redeeming qualities of war. This means that war can not be seen as heroic or patriotic. How many times was there a flash of the American flag over the entirety to the screen? I can not remember, but if it was five, then it was five too many. There is an overwhelming question in the film. Was it really worth it to go to the trouble of saving Private Ryan (Matt Damon)? Of course, in light of the fact that the majority of the Hollywood audience is intolerant of ambiguity, they answer this question. John Miller (Tom Hanks) is to be seen as an American hero for the mission that he and his squad accomplished. This does not sound like anti-war to me. In great war films like "Paths of Glory" and "Full Metal Jacket", there are no heroes that transpire from battle at the end. There are no redeeming qualities illustrated at all. In these films, war is depicted as ugly, inhumane, alienating, and just plain wrong.
The opening battle sequence which lasts for about 30 minutes is wonderful in its brutal realism and its leads us into thinking that we are about to experience a truly harrowing war picture. In fact, this is one of the best sequences that I have seen on film, and the movie is worth seeing just for the one scene. We, the audience really feel as if we are in the midst of this highly violent and bloody battle at Normandy. The sound quality and the visuals are immaculate. The camera seems to take on a role of its own. It seems to be ducking behind objects to avoid being hit by bullets, just as the rest of the soldiers are. The entire scene is shot with the hand held camera, with jerky, and often disorienting movements, adding to the chaos of the battle.
Unfortunately, the rest of "Saving Private Ryan" isn't as well made as this first scene. The battle scene near the end of the film feels like something out of an action movie. It has the same effect as an action sequence from one of the "Die Hard" movies in that it thrills us with its fast-paced shootouts and numerous explosions. I found myself not caring who was killed and who wasn't. It felt like cartoon violence. I enjoyed watching the sequence for this reason. It came no where close to having the same impact as the opening battle.
While I recommend seeing "Saving Private Ryan" for the technical merit of the opening battle, problems continuously present themselves throughout the rest of the film. It contradicts its anti-war presence. The ending is summed up to nicely. Leaving the end more ambiguous would have been effective at least in terms of provoking thought. My strongest objection to the film is its sinking to the level of an action picture at the climax. This is not something that I wanted in a film of this scale. "Saving Private Ryan" leaps to a great start, but ends up not having the endurance to make it to the finish line as a winner.
*** out of ****