Heh. I was studying Russian at the time the movie came out and found Connery’s Scots-accented Russian in the pre-title sequence quite amusing.
Stranger
Yep, that’s right. Flew B25’s if memory serves me correctly. Writes very well too. I’m hoping I’m as lucid and as articulate when I’m David’s age. I rather liked the “it’s just a Western in different clothes” analogy. All these years I’ve been kinda hoodwinked by SPR due to it’s excellent emotional manipulation - but I can really see the merit in David’s analogu regarding circling the wagons. In terms of story-telling, he’s got a major point.
Still, all that being said, it cracks me up seeing people arguing about opinions on the internet like this. arguing about opinions is just SOOOOOOOOO open-ended by it’s very nature.
Well, he was Lithuanian.
No true Lithuanian would hijack a nuclear sub, by the way.
B-26’s. Watch your language, suh. 
Hence, the Scots accent. He was a Dalesman pretending to be a Lithuanian.
Stranger
Another factor that nobody seems to mention is that Shakespeare in Love was a Miramax movie. Harvey does huge campains to get his films nominated and then even bigger ones to get the votes. He really pushed for the win.
I don’t think Dreamworks did quite the same job on that issue. Now if Mr. S had not won for Schindler’s List previously, he may have won for this.
But I was also not that emotionally moved by SPR. It is a great movie but it didn’t connect with me on that deep level.
Now if you want a real Oscar race, Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction.
This is the most intellegent, relevant reply to the OP in the whole damn thread and everyone has ignored it. Bless you ArchiveGuy for pointing this out. Too bad I had to slog through all the Blablablathis and blablablathat to find it.
Can’t you just praise a good post without telling me I didn’t read it?
I tend to view things somewhat differently. Recreating WW2 in a way most veterans don’t feel insulted by seems like an impossible task and only a really, really good team of artists can get away with it. Spielberg and his crew did it regardless of any standard plot developments that were tacked on. People say those 20 minutes were really good, but that’s about it. Well, the whole movie is worth it for those 20 minutes and it’s those very same 20 minutes that film makers will echo years from now and which are going to be played in class rooms countless times.
Quite frankly, Shakespeare in Love is a very well made film with a screenplay most writers would kill for in the most cliched way they can find, but the real reason it won the Oscar is the same as most wins in Hollywood: a huge marketing campaign and the thrill of the fight between Miramax the indie god and Dreamworks the rookie studio. It’s sad (or not) but also the truth that Elizabeth, Saving Private Ryan, and The Thin Red Line will all have their place in cinema not only for their quality and moviegoers’ love for them, but for their historical value. Shakespeare in Love might as well, but it’s also the most tempting grab for a remake.
No. He was quoting Francois Truffaut (the french dude who, apparently, also has a limited worldview) who said it is impossible to make an anti-war film because the action itself would make it look exciting. Spielberg didn’t want most of his audience to comfortably distance themselves from the movie and eat popcorn with the excuse of it being an action film. That’s where Janusz Kaminski and Michael Kahn come in and they, in partnership with Spielberg, are the reason why you and everyone else on this thread understand exactly what I mean whenever I say “those 20 minutes”.
On the subject of SPR, I didn’t think it sucked, but it certainly didn’t stand head and shoulders above any other war movie either.
The initial beach scene is very nicely executed, but the only other scene in the film that approaches that level of skill is when the tank appears in the deserted village and starts crunching up everything in its path. I think it’s safe to say those moments were brilliant, and really show what Spielberg could accomplish, with the right help.
Of course, if you’re not a fan of cameras in (a lot of) motion you would probably react poorly to this film. But let’s be serious, SPR is not “The Blair Witch Project”, technically speaking it is overall a solid effort that gets a bit lost owing to the script.
SIL was a good film. The script was superior, most of the acting was outstanding, and the film very smartly capitalized on the brand and mystery of Shakespeare. My personal gripe concerns Gwineth Paltros: they could have tried harder to find a leading lady who is actually capable of committing, instead of a graduate of the “stare mournfully into the camera lens” school of acting…
In that respect Hanks wins over Paltrow, I think, the difference is that the entire rest of the cast of SIL did a fantastic job. There weren’t really similar opportunities in SPR.
Ultimately I am not a fan of war movies (particularly WWII) or of pseudohistorico-romantic comedies, so I am hardly vested in demonstrating that one is superior to the other - but for me the clear winner in terms of originality, intelligence, and enjoyment in general is SIL. SPR, however, wins hands down from the technical point of view (cameras, lighting, special effects, etc.).
No. Thank God.
That ill-advised piece of shit memorial has completely fucked up the clean lines of the western half of the National Mall, in my opinion. And it’s not like WWII veterans were shorts of memorials in America—or around the world, for that matter. If it was really necessary to have a WWII memorial on the Mall, they could at least have gone for something a little less pompously hideous, a little more understated and tasteful.
Heh heh. That was my take, too. It would have been interesting if he had been a snivelling little turd who jumped at the chance to get out of the war zone, rather than the I’m-not-leaving-my-buddies hero that e were given in the film.
I don’t follow Spielberg very closely, so it’s possible that this isn’t the dumbest thing he’s ever said. But it must be close.
I don’t understand, and I’m not trying to be snotty, but how can you praise Verhoeven’s movie with his cynical manipulation of the audience to get us to cheer for the evil fascist while at the same time you decry Spielberg for his manipulations? Is it because you interpret one as pro-war and the other as anti-war, and if so, what difference does it make whether a movie is pro or anti war?
Marc
PS: I’m not attempting to bash you or anyone else who like Verhoeven. I don’t like meatloaf (the food not the singer) but I see no need to cringe when people tell me they enjoy it, so it is with Verhoeven.
That’s one…against how many?
When is anyone enobled? What line of dialogue indicates this?
Again, please cite an instant in the movie where someone graduates to “manhood” via war. Upham finally kills someone after the battle is over, but I think this is transparently seen as a moment of cowardice, not valor.
When does anyone ever mention heroism? Even Old Age Ryan is not treated or called a Hero. Merely a Survivor. Maybe you see a graveyard full of crosses and think “What a bunch of heroes”, but everything about the way those sequences are shot suggest overwhelming loss.
Essentially, I think the only way anyone can see this is Pro-War is if they’re already looking and cherry-picking evidence to support a preformulated opinion. Maybe it’s Spielberg’s reputation as a “sentimentalist” or Hanks’ reputation as “All-American everyman”.
RikWriter said
and I haven’t seen the anti-SPR crowd genuinely address this in the thread. Wars (especially WWII) may need fighting, and sacrifices are worth memorializing, but the fact that so many of the characters we know in the film die, and the fact that all of those deaths are so horrible suggests that any glib dismissal of the anti-war argument is rooted in something they presume to see more than what the movie actually presents.
I think SPR (including those first 20 mintues) is monumentally overrated by some, but I think it’s also increasingly underrated (especially the final battle to defend the bridge, which is even more extraordinarily rendered IMHO) by others. But I think assigning the film a “War is Cool” philosophy is absurdly reductive and prejudicial.
I’m blushing. 
Kinda calling me a liar here, Guy. Unless you haven’t read the whole thread.
So . . . there’s never been a death in a pro-war movie?
I agree. Which is why that’s not what I’ve said, and why I’ve laid out in some detail the thought process that led me to my view of this movie.
Pretty insultingly dismissive post, Guy. If people don’t agree with your take on this movie it’s because they’re liars, prejudicial, and simplistic cherrypickers.
See, I try–probly sometimes I fail–but I try, when I’m discussing a movie, to discuss the movie. In this post, you’re mostly addressing your theories about why people who view this movie differently are wrong, and how they reached their mistaken conclusions. How far down my throat would you jump if I had posted something about the psychological pathology of people who disagree with me about SPR?
Maybe address your view of the movie, which is subjective and personal, and let that stand on its own. This subtle ad hominem criticism is not what I’ve come expect of you.
I didn’t see anything quite so profound. I saw a movie telling a story of a small group going to pull out of combat one soldier with the reason for that mission being based on the misconception that sole surviving sons were pulled out of combat. I also saw a story based on Omaha Beach with a group there being sent appently by land to Utah Beach so they could make contact with the 101st Airborne Division and get that soldier. Of course contact was actually made with the 101st Division at about noon of D-Day by members of the 4th Infantry Division, so there really wasn’t any need to send anyone at all. It seems that Omaha Beach figured in the story only so that the first 20 minutes could be included.
Of course their mission was to get Private Ryan, not to defend bridges. That seems to been thrown in so that the cavalry could come zooming in in their P-51’s to save the day. Except for John Wayne’s character of course.
This is rich from someone who earlier in the post said
:rolleyes:
:dubious: You think the US Navy is going to pay to sponsor a movie about paratroopers?
“I think” means it’s an opinion. You state your “case” in good faith no doubt, but supply, IMHO, minimal and unconvincing evidence for your interpretation, unless you count Spielberg quotes, external assumptions, and irrelevant associations.
I’ll be honest. I haven’t seen any such process, unless you mean “The Big Heroic Triumphant Ending undermines everything that comes before it.” Which is, you know, not an ending that remotely resembles the one I saw (as maudlin and unnecessary as it was). YMOV
I think we can visit any number of Verhoeven threads to know that “try” is circumstantial at best. And if you’re discussing the movie, why make a big deal about the advertiser? Why parse Spielberg’s quote? Those are both outside of the film.
Why do you make assumptions that I would do such a thing? And whence the melodrama of “psychological pathology” when I merely suggested people can certainly have agendas or motives that color their attitude about a particular film, genre, or filmmaker. Your distaste of Spielberg’s work is no secret. As someone who’s willing to call Schindler’s List “a crime against humanity” and has already prejudged Spielberg’s motives for his latest film, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to suspect you may not be completely unbiased when approaching his work.