Saving Private Ryan
posted on 24 April 2008
What is Spielberg's obsession with finding life and hope amidst death and despair? In both "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan", he wants to tell us that even though the Second World War was a brutally terrible thing, nice things happened in it as well. Um, ok then Steven.
This compulsion to locate good within evil has plagued Hollywood, and particularly, Spielberg's "serious" films, and is one of the clangy notes of American culture in general. Examine President Bush's ongoing reaction to September 11. The "Axis of Evil" the "Heroes" of Ground Zero. What is this desperation to sort the good guys from the bad guys and find redemption in catastrophe? Why not just accept it as catastrophe? Catastrophe comes from the greek katastrophe which meant ruin, undo. There is no footnote to catastrophe that says somehwere amidst the ruin an uplifting story of hope and the human heart can be found.
In "Saving Private Ryan" Spielberg, famously, shows us plenty of blood and guts. I like this aspect of the film - too many war movies, all, really, avoid the blunt and random effects of bullets, grenades and bombs - but, like "Schindler's List", Spielberg's outrageous caveat is that no major character is killed until they have fulfilled their role in the narrative, if at all.
Why strive for such realism within such a contrived, artificial storytelling format? Tom Hanks avoids all the bullets (nearly) but is close enough to them to react and emote when soldiers right next to him have their faces blown away. Bombs fall at random, and enemy tanks roar in unexpectedly, but, when it's time for quiet contemplation amongst the central characters, or monologues from Hanks, Spielberg's Second World War pauses, and all is still while the John Williams score surges orchestrally.
"Saving Private Ryan" is, basically, "Stand By Me" in a war-zone. It's an all-male buddy/rite-of-passage film that just happens to be set in World War Two. There are enough extras and a large support ensemble to allow for confronting images of mass death in wartime, but, as I said, all the main characters have a unique protetive shield that allows them to get through until the writer and director are done with them. The second act gets underway with the formation of the central group, who set out on a crucial mission (See: "The Lord Of The Rings", "Star Wars").
In my opinion, Spielberg is a master film maker who wants to prove that thrilling cinema is very important. It is, I totally agree, but stapling your successful style onto heavy, oppressive themes and stories doesn't result in a shifting of your status from Multiplex King to Dalai Lama. Movies about sharks and aliens can be amazing and touching, and, in their own context, profound. If you're going to try something different, though, you've got to do it differently, not just transfer settings.
Isn't populism inherently simplistic? Spielberg has won his success through appealing to, and entertaining the masses. While his work is visually rich and narratively brilliant, it doesn't contain any great intellectual complexity. Even his technique, though wonderful, is traditional - superbly shot "roller coaster" storytelling. In other words, he's neither David Lynch nor Billy Wilder.
It's a shame then, that he's won his Oscars, and his greatest acclaim, for his "serious" films, when, really, what he should be remembered for is his genuine movie masterpieces like "Jaws" and "ET" - unique films that celebrated the joy of movies, not stock war films that try and teach everyone trite lessons.