Okay, let the laughter at my subject line die down and then I can give my speech. This is an all-round excellent film as war films go, but it has a few technical flaws which cause me discomfort watching it. It boils down to incorrect military doctrine as the main source of trouble, which is usually the case with war films. Following military doctrine as it would have been back in 1944, the story would not gel together into a cinematic jewel that it is.
I tend to blame directors and story-crafters for this flaw because they had on staff one of the best technical advisors in the business in the person of Dale Dye.
One flaw that I did not enjoy watching is the defense of a bridge about 30 paces long crossing a lazy stream of what appears to be a foot of sewage flow. The Americans have vowed to defend this bridge but are ready to blow it to stop the German armour from using it. Ryan stays to defend his bridge and be with the only real brothers he knows, his unit.
A good technical advisor would have pointed out that the bridge would have been blown if the Germans had a credible chance of taking it (as they did to many bridges during the Battle of the Bulge come Dec '44), since the combat engineers in all Western Front armies would easily have replaced it with a widely available Bailey bridge. Captain Miller, having ascertained that he was seriously outnumbered and lacking in sufficient ammo, weapons, and resources to repel the German counter-attack at the bridge, would simply have strolled across it with his men and blown it without the dramatic do-or-die struggle that takes place in this story element. The story-crafters at the studio would have been stumped if they had to follow obvious military doctrine of the time. The raison d'etre for the climactic scene at the bridge would have been absent so their only choice is to do what Hollywood always does - film the fictional story.
And it's what they do in this film made excessively long with impertinent scenes - saving babies from snipers, rushing headlong into a German machine-gun position for no credible reason, the cowardly corporal, the team displaying a breakdown in discipline among the ranks, etc, etc. The result is great cinema - but bad history.
It's very tricky writing historical fiction and takes three times longer than pure fiction for all the research that has to be done.
For blood-and-guts realism in all the battle scenes this film wins the awards. Following military doctrine, meh.
I tend to blame directors and story-crafters for this flaw because they had on staff one of the best technical advisors in the business in the person of Dale Dye.
One flaw that I did not enjoy watching is the defense of a bridge about 30 paces long crossing a lazy stream of what appears to be a foot of sewage flow. The Americans have vowed to defend this bridge but are ready to blow it to stop the German armour from using it. Ryan stays to defend his bridge and be with the only real brothers he knows, his unit.
A good technical advisor would have pointed out that the bridge would have been blown if the Germans had a credible chance of taking it (as they did to many bridges during the Battle of the Bulge come Dec '44), since the combat engineers in all Western Front armies would easily have replaced it with a widely available Bailey bridge. Captain Miller, having ascertained that he was seriously outnumbered and lacking in sufficient ammo, weapons, and resources to repel the German counter-attack at the bridge, would simply have strolled across it with his men and blown it without the dramatic do-or-die struggle that takes place in this story element. The story-crafters at the studio would have been stumped if they had to follow obvious military doctrine of the time. The raison d'etre for the climactic scene at the bridge would have been absent so their only choice is to do what Hollywood always does - film the fictional story.
And it's what they do in this film made excessively long with impertinent scenes - saving babies from snipers, rushing headlong into a German machine-gun position for no credible reason, the cowardly corporal, the team displaying a breakdown in discipline among the ranks, etc, etc. The result is great cinema - but bad history.
It's very tricky writing historical fiction and takes three times longer than pure fiction for all the research that has to be done.
For blood-and-guts realism in all the battle scenes this film wins the awards. Following military doctrine, meh.
Tell Your Friends