Analysis of Saving Private Ryan

Saving Private Ryan

Time Period: W.W.II
Location: Normandy Beach, parts of France
Released: 1998

Overview:

This movie has been characterized as one of the most important and accurate war recreations in movie history. Indeed, the battle re-creations were well done, but there were plenty of inaccuracies nonetheless.

What was Right

In general, my response is that it was remarkably accurate except for the helmet straps (see below). Steven Ambrose (the historical consultant for the film) did a very good job of helping Spielberg. Comparing historical video footage of the invasion to the movie is favorable. Moreover, I suspect that Ambrose helped to weave in bits and pieces of historical testimonials into the filming process.
I find it interesting that everyone who assesses the movie focuses on how accurate the Normandy invasion was represented. But there's another place where the movie was accurate that has been virtually ignored. The name of the movie is Saving Private Ryan and it is based on the premise that a mother had lost three sons as result of the war and the forth (and final) son should be removed from battle. This was based on a real public relations sticky wicket. The story is that of the five Sullivan brothers who enlisted in the Navy after a friend of theirs was killed at Pearl Harbor. They were all assigned to the same ship, which was attacked at Guadalcanal (Nov, 1942). One brother survived the explosions on ship, but he was attacked by a shark a few days later and also died. The family was said to have made the single biggest sacrifice of any family during the war. Two ships were subsequently dedicated to their memory, the most recent ship was dedicated to the Sullivan boys in 1992. So, in case you're wondering about the movie's premise. There's a good historical foundation.

What Was Wrong

About the middle of the movie, the Captain is speaking to another Captain who says something about General Montgomery being "overrated." In fact, the famed British General Bernard Montgomery was widely respected and considered quite an asset during the war. The line was unnecessary, and the attitude from which the line was written and delivered was anachronistic.

Moreover, the consistent referrals to the Ryan rescue as being a snafu, while not officially anachronistic, was pushing it too far. The acronym snafu etymologically dates to about 1941, so the use is not improper in this movie. However, the way in which it was employed was heavy-handed. The soldiers were malcontents, almost whiney about the mission in one scene. Most accounts of war veterans portray a different tone among the men. Keep in mind that the world was very hierarchical at this time in history. Conformity and obedience were expected and encouraged in all societies during this time period. Sarcastic, snide remarks were not the norm then, as compared to modern colloquial speech. Additionally, this type of negativity was not particularly tolerated in all aspects of society but especially in the military. Men were expected to be obedient and not be complainers. The extreme of this obedience an obsequiousness can be found at the same time in history among the German soldiers, who were so blindly obedient to authority that so called "Ordinary Men" were used as tools of genocide. Following the war, the phenomenon of conformity and obedience to authority so perplexed psychologists that it was studied in depth. The Milgram Psychological experiments proved that even Americans were willing to harm others if they were doing so in response to a directive from an authority figure; as a part of being obedient. Thus, conformity, obedience, and respect were the norm in the military. But the group in Saving Private Ryan is shown as being non-conformists, disrespectful, and only begrudgingly obedient. Clearly this made for a good story, but it isn't historically accurate. I would have stripped lines that which weren't essential to the plot or character development. The complaint against General Montgomery is one that I would have lobbied for deletion, and with regard to the scene used to introduce the term snafu I would have recommended that it be toned down.

The thing that annoyed me more than anything is the fact that virtually no one has fastened the strap on his helmet. This is a common problem in war movies. Any infantry soldier will tell you that when ammunition is flying, you're supposed to drop to the ground. Unless that strap is fastened, the helmet goes flying off and is of no use. Nowadays, soldiers who go through basic training get this shouted in their ear by the drill sergeant: "This isn't Hollywood, Soldier, button that helmet." Frankly, it suprises me that directors and costume designers are so stubborn about this point. Personally, I don't think that the actors look any more masculine or 'cool' with the helmet strap swinging in the breeze or removed. Truth is that no movie can be considered completely historically accurate unless the helmet strap is fastened.
When "Momma Ryan" is shown in her Iowa farmhouse, she's seen talking on a phone with a coiled cord. Coiled cords were not available in 1944, they came out sometime in the 50's.
People had more pronounced regional and class-bound accents during WWII. It was only after the war, with the popularity and reach of national television programs, did American regional and class-based accents become less and less pronounced. The standardized American accent that was eventually adopted as the TV-norm was a mostly mid-western, middle-class sound. In this movie, however, neither the major nor minor characters had accents. In fact, the only characters that had any sort of accent were the sniper character (played by Barry Pepper) and the Jewish character (played by Adam Goldberg). I would have liked to have seen some more inflection and regional spice added to the acting. Accents would have helped locate this movie in its proper historical time period.
Vin Diesal has some non-anglo ancestry. I've never seen photographs of his ancestors, so I don't know if he's truly bi-racial. However, anyone who had skin as naturally tanned and dark as his would likely have been considered a black man and he would have been assigned to kitchen duty with the other African Americans. It's a sad part of history, but it's true.