SPR: Historical & Tactical Analysis (fm PE Forum)

[John Kettler]

Here is a solid piece of historical analysis and tactical criticism of "Saving Private Ryan." I was so impressed with it that I'm posting it here verbatim for those who don't frequent the Panzer Elite General Discussion Forum.

Thought ful reading!

John Kettler

Begin post.

Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong With Saving Private Ryan?

John Wayne

04/10/00 at 12:42 am

A few thoughts on Saving Private Ryan. I suggest all of you interested read my

following analysis of the movie.

I actually did this research as part of my project (doctoral) to come in a few years:

The western perception of Germans as seen after the two world wars and its impact

in our society.

Onto the movie.

The release of Steven Spielberg's epic war film Saving Private Ryan has been

accompanied by a near avalanche of critical acclaim and praise for its message,

theme and realistic, unforgiving portrayal of combat in the Second World War.

From HBO and History Channel specials, to Nightline to Newsweek magazine, the

film has been lauded for showing World War Two as it really was. Mr. Spielberg

himself has solemnly proclaimed his film's realism and his goal to finally make a

film to do justice to the war and the men who fought so courageously in it. The

director claims that for the film he "wanted to achieve reality" and "assumed the role

of combat cameraman, not the role of artist." Star Tom Hanks has echoed

Spielberg, claming "why make a fat fake movie when you can find out what really

happened and do it that way."1 Based on the nearly universal acclaim for the film,

it would seem Mr. Spielberg has succeeded in his mission to a large degree.

No one can doubt that the combat scenes in Saving Private Ryan are the most

spectacular, grisly and disturbing ever filmed and that the intensity of the movie

grips the viewer from beginning to end. The details of the film are also stunning,

especially so in the meticulously recreated uniforms and weapons. This is

especially true in regard to the German Tiger tanks that appear in the end of the film, amazingly rebuilt with minute and painstaking accuracy. Yet, as

realistic as the combat scenes, uniforms and weapons in the film are, Saving Private Ryan is by no means an accurate portrayal of the Normandy

invasion and the fighting that went on there. Indeed, the film does what most movies do when confronted with historical details: it changes and omits

them to suit plot and storyline.

This fact is not so much evident in the beginning of the film, which depicts the American landings on Omaha Beach, which was recreated with the help of

the testimony of many veterans and the distinguished historian Stephen Ambrose. However, as the cast of the film proceeds inland on its search for

Private Ryan, reality begins to take a back seat to artistic license. This is especially true at the climatic battle scene at the end of the film, ostensibly fought

between the American 101st Airborne Division , the principle characters of the film and a German battlegroup of the 2nd SS Panzer Division. The battle

is indeed a fine piece of filmmaking, exciting and horrifying at the same time. It was also a battle concocted straight out of someone's imagination

&endash; the 2nd SS Panzer division was nowhere near the front on June 13, 1944. Even if it was, the thought that it could march an armored column in

broad daylight into a major attack in the face of American air and naval dominance is pure folly. Further, even if the 2nd SS had somehow been able to

mount its attack, it is highly unlikely that it would have attacked in the almost ridiculously inept way the Germans in the film marched to face Private

Ryan, Tom Hanks and comrades. Why would the Germans march into a town without first sending reconnaissance probes? Why did Tiger tanks (of

which the 2nd SS Panzer division had none2) lead an assault into a burnt out town where they would be singularly ineffective? Why would a vulnerable,

open topped vehicle such as the German Marder III, designed to engage tanks at long range, be slowly driven through the town to engage enemy infantry

except to provide a convenient target for crafty, Molotov cocktail armed American paratroopers?

For all the realism in Saving Private Ryan, it is by no means an accurate depiction of the Battle of Normandy. It has, according to those who fought there

(obviously, the best authorities on the subject), recreated combat scenes in effective detail, but the film is not a historical work and while the film is

powerful, it is not history. As it stands, those who watch the film, believing they are seeing a true story, are in fact seeing something that is largely the

figment of the imaginations of those who wrote and produced the film. While the film's message will remain powerful and the emotions it arouses

strong, when one analyzes the film as a piece of history, it falls short and this can only serve to undermine its overall purpose.

Where was the 2nd SS Panzer Division?

It was odd that the American soldiers in the film mentioned the 2nd SS Panzer division by name, considering the fact that it was nowhere near the front

on June 13th, 1944. Better known as the "Das Reich" division, the 2nd SS was training in southern France when the Allies invaded on June 6th.

Ordered to move north to the front, the Das Reich division faced an arduous journey in the face of Allied air power, which attacked its road columns

constantly as well as the French Resistance, which also sought to disrupt its movement to Normandy.3 On its way northward the division achieved

infamy for massacring French civilians in reprisal actions and it was not until June 20 that any of Das Reich's tanks reached the Normandy battlefield.4

When the division did reach the front, it was initially placed in reserve and when it entered action it did so against the British, not the Americans.5 The

first week in July was the first time that any elements of Das Reich came into contact with the American army.6 Why the 2nd SS was mentioned in the

film and not one of the actual formations facing the Americans is difficult to explain; it may be that a number was selected at random.

What really happened?

So far as the actual Normandy battle is concerned, the climactic scene in the film is apparently based on the 101st Airborne's defense of the town of

Carentan on June 13, 1944. The previous day the town had been taken from the Germans and the German commander, Field Marshal Rommel, ordered

the town recaptured, given that possession of the town allowed the two American beachheads, Utah and Omaha, to unify and move on the important port

of Cherbourg. The principal unit selected for the attack was the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division (usually known by its name "Goetz von

Berlichingen") which had just arrived at the front, harassed continually by air attacks. The battle depicted in the film and the actual battle that took place

were quite different, however. The film conveys the notion that a few desperate, yet scrappy Americans managed to hold out against a far superior force

deep behind enemy lines. The actual battle saw the town of Carentan defended by two regiments of the 101st airborne, supported by tanks, planes and

naval gunfire from three battleships. 7 The Americans were also reading the Germans' secret code and knew about the planned attack a day before it

happened.8 Thus, the attack was no surprise and hardly the close run affair shown in the movie and it is clear that the facts were altered somewhat in the

interest of making an exciting film.

Is this bad?

Although Saving Private Ryan did not exactly adhere to actual history of the Battle of Normandy, the errors and omissions detailed thus far, have, in

actuality, done little to lessen or weaken the impact of the film and its legitimacy as a historical work. It is a film rather than a documentary and a film

needs to create atmosphere and dramatic effect. If anything, misnumbering German divisions and embellishing on the facts are errors that annoy no one

but carping historical nit-pickers.

Where does the film go wrong?

Granting that Saving Private Ryan did not follow history exactly, where did it go wrong in its portrayal of the Battle of Normandy? For one, there are

two things missing from the film that really &endash; if the film is being billed as a realistic portrayal of the Battle of Normandy &endash; should be

there. The first is the decisive role of the American airforce. While it is true that a few P-51s make a dramatic appearance at the end of the film, not one

other aircraft is shown flying in the entire film. This is a serious misrepresentation, for if anything defined the key to America's victory at Normandy, it

was airpower. In training and experience, the Germans had something of an edge in terms of ground combat over the Allies. At the same time, they had

nothing to match Allied air capability and by 1944 the German Luftwaffe had been driven from the skies, giving the Allies complete and undisputed air

superiority. As such, the 36 ground attack squadrons of the U.S. 9th Air Force were a constant presence at Normandy &endash; destroying railroads,

bridges and marshalling yards, attacking German columns and disrupting all German attempts to reinforce Normandy.9 Field Marshal Rommel himself

was seriously wounded by marauding Allied planes and several other German generals were killed.10 Yet, in Saving Private Ryan, this important

element of America's contribution is given short shrift by the filmmakers. A possible explanation might be that Mr. Spielberg wanted to portray the odds

as facing the Americans as far longer than they actually were. If anything, the odds were stacked against the Germans, as Field Marshal Rommel ruefully

noted in a letter home:

The battle is not going at all well for us, mainly because of the enemy's air superiority and heavy naval guns…The long-husbanded strength of two

world powers is now coming into action. It will all be decided quickly.11

Saving Private Ryan also does little to show the omniscient Allied naval presence. In the time frame of the film, the front was still very close to the sea

and Allied ships shelled the Germans mercilessly with naval gunfire at every opportunity. If the German attack depicted in the film had somehow

managed to escape bombing from the air, it would most certainly have been pounded by Allied naval guns waiting offshore. Indeed, during the time

while Tom Hanks and his squad were searching for Private Ryan - roughly June 10th to June 13th - the Germans mounted large scale armored

counterattacks in France for the first time and all of them were defeated with the help of naval gunnery. 12 The Germans soon learned to dread the Allies'

high caliber naval artillery and naval power played an important role stopping the German attempts to push back the invading Allies. Yet, this important

factor in helping defeat the Germans at Normandy is also ignored in the film. There is also little in the film to indicate the dominance of the American

Army's land based artillery, which was also extremely plentiful and effective with high quality weapons and skilled spotters that could direct accurate

artillery fire at the slightest German provocation.13

Were the Germans that stupid?

When the Americans landed in northern France they encountered a German Army that was considerably more well organized, trained and led than their

own.14 The Germans had also gained the benefit of nearly five years combat experience in the Second World War. Yet the Germans seen in Saving

Private Ryan act with a level of calculated ineptitude that makes it difficult to ascribe logical explanations for their behavior. For example, the German

attack at the end of the film begins with a Tiger tank obligingly driving down a deserted street followed by some infantry. The Tiger tank might have been

the most feared weapon of the entire war, with extremely thick armor and a powerful 88mm gun. On June 13, 1944 a single one of these machines had

destroyed over 25 British tanks and vehicles.15 However, driving down a street infested with hostile infantry it became a vulnerable, slow moving target

for all sorts of devices that could disable it quite easily.16 The Germans were also well aware of the danger infantry posed to armor given that on the

Eastern Front, their troops were forced adopt methods to contend with the huge amount of Soviet tanks.17 That is why it was common practice in an

urban environment for infantry to precede the tanks and eliminate the threat posed by enemy footsoldiers. The following is a quote from a U.S. Army

study on German tactics written shortly after the Battle of Normandy:

The objective of the German infantry is to penetrate into the enemy position and destroy enemy antitank weapons to the limit of its strength…only after

the destruction of the enemy anti-tank defense can the tanks be employed on the battle line to the fullest advantage.18

Yet, in Saving Private Ryan, we see the Germans obligingly march into an ambush and behave in a manner conducive to doing little but getting them

killed. It is easy to conclude why the Germans act so stupidly in the film &endash; they are the enemy and movie audiences are accustomed to seeing the

"bad guys" die. Similarly, the protagonists need to demonstrate their daring and ingenuity and "bad guys" have been doing foolish and inexplicable

things for the "good guys" benefit since the invention of the movie camera. There really is nothing wrong with the filmmakers having the Germans act as

they do, but if the objective was to make an authentic film, they have failed in not presenting an actual German attack in a realistic manner.

What might have happened?

It is possible to reconstruct how the film might have concluded based on the evidence provided in historical sources. For one, the Germans would not

have been so obliging as to march into so obvious an ambush. Logically, reconnaissance patrols would have entered the town first and tried to discern

the whereabouts of the enemy before the Germans drove valuable resources such as a Tiger tank through the town. A common German practice would

have seen them send reconnaissance elements into the town and try to draw enemy fire and thus gain knowledge of enemy positions. Had the enemy

fired, most likely a mortar barrage would have then been called directed onto the town, as an artillery observer would have been included in the German

patrol.19 Similarly, the tanks, with the benefit of their long range guns would probably have shelled the town from a distance and provided covering fire

for the advancing infantry.20 The infantry would also have attacked in a far more organized manner than shown in the film, where they run through the

streets with little cohesion and organization. Accompanied by combat engineers who had specialized training in urban warfare, the Germans would have

attacked each building separately, and moved through the town in a methodical fashion:

Assault detachments of engineers, equipped with demolition equipment, flame throwers and grenades accompany the infantry. Where possible the

Germans blast holes through the walls of buildings along the route of advance in order to provide the infantry with covered approaches…streets are

avoided as much as possible.21

In Saving Private Ryan, when the German infantry advance into the town, they do so rather haphazardly and seem to go out of their way to make

themselves convenient targets for the Americans. This too works to undermine the realism the film has worked so hard to achieve.

The film also makes an error common to most war films in that the infantry of both sides are shown busily aiming and firing their rifles. While it seems

logical that infantry would fire their weapons, the US Army discovered that during the fighting in France, only 15% of the troops actually fired their

rifles in any given battle.22 Nerves and fear played a role in producing this low number, but many American troops were also reticent to fire their rifles

because American gunpowder was of poor quality and instantly revealed the position of anyone who fired their weapon.23 The Germans had learned the

lesson of the rifle's uselessness in the First World War and thus equipped every infantry squad with a MG 42 machine gun, a lightweight weapon with

an extremely high rate of fire that would provide the firepower for attacking German infantry.24 A German infantry company (about the size of the unit

that attacked at the end of the film) would have possessed 15 MG42s. Yet the attack at the conclusion of Saving Private Ryan does not show a single MG

42, an odd omission considering that German infantry tactics completely revolved around this weapon. Similarly, the film does not include the other

primary weapons used to add weight to German attacks, the 81mm and 120mm mortars, dangerous weapons hated by American soldiers because unlike

noisy artillery, mortar shells - because of their slow speed - made no noise as they were approaching.25 These weapons would have also been

particularly effective against Americans holed up in a bombed out town. The only weapon that is shown in the film is the German panzerschreck, an

antitank rocket that was effective against enemy vehicles, but of dubious use against infantry (its translation &endash; "tank terror" would also attest to

this).

Had the attack seen in Saving Private Ryan actually taken place, the American infantry, isolated in a town with no heavy weapons, probably could not

have held out for long or inflicted the damage that they did upon their attackers. They would, however, have possessed the advantages of artillery and

airpower to offset the German's superior combat tactics and their lack of numbers. Yet Saving Private Ryan does nothing to show the advantages and

particular strengths of either the German or the American armies. Instead, the battle, although exciting and more realistically presented than previous war

films, is strikingly similar to many of these films in the errors it makes. The film is a work of fiction, and cannot be expected to be completely accurate.

However, if, as the director claims, its purpose was to provide a realistic depiction of the Battle of Normandy, it has not done so.

What then, can be said about Saving Private Ryan? Obviously the film deserves the plaudits it receives for its brutal realism and being one of the few war

movies that dares depict the horrible wounds and terrible damage caused by modern weaponry. Similarly, the film was also very realistic in how it

created the mood of desperation facing American combat soldiers, who knew that they were merely serving until they too would be killed or wounded.

However, in other places the film is far less realistic and rather than being an accurate historical depiction of World War Two is little more than another in

a long line of outlandish war movies that disregards facts and reality in favor of dramatic effect.26 Sadly, in several places Saving Private Ryan is little

different from the war films that the director has worked so hard to distance it from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The following quotes were taken from Jeff Gordinier, "Message in a Battle," Entertainment Weekly, July 24 1998: 29.

2. See the division's table of equipment and organization in Max Hastings, Das Reich: The March of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Through France (New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981), p. 244.

3. Hastings, Das Reich, pgs. 85-88, 213-215.

4. James Lucas, The Military Role of the 2nd SS Division (London: Arms and Armour, 1991), p. 128, 131.

5. Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno: The 1SS Panzer Corps in Normandy (New York: Sarpedon, 1997), p. 115; Lucas, Das Reich, 132.

6. Lucas, Das Reich, 135; see also Russell Weigley, Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaign of France and Germany, 1944 -1945 (Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 129.

7. The divisional histories of the American units that fought at Carentan describe the battle in some detail. See Leonard Rapport and Arthur Northwood,

Rendezvous with Destiny: A History of the 101st Airborne Division (Washington: Infantry Journal Press, 1948), pgs. 237-241; Donald E. Houston,

Hell on Wheels: The Second Armored Division (California: Presidio Press, 1977), pgs. 201-204. For the attack described from the German point of

view see, Jean Mabire, Les SS Au Poing-de-Fer: La Division "Gotz von Berlichingen Au Combat en Normandie (France: Librarie Athreme Fayard,

1984), pgs 71-84. Also see the official history of the U.S. Army in World War Two: Gordon Harrison, Cross Channel Attack (Washington, DC: Office

of the Chief of Military History: 1951), pgs 364-365.

8. See Max Hastings, Overlord (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 160

9. A good source for the role and effectiveness of Allied ground attack aircraft is Ian Gooderson, "Allied Fighter-Bombers versus German Armour in

North-West Europe 1944-1945: Myths and Realities," The Journal of Strategic Studies June 1991 (14,2), 210-232; for the effects of air power on the

German supply situation see the German Chief Quartermaster West's report (Otto Eckstein) filed for the War Department, study #MS B-839, reprinted in

Donald S. Detweiler, ed. World War Two German Military Studies, Volume 12 (New York: Garland, 1979).

10. Among the casualties were General Erich Marcks, the commander of the German LXXXIV Corps, killed on June 12th, as well as the complete

destruction (on June 10th) of the headquarters of Panzer Group West, the principal command structure for the German armored units facing the Allies.

The commander, General von Schweppenburg was wounded and 17 valuable staff officers were killed. See Weigley, Eisenhower's Lieutenants, p. 124;

Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno, p. 85.

11. Erwin Rommel letter to Lucie Rommel, June 13, 1944 in Martin Blumenson, ed. The Rommel Papers (New York: Da Capo, 1953), p. 491.

12 . See Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno, pgs. 75-76. Reynolds cites an example of an entire battalion of the German Panzer Lehr division that was

wiped out by naval gunfire. Naval gunfire also killed the commander of the German 12th SS Panzer Division, Fritz Witt. For the effect of naval gunfire

on the movement of the German panzer divisions see General von Schweppenberg's comments in War Department study #MS-B720, reprinted in World

War Two German Military Studies, Volume 12..

13. For the evolution of the organization and doctrine of the American artillery see Bruce I. Gudmundsson, On Artillery (Connecticut: Praeger, 1993),

pgs 136-139.

14. Martin van Creveld makes this case convincingly in Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945 (Connecticut: Greenwood

Press, 1982).

15. The action, which played an important role in turning back the British attack toward Caen has been described many times. For a bio on the tank's

commander, Michael Wittman, see Gordon Williamson, Aces of the Reich, (London: Arms and Armour, 1989), pgs. 86-90.

16. A good description the weapons and tactics used by infantry to disable enemy armor can be found in Alex Buchner, The German Infantry Handbook,

1939-1945 (Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History, 1987), pgs 64-71.

17. Ibid., p. 63.

18. U.S. War Department, Handbook on German Military Forces originally published in March, 1945 as Technical Manual TM-E 30-451, reprinted by

LSU Press (Baton Rouge, 1990), pg. 220. There is also historical precedent to the danger enemy infantry posed to German tanks during the fighting in

Normandy; on June 13, 1944 a few Tigers blundered into the town of Villers-Bocage without infantry support and were easily destroyed by Canadian

infantry armed with firebombs. See Reynolds, Steel Inferno, p. 107.

19. For German reconnaissance see Handbook on German Military Forces, pgs 212-214.

20. Handbook on German Military Forces, pg. 253; for some historical examples see Allyn Vannoy and Jay Karamales, Against the Panzers: United

States Infantry versus German Tanks, 1944-1945 (North Carolina: McFarland, 1996), pgs 111; 199.

21. Handbook on German Military Forces, p. 253.

22 . See Max Hastings, Overlord, pg. 187.

23 . See Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Infantry Division in Normandy (Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1989), pg. 90; also Peter

Shrijvers, The Crash of Ruin: American Combat Soldiers During World War Two (New York: NYU Press, 1998), pg. 68.

24. An excellent discussion on the MG 42 as well as a good comparison of the small unit tactics of the American and German armies can be found in

Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead, pgs 80-105.

25. See Peter Shrijvers, The Crash of Ruin, pg. 67; Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead, pg. 95. A standard German company was allotted 12

mortars.

26. Consider the similarity between Saving Private Ryan and other, far more outlandish films such as The Magnificent Seven and Conan the Barbarian,

all of which work toward the same conclusion: a hardy band of heroes using smarts and ingenuity to defend a location against hopeless and

overwhelming odds.

Hope this lighten up a few issues about the movie.

John

Previous Message

SAving Private Ryan: a glimpse on its impact on the public

Next Message

Re: Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong With Saving Private Ryan?

[Morthomme]

spr is a film make by hollywood, don't expect it was reality. great film.

[Username]

Yeah but the Germans in Indiana Jones are accurate representations. Does Shpeelburg have an Agenda? NAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

Lewis

[Guest mch]

maybe we should call him

Stephen FARBberg

sheesh,it's a MOVIE for chrissakes!

i think Mr.Wayne?has a little too much

time on his hands....

------------------

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[Guest mch]

whoops...double post!

[This message has been edited by mch (edited 04-15-2000).]

[von Lucke]

Ummm --- what's an &endash?

[Username]

I guess the CM community has commented.

I think john Wayne made some real points. but people here like their bread buttered a certain way.

I thought the movie lapsed into a bad episode of "Comabt". I liked "Thin Red Line"

Lewis

[Guest MantaRay]

I think all of this SPR bashing is kind of like bashing CM. The more you look for realism, the more holes you will find. No movie or game will ever depict realism correctly. Why? because the only true realism is this moment that is at hand.

But for all of you who have never had any kind of gunfire directed at you in combat, it will never be more real than the moment that you are engrossed in it. The sounds and smells of battle can never be replaced by a movie or documentry. You can get a thousand people who tell their stories to you, and come up with 1001 accounts of the same battle, and most will be different.

I am not defending SPR per se, but all of those of you who are more concerned with where a certain unit was in a fictious movie need to find a fight more worthy of discussion.

And I for the life of me cannot even fathom why people bash SPR's battle scenes. It is the most accurate "feel" to come along yet. I guess desention is just a human trait.

Now I wasnt in WWII, but I have fought my fair share of battles, and I have seen even the bravest of men break down and cry in battle conditions. And if you think that a movie needs to be any more real than this, I think that no movie will ever make it for you!

Ray

------------------

MantaRays 5 Pages

[G Ned Anderson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

I liked "Thin Red Line"

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow.. I thought I was the only one. I thought it was a lackluster (though still enjoyable) war movie, but I think the philosophical and cinematographic aspects of the movie were absolutely brilliant. One of my favorite movies of all time (and I know I'm in a minority here).

G

------------------

I love the f***ing Army

and the Army loves f***ing me

[Guest PeterNZ]

I liked the Thin Red Line too..

it was kinda.. slow.. and thoughtfull, which i didn't expect from a war flick.

As for the SPR comments, I think the author was looking at the interplay of claims of realism and what was presented.

I mean,. if you tell everyone that you've made a historically accurate film, then get many parts of the history wrong, you're not doing anyone a service eh.

Stick to Combat Vision films for detail, accuracy and history!

PeterNZ

------------------

.C O M B A T. .V I S I O N.

* Film From The Front *

http://combatvision.panzershark.com/

[Colin]

Good post MantaRay.

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Major Tom]

Well, the one reason I can see that SPR went the way it did is the fact that WWII still has a myth of being a "clean" war. Sure, SPR did dirty it up a bit, but, it focussed a little too much on the sole aspect of shooting POW's and ignored other horrors. "Thin Red Line" was a better portrayal of the actual philosophical ramifications during wartime. I was more terrified during the few scenes of battle in TRL than in the multitude of engagements in SPR. The assault on the Pilbox was freakishly surreal. The shot where two soldiers were ordered to scout out ahead, each looked at eachother, then their commander, knowing that they are moving to their deaths, they move a bit, and both are shot down. It portrayed the helplessness much better than SPR, not to say that I didn't like SPR for what it was. A good action war flick.

The main reason people are criticising SPR, is, the fact that Spielburg said it was to be based mostly on fact. Once he said this he opened the doors for criticism. There were a lot of things that did not fit in fact and history he included. He should not have said it in the first place if he wasn't going to do it. Hopefully, he and Lucas will actually listen to what people say about their films, and the next WWII movie will be more realistic (ie. no exaggerating feats) or not to try and cater to too large of an audience which screws up the movie (ala Starwars I, and SPR). Criticism is the way to tell people to do a better job next time. If we all just sat back and praised them then the industry would remain stagnent.

[G Ned Anderson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Hopefully, he and Lucas will actually listen to what people say about their films, and the next WWII movie will be more realistic (ie. no exaggerating feats) or not to try and cater to too large of an audience which screws up the movie (ala Starwars I, and SPR). Criticism is the way to tell people to do a better job next time. If we all just sat back and praised them then the industry would remain stagnent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've heard Hollywood rumors that Spielberg is doing another WWII movie based on the historical book "Band of Brothers" by Steven Ambrose. I've heard that Tom Hanks will be in this one as well.

Don't have an ETA or independent confirmation yet, though.

[argie]

I'm for The Thin Red Line too. Was refreshing see it just a week after SPR.

Ariel

[Guest Big Time Software]

Eh, I think most of this is totally unfair. Naval presence? Airpower? Both were shown, but they were not supposed to be the "Stars" of the film. And historically there weren't 14 inch shells and Typhoon rockets raining down whenever a German popped his head up out of his foxhole/hatch. So the fact that a squad, behind enemy lines, in less than a 48 hour period only sees only one airstrike is not at all unrealistic.

Similar comments on things like mortars, PS, and other stuff. These things were common, but they weren't some sort of MANDITORY part of a battle. Germans and Allies alike went into small battles without lots of stuff. However, the author of this piece does have a good point about the MG42. There should have been many of those as they WERE an inseperable part of any group of German infantry (as opposed to mortars and shrecks).

Also keep in mind that there is only so much that can be shown in x length of time. Trying to cram in the kitchen sink is not only pointless, but also unrealistic. In CM, for example, if you tried to do that and keep the forces roughly 1 depleted company attacking a platoon you couldn't. What you would soon have is a battalion sized fight on your hands, at the very least.

Yes, SPR had lots of historical flaws, but trying to expect it to somehow portray EVERY aspect of early D-Day fighting is somewhat silly since it is not only unrealistic from a movie production standpoint, but also from a historical one as well.

Steve

P.S. If you want to see a real riot, you should have read the review TEARING SPR APART for not having the correct chin straps on the US helmets. I an not kidding!!! Talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees...

[Spook]

Granted that air/naval/artillery power played key roles in the Normandy Campaign, but I'm not surprised that they weren't played up in SPR. Even for the moment assuming that a Ranger patrol group existed for some infiltration mission as shown in SPR, it's extremely unlikely that this unit would have any "links" to all of that firepower. Air power was used mainly in the interdiction mission, although the full Normandy Campaign helped to evolve its tactical CAS (close air support) role to some degree. And artillery/naval? Well, in order to show these more, you'd have to throw in a slugfest static infantry battle into SPR which allows that forward observers could get the fire missions called into the fire direction centers and any other "authorization" links above (especially for the naval guns).

(Which is the point you've made just above, Steve.)

So yes, air/artillery/naval were all crucial, but in represent all of these, the SPR movie would have to steer away from the plot of the one-squad Ranger patrol.

I would concur that the Germans making the climatic battle's attack appeared "dumbed down" in their tactics for the sake of the movie plot.

Even more over the top, however, was the earlier attack on the radar station with the MG42. Why the head-on rush to take it out when a sniper was on hand with the group? He could've just picked off the MG crew at long range. (The hand grenades explosions seemed like 81mm mortar bursts, too!!!)

Within that scene, however, is also one of the reasons I ultimately liked SPR. I haven't seen any critiques yet to the emotional moment when "Wade", dying from his MG bullet wounds, is asked to be "eased out" with morphine.

So yes, taken on individual scenes, there are moments where I think Spielberg could've done better, but as a whole, SPR worked better for me than most other war movies I've seen (but not all). And I have yet to think of anything to criticize in the "Omaha Beach" portion of the movie.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 04-17-2000).]

[Guest PeterNZ]

Actually what immediately annoyed me was the cliche'd characters..

i mean, if i see one more film with a sniper who prays to jesus all the time, or a cowardly, foolish HQ soldier, or whatever, i'm gunna puke :>

That's what i liked about TRL. The people who died were just that, people! and some of them died because they were just a bit stupid, (like the guy with the grenade), and made a mistake, even a silly mistake. And the Japanese were a scared and silly as the Yanks, 'cept sometimes they were winning and sometimes they were loosing..

I dunno.. SPR was cool, amazing in many parts. But it kinda reminded me of the "Commando" comics of my youth in many sections..

PeterNZ

------------------

.C O M B A T. .V I S I O N.

* Film From The Front *

http://combatvision.panzershark.com/

[Guest mch]

Where can "TEARING SPR APART" be found?

i was lookin' for it,but no luck yet...

sounds hysterical!god...those chin straps....

man...i just about walked out of the theater.....and those M1 sights too...

who do these hollywood people...think

they're kiddin.....

------------------

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[Schalken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, SPR had lots of historical flaws

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, the combat sequence at the end of SPR was realistic. It was showing off the combat mission AI attacking.

[gaffertape]

I'm coming to your defense here, Mr Spielberg.

How many war movies have you seen that went to the lengths that SPR did to 'get it right' for the most part? I can think of about three. People don't seem to pick apart the Patton tanks in Battle of the Bulge, or the mishmash of various british/american Sherman tanks being used by XXX Corp in A Bridge Too Far, and yet SPR gets hammered for every little thing.

Did SPR make compromises? Of course it did. Its a movie. Name me a film that didn't. Das Boot comes close, but it had the advantage of an extremely closed environment.

Thin Red Line was poetic and well acted, but it failed for me as a film: Too many character threads were picked up and later discarded. It lacked focus (a result of how the film was made. Apparantly one could make an entire second movie with the footage on the editing room floor). Many respected critics, and members of the CM board liked the film, and I respect and acknowledge that. But I think it failed as a movie by NOT following a more structured (if somewhat simplified) storyline.

Believe me, I adore independent film, and I think that more war films of BOTH variety (conventional and unconventional narrative / structure) should continue to be made.

I just think that SPR is being knocked down way too much.

- GAFF

[This message has been edited by gaffertape (edited 04-17-2000).]

[Username]

SPR kind of reminds me of Full Metal Jacket.

I liked both movies first parts, thought they wimped out in the end. Full metal jackets basic training segment was great, so was the DDAY scenes from SPR. Both movies got sucko after that.

I did like the geeky map guy character they took along in SPR. Anyone know what he said to the german at the end before he shot him?

Lewis

[Fionn]

SPR is flawed and I do respond when I see it being held up by someone who doesn't know their stuff as "the way it was" BUT I think it did do a great service to millions of people and veterans in general insofar as it was probably the first movie/book etc which most American youths have seen/read which made them realise what D-day was like for their compatriots.

We all might know what it was like and I personally found the opening landing scene very tame. I actually laughed at some of the cliched ways in which guys died (e.g. the guy who got shot through the head after a bullet went through his helmet without killing him. I mean you could see he was bound to be shot through the head a million miles away .) probably cause I've seen worse injuries and more horrifically mangled corpses in real life than they showed on-film.

Anyways, my point is that while I personally think the "gory" scenes were pretty wimpy and didn't have an effect on me I know that a LOT of people were shocked by them. To my mind it is good that they were shocked and good that they maybe got a little more of an understanding of what war and human suffering etc is like.

Is SPR realistic insofar as battle tactics etc etc?

No.

Were the chinstraps right?

Oh give me a break .

Was the one scene most people don't criticise ( the landing one) realistic and as terrible as it would have been?

Not by a long shot.

Did that scene and the movie achieve its goal?

Yes. While battle tactics were wrong and the way in which injuries were shown etc was underplayed it was still terrible enough that a lot of people who haven't seen similar scenes at accidents or in war in real life were shocked out of a little of their complacency.

In reality the historical accuracy of SPR was not present to please grognards but was merely present insofar as it helped Spielberg achieve his aim of making a specific impact on viewers. This impact was made on most viewers who hadn't experienced similar scenes of suffering in their real lives and I would contend that this was both his aim and his reason for implementing the level of accuracy he did.

He wasn't implementing accuracy for accuracy's sake but for impact's sake and insofar as that was his rationale I believe he was succesful.

[MCab]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

So, the 2nd SS should never have been there? Well, if they did have the right division, then we'd have somebody say "BUT THEY NEVER FOUGHT AT RAMELLE!" And if we did have a battle at the correct bridge town, somebody would say "BUT THOSE GUYS WEREN'T THERE!" or "THEY HAD THIS-THAT-THESE-THOSE AND IT HAPPENED LIKE THIS."

Yes, the bridge battle never happened. But did a battle SIMILAR to the bridge battle happen? Now we're asking a more relevant question in regards to the purpose of the film.

And about the Germans going into town "foolishly." Well, maybe they had a foolish commander? Or maybe the "dung was rolling downhill" for them to make a hasty assault? Or, perhaps the German commander felt that it was better "to have a good plan now than a perfect plan later" and assault the town? I like the TacOps scenario design philosophy where the AI may make the not-so-perfect decisions because you may not be up against a commander who always scores 100% in tactics.

Also, about the Germans entry into town: As one of the characters mentioned, they had gotten pounded by 88's. Perhaps the Germans felt that they had attrited the forces enough for a hasty entry?

And the Tanks providing fire support from outside of town: Wouldn't they need some L. O. S.? And if they didn't, wouldn't that be a bit "danger close?"

BUT, the Germans should have had the MG 42's at the bridge battle. But Mr. Wayne apparently believes that all was rosy in WW2 and everybody was up to full TOE strength with lavish support available at whim for the Germans. You can't say that every German Co. had mortar support available. Same goes for engineer availability. Mr. Wayne's first mistake was assuming that that was a complete German Co.! It could've been the friggin' leftovers from a KG!

About Allied support: Maybe the German "Co." had already been attacked by allied air and arty (That's probably why they had that 20 mm handy).

Now, about the MG 42 nest scene: Had a sniper, true, but do you now how far was the initial distance from the nest to the Ranger squad? Would a sniper have been useful, or an easy target? Also, look at how Tom Hanks portrayed Capt. Miller in that scene: He just saw the unburied corpses of 3 All-Americans. Look at the tension and emotion built up in him. It's easy to make the perfect decision comfortably in your den, but in the battlefield after seeing your dead allies?

Most of all, SPR is fiction. But as S. Ambrose pointed out "it is fiction that brings out the truth."

[Fionn]

Ambrose... Hackles rising... fighting urge to retort with references to "massaging the facts and playing to the public need for a eulogising myth fabric".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But as S. Ambrose pointed out "it is fiction that brings out the truth." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that sounds like vintage Ambrose alright. "Fictionalising history brings out the truth" = "Yeah, I twisted the facts a little/ a lot but that only helped my book sell better cause now it fits the "truth" most Americans want to hear.

God, that man is as bad as Irving. Irving's a Hollocaust Denier but Ambrose just is too populist and willing to write what people want to hear instead of giving them a fully-rounded picture and challenging them with facts sometimes.

Fiction brings out fiction. Facts bring out truth. To say anything else is just justification for lying to readers in books.

The "fiction" in SPR doesn't bring out truth. It is the realism (such as it is) that brings out what little truth there is in that film.

NO offence to you MCab but Ambrose is being a fool to say something as stupid as "fiction brings out truth". I might as well say "lies equal truth" or "Lies lead one to truth". They don't if the people you're lying to don't do primary research and find out what you lied about and draw their own conclusions. A lie is a lie is a lie. A fiction is a fiction is a fiction.

[Spook]

To MCab's comments below:

"Now, about the MG 42 nest scene: Had a sniper, true, but do you now how far was the initial distance from the nest to the Ranger squad? Would a sniper have been useful, or an easy target? Also, look at how Tom Hanks portrayed Capt. Miller in that scene: He just saw the unburied corpses of 3 All-Americans. Look at the tension and emotion built up in him. It's easy to make the perfect decision comfortably in your den, but in the battlefield after seeing your dead allies?"

Sure, one shouldn't discard the possible "emotional" trigger that can come into play for a tactical decision. But as portrayed in the movie, the good Cpt Miller decides to get the MG nest with a frontal charge to "settle the matter." In real life, such a charge might've gotten EVERY one of the squad cut down. And seriously, at long range, should the MG be considered at an advantage against a sniper? Nope, no way. The sniper rifle can be AIMED to hit something hundreds of meters away, but NOT a MG. It wasn't a case of Miller's squad being caught ambushed in the open, where in such a moment of desperation, a head-on charge order would be far more possible to call out. I personally consider the radar station scene as being of the usually overly dramatic Spielberg style. Others can differ, of course.

You thought that all of the body-pulping in the beach scene was lame, Fionn? Man, you're COLD. Some of those shots were more grotesque than any slasher gorror films I had seen in earlier days, but I guess I'm just showing my age as I haven't watched such a film type in ages and I don't know what the new standard is now for people-chopping on film. And the kind of work you do does have to be considered as a perspective.

As to comparing Ambrose to the same "distortionist" level as Irving----well, first off, I've never bothered with Irving so as to know the basis of comparison. But I don't think that my read of "Citizen Soldiers" was a trip down the mythology path either. His coverage of certain subjects in "Soldiers" was a bit spotty and overly anecdotal, like on the air war chapter. But on other subjects like discussing the US Army replacement system and its flaws, he came off sounding forthright without seeming to distill the "truth".

The suggested Ambrose comment that "some fiction is needed to bring out the truth" does run counter to the other adage that "truth is stranger than fiction." So on your note that "truth is truth" and should be told as such, Fionn, I will certainly agree.

Otherwise, the "1984" quote of "Ignorance is Strength" never is far away......