search results matching tag: saving private ryan

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (29)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (5)     Comments (73)   

Saving Private Python

Sagemind says...

I watched Saving Private Ryan once.
It was an amazing move, but decided I didn't ever need to see it again. The realism was a lot to take. Seeing parts of this reminded me why I made my choice. I didn't make it through this video.

Patrick Stewart Looks Further Into His Dad's Shell Shock

MilkmanDan says...

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

newtboy said:

I feel there's confusion here.
The term "shell shock" covers two different things.
One is purely psychological, trauma over seeing things your brain can't handle. This is what most people think of when they hear the term.
Two is physical, and is CTE like football players get, caused by pressure waves from nearby explosions bouncing their brains inside their skulls. It sounds like this is what Stewart's father had, as it causes violent tendencies, confusion, and uncontrollable anger.

Mr. Plinkett Talks About Rogue One

SDGundamX says...

Oh certainly, there are definitely glaring flaws with Rogue One.

The biggest problem for me was how every character conveniently dies IMMEDIATELY as soon as their narrative purpose is done with. And strangely, every character seems completely ready to die in a way that makes the deaths fairly laughable.

Saw: "I'm gonna stare out this window and not even try to escape."

Bodhi: "I'm gonna close my eyes and not even try to toss that thermal detonator back out of the shuttle."

Baze: "Welp, my best friend is dead so I'm just going to Leroy Jenkins those Deathtroopers."

They missed major dramatic opportunities for each character death. Think "Saving Private Ryan" where each character death is meaningful. Caparzo disobeys a command to do something decent and gets himself killed. Wade dies because Tom Hanks wanted to do the right thing and clear the machine gun nest. Fish dies because Upham is too cowardly to climb the steps and fight. And none of those guys resigned themselves to death--they all wanted desperately to live.

A couple of other things that bothered me about Rogue One:

Why did Admiral Raddus take Princess Leia--a Galactic Senators daughter--into a major battle with the Empire, one which most Rebels were convinced was a trap designed to draw out the fleet?

Why didn't Vader just Force pull the Death Star plans out of the escaping rebels before massacring them all?

Why did the Death Star "miss" Scarif base and hit the ocean instead despite them showing it had pinpoint accuracy when blowing up Jedha?

All that being said, TFA disappointed me big time. It was just trying waaaaaaaay too hard to evoke the original trilogy. If I wanted to watch the original trilogy again I'd, you know, watch the original trilogy. And don't even get me started on Kylo Ren. I haven't wanted to punch a character in the face so hard since whiny Anakin from Attack of the Clones.

EDIT: To keep this on topic, I'm annoyed that Plinket didn't point out the actual flaws in the movie and instead focused on the "they didn't explain the Force" bullshit.

ChaosEngine said:

I felt like the movie was a bit of a structural mess.

So Cassian rescues Jyn so she can persuade Gerrera to hand over Bodhi so he can give her the message from her father who can tell them about the weakness in the death star.... that just feels like one step too many.

And what was with the Gerrera's weird mind squid thing? That scene felt completely unnecessary and was also the worst looking part of the movie (almost exactly like the tentacle ball things scene in TFA).

That said, the last third was great, and seeing the death star destroy part of a planet from the surface really brought home the horror of the weapon.

I'd put it very slightly behind TFA in terms of ranking it (Empire, New Hope, Jedi, TFA, Rogue One). While I admire that they tried something different and didn't just retread old plots like TFA, I just didn't enjoy it as much as TFA. The characters in TFA were just better and it was just more fun.

oblio70 (Member Profile)

History Buffs: Saving Private Ryan

ulysses1904 says...

Several things always bugged me about the scene where they rush the MG 42, although I know that Spielberg had to have this scene the way it is to move the story along. Capt Miler assigns somebody to rush right, he takes the middle then waits for someone to volunteer to go left. And gets irritated when nobody volunteers, why not just order someone like he did on the right side? And then they have their only medic as part of the assault team. And why not have Jackson the sniper pick off the MG 42 crew? No doubt because his sniper skills already were the focus of two previous scenes. The MG 42 scene provided a turning point in the movie but the logic always irritated me.

And there always seems to be a perfectly intact piano in the street in WWII Europe, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and Fury all had one.

"Defilade, other side of the hole!"

blackfox42 (Member Profile)

VoodooV (Member Profile)

What's the Difference Between all the Call of Duty Games?

aimpoint says...

"Its an exact copy of Saving Private Ryan in video game form"

I think hes actually talking about Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. Pretty much 3rd chapter and on it takes it from Saving Private Ryan. The guys who made the original call of duty came from the medal of honors series. They broke from MoH to help "innovate" the genre...hmmm...what happened there...

Why Violent Video Games Don't Cause Violence | Today's Topic

LiquidDrift says...

I think a lot of the concern over the impact of violent games is coming from non-gamers who just don't understand what is going on in a gamer's head while playing.

That and it's easy for politicians to score points with the "family values" crowd when they know there will be no backlash from it.

Philosophical discussion about what games and VR will be like in the future is all fine and good too, but let's not use holodeck arguments to limit the free speech of game developers today. We're a looooong damn way off from games having the fidelity to be confused with reality, even with the Occulus Rift.

I've played a lot of violent games, but I've been nowhere near as affected from playing them as from scenes in movies. Not even horror movies, I think Saving Private Ryan is both disturbing an important representation of how horrible war can be and a very good reason why artists rights need to be protected

Don't even get me started about showing a bare breast in a game, god forbid!

Sad George Lucas

chingalera says...

How about a Star Warz redux with Takashi Mike Directing with Janusz Kaminski (Saving Private Ryan) as director of photography???

Or how about Roman Polanski dir. with Peter Pau and Wing-hang Wong (The Killer-John Woo) cinematographers??

...anyone but Tattersal behind the fucking camera lens, please.

VoodooV said:

it's odd. for a long time, I've wanted someone to take over the reins of Star Wars because Lucas is a shit writer/director that surrounded himself with yes-men. I wanted him to see over and over what Star Wars could be like without his ego mucking shit up.

Hell I remember how adamant he used to be that VI was the end. It was the story of Anakin and when Anakin died, it's over. Now he's saying he'd been working on VII VIII and IX? Yeah fuck you George. You have become the evil empire.

At the same time though, now that it has happened and JJ is directing the next movie and George is out of the picture for good. I just derive no joy out of it. I would have preferred a lesser known director. I have enjoyed JJ's movies, but at the same time, the guy has his stupid tropes and hangups too.

I guess im just getting more and more fed up with Hollywood. Of course I'll go see the new movies. I'm so sick of the beating of the dead horse though

Saving Private Ryan vs Finding Nemo

25 Greatest Unscripted Scenes in Films

budzos says...

I hate improvised scenes in movies for the most part. Everybody get so actory-y.

I fucking hate Matt Damon's stupid monologue about home life in Saving Private Ryan. I like Damon as an actor. I like the movie as a whole. But I hate that scene and now I know why it always bothered me so much.

Anyone else see Malick's Tree of Life? (Cinema Talk Post)

blankfist says...

SPOILER ALERT

Seriously, do not read further if you don't want the movie spoiled. You've been warned.

Here are my thoughts to kick this off. Today I'm a different audience goer than I was when I was first introduced to Malick's films. I remember seeing Thin Red Line in the theaters and thinking, yeah it's good but I like Saving Private Ryan more. Mainly because TRL didn't have much of a traditional 3 Act plot. Back then I also hated pretentious movies. Today I still dislike them, but not as much. I do dislike them when I feel the filmmaker is trying to outsmart me, or worse purposely trying to confuse me hoping I'll think the film is smart if I don't understand it.

This isn't the case with Malick. His films always seem genuine. As for Tree of Life, the critiques have been incredibly harsh and the one word used to describe it over and over is pretentious. In Cannes, where he won the Palme d'Or, the film was apparently met with both boos and cheers. Some have even eviscerated it for being preachy and overtly Christian. The title itself is a reference to the tree in the Garden of Eden found in both Genesis and Revelations.

I think we've become too cynical towards Christianity and religion in general. It's easy to politicize it and dismiss a very important mythology that can stand opposite of science. His reference to the tree of life, in my opinion, is a reference to creation and destruction. To beginning and ending. It's a metaphor for individual life as it is blinked into existence and then blinked right back out again. A transcendental metaphor that's smartly weaved in Malick's film. And it's not meant to preach the gospel of the bible, but to educate us on the mythology surrounding life and death.

He starts with a quote from Job that's essentially the part after god has tested Job and taken everything from him, and he speaks to Job directly after Job questions him, and god says (paraphrasing here) where were you when I created everything. In other words, Job asks "why me" or more specifically to the film "why didn't you intervene", and Job tried his entire life to make his existence what he wanted it to be, which for him was that of a pious one devoted to god. Then god smites him for no good reason outside of a game he plays with satan. When Job asks why, god answers by rhetorically questioning why Job didn't intervene when he was building the universe. It's not that he's asking why Job didn't help, but the futility of asking why things happen, as if there's no reason to it. As if life exists with loss and gains, and you have to affirm it as such. There is no why.

That's a great way to look at the film. The first hour or so takes us through a familial setup where we see a young boy's family in the 60s and his modern family today, both of which are experiencing suffering and loss, and both are questioning why, and then we see from god's perspective the size and wonder of the chaotic universe (and presumedly its creation) juxtaposed with the individual suffering of this one family. A dangerous universe. We see how all life has suffered through history (specifically focusing on the dinosaurs in the film at one point). It's all incidental. It's all without reason. It just happens, and we must affirm life this way.

Later in the film it focuses more on the 1960s family, and specifically from the perspective of one of the sons. His mother (Jessica Chastain) coddles him and his brothers while his father (Brad Pitt) is a phlegmatic and hard-nosed authoritarian that keeps his emotional distance - both the embodiment of being affected by passion and fear and emotion. At one point one of the sons dies. The boy we experience the movie through is always questioning why. He asks his mom why she couldn't save his brother. After a life of living under his father's violent authority, he asks why his father doesn't just kill him or kick him out. He suffers and then he questions why he's suffering, and then there's moments where he questions his own choices why he doesn't do things to ease that suffering - for instance at one point he considers dropping the car on his father who is working underneath it (effectively wiping out of existence one source of his suffering).

At one point in the film I felt as if Malick gave us a sneak peak at his intention for the film's message. At one point someone says something to effect of, "We should be good to everyone we come into contact with." This is the salient point. We can't control the suffering. We can't control the despair. Life comes with loss and bad things happen. We have to affirm it as such and make our moments as happy as possible, and also make the moments of other people's (and creatures') lives as happy as possible because they're experiencing the same kinds of suffering that you and me are experiencing. They, too, are incidental.

Malick truly demonstrates this point, I think, when he shows the boys strapping a frog to a rocket and sending it up into the sky. They added to the suffering of that creature even though they themselves are suffering. They didn't touch that creatures life in a way that enriched it, they only added to its suffering - and there was no justice, no penance. Their actions were considered incidental. At most they could be punished by their parents, but nothing intervened to stop them. Their actions were allowed to happen. In the end, I think that's the point of the movie. That we should remind ourselves that we have precious few moments on this earth, and instead of questioning why and giving into bad emotional cues (fear and anger) and acting out on those bad impulses, we should enjoy those few moments and ensure that we make them for those around us (animal and human alike) good as well. It's the classic path to enlightenment that surrounds the story of the Fall (Garden of Eden) where in order to get back into the Garden we must all transcend fear and desire. We must affirm life with suffering.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Use it to buy a stick of gum.

Robot Chicken: Saving Private Chicken: WÜnder Chicken

kceaton1 says...

*dead Goodluck finding a replacement. I've looked high and low. There is a copy of the "Saving Private Ryan" part at adultswim, but they don't include the introduction song. About the best you could do, in the foreseeable future, is show the adultswim (via youtube.com) and try to create a "playlist" on youtube that has that intro music following the first part...

I hate their greediness; I pay for this product twice over and they're concerned about a crappy quality clip...

lucky760 (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon