American
Military Cemetery, Normandy, France (Present Day)
On Omaha Beach,
Normandy, June 6, 1944 -- 0630 Hours
At the Farm House
In the Countryside
In A Village
In the Town
Comments
on Miller (Hanks)
Comments on
Snipers & Rifles
Comments on
the German Soldiers
Comments
on the Bell Tower
Comments on Tanks
General
Comments
Back To Saving
Private Ryan Home Page
|
savingprivate ryan
...and beyond
|
|
I saw SPR SEVEN times on the cinema
and countless times on video. This took me to Normandy the next year (1999) I
have since been back four times visiting all the beaches, St Mere Eglise,
Falaise Gap, Bastogne etc.... I have been to Dieppe, Calais,Dunkirk, Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, Cologne, Hannover, Dresden and Brussels also. Another trip took me to
Arnhem and Nimegen and all the way down through the Ardennes. My interests
started to diversify and I visited Warsaw and then Auschwitz at Krakow. I got
hooked on the Holocaust and visited Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen,
Ravensbruck and Theresienstadt. The Holocaust was caused by Reinhard Heydrich
and I visited the House of the Wannsee Conference in Berlin along with a great
many other sites in Berlin which I thoroughly recommend to anyone. Heydrich was
assassinated in Prague from where I have just returned having visited the very
spot where he got it and the church where the soldiers who nobbled him hid out.
(Prague is a stupendous city.) I have been to Pegasus Bridge several times and
the night of the 5th of June is a truly superb experience. There are a great
many sites and cemeteries all over Normandy. I have visited many many cemeteries
and began to wonder if I had any relatives in any of them. I started working on
a family tree and have uncovered TWO great uncles who were killed in WW1 on the
Somme. I shall be locating their graves on my yearly trip to France in June this
year (2003). I have now obviously become interested in WW1 also. There are many
other cities I have visited all over Europe as I and my companion normally rent
a car for our trips. I think you could say that Saving Private Ryan changed my
life somewhat?????? May I also add that all this traveling quite naturally
increased my skills of map reading and general capability and courage to
confront the unknown. This manifested itself in a trip from England to Dallas to
visit the Grassy Knoll. Although not WAR orientated it still stemmed from my
Saving Private Ryan experience.
Comments Contributed by Martin
G. Schofield
|
|
Isn't this a movie about American troops trying to find an American soldier? It's not about how brave and strong the German soldiers were, which I'm sure they are... not many would say they were weak. BUT THE THING YOU MUST KNOW... This is an American movie, about American soldiers, dying, fighting, and trying to locate one specific soldier... in the Americans point of view.
Comments contributed by Andy
|
I would like to point out to you that the Germans were NOT always that perfect: On Jan. 26, 1945, near the village of Holtzwihr in eastern France, Lt.
Audie Murphy and soldiers of Company B, 15th Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, came under fierce attack by the German 2nd Mountain Division. Against the onslaught of six panzer tanks (3 of them are Tiger tanks) and 250 infantrymen, Murphy ordered his men to fall back to better their defenses. Alone, he mounted an abandoned burning tank destroyer and fired the tank's .50 caliber machine gun at the advancing Germans. The smoke from the burning tank destroyer and the noise of constant gunfire help to conceal Lt. Murphy's position; the Germans could not determine exactly where the machine gun fire was coming from. Wounded in the leg during the heavy fire, Murphy remained there for nearly an hour, repelling the attack of German soldiers on three sides and single-handedly killing 50 of them. His courageous performance stalled the German advance and allowed him to lead his men in the counterattack which ultimately drove the enemy from Holtzwihr. For this Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest award for gallantry in action.
You can read the complete account at:
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blonemanstandatholtzwihr1.htm
The above account should show that the Germans can still make mistakes. I would admit that the Germans are brave and aggressive soldiers, but unfortunately that does not mean anything to a .50 caliber machine gun. You should keep that in mind before you say that it is impossible for the Germans to make such a mistake; in war ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. That is why 50 Germans got killed at Holtwihr: they apparently underestimated how well the Americans can fight back!
Comments Contributed by J Wong
|
|
Interesting thoughts so far, I
thought I'd put in my pennies worth. The first 30 minutes is breathtaking
in it's brutality; and the scene where the soldiers are machine gunned in the
assault craft had my jaw dropping in the cinema. Trouble is, as with
most Spielberg films, the beginning is the best part, saddled with such powerful opening
scenes the movie can only go downhill dramatically and the mistakes multiply as
the film progresses. Why does the German sniper not have an observer, as
was standard practice and why conceal himself in such an obvious location? If he
was forced into such a hide he would relocate after the first shot and ambush
the squad again. This lack of German combat skill, much in evidence in Band of
Brothers, robs SPR of much of its verisimilitude and the final battle is simply
a disgrace. The lynch pin of German squad level tactics was the LMG but
can you see any MG-42 teams firing suppressive fire as the remaining squad
members skirmished forward to assault the defenders? How about SFMG teams
firing on fixed lanes of fire to deny mobility. What about a short
preparatory mortar barrage (81 and 120mm) to precede the assault instead of
blindly trotting behind the tanks. Why does the German who comes up
the stairs not creep quietly (a point made by someone else) and more
importantly chuck a grenade through the door, or is he worried about damaging
the furniture? Why do the Germans, pinned down by the 30 cal team, not
obliterate the strong point with panzerfausts? How is Captain Miller able
to fire his Thomson through the drivers vision slit, it was protected by 2 inch
thick bullet proof glass; why does the Tiger not use the coaxial MG instead of
relying on the less accurate bow MG? Finally, to partially equal up the
stupidity stakes, would a quarter of the defenders really, during a firefight,
cluster round a disabled Tank whose crew were dead? If SPR were a three
course meal then the starter was excellent the main course stodgy, over cooked but
nourishing and the pudding was a severe let down. Finally although you
hear the sound of rushing water, the river is stationary!!
Comments Contributed by Daniel
|
|
I have heard many people criticize
the movie ending in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN as being impossible: that the
Germans would not make the mistake of walking into an ambush. I would like to
point out that the Germans made the same mistake during the military operation
MARKET GARDEN. During the Battle of Arnhem, British paratroopers had captured a
bridge and were defending it against a German counter attack. The Germans sent
several armor vehicles across the bridge to overrun the British position. The
British paratroopers ambushed the Germans, destroying many of the vehicles and
killing many German soldiers. You can watch the movie A BRIDGE TOO FAR to see
this scene. It is a WWII dramatization of the MARKET GARDEN military
operation - the Allies' attempt to end the war quickly by capturing several
bridges that led to the border of Germany. It goes to show that the German army
can still make some big blunders. The Germans also attack those British
paratroopers during the daytime, which made it easy for the paratroopers to mow
down all those German soldiers.
Comments Contributed by John
Wong
|
Number
one error. Not
being chosen as the "Best Picture of the year" by the Motion Picture Guild
members. The Motion Picture Academy" Being
from a large family of vets, I got to have a glimpse of that terrible happening.
I had a classmate in high school, lose a brother to the D-Day invasion.
It is terrible to see the horror on their faces, when they get the word
from the War Department, that their son has been killed in action. My
time was spent in Korea with the US Air Force., in the 1950s. My twin was
in the 45th. Infantry and was wounded in action. The scars of the flesh
heal and go away, but the scars of the mind never heal. That was
in my estimation, what Spielberg was attempting to convey to the public.
It was a message, that needed to be brought to the public's attention.
They saved the future of mankind with their sacrifices. I
tell you, if it hadn't been for a young couple concerned for an old soldier
I don't think I could have driven home that night from the theater. I have
never seen anything so realistic in this kind of film, ever!!!!! I
had four brothers in the South Pacific during the World War two. Two in
the U.S. Army Air Corp. (The USAF wasn't a separate Department yet, until
1947) One in the U.S. Marines and one in the U.S. Navy.) Seems like every
Generation has to go fight the battles of the politicians. Don't
get me wrong, some battles need to be fought. But by the cream of our country?
I hear the average age of the Marines on Iwo Jima was just 19 years of
age. How many families were stopped from regenerations, there in that battle?
My brother, that was a Marine, was at Iwo Jima, but was fortunate enough
to not be injured. There
was three of us, in the Korean War, with one more in the Oklahoma National
Guard, but didn't have to go to Korea, but spent time in Hokkaido Japan,
at Camp Drake. I
haven't spoken to my brothers about this movie, but know there are some
that have seen it. I can't watch it anymore, as it created too many
nightmares for me, because of the reality it portrayed. Thanks
for your forum, for the ones that know what war is. "HELL"My
web site for my family is at :http://www.oocities.org/wooleywa Check
out my Military page from the home page.
Comments
Contributed by Lloyd
|
| O.K., maybe
it's just me but I don't think in general Spielberg's films hold up that
well over time. Some are obviously better than others but many are very
hokey. I feel this is one of them. The more you watch this, the more silly
the script & the performances are. (with the exception of 'Jaws' cast,
H. Ford & Hanks, most actors in his films are B quality, has one ever
won best actor for one of his films?) Most criticisms on the site are correct,
& a few I may repeat...
First, I thought
the whole old man thing at the beginning & end was too sentimental
& hokey. Right from the start it was a "ra-ra " type of propaganda
movie. The "look" of the movie is undoubtedly first rate but it's a shame
the other areas don't match.
The most watchable
part is the beach segment. I find it interesting that after all the whining
that's done over "how Germans are," that the surrender shooting scene was
included. That's an example however of the "we're the good guys, so it's
O.K. if we do it" type of mentality. Plus they joke about it. That's my
biggest complaint in general, the portrayal & treatment of the Germans.
People will never learn that history is written by the victors & there
are too many complexities that will always be forgotten for convenience
sake. People are too much in need for good guy/bad guy trappings, from
the ancients to cowboys & Indians to the Klingons it'll never end.
Get past the fairy tale nursery rhymes.
Critics on the
history channel rightly pointed out that in that type of mission, (even
one as far fetched) that the squad wouldn't be complaining--THEY VOLUNTEERED.
Beyond that, the Captain wouldn't offer to have someone "answer the question"
of the "mathematics involved." He would have just told them to shut the
hell up.
Is it also in
the "Hollywood book on war movies" that they ALWAYS have to have in the
squad: a guy from NY, a guy from the Midwest, a Jewish guy, a wimpy guy,
hawks & doves, etc.? Yes, units were mixed, but it's become cliche.
Maybe things
like this happened, but I thought the "rebellion" scene was stupid. Again,
he would have just followed orders & if not they probably would have
arrested him, though I did share the sentiment of Sizemore wanting to shoot
him.
I agree that
the bridge in the town looks dinky. THAT'S the one Rommel is bringing armor
over? It almost looks like you could throw a rock from one side to the
other. They could have used something at least the size of something like
the one in the German made film "The Bridge."
It's also interesting
that after the soldier lets the wimp live on the stairs he is killed by
him later, when after it's all over, he suddenly finds the balls. Again,
the notion of well, it's O.K. because he killed the Captain, but anytime
a German kills someone he is a master of evil.
Dazed or not,
it's silly the whole firing the 45 at the tank scene & simply for the
surprise of the P-51. Has anyone noticed that the great creative director
has repeated himself here? Anybody see "Empire of the Sun?"
Lastly, the Germans
aren't really portrayed as idiots like so many other movies, but they don't
really have that much "presence" either. Even in Patton the short scenes
they showed of the H.Q. & Rommel stating he'd "Attack & annihilate
him, before he does the same to me," gave them something of a personality.
Again, you don't find many books that go out of their way to express the
amazing tenacity of the Wehrmacht. There are few that will admit to what
truly great warriors the Germans are.
People around
today don't realize what it was like then & how much things have changed.
I mean, when was the last time the U.S. army was ranked #19?
Comments Contributed
by R. White, SSTK3PZ |
| Just a few that
I remember from watching this travesty, this anti-war movie which I believe
was made more to denigrate the Rangers and our military in general.
1. It has always
been my understanding that the Rangers' boots were the same 'jump boots'
issued to the Airborne troops. These guys wore what appeared to be WWI
leggings.
2. They took
the dog tags off the bodies. How in the world could they identify the dead?
3. They buried
one of their guys. How could the body detail find him?
4. I switched
over to the movie when it played on Channel 7 LA.; the jerk sergeant was
ranting to Tom Hanks about 'that this effort to find Private Ryan was the
only good thing that had come out of this whole screwed up mess,' whatever,
while he was stomping around in his clod hopper shoes like some idiot,
he was swinging his weapon around, a BAR, as I remember, not watching where
it was pointed.
5. The scene
where the German soldier killed the GI with his bayonet while a cowardly
Ranger looked on: For one thing, Rangers were not cowards. He would have
blown the German away in a moment. I can't believe this effort to show
their disrespect towards our guys, especially Rangers, the creme of the
creme.
6. There was
not a moment that went by that I was not disgusted by the extremely disrespectful
depiction of the Rangers, how they carried themselves, in their effort
to 'Save Private Ryan', as shown by this movie. Certainly not military.
I was in WW II
in the Pacific Theatre, service in the 25th Division, 25th Signal Company,
on Luzon and in Japan as occupation forces. I went overseas on a troop
ship loaded with men from an airborne division, who were coming from Europe.
I believe they were the 101st Airborne, had just participated in the Battle
for Bastogne, although the many friends I made on the ship never spoke
of that service. Their jump boots were highly polished, however.
If I were able
to sit through this movie again, I am sure that I could come up with hundreds
or thousands of 'errors' which were really not errors, but a directed effort
to denigrate our military as much as possible, making it nothing less than
an anti-war movie.
Thanks for the
opportunity to comment. Hopefully more people will come forward with their
thoughts on this 'movie'. I don't think they should be allowed to have
this movie become a part of our historical archives.
Comments Contributed
by Albert Benson |
| I don't like
the under-current subliminal message that Jewish Steven Spielberg is presenting
in his movie "Saving Private Ryan" - that is he suggests to us (audience)
that "the only good German is a dead German". His film direction implys
" You see, you do a German a good turn and save his life, only for him
to turn on you and kill you". As tragic and horrific as war is, Mr. Spielberg,
get on with life and let bygones be bygones. Spielberg movingly depicts
the mortally wounded American medical officer innocently crying out "momma,
momma" in agony before dying. Why doesn't he show the wounded and dying
German soldiers in the same light? Their death would have been just as
moving and evoking. I don't like the manner in which he dehumanizes
the Germans. They were as brave and human and noble as any American soldier.
Atrocities were committed on both sides. Also the skinhead 'convict' hairstyles
of the German soldiers is inaccurate ( historical archive photos and footage
shows otherwise) as is the amateurish depiction of the German infantry's
battle tactics. Jewish author Daniel Goldhagen's racist stereotyping in
his book: "Hitlers Willing Executioners", similarly comes to mind here.
An 'eye for an eye' mentality will lead to a world full of blindness. Hate
only produces more hate. Is America still Christian?
Comments Contributed
by Frank |
| SPR was never
intended by Spielberg to be a documentary on the Normandy campaign - the
very level of the film, concentrating on squad to platoon level actions
would prove this. The film is rather intended to portray some of what life
was like for the average American unit of that scale in Normandy. People
should lso remember that the film achieves what it sets out to do - many
veterans considered it so painfully real that on seeing it for the first
time they said that the film was the only one that brought back their nightmares
of that time.
SPR does admittedly
have its inaccuracies, as does any film ever created, but it does in my
mind with few possible exceptions (Gettysburg) come as close as it is possible
to be about a time which we still do not know all the details about.
Comments Contributed
by Neil Holmes |
| SPR was definitely
the most accurate portrayal of WW2 combat I have ever seen. Being an amateur
historian, professional soldier and avid collector of WW2 memorabilia I
think I can safely say that, yes, there are technical mistakes all throughout
the movie, and I, alongside my fellow enthusiasts, take a certain amount
of pride in being able to detect these errors; however I don't think that
we should degrade the movie, or the people that made it over simple and
understandable errors. I have been studying WW2 since a was a boy, almost
20 years now, and I learn something new literally everyday. We should honor
Spielberg and all the folks responsible for creating the movie for us,
honoring the men that fought, bled, cried, and died in that conflict, and
creating the most accurate portrayal possible. Until we create a time machine,
a perfect historical account will be all but impossible. (Even vets memories
can be "blurred" over the years.) Until then I will continue to watch SPR
over and over again, and smile every time I find a new "error".
Comments Contributed
by 4ID110CTR |
| Yeah, there
were a great number of errors (both accurate and results of oversights
on the viewers behalf's) in SPR. But despite all of that, it remains perhaps
one of the most vital war movies ever made ( in the same vein as Paths
Of Glory, Full Metal Jacket and Tora Tora Tora) You are never going to
please everybody no matter how hard you try. Having said that, I feel SPR
possesses a quality of brutal honesty because it gives people of the younger
generations a somewhat tangible idea of what our fathers and grandfathers
went through. Just through this brief two and a half hour time capsule.
I now have a better understanding why the men and women who witnessed the
hell that shaped the future of the world forever, had (have) a very difficult
time talking about it. If anyone would like to continue this discussion,
I would be happy to hear from you as I am starting the process of writing
a book as to what Remembrance Day (the Canadian celebration of Nov 11th)
should mean to people of my generation (I am 25) and the generations that
will follow. This undertaking in many ways is inspired by what I experienced
when I saw this in the theatre. So if any one would like to get in touch
with me, reach me at superbrassboy@hotmail.com
OR dd2squared@sympatico.ca
I look forward
to hearing from you all. Bye for now.
Comments contributed
by E McNaughton |
| Yes, the movie
has errors. Other movies such as Memphis Belle, U571, Pearl Harbor
and other war greats also have errors. Whenever I see someone grab
a 50 cal and load it quick then only charge it once then start blasting
it makes me laugh, since I'm currently in the Army and have trained on
the 50 cal BMG and know for a fact that you have to double charge it the
first time you shoot. As far as the sniper rifle goes...yes there are mistakes
there to. He could have fired six shoots, (5 in mag & 1 in chamber)
but 8?? Never. I think we all know that SPR was just a movie and they didn't
really kill or blow up anyone just for historical sake. You can only get
so realistic. As far as the question about the guy with his intestines
blown out, yes it could happen. Depending on what he got hit with and how
his body structure was it is possible. A fellow soldier was detonating
C4 a few years ago and not paying attention to what he was doing. The primer
blew up in his face. It took his jaw, nose, tongue, and one eye off not
to mention his fingers. It was the most sickening thing I've ever seen.
Very similar to the guy with the radio set on the beach. This guy is still
alive. Shock can do a lot to the body. I'm currently in B Btry 2 BN 147
FA. So just because the troops were in 2nd BN doesn't mean that they couldn't
be in C Co. We have A, B, & C Btrys in our BN. When I was with 1/38
Inf at Ft Benning GA and we had A,B,C,D,E companies in our BN. Over all
the movie did what I felt it's purpose was: reminding people what happen
50 years ago. Same for Pearl Harbor. Movies will never be exactly how it
was. But as long as they help us remember our Vets and that our freedom
was not free, it cost lives then I can over look errors. And yes the German
sniper was using a Zf41 scope.
Comments contributed
by Margie Lammon |
I feel overall,
that "Saving Private Ryan" shows one thing, that war is a vicious, violent
and heinous endeavor, and anyone who thinks otherwise should pay attention
to the scenes in this film that portrayed how brutal a violent death can
be. Please do not get me wrong with thinking that I don't believe that
there is nothing worth going to war over. That is simply not my point.
During the last
ten years, I have had the opportunity to meet, and spend time speaking
with WWII vets from just about every nation involved. The moment that hit
me the hardest, and in a good way, was when I was at my post army job working
as a security guard in an emergency room in my home town; (An "abridged"
recollection of events).
I was working
my evening shift on a quite week night. At about nine o'clock or so I came
across a gentleman sitting in the waiting room, and struck up a conversation.
Turns out he was a B-17 pilot during the war and was shot down over Germany.
He went on to tell me a bit about his experience as a P.O.W. until the
end of the war. He was there with family members involved in a minor car
accident as I recall.
About a half
hour or so later, I was back in the waiting room, and saw another older
gentleman sitting in the corner who looked as if he could use a kind word
or so. As he started speaking, I notice he had a recognizable German accent,
so I got a little blunt and asked him if he was in the war. He was very
straight up front and told me he was a fighter pilot in the Luftwaffe,
and had emigrated to America after the war to help with Me-262's.
After spending
some time listening to him tell me about that amazing aircraft, we spoke
about a lot of other areas about the war, I mentioned to him about the
B-17 pilot. I , caught up in the excitement, asked if it would be alright
with him if I went and got him. The only condition was that if I asked
him, without explaining, if he was comfortable with talking to him. I agreed
and went back to where he was. I asked the former P.O.W. ( an LTC ret.)
if he had the chance would he be bothered to talk with a former Luftwaffe
fighter pilot ( a Col.). He also asked the same question.
Well, long story
short. I had the privilege of making the formal introduction, and watched
for a short time. Those two spent over an hour talking and from what I
observed at a distance, really spent some "good times". I have no idea
of what they talked about, but it almost appeared to be some sort of reunion.
Although I did
manage to get a chance to see the both of them briefly before they left,
the same thing was said by both, almost verbatim; "thank you", and it was
sincere.
I believe, in
summation, that the technical details aside, that "Saving Private Ryan"
was an excellent film because it portrays things that most films never
will: "War is executed by those who generally have better thing to do in
life, namely, live it to the fullest extent possible. Wars are generally
started by those who do not have to face the "enemy" on the field of battle."
For those whom
might criticize what I have said.
Speak to those
veterans who survived, and ask them the same you would ask me.
Comments contributed
by Johnny-O |
| The film is
neither or purports to be, a documentary, nor even a dramatized documentary,
but instead sets out to convey the horror and brutal experience of total
war. I believe that it goes a long way to achieving this, one only had
to witness the impact on a packed cinema audience to acknowledge its power
and presence. Yes, even to the inexpert eye it has flaws and inconsistencies,
but I feel it is unfair to judge the film solely on these.
No matter what
the subject, there will always be a queue of anoraks waiting in the wings
to dissect and discuss inappropriate shoulder patches, or sniper scopes,
or what should or should have not happened scene-by-scene. This totally
ignores the lengths that the production has gone to, to procure & recreate
weapons, uniforms, equipment, landing craft, vehicles, aircraft and landscapes
of the period. Where do the critical 'experts' imagine we might find a
flight of tank busting P-47 Thunderbolts or Typhoons, or a company of Tiger
tanks & SP Guns, exactly fitting a specific moment in history, now
fifty years past. For these people I suggest that you take a long look
at 'After The Battle - #103, Spielberg's D-Day" which details the amount
of effort put to achieving a high level of accuracy and realism, or "Spearheading
D-Day" by Jonathon Cawne which also demonstrates how much period accuracy
the film did manage to achieve.
In his biography,
Max Hastings, the acclaimed British war correspondent writes, "I was among
many fans of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, because for all that film's
flaws its central character is exactly the sort of understated, decent
officer struggling to do a tough job against the odds whom I have met on
battlefields all over the world."
Comments contributed
by Martin Page |
Please
Feel Free To Contribute To This List Of Errors in
saving
private ryan
Thanks,
EZ Langston
|
|
|
