(Queue Rodney Dangerfield)
Seriously, though. His soldiers barely allow themselves to obey his orders and he's a fracking CAPTAIN. He had an entire company under him, yet he can barely control these guys?
Not to be too picky, but that's "cue", as in signal the actor it's time for his line or entrance. "Queue" is a line of people in England waiting for something.
TNSTAAFL
I'm not a brit, but i guess I'm used to using queue in the computer sense. As in, "he's next".
Thanks for the completely unrelated response though.
The British comment was a light-hearted jibe at my mates from across the pond that hang out here. Unfortunately it was at your expense.
I didn't respond to your point because I completely agree with it. As a matter of fact, I watched it again last night for the first time in quite a while, and was struck with that very thought myself. Captains and privates may joke around with each other this informally in today's military (not being a vet, I can't really speak to that). But the 1940s were a much different time. I doubt seriously that a captain (especially one who was used to the formal separation of roles a high school teacher would have been accustomed to) would have tolerated the familiarity a soldier like Reiben offered.
TNSTAAFL
Well it is part of the story. They had to press lots of men into service to cope with the needs of WW2. Miller had a degree, he was a teacher, so he was made an officer. His guys were more battle-ready and they sensed that Miller was not necessarily a tough Patton-type of leader. He was a "lover, not a fighter." When they had to kill enemies it tore him up. Miller did not want to be there but he respected the assignment he had and tried his best to execute it.
It also serves to illustrate that the reality was not every soldier showed respect to his commanding officer as we are often led to believe in war movies. To me it all makes the story we see more realistic.
But why would you want to put Dangerfield in a line??
..*.. TxMike ..*..
I don't know if I agree that the squad was more experienced/battle-hardened than Miller. They probably all came into the service at roughly the same time after Pearl Harbor. Also, Horvath mentions that he had been with Miller, "since Casserine Pass". They also talk in the church about having been at Anzio together. If these were indeed true to the character, I dare say that made Miller probably one of the most combat-experienced officers on the beach (in the American sector anyway).
TNSTAAFL
Read again, I didn't say "battle-hardened" which would come with experience, I said "battle-ready", meaning they were more likely the rugged "badass" type of men who were more mentally prepared for fighting. Like the sniper and a few others.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
Whatever. The point still stands. They were no more "battle-ready" than Miller was.
TNSTAAFL
If you believe that then you either didn't see the movie or you weren't paying attention. That is one of the main themes.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
It may be one of the main themes in your fantasies. But it wasn't in the actual movie. Or, perhaps you would like to drop the smug, self-satisfied attitude and actually offer an argument (citing dialogue that was actually IN the film of course)
for saying that the squad was more battle-ready than the officer who was apparently in combat from the first American involvement in Africa, through Italy (including one of the toughest parts of that campaign), and was in a command role both on the beach, and in the mop-up inshore in the days following? Don't forget, he also went through the same Ranger training his men did. Just what part of the movie that explains this "main theme" do you think I missed?
TNSTAAFL
battled hardened vs battle ready. What in the Hell are you talking about? You use those phrases as if they are legitimate metrics that you can use to measure a soldier's effectiveness in battle. You don't become the Captain of your own damn company unless you have a gigantic battle-boner, ok? And a lowly squad would NEVER have repeatedly disobeyed the orders of their Sergeant, much less their company commander. "Put that kid down. we're not a day care." "Sorry Cap, but the screaming French kid reminds me of my niece."
This movie is a piece of fiction that borrows from real elements of the war to tell its story, and it does a good job of doing that. The characters though are Hollywood war characters all the way. They're still surrounded by the realities and horrors of war, but their reactions are pure hollywood. Watch any WW2 documentary and listen to soldiers. They didn't talk about their feelings or whine about a job that had to get done. They did it. Keep in mind that Captain Miller picked the BEST people he could. He had the pick of whoever he wanted when the mission was assigned to him, and he picked a few clowns and an awesome sniper.
^I could not agree more with everything you said. I'd like to indeed reinforce it by adding another thought.
Even the director himself has stated in interviews that this film is an "homage" film. It was conceived as a tribute to Spielberg's own father, and his peers for their efforts in WWII. Along the way, Spielberg expanded his guiding theme of honoring that which came before him to include those WWII war movies that preceded him. His resulting SPR is as a result chock full of cinematic references to other, earlier movies of that genre.
This can be seen in everything from the cinematography in certain scenes, to the stereotypical characterizations, to dialogue, to virtually lifting entire scenes from older movies, and dropping them in SPR. Take the scene lifted from The Longest Day. Right after the Americans secure the top of the beach, and over run the German bunkers, there is a scene where two Germans with their hands up approach two Americans. They are speaking German (although in SPR they were actually speaking Czech IIRC) and are gunned down by the Americans. The Americans then, in both movies make a crude joke about not understanding the language the surrendering soldiers were speaking.
If nothing, this movie must be viewed in the light of it being what it is, an homage film. It's not a documentary. It is not a political statement about either domestic, or international relations. It's not (this is the funniest one)
a covert vehicle for radical feminists to feminize men. It is neither a pro-war, nor an anti-war movie, but it is both.
This movie is the results of the efforts of an extremely talented director at the top of his career to acknowledge some of the influences of his life and profession using the medium he excelled at.
TNSTAAFL
Great reply. I didn't realize so much of that, so I really enjoy those insights into the film! I was aware of the scene with the 2 soldiers though and I believe they're also speaking Czech in SPR. They are saying "Don't shoot! We're Czech!", a hidden reference to the Czechs who were forced to fight for the wehrmacht. I didn't realize it was borrowed from Longest Day. I guess I have to watch that again!
You really summarized this well and are clearly better than I at interpreting and analyzing the film. Well done.
TNSTAAFL
I liked SPR up until the unit starts walking towards the front to do the saving. They are in enemy country but are not paying attention. They are making too much noise. When Captain Miller makes the decision to change the mission temporarily and attack the radar post, several soldiers try to argue with him!
Remember these are supposed to be Army Rangers who are more highly trained and motivated than the regular infantry. This is not believable at all. Besides which taking out a radar position, in my mind, is better for the war effort than SPR.
You write " This is not believable at all. "
But you miss the point, great pains were taken to make the fictional story as accurate as possible. The fact that you might find it "not believable" just speaks to your lack of knowledge of what actually went on during that war.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
As has been pointed out, sometimes at tedious length and annoying fervour, the fictional story is not especially accurate. In real life, there was never any serious consideration to sending a rescue party after the real life Ryan. There were no SS facing the American airborne forces and no German heavy armour. It's unlikely that given the mission, the mission commander would go out of his way to jeopardize it by attacking an MG post - which would normally not be sitting there unsupported in any event. The Ranger's boat crews in real life were British, not American. Some of the supporting characters were way too old. And so on.
If you want documentary level accuracy, you'll be disappointed. If you want a well made artistic statement about the Greatest Generation, then this film is for you and the details do not really matter.
Besides which taking out a radar position, in my mind, is better for the war effort than SPR.
I'd like to see what would happen should a captain tell a four-star general, the Army Chief of Staff, that he knows better than the general what missions he should be assigned.
shareRodney Dangerfield's schtick was "I don't get no respect..." then he'd launch into some funny story about being disrespected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So02TBi7R3w
Hey folks,
Captain John Miller was not a West Point graduate; he was a guy with a bachelor's degree who was a schoolteacher before the war. While he was not a regular Army officer, he also was not simply a college graduate with no common sense. Miller clearly exhibited that he was well trained as an infantry officer and had very good judgment concerning infantry tactics. After serving in North Africa, Italy, and at this point the D-Day invasion, he was obviously very combat experienced as well as combat smart - perhaps more so than some regular Army officers.
Not being a regular Army officer could very easily explain how he might be able to more easily identify with and entertain a more relaxed level of military courtesy than might be found with regular Army officers. When the one GI took the French girl despite Miller clearly telling him to not do so, that type of incident would not likely be credible. However, when Miller decided to eliminate the MG42 and the GIs complained about doing it, that could very easily happen with an officer like Miller.
These GIs were part of Miller's company and were loyal to him, and they trusted him as well as his judgment as their company commander. In this instance they questioned his decision, but they did not disobey his decision. Miller did not have to "order" the men to attack the MG42, they simply followed Miller as he led them in the effort. Yes, they told him they disagreed, but they followed him because he was their leader - a leader for whom they had trust even in this instance. That is what soldiering is about.
Most of the guys with stars may have come from West Point, but the mainstay of the officers during this war were the guys like John Miller who were civilian soldiers who were also smart enough to learn and apply the training they received.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile