Ryan has the right intentions, to fight with his team. But...
He disobeyed a direct order to leave. He wasn't real valuable in the final battle. He got Tom Hanks killed.
If Ryan had left when ordered to, then they would all be safe. Plus, the U.S. airstrike was coming anyway, and the Americans would have secured the bridge without Ryan.
I can't think of a more ungrateful character in a movie.
No. the problem is YOU.
Your entire line of reasoning is false.
Ryan did not get Miller killed. Being in war got him killed.
If anything it can be argued that Miller's own decision to let steamboat willy go was what got him killed as it was Willy who shot him.
"If Ryan had left when ordered to, then they would all be safe."
That sort of false and frankly... IGNORANT logic, is the same sort of logic that often blames the victim.
"If only that girl had not walked down that alley, she wouldn't have been raped", etc...
Miller got killed because he was a soldier fighting in a war and his death was a combat death in wartime at the hands of the enemy.
Nothing more than that.
This "blame" mentality is for ignorant asshats.
Ungrateful?
Ryan was consumed with living up to having earned what the others sacrificed for him his entire life.
He was extremely grateful.
That you could even remotely arrive at any other conclusion shows how very pathetic a judge you are.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Well, CG upon first reading your post, my initial reaction was to say you were being too harsh on the OP. But, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. In the end, I think you nailed it.
TNSTAAFL
I could have razzed him about how it's impossible for a character(Ryan) to kill an actor(Hanks)....
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
"Your entire line of reasoning is false."
---You are wrong. Matt Damon disobeyed a direct order (to leave the bridge with Hanks' team). If you want to defend a character who disobeys his superior officers, then I can't stop you. But I am not being false in pointing out the insubordination.
"Ryan did not get Miller killed. Being in war got him killed."
--Your logic, again, is flawed. By your logic, being in a war didn't kill Tom Hanks. A bullet killed him. If I get into a car with a drunk driver and die, I blame the drunk who caused it, NOT the fact that "being on a road got me killed."
Yes, Steamboat Willie shot the bullet, but Damon and Hanks should have been long gone. Long before Willie showed up. It was the delay (Damon not leaving when ordered to) that put the team in the line of fire.
"If Ryan had left when ordered to, then they would all be safe."
Again, this is extremely accurate. The German tanks were heading for that bridge. The danger and the fighting was to be at the bridge. The orders were for Hanks' team to take Ryan far away from that bridge and head home. No one is blaming a victim. Hanks is the victim here, and he is blameless. It is Damon's fault, not your victim.
And for your analogy, if the little girl gets raped in a dark alley, then it's the rapist's fault. No doubt. But if the girl's father was given direct orders to accompany his daughter to the other side of town where it was safe, and the father said "No, I want to remain in this dark alley with her" instead, then he bears some responsibility.
"Ungrateful? Ryan was consumed with living up to having earned what the others sacrificed for him his entire life. He was extremely grateful"
We see ONE "grateful" scene, at the very end and 50 years after the fact. He needed to be grateful when it counted...when the men first risked their lives to save him...not 50 years later.
Next???
Next nothing. You have totally failed at proving anything but that you are incapable of a coherent thought.
That or you're trolling.
Proof of your incoherence is in your own posting.
to wit:
If I get into a car with a drunk driver and die, I blame the drunk who caused it, NOT the fact that "being on a road got me killed."
LOL at you !
"It is the same as blaming the rape victim for the way she dressed rather than the rapist."
You keep bringing up rape, and it's disgusting and off topic. However, to prove you wrong yet again, I will reiterate my original point when I refuted you the first time: If the rape victim's father/guardian/bodyguard has direct orders to take her to the other side of town where it is safe, and he disobeys that direct order and remains in the dangerous dark alley, then he bears some blame. The girl gets zero blame. Her outfit is not to blame either. The man who disobeyed his superiors and kept her in danger deserve some blame.
You are also forgetting another thing. An officer can, and indeed is expected to change his orders if conditions change. It's called making a command decision. Once Miller learned of the situation, and ascertained that the larger war effort would suffer if he indeed pulled his assets (especially himself) out, he had an obligation that superceded his earlier orders. Some professional military men have here postulated that had Miller abandoned those airborne troops, and their critical situation, and survived, he would have opened himself up to court martial for dereliction of duty. An officer in combat is expected to be adaptable, and make decisions that serve the priorities of the service, and take into consideration the changing face of the battlefield in which he finds himself deployed. We can argue all day about whether Miller's decision was the correct one or not. But the bottom line is he did make the decision, Ryan's decision notwithstanding. So he accepted the responsibility for the consequences.
TNSTAAFL
I have no military experience and cannot dispute those facts. However, Miller's orders were not to "bring back Ryan only if it's safe and only if Ryan agrees." The orders came from the third highest man in command of the military! (President, then Eisenhower, then Marshall himself). It's not like the orders came from some temporary field sergeant. I don't think Miller would have been been court martialed for following the orders of an extremely high-ranking general. But like I said, I honestly don't know and I will take the word of the experts on here that you mentioned. Interesting.
I have no military experience and cannot dispute those facts.
I did. When RoadKillBill noted that Tom Hanks could have been court-martialed if he obeyed orders, I deferred to the military experts, and I did not dispute those facts, and I did STFU, as you say.
Congratulations on finally posting a comment without mentioning a rape. Finally.
I did. When RoadKillBill noted that Tom Hanks could have been court-martialed if he obeyed orders, I deferred to the military experts, and I did not dispute those facts, and I did STFU, as you say.
Coast Sailer likes to lamb baste anyone who he doesn't agree with, hana
share1. Marshall was above Eisenhower.
2. Tom Hanks is still alive, last I saw. His character, Captain Miller, was killed.
3. The cause of something can be murky, and often involves a series of steps along a causal pathway. Debating which one of them was the one true cause only wastes time.
Entropy ain't what it used to be.
I thought Eisenhower was higher, but since it's Marshall, it becomes even more difficult for Hanks to disobey a direct order. And yes, I write the actors' name and not the character's because it's so easy to upset rabble-rousers on imdb who care about that stuff. :)
shareNope. Marshall was Chief of Staff. Eisenhower was only a theater commander, the equal of MacArthur.
TNSTAAFL
Interesting, so Marshall outranked the Generals.
But wasn't Eisenhower the Supreme Commander, and therefore outranked MacArthur?
No. He was Supreme Commander of the European Theater of Operations. MacArthur was Supreme Commander of the Pacific Theater of Operations. Marshall was in Washington, and as COS (The Joint Chiefs of Staff) was the highest ranking soldier in uniform, answering only to the President, and (not sure about this part) and the Secretary of War (Now Sec. of Defense).
TNSTAAFL
Thanks! Really informative.
shareYou are forgetting the conversation between Miller and Horvath, while Miller is trying to decide the next move. The Sergeant sepaks about the posibility of actually staying, hold the bridge and then, if they survive, go back with Ryan.
He says, 'What if by some miracle we stay, then actually make it out of here. Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, *beep* mess` and Miller replies: '...Oh, brother...' cause now he sees it the same way.
This personal vision, and the fact that he knows that Ryan has a point, makes him decide to stay and help the guys from the 101st. He knows this is the right thing to do. Before attacking the german machine gun, Riben says 'that is not our mission', and Miller replies 'Our mission is to win the war' At the bridge he makes a desition over this idea again even if his orders are others.
Not sure if you were talking to me or not, as it's difficult to tell in a thread this long. However, No, I wasn't forgetting that. As a matter of fact Miller's decision to attack the MG nest was in my thoughts as well. It just reinforces my point about the responsibilities of a combat officer needing to adapt to the situation and choose his actions with the priorities of the service in mind.
Or, to put it another way, if they had come upon Adolf Hitler taking a dump behind a tree, I'm sure Gen. Marshall wouldn't have a problem with them grabbing Adolf, and taking him back to HQ while abandoning the search for Pvt. Ryan.
TNSTAAFL
Sorry! I clicked reply too far down, it was for the OP
shareOne minor correction.
MacArthur was Supreme Commander of the Pacific Theater of Operations.
My mistake.
TNSTAAFL
An easy mistake to make, especially if you are more familiar with the European Theater as opposed to the Pacific Theater. the Pacific was actually broken up in THREE separate ares, The S.E. Pacific Area was the third.
Headquartered out of Panama, the SE Pacific Area saw virtually no combat and is rarely mentioned in the histories.
Most of the Pacific War centered around the other two Areas, commanded by MacArthur and Nimitz.
It was this Dual command that caused a lot of the troubles with Halsey and others during the Leyte Campaign culminating in the infamous "the World Wonders" message and the attack by Kurita's Center Force against Task Force Taffy 3 in The Battle Off Samar.
The Leyte Invasion was being carried out by Kincaid's 7th fleet under the supreme command of MacArthur.
Halsey commanded the 3rd Fleet and reported to Nimitz.
Official communications from Halsey to Kincaid and vice versa, had to run from Halsey, to Nimitz at Pearl, thence to MacArther and finally to Kincaid. Communications was crap at best. Even though Halsey and Kincaid were supposed to be working hand in hand and were in fact close enough for direct communications with each other.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Just informational (no dog in this fight) the chain of command is the president (CinC), then SecWar (SecDef), then COS, then it moves to the theaters.
shareSuppose Miller had abandoned the bridge, the German's crossed with armor, and were successful in denying the Allies the deep water port by out flanking them, causing the invasion to stall, and ultimate collapse from a German counter attack? Then do you think he might have been upbraided for not using his head, and single-mindedly sticking to his mission to save one soldier just because the COS was the one that ordered it? I think the COS, or any other high-ranking officer would have expected him to prioritize, and adapt, and if that meant sacrificing Ryan, so be it.
Now before the pedants start complaining that this really wasn't the situation, and there were other ports, the river wasn't in the right place, etc., chill out. I am only going by the fictional scenario put forth as a part of the plot of the movie to make a point about what is expected of a combat officer. No general is going to complain that an officer disregarded his orders in favor of winning a critical engagement. But, I bet he would be very aggravated if the reverse were true.
TNSTAAFL
Given that the scene finishes with a successful counter attack by American armour supported by aircraft, it seems unlikely that this company sized German combat team would have had a decisive effect.
Miller would have known that the war would be won or lost in that village. He thus had a clear choice - fight or leave. Given that Rangers, like Airborne, were selected for aggressiveness, it's not surprising that he stayed - but it was clearly his choice, not Ryan's.
Given that the scene finishes with a successful counter attack by American armour supported by aircraft, it seems unlikely that this company sized German combat team would have had a decisive effect.
Miller would have known that the war would be won or lost in that village. He thus had a clear choice - fight or leave. Given that Rangers, like Airborne, were selected for aggressiveness, it's not surprising that he stayed - but it was clearly his choice, not Ryan's.
But that company-sized unit was an armored unit. Had they walked right over the bridge in the absence of Miller's stalling action things may have been different. They may have been able to dig in, and defend the bridgehead until reinforced.
Did someone claim it was Ryan's choice?
I agree with your point. He was ordered to leave and should have complied.
shareThat Ryan, at the sharp end with people closer than family, would be reluctant to leave should not have been a surprise to Miller. If he really wanted to, he could have arrested Ryan and taken him back willing or not and he had men and authority to back him up. One more man, or even one more squad, was not going to lose the war, or even the battle. Miller would have been entirely justified to take Ryan and go.
The reason Miller stayed there was that he wanted to stay. It was his decision that holding that bridge had a higher priority than getting Ryan back. He knew, or should have known, that by doing so, he and his squad might be killed. He did it anyway as he believed it was his duty to do so.
If anyone was at fault for putting him in that situation, it was whoever decided to risk the lives of Miller and his men to get Ryan back knowing Ryan was almost certainly actually fighting at the sharp end.
This is why in real life, they didn't send a squad off into No-Mans-Land to fetch the last Niland brother, but waited until he was back at the relative safety of headquarters. It doesn't make for as god a movie and doesn't show the themes of duty, sacrifice, an homage to to WWII generation that Spielberg wanted to show. Do keep in mind - it's on;y a movie.
Nah, I hate Ryan for killing Miller AND Jackson ... Ryan ignored direct orders from the highest man in charge. Sure Miller decided to stay, but it was because of Ryan's whining.
if ryan & miller's team had left when ordered, they wouldn't necessarily have been safe. the germans could have rolled up the remaining paratroopers at the bridge and then caught miller's men in the open, where they'd have made short work of them. just because the americans avoid this one battle doesn't magically make them safe.
alternately, the germans could have ignored the whole american unit and the bridge and gone on to a different location and a different battle. obviously their initial objective wasn't the bridge, as they had to be lured into making the attack. why miller wants to lure them into attacking is a good question if the objective is to hold the bridge and all he has at his disposal is an understrength, underequipped, exhausted group of men. it's easier to hang onto the bridge if the germans bypass them entirely, and it appears that this is the only bridge in town so they needn't worry about being flanked.
nobody knew about the airstrike or reinforcements, so they're irrelevant to ryan and miller's decisions to stay and fight.
so basically, as cgsailor said, miller got killed by being in a war. it's ironic that steamboat willie is the german who shoots him, but staggering on the bridge as he was it was inevitable that someone would. blaming ryan for miller's death is just silly.
and the end bit at the cemetery with ryan's family couldn't show more clearly how ryan felt. i don't know if grateful is the right word for it, but he's carried a very heavy burden over the years for miller's sacrifice (which is why the bookend scenes at the cemetery are essential to the story being told and can't just be lopped off so we only have to watch "the good stuff").
I'd like to think that Ryan's crying at the end was the emotion of guilt for having disobeyed direct orders and getting Miller killed. Rather than grief or gratitude.
shareThen you missed the entire point.
TNSTAAFL
yeah, you missed the whole point of the movie.
even miller doesn't blame ryan for his death, so it's hard to see ryan having a massive guilt trip fifty years later about disagreeing with orders that were subsequently changed.
Disagreeing with orders, my friend, is a helluva lot different than directly disobeying them.
sharei agree. that's why ryan wouldn't be upset about disagreeing with the orders that miller subsequently changed.
shareYeah, because there is no way that a Captain with several soldiers under his command couldn't have hog-tied a private up and marched him out. It was Ryan disobeying the orders which forced Miller to stay and defend the bridge.
God dam I hate millennials.
if anything, it's miller who disobeys his orders to bring ryan back, and decides to defend the bridge instead. he caves immediately to ryan's wishes to stay, rather than insist he follow the orders to retrieve him - similar to his decision to attack the machine gun nest at the radar tower.
shareVERY interesting, Phantom, and you're absolutely correct now that I think about it.
shareCaptain Miller allowed Ryan to convince him to stay. Miller disobeyed his orders to bring Ryan back and instead allow him to stay and fight the upcoming battle. The blame (if any) is squarely on the captain's shoulders.
Ryan choose to stay with his "brothers" and fight.