saving private ryan film analysis essay

Saving Private Ryan

By steven spielberg, saving private ryan analysis.

These notes were contributed by members of the GradeSaver community. We are thankful for their contributions and encourage you to make your own.

Written by Timothy Sexton

Saving Private Ryan is an Oscar-winning film written by Robert Rodat and directed by Steven Spielberg which was released to great acclaim in 1998. While the focus of most critical attention was devoted to the legendary harrowing D-Day landing sequence, that is only one small section of a film that has much to say and ask about the ultimate justification for war.

Less than halfway through the movie, it becomes quite obvious that every single major character is potentially targeted for an on-screen death. The mission of these characters is to, as the title indicates, save one Private Ryan who has recently become the last surviving member of four Ryan brothers fighting in World War II. Concerned with the potential public relations nightmare that would result from every single member of the family being killed in action, political powers in Washington decide to send a detachment of soldiers into the thick of battle with the solitary goal of bringing Private Ryan back home alive and well to his grieving mother. The story thus follows that mission which sees that detachment of soldiers chosen especially for this objective, who do not even know Ryan, picked off one by one as they make their way to the private’s position dangerously within enemy territory.

Director Steven Spielberg has gone on record as denying that this mission is justified in any way since it is basically one in which many are sacrificed simply to save a single soldier for no compelling strategic reason. The film therefore raises questions about themes related to heroism, political influence during wartime, and the whole rationalization of sending soldiers off to war in the first place. The argument over whether the mission to put multiple soldiers at risk for the sole purpose of saving one ultimately becomes the focus of this debate over the justification of war itself.

In essence, the mission which sees eight soldiers with families of their own back home sacrificing their lives to save another soldier they have never met is the entire concept of war in miniature. The film is what is any war but people sacrificing themselves for other people they don’t know and will never even meet. Private Ryan becomes a metaphor for every single soldier who ever returns home from battle alive while the members of the squad sent to save him are a metaphor for all those soldiers who are not so lucky.

At one point, the soldiers believe they have found their target only to learn that this Private Ryan is not the Private Ryan they are sent to save. This scene underscores the difficulty of justifying the mission in the movie and the idea of war in real life by asking what is the difference between the two Private Ryans. Both have people waiting for them back home so why should one gain priority over the other. That scene connects with the multiple sequences in which individual members of the detachment lose their lives as they face various encounters with the enemy. Not only is it difficult to justify the life of one Private Ryan being more important than the life of another Private Ryan, but it also impossible to justify Private Ryan’s life being more precious than those of Private Jackson or Corporal Wade or, especially, Captain Miller. If one were to justify putting eight men in danger to save just one, Captain Miller would be the most obvious choice since he has proven himself an inspirational leader whose actions in war can easily be termed more strategically essential than Private Ryan’s. If there is any justification in the sacrificing of some soldiers to save the lives of others, the comparison of Miller and Ryan would clearly be the starting point. Under any objective consideration, then, the life of Miller is most certainly not worth putting in jeopardy for the purpose of saving the life of Ryan.

It is impossible to conceive of the film ending with Miller surviving while Ryan is lost during the treacherous path back to safety. It is equally impossible to imagine them both surviving. The whole point of the film is that men like Miller die for the sake of saving men like Ryan. That is the central unfair inequity of war. Many people die whose lives would be deemed more worthy of saving than many of those who survive. The subtext, of course, is that Ryan, despite being a soldier in the battle, also represents everyone back home who never put on a uniform or spend a single day in combat. Saving Private Ryan thus becomes a metaphor for saving all the other concepts forwarded as justifications for going to war.

Update this section!

You can help us out by revising, improving and updating this section.

After you claim a section you’ll have 24 hours to send in a draft. An editor will review the submission and either publish your submission or provide feedback.

GradeSaver will pay $15 for your literature essays

Saving Private Ryan Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Saving Private Ryan is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Study Guide for Saving Private Ryan

Saving Private Ryan study guide contains a biography of director Steven Spielberg, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

About Saving Private Ryan
Saving Private Ryan Summary
Character List
Director's Influence

Essays for Saving Private Ryan

Saving Private Ryan essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Saving Private Ryan, directed by Steven Spielberg.

The Anti-War Themes of Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan

Wikipedia Entries for Saving Private Ryan

Introduction

Saving Private Ryan Analysis: Propaganda Through Immersion

Jack Walters
March 1, 2022

Through its immersive narrative and stylistic direction, Saving Private Ryan r eminds us of the indiscriminate terror of trench warfare.

This article contains spoilers for ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (1998) .

Since the birth of the medium, film has been used as a catalyst for social, political and functional change. Whether that’s through creative narratives that explore otherwise unspoken topics, or even through outwardly exposing audiences to the difficulties of the world, there’s something about film that makes it intrinsically suitable for this kind of social commentary . And one of the topics that filmmakers seem unable to resist, however uncomfortable it is, is war. But it’s not just during wartime conflicts that these films come about. Some of the most iconic and prolific war films there have ever been – think Apocalypse Now or Paths of Glory – are products of a different era, drawn from a time that gives filmmakers more creative liberty, and crafted with the blessing of hindsight. Spielberg’s often-cited ‘masterpiece’ of war cinema Saving Private Ryan is one of these films – a piece of media that, despite depicting a time that is long gone, makes every attempt to immerse its audience in the dark and bloody realities of conflict in order to make these times real again. And by doing so, Spielberg makes one thing excessively clear – there are no winners in war , just those who die and those who don’t.

The first half an hour of Saving Private Ryan is one of the most effective and engaging sequences that Spielberg has ever directed – and that’s tough competition. It follows Tom Hanks’ Captain Miller and his squadron as they land on Omaha Beach and suffer immense casualties after being ambushed by enemy soldiers. The thing that makes this scene so memorable and captivating is the exact same thing that Spielberg uses throughout the movie to promote his personal anti-war ideologies – intense, unrelenting immersion into the scene. We never break away from Hanks’ character for a second, following him with unbroken scrutiny as he navigates the beach and witnesses a huge chunk of his team die and suffer in extremely gruesome ways. But the scene keeps moving, the characters keep on pushing, and the battle is eventually won. It’s hard to imagine a sequence that could make you feel more like a soldier under fire than this one – it defies everything that we’d expect from Hollywood filmmaking and instead opts for violence, chaos and endless bloodshed.

a still from the battlefield in Saving Private Ryan

Now, it would be unfair to claim that Spielberg was the first to do this – war films have always had elements of violence and brutality, and it would be pretty difficult to make one that didn’t. But where he deviates from tradition is in the complete lack of spectacle that surrounds the warfare in Saving Private Ryan . There are no theatrically dramatic cries or pristine cinematic explosions in Spielberg’s vision, but rather his soldiers die with a complete lack of fanfare or even sometimes recognition. In doing so, he steps away from the sensationalist nature of moviemaking and makes a very clear statement – his film isn’t just entertainment, it’s real life. The brave soldiers that get shot down on Omaha Beach aren’t just characters in a story – the camera barely even notices them as they lose limbs and writhe in pain – they’re real people and their deaths aren’t just plot points to be dramatized. By making this clear choice to avoid sensationalizing warfare, Spielberg makes it even easier for audiences to feel as though they’re really there on those beaches, rather than watching a constructed film.

Saving Private Ryan is clearly an anti-war film , and you can tell that just by reading the plot summary. It’s about the futility of warfare, the injustice of sending so many inexperienced soldiers to their deaths, and the pure terror that’s bred on the battlefield. But Spielberg doesn’t just show you that, he makes you feel it. His immersive action sequences and clear stylistic choices make you truly feel like you’re there – and that’s the best kind of propaganda there is. It’s one thing to learn about the horrors of war, but to see the carelessness with your own eyes and feel the fear with your own heart, that’s something else – and it makes all the film’s arguments about war so much more persuasive. Audiences rarely connect with films that are too overt with their deeper ideologies, particularly when they’re as political and uncomfortable as Saving Private Ryan ’s. But by placing the audience within the confines of the film, Spielberg breaks down that barrier between fiction and reality, making the film’s true meaning impossible to escape from.

Although it’s near-impossible to boil down the ‘meaning’ of Saving Private Ryan into one sentence, Captain Miller’s dying words to Private Ryan himself sum it up best. As he faces his own mortality on the battlefield, Miller lets out two simple but profound words that say more than anybody else ever could – “earn this.” It comes after an absolutely devastating attack from the enemy that sees several of his men killed, even more injured, all in the name of protecting Ryan and bringing him home. It’s one small mission in comparison to the whole of the war, but it’s everything for these men. And that’s exactly what’s so special about Saving Private Ryan . It doesn’t try and condemn war by just showing a huge-scale battlefield with dramatic deaths and big explosions, but it takes the time to develop a small, intimate story that speaks volumes about the personal trials and tribulations that soldiers faced on a daily basis during the war. These men might not have won the war themselves, but they suffer and persevere just as much as those on the front line, and as Miller’s dying words command, they earn their place in history.

Saving Private Ryan is now available on Digital, Blu-ray & DVD. Read our reviews of Steven Spielberg’s The Fabelmans , West Side Story , Jaws , Jurassic Park , Duel , Schindler’s List , E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial , and The Terminal , and find out why Catch Me If You Can is a Christmas Movie .

TAGS: Close analysis , genre: war drama , Steven Spielberg
Film Festivals , Films , Sundance Film Festival

Skywalkers: A Love Story Film Review

Daniel Allen
June 7, 2024

Your Monster Film Review: Monster Meets Girl

Film Festivals , Films , Tribeca Film Festival

Some Rain Must Fall Film Review: Patient Drama

The damned film review: guilt leads to madness.

Edgar Ortega
Film Festivals , Films , Must Watch , Tribeca Film Festival

Checkpoint Zoo Review: Animals Without Borders

Griffin in summer review: familiar but fun, latest posts.

Film and Media

Translating War: The Combat Film Genre and Saving Private Ryan

Jeanine Basinger | Oct 1, 1998

In late July 1998, Steven Spielberg landed on the American public with his World War II film Saving Private Ryan , which won the war of critics, veterans, scholars, historians, and the general moviegoing public. All that is left is the cleanup at the box office and the final awarding of medals such as the Oscar for Best Picture. The bottom line of the positive critical evaluations is this: Saving Private Ryan is a new and different World War II combat film because it finally refutes the dishonesty of previous Hollywood movies of the genre.

The truth is not that simple, and Saving Private Ryan represents another case in the ongoing struggle for film historians, who must constantly deal with modern critics who judge artistic events by the standards of their own times. For the combat movie, this means if there's no blood and guts, there's no glory. Although there is no question that Spielberg made a fine film or that Tom Hanks and the rest of the cast have done an excellent job, there are issues of film history to be addressed in evaluation. No one is going to argue with the WWII veterans who have stated that Saving Private Ryan is the most realistic presentation of combat they've seen. There is also no question but that Spielberg has achieved integrity in his images. He closely consulted with historian Stephen E. Ambrose (author of Citizen Soldiers ) and Dale Dye, a retired Marine Corps captain who acted as his chief military adviser. The issue to be discussed is not combat accuracy (or the quality of the movie) but rather accuracy about the history of the World War II combat genre and Saving Private Ryan 's place in that history.

Taking an overview based on actual screenings, where does Saving Private Ryan fit? It has been defined by modern critics as groundbreaking and anti-generic, "the desire to bury the cornball, recruiting poster legend of John Wayne: to get it right this time." 1 The primary differences that have been cited are (1) its realistic combat violence, (2) its unusual story format in which soldiers question leadership and the point of their mission, and (3) its new and different purpose.

Realistic Combat Violence

This issue is by far the most significant. The violence of Saving Private Ryan 's opening sequence (the D-Day landing on Omaha Beach) is overwhelming. Spielberg's mastery of sound, editing, camera movement, visual storytelling, narrative flow, performance, and color combine to assault a viewer, to place each and every member of the audience directly into the combat experience. Spielberg anchors the audience in Tom Hanks (as Captain John Miller), and provides three recurring motifs for Hanks/Miller's response to war: the elimination of sound (cinematic), a shaking hand (performance), and a resistance to explaining his prewar background (narrative). All are simultaneously internal and external, and all are clearly understood by the audience to be what they are: the stress of the combat experience. The elimination of sound is particularly effective, since it is both logical in the narrative (the captain's hearing could have been damaged by the shock of battle noise) and psychological (it physicalizes the emotional trauma he is undergoing).

As the action unfolds, the audience sees blood, vomit, dead fish, dismembered arms and legs, wounds spurting fountains of blood, torsos disintegrating while being dragged to safety. Men drown, are wounded, and are shot and killed in a chaotic atmosphere of fear and bewilderment. Medics are forced to make ruthless decisions about the wounded ("Routine!" "Routine!" "Priority!") as they advance among what appears to be every soldier on the beach, all apparently dying. This opening sequence is a nightmare. Today's audiences are shocked into silence while watching. No one talks, and no one munches popcorn or rattles candy wrappers.

In comparing the depiction of combat violence in Saving Private Ryan to older films, most historians and scholars would cite one primary factor in the difference: censorship. Interestingly, however, there is no specific rule governing combat violence in the Production Code. The code consists of "general principles" and their "particular applications," and the latter include the categories of crime, brutality, sex, vulgarity, obscenity, blasphemy and profanity, costumes (a polite way of saying "no nudity"), religion, special subjects, national feelings, titles, and cruelty to animals. Under crime, it is suggested that "action showing the taking of human life is to be held to the minimum" and under murder (a subcategory of crime) that "brutal killings are not to be presented in detail." 2 (The rules under vulgarity, blasphemy, and profanity, of course, clearly dictated that a soldier's conversation would be cleaned up. The movies used euphemisms such as "grab your socks" and "snafu.")

Even without specific guidelines for war, the original combat films naturally conformed to the censorship standards of their own time. This meant finding ways to clarify horrible events for viewers without directly representing them on screen. (This ploy was similar to the ways they hinted at sex: fireplace flames, crashing waves, fireworks, and judicious editing.) An example of the original WWII combat film is the seminal Bataan (1943), directed by Tay Garnett and written by Robert D. Andrews. Bataan was not the first movie about WWII combat, but it can be accepted as the first that pulled together all the elements that would become traditional to the genre. How realistic was Bataan 's combat? Critics of the day almost unanimously gave the movie raves, praising its "gritty realism." Bataan , of course, was shot entirely inside a studio on sets, using matte shots, rear projections, and artificial fog machines. What is realistic (and gritty) about it is the genuine anger it contains. Its propagandistic passion was fueled by the recent fall of Bataan and America's overall failure in the early days of the Pacific war.

In its own time, the violence of Bataan was considered extreme. All the men in the movie's group die. There are no survivors. The combat finale—a last stand or "Alamo" like the one in Saving Private Ryan —is a fast paced, hand-to-hand fight against huge odds. The outnumbered men fight with desperation, throwing dirt in the enemy's faces, tripping them, garroting them, and, shockingly, taking time to beat their already dead bodies with rifles. The worst image for stark violence is a decapitation which clearly illustrates the differences between violence "then" and violence "now." A Japanese soldier runs in swiftly and strikes an American solidly in the back of his neck with what appears to be a samurai sword. The victim's face contorts in pain, and a scream of horror is frozen on his lips. However, the audience is not shown his head falling off, and no blood spurts out or is visible. This Bataan beheading is one of the most graphic of combat deaths of the pre-sixties period, and certainly one of the most brutal of the era itself. Yet by today's standards, it is a bloodless kill.

Does this mean "unrealistic"? Physically, yes. Psychologically and emotionally, perhaps not. And did the absence of blood mean that audiences believed that soldiers died without losing arms and legs or even blood? The tendency to assign an audience of the past the role of idiot, and an audience of today the role of genius is often a problem in critical studies. Filmmakers of the 1940s knew how to create powerful effects for the audiences of their time. They also knew that the 1940s audience was not detached from the horror of war. They were losing friends and family every day, and welcoming home the maimed and wounded. Even though they could not fully grasp what being in combat was like (and still can't), they could understand its results, which they were experiencing. Critics of the day also reminded everyone about the differences between the movies and reality. James Agee reviewed Guadalcanal Diary (1943) favorably, but said, "It would be a shame and worse if those who make or will see it got the idea that it's a remotely adequate image of the first months on that island." 3

During the war, Americans were not seeing only fictionalized combat. They also saw images of war in newspapers, magazines, and newsreels. Thanks to extensive rapidly processed newsreel film, World War II was the first war that could be viewed soon after the events happened. In addition, the United States spent more than $50 million annually on documentary movies.

A talented team of Hollywood directors and writers enlisted in the armed services and were assigned to the film units that created them, including Frank Capra, John Huston, John Ford, George Stevens, and William Wyler.

Documentaries and newsreels put pressure on Hollywood, because from seeing them, home audiences gained an idea of what real combat looked like and expected war movies to look the same. In fact, the honest presentation of credible combat scenes was a concern for the Office of War Information, which asked all filmmakers to consider seven key questions regarding movies made during wartime. The first and most primary was, "Will this picture help win the war?" The last and most concrete was, "Does the picture tell the truth or will the young people of today have reason to say they were misled by propaganda?" 4 World War II films were not intentionally unrealistic. In the most cynical terms, that was not good business. Instead, working within the limitations of censorship, wartime materiel restrictions, "good taste," and propaganda, they accepted their task as one in which they were to entertain the audience, but also gain acceptance by coming close to the experiences they were living through outside the theater.

The complaint of "unreality" in Hollywood war films can be connected best to its narrative content: the sentimentalizing of relationships (both on the home front and in combat), the propagandizing of motives (which was part of the war on all fronts), and the presentation of battle violence that could not logically recreate the true battle experience. The falsification that made war exciting or glamorous was more a postwar phenomenon.

As time passed and censorship restrictions were loosened, genres of violence—horror, war, gangsters, and westerns—all increased in bloodiness, which did not necessarily make them more realistic. Two directors associated with violence—Sam Fuller and Sam Peckinpah—made key World War II combat films. Fuller, a World War II combat veteran, landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day as a part of the U.S. First Infantry Division. In 1980, he recreated his memory of the experience as a movie entitled The Big Red One. It is an abstracted, incoherent narrative from the point of view of a foot soldier who did not have the big picture and was only trying to survive. Fuller made the definitive comment on the attempt to put the war experience on film by saying, "You can never do it. The only way Š is to fire live ammo over the heads of the people in the movie theatre." 5

Peckinpah, famous for bringing blood into movies and for taking violence to a new level, made Cross of Iron (1977), a WWII combat film from the German point of view. Variety criticized it as "violence-fixated" and full of "grisly gore."

Using his trademark cinematic device (slow motion), Peckinpah shows blood and bodies flying through the air after opening his movie with old black-and-white newsreel footage and still photographs for credibility.

However, the film which seems most akin to Saving Private Ryan is the little-known 1967 Pacific combat story, Beach Red , directed by Cornel Wilde and written by Clint Johnson, Donald A. Peters, and Jefferson Pascal, based on a novel by Peter Bowman. Filmed on location at a former battle site in the Philippines, Beach Red opens with a half-hour of full-out combat in which American marines land from LSTs onto a Japanese-occupied beach. The fight shows lost limbs (a severed arm or leg) floating in the bloody water or just left abandoned on the beach, bodies torched and burning by flame-throwers, and soldiers being blown to bits by grenades. Dead bodies are used for shields by survivors trying to advance. Men vomit, show fear and confusion. There is almost no coherent dialogue, just screams, terse exchanges of basic information, and some yelled-out instructions. As Beach Red progresses, it has a minimum of story development. Its present-tense story is almost nothing but combat, the visualization of what it takes to win an island back from the enemy under terrible conditions. ( Beach Red is sometimes shown on TV in edited versions that reduce the gore.) The movie provides two forms of relief for the viewers. First, characters "think" and their thoughts are heard as spoken narration on the soundtrack, providing coherence and offsetting the absence of dialogue; and second, flashbacks relieve the combat intensity. These "past tense" moments are brief, but they restore order and sanity. Despite these reliefs, Beach Red is a classic example of genre updating. Using World War II movie situations from the past, it reconstitutes them as a bloody nightmare, larding into its images all the gore, dismemberment, and ugly death that was previously missing. It's a 1960s update of a 1940 genre, a forerunner of Saving Private Ryan .

An Unusual Story Format

The story format of Saving Private Ryan (written by Robert Rodat) does not break with the established genre. Except that the object of the group's mission is saving a single ordinary soldier for public relations concerns (or concern for his mother), it follows the traditional format. (Rescue missions more commonly saved some key figure, a symbolic guerrilla leader, an atomic scientist, a top commander, a brilliant president or king or Nobel prize winner, or even a group of prisoners or trapped civilians.)

My research for The World War II Combat Film indicated that the traditional story format contains three basic elements: hero, group, and objective. The group is made up of a mixture of ethnic and geographic types, most commonly including an Italian, a Jew, a cynical complainer from Brooklyn, a sharpshooter from the mountains, a midwesterner (nicknamed by his state, "Iowa" or "Dakota"), and a character who must be initiated in some way (a newcomer without battle experience) and/or who will provide a commentary or "explanation" on the action as it occurs (a newspaperman, a letter writer, an author, a professor). As the group moves forward, action unfolds in a series of contrasting episodes that alternate in uneven patterns: night and day, safety and danger, action and repose, dialogue and nondialogue, comedy and tragedy, good weather and bad weather, combat and noncombat, and so on. Military iconography is used and explained. Conflict breaks out within the group itself, in which the objective is questioned, leadership is questioned, and the war itself is often questioned. Rituals from home are discussed and remembered, and new rituals from their combat status are enacted. As the group advances, they encounter the enemy and certain members die. A final climactic battle—often a last stand, referred to as an "Alamo" or "A Little Big Horn"—takes place, which reveals the film's overall purpose. The hero, who has usually had the objective forced on him, has to make a series of difficult (and unpopular) decisions. He sometimes survives (although most of his men don't), and he sometimes dies.

Saving Private Ryan fits this format. Its hero is a former school teacher who has had combat forced on him by the war. The group contains an Italian, a Jew, a cynic from Brooklyn, and a particularly adept mountain sharpshooter (a Sergeant York figure). Private Ryan is from Iowa. The last-minute recruit for the mission, a translator, is not a combat soldier and must be initiated into the process. His questions and desire to learn form the running commentary. The action unfolds in a series of contrasts, and military iconography is explained (the "sticky bomb" and the German "88s"). A group conflict breaks out over whether saving one man is worth it or not, and Hanks/Miller's decision to take out a German pillbox along the way is questioned. Hanks shrewdly diffuses this fight by interrupting it with one of the group's rituals: the money pool regarding his own peacetime occupation. Home life is discussed-Ryan and his brothers in the barn, Hanks in his garden. Key members of the group die, and in the final "Alamo" armageddon, the hero articulates the key purpose of the movie: "Earn it." This point—did Ryan live a life worthy of the sacrifices made for him?—can be translated into a higher meaning for a modern viewing audience. Have we as a nation earned the sacrifices that were made for our freedom and way of life by the combat soldiers of World War II? (This eloquent call for Americans to take a good look at themselves has largely been ignored by critics.)

Some critics have suggested that Ryan is unique in its questioning process and group conflict. In fact, the combat film was always grounded in the need to help an audience understand and accept war. As a result, even at the high point of propaganda, movies needed to articulate the question audiences inevitably asked: "Why are we doing this?" Even if the question was answered in a jingoistic way, it was asked. One of the main purposes of the combat genre was to answer that question. To do so, the movies used the idea that the average American soldier was an individual with a mind of his own and the right to question authority. Guadalcanal Diary , Bataan , Air Force (1943), The Story of G.I. Joe (1945), A Walk in the Sun (1945), and others made during the war itself, all reveal doubt and despair amidst the attempts to tell us we are doing the right thing in fighting the war.

Although many critics complain about John Wayne movies, they tend to forget that in Sands of Iwo Jima (1949), in which he plays a tough marine sergeant, he is also depicted as a lonely, frequently drunken man, driven by personal demons. When he forbids his men to go to the aid of a wounded comrade, they disagree with his decision, but obey. They spend a long night in their foxholes, listening to their friend's desperate pleas for help. Wayne, the hard leader who knows they'll be shot if they move and their position is revealed, is shown in close-up, sweating, perhaps crying, himself suffering through the night. In the end, this hero—John Wayne in his prime—is shockingly shot and killed even though the battle is over and won.

New and Different Purpose

Obviously the purpose of the combat film will not be the same in 1998 as it was in 1944. Although the basic story format is always kept intact (this is the definition of genre), its usage and purpose alters. It undergoes a process of evolution which reflects the times in which each movie is released. Originally, the purpose was patriotic and explanatory, to help the audience get behind the war and set aside their doubts and fears. After the war ended, there was a brief period of respite in which no combat films appeared, because there was no purpose for them to fulfill. Toward the end of 1949, they reemerged. The purpose of these films was to try to put the war in an "after the fact" perspective. The purpose ceased to be patriotism and became one of earned national pride, a deeper level of understanding, and justification. These movies were huge box office successes, and included such films as Battleground (1949), Task Force (1949), To Hell and Back (1955), and Sands of Iwo Jima. By 1960, after more than a decade of peace and prosperity, America started to celebrate the war in a series of epic recreations of the major battles: The Longest Day (1962), Battle of the Bulge (1965), The Bridge at Remagen (1969), and Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970). Many of these movies were shot on location, with international casts, sometimes including veterans of the actual events. The purpose of these films was allegedly to document or re-create the actual event so the audience could watch it, but what takes place is somewhat different. These are the movies that transform the war into legend, as they all have, despite attempts at accuracy—a kind of "Hurrah! Let's Go!" quality. By the end of the 1960s, a secondary trend started to run alongside these epic re-creations. The Vietnam war was continuing, and a period of disillusionment with combat emerged. Initially, movies about the violence of Vietnam were not set in that war. Other genres—westerns, gangster films, and the World War II combat film—were used to express America's doubt and anger concerning Vietnam. For this period of the evolution, the purpose was a denial process, and the genre's format was either inverted, perverted, destroyed, mocked, or satirized. For example, The Dirty Dozen (1967) presented a hero who was an opportunistic cynic, a group (criminals awaiting the gallows, who were given a reprieve to undertake the mission), and an objective that was a fancy "rest and recreation" center for German officers, in short, a whorehouse.

This evolution of purpose shows how a genre, once it is fixed, can be used over time as the culture needs it to be used. Thus, the really interesting questions about Saving Private Ryan are: Why now? And for what purpose? Soon, more WWII combat films will be released, with such titles as Thunder Below; When Trumpets Fade; U-571; Earth, Wings, and Fire; and most notably, the second movie version of James Jones's famous novel The Thin Red Line, directed by Terrence Malick. (The first was made in 1964, directed by Andrew Marton, and starring Keir Dullea.)

What has reactivated the combat genre? In asking the question, it's probably a good idea to remember that World War II did not exactly disappear from American lives. It has remained with us in movie revivals, television shows, books, magazines, documentaries, and the History Channel. Among the many reasons being suggested for the new movie versions are: male directors who watched combat films as boys and now want to make their own; a new conservatism that takes us backward to simpler times; the millennium that makes us want to reevaluate the century; and so forth. Until we see the combat films to come, however, we cannot really know what they will add up to. It's a new chapter for the evolutionary process, and what we know now is that Saving Private Ryan may be the seminal film. It certainly will be the first key movie in the new era.

In the meantime, we need to place Ryan 's role in the genre's history accurately. It is not that audiences had never seen soldiers question leadership or objectives, or that they had never seen violence or heard doubts expressed.

We live in an era of desensitizing movie violence. The New York Times pointed out that Starship Troopers, a space fantasy, also showed us bodies blown apart, limbs flying through the air, and plenty of blood and gore.

What Saving Private Ryan does is take the carnage out of space and back down to the human level. Spielberg has asked us to think about it and ask ourselves where we are going in the future in this country. As the "old" Private Ryan asks his wife—and by extension, the audience—"Did I earn it?" he connects the movie directly to the "me" generation. Is one individual worth it? What Saving Private Ryan means is in its final admonition: "Earn it." Spielberg's true accomplishment is that he has used familiar genre elements for a new purpose, putting them together in a brilliantly visualized movie that causes Americans to take the war seriously again.

1. James Wolcott, "Tanks For The Memories," Vanity Fair (August 1998): pp. 70-76.

2. Murray Schumach, The Face on the Cutting Room Floor: The Story of Movie and Television Censorship (New York: Da Capo Press, 1974).

3. James Agee, "Review of Guadalcanal Diary, " The Nation (November 13, 1943). Reprinted in Agee on Film (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), p. 59.

4. Clayton R. Koppes and Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Goes to War: How Politics, Profits, and Propaganda Shaped World War II Movies (New York: The Free Press, 1987), pp. 66-67 (from the Office of War Information Manual, 1942, OWI Files).

5. Lee Server, Sam Fuller: Film Is a Battleground: A Critical Study, with Interviews, a Filmography and a Bibliography (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1994), pp. 22, 52.

Jeanine Basinger is the Corwin-Fuller Professor of Film Studies and American Studies at Wesleyan University, where she is also founder and curator of the Wesleyan Cinema Archives and chair of the Film Studies Program. She is the author of numerous articles and eight books on film, including The World War II Combat Film: Anatomy of a Genre (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1986); Anthony Mann: A Critical Study (Boston: Twayne, 1979); and A Woman's View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women, 1930-1960 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993). Her book American Cinema: 100 Years of Filmmaking (New York: Rizzoli, 1994) was the companion book for a 10-part PBS television series that was broadcast in January 1995. She is a trustee of the American Film Institute and is a nationally recognized expert on various aspects of American film. Basinger was also the senior consultant for the series. Her ninth book, Silent Stars, will be published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1999.

Tags: Scholarly Communication Military History

The American Historical Association welcomes comments in the discussion area below, at AHA Communities , and in letters to the editor . Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

In This Section

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, saving private ryan.

Now streaming on:

The soldiers assigned to find Pvt. Ryan and bring him home can do the math for themselves. The Army Chief of Staff has ordered them on the mission for propaganda purposes: Ryan's return will boost morale on the homefront, and put a human face on the carnage at Omaha Beach. His mother, who has already lost three sons in the war, will not have to add another telegram to her collection. But the eight men on the mission also have parents--and besides, they've been trained to kill Germans, not to risk their lives for publicity stunts. "This Ryan better be worth it," one of the men grumbles.

In Hollywood mythology, great battles wheel and turn on the actions of individual heroes. In Steven Spielberg 's "Saving Private Ryan," thousands of terrified and seasick men, most of them new to combat, are thrown into the face of withering German fire. The landing on Omaha Beach was not about saving Pvt. Ryan. It was about saving your skin.

The movie's opening sequence is as graphic as any war footage I've ever seen. In fierce dread and energy it's on a par with Oliver Stone's " Platoon ," and in scope surpasses it--because in the bloody early stages the landing forces and the enemy never meet eye to eye, but are simply faceless masses of men who have been ordered to shoot at one another until one side is destroyed.

Spielberg's camera makes no sense of the action. That is the purpose of his style. For the individual soldier on the beach, the landing was a chaos of noise, mud, blood, vomit and death. The scene is filled with countless unrelated pieces of time, as when a soldier has his arm blown off. He staggers, confused, standing exposed to further fire, not sure what to do next, and then he bends over and picks up his arm, as if he will need it later.

This landing sequence is necessary to establish the distance between those who give the order that Pvt. Ryan be saved, and those who are ordered to do the saving. For Capt. Miller ( Tom Hanks ) and his men, the landing at Omaha has been a crucible of fire. For Army Chief George C. Marshall ( Harve Presnell ) in his Washington office, war seems more remote and statesmanlike; he treasures a letter Abraham Lincoln wrote consoling Mrs. Bixby of Boston, about her sons who died in the Civil War. His advisors question the wisdom and indeed the possibility of a mission to save Ryan, but he barks, "If the boy's alive we are gonna send somebody to find him--and we are gonna get him the hell out of there." That sets up the second act of the film, in which Miller and his men penetrate into French terrain still actively disputed by the Germans, while harboring mutinous thoughts about the wisdom of the mission. All of Miller's men have served with him before--except for Cpl. Upham ( Jeremy Davies ), the translator, who speaks excellent German and French but has never fired a rifle in anger and is terrified almost to the point of incontinence. I identified with Upham, and I suspect many honest viewers will agree with me: The war was fought by civilians just like him, whose lives had not prepared them for the reality of battle.

The turning point in the film comes, I think, when the squadron happens upon a German machinegun nest protecting a radar installation. It would be possible to go around it and avoid a confrontation. Indeed, that would be following orders. But they decide to attack the emplacement, and that is a form of protest: At risk to their lives, they are doing what they came to France to do, instead of what the top brass wants them to do.

Everything points to the third act, when Private Ryan is found, and the soldiers decide what to do next. Spielberg and his screenwriter, Robert Rodat , have done a subtle and rather beautiful thing: They have made a philosophical film about war almost entirely in terms of action. "Saving Private Ryan" says things about war that are as complex and difficult as any essayist could possibly express, and does it with broad, strong images, with violence, with profanity, with action, with camaraderie. It is possible to express even the most thoughtful ideas in the simplest words and actions, and that's what Spielberg does. The film is doubly effective, because he communicates his ideas in feelings, not words. I was reminded of "All Quiet on the Western Front." Steven Spielberg is as technically proficient as any filmmaker alive, and because of his great success, he has access to every resource he requires. Both of those facts are important to the impact of "Saving Private Ryan." He knows how to convey his feelings about men in combat, and he has the tools, the money and the collaborators to make it possible.

His cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski , who also shot " Schindler's List ," brings a newsreel feel to a lot of the footage, but that's relatively easy compared to his most important achievement, which is to make everything visually intelligible. After the deliberate chaos of the landing scenes, Kaminski handles the attack on the machinegun nest, and a prolonged sequence involving the defense of a bridge, in a way that keeps us oriented. It's not just men shooting at one another. We understand the plan of the action, the ebb and flow, the improvisation, the relative positions of the soldiers.

Then there is the human element. Hanks is a good choice as Capt. Miller, an English teacher who has survived experiences so unspeakable that he wonders if his wife will even recognize him. His hands tremble, he is on the brink of breakdown, but he does his best because that is his duty. All of the actors playing the men under him are effective, partly because Spielberg resists the temptation to make them zany "characters" in the tradition of World War II movies, and makes them deliberately ordinary. Matt Damon , as Pvt. Ryan, exudes a different energy, because he has not been through the landing at Omaha Beach; as a paratrooper, he landed inland, and although he has seen action he has not gazed into the inferno.

They are all strong presences, but for me the key performance in the movie is by Jeremy Davies, as the frightened little interpreter. He is our entry into the reality because he sees it clearly as a vast system designed to humiliate and destroy him. And so it is. His survival depends on his doing the very best he can, yes, but even more on chance. Eventually he arrives at his personal turning point, and his action writes the closing words of Spielberg's unspoken philosophical argument.

"Saving Private Ryan" is a powerful experience. I'm sure a lot of people will weep during it. Spielberg knows how to make audiences weep better than any director since Chaplin in " City Lights ." But weeping is an incomplete response, letting the audience off the hook. This film embodies ideas. After the immediate experience begins to fade, the implications remain and grow.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Tomris laffly.

Handling the Undead

Young Woman and the Sea

Christy lemire.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

Robert daniels.

The Contestant

Monica castillo, film credits.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Rated R For Intense Prolonged Realistically Graphic Sequences Of War Violence, and For Language

170 minutes

Tom Sizemore as Sgt. Horvath

Edward Burns as Pvt. Reiben

Tom Hanks as Capt. Miller

Barry Pepper as Pvt. Jackson

Adam Goldberg as Pvt. Mellish

Robert Rodat

Directed by

Steven Spielberg

Latest blog posts

Handmade Magic: Jason and the Argonauts

House of the Dragon Returns with a Captivating Yet Convoluted Second Season

Hulu's Queenie is a Masterful Study of Self-Growth

Fear, Hope, and Joy: Ramata-Toulaye Sy on Banel and Adama

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Schindler'S List — Saving Private Ryan and “Schindlers List”: Films Analysis

Saving Private Ryan and "Schindlers List": Films Analysis

Categories: Film Analysis Schindler'S List

About this sample

Words: 542 |

Published: Dec 18, 2018

Words: 542 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5.5 pages / 2615 words

7.5 pages / 3441 words

3 pages / 1458 words

3 pages / 1291 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Saving Private Ryan and "Schindlers List": Films Analysis Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Schindler'S List

The film 'Schindler's List' begins in September 1939 in the Krakow village of Poland, which was occupied by German troops during World War II. In the case of Jews, they register their family number and more than 10,000 Jews [...]

German businessman Oskar Schindler became an unusual hero when he saved hundreds of Jews in Poland and Czechoslovakia from death at the hands of the Nazis during World War II (1939–45). By employing them in his factory, [...]

The Holocaust was a real, frightening, and horrific event for many people. The Nazis have slaughtered six million Jews on their own, which is crazy to imagine. The numerous ways in which they have been tormented and killed are [...]

The worst genocide to have occurred in history is to be named The Holocaust. The Holocaust is described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a sacrifice consumed by fire” or “a mass slaughter of people.” (Holocaust) The torture [...]

The film, Schindler’s List, is a very valuable source in understanding the Holocaust. It played a pivotal role in educating audiences about the Holocaust because of its high emotional value, full coverage of the Holocaust [...]

George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ is an allegorical fairy tale which is profound in its condemnations of totalitarian regimes. The novel explores the concepts of propaganda, totalitarianism and tyranny impacting on the oppressed [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Why Saving Private Ryan remains the most endearing World War II movie

W ith another anniversary of the tragic, D-Day, it is time to revisit some classic war movies like Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg's incredible take on D-Day and beyond, which continues to be considered one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of all time.

It is not uncommon to set movies around great wars like World War II or the Vietnam War, and many have done so. But there is something much more endearing about Saving Private Ryan that appeals to fans with something much more than any single-dimensional emotion.

Ahead of the 80th anniversary of D-Day, here is why Saving Private Ryan stood the test of time and will perhaps continue to be the most important piece of war cinema in the foreseeable future.

Saving Private Ryan benefits from a lot of things but most of all it benefits from the beating heart at the centre of it all

While War movies are a genre that has produced a lot of content over the years and continues to do so in the present day, some films leave a more lasting mark compared to others. Saving Private Rya n, which is also among the finest works of Steven Speilberg, has a few elements, barring the incredible cast of Tom Hanks , Matt Damon, Edward Burns, Tom Sizemore, and Giovanni Ribisi, among others, that make it stand out.

It may be hard to point a finger at these elements while watching the very engaging drama, but they are present throughout the movie.

A human story at the heart of the war

One of the reasons this movie is different from almost all war movies that came before it was because of the central conflict, which was not quite "winning a war." Instead, it was about a rescue attempt of a soldier, whose three brothers were already killed in the war, deviating the conflict away from wins and losses in war to a story of compassion and sadness.

Moreover, the movie also is quite accurate in its depiction of the horrors of war. This is especially impactful in its treatment of enemy characters, and the larger aspect of an overall loss whenever there is any war.

The ordinary boys-turned-soldiers and the morally gray areas of a war

One of the things ordinary consumers tend to forget is that soldiers in wars like WWII are not merely soldiers but civilians who were thrust in front of bullets and tanks. Beyond the war, all the soldiers have lives that are not explicitly always linked with the preservation of the country.

This is time and again emphasized in Saving Private Ryan , allowing more compassion to flow through the screen as the characters become more relatable and more poignant.

It also often deals with the morally gray areas of war and how no side is right. This also adds a human layer on top of what we traditionally imagine as a war.

Precise execution and adherence to reality

Few will forget the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan, which thrusts the soldiers into the infamous Normandy beach, in what would be considered one of the darkest days in American history. This sequence is a testament to how well-executed the movie was. Every hit, every shot, every cut, it all seemed so eerily real that this scene developed a niche fanbase of its own.

This is repeated several times throughout the movie, which also adheres closely to the real environment of the war. The realism has often been praised by critics and fans alike, giving the film an edge over many similar-minded ones.

All in all, Saving Private Ryan is here to stay on the list of greatest war films ever made. It is worth a rewatch every D-Day Memorial Day and whenever anyone is in the mood for a war movie.

Why Saving Private Ryan remains the most endearing World War II movie

Home / Essay Samples / Entertainment / Steven Spielberg / Saving Private Ryan’ Documentary Theme Analysis

Saving Private Ryan' Documentary Theme Analysis

Category: Entertainment
Topic: Documentary , Movie Analysis , Steven Spielberg

Pages: 4 (1650 words)

Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

A Beautiful Mind Essays

Minecraft Essays

Miss Representation Essays

Game of Thrones Essays

Anthem Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->