Crime Week: Reservoir Dogs (Heists)

Quentin Tarantino has something of a longstanding association with crime, one that goes back to his first feature film Reservoir Dogs. While this low-budget early film displays a lot of the trademarks that easily define Tarantino's later films, such as the rapid-fire dialogue and non-linear storytelling, it often stands out due to the curious way he approaches its subject matter. The story centres around a botched heist, specifically an organized attempt to steal diamonds which does not go quite as planned because one of the people involved is an undercover cop. Tarantino's approach to making a heist film, however remains somewhat unusual.

In the hands of any other director, the plot would likely be much more linear. Most likely, the heist would be the climax of the film. The story would focus on Joe (Lawrence Tierney) finding out about the diamonds and his efforts to recruit a team of professionals to pull off the heist, as well as their efforts to learn about the bank's security systems and to devise the appropriate countermeasures for each. Then at the climax, the actual heist would be shown, where the viewer would see how everything comes together. Then it might be played as a twist when the cops turn out to be ready for them, with the ending focusing on the attempted getaway that leads to them double-crossing each other and everything falling apart. This would be a conventional narrative for a heist film.

Instead, Tarantino opts for something very different. He begins the movie just before the heist is to occur, and then moves straight into its immediate aftermath. In fact, the heist itself goes entirely unseen. All information about what happened comes from what is described by the characters afterwards, many of whom have conflicting accounts of the precise chain of events such as when the cops showed up. Tarantino could have made Reservoir Dogs a more conventional heist film, but he chose not to because he was not interested in the heist itself. What he was clearly more interested in is the characters and their interactions. 

The cast is in general very minimalist, with few other characters besides the central thieves. This group contains a total of six men: Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Pink (Steve Buschemi), and Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker), as well as their employers Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) and "Nice Guy" Eddie (Chris Penn). Most of the film focuses purely on these individuals. Their association is also marked by the choice of wardrobe: all six of the thieves wear an identical suit, with slicked-back hair and similar pairs of sunglasses. 

This wardrobe serves to mark their association with one another. The only ones to deviate from this pattern are Joe and Eddie, both of whom are dressed casually. This creates an obvious contrast between the two different levels of the crime business, and separates the employers from those who are actually performing the theft. However, this is also deconstructed as the movie progresses. After the heist, each of the characters begin to shed parts of their uniform. The sunglasses come off almost immediately, hair becomes messy, and suits become dirty, torn, or altered (such as Mr. Blonde removing his jacket). These changes give each man a more distinct appearance, and with it a distinct personality.

There are next to no female characters in Reservoir Dogs, which may seem like a strange move given Tarantino's later films, and only one black character in a supporting role (Randy Brooks). The only women who make an appearance are the girl Mr. Pink pulls out of her car and the woman who shoots Mr. Orange (Tarantino actually shot a scene with a female cop, but it was removed because he felt it revealed too much about Mr. White too early). Of course, only six of the responding officers are actually seen: Marvin Nash (Kirk Baltz), the three who chase Mr. Pink, and the two that are shot by Mr. White. Considering that it was heavily implied that there were a bunch of other cops besides these, it is entirely possible that there were female officers present offscreen. 

This may not be totally unjustified, however, as it fits the personalities of the main characters. These guys are anti-heroes, and are hardly treated as nice people. Joe in particular is shown to be a very old-fashioned criminal, and makes several remarks that indicate he is racist, sexist, and homophobic, and the others are not much better. At one point, Mr. Pink outright states that black and white women "ain't the same" and relies on stereotypes to justify this. The film even draws attention to this at times, with details such as Mr. White's anecdote about working with "Alabama" (who according to him is an exceptional thief), not to mention that the woman confronted by Mr. White and Mr. Orange actually makes an effort to defend herself (and ends up shooting the latter). 

It is likely that Joe, being a closed-minded old man, simply would not hire a woman. This would be consistent with much of the rest of the film, which highlights flaws in the criminal lifestyle. Joe is not exactly an effective planner. He is stubborn and refuses to accept any way other than his own (as is shown when he refuses to refer to Mr. Pink as anything other than his assigned nickname). This was after all the same guy who considered a complete psycho to be a good addition to the team, and the other guys involved do not exactly fit together.

This is established in the film's opening scene, where the thieves are eating breakfast and talking. This particular moment establishes each of the central characters through their dialogue. This particular scene marks the only appearance of Mr. Blue, and is one of only two scenes (not including the credits) to show Mr. Brown. Neither of these two are given a huge amount of focus. Mr. Blue only speaks two lines in the entire scene, while Mr. Brown is given a supporting role in the conversation. Both of these men die during the heist, so by reducing their role, Tarantino is singling out the four who will be given the most focus: Mr. White, Mr. Orange, Mr. Pink, and Mr. Blonde.

During this scene, Joe remains distracted from the other guys. While most of them engage in a discussion about the sexual themes of pop music, Joe spends the entire time going through an old address book he apparently found. He seems to be more concerned with remembering the names he finds in the aforementioned book than the heist he is supposed to overseeing later. Mr. White, is quick to recognize this and takes the book. Mr. White is starting to show a sense of responsibility, as he feels the group is disorganized. He even comments on how he feels he is hearing two separate conversations, foreshadowing the inevitable incompatibility of the group. Joe simply responds by stubbornly asking for his book to be returned. This exchange alone is setting up aspects of both characters: Joe's stubbornness and the responsibility Mr. White claims trying to keep everyone organized and looking after Mr. Orange.

Mr. Orange remains very quiet during this scene. This makes sense, foreshadowing his role as the undercover cop, or the odd man out. When Mr. White takes Joe's book, Mr. Blonde jokingly offers to shoot the former. Not only does this foreshadow Blonde's role as a psychopath, but the fact that he directly asks Joe also alludes to the close relationship between them that is later revealed. Mr. Pink then refuses to contribute to the waitress's tip, an act which angers the other guys. When Mr. Pink explains it, there is a cold logic to his reasoning. He makes a perfectly valid point when he comments on how society expects some people to get tips and others not to. This sets up his attitude after the heist, when he is the first person to figure out that one of his partners was a cop and tries to figure out logically who it was.

This scene also establishes an interesting motif that recurs throughout the film, especially in the scenes set prior to the heist. This group of people is acting very casual. They are discussing popular music for much of it, not to mention everybody gets mad at Mr. Pink for refusing to tip the waitress. It would appear less like a robbery and more like a group of office workers going to lunch. Crime is treated as a workplace. The suits worn by the thieves even look like something they would wear to an office.

Two of the flashback sequences, those of Mr. White and Mr. Blonde, both play out very much like job interviews, with them each being seated in Joe's office and questioned about their most recent experiences. Mr. Orange even mentions getting a "reference" to convince Joe that he was a good thief. The planning sequence that is shown is basically organized as a seminar. Joe stands at the front of the room dressed in a business suit and displays charts illustrating his business plan. All these details go to emphasize one simple idea: that while these guys might not be the most pleasant of individuals, in the end they are all just doing their job.

Still, there is that final idea that crime doesn't pay. Everything comes down on top of the main characters in the end. Ultimately, their undoing is that the thieves are incompatible and unable to work together. They are all interested only in their own ends. Mr. White is too concerned about Mr. Orange, Mr. Pink is too determined to find the undercover cop, and Mr. Blonde's psychotic tendencies not only endanger his partners during the heist, but also causes distrust from Mr. White. All of the men are wrapped in their own perspectives so much that when Joe finally does show up, the thieves end up shooting each other before the cops can get to them.

It is fitting that Mr. Pink is the one person to avoid getting shot, being the one person rational enough to stay out of the Mexican Stand-off. He then makes the seemingly logical choice of taking the diamonds (which he might still be able to make money off of and thus get something out of all this), though he is presumably caught when the police show up moments later. The only other possible survivors are Mr. Orange and Mr. White, both of whom are badly injured (the film ends with a final gunshot, though it is hard to tell precisely who fired it and where). Mr. White is then faced with the ironic reveal that the man he has tried to protect and comfort the whole time was in fact the undercover cop.

In the final moments, a group of police officers break into the warehouse offscreen. Only their voices are heard, so it is unclear how many are present. The voices heard are all male, though given how many cops were implied to be involved in this operation, it is not unlikely that there are female officers present outside. What makes this scene curious is the ambiguity of the ending. Tarantino could have shown the cops entering, but instead he focuses purely on Mr. White's face and his reaction. There is final gunshot, but the audience is left to question where it came from and who was hit. Mr. White is seen collapsing, but this could be just from his injuries.

Once again, this ties into the simple idea that Tarantino is not interested in the heist itself. In another filmmaker's hands, the central plot of Reservoir Dogs would only make up the final act of the film, after the heist has been shown. There would be a shot of a group of cops entering the building and surrounding Mr. White (or possibly shooting him when he refuses to put down his gun, but it would be a lot more obvious). This would make sense; one normally watches a conventional heist film with an interest in seeing how the heist is pulled off, but Reservoir Dogs is not a conventional heist movie.

Tarantino is not so much interested in the heist itself as he is in the people involved. It is a character study, an attempt to get into the minds of the criminals. The actual crime is irrelevant. Tarantino could have said anything about what the protagonists were trying to do. The diamonds have almost nothing to do with the overall story. It is all about how the main characters play off of each other, and the mounting tensions that ultimately lead to their undoing. This is why Reservoir Dogs stands out among crime films.

Crime Week: Casino Royale (Gambling)

Gambling is a tricky business. It's all about high risks and uncertain outcomes. This fits very much into the world of international espionage, an environment that requires carefully calculated risks where the slightest mistake could be the difference between success and failure. For a superspy like James Bond, gambling is a regular part of his job. This should make it fitting therefore that when Craig signed on to play the role of Bond, his first movie was one that centred heavily on gambling, both literally and metaphorically. Even the title of the movie, Casino Royale, emphasizes just how important the theme of gambling is to its overall narrative, and the opening title sequence makes heavy use of playing cards. In this case, the whole world is one big Casino, and its inhabitants the gamblers within.

Casino Royale introduces a much less glamorous Bond than its predecessors. Sean Connery's James Bond was treated as indestructible and unquestionably the good guy. He would charge into danger, shout one-liners after killing his enemies, and always seemed to know what he was doing. Craig's Bond is more enigmatic. While he may be cold, he is clearly affected by his experiences as a super spy (if primarily on a psychological level). There is a greater moral ambiguity, and as thrilling as the action might be one cannot always be sure if Bond is doing the right thing. Unlike Connery's Bond, the solution is not always so clear-cut and simple. This shift in tone sets the stage for a major aspect of the new Bond's character: his constant tendency to gamble.

This aspect of his personality is demonstrated at the very beginning, when Bond is tracking a bomb maker in Uganda. A mistake by his partner unwittingly alerts the bomb maker, who promptly runs, and Bond justifiably gives chase. However, he is faced with a difficult decision when the bomb maker escapes to an African Embassy. Bond makes the daring call to violate his own organization's rules and enters the embassy, practically taking several of its staff hostage in the process. When Bond is finally cornered, he is faced with one more gamble to escape, which ultimately pays off, though his quick decision to shoot the Bomb Maker does not go unpunished.

From this early scene, it is clear that Bond is a reckless individual. He is always making uncertain choices with high risks involved. These continue when he presents the even more daring move of hacking the personal information of his Boss, M (Judy Dench) and even breaks into her house despite the possibility that it could cost his job. This is also emphasized when he travels to Miami and stays at the Ocean Club, where the first thing he does is join in a game of Poker. Also present at this game is Alex Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian), who appears to be losing. Out of desperation, he makes the daring move of wagering his car, but loses it to Bond.

It is naturally fitting that much of the film's story should centre around a poker game hosted by Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Like Bond, Le Chiffre is very much a gambler in his own right. He is established to be running a private bank that invests in terrorist groups, already a major gamble. His plan to obtain money for a client is to hold a high stakes Poker game, and it is implied that some embezzlement has been involved on his part. Given the people he has been working with, he is taking some extreme risks in the hopes that they will eventually pay off. Meanwhile, Bond's own government is making a huge gamble by recruiting him to keep Le Chiffre from winning. If he succeeds, there is a chance of gaining valuable information from him, but if he fails, MI6 will have officially funded a terrorist operation.

In order to accomplish this goal, Bond receives assistance from Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), and also consults an undercover agent named René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini). Both of these ultimately prove to be losing gambles. Bond's trust of Mathis proves costly when it is revealed he was really working for Le Chiffre. Lynd proves a more successful gamble for much of the film as she remains loyal to Bond, even saving his life, but in the end she is also used against him. In both cases, Bond gambles, unsure of the ultimate outcome, and has no choice but to face the consequences of his choice.

When the movie reaches the Poker game, the gambling themes become much more clear. Several gamblers are present, though only two (Le Chiffre and Bond) are given any real focus. Each of the players knows that this is a winner takes all game, and they will either finish with a fortune or nothing at all. Many of them lose as a result, and disappear from the table as the game progresses. For Bond and Le Chiffre, though, there is something else going on. These two spend much of this part of the film focusing on each other. They sit directly across from one another, analysing each other's moves carefully.

Both of them also try to cheat, making a few daring moves to eliminate or at least weaken their opponent. Bond tries to use Lynd to help him figure out the best moves while Le Chiffre outright poisons him, but the gambling aspects of their characters still apply to the game itself. A recurring detail is Bond's constant struggle to tell if Le Chiffre is bluffing. Over the course of the game, Bond repeatedly has to decide whether to call a bluff. The results are varied, with the first instance ending in his favour, but the second almost causing him to lose the game (followed by a discussion with Vesper where he sounds like someone addicted to gambling). Both men are gambling against each other within the Poker game, constantly betting and trying to outdo one another.

In the end, neither one of their gambles truly pays off. Le Chiffre is outwitted in the game, but he later makes one final desperate attempt to get the money from Bond. Unfortunately, it proves unsuccessful, and Le Chiffre is killed by the people he owed money to. He has gambled, and lost. His decisions have cost him everything, including his life. For Bond, his gamble has also failed, in that he has ultimately failed in his mission to capture Le Chiffre alive. Both are forced to realize that when one gambles constantly, they ultimately pay the price.

However, it is Vesper who presents the last gamble in the film. She is pressured into stealing the Poker winnings and handing them over to Le Chiffre's creditors. To do this, they have abducted her former boyfriend and threatened to kill him. Vesper's last gamble is to co-operate with them, hoping that they will spare her and Bond. Once again, this gamble ultimately costs her everything. By the time she is reunited with Bond, she has nothing left but the guilt of her actions. It has cost her any chance at happiness, and her relationship with Bond. This motivates her to drown herself rather than face the consequences.

Underneath the action, suspense, and international intrigue, Casino Royale is really a film about the dangers of gambling. It is a story where everyone must take extreme risks, with the ultimate outcome never certain. No matter what the reasons are a person may take part in such high stakes, be it fame, fortunate, desperation, or even just for fun, it is always a costly business. Gambling is a rough line of work, and for those who take part in it, it can change their entire lives in a matter of seconds.

Crime Week: Eastern Promises (Gangsters)

The life of a gangster is a rough one. Most gangsters are products of unfortunate social circumstances rather than out of any choice. When one strips away the glamour, the fine dining and nice suits, they will find underneath only a bleak world of dishonour and greed. It is a world where one faces relentless paranoia. Every day could be their last. Nobody can be trusted (at least not consistently), and the slightest mistake could mean either arrest by the authorities or execution by other gangsters. It is a world where at any moment your best friend can turn on you when it becomes convenient (or if someone else pays them). This is not the kind of world any human being should have to live in.

Yet Hollywood has a long-standing fascination with the lives of gangsters, an interest that extends as far back as the 1920's. Prior to the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code, gangster films (known then as "male action films") were extremely popular. These films, which included several iconic titles such as Scarface, Little Ceasar, and The Public Enemy, were based on an established formula.

Usually they centred around a lower-class young man who aspires to climb the social ladder and manages to find fame and fortune through crime only for it to come crashing down on top of them. This formula of the audience relating to the gangster but also experiencing satisfaction on seeing him die at the end, was used in an attempt to refute the Production Code. By having the gangster die at the end, Studios argued that there was a moral lesson that crime doesn't pay. This ultimately failed to please the censors (who still argued that the audience was expected to relate to the gangster).

The enforcement of the Production Code in 1934 (which explicitly forbids criminals being sympathetic) brought an end to the Pre-Code gangster films, but the genre has continued to live on, with the same formula mostly unchanged beyond a few details (the gangster does not actually have to die at the end, for example, though there is still some form of comeuppance for them). Through later successes such as The Godfather Hollywood has continued to show its curious fascination with the lives of old-fashioned gangsters, but these gangsters are a dying breed. Society has changed, and with it, so has crime. The days of the Tommy Gun-wielding men in suits are over. Few films show this better than David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises.

While Eastern Promises does not perfectly conform to the formula of the classical gangster film (though it remains a great example of Hollywood's interest in the subject) it does address a lot of issues relevant to those old gangsters. Eastern Promises sets the action in the present day, rather than the 1940's, an era more commonly associated with gangsters. This allows a glimpse not only into the rough life of a gangster and those it affects, but also shows what happened to the old gangsters, and how they have to change with society in order to survive.

When the central character of Anna (Naomi Watts) is first introduced, it is obvious that she is a woman adapted to living in Modern London. She was born to Russian parents but is very much an English woman. She is educated, speaks English fluently with only a limited understanding of her parents' language, and even drives around on a fancy motorcycle. This is contrasted by her Uncle Stepan (Jerzy Skolimowski), an elderly man who has obviously struggled to adjust to a different world, this is shown on multiple occasions. The most notable of these is his blatantly racist claim that Anna's baby miscarried because she was dating a black man, a statement she understandably finds offensive. Stepan likely did not mean any harm by this remark, he simply does not understand better, unlike his niece who has grown up in a more tolerant society. Exchanges like this serve to set up the tension between old and new that recurs throughout the film.

It is by total chance that Anna is pulled into the world of organized crime. She happens to be on duty when Tatiana (Sarah-Jeanne Labrosse) is brought into the hospital and dies on the operating table, and all she meant to do was identify the teenage girl's family to notify them and find someone to look after the baby. It is also this same tension between old and new that unwittingly leads Anna to the gangsters. She initially wants to get Stepan to translate the diary, but he simply scolds her for "robbing the bodies of the dead." Anna casually states that nurses do in fact take things from dead patients, but Stepan, rooted in an older system of morals, merely criticizes her for doing so. This in turn leads her to conduct her own investigation that ends up leading to her encounter with Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl).

Had Stepan agreed sooner, the translation would have revealed everything about the Tatiana's involvement with the Russian mafia. The diary, which was not known to the gangsters at the time, could have then been handed over to the police, who would have used it as evidence to convict Semyon without Anna ever having to get involved. Because of the tension between these two generations, Anna has no choice but to question Semyon, unwittingly telling him about the journal and endangering herself in the process, beginning her involvement with the gangsters. Anna is cautious about trusting Semyon, but she is being pulled into the world of the gangsters.

Semyon himself seems like a decent man when he is first introduced. He acts like a kindly grandfather, being polite, showing Anna around his fancy restaurant and letting her try his borscht (a Ukrainian recipe for beet soup). He also appears to be a family man, interacting cheerfully with relatives and giving a little girl advice on how to play the violin. This is the glamorous side of being involved with crime, much like how Don Corleone still cared about his family and lived in luxury while also ordering people assassinated. Semyon is a very old-fashioned mobster of the kind that is slowly dying out. He bears the appearance of a gentleman, which conceal his true nature as a murderer and a paedophile.

Semyon's old-fashioned nature is contrasted by his son Kirill (Vincent Cassel), a young man who has obviously grown up in a life of crime. Much like the contrast between Anna and Stepan, Kirill is obviously much more modern than his father. Kirill ditches the old-fashioned suit in favor of a leather jacket, and is hardly subtle about his illegal activity. When he sees the body of an old friend that he claims was like a brother to him, he is only able to joke about it. Kirill spends much of the film taking the criminal life for granted, with his excessive drinking and joking. Where Semyon uses a grandfatherly image to conceal his true nature, Kirill openly brags about it.

Ironically, Kirill ultimately proves to be much more moral than Semyon. Semyon is in the end a selfish businessman. He very coldly destroys evidence of his illegal activities. While he does seem to have some concern about his family, he has no issues with betraying friends. When fellow mobster Azim (Mina E. Mina) to him asking for Kirill's body, Semyon casually agrees. He then goes on to confront his driver Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), gives im tattoos that mark acceptance in the gang, and then sets him up to be murdered instead.

Kirill often jokes about killing, and is even implied to have paid for another mobster to be killed, but he does little in this regard until the very end, when he steals Tatiana's baby. This is obviously a crime of passion, as there is no practical need for the child to die, but when faced with actually killing the infant himself, Kirill breaks down. He tries to plead with himself to avoid drowning the baby as though he has no choice. It is clear that he is not thinking straight, but he has some form of ethical code. It is also Nikolai who finally talks Kirill out of it. The two men have interacted frequently throughout the film, and it is their friendship that finally brings Kirill around. This would suggest that the only reason Kirill has been so rough is because of his criminal upbringing, and he would not have been so bad under different circumstances.

Semyon is clinging to a lifestyle that no longer has a place in society. Like Stepan, Semyon displays a variety of old-fashioned social values which include being vocally homophobic. Kirill tries to maintain some of these same ideas, but it is more like he has been brainwashed than anything else, as is evidenced when he complains about the police "stealing" his women after being shown to have no issues hiring prostitutes. At one point, he even feels the need to press Nikolai into having sex with a woman to prove that he is not "Queer." The mere fact that Kirill needs to raise such a point at all suggests a level of insecurity. It could mean that he is himself a homosexual and does not want to admit it, but it could also mean that there is a small part of him that realizes (if subconsciously) these values are becoming obsolete.

So embedded in these old values is Semyon that it is not hard for someone to pass as a fellow gangster. Over the course of the entire film, there is not a single moment where Nikolai is suspected of being an undercover cop, as he has done such an effective job maintaining the image of an old-fashioned gangster (Semyon does try to kill him near the end, but for entirely unrelated reasons). Semyon easily trusts Nikolai to do various tasks, including retrieving the diary (an act which gives Nikolai evidence for a conviction). In that sense, Semyon's own refusal to change with the world around him is his undoing. This change is completed near the end of the film, when Nikolai and Kirill decide that Semyon has gone too far, with Nikolai telling his friend "We're the bosses now." Presumably, under Kirill's leadership, the mafia becomes reorganized to fit better in a modern world.

Introducing Crime Week

So last week I decided to run a theme, which ended up being war, as a way of starting to get back into my film-based writings. War Movie Week is officially done, but now it turns out I'll have more free time this week than I originally thought, so why not do another theme? Part of the rationale behind choosing war as last week's genre was that we were coming out of the Christmas period and I was subverting its traditional association with peace. To continue that theme, why don't we subvert a different value associated with Christmas: generosity.

To see the opposite of generosity, one needs look no further than the criminal underworld. So between Monday and Friday, I will be watching five different crime films. Similar to my previous week, I will be breaking up each day into a specific category based on a different type of crime, with a few possible candidates for each that will be selected on their respective days. This roster won't be as linear as last week's (where I was able to organize each day by time period), so I am instead sorting the crimes alphabetically. Here is the official schedule for the week:

Monday: Gangsters

Tuesday: Gambling

Wednsday: Heists

Thursday: Murder!

Friday: Prisonbreak!

As before, you can let me know what you think in the comments. Feel free to recommend crime films based on the above categories, though I can't make any promises that I will watch your recommendations for this event. 

War Movie Week Bonus: Edge of Tomorrow (Future Warfare)

Doug Liman's Edge of Tomorrow tells the story of an alien invasion with the strange twist that the protagonist, Major Bill Cage (Tom Cruise), finds himself forced to repeat the same day over and over again. At first glance, Edge of Tomorrow might look like nothing more than an entertaining action film borrowing ideas from the likes of Ground Hog Day and Source Code, but it is also a story about war. Edge of Tomorrow is in many ways a war film. It obviously draws from several iconic war films including Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, and Black Hawk Down, and also addresses a lot of the same issues as those films. Edge of Tomorrow may be set in the future, but its ideas of war are still relevant both to the past and present.

Unlike many alien invasion films, such as Invaders From Mars, Independence Day or Battle: Los Angeles (all of which placed the invasion in a contemporary setting), Edge of Tomorrow opts to create its own vision of a near future, and with it a vision of a new kind of warfare. The war against the invading aliens (nicknamed "mimics") is one that challenges and defies any conventional understanding of how combat is supposed to work. In a way, this confusion and struggle to adapt to a changing world is no different from how the nature of combat changed with new technical innovations during World War I or how the Gulf War introduced a less clearly defined model of combat where the enemy could be anywhere.

Several details within Edge of Tomorrow easily bring out parallels with earlier wars. Out of all the possible locations the invasion could have happened, the writers chose to place the battle that was supposed to turn the tide in France, with a mix of British, American, and Canadian soldiers landing on a beach and working their way in. This may seem familiar, and with good reason. The film is obviously trying to draw a parallel between how the battle is being perceived with the events of D-Day during World War II, when hundreds of British, American, and Canadian soldiers landed on the French Coast in a desperate attempt to break through the Nazi's defences and gain a foothold in Europe.

Even the battle itself, when seen the first time, clearly draws on a mix of Saving Private Ryan's depiction of the Normandy landings and the start of Black Hawk Down. The characters are seen in choppers, rather than the boats used in World War II, but there is still an emphasis first on the rush of emotions experienced by the soldiers before the shooting starts. The action starts abruptly, and as soon as it does there is also a clear emphasis on the large number of casualties as soldiers are killed left, right, and centre.  Similar to the soldiers who are seen jumping or falling out of the boats in Saving Private Ryan, panicked soldiers are shown falling out of their dropships, complete with a disoriented Cage crawling onto the shores of the beach much like Captain Miller. There are even parallels in the form of the panicked soldiers desperately seeking cover while trying to figure out their next move.

World War II is not the only conflict to be referenced by the film. Another detail of note is the backstory that is given to the war. It mostly remains unseen, but the characters frequently speak of the first major victory against he aliens happening at the French city of Verdun. This town is brought up repeatedly, with Vrataski even being nicknamed "The Angel of Verdun" for her apparent courage and valour on the battlefield. This might not seem like much of significance at first, but there are a number of better-known cities the writers could have chosen instead.

The significance of this choice becomes clearer when one recognizes that Verdun was also the site of a major battle during World War I, fought in 1916 between the French and the German armies. This particular battle ended in a victory for the French, but not without cost. The battle claimed the lives of hundreds of soldiers on both sides, and in the end, not much was gained. The battle of Verdun that is referred to throughout Edge of Tomorrow is eventually revealed to have actually been a false victory; the aliens intentionally set it up so that humanity would think they had the upper hand in the war. In other words, the efforts of everyone fighting there ultimately turned out to be pointless, much like the French and German soldiers who died trying to take Verdun in 1916.

The top officers in the military, represented by General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson) are hopelessly conventional when it comes to fighting the mimics. These are generals thinking like the men and women in charge today (it would not be unbelievable to assume Brigham has previously served in a more conventional war, perhaps even Iraq or Afghanistan), who are applying modern tactics to a futuristic war. In actuality, the war is not as clear-cut as they would like it to be. In fact, the mimics defy any modern understanding of conventional warfare, something that Brigham is unable to comprehend.

As is noted by Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) and her friend Dr. Carter (Noah Taylor), Brigham is making the mistake of thinking about the mimics as an army, and organizing their plans as such. This is a conventional practice for a general, and would be sufficient procedure for a war against humans, but as is explained in the film, one can only come anywhere near a position to fight the mimics if they think of them instead as a single organism. These beings have the equipment to be able to reset the day and anticipate the actions of their opponents. How does one fight a war against such an enemy?

This is what Brigham is unable to grasp. He is a relic of the past, a man clinging to obsolete methods in a changing world. This is really no different from the generals of World War I. Those men were coming out of the Victorian Era, and had been accustomed to organizing strategies based on infantry and artillery, often with imperialistic goals in mind. One of the major problems in World War I was that these same generals were struggling to adapt to a war where that no longer had a place for their ways. They had no understanding of what they were involved with, just as Brigham continues to apply modern tactics in fighting a war where they do not work.

The only ones who have any chance of defeating the mimics are the two central characters, Cage and Vrataski. They, along with Dr. Carter, remain the only ones to actually understand the true nature of the war, creating a natural divide with their superiors. Over the course of the film, Cage makes a few efforts to explain to the other soldiers what has been happening to him. His efforts to convince Master Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton) prove unsuccessful, and even after persuading Brigham, Cage is still betrayed and arrested as a traitor. The only people he manages to convince are Vrataski herself (who has been through a similar experience) and his bunkmates in J-Squad (though this takes several attempts).

There is a good reason for this. Much like in Paths of Glory, there is a divide forming between the officers and the soldiers. Cage even admits to being a coward at the beginning of the film, and tries to get out of fighting. The reason he is unable to convince any of the officers is because they do not understand the war. The reason he works with Vrataski is she actually understands the true nature of the mimics because she has been on the field. She understands what they are capable of and what they can do in the open, while Brigham remains heavily guarded in his office. This is not unlike General Mireau in Paths of Glory punishing a shell-shocked soldier as a "coward" when he himself would rather let his own soldiers die than face the embarrassment of a bad decision.

Edge of Tomorrow may take place in the future, but it is clear that underneath its surface as a simple action film is a surprising commentary on the nature of war. Edge of Tomorrow shows that while war has always existed, and likely will continue to exist, it is constantly changing. Technological advances, as well as changes in society, can change and shape the way war is perceived and how it is fought. These ideas make it relevant to wars across time: past, present, and future.

War Movie Week: Jarhead (Modern Warfare)

Taking a few obvious cues from Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead opts to focus its first act on military training. The influence of Kubrick's film is obvious in the rough training process that is depicted. Even the initial interactions between Swafford (Jake Gyllenhaal) and his Drill Sergeant are somewhat reminiscent of Gomer Pyle and Gunnery Sgt. Hartman. Jarhead even lifts the "this is my rifle" speech from Full Metal Jacket and also includes a scene where the same speech is shouted by an obviously unstable marine. Similar to Kubrick's film, Jarhead also explores the theme of how people are changed by war, if for different reasons.

When the audience first meets Anthony Swofford, he appears to be more or less an ordinary person. While the film never states his precise reason for joining the marines, it does allow a brief glimpse into his background. It is shown that he was conceived during the war in Vietnam, and there appear to be several personal moments that Swofford tries to keep the audience from seeing (represented by a door closing on the camera). He also shows some of his happier memories, which include his girlfriend Kristina (Brianne Davis). Swofford even admits in his narration that he thought joining the marines was a bad decision, and with the training he goes through it is not hard to see why.

However, he is changed very much as a character once he goes through training. On his first day he is attacked by several marines, tied to his bed, and seemingly branded with a "USMC" logo. This later turns out to have been nothing more than a sick joke meant to scare new recruits, but the fact that people would find humour in such an activity already shows just how much their time in the military has affected their minds. Swofford himself is broken and humiliated during this time, and, much like Private Pyle, he is turned into a killer by the time he is finished.

Throughout these first twenty minutes, the instructors spend time talking about combat conditions, trying to simulate the experiences of being under enemy fire (an exercise which results in the accidental death of a recruit). They are creating expectations for Swofford and his fellow soldiers towards what they will face in an actual combat zone. They are obviously conditioning the marines to get a thrill out of combat, and to be prepared to kill. By the time they have finished their training, they are eager for a chance to use their skills on the battlefield.

This is emphasized when the marines are shown at a screening of Apocalypse Now, during which they cheer upon seeing the famous "Ride of the Valkyries" sequence. They are obviously thrilled to watch Lt. Colonel Kilgore's air cavalry massacre a Viet Cong outpost. Evidently, none of them have ever seen the rest of Apocalypse Now, which focuses in large part on the insanity of war (maybe some of them walked in late and missed the opening scene where the main character was obviously suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder).

It is, however, also possible that they just don't care about what Apocalypse Now is actually trying to say. By now the only thing they seem to understand is killing, and seeing it on a large scale gives them an adrenaline rush. This interpretation would also be supported by the strange excitement they display upon being told that the Gulf War is happening. Immediately they begin cheering as they eagerly leave the theatre for their deployment. They are all expecting action and waiting to get their first kill.

Of course, as soon as the marines are on their way, it soon becomes clear that things are not as clear cut as they appear. On the plane, it is revealed the soldiers are hardly noble individuals. One man admits that he only joined the marines to get out of jail time. Several of the marines are also shown to be perverts, even sexually harassing the flight attendants, who prove to be experienced in warding off their advances. Upon arrival, they soon find themselves being briefed about the current political tensions with Saddam Hussein, during which they are quickly rallied into an enthusiastic mob shouting their desires to kill "Iraqis."

The Swafford seen in the film's opening might have had trouble facing this, but now he is cheering alongside them. Of course, the soldiers appear to be more interested in the adrenaline rush of combat and a possible chance at killing than in any actual service to America. Shortly after their arrival in the Middle East, Swafford is seen in a conversation with several other soldiers during which the politics of the Gulf War are referenced. One of the soldiers points out that America was responsible for putting Saddam in charge and is only acting now because that has backfired on them. Another responds that they should simply ignore the politics and focus on following orders.

This is where Jarhead reveals a very different theme from most war films. There is very little action to be found, largely because this is a new type of warfare. Unlike previous conflicts such as World War I, World War II, and Vietnam, there are no clearly defined "front lines" and one cannot always be sure of where and when they will encounter the enemy. It is hard even to find the enemy at all. Since the Gulf War, this has been the template of modern combat, with similar conflicts emerging in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means revealing another side to war, which is the waiting. The long and tedious periods in between combat situations prove to change the characters far more than any actual combat.

With a bunch of men grouped together in a small camp waiting for a chance to take another human being's life, it is not hard to imagine that they would get restless. Swafford and his partners have to spend months at this one camp, and he is constantly promised that he will soon get his chance, though it never seems to come. It is obvious that this has a major effect on Swafford's mind, as he begins to grow increasingly restless, agitated, and reckless. Many of the soldiers do, and this leads them to try out strange activities to occupy themselves such as placing bets on scorpion fights. This detail is not helped by drills conducted by Staff Sergeant Sykes (Jamie Foxx), which include forcing the men to wear gas masks that appear to be very hot.

On top of all this, there is the pressures of maintaining a positive image in the media. When a news crew arrives, Sykes is quick to enforce rules about what the marines can say, and when it is pointed out that this obviously infringes on their freedom of speech, he retorts by claiming they have no rights. That doesn't stop some of the marines from trying to sneak in remarks about how they are actually feeling. At one point, Swofford can be seen throwing a football around in a manner reminiscent of The Great Escape, when the marines are suddenly forced to play while wearing their gas masks.

As the film goes on, the marines become increasingly desperate. The Christmas party includes a literal gasoline-drinking contest, as well as multiple accidental fires, and eventually Swafford ends up pointing his own gun at the head of Private First class Fergus O'Donnell (before turning the gun on himself and trying unsuccessfully to get O'Donnell to pull the trigger). By the time Swafford finally finds himself anywhere near actual combat, he barely seems phased by it. He is surrounded by enemy fire and explosions, yet continues to sit in the same position, hardly noticing even while his comrades desperately try to persuade him to take cover.

Swofford and his spotter Alan Troy (Peter Sarsgaard) eventually given a sniping mission. They are tasked with shooting two officers to assist a combat mission, but even this is not as simple as they would like it to be given that he has to get official clearance before pulling the trigger. The stage of setting up goes perfectly, except when given permission, Swofford hesitates to take the shot. This is an important detail, as this is in fact the first time he would be in any position to kill someone. Up until this point, he has only fired a gun in target practice, but now he is faced with killing another human being. This is a common problem faced by soldiers, where even the uncontrollable urge to kill makes it hard to pull the trigger.

Just when he is finally ready, the door swings open and Swafford is prevented from taking the shot. It has been decided to call in an air strike on the building. The reaction to this development of both men is a curious one that shows just what being in the marines has done to them. Troy becomes desperate and begins pleading for Major Lincoln (Dennis Haysbert) to let them take the shot. Lincoln refuses, as he has not received authorization to permit it. Troy begins attempting several methods of persuasion, including bribery. When all these fail, he ends up literally throwing a tantrum. Swafford is somewhat calmer, but even he is clearly frustrated.

After the air strike, Swofford and Troy leave their sniping position and after briefly running through the desert are shocked by what they think is a massacre of American soldiers. It actually turns out to be a party celebrating the end of the war. One would think that a person would be fortunate to have ended up in Swafford's position. He has literally gone through the entire war without taking a single life, something most soldiers are unable to do. However, it is hardly a satisfying moment for him. All he can do is note that he never got a chance to fire his rifle, and shoot is into the air at a non-existent target.

The ending of the film shows another aspect of war, one which has only recently started to come into public recognition. This is the psychological impact the war has on soldiers. PTSD has been around for centuries, and was first given the name "Shell Shock" during World War I, but at the time it was dismissed as nothing more than a sign of cowardice. Cases of PTSD would continue through World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and even Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was not until recently that it became recognized as a serious psychological condition that required careful treatment. Jarhead takes the time to show that in its final moments.

Swofford manages to return home, as do many of the other soldiers who served with him, but the fact remains that they have been changed. They continue to be haunted by memories of their experiences in the marines, and in that sense they can never truly leave the war behind them. These feelings are often experienced by returning soldiers, many of whom have difficulty adjusting to civilian life. Swafford explains this in his final voice-over monologue, and it is also visually conveyed through the final shot.

Jarhead ends with Swofford approaching a window in his house overlooking a city. The camera tracks past him, and as it moves to his other side, the city transforms into a shot of the desert. The end result is that no matter what he does, Swafford can never truly escape his past. He will always remember being in the marines, the adrenaline rushes he experienced and his uncontrollable desire to kill. These memories will continue to affect him, just as they have to those who served in World War I, World War II, and Vietnam.

War Movie Week: Full Metal Jacket (Vietnam)

There are few directors who have shown quite a fascination with war as Stanley Kubrick. Spielberg might be a worthwhile contender (having made at least three World War II movies plus films about World War I and the American Civil War), but Kubrick seems to constantly return to criticize it. In Fear and Desire he emphasized that war was not black and white. In Paths of Glory he showed the pointlessness of war. In Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb he used dark humour to draw attention to the absurdity of Cold War politics. 

His last war film was Full Metal Jacket, which once again criticises Vietnam, this time by exploring the subject of dehumanization. To do this, Kubrick splits the film into two halves. The better-known of these segments is the first, which depicts the means by which the army turns ordinary people into killers. The second sees the end result of this training once the soldiers are on the battlefield, and explores the question of whether it is possible for a soldier to maintain their humanity. In both cases, Kubrick becomes very critical of the Vietnam War, but unlike his previous efforts, focuses primarily not so much on the politics, but on how it changes those who fight.

The theme of dehumanizing soldiers is first represented in the film's opening montage, which cuts between several close-up shots of the faces of new recruits as they each receive a haircut. Though they look different at first, the men are each getting their hair cut to look exactly the same. From what is visible, each of them begin with a distinct hairstyle, but are changed to display the same crew cut. The montage ends with a final shot emphasizing a pile of hair scattered around the floor of the room, presumably from the different men that have been shown. 

This is a detail often ommitted from war films, even those that deal with basic training (G.I. Jane being one of the few exceptions), but Kubrick dedicates the entire beginning to the haircuts. This is because it marks the first stage of the dehumanization that will progress throughout the rest of the film. The cutting of the hair represents the removal of each person's identity. Whoever they once were, they now have no choice but to become soldiers and to adapt to their new circumstances. Showing the pile of hair reminds the viewer of who these soldiers once were, and how they are now being changed due to circumstances beyond their control.

With the stage set for the transformation, the actual process can begin. This is the role of Drill Instructor Gunnery Sgt. Hartman (R. Lee Ermey, himself a former drill sergeant who has since made a career out of yelling at people). Hartman is quick to bring this to the forefront. His first speech to the recruits consists of him telling them they are not even "human beings" as far as he is concerned. He claims not to discriminate because they "are all equally worthless" and proceeds to use a variety of insults, which include regularly calling the recruits "ladies" as well as a variety of racist and homophobic slurs. 

This being Vietnam, probably in the late 1960's, referring to the recruits as "ladies" would have been an appropriate insult for the era (the U.S. Marine Corps has only just begun accepting women). Similarly, the racist and homophobic slurs used by Hartman would have still been in common use by Americans, many of whom were racist, sexist, and homophobic. Hartman is simply taking advantage of common prejudices of the era. He equates his perception of the recruits to a conservative view of blacks and homosexuals. In other words, he is using common prejudices to make the recruits feel less human.

Hartman also emphasizes the idea of dehumanization by giving each of the major characters a nickname. Among them are "Cowboy" (Arliss Howard), "Gomer Pyle" (Vincent D'Onofrio) and "Joker" (Matthew Modine). All three characters are referred to almost exclusively by these nicknames, with very little regard for their actual names. Once again, Hartman is forcing them to change to adapt to the war, and to conform to his standards. Indeed, conformity remains a central theme throughout the first segment, with a prominent emphasis on the recruits as a collective group rather than focusing on a specific individual.

Joker and Pyle are really the only two recruits given any real development as characters, though Cowboy is given more depth in the second half. That said, it is still obvious that the viewer is aligned with the recruits, especially these two. While Hartman may be a memorable role, part of his effect is that he is alienated from the viewer. While the film shows the everyday routines of Joker and Pyle, the audience never gets to know Hartman as a person. Every one of his appearances consists of him performing his job as an instructor, and even when shown in pyjamas, he never takes off his distinct hat.

By contrast, Pyle is constantly isolated from the other recruits. Hartman singles him out on the first day of training, and as the film progresses, shots are often composed to draw the audience's gaze towards him. One shot that appears repeatedly consists of showing the recruits engaging in a training exercise on one side, with Pyle on the other in an embarrassing position. This is notable in one sequence where a group of marines are seen marching along a path in unison, before Pyle is shown several metres away, with his cap on backwards, his pants dropped, his thumb in his mouth, and his rifle backwards.

Hartman expands on this idea further in one notable scene, during which he conducts and inspection of the barracks. He passes several recruits with only a few minor insults before stopping at Pyle and opening his footlocker. Inside, he finds a jelly doughnut, drags Pyle into the front centre of the room (between two rows of his fellow recruits). He proceeds to use Pyle as an example, and marches back and forth displaying the doughnut, which he holds at arm's length as though he is disgusted by it. He also introduces a new tactic: punishing the other recruits for Pyle's mistakes, making them resent him and thus forcing him to improve.

The only other character given any prominent focus during this portion is Joker, who is fitting in much better with the marines, if not perfectly. From what is seen, he appears to be a decent man when given the chance. This is notable in his relationship to Pyle, as he is the one recruit to attempt to assist him. Pyle is obviously unfit to be serving in the military (given the timeframe, it is easily possible he was drafted) and fails to learn under Hartman. His one-on-one sessions with Joker prove more effective in teaching him. However, Hartman is succeeding in his task of making Pyle into a killer.

This dehumanization can be seen throughout this montage and the various actions that occur during training. One early scene shows Hartman instructing the recruits to sleep with their rifles. He instructs them to give their rifle "a girl's name" with the idea that they are married to their gun. Hartman justifies this by claiming that, in his words, "this is the only pussy you are going to get." Hartman is instructing them to get attached to their rifles by treating them as a lover, thus becoming more acquainted with the idea of killing another person. It is a gradual process, but slowly each of the men are being turned into fighting machines.

This segment of the film ends with the recruits graduating and becoming marines. Hartman delivers a motivational speech about how the marines will serve their country and how even those who die will live on through the continuing success of the Marine Corps. Unfortunately, this optimistic moment is ended by the famous wash-room sequence, which set up the ideas explored in the second half of the film. During this scene, Joker is tasked with guarding the barracks during his last night before getting deployed, and finds Pyle in the officer's lavatory. It is here we get to see what Pyle has become as a result of Hartman's training.

Pyle has become a killer. He displays everything he has learned as a marine, but he is far from a soldier following orders. He begins talking to his rifle, as Hartman has instructed him to do, but also performs several gestures and military calls that he has learned. He even recites the pledge about his rifle. Hartman's methods have worked too well, and Pyle has become an uncontrollable killer. Hartman tries to bring him back under his control but ends up getting himself killed doing so. This moment serves to motivate the second half, in which we see what happens when killers are placed in the field. These are not soldiers, but murderers. Ideology and politics are nothing more than an excuse at best, and all they can really understand is killing.

The second half centres on the actual conflict in Vietnam., and focuses more prominently on Joker. He has presumably been there for some time, but instead of taking a front line job as a marine he has signed on to be a journalist. These scenes, which focus on his relationship to fellow journalist Rafterman (Kevyn Major Howard), allow a glimpse of an outsider's perspective on the war. The newspaper is heavily censored, only running stories that put the American military in a positive light. There is frequent talk of how the Americans are trying to "help" the Vietnamese people, who are repeatedly criticized for not wanting outside assistance. 

This newspaper represents conservatives like John Wayne, the co-director of the earlier propaganda film The Green Berets. In fact, there is a very similar thought process going through the minds of the newspaper staff to what that which went into the making of The Green Berets, doing everything they can to make the army look good and convince people to support their efforts. Rafterman remains optimistic, while Joker is cynical, but both are assigned to accompany a platoon into the field. Rafterman in this case starts as an optimistic and even patriotic individual who is forced to see the reality of war, a bleak reversal of the George Beckworth character in The Green Berets.

It is once in the field that the reality becomes clearer. Once the soldiers are actually in the field, politics and ideology are left behind. All that remains is their instincts of kill or be killed. None of the soldiers they meet display any real sense of patriotism. In fact, one soldier, given the strange nickname of "Animal Mother" (Adam Baldwin of Firefly fame), openly calls out Rafterman for thinking in such a way. Animal Mother is depicted as a total psychopath, who seems to simply enjoy killing VC. The same can also be said for the Door Gunner Joker speaks to, who apparently delights in gunning down random people. These are people who, back home, would be seen as dangerous criminals, yet here they are allowed to roam free.

Joker is made to constantly stand out during this second half. He is locked in a tough psychological struggle to retain his humanity. This is symbolized by his wardrobe, which is called out by several characters. His helmet contains the words "born to kill" and yet he also wears a peace sign on his combat vest. He justifies this by saying it represents "the duality of man" or more accurately his own struggle to adapt to the environment of Vietnam. These details represent different sides of his personality, and his struggle to reconcile both.

As Joker travels with these soldiers, he finds himself witnessing the true horrors of war. His own transformation occurs, however, during the film's climax. Here, the marines find themselves faced with a sniper. At this point, rational thought and ethics are abandoned as the soldiers let themselves be consumed by their own emotions. Two of their own are shot and wounded, and even after Cowboy (who is currently in charge) figures out what the sniper is trying to do (drawing the soldiers out one at a time) and tries to respond appropriately, they become increasingly determined to overcome their unseen enemy, and Cowboy ends up having no choice but to follow him, which in turn leads to his death.

Eventually, the Sniper is revealed to be a young girl. She is shot by Rafterman and confronted by the other marines. It is here that Joker completes the shift in character he began in the film's opening montage. The sniper is wounded, and pleads to be shot, but Animal Mother opts to leave her behind. Joker, still clinging to a sense of right and wrong, tries to make a moral judgement, but ends up instead opting to perform a mercy killing. While Joker has handled a gun on numerous occasions, this scene marks the first time he has actually killed someone. Joker is now officially a killer.

This is shown in the movie's strange and enigmatic final scene, where the soldiers march through a battlefield singing the Mickey Mouse Club March, during which Joker can be seen as one of many soldiers. In a voiceover Joker admits that he is only glad to be alive, even if he is living in the middle of Vietnam. He has become a killer. The politics and ideologies that motivated the Vietnam War are irrelevant. All he is concerned about is his own survival, and all he understands is fighting the enemy. This completes the ideas of dehumanization that have been set up from the beginning.

War Movie Week: Saving Private Ryan (World War II)

Steven Spielberg's 1998 film Saving Private Ryan marks his third film to cover the events of World War II (Spielberg had previously visited this subject in Empire of the Sun and Schindler's List). Unlike his previous efforts, which focused on the impact the war made on civilians, Saving Private Ryan puts the viewer straight onto the front lines and into the heat of combat. From the famous Omaha Beach sequence that sets the story in motion to the desperate last stand that marks its conclusion, this is a story about soldiers, and their experiences in the field.

It is a curious film in that regard, as it is hard to firmly label Saving Private Ryan as a pro-war film in the vein of Bataan or The Green Berets, or an anti-war film like Paths of Glory. It is not hard to see inspiration from both sides. The entire structure of the film's narrative, which centres around the camaraderie between a diverse group of men with an emphasis on heroics, is easily lifted from the World War II combat films produced in Hollywood during the 1940's. On the other hand, the harsh battle sequences could easily have drawn from the likes of Paths of Glory. There is a patriotic tone to the overall movie, which is even bracketed by a shot of an American flag, but at the same time there seems to be something else.

There is definitely a sense that the film intends the viewer to respect the soldiers, but it is worth noting that Saving Private Ryan makes no effort to cover up the horrors of war. The famous Omaha Beach sequence has no trouble emphasizing the thousands of American soldiers who don't survive. There are even realistic depictions of gunshot wounds, and many of them are obviously scared even before the Normandy invasion begins, and when they are being shot at, many of them are more concerned about their immediate survival than ultimately winning the war.

While the focus is purely on the American military (nothing is shown of the Canadians or Brits who also participated in the D-Day invasion), it is hardly glorified. In fact, Saving Private Ryan seems to deliberately emphasize that World War II was not black and white. Most of the few enemy soldiers depicted are shown to be frightened human beings not much different from the Americans. The Americans are also shown to not be above committing war crimes, as is evident when after taking Normandy they proceed to execute soldiers who are obviously trying to surrender and even joke about it.

Even the one German who directly confronts any of the Americans, credited as "Steamboat Willie" (Joerg Stadler) is obviously just a man following orders. When he survives their raid on his machine gun nest, he is simply scared for his life and begs to spared. He is also clearly nervous when he is forced to dig graves, and knows the implications of being forced to do so. This is just an ordinary man trying to survive, not much different from any of the American soldiers. It is true that he later shows up at the end of the film and shoots Captain Miller, but this is likely nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence.

Of course, Saving Private Ryan is not completely anti-war. Spielberg obviously made this film with the intent of respecting fallen soldiers, and there is a sense of victory (if at a cost) which emerges at the end. The war is hardly glorified, but it does appear to suggest at least America's participation was not unjustified, and that good did come out of it. This makes it a curious experience to watch, as Spielberg seems to be intent on showing both sides of the war, the good and bad.