I read four or five pages of reviews for this film on the IMDb boards, and most of them fall into one of two camps - those who felt it was the best, or at least one of the best war movies ever made - and the Spielberg bashers who decry the very fact that America and it's Allies had even the slightest audacity to win the War. Granted, the concept of good Americans versus evil Nazis is a bit too simplistic when it comes to cinematic treatments. Those viewers who want to read so much of that into the picture are missing one of Spielberg's main goals - 'How do you find decency in the hell of warfare'? That question reverberates around the central plot, the mission to rescue a sole surviving brother who's three siblings have all perished in the same war already. For the eight members of the rescue team, the quandary is presented in terms of moral prerogatives - why potentially sacrifice so many soldiers at the expense of just one, who may already be dead anyway?

Moral dilemmas abound in the story. Ed Burns's Private Reiben challenges Captain Miller's (Tom Hanks) decision to release a German soldier on his own recognizance to turn himself over to an American patrol. Private Caparzo's compassion for the young French girl in the bombed out town is seen by the Captain as a life or death threat to his unit, and must decide for the greater good of his men. Even when Miller's Rangers finally achieve their objective and find Private Ryan (Matt Damon), the situation does not play out in straightforward fashion. Ryan resolutely refuses to be 'rescued', instead seeing that alternative as abandoning his own men. By what right should he be so singularly absolved of his duty to serve and protect his country? My summary line above captures the essence of Miller's response and observation, knowing that his duty and his humanity are in obvious conflict.

This conundrum creates another dynamic in the story, reverting back to the character of Private Reiben. When Ryan was anonymous, it was easy enough to dismiss him as some nameless, faceless soldier who didn't warrant any special kind of treatment. Up close and personal however, Ryan proves his value as a soldier in battle, side by side with Reiben in the German tank ambush at Rammel. These perspectives are not typical in your average war movie, and make the film far more interesting than if it had taken a more documentary like approach, as in the opening half hour of the film with the landing on Omaha Beach.

Perhaps the most complex character, and the one I had the hardest time with was Corporal Upham (Jeremy Davies). By virtually all of his responses to battle conditions and enemy encounters, he was an outright coward. His singular moment of bravery was enacted with some measure of revenge against Steamboat Willie, the German soldier who's life was spared earlier in the picture. Willie provided Upham with a reason to overcome his distaste for war, by abrogating an implied trust they shared over a cigarette. Upham had his reason and motivation to kill Willie, while allowing the remaining Germans to escape. For Upham, the war had to become personal for him to take action, and that's no way to survive in conflict.

So for me, "Saving Private Ryan" isn't just a war film, and if you view it through that lens, the film loses much of it's impact, even with the brutality of Omaha Beach and the tank battle at the bridge. To be sure, the picture succeeds at capturing the intense horror of war, but it's power as a film goes deeper when it identifies with it's characters and examines their relationships with each other as soldiers and men. How do you find decency in the hell of warfare? One man at a time.