Uncut Saving Private Ryan to be Broadcast on ABC

[Cool Hand]

I just saw an ad saying that ABC will air Saving Private Ryan uncut on Veteran's Day. I find that surprising.

(As a preface, personally, I'm not at all offended by graphic portrayals of contextual violence or cursing in movies. I don't find anything moral or immoral about it.)

SPR is noted for having some of the most graphic portrayals of dismemberment and violent death in combat in any film. If I recall correctly, it also contains healthy doses of "fuck" and "shit." I take ABC's "uncut" ad to mean that all of those elements will remain in the film for the broadcast during primetime.

Not only is it noteworthy that SPR will be broadcast uncut during primetime, but it is especially noteworthy because it is ABC who is doing the broadcasting. Disney owns ABC.

(Personally, I'm happy to see self-imposed censoring on broadcast TV being relaxed. I do not like the silly "moral" baggage associated with cursing or blood in the U.S. If they reflect real events, what is "moral" about them?)

Anybody else surprised?

Cool Hand

[LadyShea]

"Uncut" does not mean the cuss words won't be bleeped, silenced, or dubbed, only that they won't cut the actual scene. You watch, I gurantee you will not hear shit or fuck because it is against FCC regs.

Why this country fears words, but feels no qualms about violence is beyond me. So, no, I am not surprised, violence and blood are on broadcast TV all the time.

[Cool Hand]

"Uncut" does not mean the cuss words won't be bleeped, silenced, or dubbed, only that they won't cut the actual scene. You watch, I gurantee you will not hear shit or fuck because it is against FCC regs.

Why this country fears words, but feels no qualms about violence is beyond me. So, no, I am not surprised, violence and blood are on broadcast TV all the time.

You may be right about "uncut," and I'm reserving judgment until I see it. To me "uncut" implies no editing or bleeping. We'll have to wait and see. Iagree that finding words themselves to be "bad" is silly. They are just sounds. It's only the meaning and connotations you attach to them which might offend you. "Shit" itself is just a syllable. It's air vibrating coming from my diaphragm, throat, tongue, and lips.

Depicting gruesome violence in context, based on factual events, is not the least bit abhorrent to me. It is contextual and not at all gratuitous. War is ugly. I see depicting it as horrifying for those directly affected by it to be honest. What is dishonest, and less commendable, is the type of John Wayne clean-kill western and green beret films. Violence without realistic consequence is a more dangerous influence on young impressionistic people, in my opinion.

I don't believe in sugar coating reality for kids. When presented matters truthfully and candidly, I think most kids understand that poor judgment and bad behavior can lead to tragic consequences. When war is shown in all its gruesomeness and horror, I think it might leave an impression on them that perhaps fighting in or dying in war isn't glamorous or romantic, as is so often portrayed in literature and film. Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage does a fine job of illustrating that. Lots of kids read it growing up. I did at about age 12.

If you have seen Saving Private Ryan, I would think you might be surprised that the first 20 minutes will be shown on Disney's ABC during primetime. The degree of graphicness of the violence far exceeds anything ABC has shown before, except perhaps on some segments of 20/20 depicting surgical operations.

Cool Hand

[LadyShea]

Disney has definitely made some changes over the years. I remember we spent Thanksgiving 2004 at Disneyland, and they did not carry souvenir shot glasses or beer steins (we were buying gifts). We were told "Disney doesn't carry alcohol glasses". When I was there last year, they now carry those items.

As for Saving Private Ryan, I am assuming that, like me, they do not feel the violence is gratuitous. It is a very real and accurate depiction of war and the movie itself is excellent. A slasher horror film would not be shown.

To me "uncut" implies no editing or bleeping.

I know but theys tricksie. There's "uncut" meaning no deleted scenes, even for timing purposes, then there is a separate designation for "unedited" meaning no changes were made from the theatrical version.

[Adora]

Yeah, there's "uncut" and then there's "uncensored". And then there's "stupid sucky movies that should never be shown again". It's not that violent. It's also incredibly boring. Maybe they're doing it to send the veterans to sleep?

*ducks and covers*

As for "Disney", their "family entertainment" sector is kind of, um, dead. Y'know, dead like "No more animation" dead (you should've seen the shitfight over that sucker). So I wouldn't worry your little pants about them endorsing certain kinds of film (yeah! Cos they released Nemo and it had a lesbian as a voice actor! *gasp).

Lots of kids read it growing up.

Anthony Swofford said it best in his opening chapter of Jarhead. It doesn't matter how you depict war. It's the psychology of the people you send out there. What a certain kind of person regards as a kind of text to put people off becoming soldiers, the kind of mindset needed of a soldier will read it as a text that just makes them want to go to war more.

And yes, his book is one of those texts.

[livius drusus]

The ABC site (http://abc.go.com/movies/savingprivateryan.html) warns of "graphic violence and intense adult language" so it sounds to me like they won't be cutting anything.

I seriously think the networks have a WWII/Greatest Generation fetish. Anything they'd normally censor gets treated reverentially when included in a hardships of war movie about WWII. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other subject which elicits that kind of star-struck handling from network TV.

I liked SVP (although it was certainly more than a little cheesy in parts), mainly because it brought home to me certain aspects of WWII that I saw the ass end of when I was growing up in Italy. "Bombed during the war" is an incredibly common description of buildings there, so common it was like a cliche to me. SVP uncliched it in my mind.

I've been to the war museum in Normandy and found it both compelling and somehow detached from me due to its presentation as static history. SVP helped undetach it.

I'm embarassed to admit it, frankly, but what can I say? Movies are good at bypassing mental blocks and bringing things home in a new way, so it's not just that I'm lame as hell, although that's certainly a major factor.

[Darren]

As for Saving Private Ryan, I am assuming that, like me, they do not feel the violence is gratuitous. It is a very real and accurate depiction of war and the movie itself is excellent.

I'm not sure about the accuracy bit - I mean, how can all the various camera angles and shots be reconciled with a genuinely human point of view? All films are creations and by their nature unreal - take the soundtrack for instance; I'm sure not many people in Normandy heard heroic background music as they were being bombed, shot etc.
I really disliked SPR because it portrayed the shooting of unarmed prisoners as at least justified in some places and even heroic at one point - it also portrays it as necessary in certain cases. What I'm referring to here is the whole sub-plot involving the German soldier that the group captures and who is spared and set free by the interpreter.
Just from an accuracy point of view, this guy (the German) wanders around the battlefield without a gun or headgear and without his unit. Somehow, off scene, he manages to avoid getting arrested and shot for desertion by the German Military Police, he also avoids getting sent back for a debriefing session with the military authorities i.e. who is he, how did he escape etc. - no, none of that! He is straightaway integrated into another battle formation and sent back into the field where he miraculously encounters and fights with the very men who spared his life. Realistic? No way! He is then taken prisoner by the very man who saved his life earlier, the interpreter, who proceeds to redeem himself by cold bloodedly killing the German soldier.
And what's the moral here? If you can't be bothered to take responsibility for prisoners taken you must shoot them lest they return to kill your friends.
I'm sorry, but I think that this film is ultimately dangerous nonsense.
As for the swearing and violence - who cares?

[Cool Hand]

The ABC site (http://abc.go.com/movies/savingprivateryan.html) warns of "graphic violence and intense adult language" so it sounds to me like they won't be cutting anything.


Thanks for linking, Liv. Yeah, I agree with you. I'm cynical about a lot of things, but I'm not so cynical as to conclude automatically that when ABC says it is "uncut" that it means something else. From the ad, I certainly got the impression that ABC literally mean completely uncut and unedited. The TV-MA rating showing on the link lends support to my impression. I'll wait and see.


I seriously think the networks have a WWII/Greatest Generation fetish. Anything they'd normally censor gets treated reverentially when included in a hardships of war movie about WWII. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other subject which elicits that kind of star-struck handling from network TV.


I couldn't agree more. I've noticed the very same phenomena many times, and it disturbs me. Tom Brokaw's undue reverence for and coining of the term "The Greatest Generation" exemplifies the star-struck handling of which you speak. It's almost silly. I'm speculating, but given that Brokaw was a young child during the war and would have been a young adult during the Vietnam War, I hypothesize that generational guilt might be behind much of his reverence. Although Spielberg is six years younger and belongs to the leading edge of Baby Boomers, I suspect his impetus for producing SPR springs from the same kind of generational guilt. Tom Hanks et al. jumped on the same bandwagon, and this bit of nonsense has become engrained in the public mythos.

To me, the generation who fought the war is no greater than any other. They just happened to be the right age to have done the fighting. They responded to public sentiment and fulfilled what they and nearly everyone else saw as their duty and obligation. Since when is fulfilling one's perceived duties and obligations heroic for its own sake?

Personally, I think most persons tend to rise to the challenge of extraordinary circumstances when faced with them. Many persons lauded as heroes downplay that lable, essentially claiming the same thing. One often hears, "I just did what anyone else would have under the circumstances." That might be oversimplifying and discounting that some people do in fact go above and beyond the call of duty, but it's worth keeping in mind before labeling anyone who undergoes something tragic or unduly trying a hero. For instance, I loathe the modern common practice of the blanket labeling of anyone who endures a tragic event a hero. Being held hostage is not in itself
heroic, for instance. Being trapped in a coal mine for hours is not heroic. Enduring tragedy is not sufficient to be heroic. Heroism requires deliberately placing one's self in the path of imminent harm in order to help or save someone else in peril, or to accomplish a perceived greater good.


I liked SVP (although it was certainly more than a little cheesy in parts), mainly because it brought home to me certain aspects of WWII that I saw the ass end of when I was growing up in Italy. "Bombed during the war" is an incredibly common description of buildings there, so common it was like a cliche to me. SVP uncliched it in my mind.


Agreed again, especially about the cheesy parts. In particular, I felt that much of the dialogue and attitudes portrayed reflected 1960s anti-Vietnam War rhetoric transposed onto the WWII European theater landscape. It was unnecessary editorializing and detracted from the authenticity of the film.

That's fascinating that you grew up surrounded by tangible reminders of the horrors of the war, and that SPR made some of it come alive viscerally.


I've been to the war museum in Normandy and found it both compelling and somehow detached from me due to its presentation as static history. SVP helped undetach it.


Very cool. As an aside, did you see, as I did, the prelude and epilogue bits at the cemetery in Normandy with a modern-day Ryan to be a serious detraction from the tone of the rest of the film? That was one of the cheesy parts to me. It was unrealistic and manipulative tugging at the viewers' heartstrings. "Think of the supreme sacrifice these men made to spare one mama the death of her only remaining son, and the guilt it laid on his shoulders!" I call it "Spielberging." Jeebus, Stevie, we got the message in the body of the movie. You don't have to hit us in the head with a hammer.


I'm embarassed to admit it, frankly, but what can I say? Movies are good at bypassing mental blocks and bringing things home in a new way, so it's not just that I'm lame as hell, although that's certainly a major factor.

Not lame. Movies still seem like an almost magical escape to me, and getting lost in them is nothing to be ashamed of. Watching one can be an immersive experience, even if much of it is not as authentic as it could be.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Yeah, there's "uncut" and then there's "uncensored". And then there's "stupid sucky movies that should never be shown again". It's not that violent. It's also incredibly boring. Maybe they're doing it to send the veterans to sleep?


Although many part of it made me cringe, I wouldn't call it boring. Much of the action is compelling. The death of the medic, for instance, is also very dramatic. That's not boring.

I've had conversations with combat veterans who felt that the first 20 minutes gave a brutally realistic depiction of some of the gore that can result from armed combat. None of the ones I've spoken with went to sleep during it. I suspect most of them cried, as it brought to the forefront some deeply painful memories for them.

My former battalion commander is one of those persons. I had lunch with him not long after the movie's release, and he was fighting back tears in his eyes and a quiver in his voice as we talked about it. He served three tours of dury in Vietnam as an infantry officer and saw plenty of combat and combat deaths and injuries. I don't think his response is aberrant.


Lots of kids read it growing up.

Anthony Swofford said it best in his opening chapter of Jarhead. It doesn't matter how you depict war. It's the psychology of the people you send out there. What a certain kind of person regards as a kind of text to put people off becoming soldiers, the kind of mindset needed of a soldier will read it as a text that just makes them want to go to war more.

And yes, his book is one of those texts.

I haven't read Jarhead. Thanks for the recommendation.

A romanticizing of war mindset is often present in young persons who enlist in armed service at the time of their enlistment. Some observers believe that one of the reasons we enlist very young adults is precisely because they are more likely to see armed service as noble or glorious. Older adults often have become too jaded and entrenched in mundane matters to seek the same glory.

Once you get someone into the service, however, indoctrination takes over. The military in the U.S. does a fine job of fully indoctrinating enlistees into subordination of self, respect for the chain of command, loyalty to one's country, unit, and comrade, and a sense of duty to fulfilling one's mission. Call it brainwashing if you like, because essentially that's what it is in basic training for enlistees and advanced camp for cadets. That indoctrination is very difficult to resist, even for cynical persons like me.

I don't think Crane meant to put people off becoming soldiers. I think he meant to de-romanticize it and portray that it's not glamorous. Getting wounded in battle is not pretty, nor is it accompanied by a heroic soundtrack or an applauding gallery of viewers. Indeed, it probably is usually prosaic. That's what I got from Crane, anyway.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

As for Saving Private Ryan, I am assuming that, like me, they do not feel the violence is gratuitous. It is a very real and accurate depiction of war and the movie itself is excellent.

I'm not sure about the accuracy bit - I mean, how can all the various camera angles and shots be reconciled with a genuinely human point of view? All films are creations and by their nature unreal - take the soundtrack for instance; I'm sure not many people in Normandy heard heroic background music as they were being bombed, shot etc.


I haven't seen it lately, but if I recall correctly, during most, if not all, of the first 20 minutes or so of the invasion scene there is no background music. I think this was a deliberate attempt at immersion. The varying camera shots were meant to give different human points of view. There is a scene where an artillery round goes off very nearby and we hear no sound for several seconds, as often happens to a soldier when a loud concussion occurs nearby. I appreciated many of those effects.


I really disliked SPR because it portrayed the shooting of unarmed prisoners as at least justified in some places and even heroic at one point - it also portrays it as necessary in certain cases. What I'm referring to here is the whole sub-plot involving the German soldier that the group captures and who is spared and set free by the interpreter.


I agree. It was an unnecessary tangent and unnecessary editorializing in my opinion. It was also irresponsible to suggest that the American unit should have shot the lone German rather than let him go. Shooting him would have been a war crime once he was disarmed.


Just from an accuracy point of view, this guy (the German) wanders around the battlefield without a gun or headgear and without his unit. Somehow, off scene, he manages to avoid getting arrested and shot for desertion by the German Military Police, he also avoids getting sent back for a debriefing session with the military authorities i.e. who is he, how did he escape etc. - no, none of that! He is straightaway integrated into another battle formation and sent back into the field where he miraculously encounters and fights with the very men who spared his life. Realistic? No way! He is then taken prisoner by the very man who saved his life earlier, the interpreter, who proceeds to redeem himself by cold bloodedly killing the German soldier.


Yes, that was extremely unlikely. I noticed the same thing. It's poor screenwriting, in my opinion. For Batman's sake, the basic story was dramatic enough, and the true events of the war are dramatic enough that no one had to resort to inserting movie cliches. Spielberg probably deserves a lot of blame for keeping or putting that subplot in.


And what's the moral here? If you can't be bothered to take responsibility for prisoners taken you must shoot them lest they return to kill your friends.
I'm sorry, but I think that this film is ultimately dangerous nonsense.
As for the swearing and violence - who cares?

I agree about the irresponsibility inherent in that message.

As for swearing and violence, it's not a matter of who cares. My point is that it's remarkable that an uncut version of the film will be shown on broadcast television, especially on Disney-owned ABC. That is a departure from what usually occurs with films broadcast on network TV that have swearing and such intensely graphic violence.

Cool Hand

[Aurora Elegance]

If I'm not mistaken, I saw SPR on ABC completely uncensored before on a Saturday night. I don't remember being terribly surprised because there's some pretty strong language on NYPD Blue.

[xorbie]

If I'm not mistaken, I saw SPR on ABC completely uncensored before on a Saturday night. I don't remember being terribly surprised because there's some pretty strong language on NYPD Blue.

They once showed two people having sex on NYPD Blue. Just an ass shot of the guy, and pretty short, but it could have been right out of like a 2:00 am HBO 2 porn.

[livius drusus]

It looks like some stations won't air (http://www.salon.com/ent/wire/2004/11/11/ryan/index.html) SPR (including my own local affiliate) out of concern that they'll be sanctioned by the FCC.

In a statement on the Web site of Atlanta's WSB-TV, the station's vice president and general manager, Greg Stone cited a March ruling in which the FCC said an expletive uttered by rock star Bono during NBC's live airing of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards was both indecent and profane.

The agency made it clear then that virtually any use of the F-word -- which is used in "Saving Private Ryan" -- was inappropriate for over-the-air radio and television.

The Bono case "reversed years of prior policy that the context of language matters," Stone said. He added that broadcaster could not get any clarification from the FCC on whether the movie violates the standard.

[Aurora Elegance]

Meh. The prudes will always whine... >_>

Thank Buddha for DVDs. :)

[beyelzu]

a couple of thoughts on saving private ryan.

1. I just turned to it and heard the word fuck so it is definitely unedited


2.the greatest generation was just that. ww2 was the a war that the us could be proud of to have fought. that generation also went through the great depression. On the other hand, I agree with the person who said that there is nothing wrong with the values of america that couldnt be solved with a depression and a world war. But that generation did indeed show up and bite the fucking bullet.

3. The whole point of the proposed shooting of the german prisoner is that war is fucked up and soldiers must make hard decisions and sometimes doing the right thing will cost you your fucking life.

[Adora]

Although many part of it made me cringe, I wouldn't call it boring. Much of the action is compelling. The death of the medic, for instance, is also very dramatic. That's not boring.

To you, maybe. But I'm one of those horrible-evil children who have become desensitised to these kinds of things. I'm moved by war movies more for the relationships and hardships faced by the soldiers, and the depictions of victims who are not involved in the fighting (a very, very rare thing, especially in Hollywood films) moreso than I am by the violence and gore and soldier hooha. Band of Brothers was fucking brilliant for the relationships. As is All Quiet' and Stalingrad for the hardships (don't fuck with the Motherland). I appreciated Black Hawk Down more for the aesthetic style of the film than anything else though, because apart from a small crop of Teh Hottest Hotties Around playing grunts, there wasn't much appeal otherwise.

And when it comes down to SPR- I have massive amounts of prejudice against Tom Hanks, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

I don't think Crane meant to put people off becoming soldiers. I think he meant to de-romanticize it and portray that it's not glamorous. Getting wounded in battle is not pretty, nor is it accompanied by a heroic soundtrack or an applauding gallery of viewers. Indeed, it probably is usually prosaic. That's what I got from Crane, anyway.
I don't doubt it. But (as you'll realise from reading the book), it doesn't matter how anti-war the message is in the film, the film is still pro-war to those who matter: the guys with the guns.

And for anyone else reading this- go get the book too. It's one of the best things I've read in years.

The other thing I have about "Uncut" and "Uncensored" shite on TV is that it still has ads. I mean, what's the point of watching the directors cut if the movie goes for 2 & a half hours but the ads make it run to 4. I tried to watch The Fellowship of the Ring a few nights ago, but the ads just ruined it comepletely.

[SharonDee]

Well, our local station chickened out and showed "Hoosiers" instead.

I wonder how many stations who didn't chicken out will be fined?

[livius drusus]

a couple of thoughts on saving private ryan.

1. I just turned to it and heard the word fuck so it is definitely unedited

Apparently ABC has a contract with Spielberg stipulating that they will not edit it in any way.

2.the greatest generation was just that. ww2 was the a war that the us could be proud of to have fought. that generation also went through the great depression. On the other hand, I agree with the person who said that there is nothing wrong with the values of america that couldnt be solved with a depression and a world war. But that generation did indeed show up and bite the fucking bullet.

My parents went through the Great Depression (born in '37) but were too young to go to war. Their parents went through even more of the GD but were too old to go to war. The point for me being that the notion of "a generation" is pretty hamfisted as it is, nevermind picking one and calling it the "greatest".

I agree with Cool Hand that it's more of a Brokaw/Baby Boomer/post-Vietnam fetish for A Good War™ than a clear-headed assessment.

3. The whole point of the proposed shooting of the german prisoner is that war is fucked up and soldiers must make hard decisions and sometimes doing the right thing will cost you your fucking life.

Well, sure, but it was still a heavy-handed and contrived subplot, as morality plays tend to be. The entire movie makes the point that war is fucked up and decisions cost lives. Putting in a just in case you didn't get it let me beat you over the head with it plot twist is a poor filmmaking choice, imo.

[livius drusus]

I wonder how many stations who didn't chicken out will be fined?
I heard on NPR that the American Family Association (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/afa/112004a.asp) was ready to send thousands of complaints directly from its website to the FCC, and some local stations were afraid not just of being fined but of actually having their licenses revoked.

The latter seems highly unlikely to me, but I wouldn't be surprised to see stations getting fined. ABC has said it will pay all fines any affiliates incurr.

[maddog]

I liked SVP (although it was certainly more than a little cheesy in parts) . . .
:eek: I don't know . . . 'round THESE parts, "SVP" stands for "Sexually Violent Predator." [/acronym Nazi]
#74

[livius drusus]

:eek: I don't know . . . 'round THESE parts, "SVP" stands for "Sexually Violent Predator." [/acronym Nazi]
#74
Man, I wrote that ages ago! I call that unfair. :hmph: