Saints and Soldiers
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
Four American soldiers behind German lines in World War II must help a British paratrooper deliver important information to the Allies before it's too late. Much warring and bloodshed ensures...
Opinion:
Making a World War II movie is an ambitious undertaking for a filmmaker, especially with a small budget. There have been many classic (and Oscar-winning) WWII films made from a variety of perspectives, and "Saints and Soliders" aims to join them by telling a simple story about four American soldiers who after finding themselves alone behind enemy lines with no supplies and little ammunition, have to overcome the odds and help a fellow soldier make it back to the Allied side.From its title (and the local Utah actors), you might assume that the main purpose of the movie is to tell the audience about the heroism shown by LDS soldiers in the war. In this you'd be wrong (for the most part)--director Ryan Little indeed has an LDS character (his religion is never explicitly stated, but is obvious if you know anything about Mormons) yet his character's religion--while relevant--is not the focus of the plot. While present, his religious beliefs do not play a large part in how the events of the plot play out. Rather, Little is content to show a Mormon just being one member of a group of guys without necessarily calling attention to himself at all times for being 'peculiar'. Even more unique is that the LDS character has other important character traits as well. (Usually when filmmakers are mapping out main characters in discussions before filming, being Mormon is all the 'character' someone needs, no need to add anything more. Here, "Deacon" is also psychologically impaired for reasons that are revealed throughout the movie, which adds another layer of depth above and beyond his religious beliefs. Try to think of any LDS character from any non-Utah movie that adds anything else to an LDS character other than Mormonism...)
Like many WWII movies, there is great heroism, tragedy and triumph within the basic, yet efficient, story that doesn't waste time in unnecessary subplots, but takes its characters in a streamlined path from beginning to end. In war movies of this kind, you know it's not if someone will die, but who and when, but Little takes the time to get to know the characters so that their victory (or defeat) will be meaningful in the end. "Saints and Soldiers" is well made, and earns every one of the film festival awards it has received...although, all things considered, this is probably a movie that you'll see once, enjoy it, recognize the quality behind it...but not feel any great need to see it again in the future.
Content Analysis: (PG-13 1-0-4-3 on the Baron's PSVD scale)
"Saints and Soldiers" originally received an R rating, presumably for the amount of violence and blood in the battle scenes. Since R-ratings are death to Utah box-office success for anyone but Mel Gibson, Ryan Little cut some of the blood and was able to get a PG-13 rating on appeal. It would have been an interesting experiment if they had chosen to keep the original cut (and the R), to see how local LDS audiences would have reacted. Even after editing, many dismissed the still high-end PG-13 violence as acceptable since 'that's what war is all about'. Like "Passion of the Christ", the violence is excused due to the context...and, like "The Passion..." I'm not sure I understand the logic...Imagine you have three different movies: one shows men getting shot with rifles in a World War II historical epic, one shows men getting shot with rifles in an original screenplay about a imaginary war set somewhere in the modern day world, and one shows men getting shot with rifles in a movie that has nothing to do with war--the director just likes violent images and threw some in just for kicks. Assuming each of these scenes are constructed the same, what makes the first movie more 'acceptable' than the others? IF seeing violent images (like a man getting shot in the chest with a rifle) has some form of psychological impact on the mind, then why wouldn't it have that same effect in all three cases, equally? What's the difference between an actress appearing nude on screen in a movie about Adam and Eve, versus that same actress appearing nude in a movie that's not based on scripture? Or the difference between hearing a swear word in a historical movie as an exact quote of the historical figure who spoke it, versus a swear word spoken by a fictional character? The content is the same...so the context only matters if the content is, in itself, inherently harmless. If they're bad at all, violence, nudity, and profanity of equal content should be judged equally, no matter what scenes come before or after them in the movie...
The cut version of "Saints and Soldiers" is still violent, but not extreme--I don't consider it to be too much for anyone over 12--but I don't know why the movie being based in a real war from history is supposed to lessen any psychological impact from being exposed to violent acts, versus a standard, fictional police drama featuring the same violent images...
In-depth Analysis:
One buried theme within "Saints and Soldiers" is that being in a war does not necessarily mean you have to treat your enemy as something less than human. Due to his missionary service, "Deacon" had the chance to serve amongst the German people, and had first-hand experience that not all Germans are 'evil'. By--as coincidence would have it--encountering a person he had actually met on his mission within the German army, the humanity of his enemy was further reinforced by direct experience, and Deacon finds it impossible to treat him like a faceless enemy that should be killed without remorse, as is often common in wartime. His compassion comes back to help them later, as, for his part, the German (Rudi) treats the American soldiers with compassion and mercy when he is given the chance. I don't believe that soldiers killing other soldiers in the heat of battle can be judged the same as premeditated violent crime outside of war, but even in wartime, there is still reason (and an obligation) to recognize the humanity in your enemy.It is beyond the scope of "Saints & Soldiers" but it would be interesting to compare the attitudes towards Germans in the European front versus the attitudes towards the Japanese in the Pacific front. Many had an easier time recognizing the difference between 'German' and 'Nazis' than their Eastern counterparts. (There was such a thing as a 'good German' for Americans, in other words, while if you were Japanese, you were the enemy...including Japanese-Americans) This was almost certainly due to their race--it is always easier to hate (and hate more indiscriminately) people whose physical appearance is different than yours, and it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that being white made it easier to accept the Germans (and the Russians) compared to the Japanese. (A study of the many overtly racist propaganda messages put out by the U.S. government against the Japanese makes it easy to see how the flames of racism were fanned, and how things like the Japanese internment camps were widely accepted.)
An interesting 'sequel' to Saints & Soldiers would be a similar movie from the Japanese perspective, where an LDS soldier from the US learns about the Japanese 'humanity' through missionary service, despite the bitter war between the two countries...
