Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
Many posters have mentioned Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan". My only beef with this otherwise terrific film is as follows: Why didn't they just blow up the bridge and skeedattle? What did they gain by sacrificing all those Warriors (especially the sniper Jackson who was worth a dozen Ryans). And Ryan would have still survived. I read that John Milius was approached about doctoring the script but refused because Spielberg insisted on this ending. Oliver Stone told Milius that if the Hanks character had been in Vietnam he would have been fragged.
|
I've seen the movie about 1000 times, and can cite the answer (virtually verbatim) to that very question provided by Captain Miller (Hanks):
Quote:
|
We can't push on to Paris without a deep water port, Rommel knows that so he's going to try to get his armor across the river. Then he can hit us in the flank when we turn to Cherbourg. That makes any village with a bridge solid gold real-estate.
|
Essentially the bridge (any bridge) was critical to positioning one's forces in a strategic manner. For the Germans it was critical in order to position heavy ordinance in the path of the advancing allies. For the Americans it was critical to shore up multiple access points to generate multiple fronts in their push towards Germany.
That movie's great for so many reasons, not the least of which being the historical accuracy.