Brad Pitt leads a small group of fighters in a WWII tank. (Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures)
It is not a good practice to compare one film to another. After all, all film is art, some of it is vastly more accomplished than others, but every film from the small independent to the giant blockbusters, all of them are artistic endeavors.
I have often said that no one is in spiritual competition with anyone else, but we are in competition with ourselves. Every day the call on our lives is to be a better person than we were the day before.
I think the same is true about art. Art should not really be in competition with other art (even though that is exactly what film awards do) but rather artists should be competing against themselves to create something even more inspired than the last artistic endeavor.
I offer these thoughts and now I will contradict them by comparing the art that is the new film “Fury” with the previous masterpiece “Saving Private Ryan.”
“Fury” is not “Saving Private Ryan.” I do not think the filmmakers are striving towards that. It is, however, difficult to not think of the earlier film while watching “Fury.”
“Ryan” is an epic. From the opening scenes of Allied troops landing on the beaches, “Ryan” announced itself as a “big” film. There are some big scenes in “Fury,” but nothing that cries out that this film is a modern grand drama on the scale of “Private Ryan.”
“Fury” is much smaller and more intimate. Both “Ryan” and “Fury” focus on a small troop of men. In “Ryan,” these men are searching for a fellow soldier. In “Fury” the small group are a tank crew who have inherited a new member.
In both films these groups of men have countless conversations, arguments and times of struggle and peril. Both groups face fierce fighting. And in both films the squads lose members along the way.
I think what sets “Saving Private Ryan” aside and perhaps above “Fury” is that in “Ryan,” the men had a very specific mission, to save one young man’s life. In “Fury,” the men go on missions, but ultimately there was not one singular mission that creates a focus in the film.
With that said, there is much to like about “Fury.” First, there is a great cast including Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf and Logan Lerman. (I still remember Lerman as the younger brother in the short-lived television series “Jack and Bobby.” I wish they would release that clever and compelling series on DVD.)
Lerman, whose character is truly the heart of “Fury,” does exceptional work here as the young man replacing a fallen comrade of the tank squad. In the beginning, these characters are not very likable, and overall the film itself is not as engaging as one might desire.
The longer these characters interact with one another and endure hardship, violence and loss together, the more endearing they become to the audience. Ultimately, the greatest difficulty of this film would be to not care what happens to this tank crew as things move toward the climatic battle.
There are also other strengths. The cinematography, especially the claustrophobic scenes shot inside the tank, is outstanding. The sets and art decoration, the countryside, the German towns and villages, also create a genuine perspective for the film.
The screenplay has several very special moments between the men. And overall, the film moves at a brisk pace most of the time. There are moments when things seem to linger a bit too long, but this is more prevalent in the early moments than the latter.
In the end, there are a great many war epics, including “Saving Private Ryan,” that are more important, dramatic and artistic than “Fury.” But standing alone, without comparisons, “Fury” is a moving, intense war drama that, in the end, satisfies.
Cinema Corner 