THE THIN RED LINE (director: Terrence Malick; cast: Sean Penn, Adrien Brody, Jim Caviezel, Ben Chaplin, John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Elias Koteas, Nick Nolte, John C. Reilly, Miranda Otto, Arie Verveen, Dash Mihok, John Savage, John Travolta, George Clooney, 1998)
Interestingly enough, during the same year, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and THE THIN RED LINE, two epic films about WW11 have come out, each with a different perspective on the war, a different way of telling it, telling about a war whose heroes are fading fast in the memories of a country's conscience, as these men: presumably our dads and grandfathers, the old gentlemen we might have had a drink or two with, our old boss, or the fellow who never could quite tell us what happened back then or told us what happened and we could only refer back to the old-style WW11 movie for a point of reference. Some of these fellows who are still with us, are now well into their 70s, 80s, or 90s. They have seen America as it was and as it is, and now their story seems well-yearned for by the generations that came after and by the old-timers themselves, as they try to collect their thoughts and jar their memories, and put back the pieces of their life that they might never have done before, knowing full well this may be their last chance to get their story down while they are still alive to authenticate their experiences of WW11, the experiences that historians need in order to enliven their subjects, especially after so much history and changes to the American landscape has taken place.
The questions remain: are we still the same people? What about our values, are they the same or have they changed? And, of course, we ask our politicians, can this country afford to be the policeman for the world? Just what are our attitudes about war? Both films have tried to find answers to some of these imponderable questions, but in different ways. One by trying to paint a realistic picture in our mind of the horrors of war by showing in detail the bloodshed and sacrifices the men had to make when trying to comprehend what war was supposed to be like, as they landed on Omaha Beach during the D-Day invasion, with the director, Spielberg, not getting side-tracked with the bigger philosophical questions, there was no controversy over his film's statements that war is hell; while the other director, Malick, takes a broader view of things, for the most part, he depersonalizes the infantrymen fighting in the Guadalcanal war zone, he does it by trying to be more philosophical and more artistic in his approach to understanding how mankind is driven into war and forced into shedding blood.
It seems to me, that Malick tries to do too much and fails to meet his aims, while Spielberg's safer approach, using the more plain arguments against war, easily meets his goals. Therefore, which is the better film? I would be forced to say Spielberg's. But with all its flaws and pretensions and trying not to define one war but all wars, Malick takes more risks, and even if he does not make the better film, he has made the more interesting one, the one that has a greater "mythos" to it, and he should be rewarded, somehow, for being the more ambitious filmmaker.
Terrence Malick has a unique set of career moves to his credits, having graduated from Harvard and been a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, then becoming a journalist, then teaching philosophy at M.I.T., and subsequently studying at the American Film Institute. He wrote Pocket Money (72), and wrote and directed Badlands (73). His last film was made 20 years ago, Days of Heaven (78). All these films were critically successful. Why he didn't make another film in that time span, I have no idea. But this film was certainly being looked forward to by the many cinephiles who have followed his career, perhaps, allowing his long departure from films to give him too much of an air of mystery for his own good.
This film is adapted from the James Jones novel, it is close to three-hours long. In many ways it seems like a discourse on philosophy that a company of infantrymen in Guadalcanal on August of '42, acting as if they were college students analyzing the war being fought, coming out with the most trite twaddle imaginable, and preposterously doing all this in the middle of a war zone.
The director also seems to be motivated to record the beauty of nature with his magnificent camera footage of the area. Very odd, indeed, for a war film. But then, again, I'm partial to those who think like philosophers and to the splendors of nature, so I actually loved seeing the blades of grass blow in the breeze of the azure sky and the wild flowers abound. I thought the picture was so beautiful to watch, that I was hypnotized by the lush forests, the wounded hens and the perched owl and the parrots (I mean the real parrots, not the soldiers parroting the director's messages). Unfortunately, there were parts of this film that were so pretentious and out of place, it seemed like it was a film within a film, a film from another generation placed onto a film of this generation; perhaps a silent movie, a tribute to the great German director, Murnau, as the critic Jonathan Rosenbaum suggests. A film that allows the state of nature to be a pure state undamaged by civilization, that stays that way until civilized nations bring about their infectious wars.
I loved this film for being so grandiose and not having to follow the traditional linear travails of one soldier, but of following the collective psyches of Charlie Company, as the men in Charlie became interchangeable with each other, as well as melting into the landscape. I appreciate Malick for not caring what any one else might think of how he filmed it. This was the way Malick was going to make the picture, and that's that. And I bought into that, for the most part, until I realized the film ran out of purpose, after its second hour it lost its rhythm and flow, it had nowhere to go, there were just too many generalizations to ponder. What I eventually dug out from all the rubble and killing and messages delivered throughout the film, was that, if there was one thing you can do in life, it is to find what you want to do, then make an island for yourself and do what you have to do.This message was delivered very close to the end of the film, and it seemed like it took an eternity in coming.
The opening scene, the one which showed a crocodile going into the green slimy water (Is that supposed to symbolize... Viet-Nam? ... or, a reminder for us that nature can also be dangerous?) Anyway, some AWOL soldiers are taken off an ideal Melanesian village in the Solomon Islands and returned to their military companies so that they can fight the oncoming war, and so the film takes off from nature's heavenly state and what ensues are epic battle scenes and a living hell.
The title of the picture signifies that the thin red line is the crossing point between sanity and madness. And here is where Malick picks up the story, trying to explain and understand the evil that results from war, by use of idyllic imagery (no mosquitoes in this film version of Guadalcanal), and by using the men who he has depersonalized and, only, humanizing them by allowing us to hear their thinking process as it is being said aloud to us.
I thought the soldier reading a "Dear John" type of letter was very emotionally moving, bringing home the point that most of the soldiers really just want to survive, to get on home. But this film, also, brings on some pretty heady stuff for these nondescript soldiers to say about why they are fighting a war and it is all done, for the most part, in general terms. A voice-over, with a rich Southern accent sets the tone for the director's ruminations about war, this is done by either Pvt.Witt (Caviezel) or Bell (Ben Chaplin), it is hard to tell one voice from the other, as the voice waxes poetic about the bloody action going down, adding further to the absurdity of what is happening by rambling on, saying the most philosophical of things, such as, "What keeps us from reachin' out and graspin' the glory?" I must confess, you really had to like this film to listen to that sappy sort of dribble and not bust a gut.
The juiciest role in the film is reserved for Nolte, who plays a gung-ho West Point lieutenant Colonel Tall, distraught that he has been passed over for promotion to general, while younger, less experienced officers than him get promoted. He justifies his love for this war, by saying that it is made for him, it is "his" war, it is his chance to get promoted after all the years of eating shit from all the higher-ups, and that he is going to do nothing to ruin it, even if it requires his men to take a hill that will result in tremendous casualties. And the taking of the hill is the focal point of the film, with its action scenes being bloody and stupefying. The film also gets caught-up in the grips of politically motivated reasons why things are done a certain way, as the C-Company Captain, James Staros (Elias Koteas), questions the colonel's decision to charge the hill and take its machine gun fortified bunker that is firing down on his men, saying he has to disobey the order because he is afraid that it will be a hopeless suicidal bloodbath.
Sean Penn gives an understated performance as the hardened but compassionate veteran sergeant of C-Company, in a part that many actors could have played. But he is good in this role, proving he has a wide range of talent. The screen seems to favor him when he is on it, he seems to catch our eye, there always seems to be something going on in his thought process and we want to observe him, we seem to sense that he is where the action is.
Private Witt is an AWOL soldier in adoration of the native culture and as a future hero, brought back to the war by Sergeant Welsh (Penn). Private Bell plays the part of a soldier who only wishes to return safely to his beautiful wife (Miranda Otto).Travolta has a cameo, that he is either wrongly cast for or plays it like it should be played, with an uncomfortable tension, sporting a sleazy moustache, as a young general full of hubris and political know-how, playing mind games with the subservient Colonel Tall aboard a transport ship heading for Guadalcanal. My vote is that he is just right for the part.
This is an easy film to criticize, it has many faults in it, too many to overcome and make an argument that this film is the ultimate war film Malick hoped it to be. That it is not. But it is a better film than its many apparent faults make it seem to be (sappy dialogue and force-feeding the audience with its self-righteousness and poor pacing are its worst detractions). I'm always suspicious of films that pontificate about things they are against and then justify their bloodiest and goriest parts that draw for them their audience, by stating that their aims are so lofty that the violence in their films are artistically justified. This film is no exception, except that I genuinely felt that there was something strong embedded in this film that got lost in all its great action scenes and grandeur and philosophizing, something that creeps up on you as you start thinking about what was happening to the men in the film, and why they are fighting a bloody war. What Malick has given us, is a flawed film, that is visually beautiful and arty, that also allows us to think of war in its most simple terms, reminding us that we better know what it means to go to war, or else we will be doomed to keep repeating our past mistakes. He seems to take no sides, Japanese or American, they both got caught in a bad deal.
A 1964 b/w film, director Andrew Marton's The Thin Red Line, used the same book and title for its film, but you would never know it. Malick's movie is truly original filmmaking artistry. This film will be long remembered as a personal film, one that will be well-thought of despite its flaws. It is a darn shame that it couldn't have been edited better so that it would make sense for the entire picture, not just for three-quarters of it.
REVIEWED ON 2/4/99 GRADE: B+
Dennis Schwartz: "Ozus' World Movie Reviews"
http://www.sover.net/~ozus
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DENNIS SCHWARTZ
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews