The Thin Red Line Review
by "Matt Prigge" (chandlerb AT geocities DOT com)March 12th, 1999
THE THIN RED LINE (1998)
A Film Review by Ted Prigge
Copyright 1999 Ted Prigge
Director: Terence Malick
Writer: Terence Malick (based on the novel by James Jones)
Starring: Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel, Adrien Brody, Ben Chaplin, Elias Koteas, Nick Nolte, John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, John C. Reilly, Jared Leto, John Savage, Nick Stahl, Donal Logue, John Travolta, George Clooney
And so begins the hardest critique I'll probably ever have to write. So many movies I see leave me with instant thoughts and criticism(s), while others linger in my head days, even weeks before I can finally sit down, organize them intelligently, and write about them as best as I can (under whatever conditions I'm in). For an example of that, I re-saw "La Dolce Vita" this year around, oh, April, and by November I was finally able to come to as full a conclusion as I was about it and write a review of it. But with "The Thin Red Line," the much-anticipated World War II film and return by legendary-and-deserves-it director Terrence Malick, I just can't seem to come up with anything that either makes sense or shows that I know what I'm talking about. This film has either been overpraised or overbashed by many, and after watching it, I'm easily annoyed by claims that it's the best war movie of the past 20 years, or just a bunch of pretentious drivel.
I suppose being admittingly pretentious myself does cause me to overglance the possibility of me thinking the latter about this film (although I wouldn't call it drivel because or despite my, uh, handicap), but I don't want to immediately jump to the conclusion that this film is the masterpiece that others are proclaiming it to be. It has a wonderful poetic and hypnotic feel to it, yes, that's unique, even taking into consideration Coppola's acid-trip-like "Apocalypse Now." And there's a whole ton to admire here, from the gorgeous cinematography (courtesy of our pal, John Toll) to Terrence Malick's gentle and beautiful direction that's in direct opposition of that of Steven Spielberg, whose "Saving Private Ryan" is as close to realism as this is to surrealism to some of the performances from the titanic cast, in particular Nick Nolte and Elias Koteas. But what exactly is Malick trying to say here, what is the film's raison d'etre, and what comparisons is Malick trying to show here between nature, humanity, and war?
"The Thin Red Line" is based on the famous novel by James Jones (recently portrayed by Kris Kristoferson in "A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries") about the battle of Guadalcanal, one of the most important and decisive battles of World War II. As the story begins, we see the native's way of life in the area, where two AWOL American soldiers have gone to escape, only to be shortly picked back up when an American ship passes through and spots them (the sight of beautiful nature being interruted by man-made steel is just one of the many unforgettable images Malick leaves you with here). One of the AWOL soldiers, Pvt. Witt (Jim Caviezel), is then reprimanded by one of his commanding officers, First Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn), and between them a strange union is formed: Witt, of the group that hates war and believes in everything nature; Welsh, with his cynical outlook on man. But this film isn't about either of them, to be exact. Malick's film, also scripted by him, doesn't have any main characters. In fact, it'd be not totally incorrect to say that Malick himself is the main character, and, as Roger Ebert pointed out, it's like he's trying to make one film and the actors are making another. A correct statement, but I'm not sure if Ebert meant that as a knock at the film, or something positive. I believe in the latter, but more about that later on.
The plot soon kicks in, and we meet more of those involved. The Lieutenenant, a man named Bell (Nick Nolte), is soon introduced, not as the intense, screaming maniac he is in the rest of the film (or the ads), but as resentful to his own commanding officer (a very brief but altogether not bad John Travolta) as his men are probably to him. Captain Staros (Elias Koteas) shows too much humanity for his men in the middle of a major attack, but confesses his need to be alone and his desire to be anywhere but in battle to his troops later on. Pvt. Bell (Ben Chaplin, sans native Brit accent) is constantly having flashbacks to afternoons with his wife, and wishes of returns to that, but then again, some self-destructive acts come about on his own part (like volunteering on a possible suicide mission in the middle of the picture). Most of the others are reduced to smaller roles, though, like famous or semi-famous actors Woody Harrelson (as an intense soldier who doesn't last too long, but at least goes out cinematically), John Cusack, John C. Reilly, Jared Leto, John Savage, Nick Stahl (another great death scene here), and [about 45 seconds of] George Clooney, most of whom just wanted to work with the director, even if it meant having a small role. In fact, the amount of film Malick shot was so long that actors like Bill Pullman were left sadly on the cutting room floor.
The main part of the battle lasts about an hour and a half long, leaving another hour and a half for a beginning and end, but not only does it feel like much of a plot, but it also (thankfully) doesn't feel like a three-hour sit, at least not for your's truly. I can only attribute the fact that it's not at all boring to Malick's direction, which, as it was for the other Malick film I've seen (the wonderful "Days of Heaven"), like that of a soft but effective brush stroke by a painter or the gentleness of a Bach concerto ("Air on the G String" comes to mind). A friend noticed no matched action cuts, but instead of this factor (so important that you probably don't realize it) taking us out of the picture's overall feel, it manages to achieve zen-like undertones, and the numerous shots of horrific battle coupled with shots of tall grass blowing in the wind or animal and/or insect life only help to make you relax into a state of hypnosis that is entirely unlike any war movie I've ever seen (again, comparisons to "Saving Private Ryan" are not only useless, but downright silly). In fact, this entire film is unlike any movie that I've ever seen, period. Malick, as usual, breaks several "rules" in the world of cinema, like lack of characters that the viewer can easily latch onto or see as a guiding point, and the use of narration with not one, not two, but about ten different characters.
But that's what I liked about "The Thin Red Line." It's like every single character in this film believes that he's the lead character, and Malick is only dropping in on each of them from time to time to see what they're thinking and how they're reacting to what's going on (Mike D'Angelo hilariously pointed out that it's like an "Apocalypse Now" where everyone's a Kurtz). But each narration or flashback lets us into the character's lives just enough, and Bell's backstory is the most heartbreaking and most easily identifiable, at least for me, with graceful juxtaposition of current times with the memories of he and his wife being intimate (almost heartbreaking, I'd say). Yet at the same time, nothing in the film is as moving as Koteas' Staros, who gives off an aura of such world-weariness and unhappiness that without narration and with his superb acting, I was even more moved (will someone give this guy some more great roles, please?). But again, where is Malick going with all this? Is he trying to merely say that nature is disrupted by war? If he is, he's not only making a terribly trite statement out of a beautiful film, but he's also wasting a lot of people's times (nothing should be that simple, and I sure hope this isn't an environmentalist war film). Or is he trying to show the loss of humanity in the midst of war? Well...that would be interesting, but if he's trying to do that, I think he kinda failed a bit: humanity does in fact seep through - in fact, a lot of it. Or is he trying to show the way we hide humanity? Again, if this was what he was going for, he didn't achieve it.
Or, as my best guess is, is he trying to show that everything that happens in this film is merely part of nature, whether it be of mother or of human? He doesn't seem to judge anything that goes on here, not even the war. The entire film is shot the same way: with graceful camera movement, and hypnotic editing of images together. Could this be the least judgmental war film of all time, a film that doesn't make any kind of statements on war and its subsequent damage to nature or humanity, but merely observes, I suppose, kind of like God or something omnipotent (a bit of modesty, perhaps, Mr. Malick?). Or is Malick just pulling a fast one on its audience members, trying to get them to think as hard as they can about something which has no real form or meaning or anything that is coherently meaningful? Whatever this film means or represents (as much as I am keen to believe in my theory), I was at least stimulated, and am at least not often quick to jump to the conclusion that if I can't figure it out for certain, that it's the one with the problem (although I could be wrong with this; maybe this film IS a mess...). But the point is that I was stimulated, and this may be one of the very few films (along with "Saving Private Ryan") that I can't easily pass off as merely "anti-war"...or, for that matter, "anti-war" at all. Frustrating, yes, but in a good way.
MY RATING (out of 4): ***1/2
Home page at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
More on 'The Thin Red Line'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
