CONSENSUS 36. The Thin Red Line (1998)

 

SUMMARY: The movie is set during the Battle of Guadalcanal. It covers one unit of GIs who are tasked with taking a strong defensive position. The unit’s commander, Capt. Staros (Elias Koteas), is leery about the suicidal nature of the mission, but his commanding officer Lt. Col. Tall (Nick Nolte) insists on maximum effort. The movie dwells on the effects of war on the environment and the environment's interaction with warfare.

BACK STORY: “The Thin Red Line” came out in 1998 ( the same year as “Saving Private Ryan”). It is based on the acclaimed novel by James Jones and is a fictional account set in the Battle of Guadalcanal. The film marked the return of legendary director Terence Malick after a twenty year hiatus. He had previously made “Badlands” and “Days of Heaven”, both of which were highly thought of in Hollywood. Many A-list actors were interested in being directed by Malick in whatever movie he made his comeback with. In fact, several major actors worked on the movie and were left on the cutting room floor ( e.g. Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman ). The movie did not do well at the box office, but did garner seven Oscar nominations ( including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Cinematography ). It won none.

TRIVIA:  Wikipedia, imdb, “Guts and Glory”

1.  It was based on the novel by James Jones which was published in 1962.  He had served on Guadalcanal.

2.  The movie fictionalizes the Battle of Mount Austen. 

3.  So much film was shot that it took seven months to produce the first print which was five hours long.  In trimming it, the roles of Bill Pullman, Mickey Rourke, and Luke Haas ended up on the cutting room floor.  Adrien Brody attended the premiere thinking his Cpl. Fife had a key role only to find he was barely in the movie. 

4.  It was filmed in Australia and the Solomon Islands.

5.  It was nominated for Oscars for:  Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Score, and Sound.  It won none.

6.  Many A-list celebrities wanted to work with Terence Malick.  It had been twenty years since his last film – “Days of Heaven”.  Woody Harrelson and John Savage stuck around for an extra month just to watch the auteur.

7.  The Pentagon refused to cooperate because it had little WWII era weapons and it felt the script did not cast a positive light on the Army.

 

Belle and Blade  =  5.0

Brassey’s              =  4.0

Video Hound       =  2.5

War Movies         =  N/A

Military History  =  #100

Channel 4             =  #16

Film Site                =  yes

101 War Movies  =  yes

Rotten Tomatoes  =  #90 

OPINION:   Most movie critics loved this movie when it came out. They had been waiting for twenty years for a Malick product and refused to be disappointed. It seems every male actor wanted in on the project and when Malick would tell them to wander around and gaze at the sea (as he did with Travolta in his big scene) they did not question the “genius”. The Oscar nominating committee must have been very impressed with cinematography that managed to make Guadalcanal into a tourist destination. Some lucky cameraman was paid to get numerous shots of flora and fauna, especially looking upward. And then there are the voice-overs which are sometimes character’s voices ( often unidentifiable ) and sometimes a more generic sentiment. This may be inspired film-making but it just looks and sounds pretentious to the average war movie buff.

The main fault of the movie ( and any bad war movie ) is lack of realism. Malick may be arguing that the Battle of Guadalcanal was evil man versus good environment, but any veteran of the campaign would support the view that the environment was almost as big a villain as the Japanese. To make a film set on a tropical island and not show the pests, the rain and mud, and the heat is laughable.

Several of the characters do not behave realistically. Witt goes from pacifist to gung-ho with no explanation why. Welsh is a tough guy, yet he volunteers to assist a malingerer back to the rear at a critical moment in the battle, but later he makes a suicidal dash into no man’s land to help a dying soldier.

The assault on the bunker is well done, but the following attack on the camp strains credulity as the Japanese behave against type. Is Malick being a revisionist? Nothing I have read suggests the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers has been inaccurately depicted by military historians.

TRL is a very polarizing movie. You either love it or hate it. Put me in the hate it group. In my opinion, Malick was partly motivated by the desire to offend people like me. The movie is not aimed at war movie lovers. I think it works best for people who do not watch a lot of war movies. People who put high stock in gorgeous cinematography and philosophizing dialogue. It is a must-see if you ever wondered: "why can't they make a nature film / war movie with psychobabble dialogue?"