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?"

NOW STREAMING: The Great War (2019)

 

                If you are not aware that WWI is called the Great War and was from 1914 to 1918, this may be the movie for you.  Be aware that in spite of the title, it is not a documentary about the war.  Perhaps the reason for the ludicrous title was to con history buffs into buying the straight-to-DVD.  It is brought to you by the Steven Luke of “Battle of the Bulge:  Winter War” and “Wunderland”.  If you’ve seen either of those low budget weekend reenactor epics, you know what to expect.  You know to expect the gravitas lended by B-list actors working for beer money.  In this case, Ron Perlman and Billy Zane.

                In spite of its expansive title, it is actually about an incident that occurs in the last week of the war.  It takes place in the Argonne Forest where a Captain Rivers (Bates Wilder) is suffering from PTSD.  He leads an attack across no man’s land.  In an awkward tactical move, the Germans are not in their trenches.  They are in the open behind them.  The action is small-scale, but not embarrassing.  The deaths are silly, but the effects are decent.  Rivers unit is aided by an all-black unit which is what we call foreshadowing in the business.  Two days before the armistice, Gen. Pershing (Perlman) learns about a black unit that has gotten cut off.  He reads a letter from Lincoln and proclaims “We’re gonna find them and we’re gonna get them down off that damned hill”.  (Note to Luke:  Don’t remind your audience of “Saving Private Ryan”.)  Rivers is assigned the task of rescuing the unit.  He leads seven men behind enemy lines.  One of them is a black soldier named Cain who is their guide.  (He’s from Brooklyn, so that box is checked.)   Another is a loathsome racist begging for a change of attitude arc.  He’s Italian, of course.  The squad saunters through the woods lamely bantering.  Eventually, they find the platoon.  (The blacks do not appear until well into the movie.)  “Looks like you fellas got hit pretty hard.”  “Yes sir, they hit us pretty hard”.  (Did I mention Luke wrote the dialogue himself?)  The supposedly beleaguered platoon is not dug in and their officer is in a ridiculously spacious tent!  But they are game for the “big” set piece breakout battle.  Better hurry, the war is almost over.  (If you have taking a drink anytime someone mentions that fact, you will be blissfully drunk at this point.)

                I have seen worse movies, but not many.  I have to give some credit for sincerity.  Even Perlman and Zane seem to care about their performances.  The other actors are not terrible and Wilder is decent.  He does white savior fairly well.  It is a bit questionable that Rivers is the hero in a movie that purports to be an homage to African-American soldiers.  It does give off a solid civil rights vibe.  Its heart is in the right place, but all the other organs are messed up.  It is predictable and parts are unintentionally hilarious. 

                You’ll find it move amusing if you are familiar with the circumstances surrounding the end of the war.  The platoon gets cut off by pushing too far in the Allies attempt to gain as much territory as possible before the end.  As though the Germans were going to get to keep any parts of France they still held.  Guffaw!  It’s the French that force Pershing to fight to the last minute.  This is exactly the opposite of what happened.  In reality, the great general disagreed with the pansy armistice and insisted on attacking until 11 A.M. on November 11.  3,500 Americans became casualties because of Pershing.  As far as a lost platoon, this appears to have been inspired by the Lost Battalion.  (Another movie you would not want to encourage comparison to.)  Speaking of which, there is a bayonet charge with Cain carrying a flag like in  “Glory”.

                “The Great War” is available on Amazon Prime, so at least it was free for me to watch.  It ended a string of recent war movies that were above average.  After reviewing “The Outpost”, “Danger Close”, “Da 5 Bloods”, and “Last Full Measure”,  I was content that the last year has been a banner year for war movies, despite “The Great War”.  I’m sure I’ll forget about it soon enough.  It might take longer to forget that someone actually thought that title was a good one.

GRADE  =  D-  

 

BOOK/MOVIE: The African Queen (1935/1951)

 

                In 1935, C.S. Forester published his adventure novel The African Queen.  It is probably his most famous stand-alone novel.  He also wrote the Horatio Hornblower series.  The African Queen adds romance to adventure.  It is set in Africa during WWI and involves an odd couple who decide to try to sink a German warship that dominates a strategic lake.  The title refers to the small steamboat that they attempt the task with.  To get to their target, they must navigate a rapid-filled river and overcome numerous obstacles.  Their love develops as they conquer nature.  In 1951, John Huston made the classic film based on the novel.  It starred Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn.  The screenplay was written by Huston, James Agee, Peter Viertel, and John Collier.  The adapted screenplay was nominated for an Oscar.  The script was faithful to the novel until the end.  There were some significant changes made for the trek part of the story.  I am going to assume you have seen the movie, so be aware that the following comparison of the book to the movie will reveal details of the plot.  I will concentrate on the book and how the movie made changes.

 

                The book begins with Rose and her brother praying.  He is ill and dies that night.  The Germans have already come to their village and taken the villagers away.  They did not burn the village.  Rose blames the Germans for her brother’s death and this increases her hatred toward them.  She already had problems with their mistreatment of them and their villagers.  She dreams of revenge, but what can a woman do?  Then along comes Charlie.  In the book, Charlie is British and speaks with a heavy cockney accent.  (Since Bogart could not handle the accent, Charlie was changed to a Canadian.)  Rose is very patriotic and besides revenge, wants to strike a blow for the British Empire.  She convinces Charlie that the blow will be the sinking of the German warship Konigin Luise.  He gives in easy because he figures her first taste of rapids will douse her ardor.  Instead, Rose is transformed by the experience and is exhilarated by the action and adventure that is so different from her previous life as a proper woman.  This is made evident early on when she is not offended and does not evict him from her dry bed when Charlie crawls in during a rain storm.  When Charlie gets drunk and stands up to her, she does dump his liquor, but unlike the movie, she does it for revenge.  Similarly, the silent treatment is not to get him to reconsider, it just happens to work out that way. 

 

                As in the movie, they fall in love. However, although Forester does not go into detail, their love goes beyond chaste kissing.  She is more domineering than in the movie.  “He was a man made to be hen-pecked.”  The book covers in detail the running of the series of rapids, the repair of the shaft, passing by the fort.  It includes the mosquito attack and the leeches.   They get through the reeds mainly by rowing or pulling on the reed roots with a boat hook.  It takes weeks. They do not get stuck and get miraculously saved by rain raising the water level.   They contract malaria.  The preparation for the attack on the warship is basically replicated in the movie, but the aftermath is radically different.

 

                In the novel, Charlie is captured after the African Queen goes down in the storm.  He is accused of espionage for spying on the ship from the island and wanting to destroy the ship’s stores on shore.  He is going to be found guilty when Rose is brought in. She does not tell them anything about their plan.  She was found with the African Queen life buoy so they figure out who the couple is.  The Captain decides not to execute them because Rose is a remarkable woman and he admires what they accomplished.  He releases them to the British authorities.  Meanwhile, the British have moved two motor boats to the lake to confront the Konigin Luise.  These warships are fast and maneuverable and have three-inch guns.  They easily and anticlimactically sink the German ship.  The British commander makes arrangements to send Charlie and Rose to the coast where he expects Charlie to enlist and Rose to return to England.  Rose proposes marriage and they agree to get married as soon as they reach the British consul.

 

                Naturally, the book gives more details than the movie.  The running of the rapids is much more suspenseful.  Rose is an amazing steerswoman in the book.  The period in the reeds is more exhausting and has the malaria thrown in.  Fixing the shaft is more complicated and time consuming.  But other than more details, the journey to the lake is very similar to the book.  The characters are also very similar, other than Charlie being Canadian in the movie.  The book Charlie is meeker and less intelligent.  No surprise that character was given more testosterone.  Rose is a proto-feminist in the book.  She starts as a spinster and ends up an action hero.  She is much more interesting than Charlie and Forester has her dominating Charlie and the narrative.  She blooms as a result of the adventure.  She knows she is coming out of her cocoon.  For 1950s reasons the movie made her more traditional.  And obviously, she could not be having premarital sex, and enjoying it!

 

                The reason why the movie is better than the book is it keeps the basics and vastly improves the ending.  Forester flubbed the ending badly.  To have Charlie and Rose fail after all they went through may have been realistic, but it hardly was crowd-pleasing.  If Hollywood is anything, it is crowd-pleasing.  The scriptwriters deserve a lot of credit for improving the ending and it is genius.  The twist puts a cherry on top of a movie that was already perfect.

 

BOOK    =   B-

MOVIE  =   A