 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Has anyone seen Thin Red Line Yet? posted by Estes on July 11, 1999 at 08:23:42:
MiKe,I worked on "The Thin Red Line" (so keep my bias in mind!) and saw SPR in preparation for working on TRL. I came out of SPR an angry man. I thought the D-Day sequence was superb technically (and the sound created half of the impact, IMO), but I also felt I watched two films. The first film was an incredible recreation that enabled me to get a *small grasp* of real war, followed by a 2 ½ hour piece of "Hollywood" tripe. The second film used *every* cliche` in every war film ever made -- without deviation, and it came off as pale in comparison (the first part also had many cliche`s, but the D-Day sequence didn't hang on them as the second part did, but then, it couldn't). I found the use of manipulation in SPR overt, and insulting.
On the other hand, I was invited to a screening of TRL before the film was put in release, and for me, The Thin Red Line was everything that Saving Private Ryan was not. It's not perfect, but I feel it stands among the best war films made. To me TRL seemed more like a *very* expensive independent film than typical "Hollywood" faire (at several points I found myself thinking "how did Malick talk a major film studio into making a picture like this?" --but I already knew the answer: Bill Mechanic) other than all the cameos, which I felt were distracting (but there were only 25 *names* in the final film, another 25 guys such as Mickey Rourke had their scenes cut).
There were three war cliche's that Malick addressed, and each time he turned the cliche` on it's head, or at least on it's side (SPR did these same three cliche`s and left them intact). Also, in SPR you knew how long the actor would last on-screen by how well you knew his face (the Star Trek syndrome; Bones, Spock and Captain Buford beam down to face the Space Monster). In TRL it was established early in the battle scenes that *anyone* you saw on-screen could be killed, and not in heroic ways either, just like on a real battlefield. Whereas SPR threw you into the riot of battle for shock effect, in TRL the action doesn't appear so quickly, and Malick establishes the tension and anxiety one might experience before hand. The German soldier in SPR was a cartoon Nazi that had more in common with those found in Raiders of the Lost Ark than Schindler's List. TRL had no enemies with important speaking roles, yet they were better developed in their silence; they were more human, and didn't appear as actors in a movie, in my mind. Both films move back and forth through time, but for different reasons.
These are two films with very different goals.I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone; though I loved it, you may hate it. TRL isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. The people I've talked to who've hated TRL didn't want to have to think during a movie, they just want to be "entertained," not required to... think. (still, there's no guarantee that you'll like it even if you enjoy films that challenge you mentally). I've heard people describe TRL as an "Art house flick", boring, confusing (can you say non-linear?), too long (15 minutes could be trimmed for greater impact, IMO), and that TRL was Saving Private Ryan on acid (my personal favorite).
To each his own.
Robert
Robert, I think you have put the differences between the two movies well. I mostly agree with your assessment. However, I found the "dream sequence" where the lead was on an island, out of context & confusing. If they had reduced this, I think they would have had a far superior movie than SPR, which as you said, uses very cliche going. I think the D-Day sequence in SPR did what it was suppose to and that was to wake up people. The rest as you as, missed the point.
Estes,Regarding the "dream sequence" on the island, are you referring to the opening sequence of TRL? (It's been a while since I saw it...)
...Some additional comments about the cliche`s in SPR. I thought the cliche`s in the D-Day battle sequence were important, and even required, because Spielberg was trying to be as faithful to the event as taste would dictate. The events those cliche`s depicted really occurred; to *not* show them would have been false. Guys did get their helmet zinged, they'd remove the helmet to see they damage, then get killed by another bullet while their helmet was off. Though these cliche`s were manipulative, I accepted them as necessary. I also feel they worked because they weren't mired in melodrama.
I took issue with the cliche`s found *after* the D-Day invasion. Because the rest of the film was a fictionalized account of a true event, Spielberg's ego felt the need to "goose" the audience through cliche`-driven manipulation (when I see this kind of thing it always makes me feel that the director doesn't think the story is interesting enough to stand on it's own merits, but that's a different complaint!). Case in point, the cliche` that's been referred to as the "man on the wire" (after the scene in the 1930 film "All Quiet on the Western Front"). It's the wounded guy, out in the open, that the enemy uses to psychological advantage in order to take out the rest of the squad by picking them off one by one as they attempt to rescue their buddy. That scene ran for what seemed like *forever,* and for what *good* reason was it there? So SS could milk the cow!Anyway... enough yapping from the peanut gallery...
I refer to the "repetitive" island dream sequence. My reaction was "What is the point??" I accept the dreams about his wife, but the island stuff was just dumb and more importantly destroyed the impact of the rest of the film in my mind. I thought that it had potential to be much better than SPR, but because someone thought they were Bergman or Fellini, they stuck dream sequences in the middle of battle sences. Give me a break! This ruined the Thin Red Line for me.I don't think something is a cliche if it actually happened. Yes Hollywood over uses cliches to the point where you see them coming like a frieght train. But I agree that they made a point in SPR in the first half hour of the film. According to the vets I know, the wounded are left until the fighting stops, so the "man on a wire" is a movie device.
In my view movies like "Glory" and "Stalingrad" did a much better job.
Estes,Perhaps you were in a hurry in your reply, or possibly you had another problem with TRL... Are you aware that Witt (Jim Caviezel) was the narrator, and Bell(Ben Chaplin) was the married guy? Some people couldn't tell them apart...
To wrap it up, we had a split vote on TRL. Estes felt he'd watched a hazy war film rendered incomprehensible by National Geographic footage and Robert thought it was impressive for a studio film. Another split decision on SPR, Estes thought the D-Day invasion delivered it's message and Robert felt that the great 30 minutes at the beginning did not make up for the cartoonish rest of the film.
The video pick of the week is "Glory."
Well that's it for now, Estes and Robert will be back next week with reviews of "The Runaway Cliche` Film Freight Train" and "Barney: Too Hot For TV."
Add me to the list that can't tell them apart. Now I am really confused.The last paragraph should read, while Estes agreed with Robert that SPR the frist 30 minutes worked, and that there were times where the cartoonish elements were a bit much, overall it was an OK, but not Great movie. Robert thought the first 30 minutes were OK, but the rest was crap.
Next week, our special guest reviewer, Jerry Falwell will review Teletubbies, is a Triple X rating enough?? ;-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
