 
|
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 |
I figure this has been discussed before, but did anyone else love this movie? Care to briefly say why?
This is my first time reading this list.THE THIN RED LINE is a masterpiece, perhaps the best film of the 1990s. Terence Malick has made three movies. BADLANDS (1973) suggested a promise that was fulfilled in DAYS OF HEAVEN (1976) in which Malick revealed the most rarest of events in the film world: true originality. THE THIN RED LINE is his second masterpiece that stands apart from all other films. Malick is able to capture on film what Steinbeck captured in the brief "universal" chapters of THE GRAPES OF WRATH (e.g., the first chapter) in which he manages to lift us above the earth and give us a glimpse of the gears of the universe, turning inexorably. THE THIN RED LINE is one of the rare occurrences of human creation that provides a universal perspective on worldly concerns. It is not recognized as such by those in whom it did not resonate on a first viewing, but time will grant it stature as a true landmark of film.
Respond if you would like to discuss this further.
-chris
I think The Thin Red Line is the most pretentious POS I've ever seen. The symbolism is from English 101 (e.g. the film opens with two GIs relaxing in this peaceful, edenlike, tropical island. They are at one with nature and the natives. Cut to a huge, loud, gray, demonic U-boat. This evil invention of barbaric man disrupts the serenity of nature and peaceful savages. Gag me!). And then we have the soldier with the 3rd grade education profoundly expressing thoughts he couldn't possibly form, let alone articulate. Faulkner could get away with this, but Mallick cannot. The cinematography, although pretty, was self-conscious. The acting was good, but that can't save what is a fundamentally poor piece of cinema. SPR may be a "Hollywood" war film, but it's far better than The Thin Red Line. At least Spielberg didn't have to say "Look how smart I'm trying to be." throughout his film. The Thin Red Line is a film for pseudo-intellectuals.
I completely disagree with you. Basically, what you see below are the thoughts my friend Josh had when we discussed the movie:This is a vast over simplification of what is going on. It is not
mankind's intrusion into the the 'natural' environment that is the focus of what is going on here. The U-boat is, of course, the rude interruption into the "idyllic" lifestyle that Wit is experiencing, but the driving theme of the world is not technology's intrusion into nature, but rather the way that beauty exists alongside death within nature. To reduce the introduction (which does establish a vision of an eden like environment interrupted by the iron reality of a u-boat) to a simple nature vs. machine theme is to ignore what happens later, when Wit revisits the former Eden and finds it changed because he has changed.
< expressing thoughts he couldn't possibly form, let alone Who is being pretentious now? Why, oh why, do you assume that
Wit has a 3rd grade education? Is it because of his accent?
If so I take offense to that since I am from West Virginia. First off to assume that someone needs to have a university education in order to articulate profound thoughts is arrogant in the extreme, but further, there is no background given on Wit's education so all we know is what the film tells us... and that is that he is in a constant state of emotional and intellectual engagement. This in intself makes him an intelligent person.> The cinematography, although pretty, was self-
> conscious.Yes it was self-conscious in the sense that it was constantly seeking to develop and enrich the intellectual themes of the film, I don't see this as a negative but rather a postivie. Given that you claimed that the theme was "man invading nature" however I can see why the apparent self-awareness of the "pretty" cinemetography disturbed you. There were many, many themes being developed (want me to rattle off a few? OK: What happens to the Homeric model of war in a, you'll forgive the term, post-modern world. Does experience destroy innocence (love, beauty). Many, many more)
> The acting was good, but that can't save what is a
> fundamentally poor piece of cinema. SPR may be a "Hollywood" war > film, but
> it's far better than The Thin Red Line. At least Spielberg didn't have to
> say "Look how smart I'm trying to be." throughout his film. The Thin Red
> Line is a film for pseudo-intellectuals.Right, instead Spielburg got to do the "I don't have to think so I am going to rattle off a bunch of cliches" film. SPR does an excellent job in the first half-hour of demonstrating the utter horror of war. Granted, but what happens then? A series of overused images being enacted by one-dimensional characters ... if a point is to be made it will be driven in with jack-hammer subtlety.
I understand your points, but I still disagree and maintain my argument. TRL hits you over the head repeatedly with it's transparent symbolism. I was insulted, frankly. Malick is such a pretentious filmmaker, it makes me sick. He's made three films too many.I never said TRL was just about nature v. machines. Like you said, in the first scene, you have war v. peace, man v. nature, peace v. death, beauty v. horror, etc. but nature v. machines is also a part of this. Regarding the intelligence of Wit, you're on very shakey ground here. It's obvious that this character dropped out of school at a very early age to work on the farm. Listen to his speech (not his accent), and notice the way he behaves in the presence of his superiors. This is not an intelligent character. If Malick wanted him to be, he did a poor job.
I appreciate your thoughts, but this film is very hollow.
> Listen to his speech (not his accent), and notice the way he behaves
> in the presence of his superiors. This is not an intelligent character.Care to elaborate? I know quite a few "Wits" in real life, who are impulsive, uneducated, and unafraid of punishment. But to imply that they aren't capable of subtle, articulated thought is absurd. In my experience quite a few poets, musicians, and other artists fall into this realm.
-Chris
I agree with you, Justin.
I don't think that's the worst war film I've seen, certainly there are much worse ones.(What's POS?)
I never finished watching it; slowness isn't a problem, but cliches are. I also don't think that SPR was half as bad as people here say it was.
The Thin Red Line isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but it is the most pretentious one I've ever seen. POS stands for piece of sh*t.
Although I preferred the Thin Red Line in many ways to SPR, I feel I have to judge it on it's own merits, not in comparison to other films.The main weakness of the film was that it relied much too heavily on voiceovers to tell the story. Film is a visual medium, and is most effective when the images on the screen tell the story, not a voiceover explaining the story. In small amounts, I do not object to this device , as a soliloquy is used in a play to tell the audience what a character is thinking. If the film needs to use voiceovers for the majority of the film, then it isn't really doing service to the medium of film and rests precariously between a film adaption and a novel.
It is not a bad film in many ways, but a seriously flawed one just the same. The visuals of the landscape are beautiful and some of the action scenes are compelling. However, Nick Nolte's character is painfully over the top and a stereotype. John Travolta's turn in the film is without any point whatsoever. His screen time is so small, the only reason he could have been used was to pad the star list.
All in all a film I'm glad I didn't pay to see in the theatre, but worthy of a home rental.
I think that's the whole point. Nolte's character is supposed to be a stereotype, as are all the famous actors in the movie. Its saying that all Hollywood characters are stereotypes, as are most hollywood war movies, and do not accurately depict war.
As for the voice-overs, I thought they were rather poetic, but agree that they were overdone. However, I do not think that the images (the
one's that accompany voice-overs, as there are many images that speak for themselves and have no voice accompanyment) would be sufficient to describe/explain concepts without the voice overs.
I don't think I quite get what you are saying. You seem to be implying that Terrance Malik made the movie to comment on how unrealistic and stereotypical hollywood war movies are rather than to make a film adaption of the novel.Why would he make a war movie that comments on how bad hollywood war movies are [and in turn put these bad elements in his film] rather than make a truly great war movie and show hollywood how this subject can be done well.
I'm sorry, but I don't find your arguement convincing, though others may agree with your take on the film.
I think your point is very valid.
However, I wouldn't say he is commenting on how bad hollywood movies are, but rather how unrealistic they are... they were more about propaganda than anything else. The product of movies such as these (hollywood movies) are characters like Nolte's character.
Guys who enlist to sacrifice themselves for their country. Look at how Woody Harrelson's (sp) character dies... for nothing. He wanted to go out guns blazing, like Tom Hanks in SPR, but instead he dies from his own grenade. Mallack is saying, even if he died heroically, he would still have died for nothing. Nolte's character is at the end of his career, he realises he has wasted his life serving the army for nothing.
The famous characters are very REAL, I think Mallick is saying that people like them fought in the war because they wanted to die and sacrifice themselves and be heros like some of the characters depicted in hollywood movies, but in reality their sacrifice is tragic, not heroic... basically because war is pointless. There is no way to justify it and the deaths of those who fought.
The best example I see is Bell thinking he is being a hero by not sending his men to their death's, and Nolte's character calling him a coward for not doing so.
So, I don't think he is putting actual "bad" elements in the movie, but putting in products of the bad elements in these movies... the guys who might have watched these movies while growing up and joined the army to sacrifice themselves for their country.
If you say that Malik was trying yo point out the stupidity of war I'm with you there. War is not a heroic enterprise, the only heroism is in saving another person's life.This is what the protagonist[narrator] of the story does when he leads the japanese away from his comrades-in-arms and in doing so is killed. You can say his death is tragic, but it isn't pointless if it allows others to live. I think Malik is saying that in the end this is the only heroism in war.
The scene of the protagonist swimming with the children is a beautiful one. It shows that nature is oblivious of the petty struggles of man. The landscape is just as beautiful whether it is a time of peace or a time of war.
Hey, I never thought about the main character's death like that!
It makes perfect sense. I too loved the nature scenes and get something new out of them each time I watch the movie.
I generally liked the movie, which was, I thought, in sharp contrast with SPR that I considered absolutely offensive. Pardon me for using this parralel, but it is only natural (see another such "pair: FMJ vs. Platoon, with pretty much the same observatins).It is, in my view, not a great movie in a true sense of that word, but it is NOT an irritating movie at all. Today that is not a trivial prase for an American movie.
Directing is not going to win any major awards and some people objected to certain scenes as being too corny, but at least it did not stoop down to cheaper-than-cheap effects and managed to maintain a good level of professionalism, while retaining a very strong human element - something completely missing from the cliche-and-cardboard cutouts-driven SPR.
A movie that I would like my kids to see.
I agree with you regarding SPR. I did like the beginning of the movie, the first scenes on the beach, because of the way the war was harshly portrayed, but after that, it moved onto your typical war movie. How could characters who survive through that much bloodshed be so willing to go on seemingly untraumatized (except for Tom Hanks' shaking hand) and fully willing to sacrifice themselves?I can compare it to TRL though. TRL makes fun of movies like SPR. Look at the hollywood actors. All of them are hollywood typical soldiers. They mindlessly give themselves over to the army. Nolte's character, the general, talks about all he has given to the army only to receive nothing in return. This is what all the hollywood characters do (Nolte, Harrelson, Cusack, Clooney)... they fight and die for nothing and consider it a noble/heroic sacrifice. The bigger the actor, the more hollywood like his character is. I loved that aspect of the movie. Get them all there in some remote island, make them hang around and be filmed in several scenes, then cut most of them out and use them as examples of the stupidity of hollywood war movies.
The character Bell, the complete opposite, thinks he is being heroic by not ordering his men up the hill to certain death. The general thinks it is heroic if they die, almost as if they are sacrificed.
I also, though some remarked that it was overdone, liked the symbolism of birds. The soldiers fight for freedom (air/birds/flight=freedom, ground/soldiers/death=slavery), but to do so they must completely relinquish their own freedom. In the scene with Sean penn's character and whit, there's an empty bird cage with an open door, as if what was imprisoned has now been set free. There's also a shot of a bird dying on the ground. They all seem to back up the idea of freedom/slavery.
Not to mention the way they fight for what is moral and right, when to do so, they must immorally and burtally kill.
Basically, I felt like, while SPR was a movie about sacrificing oneself for one's country, TRL was the exact opposite and I hated it when people thought the two movies were somehow similar or related, when the only similarities between them are their inherent differences.
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 ]
