 
|
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: Thin red line a movie or a novel? posted by Analogon on July 28, 2000 at 12:49:36:
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.
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 ]
