thin3.jpg
One Single Man in All This Madness


The Films of 1999: The Thin Red Line / Steven Lloyd Wilson

Film Reviews | November 19, 2009 | Comments (45)


“What difference do you think you can make, one single man in all this madness? If you die, it’s gonna be for nothing. There’s not some other world out there where everything’s gonna be okay. There’s just this world. Just this rock.” - Sergeant Welsh

The Thin Red Line is an infuriating movie to watch, alternating between flashes of brilliance and stretches of boredom. It’s either the most boring brilliant film or most brilliant boring film ever made. When it’s good, it’s boiling your eyes in their sockets with vivid imagery and the horrific nature of man, tasering your brain with a transcendental/nihilist debate on the meaning of life and death. When it’s bad, it meanders like a stoned unicyclist, weaving back and forth in no particular direction, all motion and no progress. When the good and the bad are woven together, they don’t form the typical gestalt of mediocrity, but something unsettling to the viewer. It makes you suspect that you’re just not smart enough to understand why all of the film is brilliant.

Terrence Malick has made only four feature length films in the last 36 years, making The Thin Red Line after a twenty-year hiatus from directing. The film spent almost a decade in production overall, generated an original cut that was five hours long and required thirteen months of post-production before finally making it into theaters. Released a few months after Saving Private Ryan, the film can’t avoid comparison. I remember at the time there being profound disappointment in the theater full of people thinking that they were seeing Saving Private Ryan: Pacific Boogaloo and realizing around the third time that the camera lingered for thirty seconds on a bird that they weren’t in Normandy anymore.

The film is set in Guadalcanal, in the midst of some of the most brutal fighting of the Pacific Theater of World War II, and follows the C Company along on its invasion of the Japanese-held island. The camera seems to follow characters for a while, then drops them when it finds someone or something more interesting to focus on. The actors nail their roles, each and every one, but it’s difficult to get a sense of the characters as they drift in and out of the loose narrative. The legend of Malick managed to populate the film with a spectacular ensemble of actors, many of whom (Billy Bob Thorton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, Viggo Mortensen, Mickey Rourke, amongst others) were completely cut from the final film. Adrien Brody saw his extensive role cut to two lines in editing; George Clooney pops in for a couple of minutes at the end.

The cinematography is stunning, creating a landscape that takes on as much character as any of the actors. The land is beautiful, a lush explosion of green, a paradise overflowing with life. It stands in contrast to the men stalking the jungles like packs of harried tigers, dirty and foul and carrying all the violence of civilization with them. This is not a film that could be set on dreary French beaches of pounding gray surf and forbidding cliffs. It constructs an Eden as the stage for its particular hell.

The film resonates with a struggle for meaning in the face of an oppressive and terrifying nihilism. There’s just this world, Sergeant Walsh says, this hell we’re born into that’s so wretched and violent that even God couldn’t make it out alive. We destroy everything we touch, including each other. But even as that darkness threatens to overwhelm the entire film, sparks of hope glimmer, in muted greys rather than with Spielbergian gloss. A man rocking and sobbing in the rain for the horrors that he committed, stolen teeth tumbling from his fingers. And in the end, the unwilling soldier caught like an animal, raising his rifle to draw the shot, to die with honor, the sound of his death warning his comrades of the danger. There’s a maturity to the philosophy, touching here and there on complexities without easy answers, not refuting nihilism, but embracing it to show that it doesn’t quite mean what it seems to at face value. If nothing we do matters, the only thing that matters is what we do.

Yet for all that, the film is interminable for long stretches. It lingers, it wanders, it has no real narrative center. It’s like that guy in the coffee shop near the university, the one who just knows that he’s the smartest thing since Einstein’s sliced bread, and feels a need to prove it constantly and vocally in order to justify why it’s been twenty years since he dropped out to write the novel he never finished. You know the guy, right? And just as you’re about to open up the can of mockery, he says something so profound it stops your sarcasm half way up your throat. It’s fucking infuriating, that glimpse of unfulfilled potential suffocated by an ego obsessed with the way the world misunderstands it. Real artists ship, the Mac messiah once said, but some get lost along the way and climb so far up their own arse that they taste every meal twice. The Thin Red Line is a manifesto of failed art: genius made apparent even as it spoils its own efforts.

“One man looks at a dying bird and thinks there’s nothing but unanswered pain. That death’s got the final word, it’s laughing at him. Another man sees that same bird, feels the glory, feels something smiling through it.” - Private Witt

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here.


Five Inspirational Football Films That Weren't As Inspirational in Reality | Dexter S4E8 "Road Trip" Recap





Comments

You forgot to mention the best Woody Harrelson line of his entire career... "Oh god, I blew ma butt off!"

Posted by: Colostomy Baggins at November 19, 2009 3:10 PM

I have nothing to add here, since Steven summed up my sentiments about this in his first two sentences...yet, I feel like I should give this one another chance, maybe?

Has anyone else taken in a second vieweing, especially a good year or more after the first? Does a second viewing prove to be more rewarding? Do you need a really big, really good TV to enjoy it perhaps?

Posted by: jason at November 19, 2009 3:14 PM

biggest piece of shit film...ever.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at November 19, 2009 3:15 PM

There was also plenty of cliche. Oh, the man driven mad by war is screaming in silent slow motion in the rain....deep. Ben Chaplin's recurring story was the only thing resembling plot, and it took, what was it, two hours to get to the punchline? I know the actors just wanted to be involved, but the cameos are distracting, probably because they're only cameos, and there's really nothing you can do about it.

I actually got pulled over late at night on the way back from the theater. I was weaving. I was thinking really hard on "was that any good?" I finally decided: No...I just don't like it.

Posted by: Jay at November 19, 2009 3:22 PM

Interesting review Wilson, in essence you’ve just wrote a review of “Apocalypse Now.”

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 19, 2009 3:24 PM

I read in a Clooney interview a while ago that he begged Malick to cut his tiny little part at the end, saying, quite reasonably that most people would go "What the fuck was George Clooney doing there?"

Which is one of the reasons I respect Clooney: He's one of those actors who's self-aware enough to understand what he does and doesn't bring to a particular project. (Sam Jackson, are you listening?)

Posted by: Captain Splendid at November 19, 2009 3:35 PM

Very nice review. Thanks!

I made my way to the theater for this one, and, yes, I was one of those people sort of hoping for Saving Private Ryan 2: Pacific Boogaloo. (I had never seen a Malick film at that point.) About 20 minutes into the film, the projector went haywire, and they gave everyone a free pass to come back another time. (When something like that happens, I think they really owe you two free passes. One for the movie you were shorted when you returned, and one for the time spent going out of your way to try to see it the first time. But whatever.)

I did go back to see it the next weekend, but I've never seen it since. I remember thinking that Nick Nolte did a great job and that Elias Koteas' relationship with his soldiers seemed underwritten. I also had a hell of a time keeping a couple of the soldiers straight with all that meandering voiceover, as at one point I thought the Chaplin and Caviezel characters were the same guy.

By the way, this shouldn't count as a "film of 1999," in my opinion.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at November 19, 2009 3:38 PM

I will stand by the film (and film-maker). It is drawn out in such a way to give the viewer space to ponder as it unravels. I suppose many people check their watches during this time. However, pacing an action movie wasn't the goal, here. Malick paints masterworks. He creates moods. I think it's quite a remarkable and unorthodox piece of film. A true original.

Posted by: gunnertec at November 19, 2009 3:41 PM

Excuse me Captain Splendid but if I’m not mistaken didn’t Mr. Self-aware just finished a very shitty “The Men Who Stare at Goats?”

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 19, 2009 3:42 PM

DarthCorleone,
I'm with you. I seem to remember this movie up against Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, Shakespeare in Love and Life is Beautiful(?) for the Oscar in 1999 for movies that came out in 1998. A little cheating here as an excuse to post a great review?

We decided to run Thin Red Line under 1999 because it was released in only five theaters on December 25th, 1998 and then wide released January 15th, 1999. So, while it's 1998 by technicality, it really wasn't available for most people to see until 1999. Plus, we can be as arbitrary as we want, because unlimited power has corrupted us to the roots of our cold black hearts. -SLW

Posted by: Kballs at November 19, 2009 3:55 PM

I've never seen this one, but a good movie about WWII with "Red" in the title that I have seen is "The Big Red One." Lee Marvin is in it. That right there should be enough to make you wanna see it.

Posted by: Slash at November 19, 2009 4:06 PM

I got a lot of crap for trying to talk up this movie during the Saving Private Ryan discussion, but I'll say it again: this movie is a great counterpiece to SPR, offering a different and equally valid take on the experience of war.

I *personally* prefer TRL to SPR and think it the better of the two.

What I love about this movie is how it takes the standard Hollywood war movie plot device, the unit-full-of-conflicting-personalities, and uses it to explore different reactions to the stress of combat, usually by pitting the different character's philosophies against each other in discussions (either by talking or through actions). And their philosophies aren't perfect abstract theoretical positions, but they're flawed and sometimes inconsistent, just like real people's.

The best IMO is Caviezel's naturalist private vs. Penn's existentialist sergeant, sparring over the nature of our world: is there beauty to be sought, even among all this destruction, or is it all meaningless? If there is meaning, is it some grand abstract thing, or is it something as simple as our connections to the people we fight alongside?

Related, one of my favorite scenes is when Penn risks his life to give morphine to a dying solider, so that his last moments won't be in agony. Koteas' Captain is awed, promising him medals for such an act of bravery. Penn angrily responds that if he so much as mentions what happened to anyone, he'll resign right then. It's a very powerful scene.

Posted by: Jacktrade at November 19, 2009 4:14 PM

Anybody remember that British sit-com "Game On" that Ben Chaplin was in? No? Diabolical.

Posted by: TSF at November 19, 2009 4:31 PM

I have tried to get into Thin Red Line at least 3 times. I just can't seem to finish.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 19, 2009 4:49 PM

Mr. Wilson, I acknowledge and appreciate your cold black heart. Please forgive my OCD and passionate feeling about cinema in the year 1999. I'm still glad you wrote the review.

I should revisit this film. I don't think I've changed too much over the last ten years, but maybe I would appreciate it more now.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at November 19, 2009 4:55 PM

Wait wait wait.....did you just call that beady-eyed bastard a "messiah"?

Posted by: Jay at November 19, 2009 4:56 PM

I've this movie and Badlands already on my Netflix list. This simply
Mr Malick is a strange bird and it something's fairly unique, I'm more
apt to see it (as long as it's not gore, horror or farce). I did see The New
World... and it *did* truly test my patience [chuckle]. But it was interesting
in it's quietness and different way of movie-making. I'm certainly no film
student type, but I like something that makes me have to concentrate
and mull over what's going on (& the meaning of it all).

Posted by: Ms MoMo at November 19, 2009 4:59 PM

Ok. There's some sort of odd sentence structure thing going on in my
post there. And I'm not sure what it is. But you all {y'all?} probably get
the gist. So there it is and I own it [big laugh].

Posted by: Ms MoMo at November 19, 2009 5:01 PM

When I saw this in the theater 10 years ago with a group of friends, one of them (who closely resembles that guy who hangs out in the coffee shop near the university) wrote an extremely eloquent email to us all praising the imagery, the cinematography, the portrayal of man at war, yada yada yada. I replied with how I thought the part where Woody Harrelson blew up his own ass was wicked cool.

To watch that same sequence of events replayed in such a similar fashion by Steven Lloyd Wilson and Colostomy Baggins over a decade later is...well...it's...(sob)...so beautiful...(sob)...stop looking at me, dammit!

Posted by: fcuta14 at November 19, 2009 5:06 PM

Yes. If you didn't like this movie, I'm sorry, but you just aren't smart enough. I hear Sarah Palin has a new book out that might be more your speed.

Seriously, though, there are some films that walk the fine line between depth and pretense, and which side you view it from depends mostly on where you were standing before you walked in the theater. Private Ryan managed to shell-shock the audience in the first ten minutes so that the remaining 110 or so couldn't help but seem Spielberg-profound by the comparative lack of entrails, but TLR just meanders from frame to frame expecting the viewer to do all the work. There are a lot of folks, some possibly quite bright, who just don't feel like putting that much effort into their entertainment.

It was this movie, though, that convinced me James Caviezel was an actor born to play Jesus. Covered in blood.

Any chance of seeing the five-hour director's cut of this movie? It might prove an interesting diversion.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at November 19, 2009 5:36 PM

PFFFFT. All Terrence Malick ever communicates to me is "Hey, I went to film school."

The New World was a 2.5-hour CK1 commercial. What a bunch of dreck.

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at November 19, 2009 5:41 PM

I've seen two of Malick's films, Badlands and Days of Heaven. I thought Badlands was incredibly dull and only convinced me further that Sissy Spacek is super creepy. But I loved Days of Heaven, which is probably equally slow-paced, but was so beautifully shot and scored, that I loved it.

I'd be interested in watching The Thin Red Line to see which side I fell on.

Posted by: kelsy at November 19, 2009 6:39 PM

Posted by: Neodiogenes at November 19, 2009 5:36 PM


/drools on keyboard

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 19, 2009 6:51 PM

A precursor to SPR and TLR, where the soldiers reflect on their jobs and their worlds would be Stalingrad (1993). Unfortunately, it's a German film, and it focuses not on Soviet soldiers, but on the Germans. I wonder if any Pajiban/Pajibette has seen it. It's a wonderful, reflexive, and melancholic film.

Posted by: Namhin at November 19, 2009 6:53 PM

Just thinking about this film makes me want to take a nap.

Posted by: Mick J at November 19, 2009 7:06 PM

I love this film solely for the fact that not much happens and there is some beautiful cinematography. But when some moment of action happens it seems much more intense than in a pure action movie. Plus, from what I have heard from friends and relatives who have been in war, it seems that it is a lot of doing nothing and then being plunged into a life or death situation, then a whole lot more doing nothing.

Posted by: The Ross Sea Party at November 19, 2009 8:05 PM

Steven Lloyd Wilson:

Did you just paraphrase Angel in a review of a Terrence Malick film?

Posted by: Daniel Hall at November 19, 2009 9:12 PM

I love condescending shitheads.

Posted by: Jay at November 19, 2009 9:30 PM

You know where else I can pensively stare up at the tops of trees? OUTSIDE.

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at November 19, 2009 11:09 PM

It’s either the most boring brilliant film or most brilliant boring film ever made.
---
"2001"?

Posted by: , (just , cause I'm tired of typing that other shit) at November 20, 2009 12:28 AM

I will go right back and read the comments. But I have to say this might be my favourite review on this site ever. This movie haunted me. And so does this review.

Well done!

Posted by: Odnon at November 20, 2009 2:39 AM

Advice for those who can't seem to get through it;

Duh... why not actually plan to watch it over two nights?

Posted by: bendiagram at November 20, 2009 7:01 AM

I fucking hate this movie.

I saw it at a press pre-screening and I swear to god I wanted to kill. After the 400th shot of a tender green shoot or a gentle beetle amidst the carnage of war - yeah, justapose, we get it. And the 500th time we get to see some a-hole's girl on a swing in slo-mo till we fucking get that she left him or cheated on him or died or waaahfuckitywah. It was like the pupil dilation scenes from Requiem stretched out over 492 fucking minutes!

Posted by: protoguy at November 20, 2009 8:31 AM

SLW,
You power-mad bastard. What's next? "The Godfather" in 1973 retrospective? "Gone With the Wind" for 1940? "Metropolis" in 1928?!?! I won't have it! Do you hear me? I WON'T HAVE IT!!!!!

Well, I didn't see Apocalypse Now until 1999, so that makes it a Film of 1999 right?

Posted by: Kballs at November 20, 2009 8:36 AM

Touche.

(Now you're wondering if I mean "touche" with the accented "e" implying a finely crafted response, or if I just misspelled "douche." Maybe it's both. Maybe neither. Maybe it's a little of the first. Or only a little of the second. Maybe I don't know what's going on. What year is this? 1999, you say? I haven't joined the Navy yet! I'm so naive!)

Posted by: Kballs at November 20, 2009 9:44 AM

Now you're probably wondering if I mean "naive" with an accented "i" implying a lack of experience in the world, or if I am describing myself as a central approach to a high altar in Romanesque and Gothic Christian cathedral architecture by misspelling "nave." It's all such a mystery.

Posted by: Kballs at November 20, 2009 9:48 AM

It’s either the most boring brilliant film or most brilliant boring film ever made.

"2001"?

--------------

No way..it's gotta be the original "Solaris" by Tarkovsky. Makes 2001 seem like an action movie.

Posted by: Jacktrade at November 20, 2009 10:08 AM

TRL is totally worth it if only for the weird "John Cusack, awesome action soldier who puts Dick Winters and Rambo both to shame" scene.

Who's wit' me?

Posted by: stevegoz at November 21, 2009 1:00 PM

Aha, Jacktrade, saw the subject matter, knew you'd be here. And to Ms Momo, I would caution you to politely ignore the muldoons on this website who blindly compare this to Terrence Malick's other work. New World was about how Pocohontas got shafted--not much else. It's pretty slow next to TRL. To suggest that all work from same person is consistent is to ignore, um, me, you, pretty much everyone.

This movie was just amazing. I would put it next to Apocalypse Now in conveying how random, haphazard and utterly insane war can be. Saving Private Ryan was that same message packaged with Twizzlers. The first time I watched Pvt Doll at the hilltop turret exorcising the fear inside of him to climb over and get the job done I could barely blink.

That scene and the one Jacktrade cites about Sean Penn's character make me think this movie is more about how resilient you would have to be to function in combat. I don't think I could do it, and watching these guys you get the sense that it wouldn't be easy ... at all. This movie is about FAR more than a bunch of actors who were lucky enough to land a role in the greatest war movie of our time (that film would be SPR.) You don't watch this movie to be entertained, you watch it to get up close with a bunch of guys who are in a profoundly challenging situation while you sit safely on your sofa.


Posted by: Johnnyboy at November 22, 2009 11:13 PM

I kinda love it.

It's too long and a lot of the conversations and monologue peppered through the film seem to go nowhere, but there's so many good, good things in it, that I remember deciding at the time that it was worth it.

"If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack. a glance from your eyes and my life will be yours." Also the soundtrack was ace.

It's a very subjective filum and your mood has to be right, I guess. Once every ten years is good. Might pop it in again. Thanks Steven.

Posted by: Kissing Girls Makes You Sleepy at November 23, 2009 2:02 PM

It sucked in 1999 and I am sure it sucks now.

Posted by: James S at November 23, 2009 2:14 PM

WORST-MOVIE-EVER!

Meet the Spartans is a better movie!

Posted by: WhoWhatWhere at November 23, 2009 5:11 PM

I didn't really know what to think of it the first time I saw it. However, repeated viewings have led me to love it just a tiny bit more every time I watch it.

Posted by: Chalupa at November 24, 2009 11:24 AM

Anybody remember that British sit-com "Game On" that Ben Chaplin was in? No? Diabolical.

I do! Not that you'll ever see this, but someone, somewhere, will know I do.

And now to IMDB to figure out what happened to old Ben after The Truth About Cats and Dogs...

Posted by: Carrie at November 27, 2009 9:08 AM

This movie makes sense if you have ever been in the service or in combat. Long periods of nothing to do but bullshit, followed by brief but intense moments of senseless violence. James Jones fought a Guadacanal so the movie reflects the themse of his book. If all you know is movie or books as art forms for critique, then you will hate this movie or you won't understand it. But if you have known the stupidity that is war, then the movie speaks to you. It speaks to me, like no other.

Posted by: Manuel at January 9, 2010 2:20 PM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment:



Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.