A good movie will make a point. It has a message, a goal it is trying to achieve. A great movie will take that point and drive it into the audience with a 10 ton locomotive. That great film will not do it once, but over and over again. A great film will continually and repeatedly illustrate its point, not ceasing until every good idea has been exhausted. Based upon this, Terence Malick's "The Thin Red Line" is a great film. Its powerful message of that thin red line between sanity and madness is not only illustrated, but graphically and emotionally dropped onto the viewing public like an anvil.
Similar to Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", this film portrays a strong anti-war sentiment. What's different between the two? The major difference between the two is the way in which the story teaches this lesson is the difference.
There are differences. Unlike Spielberg, Malick relies on the suspense and terse nature of the subject matter to keep the film moving. "The Thin Red Line" also is more dependant upon its characters to maintain the film's integrity. What does this mean? Malick uses a more in-depth narrative. I am not saying that Spielberg went the wrong way with his one war film. "Saving Private Ryan" is the superior film in the long run. But Spielberg uses a graphic portrayal of the D-Day invasion of Normandy as his first allegorical "train wreck". You'll find no such graphic scenes in "The Thin Red Line", although the action of this film is by no means suitable for younger audiences. there are most definitely gruesome and vulgar sequences in the film.
Some one recently told me that the final half hour of "The Thin Red Line" was unnecessary. I wholeheartedly disagree. After Captain Staros(played by Elias Koteas in one of the single most satisfying performances in recent history) is dismissed, there is a brief lull in the action. It is this point when I'm told the film should end.
NO!!!!
The narrative does take precedence for the majority of that last half hour, but it is by no means an unnecessary sequence. Although the theme of the film was shown previously, it was done so ambiguously. We see a few people lose friends, and we see survivors looking like zombies. But we never actually see much of the true effects of war until the end.
So what are the effects?
Sean Penn, who gives a tremendously gifted performance, doesn't seem to be emotionally drawn into the war like many of the men under him are. This changes later on. What changes it? I can't tell you until you've seen the film. That "unnecessary" last half hour reveals everything. The moral of this is that not one shot of Malick's "The Thin Red Line" should ever be taken out. Every frame is a necessary component to the art as a whole. Although the action of the film goes down in the end, this is not a bad thing. The film is not based upon action and its true nature is show in this last half hour. As pure film, this is a prime example. Like Malick's previous film, "Days of Heaven", the visuals are mind blowing. Terence Malick is a genius with color. Mostly, color can be a vulgar display of power. Malick knows how to turn this into a thing of beauty.
According to Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", Spielberg is also aware of this little fact. The film opens with a D-Day invasion, hitting the ground running 90 miles per hour. The film is terse and gritty, seemingly filmed with a military issued camera. The scenery is drab and lifeless.
Despite the fact I have more to say about "The Thin Red Line", I have to give the nod to "Saving Private Ryan as best film of the year. I don't criticize Malick though. This was a tough decision to make.
For those of you saying "didn't 'Shakespeare in Love' win the Best Picture", I say this: The Academy has proven for the billionth time its incompetence. It relies too heavily on popularity and money earned for criteria as a best film. A deserving winner hasn't been seen since 1993. "Shakespear in Love" was a great film. I would place it on my top five of the year as I see it now. But better than "Saving Private Ryan"? I don't think so. However, the Academy rarely gives it to realistic films. It's always the two dimensional no think tearjerkers that win.
Well, thank you for reading, and please check out my other links from my top 100 list.
web sites