Posted on 01/25/2011 9:17:25 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Except it’s not just different. It’s bad. It tells the story badly.
To quote Jules Winnfield, "Look my friend, this is just where me and you differ."
I also think we need to weed out the difference in not liking The Thin Red Line and not liking Malick's style as a whole.
As to the first argument, I prefer The Thin Red Line because it shows, in a fantastic and visually intoxicating style, the internal and individual experiences of war. World War II is seen by history as the ultimate "just" war, but I've seen documentaries and read accounts that show that during the Pacific theater especially, troop morale, desertion, and insubordination were high; very high.
What Guadalcanal was 'about' is almost irrelevant; this isn't a film about the island hopping campaign or the strategic importance of the island or even the battle. It's more about what goes through a soldier's head before, during, and after the shooting starts.
I've heard the experience of an infantryman in a land war described as 99% boredom and 1% sheer absolute terror. I'm attracted to the idea of a visually impressive war film that instead of hitting us over the head in the first ten minutes with nonstop gore and slaughter, shows us what amounts to a soldier sitting in the grass of a Pacific island many thousands of miles from home, grasping the damp stock of his rifle, and looking down at a grasshopper devouring a fly and pondering the meaning of conflict. Or a couple of AWOL soldiers playing with the children of a peaceful island village, dressed in loincloths and swimming off a beautiful shore and wondering why a few miles a way men were tearing each other to pieces over a war they didn't start. The film pulls this off without a straight up All Quiet on the Western Front-type anti-war agenda.
I disagree about the clichéd nature of the characters. I still remember Caviezel's character's "I'm twice the man you are" scene with Penn's character, and recall it frequently in my mind. There's not really a similar character from a war film that I can remember, and I think his mindset is the lens through which we absorb the film.
I can think of so many sequences in that movie that stuck with me, specifically the beach landing, the scene at the river where they happen upon the Japanese platoon, the flashbacks that the soldiers had of home, the spectacular no-cut steadycam scene when they attack the village, and the murder by cop death of Caviezel's character.
I'd almost forgotten about Cusack, who I think helped lead the raid that involved dropping grenades into foxholes. Just hearing you talk about it coupled with my own recollections makes me excited to watch it again. I have it on DVD, but honestly haven't watched it all the way through in at least three or four years. I just googled it and saw that there's a Criterion Collection Blu-Ray out that I haven't seen. I'll be sure and send you a copy.
Look, I know it's a rather divisive film. My uncle said it was the worst movie he's ever seen (I told him that it wasn't the movie's fault that he had no taste), but Gene Siskel called it the best contemporary war film ever made surpassing Platoon (Apocalypse Now still gets that nod IMO).
The point is, there's a place for this type of film making.
I can easily say that I appreciated it more than Private Ryan. Now I do love Saving Private Ryan and can still remember vividly my first experience in seeing it, and I think that we were lucky to have in the same year two spectacular World War II films set in opposite theaters, with completely opposite themes, styles, and executions. It just shows how versatile the film medium is, how one mind can envision relatively similar combat and situations in completely different ways.
As for Malick's films as a whole, again there's not a lot to go on. The guy averages about one movie per decade.
Days of Heaven was stunning to look at and virtually revolutionized the way filmmakers light the frame. It had a simple story about desperation, poverty, and betrayal, but the images are what stay with you.
The New World rivaled Thin Red Line's beauty, and told the Pocahontas story in a way that was fascinating and not loyal to political correctness. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The reason I think Malick's movies are worth seeing is that what you basically get are extremely approachable experimental films. This is as far as you can get from average studio schlock, but without going off the deep end into indie film limbo. Malick is also about as non-Hollywood as you can get; he doesn't give interviews or even allow himself to be photographed for promotional material, and you certainly won't ever find him at any self congratulatory awards ceremony.
The poetic stream of consciousness narrative style isn't for everyone, but I have to disagree that the The Thin Red Line and Malick films (all four of them) are the equivalent of dangling a pretty picture in front of your face. They're much more than that to me.
My pick for Best Picture is almost definitely Winter’s Bone; I grew up in the hills of North Carolina so the setting really hit home for me. Also how amazing were the performances?! I’d never have guessed that this was so many of the stars’ first roles.
By the way, not only does Movies On Demand on Cable have tons of nominees available to rent from the comfort of your home, but right now you can even enter to win a 3D HDTV just for picking out the nominated titles you’ve seen in their “Which Ones Have You Seen?” app! Visit Movies On Demand on Cable’s Facebook page to find out which titles you can catch up on from the comfort of your couch and to enter the sweepstakes:
http://www.facebook.com/moviesondemand
I’m working with Movies On Demand, so if anyone has any questions, just ask!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.