|
|
|
The Thin Red Line
***1/2
Cinema
Releases - March 5, 1999
Rated on a 4-star
scale. USA. Written and directed by Terrence Malick; from the novel by James
Jones. Starring Jim Caviezel, Elias Koteas, Ben Chaplin, Nick Nolte, Sean
Penn, Woody Harrelson, Adrien Brody, John Cusack, John Travolta, George
Clooney.
Locked inside "The Thin Red Line" is
the best combat movie since "Platoon", an almost perfect war picture that
incorporates all the best elements of the genre. But locked inside it is,
and nobody has suggested picking up the key, and doing some re-editing. This
knowledge pains me, as does thinking about how close to greatness the film
gets, and how carelessly it pulls itself back.
It marks the return to the director's chair of
Terrence Malick, who made two amazing films back in the 1970s -- the chilling
cult classic "Badlands" and the dreamy, award-winning mood piece "Days of
Heaven". "The Thin Red Line", based on a James Jones novel previously filmed
in the 60s, takes place in World War II, on the Pacific island of Guadalcanal,
which American soldiers are trying to seize from the Japanese. In a masterful
narrative stroke, we get to be with the soldiers earlier than we were in
"Saving Private Ryan" -- locked below deck on their ship, before they are
ferried to the island in small carriers. We get to feel the heavy stress
of not knowing when, how or why they could be called up.
The soldiers seem to get onto the island without
a single casualty, but soon discover that the enemy is well established.
Horrific struggle ensues, and so the men then hold back, deciding to be very
careful about any advance. Lt Col Tall (Nick Nolte) orders everybody to charge
ahead wherever they are, but Capt. Staros (Elias Koteas) halts them again,
making the obvious observation that it's suicide, when the Japanese have
a machine-gun post at the top of a nearby hill.
It takes a little while to get to this point,
but from the introduction of gunfire all the way through to successful capture
of the hill, an hour-and-a-half goes by in this three-hour film. The footage
is damn near perfection, some of the best and most dramatic battle I've ever
seen in cinema. Malick's reputation gave him the power to carry on the production
for months, indulgently shooting anything and everything, and discovering
it in the editing room. This gives the fighting an almost documentary
authenticity in terms of acting -- since nobody knew whether their scene
would be a key moment or a throwaway transition, they've given much more
thought as to how their character would really be speaking, moving and looking
in every given situation. The camera angles, sound design, editing, directing
and score all make the fight feel right. Individual scenes in this incredible
centrepiece are truly stunning depictions of life, death, danger, boredom,
cowardice, courage, victory, failure, hatred, love, friendship, loneliness,
worry, hope, peace, violence, thought and memory.
Through sharp dialogue, and Oscar-calibre
performances, the characters are as sharply defined as those emotions. We
vilify and yet sympathise with Tall, an ageing West Point instructor who
missed World War One, and finally has a chance to show 'his leadership'
in 'his war', even if it means disregard for his men's lives. Staros
is admirable in managing to be both idealistic and realistic -- he knows
what should be done, and often how to get it done. Then there's Private Witt
(Jim Caviezel), constantly playing around with questions in his mind or stirring
up memories of being AWOL amongst the peaceful natives, bewildered at why
his own country sends men to destroy the good around them. Sgt Welsh (Sean
Penn), is growing out of his pessimistic "every man for himself" philosophy,
gaining such a conscience in the hell around him that he begs for numbness.
The down-to-earth Private Bell (Ben Chaplin) yearns for his young wife, and
composes poetry for her in his mind. Cpl Fife (Adrien Brody) is always tense,
darting his eyes while his body creeps -- he seems to be the kind of man
who can never sleep, always expecting to be attacked.
Singly, everything in "The Thin Red Line" merits
the description 'absolutely amazing'. Malick's problem is that he hasn't
brought the whole film together. It begins at the wrong point -- whether
too late or too soon is unclear, but it doesn't feel right, it doesn't have
a good opening rhythm. The first shot, of a crocodile, is meaningless. We
could have seen more background to the touching love-hate relationship between
Witt and Welsh. Scenes which should be fragmented and shown as flashbacks
are sloppily lumped together and presented as an odd prologue chapter. And
the sections between the end of the main battles and the beginning of the
denouement seem messy, aimless and assembled in the wrong
order.
Consider also Malick's cut-aways to shots of the
beautiful creatures and fruits of nature in the Guadalcanal battlefield.
They get rather tiresome after a while, when he starts to insert them too
densely -- yes, Terry, we get the point about man's greed and aggression
spoiling fertility, we don't have to be reminded of it three times every
two minutes. Especially when the amazing, "Apocalypse Now"-esque cinematography
makes the same point just as clear with subtler method. Courtesy of John
Toll, who we saw win Academy Awards in consecutive years for "Legends of
the Fall" and "Braveheart", the colour palette and light dispersion make
the beaming, lush island contrast with the sullen, muddy men in a way that
is striking yet realistic, and ultimately unforgettable. To keep adding specific
shots of animals, in the insistent way that Malick does, defies Toll's
efficiency, and seems to suggest that the story of the film is the trampling
of nature. I sincerely hope that isn't what was intended, because what would
be the point? The theme should be a preoccupation of Witt's, not something
for the film itself to get foolishly immersed in.
Actually, Witt's voice-over does seem to take
up too much space, and the way it is placed over the action suggests that
it is the voice of the movie. This clicks "The Thin Red Line" more out of
focus than anything else -- is it a stream of consciousness movie about Witt's
thin red line between sane and mad? Or is it a soulful drama about several
different men at war? If the latter, why is Witt's voice-over used in the
way it is? His questions, on the nature of nature, the meanings of life and
death, the fairness of God, etc, are interesting as the musings of one man,
but not original or relevant enough to overshadow the other men's more powerful
dramas. If the former, why does the film showcase the other dramas so clearly
in the first place, or use an hour-and-a-half of violent and sanguine realism
to show the conflict?
Of course, Terrence Malick is obviously still
a genius on the set. He still knows how to film a classic picture, if not
how to truly finish one. If the rumours are true, though, and he was making
grand structural changes to "The Thin Red Line" even past the deadline for
an answer print, it is amazing that he did not iron out the problems that
remain. They stick out like a sore thumb, making the film as uneven as a
pint of oil and water. In the final scene, it is asked why God doesn't create
a unity and continuity among his creations. I was just wondering why the
director didn't.
COPYRIGHT© 1999 Ian
Waldron-Mantgani
1999 Reviews
(alphabetical)
1999 Reviews (by star
rating)
Archive of all cinema reviews
(alphabetical)
Review Archive
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)