It's philosophy, not realism!

Rating: Null/10 (2 September 2002)

I'm astounded by the percentage of writers here who insist on calling this a war film and judging it using that term. The Thin Red Line is not a war movie. It is a meditation on life. War is merely the vehicle for examining life. Because of its ability to slice away the mundane (nobody worries about his next car payment when there are shells falling around him), it's a perfect vehicle for examining what should be most important in humankind: ourselves and our relationship to the cosmos. This is what Malick is chasing, not a realistic depiction of war. A critic on this board said, `If you want to find out about Guadalcanal, read about the history of the United States Marine Corp.' I suspect that Malick would agree. The location of the conflict in the film is completely irrelevant except as it shows the diversity and profligacy of life. It could take place in Washington or Ecuador just as easily. The only mistake bigger than thinking this film is about war is thinking that the director has any interest at all in the Battle of Guadalcanal. He doesn't, and if one wishes to learn about Guadalcanal he should read history or rent a documentary. But Malick is not making a documentary here, he's trying to make art. This is where many of the complaints about the movie fall down:
`This film treats both sides as moral equals' - Yes, because in the endeavor of war as in all endeavors, we ARE moral equals. This may offend some, but the average Japanese soldier fought for his country and his honor, just as the average American soldier did. He had no influence and probably little interest in the politics of his nation. He was fed what was important for him to know - just as American, British, and German soldiers were - and what he really wanted was to be home just as those other soldiers did. We all intrinsically value the same things despite our national differences. This is the meaning of the dead Japanese soldier's speech when he asks, `Are you righteous? Kind?' We all wish to be righteous, kind people - or at least seem as such. This is also what Witt means when he says: `Maybe all men got one big soul everybody's a part of, all faces are the same man.'
`Movies like this do not accurately depict the social, emotional, anthropological, physical or spiritual act of war as war was waged at that set certain period of time.' - Exactly, because the director has no interest in that. He has no more interest in showing the 1942 state of mind than Frost had in showing the 1914 state of mind in a poem like `Mending Wall'. Malick is reaching for something more eternal and elusive just as Frost was. Malick is merely using a conflict from the 1940s as a lens through which to view something larger.
`The explosions in this movie look very fake and it glorifies a combat-dodger (James Cavaziel).' Fake explosions? This is a factual error in that Witt is not a `combat-dodger.' He ASKS back into his unit. If Malick is glorifying anything through Witt, it is a glorification of the man who is living a spiritual existence in the most visceral of human activities. Witt has a dream, and it's a dream that encompasses everything. Malick expresses, through Witt's vision, the truth behind the surface: everything is one, eternal, and magnificent. (In the movie we are given a shot of a great bird circling - one of those nature-shot distractions that are so maligned by some reviewers - with Witt's voiceover `Oh my soul, let me be in you now ... look out at the things you've made. All things shining.' Compare this to William Blake's `When thou seest an Eagle, thou seest a portion of Genius; lift up thy head!' This is where Malick is coming from, and it's the reason why `you have tough U.S soilders spewwing poetry as good as Lord Byron.' Because they too are a portion of Genius. We all are.)
Is Malick's goal in examining these philosophical questions pretentious? Perhaps. But if one takes this stance he must be prepared to dismiss nearly every great religious and philosophical thinker in history. They have argued that these are the ONLY questions worth considering. Or perhaps these critics imply that artists don't have the right to approach these issues - that they are purely the domain of Buddha and Aristotle - and that artists who do (whether poets, painters, or film directors) are nothing but self-indulgent egotists. Maybe. This is subjective.
As to whether one should rent it or not, these quotes are fine summations of taste. Know what you want before you invest in this because it IS long and the pace is leisurely and thoughtful: `I was hoping for some juicy war stuff to take place' - Little of that in this movie. `what is the bottom line of the movie' - The one scene that is consistently credited by those who hate TRL is Cusack's charge. Not surprisingly this is one of the few times in the film where the action is linear and goal oriented - where there is `a bottom line.' The viewer is offered a simple prescription: `We're going for the hill. Cheer for the Good Guys.' This scene is the most Private Ryan-like in the entire film precisely because of its simplicity. The viewer is not asked to consider but only to feel, and there is a very definite payoff. If you need a clean start and endpoint, do not see this film. You will probably be terribly bored. `The director just tried too hard to make it look poetic and beautiful' (generally tied to the assertion that the plot is indecipherable or non-existent) - Looking for a story in this film is like looking for a story in a Keats poem. Understand: you will not find a great deal of story. You will find beauty. If you must have a clean narrative, by all means avoid this film. You'll find it bad.
9 stars