Thin Red Line Debate

Okay, this is for Dougpirana & Maha Vishnu and anyone else who wants to join in...

I haven't seen The Thin Red Line, so please tell me why I should or shouldn't see it. Seem reasonable? Okay Dougpirana, I believe it's your serve...

AB

[docg]

As long as you're not affected by Fox's stupid ad campaign you should be fine. Watch it.

You should definitely watch it. I lack the talent and flair for offering critiques of films but I love this one. For a great review which covers just what this film is all about, see Greg Suarez' review on
http://www.thedigitalbits.com

He says it all.

Brad Vautrinot

As I stated in the other thread I've said all I need to or want to about Thin Red Line and I really don't want to repeat the same things over & over. Go read my other posts if you want a different opinion.

see you later.

------------------
-Dougpirana
" It's not my damn planet, MONKEY BOY!"

Well tell me some of the movies you like and don't like, and then I'll tell you within a reasonable probability whether or not you're going to like The Thin Red Line.

See the damn movie, I thought it sucked, but what do I know.

[clortho]

If you're curious about the film at all, you should see it. Personally, I was bored with the film because it was more artsy and "Oooh, look at that shot of the trees," type of thing rather than actual story or character development that would have made me care about what was happening to them.

Mava- That's just my opinion, I'm entitled to it.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

yeah, and just because you may have actually been in a war doesn't mean you have a better viewpoint from which to say whether it was realistic or not.....sniff..sniff...and....and besides they're probably old & stuff, so how would they remember anything.....and stuff.
Mana that statement about your grandma & gladiator & what it led up to was weak...very weak. That's like telling you mother that she doesn't know anything about what it is like to give birth...... pretty weak, Mala.
Honestly,Mama,you have to do better than that if you want have a debate.

All kidding aside, that was a pretty thoughtless statment to make about "just because you've been in a war...." Maha, I mean really, there were WW2 Vets going into therapy after seeing this film. And before you make a statment about how you were talking about the plot, the quote you gave was NOT talking about plot development. He was talking about how it(Ryan) presented warfare.
I don't recall anyone having flashbacks after seeing Thin Red Line while Ryan was a cathartic experience for many who saw it.That is a fact, not an opinion.
I stand by my other statements regarding the plot & characters in that thread(go back & read them if you need to).

And "Thin Red Line does not shove itself down your throat"?......Maha........come on....


------------------
-Dougpirana
" It's not my damn planet, MONKEY BOY!"



[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 05-29-2000).]

[SoulReaper]

It is an original war movie. It doesn't have any stupid war movie cliches. For example, a bunch of solders sitting around a campfire asking each other what they are going to do after the war.

"So what are you going to do after the war, Frank?"

"I am going to back and work on my families farm."

"How about you Jeff?"

"I'm going to marry Donna, start my own business, and settle down."

Or a bunch of guys discussing how they lost their virginity. This has been done a lot.

There are more, but I cannot think of them right now. Anyhow, most war movies get tired in this fashion, but The Thin Red Line was different. It is a long movie, but it kept my interest the whole time.

Oh, yeah....getting a Dear John letter,,leading the enemy away from his fellow soldier's in self sacrifice,,refusing to obey orders that will kill most of his men,,marveling at how here murder is legal(this was done quite a lot in the 1950's film & TV War drama's),,at how both sides are so different yet so similar(also done to death in the 50's/60's/70's),,the bloodthirsty general craving carnage with no concern for the lives of his men,,meditating on life,love,religion & family....etc.etc.etc.

No offense but give me a break.

Thin Red Line used it's Pretense & "Art" to cover up it's Cliche's...Ryan didn't try to hide any of it's cliche's because "stereotype" or not that's the way it was.
All we can do is make a choice between these two Cliche' films. Or both, as my wife said "I like them both for different reason's, why argue about it?".....women do that a lot don't they?
------------------
-Dougpirana
" It's not my damn planet, MONKEY BOY!"



[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 05-28-2000).]

[docg]

I don't think Saving Private Ryan & The Thin Red Line as films can be compared to each other. Sure, they are both in an overly generalized genre referred to as the "war film," but a comparison between Spielberg's Neo-Realist & Mallick's expressionist vision of World War II breaks down after that superficial surface.

I've always believed that some people's animosity towards The Thin Red Line stems from the ubiquitous commercials and trailers that depicted TTRL as Saving Private Ryan 2, emphasizing the battles and explosions rather than the true nature of the story. Moviegoers who knew more about Mallick's style seemed to enjoy the film more than those who went in for an action adventure.

I saw TTRL in a packed house of 500 and I'd say about 100 or so walked out before the last half hour. Fox is welcome to advertise the movie however they want but I think in this case they seriously misled the public.

As far as Mallick's visuals covering up his cliches, well that's just not a very well thought out comment. Perhaps you don't want to, but if you think about how Toll's photography fits into the piece as a whole you may find yourself a good movie.

Well morpho, you're entitled to it but it doesn't do you any favours

My point stands - The majority of people don't understand about conventions of realism. They are not prepared to approach a media-text in an analytical light, are certainly in no position to say whether something is "realistic" or not, unable to engage with the film on an intellectual or aesthetic level. It is a FILM. it is FICTION up on a two-dimensional screen. Therefore, it is not real, it cannot be real, it is a construction from the mind of Spielberg and maybe some of the people who worked on the film, and should be treated as such.

Indeed, there is an argument to be made that WW2 veterans are in a singularly bad position to judge the film, being so close to the subject matter as to have lost any sense of objective judgement. So the opening scene is gory with a big budget and lots of handheld camera to throw you into the action. And this triggered some memories - so what? Is this what cinema is supposed to be, viceral action sequences for people to jerk off to, "now, I have experienced it for myself...", making out like the movie is a holy experience which cannot be questioned. What on earth does this have to do with the quality of the film as a whole? The opening was nicely executed, but the message of the film was dubious, the characterization poor, the photography for the most part dull, the damned "plot" an endless tirade of true Hollywood cliches both narrative and moral.

"As far as Mallick's visuals covering up his cliches, well that's just not a very well thought out comment." Yep. As I endlessly have to point out, the characters may SPEAK in occassional cliches, they are characters considering some of the fundamentals of life in simple terms, but crucially their thoughts are not supported or disavowed by the film, they conflict with each other, give no overriding message of "what to believe". These thoughts are simply there, like the grass is there, the trees, the vines, the guns. hus, the film ITSELF is not cliched.

For instance, Lt. Cl. Tall. In many ways he could be seen as the "bad guy" of the piece, but Malick gives us plenty of opportunity to understand him as a person(unlike the ridiculous German who grinds the blade into the jew at the end of SPR). We see the pressure put on him by the Generals, feel his sense of career and status, there is even one moment where he almost breaks down in tears with the force of the emotions he is supressing. Most importantly, it is Tall who voices a crucial interpretation of events within the film that differs with a lot of the voiceovers from the more inexperienced soilders - that nature is cruel. The shots of natural "beauty" at the beginning of the film (a crocodile, vines suffocating trees) are infact photographs of war on a different scale. Thus, Malick questions are interpretation of beauty, evil, pain. And this relativity is what the film is all about. Take the baby bird seen during an early battle in the film. There is line later on that goes something like "one man looks at a dying bird and sees nothing but pain, another man looks and he sees the glory". This baby bird is a perfect example of this - some viewers look at the bird, see it as writhing in it's death throws. Others see it as an image of a baby bird that's just been born, struggling to take its first steps into the world.

Ultimately, this means is that what you bring to the film is what you will get out of it. Unlike Spielberg, Malick doesn't tell you what to think, doesn't fit everything nicely into a cliched story where there is right and wrong, a clear beginning and an end, an easy message to the parable. He doesnt seek to fill the audience with patriotic, righteous, moral emotion. Cheap, playing to the rable. And he is confrontational in this stance - look at the bitter attack on the Hollywood star system present in George Clooney's cameo. It's a suprise Clooney didn't murder Malick after that one.

[djk]

when i worked in a video store a bunch of firemen always came in and said "Backdraft" was the "real thing" finally showing "how it is". of course that's nonsense, they just thought it made them look good and heroic, it was their way of being in a movie, trying to impress people. getting off on the drama. like they were really have ax-fights and running into burning buildings with their jackets open, fighting fires that make animal noises. i'm tired of veterans claiming chest-thumping hollywood movies as their own lives when they just loaded trucks in the Gulf for a couple months. a real veteran knows a movie from the real thing, they don't say "yeah, that's how it was on the beach. lots of slow motion and swelling music. you had to stay away from the camera or you'd probably get shot! back in the war they called me "The Stand" cause i had to sleep standing up! it's all true..." fuck that shit.
when the main guys in Saving Ryan's Privates all reveal their one character trait around the campfire (we got ten mintutes to bond boys!) we were laughing out loud.

i thought the scene where they captured the hill in Thin Red Line rang true, however. something about the looks on the enemies faces.

[UCFKevin]

DJK, I'm just curious.

Have you ever been a firefighter? Been in a war?

Well now that I'm back from spending Memorial day with my family, I will respond.

-there was no "swelling music" on the beach in SPR.It must have been your heart thumping in your ears.

-"it rang true"........"are you loved? Know that I was loved too.".......yep, that's the way it was alright, dead talking & all that.

-Were you ever in combat? More to the point were you ever in WW2 combat? No? then where do you get your "in the know" info about what it was like? At least Spielberg & Malick had advisers & eyewitness accounts to go on.

-"I'm tired of veteran's chest thumping....etc." Gee, on Memorial day too, huh? To simple & childish to get a rise out of me.
How cute that you tried so hard though.

-"well that is just a not very well thought out comment..."
Would you like for me to elaborate?
All film makers have "trick's" or "tool's" that they use in order to cover up weak or old tired plot device's. ALL of the best director's have used them...all of them, from Hichcock & Fellini to Kubrick & Truffaut, all of them have used these narrative "tool's" in order to get over old Clishes & move on with the story they are trying to tell. You want a TRL example? The cheesey way that Malick keep's pouring this "I love my wife...OHHH I miss my life" flashbacks on us & then...(wow what a surprise!) his wife send's him a Dear John. Do you really see this as anything more than a filmmakers "trick" or if you want (Mava) Filmmakers Manipulation?
I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, I'm saying that if your going to put down Steven Spielberg for using these fancy camera "trick's" & old cliche' stereotyped plot devices (Empire of the Sun & Hook were horrible examples of his annoyingly pretentious nature) you need to recognize that Terrence Malick uses them as well(Days of Heaven was IMHO quite beautiful but plotless/pointless crap. Badlands was great).

And finally, although none of you have used the actual words, this "you didn't like it because you didn't get it" attitude is so pompous....I got it....and although I respect what it was trying to do(If a longer version comes out I'll watch it), in the end I just didn't like it all that much.

Period.

I understand your opinion that The Thin Red Line was much more than just a Film that tried for high goals but ended up as slightly pretentious & your more than welcome to that opinion....I just don't agree with you completely.

As far as Ryan goes...no matter how many review's you want to "borrow" quotes from to show that it was simple Hollywood garbage, I still & always will say it is a simple matter of taste/choice as far as what thoughtprovoking or provocative cinema is.

You might like to go to Roger Ebert's home page & look up the reviews of both films.....he puts it in a much more articulate way then I ever could regarding TRL & SPR. He sides with many of your views about TRL but he also sides with some of mine.


------------------
-Dougpirana
" It's not my damn planet, MONKEY BOY!"



[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 05-30-2000).]

[Chili Palmer]

I gotta chime in on this. The Thin Red Line is one of my favorite films of all time. I am a super freak for this film. I have all the posters and a bunch of the oscar trade ads framed and setup around my HT. This is a film you need to see more than once. That is not a bad thing, because after your first viewing it is so stunning you want to see it again and again. Everytime I watch it, there is something new I noticed and I am in just plain awe. The acting is absolutely flawless, and the visuals are stunning. There isn't much script or plot but I think the film benefited from this. When I first saw TRL I immediately went out and rented Days of heaven and Badlands. These are two damn good films and I think viewers would undestand Malick's way of filmaking after seeing them. Days has the best visuals in the the history of film making. If you think that is out there go read Eberts review on it. And while your there, if you can find Siskel's review on the thin red line read it. It is a great review, and according to him its the best contempory war film ever! If your looking for a spoon fed war film then this isn't it, go and see private ryan. I don't want to say if you didn't like it then you didn't get it. Unfortunately, the major movie audience these days cannot aprreciate a good artistic film. If its not in yo face action, then most people will not be satisfied. Hey everyone has an opinion, and this topic has been beaten to death, you just can't compare the two films. The Thin Red Line will make you think and if you don't have A-D-D and can sit still for three hours you will enjoy one of the best war films of all time.

Nuff said...it's the best

Chili out

[This message has been edited by Chili Palmer (edited 05-30-2000).]

[docg]

Tricks? Your definition of a filmmaker's style (which I think is what you mean by "tricks") is completely incoherent, almost as much as this argument.

[djk]

so if i wasn't a firefighter, or a veteran it would negate everything i said? about a movie? hmmmm. how bout this: no, didn't do that. but i've seen and done worse. so if there's no music on the beach, i'll say you're right and i liked the film? what's up with some of you on this forum? people say, "if you look, or listen close, you were wrong about that one thing, i win."
hold on, let me ask you guys some questions: ever kill somebody? ever almost kill somebody? ever see someone killed? ever see, or been involved in, the kind of real violence that makes Private Ryan hilarious? if we're going to get personal, why all the cyberjoe nicknames? we gonna trade some real stories here? don't think it would fit the format. i thought we were talking movies here. shouldn't have to lay down credentials to comment on a movie. or anything really. my point was that people shouldn't say, "it's good, it's real, i was there." because that means nothing, less than nothing. and the response (because there were more flags out than usual this weekend) was: "were you there?" quick thinking. making my point for me. you realize that getting worked up defending these movies, is the same as getting worked up defending, say, Weekend At Bernies.
hope you (dougpirana) weren't saying i was "borrowing" anything that i write here. maybe you were talking about someone else, but, to me, stealing ideas is like lying. and, even though these debates get heated, and it would be real easy to say "yeah, i was in WW2" and pass the test, i haven't "lied" to you yet.

Incoherent? Gosh...Okay then,I'll be more blunt.
"Tricks,tool's,style"..they all come from the same pool but you guys want to believe that Malick has a well thought out artistic style yet all Spielberg uses are simple hollywood "tricks".
Malick uses pretence,"tricks" and narrative panache to smooth over "bumps" in the story every bit as much as Spielberg does but it seems that because Spielberg operates within the "system" he is a whore to the filmschool crowd for doing so while Malick is an "Artist" for doing the very same things, I say this is elitist bullshit.
Art as well as beauty is in the eye of the beholder......or do you think that notion is incoherent as well?

By the way yes it's true that Ebert gave TRL three stars,He also gave The Phantom Menace three & 1/2 stars. He gave SPR four stars. ......I guess beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.


------------------
-Dougpirana
" It's not my damn planet, MONKEY BOY!"



[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 05-30-2000).]

Hey, I aint getting worked up, I'm just passing the time. Everyone dies and in light of that, this discussion is clearly pointless. But then, that's life - what else is there to do?

dougpirana, what are these "bumps" in the story that you keep on bringing up? There are none. Okay, you mention the Dear John letter, but this is only a small part of the film. And there's not even anything especially contrived about it, it works in te context of the rest of the film, provides another angle with which to view the soilders loss of hope and self. And as with everything, it's not what you say it's how you say it. There's nothing inherently false about a bunch of guys sitting around a fire talking, it's the way it's done - in SPR the cardboard quality of the characters and dialogue, the narrative purpose of what they say, the moral message behind the script, that's what makes it ridiculous.

And please stop bringing up Ebert. Ebert and the Academy, both are equally poor arbiters of taste.

[This message has been edited by maha vishnu (edited 05-31-2000).]

It's all been said Maha, go up & re-read my post's that have everything you want to know about why I think this film is every bit as Cliche'(read as "bumps") & pretentious as you people say Ryan is. It's all up there.

I'm finished with this little convo, you can't change my mind about how I feel about this film or Ryan. Anything after a few post's back has just been barking & snapping.
I can do that at work.

Happy hunting.


------------------
-Dougpirana
" It's not my damn planet, MONKEY BOY!"

Actually, no, I'm asking you to define your notion of cliche because I believe you are confused on the issue.

You say that the letter is a cliche, staros' decision not to follow Talls order is a cliche. You say that some of the dialogue is cliched.

But I counter - You are citing individual events within the film here, not the narrative as whole, not the form, the structure, you are not examining the context with which these events occur, their connecting to the overall purpose of the work. As for the relativistic dialogue, I have said much about this already to which you have not responsed. Thus you are not really commenting on the film at all.

By contrast, Ryan works to a set of clear Hollyood cliches. There is action at the beginning and end, a contrived plot that gives the film a more thrilling, easily comprehensible quality and a "satisfying" violent climax. Moral questions are raised within the film, then answered with an easy "pay our respects" conclusion. It subscribes to conventional notions of the character "arc", central heros with problems they must "overcome", a bad guy with all the personality of a brick. The film is grounded on cliche, it's form is a cliche, it's purpose and message a cliche. You see the difference here?

I mean, sure, this discussion is going on a bit, but you havent gone halfway towards backing up any of your points yet.

[This message has been edited by maha vishnu (edited 05-31-2000).]

Maha you haven't gone halfway towards dispelling any of my point's either, aside from saying that you disagree & recounting the individual details of the scenes at length & in a in a kinder light from your point of view.
This is not dispelling, this is re-telling (or if you will, re-spinning) in your point of view.I'm not sure why you think this "proves you right", all this is is you seeing this movie in a different way the I did.....your dissagreement proves your correctness?
You claim that Tall's few moment's of regret give him a more human light then "the ridiculous German", yet in that very small scene Spielberg showed me more insight into the nature of man & war then malick did in the first hour & 1/2 of his film: after quietly whispering "The Jew" into death, as he leaves, the german simply walks past the crumpled boy on the stairs showing the dual nature of "humanity" that we use at times like this(war) in order to mentally survive & certainly it showed that the faceless "blurr" in the crosshairs are not all of them just "filthy evil nazis" but doing the same thing that most of us were doing in that war, doing what we were told & trying not to die or go insane.
All the individual moments that you see as cliche' build up to create a whole picture in my mind & the "campfire" you speak of is just one moment in a film filled with subtle characterization that you see as thin : as he looks at the Hitler youth knife Mellish realizes that they have been killing 14 to 16 year old "boys" instead of men : Hanks is once again a teacher but this time he is "teaching" boys how to kill more effectively adding to his rapid breakdown : Ryan grappling with the idea that so many have died so one man could live & the hypocritical concept behind this.
To me it is a whole meaningful picture while you simply dismiss it as "hollywood trash" bookended by violence.

You say that you don't understand what I mean by cliche' Ok, the cliche' of Penn's character in TTRL for example is that he seems to be there not only as an "everyman" for the viewer to identify with but mainly to give Witt someone to talk to in order to get some of his philosophy out in actual conversation & not just in voice-over. This is one of those "tool's" I was talking about.(by the way I don't agree that Witt was the "everyman" in this story,I think Penn was,Witt was the philosopher soldier which if you've ever read french novels of war is also....in a way...a cliche') I don't mean that a cliche' is a bad thing in all cases, indeed I think in films about war(or within war's if you wish) you simply can't avoid them.
However I do NOT see TRL as a war cliche' in itself as you aparently seem to think I do, however I do think that it does HAVE war cliche's in it as I have pointed out (no matter whether you wish to see it as being totally without cliche's or not, I see them.).
I see Ryan as a war movie which also has cliche's in it but unlike you I also see the whole as more important than the pieces and NOT just a cliche'd War Movie to get a hard on to at the orgasmic violence.
The Thin Red Line to me was a great movie that for me crumbled under it's own lofty ambition.

Let me repeat this....I never said your respect for Line was wrong, I just didn't agree with your total dismissal of Ryan as a cliche' trash or your opinion that Line was without cliche'.

You will disagree of course & you will of course try to dismiss my opinion.....that's your nature I guess. Seem's to me it's more of an Alpha dog ego trip then a debate anymore. I don't feel the need to "prove" anything to anyone,Maha & I'm not playing at "territorial pissings" like some of you seem to be, I was just defending my point of view from your attacks.
But I keep coming back after saying I'm through now don't I?
well......


------------------
-Dougpirana
" It's not my damn planet, MONKEY BOY!"

P.S. If I never use the word "cliche'" ever again it will be too soon.....uh......that's a cliche' isn't it? D'OH!



[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 05-31-2000).]

[docg]

Your definition of Malick's tricks is entirely self-serving and still incoherent. To be so jaded as to think an experienced filmmaker such as Malick would include sequences just to "smooth out the bumps" is sad and pathetic in my opinion. My sympathies... I think you've been uselessly debating this topic for too long.