Thin Red Line

I have to admit that I am a big fan of Terens Malick. Although not a favourite of many movie critics and the Hollywood, mainly because of his special cinematographic philosophical style but also because he just makes films whenever he feels like it. His movies look like small projects that progress slowly over the years. It took him over a decade to make the tree of life and missed 2009, 2010 the opportunity to be released. But anyway I recently re-watched the thin red line (1998) and that is why I remembered why I like Malick.

The movie is about the Guadalcanal battle during the Second World War and the story of a platoon during the battle of mount Austen. It is an adaptation of James Jones’ novel written and directed by Terens Malick nominated for 7 oscars however failed to win any of this awards.

The movie lasts for 170 min out of which the audience has the opportunity to listen to personal narrations often in the middle of the plot or on top of other scenes. Narrative style is what has been established by Malick reflecting his personal style. These narrations mainly involve philosophical questions about life, death, war, survival and human relationships. All these things the movie is truly about. I believe that through this movie Malick is trying to persuade his audience to think deeply about what he has to say, hypnotising it away from the screenplay and the characters.  All these soldiers at the end seem to be one person. The plot is thin and what is most amazing is the director’s cinematography. The way he tries to place the camera in the soldiers’ point of view, filming from a very low level often from within the grass in slow motion capturing at the same time the nature all around. Another thing that I should mention is Malick’s adoration to nature. He often films close shots of insects, animals, plants, flowers. During the movie all of a sudden where there is death and blood and pain everywhere, you get life.

It starts showing private Whitt played by Jim Caviezel, an army deserter being part of an isolated community with another fellow soldier somewhere in the South Pacific. However, they are being retrieved and forced to return to the battle field. Occasionally, the movie is flashing back to the pleasant moments back to the community away from the war and to Naomi Watts and her relationship with private Bell (Ben Chaplin). One of the main characters is Whitt, however, he doesn’t have the opportunity to get fully impersonated during the film and the only characters that develop some kind of solid relationship are Nick Nolte and Elias Koteas (I like that Koteas sometimes speaks in Greek). Sean Penn is also co-staring but he is not the only good actor part of this movie. Also John Cusack, Andrien Brody, Woody Harrelson, John Travolta, George Clooney and Jared Leto are just a few more that make brief appearances during the film.

Overall it is considered a very well made film not really focusing on the characters and their acting skills but on what the director has to say. It is all about what Malick has in his head and the way he tries to persuade you to think about it. An indirect way but at the same time so mesmerising that you just cannot deny accepting it. And finally I will close with one of Witt's quotes and one of my favourite in the film 'Where is it that we were together? Who were you that I lived with? The brother. The friend. Darkness, light. Strife and love. Are they the workings of one mind? The features of the same face? Oh, my soul. Let me be in you now. Look out through my eyes. Look out the things you made. All things shining'.