- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why doesn't the Thin Red Line get more respect?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:28 am to TigerDeacon
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:28 am to TigerDeacon
quote:
It was a bloated mess where the film maker's hubris overflows
It was an ambitious concept from the outset, no doubt. Hence why so much material ended up on the cutting room floor.
quote:
Let's not even get into the voice overs, which were probably used in an attempt to convey some of the internal monologues in the book.
Malick's intention was not to recreate the book. The voiceovers are Malick through and through. They served the purpose of raising the contemplative questions and dualities he wanted to muse over.
1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:52 pm to TigerDeacon
quote:
It was a bloated mess where the film maker's hubris overflows.
In other words, a classic Terrence Malick offering.That said< I like Malick's work for the most part. At least, he takes chances.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:06 pm to Lsupimp
I assure you, I "get" what Terrence Malick was trying to do with The Thin Red Line. It's a decent film but no where near the level people try to elevate it to. It's like looking at a gray painting and me just seeing the gray coloring, while someone trying to look smarter than me says they see the Virgin Mary inside of it.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 4:11 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
Malick's intention was not to recreate the book. The voiceovers are Malick through and through. They served the purpose of raising the contemplative questions and dualities he wanted to muse over.
That does not necessarily make a good movie.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 5:00 pm to Brazos
It’s in my top 5.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 8:50 pm to TigerDeacon
quote:
That does not necessarily make a good movie.
Where did I say it necessarily makes for a good movie?
Posted on 2/13/18 at 9:29 pm to ChewyDante
It's not a typical war movie and I think at the time people were put off. Meditative movies need to hit the right chord at the right time...
Thin Red Line doesn't make sense to a lot of people because it doesn't follow any WWII war narrative...there is no objective...it's a Vietnam movie about WWII and the public doesn't want to accept war is war - there are no good wars. The objective is to survive.
It's the most anti-World War film I've ever seen apart from Come and See. More than Paths of Glory.
I love the scene where the US platoon is crouching under the weeds and grass and the commander from far away orders them to go take the hill that Japanese snipers are mowing down anyone who pops his head up...and they are all arguing you go, frick you, you go...tell the commander to go...we ain't going.
The film is very human nature...not knowing why you are in a place all of sudden being sacrificed to die at a young age...and just wanting to bury your head in the sand.
Public doesn't want to hear that. They want Sands of Iwo Jima and Saving Private Ryan. They don't want an Apocolpyse Now treatment of WWII.
Thin Red Line has become victim of WWII of being beyond reproach while Vietnam is beyond support. While ignoring the fact that more Americans died in WWII and most Americans wanted to stay out of WWII by a LARGE margin.
This was not a popular war when it started. Should any war not on our shores ever be popular? Hawaii was still in the middle of the Pacific and a territory for rich companies.
I think the Thin Red Line encapsulates the strange disconnect of the American soldier of what am I doing here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on some jungle Island about to die when I was just about to go to college in Iowa?
People don't want a Vietnam meditation on WWII...they want it simple because people are tired of Vietnam.
Thin Red Line doesn't make sense to a lot of people because it doesn't follow any WWII war narrative...there is no objective...it's a Vietnam movie about WWII and the public doesn't want to accept war is war - there are no good wars. The objective is to survive.
It's the most anti-World War film I've ever seen apart from Come and See. More than Paths of Glory.
I love the scene where the US platoon is crouching under the weeds and grass and the commander from far away orders them to go take the hill that Japanese snipers are mowing down anyone who pops his head up...and they are all arguing you go, frick you, you go...tell the commander to go...we ain't going.
The film is very human nature...not knowing why you are in a place all of sudden being sacrificed to die at a young age...and just wanting to bury your head in the sand.
Public doesn't want to hear that. They want Sands of Iwo Jima and Saving Private Ryan. They don't want an Apocolpyse Now treatment of WWII.
Thin Red Line has become victim of WWII of being beyond reproach while Vietnam is beyond support. While ignoring the fact that more Americans died in WWII and most Americans wanted to stay out of WWII by a LARGE margin.
This was not a popular war when it started. Should any war not on our shores ever be popular? Hawaii was still in the middle of the Pacific and a territory for rich companies.
I think the Thin Red Line encapsulates the strange disconnect of the American soldier of what am I doing here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on some jungle Island about to die when I was just about to go to college in Iowa?
People don't want a Vietnam meditation on WWII...they want it simple because people are tired of Vietnam.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 9:37 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
This was not a popular war when it started. Should any war not on our shores ever be popular? Hawaii was still in the middle of the Pacific and a territory for rich companies.
This is not an accurate statement at all. Yeah, Hawaii was in the middle of the Pacific and far away from the minds of most Americans. But the deaths of over 2,500 American servicemen, combined with the fact that the attack was unprovoked and without warning, radically turned the public into a public out for blood. How we felt after 9/11 was similar to how we felt after Pearl Harbor. We were ready to kick arse and take names.
Within a matter of days the entire economy had been turned into a war economy. Millions of American men traveled to their local recruiting stations to join the military. It was absolutely nothing like Vietnam. I don't know where you get this idea from, but the vast majority of Americans were very pro-war in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on our interests in the Pacific.
quote:
I think the Thin Red Line encapsulates the strange disconnect of the American soldier of what am I doing here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on some jungle Island about to die when I was just about to go to college in Iowa?
A good many of the soldiers and marines who fought on Guadalcanal (the battle which this film depicts) were already in the service when Pearl Harbor was attacked. These were (mostly) professional soldiers and marines. The volunteers and draftees would come later. Another reason why this battle was a terrible battle to try to turn into Vietnam. If Malick really wanted to drive home an anti-war message, he should have picked Okinawa. It would have been more historically accurate.
This post was edited on 2/13/18 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 2/13/18 at 9:47 pm to RollTide1987
The Nation was like 70% against the war before Pearl.
We were a totally isolanist country again and didn't want to repeat the deaths of an entire generation again in the war to end all wars.
Roooooooseeeevelt pushed the war on stump speech after stump speech far before Pearl Harbor and nobody was buying.
Even after Pearl Harbor - the polls were mixed. There was this massive anti-war sentiment in America after families lost everything to Europe for bullshite and not our cause.
And the initial wave of support for war was exactly what Roooosevelt wanted with emotion and Hawaii is US!
Hawaii was just an island. It wasn't downtown America.
It was more Japan (beyond US corporate greed) and proved that years later when it was mostly Japanese and Hawaiian inhabitants.
It is almost the same distance between us and Japan. Only Dole and Sugar Cane cared about Hawaii and all their slaves on the Island. We went to war to defend the Dole Corporation's rights in Hawaii...to defend them?
Thin Red Line is more honest to the common sentiment and not stuff like Saving Private Ryan or Sands.
We were a totally isolanist country again and didn't want to repeat the deaths of an entire generation again in the war to end all wars.
Roooooooseeeevelt pushed the war on stump speech after stump speech far before Pearl Harbor and nobody was buying.
Even after Pearl Harbor - the polls were mixed. There was this massive anti-war sentiment in America after families lost everything to Europe for bullshite and not our cause.
And the initial wave of support for war was exactly what Roooosevelt wanted with emotion and Hawaii is US!
Hawaii was just an island. It wasn't downtown America.
It was more Japan (beyond US corporate greed) and proved that years later when it was mostly Japanese and Hawaiian inhabitants.
It is almost the same distance between us and Japan. Only Dole and Sugar Cane cared about Hawaii and all their slaves on the Island. We went to war to defend the Dole Corporation's rights in Hawaii...to defend them?
Thin Red Line is more honest to the common sentiment and not stuff like Saving Private Ryan or Sands.
This post was edited on 2/13/18 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:13 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
The Nation was like 70% against the war before Pearl.
Key word. Before. After Pearl Harbor, the nation was heavily in favor of war.
quote:
Even after Pearl Harbor - the polls were mixed.
Inaccurate. You don't get to a war vote of 470-1 from both Houses of Congress if polls are mixed. The lone dissenting vote was voted out of office as soon as she came up for re-election.
quote:
Thin Red Line is more honest to the common sentiment and not stuff like Saving Private Ryan or Sands.
Link, please.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:28 pm to Brazos
Well whatever.
I think the Thin Red Line is the thoughtful Vietnam WWII movie which isn't rah-rah...and that's why it doesn't reasonate.
People expect Vietnam movies for Vietnam...that's accepted bad war.
They don't want to see human beings not wanting to die who don't want to be there and don't understand why they are there and object in WWII movies.
It's a more surreal Paths of Glory...American soldiers saying frick you...I'm not charging that hill for someone back home in some Capitol Hill.
Public doesn't want to see that. Only reason Paths of Glory got a pass is the rest were court-martialed and shot. That's how Kubrick showed - it's the only way the public will let you off from doing what you're told.
The scene where Jim goes into the Ocean...that's the break from being a slave to being free again...with his destiny again in his own hands for a brief moment. He's not a number, he's a person again.
The movie isn't anti-war per se. It's against the snuffing out of free will.
I think the Thin Red Line is the thoughtful Vietnam WWII movie which isn't rah-rah...and that's why it doesn't reasonate.
People expect Vietnam movies for Vietnam...that's accepted bad war.
They don't want to see human beings not wanting to die who don't want to be there and don't understand why they are there and object in WWII movies.
It's a more surreal Paths of Glory...American soldiers saying frick you...I'm not charging that hill for someone back home in some Capitol Hill.
Public doesn't want to see that. Only reason Paths of Glory got a pass is the rest were court-martialed and shot. That's how Kubrick showed - it's the only way the public will let you off from doing what you're told.
The scene where Jim goes into the Ocean...that's the break from being a slave to being free again...with his destiny again in his own hands for a brief moment. He's not a number, he's a person again.
The movie isn't anti-war per se. It's against the snuffing out of free will.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:38 pm to RollTide1987
I don’t get the comparison.
After Pearl the U.S. was in clear and eminent danger. Yes, Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific but submarines were a genuine threat to the mainland. Both Japanese and German. There was very real espionage and sabotage taking place on U. S. soil. Technology could have very well brought bombing to cities.
It was not a Cold War. The fight was taken to Vietnam to keep the threat off our shores. Not by Vietnam but Communism. Vietnam was a war for independence in their country not world domination.
Anyway, I like the Thin Red Line. The pace is very slow but the film is beautifuly shot. I thought it captured the the idea that war is "interminable boredom punctuated by moments of terror,"
After Pearl the U.S. was in clear and eminent danger. Yes, Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific but submarines were a genuine threat to the mainland. Both Japanese and German. There was very real espionage and sabotage taking place on U. S. soil. Technology could have very well brought bombing to cities.
It was not a Cold War. The fight was taken to Vietnam to keep the threat off our shores. Not by Vietnam but Communism. Vietnam was a war for independence in their country not world domination.
Anyway, I like the Thin Red Line. The pace is very slow but the film is beautifuly shot. I thought it captured the the idea that war is "interminable boredom punctuated by moments of terror,"
Posted on 2/13/18 at 11:03 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
I think the Thin Red Line is the thoughtful Vietnam WWII movie which isn't rah-rah...and that's why it doesn't reasonate.
Funny enough, I read a lot of World War II veterans who served in Guadalcanal disliked The Thin Red Line because it wasn't an accurate portrayal of their experiences. However Vietnam War veterans had the exact opposite reaction. Their experiences in Vietnam were similar to what the soldiers in The Thin Red Line went through.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:27 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
I think the Thin Red Line is the thoughtful Vietnam WWII movie which isn't rah-rah...and that's why it doesn't reasonate.
It doesn't resonate because it's historically inaccurate? Gee....imagine that.
quote:
People expect Vietnam movies for Vietnam...that's accepted bad war.
Perhaps it's because we got involved in Vietnam for ambiguous and more selfish reasons? World War II was much different. We were attacked.
quote:
They don't want to see human beings not wanting to die who don't want to be there and don't understand why they are there and object in WWII movies.
You see all of this in Saving Private Ryan. None of the men sent off to find Ryan want to die for this man, none of them want to be there, and none of them understand the reasoning of risking their lives to save one guy.
quote:
It's a more surreal Paths of Glory...American soldiers saying frick you...I'm not charging that hill for someone back home in some Capitol Hill.
Except the events of Paths of Glory were based on real events. There were various mutinies going on within the French army in 1917. The war had been raging for three years with no end in sight. There were no clear war aims or motivations for fighting by that point in time.
The Thin Red Line is hilariously and almost criminally inaccurate with its portrayal of the motivations and fighting spirit of U.S. infantrymen in 1942. This is one of the reasons why you don't set a Vietnam War movie in the 1940s. Not all military conflicts are built the same.
quote:
Only reason Paths of Glory got a pass is the rest were court-martialed and shot.
Paths of Glory gets a pass because it accurately portrays events that were based in real history. That and World War I remains one of the most pointless and tragic military conflicts in history.
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 9:29 am
Posted on 2/14/18 at 10:00 am to Lsupimp
quote:
It’s more of a meditation on war, man,and nature than a traditional plot
I agree with this, the book is in my top ten.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 1:32 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
It's the most anti-World War film I've ever seen apart from Come and See. More than Paths of Glory.
I take it you have never seen the original All Quiet on the Western Front. Making a "Vietnam" movie about WW II is a part of the problem the wars are totally different. Vietnam was a pointless shithole of a war. W II was an attack on the US. Your idea that AFTER Pearl the US was even mixed against the war is a fallacy. Yes there were those who were against all wars but the vast majority supported the war.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 2:00 pm to Tackle74
quote:
Making a "Vietnam" movie about WW II is a part of the problem the wars are totally different. Vietnam was a pointless shithole of a war. W II was an attack on the US. Your idea that AFTER Pearl the US was even mixed against the war is a fallacy. Yes there were those who were against all wars but the vast majority supported the war.
It's a moot point. Malick was not making a political statement with his movie. He was harping on the psychological strains of war which is applicable to most all modern warfare. Not any particular war or battle. Malick used the psychological strains inherent in combat as a platform to make his characters philosophers and poets. That's the abstract and artistic aspect of the film. That's why the musings so often were posed as questions.
This was not a Vietnam movie set in WWII, it was a Malick movie set in WWII. An environment of omnipresent death tends to make one contemplative. It also establishes the perfect environment and context to juxtapose the varying and often contradicting characteristics of humanity, nature, the metaphysical, etc.
Comparing The Thin Red Line to an anti-war Vietnam movie is to conflate Malick's depiction of the mental anguish of war as being politically driven rather than philosophically so.
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 2/20/18 at 2:53 am to Brazos
I read this thread last week and thought I ought to give The Thin Red Line a rewatch. I saw it, or at least some of it, a long time ago. About all I remembered was Woody Harrelson blowing his own arse off, soldiers walking down a riverbed and tedious narration.
I'll never watch this movie again, but if 15 or 20 years from now I forget how much I didn't like it, I sure as shite hope I remember not to start it at 11:45pm.
I'll never watch this movie again, but if 15 or 20 years from now I forget how much I didn't like it, I sure as shite hope I remember not to start it at 11:45pm.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 6:48 am to Brazos
I think it’s because it’s not a traditional war movie that was portrayed to be one. Especially as a WW2 period movie.
You could replace the setting and circumstances of the movie with any number of scenarios or wars and have the same film. Set it Desert Storm, the Revolution, the War of the Roses and you have the same movie.
I haven’t watched it in years, I need to go back and see if my opinion has changed on the film.
Edit: Correct me if I’m wrong, but was this not the first non-Wayne movie set in the Pacific?
You could replace the setting and circumstances of the movie with any number of scenarios or wars and have the same film. Set it Desert Storm, the Revolution, the War of the Roses and you have the same movie.
I haven’t watched it in years, I need to go back and see if my opinion has changed on the film.
Edit: Correct me if I’m wrong, but was this not the first non-Wayne movie set in the Pacific?
This post was edited on 2/20/18 at 6:50 am
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News