‘The Thin Red Line’ teeters between pretentiousness, incoherency

Monday, January 11, 1999

‘The Thin Red Line’ teeters between pretentiousness,
incoherency

MOVIE: Captivating visuals, top-notch performances can’t redeem
director Malick’s film

By Lonnie Harris

Daily Bruin Staff

After a 20-year respite from directing, oft-lauded director
Terrence Malick once again steps behind the camera to helm "The
Thin Red Line," an ambitious World War II drama. Though the film
displays the obvious visual gift Malick uses in all of his films
(including "Badlands" and "Days in Heaven"), "Red Line" moves along
at such a glacial pace and with such poor management of its
dramatic elements, it proves to be nothing but spectacle.

The film occurs entirely on the Pacific island of Guadalcanal,
the site of an infamous WWII standoff between Japanese and American
troops. The ambitious Col. Tall (Nick Nolte, in the film’s best
performance) leads the C for Charlie Company in a frontal attack on
a Japanese stronghold. Several troops, including the brooding
soldier Witt (Jim Caveziel) and the humanitarian Capt. Staros
(Elias Koteas) take the time to ponder the meaning of their actions
and attempt to make their peace with the natural world that they
are destroying through their actions.

Malick’s film benefits from the considerable talent of
cinematographer John Toll, who shot the entire film using only
natural light. This makes "The Thin Red Line" unique among
Hollywood films, as the use of sunlight as opposed to massive stage
lighting heightens the realism. Also, Toll’s jerk panoramas over
the fields of wild grass provide a vivid and breathtaking backdrop
to the gruesome war violence.

Despite the excellent visual work and the great performances
both from newcomers and many established A-list actors, "The Thin
Red Line" ultimately fails because of its trouble in relaying any
sort of coherent story. Malick never attempts to intertwine his
more high-minded, philosophical concerns with his elaborate visual
sequences, and thus the metaphysical quandaries confronted by the
film’s principle characters become more distracting than
enlightening.

The film is filled with more serious contemplation than any
other war film in recent memory (certainly more than Steven
Spielberg’s more mainstream and more satisfying, "Saving Private
Ryan"). Rather than showing each character dealing with his own
issues against the backdrop of this violent conflict, however,
Malick chooses to explore them through the use of a vague
voice-over that makes up most of the film’s dialogue. This
narrative, composed of mock philosophical aphorisms such as "Why
are we fighting this horrible war?" and "What is the meaning of a
life?" not only keeps the film from establishing any sort of pace,
but also prevents the audience from connecting with any characters
on screen. Because so much of this narrative is spoken in a
nondescript voice from some intangible presence, it takes time away
from the ensemble cast, with whom the audience never gets a chance
to make any sort of connection.

This is a shame because the performances in "Red Line" are truly
top-notch. As the nihilistic Capt. Walsh, Sean Penn proves once
again that he is among the finest actors working in America today.
Other actors including John Cusack and Woody Harrelson are also
notable in small roles. The film’s main character (if anyone on
screen can be credited with this appellation) is Witt, portrayed
with the right amount of grit and frustration by Caveziel.

To be sure, these are not the only characters to make
appearances in the film. At least 20 characters have speaking
roles, and even more than that are pictured at least two or three
times during the film’s three-hour running length. The cast is so
enormous that no time is ever devoted to establishing real
personalities for any of these soldiers.

Combine this with Malick’s casting of many unknown actors (all
of which are similar in appearance and have been instructed for
some bizarre reason to speak with Southern accents), and no one
could possibly keep every character straight in their heads.

Who could possibly distinguish between Adrian Brody, Caveziel,
Ben Chaplin and Dash Mihok when all of them are given one line to
say to establish who they are? As a result, the film becomes a
confused web of intermingled stories which not only never come
together, but never arrive at a satisfying conclusion.

This problem is magnified when one considers that "Red Line"
reaches the three-hour mark in running time. Like many other recent
films peaking at 180 minutes long, the film becomes tiresome in its
final third. Malick reportedly shot over one million feet of film
for the movie – almost three times the amount of other feature
films. This is evident during the film’s final battle scene: a
ramshackle sequence which adds absolutely nothing to the story.

"The Thin Red Line" is being hailed by many as a hallmark film
and the best film of 1998. This may be attributed to the film’s air
of pretension spreading into the media. Watching "Red Line" without
somewhat resenting Malick’s condescending attitude toward his craft
proves almost as challenging as following its incoherent
goings-on.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]