Blader5489 said:
Bullshit. The script doesn't get discounted just because it's Malick. It's there, it's part of the film, and it's equally deserving of criticism of anything else you see and hear over the 3 hours. Visuals/imagery are not, and cannot be, everything. It's a movie, not a photography exhibit.
Sure, I'm not gonna argue that. But at the same time the photography and editing are weighed more heavily (to Mallick at least) than compared to other filmmakers. You kinda do have to make an exception for him. You can't fairly compare it to any other movie because there isn't anything else really like it except for a few choice examples. Placing the whole of your criticism on the film's script and justifying that by saying it's just another "movie" is really devaluing the artistry that a lot of people (including me obviously) appreciate about the film. You fundamentally cannot compare his movies to others because they are made so differently. If any other director had shot Mallick's original script, the movie would in absolutely no way resemble the film we are debating right now.
If he was making The Thin Red Line for the studio (or for anyone other than himself) George Clooney and John Travolta would have been all over this thing. They weren't because the film is the singular vision of a singular artist and must be judged with that in mind. For the same reason you can't argue that the people in a Rockwell painting are rendered better than the people in a Picasso. First, it is just your subjective opinion, and second, Picasso just doesn't give a shit. Both are correct.
Or think about it this way: You wouldn't critique the script of a documentary the same way you would for a hollywood narrative would you? Again, it's kinda hard to think about The Thin Red Line that way, but Mallick pretty much works the same way as a documentarian: collect a shit ton of material and then make something up later. Endless scenes and lines of dialogue get shot for his movies and never see the light of day.
One thing that you are taught in film theory is that you should not rely on sound (and by extension dialogue) when you are making a film. A great scene should be able to get the same point across and carry the same weight with or without any sound. The reason I love Mallick so much is that he does this better than anyone else - to the point where he shoots the same scenes multiple times with actors saying the dialogue in one take and having them do the exact same actions in the next take without saying a single word. Think about how incredible that is!
You also have to consider that a lot of the long voice-overs are excerpts from the book the film is based on. Mallick will take a line or paragraph and make an artsy-fartsy photgraphic montage of images that fit the mood of the words. The overall narrative is rarely of the foremost importance in his post-Days of Heaven work.
Sorry, this might sound like pretentious bullshit but I kinda get defensive anytime somebody tries to knock Mallick and I love slipping back into film school-mode. Protect the herd!
