• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NeoGaf's Classic Film Club Week 2 - The Thin Red Line (1998)

Status
Not open for further replies.

pauljeremiah

Gold Member
The_Thin_Red_Line_Poster.jpg


The Thin Red Line is a 1998 American war film which tells a fictional story of United States forces during the Battle of Guadalcanal in World War II. It portrays men in C Company, and in particular, those soldiers played by Jim Caviezel, Nick Nolte, and Ben Chaplin.

The film marked director Terrence Malick's return to filmmaking after a 20–year absence. He wrote the screenplay based on the novel by James Jones. It features a large ensemble cast, including performances and cameos by notable actors, including Sean Penn, Adrien Brody, George Clooney, John Cusack, Jared Leto, and John Travolta.

Trailer

US: DVD/Blu-ray
UK: DVD
Netfilx
 

Chony

Member
Loved this film. Inception's soundtrack is earily simalar to this. This film also started my journey into Malick films. So good.
 
Chony said:
Loved this film. Inception's soundtrack is earily simalar to this. This film also started my journey into Malick films. So good.

I don't remember no Melanesian Choirs to Inceptions soudntrack.

Anyway, great film. I've always thought it had the most random cast ensemble ever.
 

pauljeremiah

Gold Member
Scullibundo said:
I don't remember no Melanesian Choirs to Inceptions soudntrack.

Anyway, great film. I've always thought it had the most random cast ensemble ever.

Both soundtracks were composed by Hans Zimmer, so maybe that's why they could feel similar
 

Blader

Member
pauljeremiah said:
what do you dislike about his character?

Listening to him wax poetically about nature and "another world", and feeding water to plants, while everyone else is dying and succumbing to thirst just seemed flat out disrespectful. He's an embodiment for Malick's own ideas about war and how it destroys nature, but it just comes off as self-indulgent and inappropriate.
 
Blader5489 said:
Listening to him wax poetically about nature and "another world", and feeding water to plants, while everyone else is dying and succumbing to thirst just seemed flat out disrespectful. He's an embodiment for Malick's own ideas about war and how it destroys nature, but it just comes off as self-indulgent and inappropriate.

I LOL'd hard.
 

Az987

all good things
Just watched this a week or two ago. I liked it a lot but back when I first watched it years ago, I didn't really care for it.

It's also one of the best blu-rays so far. It really looks and sounds amazing.
 

Blader

Member
I think my favorite thing about the film was playing a guessing game on when Adrien Brody would actually say something.

and then he does get a bit of dialogue towards the end and it's not even a complete sentence. :lol
 

MedHead

Member
I tried watching this movie a few years ago. I wasn't in the right mood for this kind of film, nor did I fully realize how slowly it was going to play, so I was pretty frustrated with it by the end. It's been so long since I watched this movie that I don't recall much of the film; what I remember is that I felt like I was watching someone dream the movie, because the main character acted like he was high or sleepy, and that things felt very disconnected from reality.
 

Lafiel

と呼ぶがよい
Watched this a few weeks ago for the first time. I really loved it - despite not liking many WW2 or war movies in general, this really resonated and clicked with me in a good way. I should give it a another re-watch soon.

Listening to him wax poetically about nature and "another world", and feeding water to plants, while everyone else is dying and succumbing to thirst just seemed flat out disrespectful. He's an embodiment for Malick's own ideas about war and how it destroys nature, but it just comes off as self-indulgent and inappropriate.
Seriously? i did not get that from the film at all.:lol
 
Maybe call it GAF Film Club because i wouldn't consider this a classic either. Still has some aging to do.

Something like The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia or Paths of Glory would have been more appropriate for a classic war related film.

TTRL is also a film that many people here have already seen. A wasted chance to encourage people to see something great that they haven't seen before.
 

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
It's a modern classic. Even BFI think so!

A truly brilliant film, but I agree with WorriedCitizen that it would have been better to try and introduce people to something fewer people have seen before instead.
 

Spire

Subconscious Brolonging
I bought the Criterion blu-ray of this a few weeks ago and enjoyed it. The only thing that bothered me was some of the casting. John Travolta is in one scene, is not very good, and the whole affair kind of pulls you out of the picture. I know Malick hadn't made a film in forever when this was cast and every swinging dick in Hollywood wanted in, but putting such recognizable faces in such menial roles doesn't really add anything. It's just distracting.
 

VALIS

Member
Nice, been meaning to see this for a while.

What was the week 1 film and how often do you pick new ones?
 

Red

Member
Ashes1396 said:
http://www.classicfilmguide.com/

90's films are hard to call classic films... this film was thirteen years ago.
Yeah, but some movies transcend the time barrier. How many of you would agree with me that there are occasional "instant classics"? A more recent example would be something like Children of Men. These are films that fall outside of the time restrictions, movies you see once and know will be remembered forever.
 

Meliorism

Member
Crunched said:
Yeah, but some movies transcend the time barrier. How many of you would agree with me that there are occasional "instant classics"? A more recent example would be something like Children of Men. These are films that fall outside of the time restrictions, movies you see once and know will be remembered forever.

But Children of Men isn't all that memorable :|
 

Ashes

Banned
hmm.... Classic film club denotes classic films. Sure great films exist in the nineties. Schindler's list for example. Still, picking the thin red line in the second week doesn't instill a great deal of confidence. A fine film though... and an otherwise good pick.
 

Equus Bellator Apex

Junior Member
bggrthnjsus said:
i still think the last hour or so of this film is totally unnecessary

I just finished watching it.

And the funny thing about that is this cut down from 5 hours.

Great movie, but there were time were I kept looking at my watch like when is this shit going to end.
 
Crunched said:
Yeah, but some movies transcend the time barrier. How many of you would agree with me that there are occasional "instant classics"? A more recent example would be something like Children of Men. These are films that fall outside of the time restrictions, movies you see once and know will be remembered forever.

You confuse film that you like with classics. "Modern classic" or "instant classic" these terms are oxymorons used for marketing or hype. Something has to be from a different era to be called a classic.

No doubt TTRL will be considered a classic one day, even more so if we get the 6 hour cut eventualy but right now it is just a critically acclaimed modern war film.
 

Munin

Member
Chony said:
Loved this film. Inception's soundtrack is earily simalar to this. This film also started my journey into Malick films. So good.


That's because every Zimmer soundtrack sounds the fucking same. This one is admittedly one of his better ones though, if you want to say "him" really because all of his work is done by his nameless slaves at Media Ventures anyway.
 

sefskillz

shitting in the alley outside your window
hopefully in the future we can get past the HEY I SEEN DAT MOVIE posts filing up the first page. i guess i just assumed the idea is to revisit these movies and discuss them in detail.

anyway, this pick works out well for me since i got the criterion blu, but haven't checked it out yet. haven't watched it since seeing it in theaters. will watch it sometime this week and check back in
 
Chony said:
Loved this film. Inception's soundtrack is earily simalar to this. This film also started my journey into Malick films. So good.

In James Mottram's book "The Making of Memento," he says that "The Thin Red Line" is one of Nolan's favorite film scores (I remember this detail because it's also one of mine). I wonder if Nolan told him to write something kind of like it.

And while Zimmer definitely recycles himself a lot, this really is a very different and more introspective score than most of his others. "Light" is one of my favorite pieces and not something you would hear from Media Ventures.
 

pauljeremiah

Gold Member
Dead said:
Wish we could one day see the 6 hour cut :(

so would I, in addition to the cast seen in the final cut of the film, Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas, Viggo Mortensen and Mickey Rourke also performed, but their scenes were eventually cut. Editor Leslie Jones was on location for five months and rarely saw Malick, who left her to her own devices. After principal photography wrapped, she came back with a five-hour first cut and spent seven months editing, with Thornton contributing three hours of narrative voice-over material. It was at this point that editor Billy Weber came on board and they spent 13 months in post-production and the last four months mixing the film, using four Avid machines with a fifth added at one point. There were no preview screenings but several in-house ones, the largest of which was attended by 15 people for marketing executives. The editors faced the challenge of blending footage of veteran actors with less-experienced ones, integrating the many cameos, and the voice-overs. According to Jones, "Malick removed scenes with dialogue whenever possible, with the final film varying greatly from the original concept". Four months after principal photography, Malick invited Toll to a rough cut screening of the film. In December 1998, Toll did the first color correction at the lab prior to the film's release in North America.

The editing also resulted in many of the well-known cast members being on screen for only a brief period: for example, John Travolta and George Clooney's appearances are little more than cameos, yet Clooney's name appears prominently in the marketing of the movie. The unfinished film was screened for the New York press on December 1998 and Adrien Brody attended a screening to find that his originally significant role, "to carry the movie", as he put it, had been reduced to two lines and approximately five minutes of screen time. On April 15, 2001, an interview with Adrien Brody revealed that he was still upset over the removal of his work. He expressed his opinions in an interview with the London newspaper The Independent:

"I was so focused and professional, I gave everything to it, and then to not receive everything ... in terms of witnessing my own work. It was extremely unpleasant because I'd already begun the press for a film that I wasn't really in. Terry obviously changed the entire concept of the film. I had never experienced anything like that... You know the expression 'Don't believe the hype'? Well, you shouldn't."

Malick was upset that the studio screened his unfinished version for critics and Penn ended up helping him in the editing room, shaping the final version. Malick spent three more months and cut 45 additional minutes from the film. The director refused to subject his film to test screenings before delivering his final cut. After Geisler and Roberdeau told their story to Vanity Fair magazine, Medavoy's attorneys declared them in breach of contract and threatened to remove their names from the film unless they agreed to do no future interviews until after the Academy Awards.
 
Blader5489 said:
Listening to him wax poetically about nature and "another world", and feeding water to plants, while everyone else is dying and succumbing to thirst just seemed flat out disrespectful. He's an embodiment for Malick's own ideas about war and how it destroys nature, but it just comes off as self-indulgent and inappropriate.

Just rewatched this recently and had to point out that this is a load of bullshit. They were near a stream when this happened. So he clearly filled his canteen with the water from it and was just messing around.

And while he is definitely echoing Malick's ideals through his narration and everything he's also one of the bravest dudes on that squad. Hence the reason why he sacrifices himself as bait to lure the Japanese away from the rest of his company.

Oh and also damn this is Zimmer's best soundtrack ever. That track that plays when Caviezel is talking to Penn in that abandoned shack...so good.
 
Blader5489 said:
Listening to him wax poetically about nature and "another world", and feeding water to plants, while everyone else is dying and succumbing to thirst just seemed flat out disrespectful.

This movie sounds goddamn AWESOME!
 
nincompoop said:
how is a film from 1998 a "classic"

When you first saw There Will Be Blood, didn't you feel the fact that this was a movie for the ages? Didn't you feel the same thing with Jurassic Park? Pulp Fiction? Shawshank Redemption? Trainspotting? With some films you can tell as soon as you see it that it is on another level.
 
Your Excellency said:
When you first saw There Will Be Blood, didn't you feel the fact that this was a movie for the ages? Didn't you feel the same thing with Jurassic Park? Pulp Fiction? Shawshank Redemption? Trainspotting? With some films you can tell as soon as you see it that it is on another level.

You can't throw around "classic" lightly in an art form with substantial history. Maybe "modern classic" is more appropriate.
 

Futureman

Member
nincompoop said:
how is a film from 1998 a "classic"

I'd say Mallick is one of the very few who could have such a recent film be regarded as classic.

Not saying it deserves that title, but Mallick's first two are considered classics, and many consider this the best war movie ever made, so put two and two together...

but yea... maybe just take classic out of the title if that's all people are going to discuss.

This is the only Mallick film I haven't seen, but I will rectify that soon.
 
We shouldn't let semantic arguments about whether it is a "classic", "modern-classic" or "critically acclaimed war film" dominate this thread. To do that is to completely miss the point of this club. I whole-heartedly agree with choosing The Thin Red Line. True art is timeless, it doesn't matter when it was realesed. "Classic" =/= "old." The fact that Mallick is taught in every film history school on the planet is tesement to this.

What you have to understand about Mallick is that he kinda makes up his films as he goes. He is a true artist in every sense of the word, and along with Wong Kar-Wai have come to master the art of letting the edit dictate the film, not the script. Their films are intensely personal and therefore not everyones cup of tea, so it is understandable how The Thin Red Line might look tame in comparison to such a structured scripted film like Saving Private Ryan which was released the same year. You have to separate yourself from what you generally know about films to really appreciate what is going on in a film like The Thin Red Line.

Aesthetically, the photography in this film is unbelievably beautiful and the score and dialogue are all organic and belong to this movie wholly - there really isn't any other film (besides Mallick's own) which really compare. He really is his own genre. What most people don't know about Mallick is that he shoots each scene both with and without dialogue - having the actors perform just the emotion of the scene. This often makes the final cut over pages and pages of dialogue. And in the case of The Thin Red Line, he actually shot most scenes 3 times - during daylight, night, and magic hour so that in the editing room he could re-order the scenes in any way he wanted. This is very important to know when trying to understand Mallick's method.

The most interesting thing IMO about The Thin Red Line is that Adrian Brody was actually the main character throughout production. It was only once editing of the film began that Caviezel's character took center stage and Brody ultimately ended up with only a few lines in the film. (EDIT: this was already stated above but is worth repeating).

I highly recommend watching the making-of featurettes on the Criterion edition for more insight into Mallick's creative direction if you are at all interested in film history and technique. He is unanimously one of the mediums greatest artists and people will be discussing this film as long as there are films to discuss.

On a personal note, my favorite scene in the film is when Ben Chaplin is reading the letter from his wife. It is so emotional and kills me every time I watch the movie. It's amazing to me to imagine how the shooting, editing, acting, and writing of the letter all came together to form such a perfect emotion. The Thin Red Line is full of incredible momnets like this one and it is why it is truly deserving of the title: "Classic."
 
ConfusingJazz said:
Christ I hated this movie. People said that I should give it a second chance, and I did. 10 years later, I still hate this movie.

We are here to discuss, not to troll without any explanation as to why you didn't like the film. Please elaborate or stay out. Thanks.

Wait, your a jazz man? How could you NOT love this movie?
 
Team Klimt said:
We are here to discuss, not to troll without any explanation as to why you didn't like the film. Please elaborate or stay out. Thanks.

Wait, your a jazz man? How could you NOT love this movie?

Because I ain't afraid to call it shit when its shit. The cinematography was great, until it became self glorification. I can only watch things blowing in the wind (grass, lace, leaves, etc) so much before I get bored. I can't stand highly stylized narration. Mallick's narration style has always been a big negative for me, and really prevented me from even trying to watch The New World. It comes off as extra fake. Like, someone recorded a stoner's thoughts, then cleaned it up for a narration.
 
ConfusingJazz said:
Because I ain't afraid to call it shit when its shit. The cinematography was great, until it became self glorification. I can only watch things blowing in the wind (grass, lace, leaves, etc) so much before I get bored. I can't stand highly stylized narration. Mallick's narration style has always been a big negative for me, and really prevented me from even trying to watch The New World. It comes off as extra fake. Like, someone recorded a stoner's thoughts, then cleaned it up for a narration.

Fair enough of a complaint. He does get seemingly long-winded at times, but if you look at it from the perspective of it being the creator's words, not the characters' words, I think you'll better understand why critics praise Mallick so much. In jazz terms think of those sequences like 10-minute solos. Some people are boing to be bored to tears, but if you have an understanding with the medium they are the best thing about the song. The same could be said here. Not everyone is going to love it, and that's fine. It's a refined taste I guess (to sound extra elitist ;P).
 
I much preferred The New World when it comes to the wispy narrative style of Mallick's work. Although the liberties he takes with Jamestown history is pretty laughable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom