
As a first year student at Allegheny College, I am required to take a Freshmen Seminar, or FS this semester. Mine is called "Film & Philosophy." So far, we have read journals by Plato, Heidegger and Nietzsche, watched multiple movies including The Truman Show and The Thin Red Line, and have had many in-class discussions focussing on film, philosophy, and the human condition in general. Of all the texts we have studied, however, The Thin Red Line hit me the hardest. Directed by Terrence Malick, this movie illustrates the WWII Battle of Guadacanal... but this is no typical war film. (I truly believe that this may be one of the greatest war films of all time, although I cannot profess to be any sort of expert on the matter.) In response to The Thin Red Line, my professors requested that we answer a question and post our answers onto a website forum. The question asked, simply: "Regarding the film, The Thin Red Line, what did reviewers miss?" I would like to share with you my answer:
"Generally highly rated, The Thin Red Line, directed by Terrence Malick, is called poetic, unique and beautiful, garnering praise for its exquisite cinematography and haunting soundtrack. Reviewers fail, however, to understand or appreciate the magnitude of the film's message. Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times states, "The movie's schizophrenia keeps it from greatness (this film has no firm idea of what it is about)." In Ebert's criticism of The Thin Red Line, he claims that "schizophrenia" inhibits the film. Contrastingly, I believe that this quality of uncertainness is actually what makes this film great. The Thin Red Line begins by focussing in on two AWOL soldiers living in an idyllic island society, and from there jumps around in time between battle scenes, memories, past, and future events. Additionally, throughout the film, the audience is allowed into the soldiers' heads to hear their thoughts: "This great evil, where does it come from...love, where does it come from?" The audience is sort of thrown into the film, unsure of who the disembodied thoughts belong to, what the ultimate objective of the battle in hills is, or even what the opposing side looks like; in fact, the face of the enemy is not even shown until halfway through this three hour film. These elements, combined with seemingly haphazard nature shots, despite reviewers' opinions, are not in fact random, but act together to achieve a particular purpose: To mimic the weight, confusion and despair felt by the soldiers and to project those feelings onto the audience, which it accomplishes disturbingly well. In one scene for instance, the camera takes the point of view of a soldier, so the audience sees the battle through the soldier's eyes, as he, the audience, is about to kill his enemy. Aside from the disembodied narrating voices, this film is shockingly real. There is no illusion, no happy ending, and no ultimate objective except violence, just as with war. However, this film is not exclusively striving to illustrate the evils of war, nor is it solely using war as a metaphor for the human condition, at large. It is doing both."
(The image above can be found here: http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_poster/the_thin_red_line_1999.htm)




