The Thin Red Line -- What Makes This Movie Great? (Episode 156)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2022
- Sign up for my newsletter. TH-cam channel updates, written reviews, and exclusive content -- free! -- eepurl.com/hbfI6v
Please follow me on Twitter for video releases and reviews: / drjoshmatthews
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/joshmatthews/
Understanding Movies 101 Course: joshmatthews.org/learn-more-a...
The Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.org/what-makes-t...
Comprehensive List of the Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.org/what-makes-t...
Movie Cliches Series -- Video Playlist: • Why Pianos Transform C...
The Great Directors Series -- Playlist: • Werner Herzog's 10 Gre...
Shot for Shot Analyses: • Understanding Movies 1...
Great Science-Fiction Movie List: joshmatthews.org/great-scienc...
Other Movie Lists: joshmatthews.org/topics/movie...
Disclaimer: All reasonable comments are welcome, including reasoned disagreements. You will be banned for foolish talk, harassment, and hate speech on sight; it's a tremendous waste of life. I believe in freedom of association and, by extension, freedom of dissociation from you. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
This movie is just great! One night my mom wanted to watch a movie, I told her The thin red line, she said "oh not a war movie" I played it and she fully understood the movie, it’s not all about war and killing like Saving pvt Ryan. But it had a message, it’s spiritual and unique. This movie is very underrated
She end up liking it after the movie was finished?
The Thin Red Line doesn't get nearly the credit it deserves. It's a beautiful and cerebral war film, with stand out performances from one of the greatest casts ever assembled.
I love how Mallick never misses an opportunity to turn the focus over to the beauty of the natural world, even a pause in the fighting is an opportunity to show a breeze blowing through the grassy hills. Truly a work of art.
The worst thing that happened to this movie was it came out the same year as Saving Private Ryan.
My number 1 favorite movie. Nothing like the book. This movie is so much better. And the soundtrack.... gorgeous.
This is one of my two all time favorite movies. Every time I see it or hear a commentary on it I see something new in it. It’s interesting how my perception of different characters has changed over time. It’s an amazing film.
I saw this movie two years ago and was immediately amazed by it. I was surprised at how quickly it went by, given that it's nearly three hours long, yet it felt only a little over two. I had already seen the other four of Malick's first five films, though I didn't really "get" The Tree of Life the first time I saw it and actually watched it a second time just a couple of months after I saw this film, and I had a similar reaction to it. Your mention of religious symbolism and imagery is really interesting because it's something you see a lot of in these movies. Both Badlands and The New World feature characters retreating into nature, represented as some sort of Edenic paradise, until reality takes them away from it all. Days of Heaven starts out with the main character killing someone and being exiled, like Cain, and his relationship with his girlfriend where they pretend to be brother and sister while the farmer takes the girlfriend for his wife is of course evocative of Abraham doing the same thing with his wife, Sarah. The fire and the swarm of locusts are iconic biblical images representing the power and judgment of God. Christian allusions in The Tree of Life are numerous as well. Ultimately, Malick seems fascinated by many of the earlier books of the Bible, which deal with the questions of why and how we exist, as well as what our lives mean. As you mention, the film represents different worldviews through its characters, each of whom are grappling with their understanding of humanity and our place in the world, which is one of the central ideas of religion, that life is not a series of random acts of chaos, but is ordered and purposeful. That these characters are constantly pondering the beginnings of things--love, evil, death--where these things come from, their "genesis"--demonstrates Malick's belief that we are spiritual beings who have a connection to the transcendent, even if tenuous, and a desire to achieve understanding of that transcendence.
Any time someone brings up this film, they inevitably mention Saving Private Ryan for the reasons you mentioned. Among a lot of men in this country, that film is a masterpiece and among the greatest works of art ever created. I thought it was indeed a great film the couple of times I watched it in high school, but I actually rewatched it just a few months after I saw The Thin Red Line, and the comparison between the two is not favorable to the former. While there are some great technical aspects to the film, I now have a lot of problems with both the storytelling and the morality. So many of the characters in Saving Private Ryan seem like the kind of stock soldiers you see in a lot of war films, and although people always praise the realism of the beach scene, the rest of the movie has a bunch of Hollywood moments, like a soldier shooting an enemy sniper through the sniper's scope and two soldiers getting to deliver their dying monologues as the rest of the soldiers surround them. As far as the moral aspect, the film does strike me as jingoistic, and it's what everyone defaults to when they try to justify war by talking about the heroism and necessity of the soldiers in that movie, even though many wars since then have not always been heroic nor necessary. I know the Nazis are among the greatest villains in history, but if realism was what the film was going for, it portrayed the Germans in far too stereotypical a light, as a great mass of evil who only do evil because it is in their nature. There's a video by Collative Learning that goes into more detail about this if you want a better explanation of this issue. On the other hand, nothing about The Thin Red Line seems artificial. Nearly every soldier doesn't really care about being a hero or achieving some military victory (except of course Tall, which is in character for him), but just surviving and moving on with their lives. They are primarily concerned with the spiritual/existential issues I touched on in the previous paragraph, which makes each of them much more individualistic than simply one of hundred of soldiers in the company. Scenes featuring enemy soldiers being surrounded and a dead Japanese soldier asking if the Americans realize their similarities with him show the universal themes of the film, that we are not defined by the easy ally/enemy dichotomy the military is so quick to assert, but by our shared humanity. Also, the scene where the soldiers capture a bunker is more thrilling and visually captivating than anything I remember in Saving Private Ryan.
In comparing this film to other war films, I noticed a great similarity to what I think is the greatest war film ever made and one of my top five favorite films: Apocalypse Now. The interesting thing about both films is that they are not necessarily about war itself, but about our reaction to and experience with it. Apocalypse Now focuses on the insanity of war, the contradictions that make murder justified in one situation, but horrific in another, and how war damages the psyche, making the soldier define himself as a weapon of war subject to the order of his superiors while being tempted into taking on power and authority in himself. The Thin Red Line seems to be more about the suffering of war, this contradictory notion that war is something which should be inimical to human well-being and flourishing, yet we're constantly embroiled in it, as though there's nothing more emblematic of humanity. Both films then are about the destructive nature of war, but approach the subject in an original way free of moralizing and cheap emotion. I think they also both show that war is something that comes out of human nature, not a natural disaster or something out of our control like a hurricane, but something that we have created and continue to hedge ourselves in. The primary difference between the two seems to be that in Apocalypse Now, evil is inevitable, and the only good thing you can do is escape it, while The Thin Red Line sees that even in the middle of war, there is beauty and a hope of some sort of salvation.
excellent as always, thank you.
Dude - WAAY too long. Cmon this is TH-cam not your degree dissertation . Stop showing off .. or not 🙄
I'm just trying to write about the film in as comprehensive a way as Dr. Matthews talked about it in his video. Still, I always want to make sure that people are having as positive an experience as possible and that I can mitigate any negative ones. In light of that, would you be willing to tell me the name of the person who forced you to read my comment so that I may have a word with them about avoiding that in the future?
@@achasingafterthewind3:41
Well said. Two thoughts I have on this:
- The Private Ryan comparison conundrum. I think they can't be compared whatsoever, the similarities are just superficial. Yes they are both "war" films of a sort, and Malick and Spielberg are both considered "visual" filmmakers, but that means less than how dissimilar they really are. Spielberg prides himself on evoking the strong image as a *storytelling* device. Malick does not really concern himself with plot in the first place. The war as depicted is more of a moving canvas for Malick, he uses the characteristics of battle to say something about the unnerving thread of war - hostility - in 'regular' life. This is why with such a large cast of characters, they are all memorable not because of character or plot development, but the insight into men as embodied souls who all respond differently to the circumstances or questions confronting them. None of this was to say something about war itself, but about life as an existential arena of conflict, reflected in battle scenery.
- In ranking all the war films, at least the ones that seem to question the "means to an end" violent nature of war, therefore that have made an impact critically or with pop culture at large, in my mind Red Line belongs at top. The reason is that it is by far the most subversive filmmaking for the genre - you could really call it the anti war-film, instead of another anti-war film. By the same token, Private Ryan should be at the bottom. It is a patriotic art piece that in my mind is an example of what gives patriotism a bad name. Because of the forced sentimentalism, the inauthenticity, that merely serves to reinforce a society's overestimation of itself. Spielberg can do nothing else but relegate the messiness and confusing aspects of conflict to the actual noise and editing of the physical battle itself. It could be considered a bloody, noisy Norman Rockwell, which obviously resonated with a LOT of audiences. But for misguided reasons, in my opinion.
I love how the dialogue in the film is almost verbatim lifted from both Thin Red Line and From Here to Eternity. Malick digs deep into the trilogy and the characters. I’ve seen stills from scenes I can picture from the book. Somewhere there’s a six hour cut I would be fascinated to see.
Now I wonder what Malick’s version of the Pearl Harbor attack would look like?
The dialogue in this movie is superb as to is the musical score utilised throughout. Saw this over 22 years ago and still it holds meaning today and resonates within my outlook upon life itself....
I watched this again recently and sent my own analysis to a few friends via email, I then stumbled upon your take on it here, and lo and behold found my own analysis echoed by yours! This is a very great film and perhaps the greatest war film (though it transcends the genre) ever made.
Thank you!
The most powerful thing about the Savage character is he was a veteran soldier who led his platoon. The shock of losing his entire platoon made him go insane. It says we are all vulnerable to losing our minds - we all have our breaking points. It challenges the myth that we can be these superheroes in war. We are all vulnerable and thus making courage in the face of fighting a modern war all that more courageous and tragic.
Wonderful film, going far beyond war. It’s depth gives me a feeling I’ve rarely had after watching any other film.
Your opening words took the words right out of my mouth.
Absolutely 100%.
This is a Great movie in many ways and many levels.
thank you
I love this Movie too! Very poetic, metaphysical and otherworldly, definitely one of these rare movies that leave real message behind.
This movie is unbelievably under appreciated
Been waiting for this one for 2 years! Since then I’ve learned to love Malick, but still am excited to hear your take
thank you for waiting!
Saw this about three times, loved Hans Zimmer score. The grass hills remind me a bit of New Guinea or Philippines than Guadalcanal. I bet some of HBO's The Pacific were filmed in much or less some of the same areas where Thin Red Line was shot as it was filmed in Far North Queensland. Also Kirk Acevedo would later be in Band of Brothers a few years after this.
thank you.
@@LearningaboutMovies, your welcome.
One thing to mention. This movie doesn't depict the Battle of Guadalcanal in its entirety. It's specifically about the Battle(s) of Mount Austen (Dec '42 - January '43) and shows US Army units (not Marines) from the 25th Infantry Division & Americal Divisions fighting remnants of the Japanese 17th army that had already been devastated by the US Marine Corps in earlier battles.
This is a wonderful film and an interesting companion piece to The Tree of Life. I watched when it came out and at the time saw it from a younger persons perspective as simply a war movie (of course this is also the genius of the film)
Returning to it now after watching The Tree of Life the themes depth and beauty of it become more clear. I found it interesting how you pin pointed Witt's connection to water and how the Notle character withheld water. One gets the feeling there are so many subtle layers to discover here. Malick is throwing symbols and philosophical questions at the viewer throughout the film but always maintaining enough restraint. In watching it you don't feel lectured or even pushed towards a certain view. Throughout the 80s and 90s there were many Great War movies, most of which pointed to the madness of war. When it came out I saw this film as a great film amongst a handful of others. With the passing of time The Thin Red Line floats to the top of the pile as something much more than just a war movie.
I saw it when it came out - I was expecting a typical WW2 action movie - Pacific , island invasion etc so I was a bit puzzled on first viewing . Older and wiser now - I really appreciate it .
Thanks for your unique insights, when I saw this in the theater I wasn't intellectually equipped to appreciate the theological aspects of the film you have articulated (walked out a changed person nevertheless). This video should be included as part of the supplements in Criterion's next release of the film.
thank you, I greatly appreciate this.
One of my very favorite movies.
John Savage was perfect for this role
Great analyses of a great movie. Thank you.
I just nedd to correct that u referred to colonel Tall as 'pvt.Tall'. Other than that u blew my mind with the water analysis, that col Tall desolates nature and is associated with a lack of water whereas Witt splashes water all over the place, on humans and even on plants. That's a gem that I didnt realize thx
Thank you so much!
Thanks for this video! Exactly spot on on why this is an absolute masterpiece.
you're welcome.
Watched it last night after seeing your top 10 list and was not disappointed
Great video man. One of my favourite movies ever.
thank you
This was a great review, interpretation of the movie. I can't explain it. I've seen a lot of war movies but this one really sticks out.
thank you very much.
Great analysis of what makes this movie great 👍
thank you.
You did a great job of selling a movie that just didn’t land with me. I’ll have to take a second look. Thanks
you're welcome. Hopefully it works this time for you.
Excellent review.
Outstanding review..
thank you.
One of my favorites, not a war movie in my book, but rather a philosophical one!
Wow, I love the book and the film, reading the book and watching the film several times, but I learned totally new lessons in your analysis, that's puts the movie in a new light for me.
thank you Jason. Glad to help you out.
Good analysis of one of the greatest movies of our times.
Would like to hear you do more on this.
thank you.
Thanks so much for this rich analysis! This move is such a masterpiece. I'm sure a film like this is a blast to spend time analyzing because Malick at his best uses the very different medium of film to reach a degree of depth that really rivals great literature, and this is obviously very rare.
thank you.
I'll watch this over and over. Private Ryan one and done.
Thin Red, All Quiet, Hacksaw, Casualties of War, Jarhead, City of God...my war movies
I love when the theme which is expressed in philosophy overtakes the narrative of the film. Malick is one of my favorites, along with Tarkovsky and Bergman, and a number of other great filmmakers, and The Thin Red Line is one of the best.
Great stuff Josh. Great cinematography and score. I agree with you regarding the concept of the film, particularly regarding the echoes of 'Bridge on the River Kwai'.
Nolte is under rated - he is very good in this film (as he is in 'Who'll Stop the Rain', 'Q and A' and others).
Keep it up.
thank you.
Just watched this.
It was great 👍
personally id love a dozen more videos on this
thank you.
Thanks for this insightful review and analysis. I have watched this movie a few times and was very moved by it, but I did not appreciate much of the symbolism themes that you bring to light.
you're welcome!
Awesome movie! Got the criterion blu ray of it, it’s beautiful.
The Thin Red Line is a movie about philosophy that happens to use the backdrop of war.
This movie is about the question of salvation. It asks a few fundamental questions about that. It doesn't conclude the questions but leaves it up to the viewer. It represents two main viewpoints and ways--how the holy approach vs the worldly approach survives this world and is ultimately saved. There are two main relationships mirrored. One at the enlisted level between Welsh and Witt and the other at the officer/command level between Tall and Stavros. Welsh and Tall represent the pragmatist or world view, while Witt and Stavros represent the way of Christ or idealist view.
The movie does not condemns either view but shows how they clash, while at the same time look out and make sacrifices for each other. In both instances, the two archetypes have a relationship like brothers. The lion vs the lamb. Both have a sense of compassion for the other in spite of being opposites because they see themselves in each other like a mirror inverted. But really they are not inverted at all, they just see it this way, but instinctually know better. While they may disagree they both admire each other too. Philosophically they're opposites but spiritually the same.
Notice that Welsh covered Witt's butt and Tall covered Stavros's. Instead of Tall court marshaling Stavros, he decorated him and sent him where he felt he belonged (back to Washington, because he felt he was too soft and couldn't survive the front lines. Not necessarily get killed, but his soul would be a casualty and he wanted to save that in him.) This show caring and a level of brotherly love or you could say, "I am my brother's keeper" sense of responsibility, even though sometimes they clash and lock horns. Welsh saved Witt from a court marshal as well by pulling strings and putting his neck out for him to get him reinstated into a company that was a bit more protected from the heavy combat (a disciplinary company a little more to the rear).
It's about two types of morally good people who approach the same situation through opposing philosophies. One type believes in the world, the other believes in God/Heaven. Or you could say morals from logic on one hand vs morals based from faith. Like Tall might seem like a cold man at first, but he's really not as shown by his fruits (actions). He is a pragmatist and believes pushing hard and fast will minimize losses. And he's not really wrong as getting pinned down is a bad situation in combat, but Stavros didn't see it that way and was closer to the bad situation. And Welsh might seem like a cynic, but he is really not. On the flip side, Stravros might seem too kind for the world, but he isn't really, he just takes a different approach in that he believed being more tactical was the answer to minimize casualties. Witt didn't like killing (all 4 men didn't but are stuck in this world that requires them to for survival and protecting their brothers), but does when necessary to protect his brother. Both types take necessary action in worldly circumstances and dilemmas out of caring and morally good motivations guided by opposite principles or philosophies--world vs.heaven. Will both types be given their salvation? Which is better, pragmatism or adherence to kindness? The answer is a question of point of view. Both types saw and admired the good in each other, just disagreed about which is the better way to achieve minimal suffering for all in this world. All 4 make big sacrifices for others. Both types are trying to save the other from their own regrets and suffering as they see them from their own experiences and points of view.
In short you could say it asks questions of and examines the point of view of the morally upright atheist vs. the morally upright theist from both the in the trenches and executive level. It never really chooses sides, it merely shows the dilemmas of each and how the world (nature) challenges them both. How it is for the subordinate and how it is for the leader.
The movie's message is foreshadowed at the very beginning in the shot that shows the tree with the vine spiraling around it. I think it symbolizes the symbiosis and competition of both trying to reach the light (or you could say a place in heaven). This is revealed later on at the point that Tall wants assess how reliable Stavros is and mentions that exact analogy of nature. He both sees that he can, but realizes it will destroy Stravos within. Welsh and Tall are the vine, while Witt and Stavros are the tree. Or is the other way around? That depends on how you the viewer look at it.
Fantastic review. Having been an active duty enlisted Marine at the time of theatrical release, and serving through 2002 coming home after deployment to Afghanistan, I HATED this film. Decades later, having subsequently learned new things I've come to really appreciate the film. I've reflected on the arc of my initial reaction to the way I feel about it today, but that's another story 🎉
thank you
I think John Cusack’s character was a median between Nolte and Coteas’ characters. Cusack’s character cared about the men under his command yet he also knew there were some objectives in the battle that needed to be achieved that may cost some lives. 👈🏾
The Thin Red Line is a accurate depiction. The beach landing’s on Guadalcanal itself were not contested. On different islands the Japanese chose different strategies and tactics for different reason’s. My maternal Grandfather was drafted into the prewar Army at about 30 years old and served stateside. My Uncles while very young and some in their late 20’s served in Europe. I did meet a man who had joined the pre war Army at 15 and served in the same outfit as James Jones from Early 1941 at Schofield Barracks Hawaii and participating in numerous Pacific Landings and Battle’s . He told Me that From Here To Eternity was very accurate in every detail. That was some years before this version of The Thin Red Line came out. I have met Pacific War Army Veteran’s who experienced Combat in New Guinea and the Philippines and from their stories I would say that this latest film is very accurate.
thank you
2:09 Correction both Okinawa and Guadalcanal were island battles during the war where the Americans weren't fired on while landing because the Japanese had their defenses set up further inland.
one of the best "american" war movies ever made
The landing on the beach is accurate. When this unit landed, Charlie Company, 1/27 Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, it was unopposed.
thanks
I've wondered about the Japanese meditating during battle. Zen
I love this film, but never realized it was a "remake". I'd be really interested to hear what else you have to say about it.
which, Malick's movie or the original?
@@LearningaboutMovies thoughts on the original?
Hello prof. Matthews, thanks for the cool video! Actually, it would be great to have a video on The Zero Theorem by Terry Gilliam. I've seen your letterboxd review and it's cool, really well written. But I feel (I also see it from your review) that there are some philosophical questions which could be discussed in more serious, less sarcastic way.
Thanks. A video on that comes out August 16.
Does anyone know if the soldiers in the movie are based on the US Marines or US Army? I know the Marines did fight in Guadalcanal, but not sure if the US Army did. And there's a line in the movie from John Travolta's character where he says "The Marines have done their job and now its our turn" Indicating they could be army... Hmmm
They are us army, more specifically the 132 and the 25 infantry division who thought during the battle of Mount Austen in Guadalcanal, winter 1942. You understand they aren't marines because they have the HBT uniform without the "marines" insignia on the jacket pocket and the soldiers aren't wearing camo covers on the helmets
John Travolta clearly says in the beginning of the film “The Marines have done their job…now it’s our turn.” This is based on Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse, part of which is sometimes called the Battle of the Gifu, which took place from 15 December 1942 to 23 January 1943 after the Marines had left the island.
Loved this movie, loved the book. I've read the trilogy.....From Here to Eternity......Thin Red Line...
.Whistle. I've read everything by James Jones. Great author
This is definitely the best war film of 1998. Actually, I consider it one of my favorite war movies, top three. It’s unique approach, and it hits all your senses, and is deep
Also, Guadalcanal was a six month battle. The 1st Marines took the island, and Henderson airfield they held on. The army later reinforced and took over operations on the island “Charlie company“ is part of the cleanup operation.
Small point; I think you're wrong about this being a collection of battles. When the army landed at Guadalcanal there was no opposition on the beaches as you know, so perhaps you're pushing that aspect a bit much. This was pure Guadalcanal, in my humble opinion. A tremendous film. I vividly remember watching it in a cinema in Zimbabwe, praying to the false gods there wouldn't be a power cut before it ended. As a fan of James Jones I was prepared to be critical but came out mildly mind-blown. Wonderful. Terrifying. Indulgent. Lush. Oh, how I would love to see the long edit version.
my memory of the book "With the Old Breed," for example, is that there was some battle upon storming the beaches in Guadalacanal, whereas none in Okinawa. At the least, they took an airfield in Guadalacanal -- was that in the film? I don't recall anything about that. Oh well.
@@LearningaboutMovies I highly recommend reading the book written by James Jones. It will become clear that the actions are that of the 25th Infantry Division on Guadalcanal at the Battle of Mount Austen/Galloping Horse/Sea Horse, also referred to as the Battle of Gifu. Here's a link! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Austen,_the_Galloping_Horse,_and_the_Sea_Horse
Great and thorough analysis, Josh. Thank you for this. The last time I watched this, I imagined this film asking: what if Jesus Christ were conscripted to fight in a war during Biblical times? Given that, the philosophical conflict between Witt and Welsh exists analogously as Christ and Judas Iscariot - faith vs. doubt. This underlying conflict is something found everywhere in premodern, modern, and postmodern discourse. Should we believe in transcendence; that there is a higher plane of existence beyond our material surroundings? Or, should we believe only in the material nature of what we can see, feel, touch, and know? I really love this movie.
thank you.
14:23
This bird is not dying. This is a newborn bird fallen from its nest.
During the battle, there's a dying bird. Late in the movie, the narration discusses exactly what I am saying at that point in the video.
@@LearningaboutMovies - I prefer my version. 😉
Ty love you
thank you!
Nolte character gives you a preview who he really is in his voiceover during the scene with Travolta on deck. He talks about playing a role he never dreamed. He is actually introspective and sensitive. Even a bit cynical. Ironically just like the Lt. Starros. He’s doing a job. Playing the required role. The cold General Patton send men to their deaths without batting an eye type is actually the Travolta character.
Another good film made in my State in Australia Queensland
I like this more than Saving Private Ryan. Like a hair more.
I see this movie mostly as told here.
The movie talks about how much wars costs and that we loose more then beating hearts in war, we loose lives and those back home loose family members.
Wallish is defensive and egoistic.
Witt is unselfish and generous.
Wallish gets his point made at the end of the movie.
If there is an afterlife then Witt do not care, he is already on his way there.
Il miglior film di sempre
Concordo pienamente
❤
Perhaps you didn’t want too much a spoiler but you failed to mention Wit sacrifices his life for the guys. He leads the enemy away from the stream avoiding a head on battle., freely losing his own life in the process. This perhaps is Caviezel’s first Jesus Christ role.
yes, thanks, avoiding spoilers usually.
The only contradiction with the Parasite/Nature theory is Species in War is same.
The competition, especially killing for domination ,between individuals of DIFFERENT species in nature matches the level of intra-species individual competition and killing in Humans,probably rare in other species,at least the killing.
When Captain Staros offers to write up Welsh for a commendation after Welsh successfully ran through a gauntlet of enemy fire to give a mortally wounded man a satchel of morphine, Welsh deeply offended at the offer , replied with (approximately)“you say anything more about that and I will bust you in the teeth. I will resign my rating so fast your head will spin. The whole thing is about property”. Welsh was a nihilist and didn’t want glory and his statement about property was a microcosmic statement. Welsh as First Sergeant saw himself as responsible for the welfare of the me in his charge and the fact that he couldn’t save them all, made him seek nihilism.
thank you.
Thank you for this video professor!
This is probably my favorite film of all time.
I also have watched it numerous times (12 times in the theater and countless times on DVD). The soundtrack composed by Hans Zimmer is also outstanding. And what about the chants?
There’s one shot in this film where the soldiers run up the hill, with bombs exploding around them, and a butterfly flies by the frame. Such a beautiful film.
you're welcome. 12 times?!! wow.
Jared Leto was in this movie lol
For some reason I never watched this movie. I think I was exhausted from all the great war movies from the 80s and saving private ryan was so good. Something about Maliks ethereal trailer didn't sit with me.
well, of course few directors are responsible for trailers at all. However, yep, the movie itself is ethereal.
This movie is about the core root problem of humanity as a whole, we are born sinners!😢
Malick wanted small time actors to get the major parts to work against the Hollywood hegemon game.
I'd like to interview to see if this is correct. He didn't do this in his other post-1999 films, except A Hidden Life.
Have you ever watch Underground from Emir Kusturica?
no. is it worth it?
Yes, its Antiwar black comedy
This movie is a war movie, if the band godspeed you! black emperor made a war movie.
I’ve been waiting for this one for a while! This movie has always been far and away my #1 desert island movie. The opening transports me “into” the movie emotionally more so than any other move I can think of. The third act (if one can call it a third act) is also my favorite ever. What is so frustrating is the narration. Not because it is so overbearing, but to me it is so boring. I’m one that is pretty strong in my beliefs of everything the narration asks. Some of the other narrative devices I find boring as well, such as the wife leaving her husband, the battle over what orders to give to soldiers etc etc. Regardless of all that I find boring or annoying about the movie narrative, everything about the movie makes it to me the most beautiful piece of cinema ever, in any way I can think of defining what makes a movie beautiful. Can’t wait to watch your take!
thank you for waiting. regarding the narration, I am puzzling over whether Malick thinks the word and image must be combined, or even whether the word (e.., the narration) is the authority over the image.
Malick seems to finally be getting back on track after years of crap since this masterpiece
not sure about crap, as I've covered a few of those movies on this channel.
@@LearningaboutMovies I take that back. I did enjoy “the new world” & “tree of life” but the other 2 were almost unwatchable for me.
“A Hidden Life” was outstanding.
What I like on that movi is the contrast between the beauty of the natur and what war is doing to it. Also I like very much that the Japanese are not shown as the evil stupit enemy which needs to be killed by the good and brave american, like the Germans in "Saving privat Rayn" In the thin red line, you can see that Japanese are hoams as well which have feelings and the right to fight in what they belive. Both sides are driven by leadership.
I'll have to rewatch it, but I remember hating it years ago and I find the director just way too pretentious. The only Malick movie that I really ever liked was Badlands.
You are wrong Todd!
Lots of big names lined up to be cast. Travolta was OK but didn't really fit IMO. The best thing is that De Niro was nowhere in sight.
3:00 well James became my SuperSTAR , not just some sort of star. OTOH, nickNolte was known, and seanPenn too, both did have big parts compared to Clooney, Cusack, etc. Anyway, I'm not interested in (sexy)already known Clooney, Cusack, Travolta,-celebs, or even by now famousCaviezel, but in what skill, education, decency talent or manners they have, or might have, ...for real!, in real Life,! James always has helped me LOTS!
Private Ryan is a nationalist, jingoistic Sgt. Rock adaptation. The Thin Red Line asks real questions and the cinematography was stunning.
You’re being really unfair to Saving Private Ryan. It showed the heroism of those men and their sacrifice too. Don’t just define it by its worst traits.
I love this film and have seen it quiet a few times but not that recently. Its striking to me from this video how much Christianity there is being referenced. I'm definitely not that and any ideas of an afterlife I find pointless to explore. I'm more of a naturalist with Science as my guiding pillar. The cruel self destruction is probably there to advance the 'survival of the fittest'. the world has to keep evolving to find an advantage over other life forms. Unfortunately humans use it against themselves. But I guess that's fair, if we kill animals without second thought why do we deserve pity. I just read in New Scientist about a book on explanations to human warring called 'Why War?' by Richard Overy. It sounds interesting might see if its something to read.
i think Private Witt and the Sean Penn character represent the two sides of atheisms v. faith. Mallick may in the end believe there is God but is not afraid to present both sides of the question. The best a thinking person can really say is they rely on faith. Its okay to doubt. Maybe this life is all we have. This does mean there is no morality but only that we has humans must rely on ourselves to create a just world.
Only because they are contemporary... The Thin Red Line is way better than Saving Private Ryan.
What makes 90s movies great? Maybe the last era without CGI. Then cinema started to decline in quality.
My favourite WW2 movie, in my opinion better than " private Ryan ".
Anyway don't agree about Okinawa as that was the last Island invaded in 45.
There were several islands where the Japanese had withdrawn into the jungle with the USA meeting no resistance on the beach.
I believe Bougainville being one example.
Anyway amazing film, love Malick, Hidden Life and New World are great as is badlands and days of heaven.
Not mad on song to song or Knight of cups etc.
✌️🤔 Interesting shot casting etc
th-cam.com/video/mCQR4iEihW0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/3BR2DBmH5uo/w-d-xo.html
I finally managed to get my hands on a 35mm cinema print of this masterpiece. What these film critics never mention is the standard of camera work - the way it's been captured forever is pretty important to me. I personally believe that this is the "steadiest" filmed war movie of recent times. I love tripod shots. The person who shot Saving Private Ryan belongs in prison. Great upload, but please start commenting on whether the camera work has been rushed or not. This film is definitely amongst the better ones.
You can make videos and talk about what you want. No need to tell others what to do.
@@LearningaboutMovies Surely you'd prefer something that has clearly taken time to produce (like The Thin Red Line) rather than rushed over a few weeks? It's just strange how nobody ever seems to bother about how a film is captured anymore. Handheld camera work is everywhere nowadays, it's like nobody has even noticed the deterioration. I've always said, if they're going to cut corners making it, I'll save time by not watching it. I wasn't arguing, I just find it bizarre that nobody seems to care about the picture on screen. I guess going to the cinema nowadays is just a Facebook status.
surely the real question this film is asking is how the hell did Thin Red line lose out on best picture at the Oscars to Shakespeare in love????? Harvey flippin Weinstein robbed Malick
Great film....a piece of art....
Concerning the water...John 4:13-14 "Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Jesus is saying that He is your answer and the only way to the Father and eternal peace.
With all due respect, I didn't care for this movie. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said this was a "Vietnam era" movie. Anti war, anti establishment, and more than a little bit of a political statement. I didn't like how 90% of the soldiers were portrayed as thieves, cowards, and psychopaths. Yes, soldiers are just like any other large body of people in that you will find these types of people in every group. What I don't agree with is that in this movie, these types were the rule rather than the exception. I also understand, but don't agree with Saving Private Ryan being labelled a "patriotic" movie. It begs the question, do you think that a patriotic movie is a "rah rah, go get 'em boys" type of movie? Is it a movie to make me proud of the men who served in such horrible conditions? Absolutely a resounding yes. Is it going to tug at my Americanism and make me enlist? Hardly. In fact, I would think it would have the opposite effect and scare the beejeebers out of me. I'm sure I'll get flamed for daring to write an opinion different from everyone in this forum, but that's why these gentlemen fought and died, yes?
a patriotic movie tends to elicits the sentiments associated with nation-state patriotism and remembering its war (wins or losses). That is fine. The difference is this movie is a kind of psalm, or book of psalms, about the cosmos. A man might be tough about war, as you see in a patriotic film, but when facing the cosmos and Death, no one is not a pathetically miniscule mite. As I said, Malick is more theologian than historian.
@@LearningaboutMovies I would agree with your take on Malik. I do wish he would have blended in a little more compassion for the common soldier rather than what I saw as mostly their dark side. War is a terrible thing and it sometimes makes good men do bad things. The evil side is and always has been there. But they are still humans and they have sacrificed for us and I wish that was better represented. Thank you for your work on this movie and I look forward to your next project.
@@ronlackey2689 i think you are missing the point. I don’t think the representation in this film is that bad or disrespectful to veterans. In fact I would say the two leading characters (Witt and Staros) are pretty clearly “good” or “moral,” and those are the characters the average viewer will connect with. Even Penn’s character is not outright psychotic or evil. But regardless, the point of anti-war films is not to criticize the soldiers or the individuals there it is to humanize them and to criticize the construct of war.
When we see vulnerability in the soldiers- which could manifest itself in acts if cruelty- the message is not that these evil acts are done because the soldiers themselves are evil. It is not a negative representation of soldiers. It is that these people, these regular humans, were pushed to do incredibly immoral things because of the machine of war- obviously both due to the intense circumstances they find themselves in and also because of the pressure of those running the machine; this is represented in this film by Notle’s character (and Travolta).
Basically anti-war films aim to make you connect with what these soldiers had to go through. They paid the ultimate sacrifice but what Malick and other posit is that their sacrifice was in vain, fruitless, or paid for because someone in the government wanted more land (Penn’s property comments in the film).
Patriotic films like Saving Private Ryan aren’t meant to make you enlist but ultimately glorify the sacrifice and present it as a much more meaningful use of human life. However what you’ll find in these films is that there is typically a positive representation of the drivers of war- the government and such. There are heroic acts by the soldiers but it is not limited to the individual. Look at the plot of Saving Private Ryan as a whole- the government wants to reward a family which has sacrificed so much in the name a freedom they are willing to dedicate many men to giving back to their citizens. Then we see incredible acts of bravery from the men.
In Thin Red Line, we see incredible acts from the men (Penn giving medical aid to a dying soldier, Witt staying behind) but the drivers of war are not glorified they are criticized (Notle).
You probably went to see this movie with different expectations. The book it was based on was full of those same negative characters you mentioned.
The military in wartime and peacetime is full of regular normal people, some are quiet, meek and simply did their jobs to complete the mission. They are in the background. They don't exactly make for good characters in war movies, so writers and directors focus on more colorful ones.
Mind you, many of those quiet ones also hide secrets, among them are probably thieves, cowards and psychopaths too, or even worse.
Saving Pvt. Ryan is a war movie tailored in the traditional Hollywood way. There really wasn't much time to hash out the characters, yet still it followed the same trope as one of the soldiers turned out to be a coward (who later redeemed himself in the end) and Capt. Miller was revealed to be a small town school teacher- the stereotypical citizen warrior. And also there's that Hollywood feel-good ending.
The Thin Red Line is more unconventional. I would not call it anti war or anti establishment, but the director had ways of painting the version of truth in his own style. Sure it's full of negative characters, but I disagree it's 90%, I think the multiple characters are presented well-balanced in contrast with each other, and the director showed compassion with each of them.
The movie is meditative, unlike Saving Pvt. Ryan, there was neither resolution nor happy ending. The closing scene of Thin Red Line pretty much summed up the Pacific campaign- no fireworks, just lowly grunts hoping for better days ahead as they prepared to assault another unknown island where hundreds of them won't survive.
The Thin Red Line resembled much closer to the HBO series The Pacific and less to Band of Brothers. I'm not sure why but war movies set in the Pacific tend to be more cynical and the characters much darker in their portrayals.
I have served in two recent wars and I bear witness to see these dark human characters. We're neither exactly all saints, nor we needed to be. Sure, we fought for freedom and free speech and all that good stuff BS our leaders and the media love to tell society and each other to make light of huge responsibilities and consequences of our action, but at the end of each day, for us it's only a matter of getting the job done, staying alive and thinking about coming home or having our next meal. In between are bouts of depression, moral dilemma, doubts and questions about life's purpose. The Thin Red Line captured it quite well.
I've just seen it for the second time now, and I just can't find the power in this movie. The first thing I dislike about it is the soundtrack. People say that it is immersive or dreamy, I find it's just poised all the time to tell me how I'm supposed to feel. Watch the movie without the sound and it's just a lot of disjointed staged footage of improbable military maneuvers.
My largest objection to this movie is that it begs the audience to help it struggle with its own lack of direction. Nothing pulls it together, it just wants the audience to help it wallow in the muck about warfare.
This is what happens when you are committed to some religious notion about life. You keep trying to find the "meaning" in it, and you hope your mish-mash of memory will redeem the experience of trauma. It never works. This movie thrashes about trying to come up with something to say, but all it does is plagiarize from past source material. Persons who want real philosophical exploration of war won't find anything here.
The movie declares in its first few minutes what you're going to experience: "Why is nature always fightin' itself?" It's a 5 year old's view of conflict in human society, complete with zero character development.
In the middle of a firefight on a grassy slope a tree snake shows up to menace one of the soldiers. This is the "beauty" people are claiming for this movie, just some jump-scares for people so they can think to themselves, "Ain't nature scary? And ain't soldiers just nature?" That's the size of this movie.
It's my favourite war movie of all time.
yup