Never quite figured this DVD insert out

After 15 years in the wilderness, Malick returned to find his movie released at more or less the same time as another WWII epic, Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, and found himself on the receiving end of some unfavourable comparisons. After all, Malick may be legendary among movie nuts, hence the amazing cast assembled here, but his name doesn’t carry the same box-office clout as Spielberg.

When the dust has died down, it’s easy to see that Malick was never going to win this particular battle. He isn’t particularly interested in creating a box-office epic, in making a facile anti-war statement, or even in World War II at all. As in his other movies, he creates a dream-like atmosphere, but in this case it only serves to destroy any popular appeal he might have had, and more importantly, weaken the movie’s sense of history. He could have made a Vietnam movie with only minor changes to the script and storyline, and probably could have sold it to many more people.

In fact Malick’s movie contains lots of things we’ve come to associate with Vietnam movies: mumbled voice-overs, hallucinatory images, crazed leadership, sudden descents into what seems like madness – however before the days of Apocalypse Now, Malick had used them all in Badlands and Days of Heaven. So he’s right at home, and if you liked his previous stuff, this exhibits the same strengths (and of course weaknesses). The composition and lighting are perfect, if not quite as over-beautiful as in Days of Heaven. The voice-over serves to further distance the viewer from the ‘action’, in fact we seem to get multiple voice-overs from different characters, and I can’t have been alone in being unable to distinguish whose point of view we’re supposed to be using at any given time.

Not only that, the voiceovers consist of bizarre existential ramblings- “Who am I?”, “Who are you?”, “What is this thing?”, “Hello clouds hello sky…” and so on. It’s as if Uncle Sam had taken the Army’s most disjointed thinkers, formed a Philosophical Platoon, and then sent them somewhere with beautiful scenery so they’d have something to ramble about. It’s entirely possible that this sort of platoon existed, but most soldiers I meet are more concerned with beer and women.

That’s maybe a bit unfair, there are a couple of very moving and conventional scenes which involve the viewer, but then again, plot and storytelling never were Malick’s concerns. The plot here is lifted more or less from Hamburger Hill, concerning a futile attempt to take a piece of land against ridiculous odds, and this gives the movie a much-needed sense of urgency, which I found lacking in Malick’s earlier work. There are also many fine performances, even if they don’t seem rooted in the ’40s. Sean Penn comes up with a more thoughtful variation of his character from Casualties of War, John Savage repeats his Deerhunter lunacy, Nick Nolte sticks his jaw out manfully as usual, and Woody Harrelson, George Clooney and John Travolta show they aren’t afraid to send themselves up. For me the outstanding performances come from actors I’ve never previously rated: Elias Koteas, Ben Chaplin and Jim Caviezel (OK, I didn’t rate him because I’d never seen him before this movie).

It’s hard to view as a disappointment, because Malick never gave us any indication that he’d come up with anything else. In fact, despite its numerous borrowings from other sources, it’s a fascinating and unique movie, or would be if Malick hadn’t made his previous two movies. On the other hand, it’s hard to recommend The Thin Red Line to the casual viewer, because when the end titles roll, it’s like waking from a dream where everything is very interesting but you’re not quite sure of the meaning.

Mild Peril Rating:

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Twitter