Yup, some more movie chatter! Most of my viewing time recently has been TV shows, several of which might make there way here eventually, but yes, we do still watch movies from time to time :) This was one that had ended up on my queue after reading one of the Top 100-type lists. I can't remember if it was in an article or one of the AFI lists, or what, but it was ranked as one of those 'movies you should see.' So I did! Here you go, my thoughts on The Thin Red Line.
Plot: The movie follows an Army company during the Battle of Guadalcanal, from the landing on the beach through much of the fighting. An ensemble piece with a very strong cast, the film examines the soldiers' thoughts and reactions to the bloodiness and chaos of the war they have been drawn into.
There are two areas of comments that I have for this movie - artistic merits and entertainment value. It really is one of 'those movies' when it comes to art v. entertainment. And the movie will appeal to some and not to others for exactly this reason. If you're looking for a daring-do sort of adventure movie or a more 'traditional' sort of war movie, this is not the film for you. Even other modern war movies, like "Saving Private Ryan" for example, while less traditional, are much more plot driven than this one. "The Thin Red Line" explores greater themes using the war as a setting, rather than the story itself. It really doesn't matter what battle, or even what war, this company is involved in. Amidst the chaos of battle, the characters examine themes like courage, death, and the existence of God, among others. I'm sure they could have set a similar story in WWI, Vietnam, modern day fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The point is more the human reaction to war, not the battle itself. Very much a 'thinking' war movie.
And this cerebral aspect makes it an interesting movie, one to watch at least once. It's a very Artistic take on a war movie. I considered it a 'surreal vision of the idea that War Is Hell.' The way they play with sound for example - some of the most chaotic, bloodiest, violent scenes of battle are almost soundless, simply a character's voice-over or an light instrumental piece. Where another movie would be at one of it's loudest points, this one is at one of it's softest. It give the fighting a very detached feel, like you have been inescapably sucked into the storm, but that you are watching from outside as it swirls around you. The pacing too - things that might have been the focus of another movie (action scenes, battle, etc) are more quickly paced and more time is spent on the build-up to battle and on the aftermath.
Thinking of pacing, this is veeeeeery slowly paced (it is 3 hours, after all). It honestly took me a good third of the movie to get into the story and to distinguish and care about any of the characters. This is where the 'entertainment value' critique comes in. I will care much more about the philosophic pondering of someone if I can distinguish them from each other. Characters also appear and disappear from the story with little announcement or explanation. Yes, I realize that's how battle goes, but it does make it harder to follow which soldier is following which train of thought. And thinking of details almost omitted, I had to look up the plot description first to even know what battle they were preparing to fight. It was very vaguely discussed at first, more talk of "taking the airstrip" or "taking the island" rather than Guadalcanal as a specific name. I guess this was done intentionally, to keep the movie as more of a commentary on war itself, as opposed to this specific battle. For an entertaining movie, one typically turns to plot-driven films. This is much more slowly paced, taking the viewer through the characters thoughts as they face battle and survive it. Quite honestly, philosophic epics aren't usually what one chooses for light afternoon fare. Still, if you're looking for something deeper, this is a well-done film.
Finally, the cast. This is another area in which the film excels. It's an ensemble piece, and just about everyone who has a speaking line is Somebody, or became Somebody. The leads, if there are any, are played by Sean Penn and Jim Caviezel, as a jaded sergeant and a quiet, spiritual, almost ethereal private. Caviezel does a lot of the narrating, and his soft, smooth voice suits well all the talk about finding courage and finding what lies after death. Penn's gruff sergeant tries more to find the numbness that will let him survive this carnage after being in so many other battles. Ben Chaplin plays another major role, as a soldier thinking of his wife at home (definitely a part where the movie drags, as he dreams of his wife). Chaplin's longing and sadness give him probably the most emotional character. It's a very strong cast, and seeing the reputation of the director, I'm sure people were falling over themselves to be a part!
Overall: 3 of 5. Liked it, very well done, but also very veeery long. Hard to get into, and hard to feel for the characters for easily the first third of the movie. Not one for the shelf, but I'm glad I've seen it now.
