Well gosh, looks like since FOX doesn't want me seeing their film, we'll have to trust strangers. I'm dying to see what Hallenbeck says. Anyway here we go...
Just saw a press screening of the Thin Red Line. Apparently what I saw was not the final print. A producer of the film was there and explained that the only real differences would be in the sound levels, though.
First, just let me say that whether it be the Malick-hype, the subject matter or the Oscar 'race', no reason seems good enough to compare this film to Saving Private Ryan. I don't say this because I loved Ryan or hated Ryan but because the two films share so little in common that it seems a disservice to lump them together.
The Thin Red Line, quite simply, is not interested in telling a straightforward story. It is much more ambitious than that. Yes, there are battles and the soldiers have an 'objective' but I would have a hard time calling this a war film. The World War II depicted here, while shot graphically and edited suspensefully, is hardly the star of the film or the target of it's commentary. Rather, I felt like the war was a by-product, a result of man's uneasy relationship with others and, more importantly, the world around him.
Okay, I'm through being cerebral, GO SEE THIS FILM. Five minutes wouldn't go by without me thinking "There's something I've never seen before". This is truly a film that says what it needs to visually. We are given only fragments of information regarding the actual military mission. The spare dialogue is not there for exposition. Even the voice over is impressionistic, shifting as it does from one charater to the next, never settling itself in a timeframe or point of view. And it works. It all works.
The only complaint I have is not with the film itself but the unfortunate and misleading press it has recieved because of all the stars attached to it. While the performances are outstanding (can anyone else help me defend Nick Nolte? After this, Afterglow, Mother Night and Affliction, the man needs an award!) they are not traditional performances. Hell, Adrien Brody, while perfecting a shell-shocked look, says maybe four or five words in the entire film. Most of the 'stars' have nothing more than glorified walk-ons. I wonder then, with all the hype, if people will be too busy waiting for those walk-ons to actually watch a screen.
I don't want to say too much else.. but here's the skinny. Awards? Sure, mostly on the visual side would be my guess. Better than Saving Private Ryan? I dunno, I thought so, but then I'm also getting sick of being told what to feel by Spielberg. Slower and less graphic than I was expecting. Also more visually inventive and beautiful than I could have imagined. Again, go see this film. Not because it's a war film or because of one actor or another. Terrance Malick deserves all the credit he's gotten. Here is a film that never once finds itself compromised by some actor's 'oscar moment', or dumbed-down plot developments or studio required reconciling.
happy viewing,
Imbroglio
