Harry here, frustrated as hell that I haven't seen this film yet. Quite honestly I'm dying to see it. I spoke to Hallenbeck on Sunday when he saw the film, he told me he was glad he saw it, that he'd never see it again, that there were several moments where he wanted to get up and get a breath of fresh air because the film was claustrophobic, and he felt it was pretentious as hell. Well, as soon as he said PRETENTIOUS.... I wanted to hear Moriarty's view on the film. Hallenbeck is still wrestling with his review, which I can only conclude would match my review of GOODFELLAS and LONE STAR, a pair of films I'm glad I've seen, that I thought were amazing, and I never want to see them again. But for now... I leave you in the capable hands of the dear Professor....
“Moriarty” here.
Even someone dedicated to Pure Evil, as I am, can appreciate the holidays, especially when gifts are involved. This year, all of my henchmen were very generous (well, the ones that are still living were, anyway), so I was in a wonderful mood when we headed out to Westwood the evening of the 25th to take in the prime time show of THE THIN RED LINE, another of my presents. For someone who adores the earlier work of Terrence Malick, this has been a long time coming. I read the script for the film last winter and have been dying of anticipation ever since. Along with STAR WARS: TPM and EYES WIDE SHUT, this film has been a mild obssession since the first announcements about it were made. Living in Los Angeles is nice this time of year since we get the exclusive Academy runs of films. From what I understand, THE THIN RED LINE opens for the rest of America in the middle of January.
Well, get ready, folks, because you really aren’t prepared for what you’re going to get. I can confidently predict right now that many filmgoers will walk out of this film frustrated, confused, and even angry at the investment of time. Many people will try to compare the film to this summer’s SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, thinking that they’re similar because both focus on WWII as a setting. In the end, this film may never find a mass audience, which would be a shame but not a surprise. Why? Because Terrence Malick has made a film that is bold, experimental, deeply thoughful and thought provoking, and unlike any other experience I’ve had in a theater this year.
To begin with, I should say that anyone who’s looking for an exercise in conventional narrative storytelling should just stay home. Malick’s after something more than that here. Like 2001, or like last year’s brilliant KUNDUN, this is a film that truly could only exist as cinema, visual storytelling. Malick has made a $70 million poem about any number of themes. The film deals with the idea that man’s nature is to be at war while our ideal is to be at peace. It deals with the idea that nature is a constant, beautiful force that no war of ours can truly touch. It deals with the way men make an island of themselves during war, holding on to whatever image or memory or desire they need to get them through alive. And that’s just scratching the surface. This is a film that is literally drowning in ideas... and that’s a good thing. It’s invigorating to see a filmmaker who truly believes in the medium as something more than mere entertainment. The work that Malick has done here is enough to send other filmmakers staggering out of the theater as if they were drunk. To see the way he and the brilliant photographer John Toll have put this film together is truly to go back to school. The film almost feels thought-activated, as if Malick has created some new system that allows him to simply roam freely over the film as it unfolds, dipping in to sample the thoughts of this character, then this one. Shifting perspectives, multiple voice-overs, jarring cuts backwards and forwards in time -- these are all things that we’re taught not to do in filmmaking. Malick shatters the rules and manages to achieve something of real power and beauty here.
His cast is outstanding, but the performances aren’t your typical Hollywood idea of great performances. There’s no big speechifying here. There are very few moments where anyone takes center stage to “act.” Malick shoots unknowns and movie stars with an equal eye and the effect is unsettling. He doesn’t give the movie stars the weight we expect them to have, and it leaves an audience unsure how to react to them. I think the point is made brilliantly that in war, faces come and go. Some are familiar, some aren’t, but none of them are around for long. There are actors like Nick Stahl and Adrien Brody who barely speak at all in the film, yet I’d say they did fine work. Even John Cusack, who shows up for a major sequence in the middle of the picture, barely speaks while onscreen. When he does, it’s not the kind of “hip” or catchy dialogue that you’ll be quoting to your buddies for weeks. There’s none of the Hollywood polish of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN present here. Malick seems to have stripped his original script down to basics, and what we’re left with is both very natural, and almost surreal. It’s because he allows us into the interior lives of his characters that there’s such a seemingly conflicted nature to the film. I love the effect, though. I found it mesmerizing. Viewers who aren’t used to having to stay engaged for the full length of the film might get tired of the way Malick keeps taking windows into different charactes, but it’s really not that confusing. Yes, Jim Caviezal (outstanding as Witt) and Ben Chaplin (equally good as Bell) look somewhat alike. Critics seem to be harping on that as a bad thing. Perhaps that’s the point, though. These men are all essentially the same once the infantry has them. As Witt speculates, “What if we are all just one soul, one man with many faces?” The film examines the bonds that make these wildly different men similar. None of them have any individual worth to their higher-ups, something that is clearly illustrated in a great scene between John Cusack and Nick Nolte, who delivers his typical exemplary work here as a man who’s happy to finally have his war. His role, Col. Tall, was offered at one point to Harrison Ford, who would have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar this year if he’d had the balls to play it. Instead, Harrison ran off chasing the paycheck and made the miserable, stinking 6 DAYS, 7 NIGHTS instead, proving once again how deeply out of touch he is with his true gifts as an actor.
Overall, this is the kind of picture that makes me proud to be a filmmaker. I am excited when someone steps up to the plate and really makes a contribution to the art. Malick’s return is every bit as wonderful as I’d hoped it would be, and is in many ways even greater. As I said, I read the script to this film, and in most major ways, it couldn’t have been more different from the final film. Malick essentially shot one movie, then edited a completely different one. Characters vanished, storylines were eliminated, the entire opening with Witt gone AWOL was created, and the brilliant narration was composed completely after the fact. I am in awe of the way Malick made this movie, since it’s obvious that he allowed himself to stay open to whatever he shot. People have accused him of being a control freak like Kubrick is rumored to be, but only a generous artist could have found a movie the way Malick did this one. There’s real courage in leaving behind a great, literate screenplay and trying to forge something even more adventurous, even more daring out of the footage you’ve shot. To have that experiment pay off as well as it did here must have been rapturous. It definitely was for me as a viewer.
In the end, I can’t say I recommend the film for everyone, but I will say that anyone who is willing to lay aside any conventional thinking will be rewarded. Don’t take RYAN into the theater with you. It’s not fair to either Speilberg or Malick. They were after such different things that it’s like comparing the work of a photographer and a painter. One is after a record of something, while the other is after an impression. Spielberg may have set new standards for realism in a war movie, but Malick has forged something that is cerebral, emotional, and haunting.
It may not have been a conventional Christmas film, but it’s the thing I’m happiest to have found under my tree this year. Thank you, Fox, for your faith in Mr. Malick. Thank you, Terrence Malick, for giving us another gem. And thank you, Harry, for continuing to give me, Moriarty, a forum for these thoughts.
Happy Holidays, all, and have an excellent New Year.
“Moriarty” out.
