Below is an excerpt about The Thin Red Line from my Malick thesis, written between the time that I was 20-22. Admittedly, I find the writing to be rather juvenile and awkward at times, so I'm glad I had reason to revisit it. It's publication has been in limbo the past two years and I really think it's time to go back and completely revamp the writing style. At any rate, I think it may shed some light on the film, although it's difficult to get the full grasp of Malick's intentions without seeing all four of his films and/or reading my analyses of the other three films.
[Show spoiler]While Badlands and Days of Heaven display a masterful use of simplistic, terse narration, The Thin Red Line shows an evolution on Malick’s part in that a new narrative style is introduced. Instead of the naïve narration that Holly and Linda use in his previous two films, Malick’s third film adopts a much more expansive narrative approach, incorporating the thoughts and observations of several different characters, often done so in a poetically abstract manner. The effect of this narrative evolution both impresses and confounds, in that it is a bold and audacious transition from the single narration of the previous two films, while the incorporation of several different points-of-view can sometime confuse the viewer, especially due to the almost lyrical nature of these narrations.
The first character (and closest to a central protagonist as the film comes) that the audience is introduced to is Private Witt, an AWOL army private who has escaped to a Pacific island and is living among the peaceful natives. After a brief montage of images of nature, as is one of Malick’s trademarks, Private Witt’s narration begins, and it sets the tone for the rest of the film. He says, “What’s this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power but two?” Witt’s contemplation on the paradoxical nature of war is indicative of the sort of questions Malick poses in the ensuing 170 minutes of the film, and to great effect. It is immediately evident that Witt’s narration, in conjunction with his surroundings, are meant to offer a stark contrast between the war that he as a soldier is supposed to be involved in, and the serene nature that the natives of a secluded island evoke. These natives, while they may catch glimpses of ships and airplanes, are completely isolated from the events that are occurring throughout the world in 1942-1943, and as such they are largely unaffected by it. As the opening montage displays, they are living at peace with their natural surroundings, as most primitive people do, and they do not take nature or tranquility for granted, as it is how they have survived for hundreds of years.
Private Witt’s opening voice-over also is imperative to the film as a whole in that it poses the question of whether or not nature is the sole dominant force in the world, or if there is “Not one power but two?” This seems to be an extension of Days of Heaven, in which Malick deliberately displays the grand power of nature, and the subsequent inconsequentiality of people. This question is much more prevalent in and significant to The Thin Red Line, however, in that war is the ultimate test of humanity, both individually and collectively, with a large portion of people questioning the presence of their god in the process. This questioning of one’s faith as it relates to war and nature is subsequently enhanced through Witt’s next narration, in which he says, “The great evil, where does it come from? How did it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from?” As was the case with his previous narration, Private Witt contemplates what it is that infuses us as humans with the ability to commit great acts of violence.
All humans have the potential for evil inside of them, but it is a matter of what influences this manifestation and why some people display and ultimately show it more so than others. This question, which is enhanced by war, seems to be the most important point that Witt’s contemplation arises. Is this evil inside of each and every one of us able to be controlled? Or, is there some external force, as Witt ponders, that is able to bring it out in selected individuals? It is impossible to know the answer to this question but there is one inexorable truth about evil, as evidenced by the film—every single person is capable of evil, even if the degree and cause of such varies.
Although The Thin Red Line is very much a film that has no true main protagonist, other than possibly Private Witt, there are several other characters in the film whose narratives are vital to the construction and subsequent understanding of the film. Colonel Tall, the main commander in the raid on Guadalcanal in the movie, is such a character. While he appears to be rigid and invested solely in the success of the mission at hand, he is much more multi-dimensional. Here is a Colonel who has never been involved in actual combat until this point, and must assume leadership in one of the most significant battles of World War II. It is readily apparent that he relishes this opportunity, but at the same time he laments what it cost to get him there.
Standing on the deck of the troop ship on the way to the island, he says in narration, “All they sacrificed for me. Poured out like water on the ground. All I might have given for love’s sake. Too late.” This is an apparent reference to his frustrated desire to obtain and fulfill his professional goals, while squandering his possibility to enjoy a family life. Once again, Malick uses nature imagery to convey this point, by using water as an example. Love, like water, is something that can be obtained and kept, but when it is poured out onto the ground it slowly and gradually seeps away and ultimately disappears. This appears to be the case for Colonel Tall. While he had a family who supported him, his desire to fulfill his professional goals overshadowed the success that he had at home. Now, on his way to his first act as a commander in battle, he briefly laments this loss, although not completely. Instead, it seems as though he regrets that he did not enjoy and hold on to love, but now that it has passed him by and he has achieved his career goal it is not as significant of a loss as it would have been if he was not given the opportunity to lead his men into battle. Thus, while he has feelings of remorse, he feels that it may just have been worth it in the end.
While Malick poses many interesting questions throughout the course of the film, he does not answer any of the questions specifically, but this seems to be beside the point. It appears that Malick’s intention is to bring to light these virtually unanswerable questions as a way to convey to the viewer that when a person is faced with potential death, they may not only be thinking about how best to survive, but concurrent with these thoughts, in a potentially subliminal manner, they may be contemplating topics of an existential nature. Sometimes it takes perilous circumstances to reflect and expound upon that which we all enjoy but often take for granted.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
There's no way she would've left her hand out on a pole, this was just a way to throw in a gross, "shocking" moment. again, we're talking 2-3 days here, I really don't think "where is my right hand located" is top priority on her mind. she's eaten nothing. she may even be hallucinating. when looked at in context, anything is possible. so the hand on the rail is realistic. IMO, if it stayed tucked in her sleeve the entire time, that would be grossly unrealisitci! There's also no way that these people would have neglected to zip up their jackets all the way so that their faces were covered. Correct me if I"m wrong, but their jackets didn't cover their faces EVEN IF they were zipped up all the way. Again this goes back to the logic of being up there: zipped up jacket = I'm stuck here and nobody is coming for me. unzipped up jacket = I'm stuck up here and nobody is coming for me. Its not whether the jacket is 95% or 100% zipped up that is the #1 thing on their mind, but how they're going to get off teh ski carBut of course, you can't watch a film with a bunch of people that have their faces covered. Plus this gave the filmmakers one more opportunity to throw another cheap "shocking" frostbite part in there.cheap frostbite part in there?? In 9/10 cases of this really happening, I GUARANTEE you frostbite like what we saw would actually happen. it may be facial, or on the hand, but it made the film more realistic, not less realistic
Linear Mode
