536 The Thin Red Line

[Tark]

The Thin Red Line is the best Criterion release since Au Hasard Balthazar...

Been quite a drought.

[HistoryProf]

you know, I saw Thin Red Line at the theater opening weekend and was really excited about it before going, but all I remember is that I actually fell asleep half way in and missed a good hour of it - the only time that's ever happened to me. It wasn't excruciating or anything, just so dreamily meditative that it put me right out. Because of that, i've never bothered to see it again, but i've been increasingly intrigued by all the praise it gets here and elsewhere. I love Badlands, enjoyed Days of Heaven and appreciate it's beauty, and had very mixed feelings on The New World - I thought it was amazing in spots, but lazy in others, and will never forgive him for falling into the John Smith trap.

I guess I'm asking where folks place it with the others? WHY are you all so excited? just because it's Malick? is there something tangible you can explain that makes this so fabulous for criterion to finally release? was there something wrong with previous dvds? In short, help me understand the excitement!

[Jun-Dai]

you know, I saw Thin Red Line at the theater opening weekend and was really excited about it before going, but all I remember is that I actually fell asleep half way in and missed a good hour of it - the only time that's ever happened to me. It wasn't excruciating or anything, just so dreamily meditative that it put me right out. Because of that, i've never bothered to see it again, but i've been increasingly intrigued by all the praise it gets here and elsewhere. I love Badlands, enjoyed Days of Heaven and appreciate it's beauty, and had very mixed feelings on The New World - I thought it was amazing in spots, but lazy in others, and will never forgive him for falling into the John Smith trap.

I guess I'm asking where folks place it with the others? WHY are you all so excited? just because it's Malick? is there something tangible you can explain that makes this so fabulous for criterion to finally release? was there something wrong with previous dvds? In short, help me understand the excitement!

"just because it's Malick" is a bit of a jab, isn't it?

Anyways, if nothing else, The Thin Red Line is one of the most aesthetically sumptuous films to come out of Hollywood, at least since black and white died. Putting aside the narrative, I'd say that The Thin Red Line ranks up there with Baraka and Planet Earth as one of those films that begs for a higher quality release than the DVD format allows (than Blu-ray allows, really, but I'll take what I can get).

I've always found the narrative a bit hard to follow and not terribly memorable, and the experience leaves me a bit the way Days of Heaven does, as more of an experience and less of a story. The first time I saw it, I hated the character narrations, and around the third time I saw the film I found them essential.

The film is a bit of a collage on the experience of war. It's also a step on the path of the celebration of being close to nature and the horrors of civilization, something that seems to have grown from a theme (in Badlands) to an obsession (in The New World). I've never particularly cared for that side of Malick, and that's probably why I found The New World particularly tough to swallow, because the entire film basically seems to boil down to that. In The Thin Red Line it's more of a heavyhanded theme that is just part of the larger film.

For one thing I'd always hoped that the rumors of a longer director's cut of The Thin Red Line were true, because the film is so disjointed as-is. My hope was that a longer version would come together in a way that made a bit more sense in terms of character development, or at least as a more effective pastiche of personal stories and thoughts about being in the war.

The Thin Red Line is far from a perfect film. But it's also a film that has makes its own place in film history, as there really is nothing else like it. It captures war from an aesthetic and philosophical perspective (set of perspectives really) that is as distinct as the other, much more problematic, WWII film that came out at the same time: Saving Private Ryan, the first twenty-five minutes of which is one of the greatest war films ever made, IMO. Amazing that the most aestheticized war film ever made and the most anti-aestheticized war film ever made would come out so close together. (The first twenty-five minutes of) Saving Private Ryan set a bar that most war and warlike action films have been trying to reach ever since, whereas The Thin Red Line has set a bar that no one else has really even tried to reach.

In summary, there are three reasons to be potentially excited about this release: Higher definition release of a film that would strongly benefit from it. Opportunity to involve John Toll and/or Malick in presenting the film (color balance wise, etc.) in a way that is most true to their vision of the film. Opportunity to at least get a glimpse at what a longer version of the film entailed (dare I hope that it would include a longer version? probably not), as well as a better understanding of what Malick was hoping to accomplish with the film, through his collaborators if nothing else.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

I'd love to hear Michael Herr's take on Thin Red Line.

Here are some other, interesting reviews of the film.

[richast2]

My favourite Malick by far. I wonder if he's been persuaded to allow any of the fabled deleted scenes to be included?

if anyone could convince him, Criterion could. That being said, I'm not holding my breath. The potential for the bonus features on this one is mind-boggling.

Well, except that Malick will absolutely not appear on camera or record any sort of commentary; he's not even likely to provide any sort of written comments. Having read every existing interview with him, it's his thoughts - and only his - that would really be interesting to me. His interview circa Badlands was fan-fucking-tastic regarding his influences and point of view. The commentaries on Days of Heaven were very good, though, and most surprising of all were Richard Gere's thoughtful, lucid remarks (who woulda guessed?). Seems to me that, as others have said, the single greatest feature would be an alternate cut/cuts (not likely) or at least some of the alternate footage (more likely but still not holding my breath).

I wasn't hoping Malick would appear on camera or anything, but given the number of cast members, I'm sure they could get some great interviews. Plus, they could include Billy Bob Thornton's unused narration as an alternate audio track.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

Was that narration ever written/edited to fit the current film? Or a rough cut? I can imagine ten hours of that sort of thing, sort of formless... bring it on!

[foofighters7]

I was under the impression BBT did record the narration (however many hours it was).

I could be wrong about that.

[zedz]

In response to HistoryProf's question, and following on from Jun-Dai's fine post, what I love about the film is that it isn't really a war film at all, yet it does all of the war-movie business very well, in a fascinatingly fragmentary sort of way.

The message of the film, it seems to me, isn't that war is hell, or war is a tragedy, but that, in the big scheme of things, war is irrelevant - which is a rather daring and unpalatable line for a Hollywood war film blockbuster to take. This ties in with the themes of other Malick films, but I find it much more pungent and provocative in this context (whether I agree with it or not).

Thus we have the indigenous people who can barely even see the soldiers, and we have Malick carefully denying us the character throughlines that would anchor a traditional war movie - but not denying us significant 'character bits' or detailed episodes of coherent incident. I actually think he does the latter surprisingly well, with the assault on the hill and the chase down the river being much better constructed and explicated 'action sequences' than those in most other war films. And yet even those extremely solid, functional sequences ultimately sort of evaporate.

Also in the film's favour is the fact that it looks and sounds simply stunning on the big screen, and I've never been 100% convinced by the prettiness of Malick's other films. From a purely technical standpoint, this film will benefit greatly from the upgrade to Blu.

Finally, the film's production history - alluded to above - is really fascinating, and practically everybody's still around, including lots of big names who are hardly in the finished film (or aren't there at all), so there's huge potential for juicy and pertinent extras. I'd love to see it get the lavish treatment afforded the far less deserving The Last Emperor.

[Cinephrenic]

I think it is both Morris and Malick. As pointed out, The Thin Blue Line is IFC and currently OOP.

[George Kaplan]

Even more than war, the film seems to me a meditation on death. Witnessing death, coping with death, premonitions of death, living with death. With the war a setting that allows for an amplification of a more inclusive world view. Or perhaps an implication that war is our world, mankind's culture.

(And the idea of the Hawks as an extra is way, way too good to be true. But one can dream.)

[MyNameCriterionForum]

I think he missed the boat by not utilizing Harry Nilsson's "Coconut" over the end credits.

And the idea of the Hawks as an extra is way, way too good to be true.

The what?

[aox]

This thread really makes me feel like the fat kid in PE class. I have sat through this film twice and I just don't get it. Doesn't help I don't really like Mallick I assume. The only film of his I haven't seen of his is Days of Heaven, so there is still hope (I have been holding out for the Blu Ray). And his new project sounds very interesting.

Don't get me wrong, he has a wonderful eye for photography and I respect him as a director, but there is something about his style I get into that I can't put my finger on.

The fans of this movie and the way they talk about it interest me more I think. Mallick as a person himself interests me more than his films as well. The mystique is fascinating.

[George Kaplan]

And the idea of the Hawks as an extra is way, way too good to be true.

The what?

Someone (who?), a few posts back speculated on the possible inclusion of RED LINE 7000.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

This thread really makes me feel like the fat kid in PE class. I have sat through this film twice and I just don't get it. Doesn't help I don't really like Mallick I assume. The only film of his I haven't seen of his is Days of Heaven, so there is still hope (I have been holding out for the Blu Ray). And his new project sounds very interesting.

Don't get me wrong, he has a wonderful eye for photography and I respect him as a director, but there is something about his style I get into that I can't put my finger on.

The fans of this movie and the way they talk about it interest me more I think. Mallick as a person himself interests me more than his films as well. The mystique is fascinating.

I know a lot of people who find Malick (and, for another example, Wong Kar Wai) very good but also so close to awful that their work troubles them. Like they both straddle this line of sumptuousness/indulgence or sophistication/naivete that it can be painful to watch. I agree but think Malick generally errs on the right side of those problems.

As for the man himself, I hear he likes hamburgers and hot weather.

[Tom Hagen]

Finally, the film's production history - alluded to above - is really fascinating, and practically everybody's still around, including lots of big names who are hardly in the finished film (or aren't there at all), so there's huge potential for juicy and pertinent extras. I'd love to see it get the lavish treatment afforded the far less deserving The Last Emperor.

I agree that there is a huge potential for juicy extras, but I sincerely doubt that we'll get them AND have a director-approved edition. It's needless for any of us to re-hash the Salinger-esque aspects of the man's personality; suffice to say, Malick is a guy who wouldn't even sign the bloody "director-approved" sticker on Criterion's Days of Heaven. There's no way is he lending his name to a project that uncovers filmmaking inside dish, especially one that would reveal (speculation* on my part) that he's a monstrous pain in the ass to work with.

I imagine that we'll get a dry production commentary and interviews, maybe (if we're lucky) a talking head or two on Malick, and an exquisite director-supervised high def transfer -- possibly including previously-excised footage.

* Informed speculation based on anecdote, particularly the telling of the Days of Heaven shoot and edit from Easy Riders, Raging Bulls.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

...he's a monstrous pain in the ass to work with.

Sean Penn seems to like him!

[Svevan]

...the assault on the hill and the chase down the river being much better constructed and explicated 'action sequences' than those in most other war films. And yet even those extremely solid, functional sequences ultimately sort of evaporate.

I can't agree that these action scenes are "extremely solid," and it was a major source of my disappointment. I'm captivated by a film's ability to capture geography, landscape, in a three dimensional, comprehensible way. Full Metal Jacket, for instance, gives us a detailed spatial understanding of the battleground where the last 30 minutes take place. I tend to connect this with Bazin's proclaimed "limits" of montage, yet it's not limited only to Kubrickian long takes. The Hurt Locker is a more recent example where the audience is placed in a comprehensible space, despite the fast editing which in other films tends to obfuscate rather than clarify an environment's depth. (Children of Men is an example of a film where long takes were just as spatially disorienting as fast editing, IMO; I had no idea where I was even without edits.)

In the scenes you mentioned above, Malick is able to communicate the story and there are some elegant shots and montages, but I never felt like I understood the hill, or where the troops were placed in relation to it. I got glimpses of (maybe there's a more correct theoretical term for it) spatial understanding, but it was never fulfilled, especially as Malick tended to cut to men in grass without contextualizing where on the hill they were. To me, in Malick, it's not so important that the character is in a grass field on a specific hill, but that he's in the concept of grass, on the concept of dirt, himself the idealization of a soldier. This comes through even in that action scene. Because of that spatial disconnect, I wouldn't call the action scenes in Red Line "solid."

[Tom Hagen]

...he's a monstrous pain in the ass to work with.

Sean Penn seems to like him!

I know Penn likes him. I believe he actually hung around for post-production on the film.

[AfterTheRain]

Now that we know that Malick's version of TTRL is being released, I wonder if CC also picked up the 1964 version to be released alongside it as well (a la Magnificent Obsession)?

[MyNameCriterionForum]

That would be the single most deflating extra feature they could possibly include on this release. I want five discs of unused footage -- or nothing at all.

[HistoryProf]

"just because it's Malick" is a bit of a jab, isn't it?

oh, I didn't mean it as one...just in the "any malick is good malick!" kind of sense...you know that kind of thing we hear here all the time from fans of various directors....Godard, Bergman, etc etc. Certainly meant nothing negative by it.

and thank you for the thoughtful reply...that's why I love this place I think in retrospect I wasn't even remotely prepared for The film. I was in grad school at the time, and had seen Saving Private Ryan only a week or two earlier...I've wondered over the years if my experience would have been entirely different had i seen them in the other order.

The New World bothered me for reasons of verisimilitude, but it was utterly gorgeous. I think in that one my expectations were SO high there was no way I would have been happy with it. I almost fainted when I first saw the teaser poster at the theater long before it was eventually released. I was REALLY excited for that one, and felt let down - the all too common but unfair reaction we all have at some point.

So I am anxious to give this another shot - I was just curious what precisely those who raved loved about the film....I enjoy being convinced something i've passed over is worth revisiting. And since my own journey into the world of "Film" really only began a year or two AFTER I saw Thin Red Line, I'm confident that my senses are much more attuned than they were in 1998...I didn't really know jack shit back then...but I know enough now and have seen so much since that I'm excited to revisit this with new eyes - and knowing what to expect.

[anne_zombie]

My favourite Malick by far. I wonder if he's been persuaded to allow any of the fabled deleted scenes to be included?

if anyone could convince him, Criterion could. That being said, I'm not holding my breath. The potential for the bonus features on this one is mind-boggling.

Well, except that Malick will absolutely not appear on camera or record any sort of commentary; he's not even likely to provide any sort of written comments. Having read every existing interview with him, it's his thoughts - and only his - that would really be interesting to me. His interview circa Badlands was fan-fucking-tastic regarding his influences and point of view. The commentaries on Days of Heaven were very good, though, and most surprising of all were Richard Gere's thoughtful, lucid remarks (who woulda guessed?). Seems to me that, as others have said, the single greatest feature would be an alternate cut/cuts (not likely) or at least some of the alternate footage (more likely but still not holding my breath).

Well, somehow war movies always seem to be held in high regard in the US - appearing to promise great sales from a special edition DVD. It's understandable that Criterion chose this title. I can't wait to see how much the company will be able to improve on the stupendous British DVD transfer! THE THIN RED LINE is indeed terrific and almost unbearably moving, but I feel it does not take repeat viewings as well as BADLANDS. It's too painful to revisit. I feel.

BADLANDS is testing, too, but not as relentlessly so as RED, IMHO. Such a shame that Criterion didn't seem to be able to secure the rights to BADLANDS this time around. A perfect pairing with the latter title would be IN COLD BLOOD, where Scott Wilson gives a heartbreaking and shockingly subdued performance, the subject matter considered. His starring role in THE GRISSOM GANG might rival it, perhaps even eclipsing it; the only mannerism of his that calls attention to itself is his use of his tongue in both features(no, not in a dirty way). I have yet to see his most celebrated part in THE NINTH CONFIGURATION. But I digress, better stop here.

[dadaistnun]

Such a shame that Criterion didn't seem to be able to secure the rights to BADLANDS this time around.

Just because we're getting a Criterion Thin Red Line doesn't mean they're not working on Badlands. My understanding of the Warner sort-of-deal is that there are a very few select titles they are licensing to Criterion at the request of their respective directors. Seeing as how Malick was hands-on with the Days of Heaven transfer, I think it's probably a safe bet Badlands is one of those titles.

[anne_zombie]

Such a shame that Criterion didn't seem to be able to secure the rights to BADLANDS this time around.

Just because we're getting a Criterion Thin Red Line means they're not working on Badlands. My understanding of the Warner sort-of-deal is that there are a very few select titles they are licensing to Criterion at the request of their respective directors. Seeing as how Malick was hands-on with the Days of Heaven transfer, I think it's probably a safe bet Badlands is one of those titles.

I most certainly hope you are right, thank you for responding. There are so few titles available from Malick (I wonder how he fills his days in-between his films). THE NEW WORLD does not appear as a likely candidate for a future Criterion release, if I read you correctly? If so, do you have something to say about my presumption?

[aox]

18 years between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line must have been grueling for any fan of his work.