Jump to content

Movie: THE THIN RED LINE


Duffy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sgt_Rock_EasyCo
I like the Thin Red Line, it is one of my favorite movie. This is not a war movie, it is a movie about human nature.

It is not anti-american neither pro-japanese, in my humble opinion. People who doesn't like it expected another war movie but it's not.

The war is just a background to portrays the human characters when confronted to critical situations.

I have never been to war so I can't talk about the aspects that relate to combat situation dilemma, the weight of command but the USMF members who did seem to have recognized situations they have been involved in and real life characters they have met when in the service.

I am with Hoovie, Jon Prince, Marineamtracer, Konig and all those who like this great movie.

 

So lets go with the "human nature" thing for discussional purposes.

 

During a time of expanding political correctness and the insatiable need for the US to apologize to the antagonists of previous wars; doesn't it seem odd that the US military was made out as the antagonstic character? Why not the Japanese? Why were the Japanese made out to be such professional and morale soldiers when generally, the opposite was true, at least with regard to morality? Why is it that the US military gets lambasted by Hollywood as the antagonist in many movies?

 

The anti-war sentiment is fine and dandy except that civilians and especially hollywood always lose sight of the fact that soldiers are the first ones to find war objectionable. I liken this topic to blaming the police for all crime. The police do not cause the crime; people of evil and immoral intent cause crime and the police respond to it to stop or minimize it. Soldiers respond to threats on a global level because some politician, advised by generals, decided that a group or government was a real and present danger to our security. Soldiers are the international police and do not cause the war, but merely respond to it.

 

So the political discussion as to whether or not military action is merited must be done between politicians and generals. The fact is that these movies place blame on the soldiers, and more often than not, the US military is made to look foolish- particularly the individual soldiers from that conflict. In the case of movies like the Thin Red Line, Full Metal Jacket, Apocolypse Now, among others, the conflict comes into question however the victims are the troops that fought those conflicts.

 

The facts are that 99% of American troops that served in all conflicts are good people, morale people, and were good to excellent soldiers. Most of them returned home to become useful members of society. Hollywoods portayal of soldiers, such as Thin Red Line, are generally grossly inaccurate. No generation suffered more than our Vietnam Veterans- Not just from war, but the misguided judgement of them when they got home. The fact that the enemy was inherently immoral is often lost in history because the truth is the first victim when it comes to senationalism or an anti-military agenda.

 

If you watch the media at a veterans gathering, they ignore the veterans in suits and ties that came home to become productive members of society. What the media wants, especially with Vietnam Vets, is the BDU Clad, bearded, hippie looking creature with the forlorn brow. The truth is that often these camo'd up vets never served in a combat unit in Vietnam, never fired a shot, or weren't in Vietnam at all! Some were never in the military! But the media has been trained to find veterans that are victims of the US Political War Machine. They must be sad sacks or the story isn't senational enough.

 

Never mind that the suit and tie wearers are former Green Beret's with three combat tours with SOG or a Fighter Pilot with tours in Korea and Vietnam- some of the suit and tie crowd were NCO's and Officers that came home to become Doctors, Lawyers, Businessmen and a great credit to society. They were proud of their service and would do it all over again given the chance. But no, we can't portray our soldiers as good and honest men placed into the cauldron of combat not of their choosing. We cannot portray them as men of honor, truth, courage, morality, excellence and professionalism. No, we must make them out to be disorganized, inhuman, evil, unprofessional, and despicable murderers.

 

I served with draftees, volunteers, 2 year termers and lifers. Almost 100% of them were good and morale men that did a fine job. They trained hard, tried hard, and within a couple of years each became a professional at his craft. This is left out of most movies because this would make the soldier look like he was proud or honorable. Nope, they gotta strip the dignity and honor of being a soldier away.

 

Oy, I could go on and on,

 

Rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious. Has anybody ever read The Thin Red Line? If so, how close does this second film version,(first version

was done back in the 60s) follow the book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, ahem, actually worked on the film. The original producers were only able to get the rights to do it by promising the widow of the author the film would stay true to the book. Then they were able to get Terry Malik attached, and as he was cnsidered a god, when he decided to go off on a different angle the studios took his path (and fiored the prodicers and everyone working for them- like me).

 

If you look at the book as compared to the actual events there its pretty intereting to see the similarities. In fact I suspect the book is a lot more true than some officials histories. The suthor cris-crossed the nation interviewing his ex-comrades. So if anyone actually knew the whole story he did. The question is, where did the truth leave off and fantasy begin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see the first Thin Red Line back in the 60s and there were only a few parts that would compare, other

than those, the second version was a completely different picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

This discussion is years old now, but after viewing this movie again for the umteenth time on the TV I'd just like to say it certainly grows on you. If you can ignore the first and last parts of the film and look at the assault of the hill, it's quite good. If their really is 6 or 7 hours of unedited film maybe in future it could be edited to fit the original story. I've read James Jones books many times, I think even the Malik film picked-up some of the gist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wharfmaster

One of the all time worst war movies ever made, and it was the worst war film in recent years. IMHO!

Totally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally.

 

I agree, one of the worst ever. I've tried a couple time to watch it thru to the end but always end up turning it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...