The Thin Red Line is about the Guadalcanal battle in the Pacific Ocean during the Second World War, but there is absolutely no attempt to create neither a historical account of this war nor a precise and accurate depiction of the past events. The film is concerned with War or just war as a universal phenomenon. As a result, there is no reference to the historical context or to the historical interests at stake and in this sense World War II merely stands for an archetype of War. The issues of race, nationality, ideology and strategy are purposefully de-emphasized, in order to explore the roots of such conflict in a more abstract level.
A lot of World War II combat films portrayed the hardships and the ugliness of warfare, but the war per se was never questioned. The soldiers had faith in the war and platitudes about protecting freedom or saving democracy were often used to explain the American involvement. On the other hand, the soldiers in the Thin Red Line are presented as pawns of the army that are easily consumable and replaceable. Contrary to most World War II Combat films, there are no moments of glory and triumph nor there is any pride in the military service.
There is also a matter of identity in this film. “Despite the superficial use of some clichés, such as calling them “the Japs”, or showing the mutilated bodies of the American soldiers as sign of their violent nature, the film does not really distinguish the American soldiers from their opponents. They are all victims of the war and their sufferings are equally unjustified. When a group of Japanese is captured, the close-ups on their faces reveal the fear, the panic and the pain that any human being would experience.” (The Thin Red Line and the World War II Hollywood Tradition by Eleftheria Thanouli,)
World War II films painted a portrait of victory and competence, of American true grit overpowering storm trooper discipline and samurai fanaticism. Vietnam erased that image. The disrepute of the thousand-day war transformed military action into a code phrase for legalized atrocities and made the soldier the butt of comedy, condescension and contempt. The increasing number of films about the past are no longer historical; they are images, simulacra, and pastiches of the past. They are effectively a way of satisfying a craving for historicity, using a product that substitutes for and blocks it. Yet for all the cinematic qualities, and the power of the film, who is to say if it is a real war story?
One of the best war films ever made would have to be Platoon by Director Oliver Stone which was based on his experiences in Vietnam. This is probably the closest anyone would come to making a true war film or story since there are no morals, no villains, no good or evil, just man as the summation and decision maker of what happens.
There are no defined battle lines and the combat scenes lead you to believe that the enemy is everywhere. The line between good and evil is blurred and often times non-existent in this film. Two of the characters of the film; Sergeant Elias is portrayed as a caring, intelligent leader who escapes reality through the use of drugs. His nemesis, Sergeant Barnes, is portrayed as an efficient fighting machine who will stop at nothing to get the job done. You soon realize that he, too, is just doing everything to ensure his own survival. This in itself shows you that besides a what going on against an enemy, there is also another war going on between different groups and who is to say who the real enemy is. Throughout the film you get the idea that there is a belief among the troops that if you're going to get killed in Vietnam, it's better that you get killed early in your tour. That way you don't suffer so much. Because of the lack of suffering, a newly arrived soldier's life isn't worth as much as the people who are "short".
Some may say that the character development in the story is weak and there is no plot. Simply put, this adds to the story and makes it different from others which glorify war and have heroes fighting the good fight. There are no real heroes in this movie and no real villains. There is just a group of frightened men fighting for survival in their own ways and counting the days until they can leave the country. And Platoon is a film which happens to show that.
Another wonderful war movie is Apocalypse Now and this was done showing the blurred lines between what is right, good and what is expected of soldiers. It is another example of as close as a person can come to a real war story.
I didn't like "The Thin Red Line" at all. Too much of the kind of introspection that real soldiers simply do not indulge in. Most have only one thing on their mind - getting out alive. Soldiers go through three phases in battle. "It can't happen to me," - during which they will do the most stupid (or heroic, depending on your point of view) things because they honestly believe they can't die. "It can happen to me" - during which they're almost useless and will take no chances at all. "It will happen to me," - during which they become fatalistic and also become far more effective. All this stuff about the morality of war is for film makers and their audiences - it rarely occurs to the men doing the fighting.
#2 by James, Sep 16, 2007
Thin Red Line was a good war movie. however, you have to look at what is real and what is fiction. War stories are not always what you see on TV.
#3 by Franklin Oswald, Sep 17, 2007
It seems as thought there is no telling what is a real war story. The truth of the matter is that if it makes you feel good then chances are that it is just hollywood material.