The Thin Red Line: The Novel
Jones has many sickening images in the novel that could have immeasurably strengthened Malicks film. I would mention three different incidents; Malick does not include any scenes like this in the film:
An American soldier kills a Japanese soldier while the American is alone and relieving himself. He kills the armed Japanese solider with his bare hands, beating his head against the rocks until it breaks open.
Two American soldiers are caught while trying to withdraw from an assault. In the full view of the rifle company above on the ridge, they are pulled over the Japanese line and killed. Later they are found mutilated with their sexual organs stuffed in their mouths.
Two American soldiers sexually gratify one another and have to deal with their unanswered questions about their sexuality.
These incidents and many others in Jones book demonstrate Malicks fetish for substituting cinematography for character and plot. In the novel, these are disturbing, even terrifying events; Malick reduces the novel to high art. This undermines Jones central theme: war is terrifying, and the only way to overcome it is to become more terrifying yourself. Malicks love of camera angle and color put the film against the morality of the very novel it was adapted from. Throughout the film, the graphic nature of combat on land is muted by Malicks need to superimpose "still" images shots with little or no camera, actor, or prop movement onto a very fluid action story.
Return to Top
Cinematography

Malick and his cinematographer seem to be influenced by artist Tom Leas wartime paintings. Appearing in Time and Life Magazine, Lea's works captured the gritty colors of the war in action paintings of the men and machines of war. Lea accompanied the Marines who invaded Pelilu in September 1944. Pelilus defenders were underrated by Navy intelligence, and perhaps the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War ensued. Leas paintings are very graphic in nature, and deeply impressed me when I first saw them at age 5. The two images here are the only ones I have, but Leas other paintings are in vivid color, and strikingly use contrasts between red blood and khaki green to achieve a surreal, otherworldly look.
Malick seems to be trying to recreate Leas paintings on film, right down to the still frame. The Thin Red Line is utterly devoid of action or movement; I timed Capt. Gaffs attack on the hill at only 6 minutes, out of 3 and half hours.
Return to Top
Historical Accuracy
The Thin Red Line starts off on a pleasant island, where several GIs have gone AWOL. Ultimately the location doesnt matter, because it is simply a theatrical device to show paradise, so Malick can contrast it with the hell of Guadalcanal. In real life it was probably New Caledonia, or Fiji, where GIs tried to go AWOL. If they could.
A boat pulls up, which is apparently out of 1983, fresh from patrolling off Grenada. The boat was built long after the Second World War. The boat picks them up.
The GIs are put in the brig aboard ship. The transport was reasonably accurate, as were some of the higgins boats used in the landing.
Many things were wrong with the landing as it was portrayed in the film. The American aircraft covering the landing were converted AT-6 Texan trainers, not the actual aircraft used on Guadalcanal. The division was dropped in the jungle without experienced guides, and immediately goes into combat.
In real life, and in the novel, the division was sent to Henderson Field, the airstrip that was the key to Guadalcanal. There they were bivouacked and underwent orientation, which by all accounts was inadequate. While at Henderson Field, the division was shelled.
Henderson Field was repeatedly shelled and bombed during the six month campaign. The worst attack, not portrayed in either the novel or the film, was "Black Tuesday" October 13, 1942, two Japanese Battleships and other vessels slipped down the slot and shelled the airstrip with new "proximity" fused 14" shells. Unlike the shelling shown later in the film, this completely wiped out the air defenses and almost ended American resistance. In the novel, the shelling is unnerving but not utterly destructive. One mans hand is amputated.
In the film, the company deploys into combat immediately. The unopposed landing did occur, but on August 7, 1942, when 1st Marine Division landed to light opposition. Malick plays fast with the history here to create a sense of foreboding and dread. Again, by not adhering to history, he weakens the overall story.
The men who come ashore do have basically accurate equipment: M1 Garand semiautomatic rifles, Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs), yellow M1917 "pineapple" grenades, M1911 Colt .45 pistols, and Thompson submachine guns. However, Malick avoids several key figures in history and in the novel. The weapons and mortar platoons are conspicuously absent; the water-cooled M1930 Browning machine guns, and the 60mm and 81mm mortars are missing. I assume Malick wanted to emphasize the isolation of the platoon by cutting it off from heavy weapons.
Return to Top
What is this @#$&$%^& Crap?
This sense of isolation culminates in a battle in a river. In the book, a green commander leaves a squad (about 12 men) behind the company in an exposed position, where it is wiped out. This happened many times on Guadalcanal, most notably when the 1st Marine Divisions Intelligence Officer, Col. Frank Goettge, led a reinforced platoon to capture supposedly weakened Japanese Marines. Everyone on the patrol was killed, which effectively ended Marines taking surrenders ever again in the Pacific War.
In the book, a melee ensues when the squad tries to escape and is cut down. The impact of the slaughter is deeply felt by every man in the company, and this had a profound effect on their fighting esprit de corps.
Malick chooses a more artistic and symbolic resolution, with the death of Pvt. Witt as he leads the Japanese away from his company. The death scene is filmed, as is almost the whole movie, in slow motion as Witt falls to the ground, his magnanimous gesture "redeeming" the humanity of the universal "soldier." In other words, pretentious crap.
The character of Pvt. Witt drove me insane. Malick believes in eliminating as much dialog as possible, so Witt and others becomes this instrument of prose poetry in voiceover. Inane and useless, these voiceovers pop up at every scene, from soldiers in combat, men dreaming of their wives, even dead Japanese soldiers. This device was so overused, it became a joke. Malick is a junior filmmaker for resorting to such a film school trick.
Witts death caps a supposedly "deep" discussion about the nature of man between Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn) and Witt. Throughout the film, these two men seem bent on discussing philosophical issues that really had no meaning or place on the Guadalcanal battlefield. Sometimes they would apparently have "discussions" by staring out over water or grassland and communicating by telepathy (in voiceover). Of course, Sgt. Welsh breaks down and cries over Witts grave.
In the book, Witt and Welsh are both more complex and a cliché in their own right. The hate each other, and never resort to philosophy, choosing instead to curse each other. Witt doesnt die, and Welsh never cries. They are simple men, motivated more by thoughts of survival for themselves and their unit then pondering the philosophy of war and humanity.
Also, the novel clearly hints at the inherent anti-semetism in the Army at the time. The character, Capt. Stein, is pushed around by his colonel. In the film, the character's name is changed to Staros, which obliterates that discussion. I thought that was a poor choice that reduced the tension between the two characters. Apparently Hollywood studio bosses worried about compliants from the Jewish community. I think they would have applauded a nuanced approach to a difficult issue. Perhaps the Army was uncomfortable with the issue and deleted the namein exchange for their cooperation.
Return to Top
Conclusion
The Thin Red Line is at best an incomplete film. Malick changed so much of the integral heart of the novel and the history behind it, he should have just made his own story.
It is filled with historical inaccuracies, a ponderously slow, meandering plot, and no real clear theme other than Malicks pretentiousness. The film is a disservice to the 35,000 Japanese and 5,000 Americans killed on Guadalcanal during the Pacifics longest campaign, and the thousands who lived and died on or near its shores.
The 1964 version is very different, but isn't a classic war film either. Hopefully someone will make a version that is faithful to the novel.
Return to Top