eykei

The cultural revolution was a tumultuous time in China, to put it lightly. A sort of IRL hunger games that saw famine, deadly skirmishes, and violent unrest throughout the country, especially among the youth. The gratuitous violence was only touched upon in the film. The chaos of the cultural revolution was a distant backdrop for what is essentially a coming-of-age story. After reading the wiki, I found out that it is based on a book (an author's scattered recollections of the time) in which the kids belong to a sort of privileged class that was somewhat insulated from the aforementioned chaos.

So, with that said, it is really a movie about first love, lust, jealousy, trying to belong, discovering one's self, and the adolescent awkwardness that pervades it all. In that respect, the film is a triumph. It is superbly acted (especially from the lead) who's emotive stumbling through puberty is sure to elicit uncomfortable emotions from your own teenage years. Add to that the atmospheric and thoughtful camerawork, and you have a unique and memorable film.

If there's one rule in film making, it is that you show plot, themes, motifs, and not tell them. That's the beauty of film - it is a medium that combines video, sound, script, and music. Thin Red Line amounts to little more than a series of montages of explosions and flashbacks juxtaposed with lengthy, almost pointless scenes. yes, war is hell, it is "poison to soldiers", it turns "men into dogs". Now, instead of explicitly telling the audience in lengthy, contrived monologues, the director could have shown us that through action (acting). Instead, we are subject to nearly three hours of mopey characters reciting the most trite and hackneyed of scripts, with cuts to quivering soldiers with thousand mile stares, and accompanied by a somber soundtrack to really hammer the point home - in case you didn't know you were supposed to feel sad for these poor souls.

The characters themselves are rather two dimensional; they are mere vehicles for conveying their disjointed platitudes. The characters come stock: the villainous commander who cares for nothing except for his promotion, the caring officer, the naive officer, the aloof dreamer, the soldier with the wife back home, the various prospective heroes who are determined to die for their brothers, and of course their screaming and bleeding counterparts. Each of these characters have little depth beyond their purpose, which is so painfully obvious it makes the movie almost unwatchable.

As you might expect for a movie that emphasizes philosophy (however flat and pretentious it may be), the cinematography is quite excellent, and is probably the only redeeming quality about this film. Guadal Canal in its pristine form is beautiful and paradise-like. When it is on fire, ugly and hell-like. These dichotomies are well portrayed.

In summary, don't be fooled by lengthy scenes and talk of abstract concepts as a sign of a meaningful film. See if you can derive true meaning beyond what is simply given to you. My bet is, you can't.