Thin Red Line by Zachary vanBuuren

Title/Year; The Thin Red Line /1998

Director/Birth Country/Year Born; Terrence Malick/U.S./1943

Budget; 52 million

Gross; 98.12 million

Synopsis; The Thin Red Line follows the battle of the infantry line during the WWII battle of Mount Austen. The film follows the soldiers through personal flashback stories giving the characters a greater amount of depth and allowing great perspective into the psyche of the individuals. Many of the characters back stories are given with good detail, giving reason to their reaction in battle. The story is driven in battle by the demanding push of Nick Nolte playing LT. Colonel Tall demanding the squadron to advance on a heavily fortified Japanese bunker. Elias Koteas playing Captain Staros defies his commanding officers orders, not wanting to lose any lives of his men. To show a very human side of the story, Jim Caviezel as Private Witt plays a soldier who is retrieved from a tropical island after going a.w.o.l. who has found an inner peace. The film has many scenes dictated with Witt's internal dialogue as a mental response to what is happening in the battles around him. Wit begrudgingly re-enters the military and becomes the lens through which we spectate the insanity of war and the effects that it has on soldiers.

Keywords; Poetic. Moving. Insightful. Philosophical. 

Characterization/ Dialogue; The characters are portrayed with rather
realistic dialogue. The script is very digestible and the performance  is easy to believe.

Camera/lighting/editing technique; The Thin Red Line is shot in such a way that it coveys a gritty realism of the characters.  Long shots holding on the expressions, actions and reactions of the soldiers are meant to allow the viewer to ponder the weight of the situations presented.

Political/ Social Commentary; The film is quite clear about the message of the absurdity and insanity of war. The focus on the a LT. Colonel Tall grasping for power in a last chance for fame is displayed in a rather feasible manner.

Historical Relevance/ Recognition; The Thin Red Line was director Terrence Malick's return to directing after a twenty year hiatus.

Notable Collaboration; Mickey Rourke, Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas, Gary Oldman, Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Jason Patric and Viggo Mortenson all were in the original cast. When it came to the final edit of almost 3 hours, all of their parts had been removed. 

Random fact; There is a continuing rumor of a 'legendary' 5 hour cut of the film. Malick has claimed that it is simply the assembly edit and he has only ever had the patience to sit through it once. 

*Pick out bits of dialogue, visual images, or scenes which you consider especially effective in revealing character and tell why they are effective.

 ~There are many striking shots peppered throughout the film. They are present to show moments of internal peace and contemplation for Private Witt. These shots are well composed, well paced and exude a sense of calmness and momentary removal from the context from which they are displayed. They effectively remove the viewer from the mindset of battle and place clear emphasis on the voice over of internal monologue that is usually concurrent with the break-away visuals.

  *Which characters function as stock characters and stereotypes and how can the presence of each be justified in the film?

~ Oddly, the character of Corporal Fife played by Adrien Brody  was one of the largest differences from how the story plays out from the original novel. The book follows Cpl. Fife thoroughly and the story is through his eyes. From the reduction of the film in the editing process, Brody's performance was whittled down to just a supporting character with about 5 minutes of screen time. This is partially because he plays a typical soldier and through the eyes of the director, he became a stock character.

 http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/16_things_you_need_to_know_about_terrence_malicks_the_thin_red_line
 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1084146-thin_red_line/

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120863/

 

The Hanoi Hilton (1987) by Andrew Barrick

The Hanoi Hilton / 1987

Directed By: Lionel Chetwynd / England / 1940

Budget: Unknown (Independent)

Gross: Approx. $760,000

Synopsis: Prisoner of war drama set during the Vietnam War era. The film follows a number of American POWs over a course of years during their imprisonment at Hoa Lo prison. The story is told from the captives perspective as they battle physical and mental torture at the "Hanoi Hilton".

Keywords: Vietnam War, Prisoner of War, Torture, Prison, Emotional Suffering, Escape, Freedom.

Characterization/Dialogue: The Hanoi Hilton introduces full characters who learn more about themselves and their fellow POWs as the suffer through their hardships while being locked up at the "Hanoi Hilton" The war prisoners communicate with each other during the film through secret notes, Morse Code, and physical contact with each other.

Camera/Lighting/Editing Technique: Filmed in a standard drama format. Shot-Reverse-Shot. Modest pace of editing to help convey the emotional drama of the film.

Political/Social Commentary: The film sets out to show a realistic recreation of the atrocities that occurred at the "Hanoi Hilton". The Vietnamese prison warden attempts to break the American POWs will, and get them to apologize for their wrong doings, in efforts to gain a political upper hand on the American government.

Notable Collaboration: The film production was assisted by former POWs who spent time at Hoa Lo prison including presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

Random Fact: During it's limited release the film received mild response, today however the film has become a cult favorite among war veterans.

Sources: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093143/
               http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hanoihilton.htm
               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanoi_Hilton_(film)
               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi_Hilton

1. Is the soldier/veteran depicted as being in control of his destiny?
No. Throughout the majority of the film the soldiers, who are actually prisoners of war, are never given the chance to fully be in control of their destinies. The Americans are never in control of what will happen to them next. They never know if they will get food or not, or if they are about to be taken from their prison cells and savagely beaten. At one point in the film two prisoners are able to make an escape attempt but their efforts are quickly thwarted by the Vietnamese troops.


2. What political sub-text, or overt theme is the film exploring?I would say that the over all sub-text of the film "The Hanoi Hilton", would be that it is important to remember what the American soldiers fought and suffered for. Aside from the American and Vietnamese political agendas, it again, is essential that we honor those who serve our nation.

3. How are masculinity and patriarchy displayed through the main character(s) -- broken and dissociated or reinstated and productive.
I would say that the film plays to both dissociated and productive principles. We are shown masculine soldiers who are often turned to tears as they are "broken" by their captors. Yet the POWs keep as a whole unit of reinstated men who band together in hopes of saving each other and regaining their freedom. These soilders truly care for each other and will do what they can to encourage and support their commrades. If a prisoner is physicaly or emotionally wounded another will come in to comfort thier pain and suffering. They are all one unit, banded together.

Pretty Village Pretty Flame-Carol and mike

Pretty Village, Pretty Flame is a Serbian film based on actual events set during the Bosnian War. It focuses primarily on the relationship between Milan and Halil, two friends that become divided by war.                

All of the character's backstory is told through flashback so there is quite a bit of jumping around in time, which means lots of jump cuts. It feels pretty chaotic at first because of all the ground it needs to cover but after our main characters get stuck in the cave and the story gets a bit more focused, the timing is really great. For example, when someone gets shot and at the moment they touch the ground we cut to a similar moment, which tells the viewer we are in a flashback now without having to use a weird filter or constantly having text on the screen that denotes the year. And once we get to know them better it becomes even more apparent when we are. It isn't always clear exactly why the director and editor chose the shots they did but often the juxtiposition of one event in that characters life to another can be very telling.

                The overall sound design was pretty good; fired guns, shattering glass, exploding grenades and on down to the more subtle things like the click of Lisa's camera and the sloshing of liquid in the coke bottle were as crisp and present as you would expect. I just had one problem with it though. Sounds of physical contact and stuff like the thumb being cut by the scissors sounded really cartoony and out of place, exaggerated slaps and yells that pulled me out of the film's gritty tone and made me feel like I was watching an incredibly grim three stooges skit for just a moment.

I’m not always a fan of anti-war films something about them has often rubbed me the wrong way. Some movies I don’t mind, like Apocalypse Now or Good Morning Vietnam. Pretty Village Pretty Flame, however, did not restore my faith in the anti-war category. 

The director was trying to show us that war is hell. I think that was even a quote in the movie (way to be subtle). There was plenty of blood, guns, and fire to go around and lots of symbolism. So much so I often found my self disoriented in a labyrinth of symbols. Even after watching it a second time I felt just as mystified.  There were very few, very brief and fleeting moments that I think I understood what the director was trying to convince me.

One of the many elements and symbols that the director tries to illustrate is the psychology of war. There is a scene in the movie when the men of the unit start drinking Milan’s pee because they are getting dehydrated. This is probably my favorite scene in the movie because good instance of how they must do things that are distasteful in order to survive. This is also their greatest moment of unity in the group were they all have to drink one man’s pee. I understood that scene, I felt it, and there was a universal language there. It was the expression of “this is such an extreme event and all I can do is laugh”.

Then he kills it again. The way the director told the story made little to no sense. In the movie we see young Milan, Milan in hospital, Milan before the war, Milan during the war and so on. Every time I felt like I was starting to connect with a character or understand the movie further I was literally drawn way to another scene. Maybe the biggest problem for me is that this was a symbolism movie is for a people in another land, speaking another language of which I have no connection to expect a page from a history book. I was like stranger in a strange land.           

Dr. Stranglove or: how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb By Kevin Fisk, Zachary Van Buuren, Sung Jin In

In a day when everyone was living in constant paranoia, and nerves were being tested by the possibility of nuclear war, I admire how Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove took a lighthearted stab at what seemed like such a serious issue at the time.  Kubrick uses comedy, suspense and a lot of symbolism to help contribute to the overall theme of the film.  During the opening credits, the audience is treated to a B-2 bomber being refueled mid flight to a fifties lovemaking instrumental.  This, bookended with a bevy of nuclear explosions at the end, is a telling sign.  More symbolism of this sexual nature exists throughout the film in the form of cigars, machine guns, and even a cowboy fighter pilot who rides an atomic bomb between his legs all the way to the ground. Kubrick uses these symbols to show the ridiculous nature of war room politics as well as spotlight the masculine overtones of battle.  Kubrick decided that humor was the most effective way to portray his view of the existential fatalistic view of the nuclear threat of the 1950's. 

The plot originally came from the book Red Alert written by Peter George.  Kubric loved the book, but also thought documentary or drama on a threatening subject like nuclear war could have a negative effect on viewers. 

Dr. Strangelove is full of colorful, hard headed but passionate and outrageous characters. The names chosen for these characters, were an obvious attempt at the aforementioned symbolism, and also added to the films comedic effect.  During the first scene we are introduced to two characters who could be described as polar opposites.  Ultra-masculine Airforce General Jack Ripper tells Captain Mandrake, a stuttering flight commander with a broken leg, his decision to destroy Russia with multiple simultaneous nuclear attacks. Throughout the film, Mandrake ignores multiple opportunities to dissuade the maniac Ripper.  He just isn’t masculine enough. In the next scene, there is American President Merklin Muffley.  Muffley is a small, bald man who can’t seem to commit to anything, even when he is told his planes will be attacking sites within Russia in under 25 minutes.  Muffley argues with one of his subordinates, General Buck Turdgeson over how to handle the situation. Muffley then has a hilarious exchange over the phone with the Russian president, where they argued with one another about who was the most sorry out of the two.  The amazing thing is Captain Mandrake, President Muffley and Dr. Strangelove were played by the same actor, Peter Sellers.

The film wasn’t an exact depiction of the government and military, however it probably was a conscious choice by Kubrick to show the contrast between ordinary humans and the qualities of humans who rely on machines and technology to serve the purposes they were programmed for.  The way Kubric portrays the use of technology sticks out in this film with constant scenes that focus on large mechanisms that surrounded these central figures.  Whether it was in the war room or cockpit of the air force plane. Ironically, all communicative devices always failed to serve their purpose except to lead mankind to doomsday. I.E., when the R.A.F officer tried to contact President Mufflin though a public payphone, the destroyed radio on the plane that made it impossible to recall the order. Even if the use of these communicative devices were successful, it often had ridiculous conversation that just strayed the characters from their original purposes (like the conversation between the US President and the Russian Premier). Ultimately technologies can only carry on what they were programmed to, but how they are used, are up to those who are capable of logical thoughts, such as human beings.

The film also does a good job blending genres.  During the war room scene, the war table resembled a massive poker table with the country’s top officials partaking in the action.  The camera shots were slow and methodical, milking the suspense out of every shot.  It was as if Kubrick wanted this scene to seem like a poker match was taking place with the fate of the world in balance.  The theme of impotent leaders of society leading to the earths destruction was so in your face, that I think the level of ambition is quite high.  The entire film was not shot the same way either.  The ground battle scenes had more of a documentary feel, and when the plane was dodging a Russian missile, the cuts were quick. 

Peter Sellers performance as multiple characters in the film adds greatly to the humor element, but detracts from the plausibility of the message of the film. While the message could have been delivered more accurately with a full ensemble cast, it would detract from the greatness of the film as it is. Sellers performance is a quality and charm by itself that is an element that makes the film historically great. 

I enjoyed the film greatly, especially in regards to the time it was made and what was considered to do that was "acceptable" as contemporary cinema. Kubrick's characters and imagery have seeded many homages since the time of the films release. It is a prime example of it's genre. 

The Tin Drum

by Aaron Charny an Jordan Kulm

  

          The Tin Drum focuses on the parts of World War II that are often overlooked in other films. Being a German film, the narrative follows one extraordinary German “child” through his dealings with the ordinary passive middle class under Nazi control. Through the use of somber and often dramatic events, director Volker Schlöndorff conveys the chaotic state of Nazi Germany leading up to the first battles of the war.

            From the beginning our main character Oskar (David Bennen), introduces the troubled state of his family’s social status. When Oskar becomes three, he is given a tin drum which he utilizes to act up and make himself heard. His final defining moment comes out at this time as he consciously decides to cripple himself and physically remain a child forever. This allows Oskar to safely exist amongst the Nazis without fear of being recruited or executed.

          When thinking of a regular anti war film, you might think of the war veteran returning from war and taking action against the war (Born on the Fourth of July), but not this German flick. This film shows us the perspective of an unusual kid, who finds no inspiration becoming a Nazi soldier or being involved with Nazi Germany. So to keep clear of that he decides to stay small and play his tin drum. 

          When you think of a young boy growing up in Nazi Germany, you might assume that this young lad will be excited to fight for his Führer. But not Oskar Matzerath. What made Oskar different? Some of my thoughts might help us understand the reason for Oskar’s unusual behavior. 

          Hold on folks these things aren't just weird; they are Germany wierd: Oskar’s Mother (Angela Winkler) has two lovers. The first one is her cousin Jan (Daniel Olbrychski), whom she is very intimate with and master chef Alfred (Mario Adorf). After mama finds out she is pregnant with a second child, she freaks out and goes on eel and raw fish eating rush. Shortly after her fish eating disorder she commits suicide.

          A little bit later, the little sixteen-year-old Oskar gets a sixteen-year-old normal size babysitter. Oskar develops feelings for the babysitter only to find out she is sleeping with his guardian Alfred. This created a noise for Oskar that he could not listen to, so the sound of drum and his high pitch scream was his replacement. Oskar constantly witnesses death from his mama, to his two papas and the Jewish toy merchant from which he got his tin drum. Hopefully that helps us understand little Oskar.

            Much of the film was well executed for its time. The use of color filters and even green screen technology only helped sell the visuals. Some of the sound design would seem a bit ridiculous by today’s standards, as Oskar has the ability to shatter glass with his screech, but as I said, for a late seventies film it does well in comparison with other films of the era.

            While the underlying tone of the film is the passive middle class, the immediate drama ranges from Oskars pregnant mother killing herself after splurging on fish to sixteen-year-old Oskar impregnating the same 16 year old girl his father is sleeping with. The Tin Drum is riddled with lust and obscene violence from beginning to end while still carrying an impactful statement about Nazi Germany. In fact, the ending is so unfair and ridiculous that it is perhaps the only ending that would do the subject matter justice.

Born on the Fourth of July (1989) by Noelle Henderson and Crystal Nehler

"Born on the Fourth of July" is not a story of a soldier in combat and the horrors he faces, but rather the story of a soldier who changes his stance on said war.  Oliver Ston, a Vietnam veteran himself, was inspired by the book "Born on the Fourth of July” which told the true life story of a Vietnam vet named Ron Kovic.  Stone bought the rights to the memoir and other than a few editorial changes, brought a very accurate version of the autobiography to the silver screen.  

Ron Kovic as a child was in love with America and with the idealistic image of war.  Often playing war games and dreaming of being a soldier he, along with most of America, had no idea about the horrifying reality of war.  At a parade he sees the Vets as symbols of hope and bravery, with crowds of people cheering at their heroism.

When a teenaged Ron Kovic first hears about the Vietnam War he is not concerned about actually going to Vietnam, but rather that he will miss out on the action because he was told it was going to be a short war.  He loves his country, and sees this as a chance to serve it in a real way.  Stone communicates that the young American men being recruited were misinformed about what going to really war meant.  The movie implies that a whole generation of boys were indoctrinated into a “Rah-Rah” view of America.  They worried about the “Commies” and would rather “be dead than red”. 

The marines at Ron’s school made joining up look glamorous and what the boys should do if they want to learn to become a real man. Naturally this was very attractive to many young men because of the societal beliefs about masculinity and being a soldier, as well as following in the footsteps of their fathers whom fought in WWII.  One of Ron’s friends said that their dads “got to go to WWII” as if it was a privilege, being completely ignorant of the fact that over 60 million people died during the war.  This mirrored the way Americans at home viewed Vietnam, out of sight out of mind.

The movie spends little time focusing on Kovic’s time in Vietnam, and primarily shows the aftermath he and the other soldiers experience.  However a pivotal scene does take place during a battle in Vietnam, when Kovic first sees the dark reality of war.  He and his men accidentally murder Vietnamese civilians, including babies and children.  Stone shows examples of where the Americans made mistakes in the war, and raises the question of what the real purpose of being in Vietnam really was.  Kovic keeps saying things were so confusing and chaotic, which shows the lack of organization the soldiers actually had.  The confusion hits a fever pitch when Kovic shoots Wilson, a young soldier in his unit, killing him almost instantly. The movie becomes more about survival and shooting at anything that moved.

After Kovic is shot twice, becoming paralyzed from the chest down, he is thrown into a veteran’s hospital in the Bronx.  There he faces the harsh reality of being stripped of his manhood (as he has lost the ability to have children) as well as his basic human rights. The hospital is rat infested, both the patients and the staff use drugs constantly and there isn’t even a real doctor in it.  Although he experiences great physical and emotional pain during his stay at the hospital, he still believes the war has nothing to do with his agony.  His patriotism and denial about the war continues to run strong, and he makes it a point to attack anyone who says something negative about the war.  

When he returns home he sees that people treat him differently not only because he is in a wheelchair, but because he chose to be a part of the war in the first place.  His first realization that the anti-war movement exists is during the Fourth of July parade, which turns out to be quite different from the one he saw when he was a child. During the parade the community was not cheering and honoring the Vietnam veterans like they were the WWII veterans, but instead they were flipping them off and shaming them for being supporters of the war.  After he witnesses the Kent State rally in which violent police attack and arrest peaceful protesters, is when Kovic begins to rethink his stance on the war.  

If the Vietnam War is a wrong war, what did Kovic lose his legs and by proxy his manhood for?  This realization leads Kovic down a dark path of drugs and alcohol which ends up leaving him incredibly depressed and alienates him from his ultra religious family. 

Though he finds redemption through political activism with other vets rallying against the war, you also feel Kovic finds closure through revealing his role in the death of Wilson, whom he shot during the war.  Stone was able to make his statement in the movie without putting everything in dialogue, but also through Tom Cruise’s compelling performance.  The film lives and dies by Cruise’s portrayal of Ron Kovic, and he shows the usual manic intensity that makes Tom Cruise an acting force to be reckoned with.  Cruise received his first Academy Award nomination and won a Golden Globe for Best Actor, Stone also received an Academy Award for Best Director.  The film’s success can also be seen through the strong use of editing and through the use of long dolly shots, POV shots during battle, and the sound editing that makes each scene really live and breath.

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” JFK’s famous quote rings true in the story of Ron Kovic, a man who gave up everything, short of his life for what the film perceives as an unjust war.  Kovic’s values and idealism do not serve him well as he realizes that he has been truly betrayed by the government he trusted so much.   

Generation Kill - Jake Lyon and Chris Moreti

David Simon and Ed Burns have been hard at work. Since the massive success of their five season HBO television series "The Wire", the two have shifted gears to portray the similar but more distant reality of of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Generation Kill follows the 1st Recon Marines on their journey from Kuwait to Baghdad.

The Company commander, code named "Godfather", is a self-rightous battle hardened marine, who speaks with a raspy voice due to a bout with throat cancer. Under his leadership the chain of command is divided into a number of lieutenants, half of whom are completely incompetent and the other half having to pick up the slack and deal with the errors as they come. The company travels by way of armored humvee's through Iraqi highways and is fronted by Sgt. Brad "Iceman" Colbert played by Alexander Skarsgard and Cpl. Josh Ray Person played by James Ransone.

As the Marines press forward they are constantly cut off at the knees by bad leadership, poor planning, lack of supplies, and general sense of "what are we doing here"? Orders and chain of command are questioned and challenged on a regular basis. The mission itself, is extremely bleak.

The portrayal of Operation Iraqi Freedom leaves a trail of questions in our minds that one could assume are the questions of the men who were fighting. So little information is given as to why they are there or what they are supposed to do. This results in Marine companies rolling around Iraq in humvees searching for random targets like cowboys in the old wild west. No true objective is ever present and the Marines are in a constant state of confusion.

This exposition of realism is a common thread in the work of David Simon and Ed Burns. Many similarities can be drawn between Generation Kill and The Wire. In the The Wire, police, politicians, journalists, teachers, and criminals all shared the experiences of bureaucracy in their chain of command. The end result in every scenario was always the unraveling a structurally unsound system of operating put in place by the higher ups.

Putting the big picture aside, David Simon and Ed Burns focused in on the personal experiences of the Marines. What they saw and dealt with on a daily basis. An excellent quote from Iceman sums it up pretty good; "We've been training for years, we are one the most elite fighting forces in the world, the government spends millions of dollars on each one of us, and they just throw us in faulty vehicles and send us into battle with no plan. We're Fararri's in a demolition derby".