Similarities Between The Thin Red Line And Apocalypse Now
MED325 – Hollywood Cinema 2, Assignment 1
The Thin Red Line & Apocalypse Now: War, Humanity and Nature on the Silver Screen
Terence Malick’s The Thin Red Line (1998) and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) are widely regarded as two of the finest films belonging to Hollywood’s War genre. They both deal with similar issues and burning at the heart of each film is the notion that war is a futile practice. However, the two directors approach the subject matter in different ways. Malick with his attempt to understand war in the context of nature and Coppola’s unflinching filmic re-imaging of Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War. Throughout this essay I will aim to compare and contrast the …show more content…
From the outset we are encouraged to consider the two sides to nature, creation and destruction, life and death, “Is there an avenging power in nature, not one power but two?” One possible reading of Malick’s film as a whole is that the wars we fight are simply part of the natural universal order. We fight because nature is cruel and competitive, and we are a part of that. As Lieutenant Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte) points out to Captain Staros (Elias Koteas), “look at this jungle. Look at those vines. The way they twine around the tree, swallowing everything. Nature is cruel Staros!” Malick reminds us that nature doesn’t discriminate, just as war doesn’t. He examines the positive forces inherent in human nature and how war overshadows or destroys them, Simon Critchley identifies 3 main themes of loyalty, love and truth, elements which are expressed in three main relationships, and each of which is eventually poisoned and overcome by the destruction of war. The relationship between Lt. Col. Tall and Capt. Staros is representative of loyalty, “at the core of this relationship is the question of loyalty, a conflict between loyalty to the commands of one 's superiors and loyalty to the men under one 's command” (Critchley, 2002). When Staros refuses to lead his men to their deaths he isn’t rewarded, instead he is relieved of his command for failing to have loyalty to his superiors. In war, human life is disposable, “we’re just dirt”, there is no place for mercy or compassion, they are not desirable qualities in war. Similarly, and perhaps the point Malick is trying to make, there is no mercy or compassion in nature, only drive for survival. Similarly, the theme of love is explored through the relationship between Private Bell (Ben Chaplin) and his wife Marty (Miranda Otto). We see the two only in dreamlike sequences together. Bell is constantly thinking about her, we get the impression that the
The Thin Red Line & Apocalypse Now: War, Humanity and Nature on the Silver Screen
Terence Malick’s The Thin Red Line (1998) and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) are widely regarded as two of the finest films belonging to Hollywood’s War genre. They both deal with similar issues and burning at the heart of each film is the notion that war is a futile practice. However, the two directors approach the subject matter in different ways. Malick with his attempt to understand war in the context of nature and Coppola’s unflinching filmic re-imaging of Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War. Throughout this essay I will aim to compare and contrast the …show more content…
From the outset we are encouraged to consider the two sides to nature, creation and destruction, life and death, “Is there an avenging power in nature, not one power but two?” One possible reading of Malick’s film as a whole is that the wars we fight are simply part of the natural universal order. We fight because nature is cruel and competitive, and we are a part of that. As Lieutenant Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte) points out to Captain Staros (Elias Koteas), “look at this jungle. Look at those vines. The way they twine around the tree, swallowing everything. Nature is cruel Staros!” Malick reminds us that nature doesn’t discriminate, just as war doesn’t. He examines the positive forces inherent in human nature and how war overshadows or destroys them, Simon Critchley identifies 3 main themes of loyalty, love and truth, elements which are expressed in three main relationships, and each of which is eventually poisoned and overcome by the destruction of war. The relationship between Lt. Col. Tall and Capt. Staros is representative of loyalty, “at the core of this relationship is the question of loyalty, a conflict between loyalty to the commands of one 's superiors and loyalty to the men under one 's command” (Critchley, 2002). When Staros refuses to lead his men to their deaths he isn’t rewarded, instead he is relieved of his command for failing to have loyalty to his superiors. In war, human life is disposable, “we’re just dirt”, there is no place for mercy or compassion, they are not desirable qualities in war. Similarly, and perhaps the point Malick is trying to make, there is no mercy or compassion in nature, only drive for survival. Similarly, the theme of love is explored through the relationship between Private Bell (Ben Chaplin) and his wife Marty (Miranda Otto). We see the two only in dreamlike sequences together. Bell is constantly thinking about her, we get the impression that the