Having won the Palme D’or at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival for his fifth film feature, The Tree of Life, film writer and director Terrence Malick has become one of the most intriguing of cinema personalities. Now in its 3rd edition, ONE BIG SOUL: AN ORAL HISTORY OF TERRENCE MALICK is the first ever full-length oral biography of the mysterious director of Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, The New World, The Tree of Life and To the Wonder and more. The cinematic world of Terrence Malick is explored by those that have known, worked with or experienced Terrence Malick’s private universe up close and personal. Using previously published interviews and articles, as well as material researched by the author, ONE BIG SOUL: AN ORAL HISTORY OF TERRENCE MALICK promises to be an instantly readable and informative account of one of the world’s most reclusive and enigmatic filmmakers. Now including five interviews with Terrence Malick never-before collected into one volume.
VIENNA, 1880: PARKS, STATUARY, CITY SCENES (CREDITS) – MUSIC
Winding streets and dark, ascending staircases.
Schönbrunn Park. The eroded faces of statues at the end of unfrequented lanes. The sound of solitary footsteps on gravel.
Forgotten gods and heroes, covered with ivy, snow or soot. Perseus with the head of the Gorgon, Priam mourning Hector, Orpheus and Eurydice at the gates to the underworld.
Caryatids at the Belvedere frown under the weight of the pediment.
Pigeons nest among the gargoyles that stare down from the eaves of the Rathaus.
Great stone griffins, sphinxes, angels; powers the reasonable city no longer recognizes.
Laocoon, in the Michaelerplatz. A great snake has risen up from the sea to wind itself around him.
Paths piled with leaves, inscriptions which cannot be read, their letters obscured by moss or age. The signs of those who have lost their way.
Winter, The still, chaste snow. The faint sound of distant voices, singing. The camera rising, always rising.
Byways, narrow lanes, the grates of sewers, drains and subterranean rooms. An atmosphere of secrecy and hiding.
A white crocus.
Dusk, the perishing light. Bats sweep up insects along the Danube embankment. Lovers withdraw into the shadows of the lindens. Brahms’ First Symphony. Signs of the falling night.
Music rises from one building in particular. The gargoyles and griffins seem to look down from the darkness at its glowing windows with a strange longing.
— from the first revised draft of The English-Speaker (written in 1993 and cut from the June 6, 2002 final draft)
Terrence Malick’s preference for nature and myth over history tarnishes his rich come-back epic The Thin Red Line, argues Colin MacCabe
It may be that a suburban mall in Pittsburgh during a blizzard is not the ideal venue to see Terrence Malick’s long-awaited third movie The Thin Red Line. Twenty years since Days of Heaven, Malick’s $55 million three-hour epic about the World War II battle of Guadalcanal obviously posed the marketing executives a problem. Full of stars, the film is nonetheless unashamedly, indeed embarrassingly, determined to press its claim as an art movie – its meditations on war and violence make the voiceover in Apocalypse Now look like an exercise in downmarket accessibility. Fox’s solution was to open in only five cinemas in New York and Los Angeles and to try to build word of mouth through selected audiences at special screenings. But if Pittsburgh is anything to go by, the strategy is doomed to failure. As the movie wound down for its final undramatic hour the audience became openly restive and derisive. As we exited the cinema one patron remarked, “Well that was very deep… and very long.” Her companion responded, “That’s going to win Academy awards – Jeez – never.”
It was the promise of seeing an Academy award-winning movie that had tempted the audience to venture out; it must have been the thought of Academy awards that lured the finest roster of acting talent to be assembled in a single film for a generation; and it is only the promise of Oscars that explains why Fox wrote a very big cheque after Sony had balked at funding a movie that breaks most commercial rules about narrative and drama. It would be surprising, despite the reservations of the Pittsburgh spectators, if the film does not figure in the awards ceremony in March. As a visual spectacle The Thin Red Line lives up to the expectations created by Badlands (1973) and Days of Heaven. There can be no question that Malick’s ability to inscribe images with depth and texture is unrivalled in contemporary Hollywood. Guadalcanal (doubled here by the tropical rainforest of Queensland, where almost all the film was shot) is presented as an idyllic paradise into which the serpent of war creeps – and at no point are you allowed to forget the beauty of these killing fields. If John Toll’s superb cinematography never quite matches Nestor Almendros’ haunting images of the cornfields of America in Days of Heaven, it must be odds on that like Almendros he will walk away with the Oscar for cinematography. And the soundtrack is equally accomplished, mixing music, effects and dialogue in a constantly complex pattern.
Above all the acting is, quite simply, superb. Nick Nolte as the repellent Lt. Colonel Tall determined finally to get the recognition his life of shit-eating deserves, Sean Penn as the ultimately cynical Sergeant Welsh, Elias Koteas as Captain Staros, refusing Tall’s orders to make a suicidal frontal attack, are all excellent. And most of the cameos work too. John Travolta is attractively repulsive as a worldly-wise general. Woody Harrelson is convincing as a sergeant who sacrifices himself having endangered his squad through the act of a frightened novice. But among a torrent of talent John Cusack is outstanding. The scene where he stands silent as Nolte pours out shame and resentment is a magisterial demonstration of the truth that in film acting, less is more.
But The Thin Red Line is badly let down by a script that buries an excellent 90-minute war movie in a stream of pretentious, portentous and sententious verbiage which, at least on first hearing, is nothing more than a mishmash of recycled clichés about nature and violence, death and sacrifice. Narrative drive has never been Malick’s strong point, but in the first two films this weakness was compensated for by extraordinarily dense voiceovers. The same technique is used in The Thin Red Line, but whereas in Badlands and Days of Heaven the voiceover was that of a naïve adolescent girl and the films gained much of their power from the distance between voiceover and image, in The Thin Red Line the voiceover is that of adult males, and time and again the film invites us to take their statements as defining the images we are seeing. The results are catastrophic in a film that is otherwise a magnificent achievement.
Walking into myth
For many this was a movie that was never going to get made. By the time Malick finished Days of Heaven in 1978 after nearly two years in the cutting room he was already famous as a meticulous perfectionist who would brook no arguments. His fights with Richard Gere and the producers of Days of Heaven are legendary. When that film finished he was offered a dream deal by Charles Bluhdorn, head of Paramount’s parent company Gulf and Western, which allowed him almost unlimited resources to develop his next film. For four years, mainly from his base in Paris, Malick worked on the prologue of his new movie; a prologue that would dramatise the origins of life. With a small crew including cameraman Paul Ryan, who had shot second unit on Days of Heaven, and special-effects consultant Richard Taylor, Malick assembled footage from all over the world: micro jellyfish on the Great Barrier reef, ice shelves breaking off from Antarctica – neither time nor space was allowed to prevent the gathering of material. When Paramount got restless he would send in portions of a script which was always prolonged passages of visual description with little narrative or dialogue. Finally, in 1983, he walked away from the project and into the world of myth. There was much gossip and rumour, but none of it suggested that Malick would ever return – still less bring in a multi-million dollar movie on schedule and to budget.
In fact, Malick’s career was less eccentric than is often suggested. True, he left Hollywood. True, he didn’t direct a movie for over a decade. But Hollywood of the 80s ate the directors of the 70s for breakfast, and sitting out that particular invitation was a smart move. And he did continue to work for Los Angeles, doing rewrites and among other projects adapting Larry McMurtry’s Desert Rose for Barry Levinson.
At this stage it might have seemed Malick had made a decision never to direct again. Then in the late 80s he was approached by theatre producers Robert Geisler and John Roberdeau to write a script of D. M. Thomas’ The White Hotel. He turned the offer down but told them he was willing to write two other scripts, one based on Molière’s classic farce Tartuffe and the other on James Jones’ World War II epic The Thin Red Line. The producers chose The Thin Red Line and when the script was finally delivered persuaded Malick he had to direct it. If a subsequent falling-out meant they appeared on the credits but not on the set, they probably deserve real plaudits for luring Malick back to film-making.
Jones’ novel takes its title from Kipling’s lines:
“Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that,
And Tommy, ‘ow’s your soul?
But it’s ‘Thin red line of ‘eroes’
When the drums began to roll.”
The idea of individual martial heroism so crucial to western culture from Homer to Shakespeare has had an increasingly hard time from a bourgeois culture that values life in terms of vocation and career. And from the French Revolution onwards the individual hero is replaced by the citizen army, the ordinary Joes and Tommies who in the heat of battle discover the qualities that make them a fighting unit which can both defend the nation and participate in the universal struggle for progress.
World War II was in many ways the culmination of this democratic heroism in both fact and fiction. In fact it combined the last great war of imperial expansion and national survival with the global struggle against fascism. In fiction it is represented by what Pauline Kael called “a 40s movie bomber crew cast” in which the diversity of America is celebrated as Ohio farmboy buddies up with New York Jew and Brooklyn Italian befriends lonely WASP. Jones’ novel is perhaps the single best example of this fictional strategy. Based closely on his own combat experiences, it follows the story of C for Charlie company as they land on the island of Guadalcanal and are blooded in combat.
Malick worshipped Jones’ novel and apparently had great difficulty in altering any of its details for his screenplay, asking the author’s widow for leave to make the smallest changes. She finally gave him blanket permission to do as he liked, convinced he had entered the spirit of her husband’s work. In one way this is true. From the landing on the island to the aftermath of the taking of the Japanese-defended hill, the film follows the book extremely closely. There is, however, one highly significant change, and it demonstrates how Malick’s aim is very different from that of the conventional World War II movie which at one level he seems to be making. In the novel the captain of C for Charlie company, “Bugger” Stein, is a Jew. His con?ict with the WASP Lt. Colonel Tall is thus overlaid with implications of anti-Semitism that situate the novel centrally in the contradictions of the Second World War. But Malick makes his captain a Greek-American, a transformation that signals a move out of history. As if to underline the point, Tall quotes Homer in the Greek to Staros as they prepare for battle.
Malick is not concerned with the citizen army and its political con?icts representing the class and ethnic diversity of the nation; indeed, he has no interest in World War II. The Thin Red Line’s C for Charlie company are engaged in a con?ict which is as old as time, which is simply a modern version of the Trojan War. This is evident in minor irritations like Sean Penn’s hair, which luxuriates anachronistically. But it is also what provides the rationale for the other half of the movie: the opening 30 minutes which introduce us to the tropical paradise of Guadalcanal, the natural world which is to be the setting for the battle, and the final hour in which Witt (James Caviezel) transforms himself into the figure of the god sacrificed so that others can live – Christian symbolism seasoned with a hodgepodge of anthropological references which suggest Malick has spent more time than was good for him reading The Golden Bough.
It is the transformation of Witt from book to film which gives the clearest indication of Malick’s purpose. In the book Witt stands for an indestructible Americanness. A near-illiterate Kentuckian, he joins and leaves C for Charlie depending entirely on his view of the commanding officers. He refuses to serve with officers he despises, so uses the chaos of frontline combat to allocate himself to different units, uncontrollable by the military machine.
For Malick, Witt’s ability to escape the machine in which he serves is due not to a specific social formation but to his status as natural man. Far from being the archetypal American he is a figure who has lost all trace of nationality. When we are introduced to him in the lyrical opening sequence we find him in a native village where he has gone absent without leave. Malick’s genius can be seen in his determination to render Guadalcanal as a real place – not simply the site for the first great land battle between the Americans and the Japanese but a tropical island complete with its indigenous peoples. But his depiction of this place is insufferably and patronisingly innocent – a natural world without con?ict or contradiction. Its only real function is to signal Witt’s privileged access to a natural order which the army can recognise only as something to destroy.
In its drive to replace history by nature, to transform World War II into War itself, Malick’s film at the most crude ideological level is identical to the movie with which it will be endlessly compared: Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. Such a comparison may seem unfair. Malick’s film even at its most pretentious is both interesting and captivating; his use of image and actors, sound and landscape is always intelligent. At the core of his movie is probably the best single description of close-quarters combat to come out of World War II. By contrast Spielberg’s movie has at its core a story so mendacious as to be ludicrous. Apart from in the opening sequence, its attempt to universalise “the American bomber crew movie” is merely patronising, and, at least to this viewer, insufferably tedious.
It is instructive here to remember Sam Fuller, one of the greatest directors of war movies. In an interview with Tim Robbins shortly before his death Fuller mused that it was impossible to catch the true horror of modern warfare because no audience would be prepared to look at the human abattoir a modern infantry battle creates. Was it Fuller’s words which provided the inspiration for Spielberg’s opening sequence of the landing on Omaha beach? But Spielberg then abandons all attempts at realism in favour of a story which defies every aspect of military history to produce Kael’s “American bomber crew” wandering around Normandy to save the one remaining member of the Ryan family. When the small patrol led by Tom Hanks finally locates Private Ryan only to find that he is unwilling to abandon his own comrades, the cynical sergeant argues in favour of remaining to fight with their charge because this may be “the one decent thing to come out of this war”. How someone who made a film about the Holocaust can so trivialise the struggle against fascism beggars belief. How audiences are willing to let him get away with it shows how far we now are from World War II.
If Tom Hanks can die…
The war movies of the 40s, 50s and early 60s were secure in the justness of their cause. Vietnam changed all that, with every movie having to confront both the justification of the war and the racial divisions within the ranks. The citizen army was shown to represent a fatally divided nation no longer convinced of its historically allocated role. Both Malick’s and Spielberg’s movies can be seen as attempts to forget Vietnam. It is a long time since we saw an all-white American army on our screens and, if anyone were tempted to argue that these films are rightly representing the make-up of the pre-60s segregated US army, it can be no accident that it is an army equalled purged of any other difficult ethnic divisions. But if it is an army which is no longer divided, it is certainly not an army which has rediscovered any kind of historical role. The decision to ignore history cannot be partial. If the films no longer make any attempt to investigate the reality of American society then they can make no attempt to understand the wider world of which that society is a part. War here is an evil which can find no justification and the finality of the death it brings is brought home by both films as stars die right and left, cut off with all the murderous randomness of battle.
Ideological readings of films are usually both predictable and uninteresting, an earnest footnoting of the obvious. But these two films, one a flawed masterpiece, the other an enormous commercial success, demand ideological analysis. For both films make crystal clear that the greatest military power the globe has ever known will not now allow even one of its soldiers to die in any foreseeable military con?ict. If Tom Hanks can die senselessly, then anybody can and nobody will. It is well known that life imitates art, but there can be few more striking examples of this than Operation Desert Fox, which signalled a new era in military history – battles in which the attacking force operates under the constraint that it can sustain no casualties. If this is the first clear political message of these two films, they also share a second one. The most powerful form of entertainment ever developed, a form which now benefits from a range of technical and human resources never before enjoyed, has abandoned any attempt to understand the world except in the most banal and immediate of human terms. The United States of America has an army that is devoted to ignoring death and a culture that is devoted to ignoring history. Comprenne qui voudra or, if you prefer an Americanism, go figure.
Like a Rousseau painting splattered with carnage of warfare, “The Thin Red Line” indelibly presents a worldly paradise devastated by man’s irrepressible impulse to destroy. Terrence Malick’s much-anticipated return to the film scene after a 20-year hiatus is a complex, highly talented work marked by intellectual and philosophical ambitions that will captivate some critics and serious viewers.
Like a Rousseau painting splattered with carnage of warfare, “The Thin Red Line” indelibly presents a worldly paradise devastated by man’s irrepressible impulse to destroy. Terrence Malick’s much-anticipated return to the film scene after a 20-year hiatus is a complex, highly talented work marked by intellectual and philosophical ambitions that will captivate some critics and serious viewers as well as by an abstract nature, emotional remoteness and lack of dramatic focus that will frustrate mainstream audiences. Fox’s only hope with this large-canvas art film is to get enough strong reviews to engage the attention of the upscale viewers beyond the small portion of them familiar with Malick’s outstanding 1970s work, then give it enough breathing room to allow for word-of-mouth to have an effect. Otherwise, the highbrow film elite will be its only constituency.
The film under review is the final release version, for which the sans-end-credits picture portion runs three minutes shorter than the unfinished cut screened for critics in L.A. and New York nearly two weeks ago.
Malick’s previous features, “Badlands” (1973) and “Days of Heaven” (1978), were never more than cult hits, but they were sufficiently distinctive and memorable for the reclusive writer-director to parlay them into legendary status for himself during his two decades of Garboesque silence. The fact that few, if any, filmmakers this side of Portugal’s Manoel de Oliveira have ever resurfaced after such a long layoff was hardly encouraging, but Malick has made it back with a picture that bears many of his trademark touches, as well as a scope far beyond anything he’s done before.
Part of the problem with “The Thin Red Line” lies with expectations. Modern audiences will initially be interested in how it stacks up against the year’s previous World War II epic, “Saving Private Ryan,” and while Malick does deliver a fair amount of bloody action, including one very intense sequence involving the taking of a hilltop bunker, the film’s intentions could not be more diverse; the new picture’s counterpart to “Ryan’s” stunning opening act is an armed beach landing in which not a shot is even fired.
WWII buffs and fans of the James Jones novel on which the film is based may be brought up short by the lack of political, strategic and military nuts and bolts vis-a-vis the battle of Guadalcanal, while even the Malick faithful will have to remember that the director’s forte was always for fabulous visuals and haunting moods rather than for coherent storytelling.
However, from the opening shot of a giant crocodile sliding into the muck through a 10-minute prologue devoted to the ruminations of a U.S. Army soldier AWOL with a buddy on an idyllic tropical island, it is clear that Malick has things on his mind other than the specifics of what it took to turn the tide of the war in the Pacific. Things like the Garden of Eden, Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” mankind as a collective embodiment of the two extremes of nature, and other lofty but hardly obscure notions.
The first characters to come to the fore in Malick’s significantly splintered tale are Pvt. Witt (Jim Caviezel), one of the AWOL soldiers, who will always idealize his privileged moments among the friendly island natives even during the peak of battle, and First Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn), the cynical every-man-for-himself leader of Charlie Company, an Army infantry outfit being sent to replace Marines in the invasion of Japanese-held Guadal-canal.
The troop ship is loaded with other soldiers very anxious about what awaits them on the island: Lt. Col. Tall (Nick Nolte), an aging lifer with the opportunity to finally lead a battalion in battle; Capt. Staros (Elias Koteas), a thoughtful lawyer and commander of Charlie Company whose desire to protect his men puts him at odds with Tall; Pvt. Bell (Ben Chaplin), who is fixated on the wife he left back home; and Capt. Gaff (John Cusack), whose intelligent resourcefulness will prove no more or less useful in battle than the animal instincts of Pfc. Doll (Dash Mihok).
Surprised to encounter no initial resistance on the lush green island, the Americans are forced to pursue the Japanese up toward their dug-in positions in the hills, resulting in some fierce action, loads of casualties and a resulting refusal by Staros to obey what he views as Tall’s suicidal order to take one hill by frontal assault. The way the fighting plays out, with stars in cameos, such as Woody Harrelson, as well as nonentities being killed, fully justifies one character’s remark about the utter randomness of who survives in war and who doesn’t.
The tense, superbly rendered capture of the hilltop machine gun nest reps the film’s exciting midpoint to which everything has built; after that, the focus disperses again, as the men rout a Japanese encampment, Tall relieves the sensitive Staros of his command for not being “tough enough,” Bell learns what his beloved wife has been up to during his prolonged absence, and Witt puts his life on the line in a final confrontation with the Japanese before what’s left of the company is shipped out.
Structurally, the film is decidedly lumpy, with confrontations and climaxes coming and going abruptly, and a final 45 minutes in which the dramatic momentum slides noticeably downhill. Characters who are given special attention for a while then disappear for considerable lengths of time — Penn’s stand-apart sergeant is a particular victim of this choppiness; some, such as John Savage’s ranting and raving sergeant, have little apparent connection to anything else going on, while others, particularly Cpl. Fife (Adrien Brody), a much more central character in the novel, have been cut down to virtually nothing (Brody has all of two lines, incomprehensible ones at that).
The matter of dramatic coherence is compounded by some casting moves. Caviezel and Chaplin carve two of the best characterizations in the picture, but their physical resemblance, especially at a distance and in uniform, makes it difficult to always keep them distinct; even the more recognizable Cusack and Koteas, the latter outstanding as the conscience-afflicted captain, share the same coloring and general demeanor as the former two.
Among the better known thesps, Nolte stands out as the determined chief of ground forces and Harrelson has a strong death scene. But John Travolta, in early on as a general, and George Clooney, on view even more briefly six minutes before the end, prove more distracting than helpful in cameos.
As good as some of the actors are in individual dramatic moments, there are no real character arcs here and, as a result, no truly rounded performances. As far as the men are concerned, Malick’s conception works only if the individuals are viewed as aspects of a collective humanity, with each soldier’s response to the extremity of war as plausible as any other.
Just as in Malick’s previous films, the full meaning of “The Thin Red Line” is realized only in the extensive voiceover commentaries, which are offered up by several of the characters. Many of these consist of elemental rhetorical queries into the spiritual bearings of the universe. “What’s this war at the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? Is there an avenging power in nature?” Witt asks at the outset, with frolicking natives and vaulting choral music backgrounding his inquiries.
Other investigations into the sources of evil and love, into the contrary impulses to look out for oneself or to behave selflessly and, ultimately, into biblical notions of innocence forever lost — Witt wonders, “How did we lose the good that was given us, let it slip away, scattered careless?” — give the film a philosophical dimension — some will say pretension — rare in films at any time, no more so than today.
Physically, the film is ravishing, and Malick’s ability to build dense, multi-layered sequences proves as supple as ever. Lenser John Toll’s most striking images come in shots that seem to float above the tall reeds and grass of the hillsides as the men make their arduous ascents. A limited amount of shooting was done at Guadalcanal, but for the most part the Daintree Rain Forest in Queensland, Australia, has filled in beautifully for the intended location. Hans Zimmer’s omnipresent score stresses a meditative, often mournful tone, and the intricate sound editing emphasizes natural ambient noises just as occasional cutaways to jungle animals places the men in the context of all living things. Among former Malick collaborators back with him here are production designer Jack Fisk, co-editor Billy Weber and casting director Dianne Crittenden.
Jones’ novel was filmed once before, in 1964, with director Andrew Marton and stars Keir Dullea and Jack Warden fighting a losing battle with a lackluster supporting cast and meager production values but nonetheless managing to deliver a convincingly bleak and despairing view of warfare.
From The Wrap on the Voyage of Time clip screening at Cannes: “When he showed a few minutes of footage from “Voyage of Time” to a couple of dozen buyers, no press were allowed, and one person at the session says that even cellphones were confiscated before Malick showed up or the footage was shown. Malick introduced the clips himself, surprising those who’d been invited by the Wild Bunch sales agents. The film purports to cover the history of the universe, and a buyer reported that the footage shown consisted of dazzling effects work and gorgeous shots of natural wonders ranging from landscapes to the human eyeball. Cate Blanchett supplied the narration. “Malick has reportedly been working on the film since the 1970s, and it sounds as if it might be the inspiration for the creation-of-the-universe sequence in “Tree of Life.” “So did he wow the crowd and land a deal? According to the buyer who was present, the footage was spectacular, but there probably wasn’t enough of it to tempt anyone into making a substantial offer.”
from Variety . . . Voyage of Time is scheduled for delivery in 2016. Malick has now “thousands of hours of footage. There is a vision of what Terrence Malick wants with this film. He has in a way collected colors and has an idea of what he wants to paint,” said producer Sophokles Tasioulis at Berlin-based Sophisticated Films. The film has drawn on scientific advisers from MIT, Cambridge and Harvard. “On the scientific side, everything the film may contain will be very well researched and will be at the top end of what we know,” Tasioulis added. Voyage of Time will draw on multiple filmic resources: One is footage Malick has directed himself, shooting with 65mm film negative. “It doesn’t get any better in terms of resolution, colors, in terms of capturing the beauty of what Terrence Malick calls the miracle of the world, Tasioulis said. Other scenes have been created working with leading vfx artists such as Dan Glass (“Matrix Trilogy,” “Batman Begins”), and with the help of natural history cameramen, shooting with Imax cameras. Voyage of Time will draw on select material created but never used for Tree of Life, and ceded to the film by River Road’s Bill Pohlad, a Tree producer. Also arresting is the scale of distribution ambition. “Because of the size of the story, there’s an opportunity to take a more poetic approach in a 90-minute feature film which is an emotional journey,” said Tasioulis, who has been brought on board because of his expertise in making big theatrical events out of natural history movies: “Earth,” which he produced, grossed $109 million worldwide. “The 40-minute large-screen format would be more educational, with more facts, the science, in a more overt way, he added.”
We are slowly adding content, but we aim to make this site the definitive resource for all things Malick.
Come back often!
©2015 All Rights Reserved.