A WWII Military Collector Takes a Look at "The Thin Red Line".

I know it's been a month since my last post, but raising a five-year-old and 4 month old has really consumed my time lately. The original idea behind having this blog was to discuss military collectibles and reproduction WWII U.S. web gear items. This will still take place, but I wanted to discuss my favorite war movie, and second favorite film of all time (the first being Raiders of the Lost Ark).

Because of the popularity of the previous summer's Saving Private Ryan, many of my fellow WWII buffs were highly anticipating the January 1999 release of The Thin Red Line, a film based on James Jones's 1962 novel of the same name. The book was based on the author's own experiences on Guadalcanal as a member of the 25th Infantry Division during the Battle of the Gifu in early 1943. I remember first seeing previews of The Thin Red Line when I went to see Will Smith's Enemy of the State. The preview blew me away. I had to see this movie. Many of my friends felt the same way. Everyone was highly anticipating another great WWII film, since Saving Private Ryan was so well done and well received. After I saw the preview, I bought a first edition of James Jones' novel and spent the next week reading what is now my favorite book. Like I did with Saving Private Ryan, I went and saw The Thin Red Line on opening day.

The Thin Red Line, is not by any means a contemporary or straightforward war movie. Neither is it a contemporary film in general. The director, Terrence Malik, has a unique and utterly singular style. While fairly close the the book, the film does tend to focus more on wars effects on nature, wildlife, and men's souls. Malik did not make this movie for the masses. Unlike Spielberg's gritty straightforward story in SPR, Malik's film is somewhat disjointed and meandering. This is likely the result of the extensive editing process that took place to trim the massive amount of film down to a two-hour and forty-five minute film. In the process, pieces of the story, dialog, and whole characters where cut. The end result, is what one film critic called a "flawed masterpiece".

None of my friends and colleagues in the military collecting and reenacting fields called this film a "masterpiece" in any way, shape, or form. Flawed? Yeah, that is what most of them thought. Most people had never seen a movie like this before. It is not a "Hollywood" film. They all went to see it expecting another SPR. Well, they were sorely disappointed. Some of them even walked out of the theater. As with most military history enthusiasts, they picked apart the film. Besides the fact that they thought it was weird, or awful, they did the usual amount of nitpicking when it comes to the authenticity of the uniforms and gear in the film. Many of them nitpicked SPR, but they still liked it because it was a conventional film.

Many of the issues the military collectors had with the film, or any war film, would never be known to the general movie going public. I could start a whole blog about mistakes and anachronisms in war movies, but they already exist. Most of my friends and colleagues did not know any of the details about the 25th division on Guadalcanal. Nor did any of them know about the Battle of the Gifu, or even read James Jones' novel (some did not even know it was originally a book).

One of the biggest complaints my fellow collectors had, was the appearance of the HBT uniforms worn by the actors. Many commented that they looked like they had been washed in motor oil, or were too dark, or too fuzzy or something. In actuality, reading the official U.S. Army history of the Guadalcanal campaign, and also the campaign in Buna, New Guinea, which was happening at the same time, many of the G.I.'s actually vat-dyed their HBT uniforms to give them a darker appearance. Not to mention that they were in combat and living in their dirty clothes, they would be darker from dirt and sweat. The comment about them looking too fuzzy? Well, the wardrobe people working on the film, machine washed them. So, in the scenes when they were wearing clean uniforms, you can see this. They did not machine wash their HBT uniforms in WWII. That, I can agree with.

The biggest anachronism, or mistake, or whatever, that I can see in the film is the appearance of a bayonet lug on Capt. Staros's M1 carbine in one scene toward the beginning of the film. After this scene it mysteriously disappears, and his carbine, along with all the others in the film have no bayonet lugs. This is correct for the period, as they did not show up until the end of the war. There are other things that I and many others can nit pick, such as the use of post-war birch stocks on the M1 Garand rifles, but this is trivial.

The positives about this film, on the historical end, outweigh the mistakes. The soldiers all have the correct WWII M1 fixed bale helmets. They even went as far as having a company in Australia (where they did most of the filming) recreate the early WWII fiber Hawley liners for the helmets (I know this from a couple of sources). Also, the MKII hand grenades you see many of them carrying, have the correct early spoon. The most impressive part about the grenades however, is that they appear to be the correct early WWII yellow painted grenades that were dipped in OD green paint at the start of the war. You can see the OD paint wearing off and the yellow color coming through. They did their research. Also, all the field gear is original and accurate, and the weapons for the most part are right, except for the carbine mishap.

One thing the Thin Red Line does that SPR does not, is accurately depict the relationships between the enlisted men and officers. It was much more formal during WWII that it is today. In SPR, Tom Hanks character is more like a modern day Army officer in the way he approaches and talks to his men. Also, the depiction of the Japanese troops during the Battle of the Gifu is dead on. Their starved, emaciated, sickness ridden appearance is right on. Not to mention that their uniforms and gear are also correct. Malik wanted to capture the sound differences between the Japanese rifles and the American ones, and he did that perfectly. During the Pacific Campaign, U.S. troops discussed how the Japanese Arisaka rifles had a different report that distinguished them from an M1. This is apparent in the film.

The combat scenes in this movie are very well done. Though they are not as grim and graphic as SPR or other films, they have just as much emotional impact. John Tolls awesome cinematography really lends to the overall scope of the battle, which at times only focuses on a single blade of grass stained with blood, or a scared soldier trying to hide under his helmet. One of my favorite shots in any film is in The Thin Red Line, where Toll captures a grassy knoll on the battlefield just before the fighting begins. The grass is being blown back and forth by a light breeze, the sun is shining brightly bringing out the green of the grass. As we look at this peaceful knoll, we see the sun light fade as the shadow of a cloud slowly covers the knoll. Brilliant.

Lastly, I have to say that the performances by the actors in this movie are top notch. With a cast that includes Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, John Cusack, Jim Caviezel, and Ben Chaplin, you cannot complain. The actors gave this movie their all. Though the main public and many of my friends and colleagues did not like, or understand The Thin Red Line, there are those of us who have been caught up in the film's undercurrent that understand what Malick, and even James Jones have to say about war. Over the years, many of my friends that did not care for The Thin Red Line when it came out love it now. It grew on them. I hope it grows on others as well.