Opening Sequence

The ‘Thin Red Line’, written and directed by Terrence Malick, is one of my favorite
films. Although the screenplay was written by Malick, the original inspiration came from the
novel of the same name by James Jones. The movie is a powerful piece of art that leaves me in
awe and confusion every time I watch it. The powerful voice over, imagery, and non-traditional
plot structure is very unique and are the elements that make this film so successful.
The opening sequence of the film is very indicative of the style of the rest of the movie.
In regards to the plot and story of the film, and how this scene moves the movie forward, it is
vague. Overall, the movie has a very fragmented and follows no comprehensible narrative
structure. As Martin Scorsese describes this style, “...you could come in the middle of it, you can
watch it. It's almost like an endless picture. It has no beginning and no end”. Most importantly,
the film is ultimately about a theme and complex ideas, rather than a plot with strong
momentum. The idea of the film is of war and nature, and their complex relationship with each
other and the subjects involved with both of them(people, plants, animals, violence, etc.)
Before the first image of the film begins, the low sound of an orchestra bass comes in
softly, followed by higher and higher stringed instruments getting gradually louder. This goes
well with the first image which is a close up of a crocodile on the edge of a slimy swamp. Sand
and leaves from high above trees line the edge as the crocodile slides in the algae covered liquid.
It is dark, indicating that it is in the heavy growth of a jungle or forest. The creature sinks in and
creeps off, its eyes and body just above the surface, giving an ominous feel. The camera zooms
in to the head of the reptile. The effect of this shot already brings to mind nature and also
suggests something more evil and ominous just below the surface, as in the alligator. It finally
sinks below the surface. Along with a fade of the instrumental sound.
The next image is a fade into a large tree on the bottom of a rain forest. The sound gently
fades out to the sound of the forest such as birds. It is a closer shot of the bottom of this large
tree, with beams of light coming from above. This contrasts the previous image, showing a
heavenly gentle light compared to the large reptile.
This shot is short and cuts to a low angle shot looking directly up from the bottom of the
forest to the canopy. The trees block most of the light but beams find their way down toward the
camera. The camera rotates, giving a sense of wonder and awe toward nature, coinciding with a
voice over of, “what’s this war in the heart of nature?... why does nature vie with itself?...the
land contend with the sea?” These questions, combined with the strong imagery set up the film’s
dreamlike tone and voice right away.
The shot then fades to another small tree with a vine climbing up its trunk. The camera
starts low and tilts higher, following this vine. The vine can be symbolic for many things.
Perhaps man ‘strangling’ nature. The image compliments the voice over. This is a direct image
of nature’s conflict within itself. The camera tilts further upward with the ambient sound of
nature fading into faint ineligible singing. The scene again fades to another low angle shot of a
large tree with a huge base of roots. The voice says, “Is there an avenging power in nature?”
This quick shot then fades again to a similar tree with open space above. It is the sky
around it, open and free, but also alone, different from all the shots before. It is brighter, open
from the canopy of the forest. The light in all of the sequence is very natural to the surroundings.
The voice again comes in, “Not one power, but two?”. He could be talking about nature and god.
The voices of the song get louder, foreshadowing the introduction of people, and the scene fades
to two native children working to get food out of nuts along a beach.
The next shots are of this group of people on the beach of Guadalcanal. They are working
together, young and old, playing games. The singing rises more dramatically and the camera
looks up at kids swimming down from above the surface of the ocean. They float and swim
around the coral playfully. The camera dances and floats around them giving the viewer the
feeling that they are with the children.
Then, the camera looks at the surface of the clear green-blue water and tilts and pans over
to a young American soldier, happily paddling a small carved out canoe. He appears happy and
carefree, but also out of place in this world that was just introduced.
Another shot follows of a naked boy carrying a fishing pole in the shallow waters of the
island and then back to the soldier, who happily observes another fishing boat pass him. The film
cuts to a group of women and children cleaning and playing in a small lake or pond.
The final shot of the sequence and beginning of the next scene is of the soldier standing
alone, apparently looking at and observing the people. Although he is nonthreatening, he is also
out of place.

At this point all music stops and the only noise is ambient. Overall, the ending shots
were shorter than the first couple, almost as if intention was to warm up the audience.
Without getting too much into the rest of the film, the opening sequence is very similar to
the following scenes with its dreamlike images and voice over. The images and voice over and
action along with dialogue all complement and contradict each other to add to the meaning. This
is a style that Malick has used in previous films. Malick studied philosophy, which comes as no
surprise because the ‘Thin Red Line’ is very philosophical. His two films before this, ‘Badlands’
and ‘Days of Heaven’, produced many years before also used experimental editing and strong
imagery used with voice over. This has been his style from the beginning so ‘The Thin Red
Line’ came to no surprise to many who knew of his earlier work. These movies however, were
made many years earlier, before Malick disappeared for a couple decades.
This film has had a very positive response from many critics as well as negative by some.
Martin Scorsese said it was one of his top three favorite films of the decade. Other critics
describe it as “dreamlike” and others describe it as “hallucinatory”. Roger Ebert, who I
generally disagree with on much, said, “...an almost hallucinatory sense of displacement, as the
actors struggle for realism, and the movie's point of view hovers above them like a high school
kid all filled with big questions. My guess is that any veteran of the actual battle of Guadalcanal
would describe this movie with an eight-letter word much beloved in the Army.” Although I
disagree with his negative criticism, I agree with his prediction that veterans would not describe
the movie favorably.
Malick creates the film in a way that has the feel of an anti-war Vietnam type movie. The
movie is not favorable to war, and shows not great heroes or cowards in the traditional sense.
This goes against pretty much every other WWII movies that I know of. I also believe that this
was an intentional and smart idea by the director.
I have recently been watching the documentary, ‘The War’, by Ken Burns. This powerful
documentary goes over the horrible period in history that the world endured. Most soldiers
interviewed express the same sentiment that this war was absolutely necessary no matter what
the cost was. Necessary is the key word as most wars are not described in this way. ‘The Thin
Red Line’ although not very political or ideological, shows that although the war may have been
necessary, it was war nonetheless, and horrible things happens and are done, one both sides of
the line. If Malick used Vietnam, or Korea, or pretty much any other war, more of a stigma
would have been attached from the very beginning.
Malick never tries to force a certain interpretation. It is confusing, vague, concrete, and
unique, just like the subject matter. Nature, war, people, plants, animals, life, death, these are all
words that come to min. I am not very good at putting a concrete explanation to anything, and I
hope my description of this film is not too vague and unspecific. However, I think my general
intuition of good art and films is strong, and whenever I watch this film I have an extremely
strong emotional response. I have read other responses from critics, and I do not hold them too
closely, for I think the strongest part of this film is that it can be interpreted in so many ways. I
don’t think anybody will see the same film.