 |
 |
I agree that The Thin Red Line is one of the best war movies of all times, and perhaps one of the most philosophical, imbued as Terence Malick is with Heidegger's philosophy. But I'd like to hear more from Richard about why he thought so. Dan Shaw -----Original Message----- From: Film-Philosophy Salon on behalf of Anna Hindley Sent: Wed 9/10/2003 10:29 AM To: [log in to unmask] Cc: Subject: Re: the thin red line /2 I thought the casting was interesting in that it seemed that the bigger the star, the higher their rank in the depicted army; so while a major Hollywood player like John Travolta appears for only a few minutes, the weight of the film is carried by relative unknowns John Cavaziel and Ben Chaplin. This means that the higher ranked personnel are recognised as important by the audience in the way that they might be recognised by the soldiers. - Anna At 13:17 10/09/03, you wrote: >I loved the movie, but there seemed to be a conflation of "movie stars" >with "hero" that was jarring. The sudden appearance of a "star" (no >matter how >worthy an actor) disrupted the narrative a great deal. Who needs John >Travolta? And as much as I like Clooney, it was a clear misstep to put him in. > >Andrew > >Quoting "semioticsandcommunication.net teobaldelli.com" ><[log in to unmask]>: > > > ... and it seems to me anyway that it > > appears to be a difficult path for US war movies to > > move away from the old-consumed patterns of the "hero" ... > > (as well as from the temptation to re-write history > > according to its own needs) > > > > isn't it? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Paolo > > -- > > > > >Andrew Lesk > >http://courses.ece.utoronto.ca/eng252yl0101 >http://www.andrewlesk.com