Change Your Image
tuncerbeyribey
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Thin Red Line (1998)
An Epic Anti-War Movie Ever Made
The Thin Red Line is probably the philosophically most intense anti-war movie ever made. Despite its 3-hour-long running time, it's captivating to watch. Its poetic narrative, together with the wonderful shots from John Toll, creates a moving and epic atmosphere. We see a lot of shots from nature, which "vies with itself", and it creates a contradiction between the tranquilizing nature and violent effects of war. What is striking about the movie is its success on showing the dichotomies about the war, and deconstructing them. This differentiates it from all other anti-war movies.
The first dichotomy is between Pvt. Witt (Jim Caviezel) and Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn). We can simply call it a realism vs. utopianism dichotomy. Pvt. Witt, as the figure of utopianism, believes that another world can exist. The world can be free from the cruelty of war, and be peaceful. He says that he saw this possibility, when he was AWOL, even though he sometimes thought that it was in his imagination. He believes "that spark" that can change the world, which exists in every individual. The only thing left is to light or strengthen it. On the other hand, Sgt. Welsh thinks that we have to accept this reality. There is only one "rock", on which we live, and we have to find the ways to survive. His solution for himself was to "make himself an island". This dichotomy shatters when Pvt. Witt witnessed the "war" in his peaceful environment, and Sgt. Welsh witnessed the unceasing optimism in Pvt. Witt.
The second dichotomy was rationalism vs. emotivism between Lt. Col. Toll (Nick Nolte) and Capt. Staros (Elias Koteas). Toll believes that the war is a calculable thing that necessitates to make a cost-benefit analysis. In this perspective, he thinks that the 'right' thing is to do is to sacrifice some men to capture a strategically important hill. You have to make contact with their men on the basis of chain of command, eluding any emotional relationship. On the other hand, Staros believes that the most important human relationship should be based on emotions. You have to respect their lives and strategic objectives should be secondary. You may delay obtaining your objectives, but you have to save the lives of your companies.
These two main dichotomies are always challenged and deconstructed throughout the movie. And several other dichotomies are also presented such as nature vs. civilization, love vs. hate, masculinity vs. timidity, mental health vs. craziness and so on, and all of these are under scrutiny by Malick. What makes this movie wonderful is that these deconstructions are supported by the monologues of the characters. They always discuss the situation, and interrogate what's going on around their environment. For this, Malick uses symbols and flashbacks to show the viewer that these characters are first and foremost individuals who have ambitions, weaknesses, fears, disappointments and so on. Basically, they are not robots, but humans. In this way, Malick tries to show us that war is not an heroic act, it is brutal and destructive.
On the technical aspects, its cinematography, with its wonderful capture of nature, is top class. We see breathtaking sceneries, which are comforting. But this contrasts the brutality of the war that movie suggests. Hans Zimmer's music is utterly captivating. They are so melodious with the acts that one can abandon him/herself to these acts. They are moving, touching and consoling.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
A Imperalistic Glorification of a Manhunt
First of all, it should be noted that Zero Dark Thirty is technically a good movie. Its editing and sound should be given credit, as they make the movie watchable and 'somehow' enjoyable.
However, when we look at the plot, it is a highly militaristic and imperialistic glorification of a manhunt. Let me be clear on one thing: Osama Bin Laden was an evil terrorist without a doubt. Besides, I do not wait any socio-political argumentations on the reasons or sources of the Al-Qaeda terrorism or whether the American imperialism was responsible for the growth of it, especially during the Green Belt Project during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. This movie is just interested in the 'real account' of the killing of Bin Laden. I do not object to this choice. However, with this choice, we witness how the 'good' American guys were just successful to erase the purest evil from the earth. And this perspective bothers me.
From the beginning of the movie, we see that the American agents do some 'inevitable' acts, even though they were inhuman. They torture people, they use surveillance technologies, they kill a lot of people. And these were justified for a greater good. The movie approves of this. The director Bigelow wants us to believe that this was the only way by showing that the path chosen led to the capture of Bin Laden as dead. She glorifies the militaristic and securitizing attitude of the US Administrations, and for this purpose she chooses to document the mighty force of the American army.
We see an ultimate clash between the good (led by the Americans) vs. the bad. This dichotomy was captured under the big banner of 'war on terror'. This imperialistic vision of 'barbarians at the door' was casted as terrorism, which is decontextualized. The movie starts with the voices of phone calls during 9/11. So, 9/11 was believed to be the reason for these all militaristic attitudes. 'They' were to be blamed, and the American army brought justice to the earth by killing him. At the end of the movie, we saw Jessica Chastain (p.s: I do not understand why she was glorified for her acting in this movie, nothing special there) was breaking down in tears. Probably, she was relieved as the operation ended, and the story of the fight between good vs. evil came to a conclusion. Therefore, all the 'story' about terrorism was securitized and rationalized as a militaristic campaign.
Let's hope that we can be safe from this kind of glorification of American imperialism in the future. We have to question the nature of the conflict, not the form of it. We need more movies that critically engage in the conflictual situations. We do not need new glorified militaristic actions/thrillers anymore.