Lost in Ontological Depths: Tracing Philosophical Reflections in Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line
The Thin Red Line movie might be considered one of Malick's best works in cinema. The director had a background in philosophy before entering the realm of filmmaking. Malick was intensely focused on ontology philosophy, shaping his works based on this profound study. While this influence is inevitably reflected in his films, the director consciously embedded philosophy into his cinema. The Thin Red Line is a film that surrounds individuals in a war setting, containing some vital inquiries while also having a philosophical dimension in interpreting existence through nature, making it a half art, half classic film.
Heidegger's philosophy is significantly important for Malick. The director translated a Heidegger book in his past, a piece of information that can significantly influence one's perspective. Malick carried this philosophical thought into his cinema, conveying it to the audience through specific metaphors within the film. So, what are these metaphors? Witt's quest throughout the film in seeking meaning within nature, the continuous depiction of animals, and the characters' inner journeys can be shown as examples. Humans, to give meaning to life, have formed certain thoughts throughout their existence. If we consider this thought structure as philosophy, it's possible to journey from Aristotle to the present day. Each philosophical view defines life in a different manner. The Thin Red Line attempts to convey an understanding of human nature through existential philosophy, characters grappling with their own identities amidst the senselessness of war, and showing that when observed from a certain perspective, individuals formed through oppositions are a cohesive whole for the audience. So, delving deeper, what are the reasons for the characters' existence?
Welsh, as understood in the film, is a character who has lost his faith. Throughout the movie, this character, opposing Witt, subtly suggests to the audience a desire for renewed faith through certain scenes, despite the lost faith within. Is this lack of faith solely about disbelief in a creator? Certainly not. The character has lost faith in many aspects of life. War serves as a bridge for the character to confront issues related to faith. Constant exposure to death has somewhat shaken this faith. As the character heads towards complete annihilation amidst the devastation brought by war, it becomes apparent that there's a need for Witt, who symbolizes faith, amidst the surroundings and intense despair. Welsh, in a way, can be observed as a character in search of faith.
Tall is a character within the war expecting success, nearing the end of his career. He aims to continue his life with a certain form of success and seeks to crown his accomplishments until that moment. However, the success he defines involves killing. In a particular part of the film, he mentions that killing is a law of nature. Tall lacks humane emotions to the extent that he leads his soldiers to death for his personal gains and pleasures. However, towards the end of the film, a sight affects his character. The human drive for life is geared towards a certain meaning. Clearly, even if Tall's desire is deemed successful, the film conveys the guilt he carries within for that particular moment. The character emphasizes that success in life requires cruelty and animosity. Tall, ruthlessly utilizes human values and personality traits for his own interests within the context of war. The character perhaps highlights that the described cruelty is more human-made than natural. It seems that human nature, in the director's world, holds such a reality.
Witt, despite everything, is perhaps the only character in the film who hasn't lost his faith. But his faith is centered around understanding and interpreting nature, much like Malick's affinity for pantheism. This belief system is so finely woven into the film that one could almost support the claim that the film is based on a belief system. Witt attempts to make sense of life based on things present within nature. The happiness found within native tribes is the best indicator of this. Even amidst the chaos of war, the character exists enchanted by the magnificence of nature. The concept of Dasein was introduced by Heidegger. This concept signifies the meaning of existence or the expression of existence itself. Witt, through nature, tries to interpret his own identity and perhaps understand the meaning of existence. The character that harbors the most humane emotions is still Witt. Witt, beyond a normal perception, is not fully present within the war. War, to an extent, is the only thing helping the character to find his personality and identity. The director's approach is observed to be successful up to this point, but add your own touch, Malick.
The film selectively uses Classical Narrative patterns, guiding the audience on how to feel until the end through music and subjects the audience to a propaganda cannon through prolonged war scenes. Where are the Japanese and what are they like in the film? Where will Witt's value be positioned amidst the biased narrative embraced by the director and the philosophical depth and meaning of life discussed so far? The film, not moving beyond classic American propaganda, has been turned into a production where the audience will be significantly influenced by successful philosophical and internal discussions. When looked at as a symbol of a project, it is impossible not to be influenced by American sympathy. Here, criticism largely pertains to the director's attitude. What's the difference between Malick, an intensely intellectual individual, and Tall? Hasn’t he used Heidegger for his personal and national interests? To showcase nature and life to the audience, has Malick, by choosing Witt, preferred to instill American sympathy?
If we embrace the positive aspects in films, where should we position this film? An entity referred to as an artist, while reflecting one's own intellectual world, becomes respectable to what extent when incorporating other worldly factors into their works through a persuasive method? Can the meaning of the music that lasts until the end of the film be explained? Can it be concluded that the film lacks an ideological basis? If so, what remains? One could somewhat claim that Socrates is more of an artist than Malick in a sense. Even when sentenced to death, he didn’t abandon his thoughts; he maintained his stance. Can we talk about purity in the director's cinema, especially in this film?
Searching for the meaning of life within nature seems to be the main summary of the film. But who is distorting the sought-after meaning? The distortion of nature is carried out by humans. Is the film an attempt to justify the distorted human nature? Are the wars, technological advancements, etc., attempts to repair the life they have damaged afterward? The answer is simple. It's a classic American film and propaganda, its way of life, mentality.
