Tell it to Fox, brother. They own the rights.
So it was a six hour film? Wow…. I had trouble enough watching the regular cut.
Is there even an full original cut? I know Malick said that the film that came out as “The Thin Red Line” was only a subplot in the actual film he wanted to make. I also remember Nick Nolte saying in an interview that Malick was still editing the film a week after its initial release in LA/NY. ha. I’d be interested in this along with Leone’s 6 hour cut of OUATIA.
I loved that scene on the boat ride over between Nolte and Travolta, where they’re on deck and they were directed by Malick to move through their blocking without saying their lines. That was a real wtf moment, alright. But six hours of that? No, that’s ok.
I’m with Francisco – how could anyone sit through six hours of this film?
And regarding User’s comment, I didn’t even know there was a plot (much less a subplot) to The Thin Red Line. Man, that shit just flew right over my head.
I’d like to see them at least release the original version. Days of Heaven was a great addition to the catalog and i would love to see Badlands and Thin Red Line to get the release as well.
I’d like to see them at least release the original version. Days of Heaven was a great addition to the catalog and i would love to see Badlands and Thin Red Line to get the release as well.
“And regarding User’s comment, I didn’t even know there was a plot (much less a subplot) to The Thin Red Line. Man, that shit just flew right over my head.” – Fredo
Well… as soldiers fight in the battle of Guadalcanal, they experience and think about the battle, war, life, etc. The plot is pretty simple.
Also, User was saying the the film that was released was a subplot of a larger plot.
There’s a lot of confusion about what happened after principal photography on this film . . . understandable, considering the amount of film that was shot (a million and a half feet). According to Billy Webber and Leslie Jones, the first cut (the ~ five hour version) was done by the editor, more or less without Malick’s supervision or input, and in fact Malick never even watched the dailies:
“Terry and I rarely talked about the film. He left me to my own devices. Eventually I came back with a five-hour first cut.”
Webber: “Terry is not really fond of dialogue, and shoots takes with and without it.”
Jones: “Terry lost dialogue wherever possible. The final film varied greatly from the original concept.”
So, in that sense, it’s wrong to think of that cut as Malick’s vision of the film. Also Malick had final cut, it wasn’t the studio that cut it down to 170 minutes, it was Malick and Webber and Jones, and apparently the theatrical release is more or less what, in the end, what Malick wanted, so I doubt you’ll see the cut footage reintegrated.
Matt, that’s very interesting. Can you tell us where you got your information? Not that I doubt you, of course, but if it is a book or magazine, I’d like to read it for more info.
THIN RED LINE is kind of a problem film, I think. I saw it when it was released and was held by it, for the most part, but the parade of big actors in tiny roles (culminating in Clooney’s cameo) got rather silly after a while. It is kind of unique in war films in my experience, in that it shows such horrible activity taking place in such ravishingly gorgeous locations: the stupidity of war was driven home in an interesting way, I thought.
He never watched dailies, interesting. I can’t see him hunched over the lousy video assist monitor either. I’d bet he doesn’t give a fig for storyboarding, and he probably treats scripting as just a formality to appease the backers. He just kind of feels his way through the process, is my impression. It’s a groovy place he’s gotten to that he can continue to function in this way. It would be most revealing to see him at work.
Roscoe,
I can. Give me a moment here and I’ll find it for you.
(edit) Most of the specifics are drawn from here:
http://www.editorsguild.com/v2/magazine/Newsletter/MayJun99/weber_jones.html
Nolte said that Malick would meet with 2 editors at a time and tell them that the other editors said he was allowed to make changes. I love Malick. The guy is an intellectual rebel. For anyone interested in ANY details about Malick I recommend watching Nolte’s interview on Charlie Rose (It’s on youtube). It’s not much, but it is fascinating.
Thanks, Matt. That’s really something.
I’d like to see the cut footage, but would rather see it as supplementary material, perhaps in a bonus disc with interviews with the actors or something of the sort. Like KJ, I too was taken by the scene on the boat between Nolte and (a terribly miscast) Travolta on the ride over, and the beginning scenes on the island that juxtaposed the solidarity of the natives with the divisiveness of war symbolized by Caviesel’s character.
Yes, Originally Billy Bob Thorton was the central character, and he had a three hour narration, but his character was completely cut from the film along with Mickey Rourke, Martin Sheen, and a few others.
The original cut was over four hours (don’t know exactly how long), and was given a few test screenings. The studio didn’t like the reactions, and the cut, so a new editor was hired, and after 13 more months of edition and post prod, Sean Penn is the star of TRL. Most critic though the wide release version felt cut up, and unfocused, but maybe the original cut would be far superior (if it is ever released).
In regards to KJ, Francisco, and others; the film that you saw was only a sub plot of the actual movie as filmed and written. The main plot featuring Mickey Rourke, Billy Bob Thorton, and many others was cut out- that was the plot, but it didn’t make the movie.
Everything I’ve read indicates that they did not do test screenings for Thin Red Line. At any rate, it was definitely Malick and/or his editor (eventually a team of editors) who made the cuts that led to the extant version of the film.
To Matt Parks:
http://www.editorsguild.com/v2/magazine/Newsletter/MayJun99/weber_jones.html
There is an article with interviews from the editors and other parts of the production team. Billy Weber (the editor) is quoted saying " Even that five hour version (referring to the original cut) was very powerful, and you could see it was a very moving story back then." This cut was given limited close test screenings.
I LOVE this movie! However, I must confess I need to drink a lot of coffee and redbulls to stay awake.
The Thin Red Line was alright, but how much more coherent could the experience have been with another two hours tacked on? If that trick could possibly be pulled off, I’d be interested in seeing it. But somehow I doubt that’d be the case. Loved “The New World” all the same, though.
They’ll have to call it the THICK RED LINE! AM I right? Give it up!
Also, how deeply is this movie related to FROM HERE TO ETERNITY? I never saw FHTE!
“To Matt Parks:
http://www.editorsguild.com/v2/magazine/Newsletter/MayJun99/weber_jones.html
There is an article with interviews from the editors and other parts of the production team. Billy Weber (the editor) is quoted saying " Even that five hour version (referring to the original cut) was very powerful, and you could see it was a very moving story back then." This cut was given limited close test screenings."
Nathan, that’s the article I quoted earlier in this thread. What it actually says:
“There were no previews, but there were several in-house screenings; the largest of which, attended by 15 people, was for marketing executives. Malick had final cut. Although the editors said he had specific ideas he wanted to try, the director was also willing to explore and experiment with the material. His creative process demanded time and patience, and though occasionally frustrating, was often rewarding as well.”
In other words, it was only shown internally to studio people. It was never shown to a preview audience prior to its general release, so the only reactions were those of studio personnel who saw the various cuts at those screening.
Yes, it was cut down from the original cut b/c of the executives. Although Malick had final cut, over the 12 months they were editing, he reportedly never showed, and left the editors to their own devices, simply giving them the material he shot. The original film had starred Billy Bob Thorton, he had over three hours of narration also. But, at the request of the executives it was cut way down, a new editor was hired and the main plot was cut out entirely.
Like all of Malick’s features it is a cinematic poem with a loose narrative structure—you have to be very patient and go with Malick’s flow ,or it can be a miserable experience—if viewers insist on a total coherence of plot, it can be a waste of time for them—for me it’s one of the greats in recent cinema.
They were working with multiple editors—two and later the three are credited in the film—simultaneously, largely due to the demands of cutting down the huge amount of film that was shot. The process is eccentric, but there’s nothing that suggests that what ended up being released wasn’t what Malick wanted.
Yes, Lelsie jones, the first editor spent five months, never seeing Malick, editing the film. This is the first cut which I would like to see, the five hour version. The one which starred Billy Bob Thorton, and had Mickey Rourke, Martin Sheen, and Viggo Mortensen in it. But, that version was cut down.
Yes, I understand. It would certainly be interesting to see the rough cuts, but unless Malick was unhappy with the theatrical release, I doubt there is any chance they’d get his permission to reassemble the footage . . . assuming any record of it in these forms even exists.
I’m sure Malick would be willing to release the footage in a supplement, and I wouldn’t doubt if he would be willing to release full cut of what was orignally shot and scripted, similar to what the Apacolypse Now Redux was.
Redrum4
Please Criterion, release the original cut of the Thin Red Line. Almost three hours of footage were cut because of the studio before it’s release. Performances of Billy Bob Thorton, Mickey Rourke, Martin Sheen , Jason Patrick, and Viggo Morteseen were all cut from the film, and have never been seen. This is a candidate for a Criterion release if I have ever seen one.