<<<< "Dearest Michael,

This time I must disagree with you. I found TRL overly long, if not boring -

Terrence Malick took 3hrs of my time to tell me that 'war is hell' - & I think someone else said it first and I've certainly seen it expressed more eloquently. I thought his use of cinematic devices was limited & the use of 7 different narrators was at best confusing. The film felt it was shot without a vision or direction, in the vain hope that one could be discovered in the cutting room (& I'm a Terrance Malick fan, too).

From my understanding of the Guadalcanal campaign the film was historically incorrect - I got the impression that 'his soldiers' fought one day between lunch & dinner and then suffered angst & 1000yd stares thereafter. I thought 'Saving Private Ryan' was a better insight into the moment by moment, yard by yard world of any foot soldier - whose war is whatever is happening within a 20 meter radius of him; and always incomprehensible and probably pointless.

As males I think we grow up asking ourselves how we would perform in battle - would we find the right stuff or find ourselves lacking, I feel that SPR asked that question in a visceral way without trying to answer it, whereas TRL seemed to have a point of view inconsistent with the material it was presenting.

Sorry Terry, close but no cigar"!

OK so here you have it, the meeting ground between the pragmatist and the romantic. And it is for you to be the judge where these worlds meet. For there is a place where they can meet and it is in my opinion, such a place is where a work becomes "a classic". Two other films I believe fall into this category are, 'Life is Beautiful' and the all time American classic 'Rebel Without a Cause'.

..."CLOUD SHADOW" EFFECT...

Now in regard to your query regarding the wonderful "cloud shadow" effect, as you say, "…it seemed that there were clouds overhead changing the exposure in the scene as they moved, was it real? was it pulling f-stop? was it digital? was it a rotary filter effect"? When you look for an answer to any ones work, it is always advisable to look at that persons body of work. One of the films, which I repeatedly refered to while I was with you in Vancouver was Malick's 'Days of Heaven'. Not only was this film-shoot done in Canada, but all the special effect where achieved in the camera.

Furthermore Malick teamed up with one of the great champions of minimalist cinematography Nestor Almendros. My definition of a minimalist is the ability to achieve the essence of any scene with minimal use of production energy and/or postproduction special effects. In Nestor Almendros's biography 'Man with a Camera', he tells a wonderful tale of how Malick and he realised the scripted scene of a 'sea of locusts' taking off from the wheat field.

Much to the horror of the Hollywood technical crew and producers, Malick and his Spanish DOP had arranged for a helicopter to hover above the scene at magic hour. On the word of 'action', actors began to walk or trot backwards and the hovering helicopter, beyond the field of view, flew towards the line of the camera releasing tonnes of peanut shells. Yes, the camera was running backwards and the film won the Oscar for best cinematography.

Now knowing this of Malick you will have to ask, would his wonderful "cloud shadow" effect be achieved in real time or in postproduction? The answer is real time.

On first viewing 'The Thin Red Line' I was only aware of one digital postproduction special effect. In reality tracer shells from a snipers rifle is an unlikely scenario. Tracer shells were used in that era of warfare from a belt of machine gun fire. The fact that we saw men scrambling through 'cunnie' grass facing sniper fire with tracer shells is poetic justice. This was used perhaps once or twice, that I am aware of. And indeed the synchronised sound effect in my view was convincing. >>>>