MovieChat Forums > The Thin Red Line (1999) Discussion > The Myth of Adam and the Myth of the Fro...

The Myth of Adam and the Myth of the Frontier


R.W.B. Lewis, in his work, The American Adam: Innocence, Tragedy, and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century, describes the Adam of this myth as, “a [hopeful] individual emancipated from history, happily bereft of ancestry, untouched by the usual inheritance of family and race; an individual standing alone, self-reliant and self-propelling ... fundamentally innocent.”

Malick arguably ascribes these Adamic attributes to The Thin Red Lines’ main protagonist, Witt, and in doing so attempts to a convey a message regarding the myth of the frontier and the myth of Adam.

The film begins with Witt isolated from his battalion on an island, reifying the notion of self-reliance. He does not align himself with the destruction of war, highlighted with the way he interacts with the villagers; wholly innocent, unassuming, and seemingly virtuous, we see Witt as Adam in the Garden of Eden, unencumbered by the knowledge of evil. This element, alongside the ubiquitous panoramic shots of nature depicted as vast and vibrant, intimate an Edenic quality to the setting.

In the American myth of the frontier, nature is shown as limitless and expansive, full of amazement and wonder. Within the myth exists the belief that at the edge of this terrain lies opportunity and potential for a new civilization (i.e., New World as the West when compared with the Old World as Europe). To conquer this landscape is to reaffirm Western individualism and an internal locus of control, unrestrained by external influence.

The figurative Garden of Eden in the film is lush, vibrant, and organic. We see nature as idyllic, and despite the backdrop of war, there is a visceral yearning to breathe and swim in the turquoise waters where Witt appears so free and uninhibited.

Yet towards the film’s climax, as Witt lures the Japanese soldiers away from his unit, he is met by a nature that is no longer boundless and everlasting, but confined and finite. Like Tall, Staros, and Welsh, who are respectively driven by love, success, and nihilism, Witt is propelled by the belief in a greater good. His death belies the American myth of the frontier hero whose success is a product of initiative, aggressiveness, and forcefulness, and suggests that outcomes are influenced just as much by external forces as they are by personal agency.

"[....] qualities of evil and fear and destructiveness have entered; self-sufficiency is questioned through terrible trials; and the stage is set for tragedy. The solitary hero and the alien tribe; 'the simple genuine self against the whole world'--this is still the given,... The variable is this: the novelist's sense of the initial tension--whether it is comforting, or whether it is potentially tragic; whether the tribe promises love, or whether it promises death" (Lewis, 1955).

reply

September 4, 2021 Saturday 11:05 [edited 11:35 for grammar] PM ET

While people have a tendency to accept the consequences of their actions, even when they learn to understand the difference between "going through the motions" and truly being sincere in their change of heart, there's still the present inclination for what seems to be the easiest outcome everyone considers themselves capable of handling. Usually, it's not until any visible damage is seen, due to a great lack of foresight, that an active response arises to make amends; to see things for what they really are.

It's tempting to any unsuspecting person that they think they know what's best, embracing the liberation of self autonomy; free from inhibiting constraints. While this vision is definitely worth fighting for - to live peacefully in the world we all call home - pragmatic as it may be, without sticking to the principle: where anything of value is appreciated for what it is, collapses in on itself due to self-implosion; there's no real peace to be had except the illusory or strictly absract. Anything concrete must have a well-built foundation.

~~/o/

reply

This sounds thoughtful, but I have to confess I don't understand you point, it seems all over some collective aesthetic, moral, experiential map.

reply

Sorry for this late reply. Thanks for your feedback. It was my desire in my first response to avoid using plain language for fear of coming off condescending or talking down towards others. Your own contributions are considerate. They display sensitivity without sacrificing the force behind words and ideas being conveyed. You do this effortlessly and graciously.

What was meant above is that in order for anyone and everyone to truly be free, hatred must be let go of. There is not only justice and reciprocity involved, but also love too for this to happen, which is easier said than done. When one group is being treated horribly by another, it takes tremendous courage to overcome anger and hostility when the oppressed finds themselves in a position to emerge out of their situation with strength without resorting to the same tactics towards their oppressors as was done to them. To love your enemy is simply divine and is the very definition of forgiveness.

~~/o/

reply

To love your enemy is simply divine and is the very definition of forgiveness.


"Simply divine..." which is why it never happens in real life and the victors generally just continue the cycle of oppression.

Loving your enemy in reality is probably the quickest, most efficient way to enable them to destroy you.

reply

Knowing and understanding other people's problems involves knowing what being in those situations are like. The use of power cannot solve every issue outside of conflicts. While things like sympathy, rationality, empathy, kindness, and knowledge don't mean much when people are struggling in hard times, if we have a past to remember the good times, without being haunted by our past and wanting to take revenge later on, we will have a future we can see because of a sense of memory or remembrance.

~~/o/

reply

Yes, there seems to be a long history of the oppressed becoming very enthusiastic oppressors. In much of human history, defeat in war meant death/enslavement. For most of us, avoiding war is a huge plus. My take is that respect for national borders, open rules-based democratic market-based systems with a strong social safety net are the best means to nurture progress, prosperity & social harmony.

Scarcity, tribalism/racism/classism & inequity are the major breeding grounds of most of our ills. What I see is a lot of people talking around those obvious stress-points to point fingers at the disadvantaged for their alleged short-comings, as if we're all of us born at home plate with an equal shot at getting a hit - life is not at all that way. But making it that way, to the extent we reasonably can, while keeping incentives for economic & social success well founded, should be our objective.

reply

Well thought out. It can't be stressed enough just how important democracy really is. It's not just a buzz word. This kind of government mediates conflict and allows a whole assortment of differing ideals without turning into some sort of odd contradiction. One of its founding aspects is respectful distinction between religion and politics, recognizing it's bad to mix them up or letting either of them to try to substitute for the other.

Interestingly enough, the United States, despite being such a young country in history, has one of the world's oldest constitutions due to its documentation largely being unedited. It's possible for its writing to be adjusted or amended without resorting to unprecedented changes that could alter its intended purpose and spirit.

There's this scholarly book by a religious dude named Michael Novak called 'The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism', if that's your thing. In it, he goes over why democracy is the most fair system for maintaining and helping values big and small.

~~/o/

reply