|
 Terrence Malick (pictured above with his twin brother Ferrence), despite logging just 4 films, is my favorite filmmaker. To quote Gene Siskel, his films "test a film critic's power of description" and "ask the eternal questions." Sean Penn says of him that "he is a poet amongst academics." He is also (famously) aloof and private, with a 20 year gap between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. He has a new movie coming out called The Tree of Life, starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and dinosaurs...sort of. The movie is supposed to come out this year, which may or may not happen due to reasons I'll talk about later. This thread will be about Terry (he stopped giving interviews starting around 1975ish, so all of it is from people involved in the projects), his films, and his new movie. A wall of words is before you - which will just scratch the surface of Malick - and my skill as a writer is highly questionable....so if you're just interested in The Tree of Life, it's understandable, scroll down past this nonsense to the picture of Mr. Pitt. A Philosopher Goes Behind the Camera  Malick is unlike just about any director working today. He wasn't playing around with a camera as a kid, acting in school plays, or overly obsessed with film/art in general. Rather, he was an extremely smart and introspective kid who doubled as a talented athlete. He attended Harvard and graduated near the top of his class; he majored in philosophy with his thesis on Heidegger's question/theory of being - what is it to exist? (His films may suddenly make much more sense). He was selected as a Rhodes Scholar, the pinnacle of academic achievement in the United States, but ultimately was semi-forced out by a professor. He came back to the United States and took up odd jobs, including freelance journalism, including traveling to South America for The New Yorker. He eventually ended up as a lecturer of philosophy at MIT. Now a few years after leaving Oxford, for reasons unclear (although it may be related to his brother's suicide in 1968), he decided to pursue a Masters degree (MFA) in film-making from The American Film Institute. Terry reflects on the abrupt lifestyle change: quote:In the fall of 1969, I realized I wasn’t a good teacher and should leave teaching, but I didn’t know what to do next. I’d always liked movies without ever being a true cinephile. When I heard that the American Film Institute had just opened and was accepting applications for their master’s program, I decided to apply. Today I would certainly not be accepted, but at the time it wasn’t well known, and they accepted just about anyone. I’d never made any films. It was at this point that he started to play around with scripts, and his odyssey as a director began. He produced a few shorts, none of which have been released to the public (in all likelihood, a merciful move, even shorts from the greats are usually terrible). It culminated in his first feature-length film being released in 1973. Badlands  Badlands is, in my opinion, Malick's most mainstream and most accessible film. In that same vein, I also think that watching Malick's first two films is the best way to approach his post-seclusion work (that and taking some philosophy courses). Badlands debuted at The New York Film Festival, overshadowing Scorsese's own premier of Mean Streets (another Scorsese/Malick connection coming later). It received near unanimous critical praise, and many still consider it to be his best work. The two principal actors, Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen (whose careers it helped to launch), both credit it as their favorite experience. quote:Sissy Spacek: It was Terry's first film, he didn't really understand how the "process" in Hollywood worked. He did things in a different way, his approach was very different and I think it was hardest on some of the technicians, crew members. Terry reflects on the movie and the characters: quote:There is some humor in the picture, I believe. Not jokes. It lies in Holly's mis-estimation of her audience, of what they will be interested in or ready to believe. (She seems at time to think of her narration as like what you get in audio-visual courses in high school.) When they're crossing the badlands, instead of telling us what's going on between Kit and herself, or anything of what we'd like and have to know, she describes what they ate and what it tasted like, as though we might be planning a similar trip and appreciate her experience, this way. Narration by the main characters and the use of natural landscapes (as well as the spontaneous altering of shooting schedules/break from the script) would become Malick's signatures. What is unique about Badlands, in respect to Malick, is that there wasn't excessive edits or filming which would mark (or plague) his future films. In fact, Days of Heaven, which went into production in 1976 took two years to edit before finally being released. It again starred unknowns, Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, and Sam Shepard. No interviews from Malick exist about this film or any future films. Days of Heaven  Days of Heaven premiered at Cannes where Malick received the Best Director prize. As with Badlands, it was a critical success (if slightly less so), but didn't find an audience in the box office. Contrasted with Badlands, Days of Heaven is a more visual and visceral experience, accentuated by Ennio Morricone's score. As Arthur Penn (director of Bonnie & Clyde, and friend of Malick) said, "in Badlands, [Terry was] working with a certain kind of primitivism" whereas he felt Days of Heaven was "too sophisticated" (which I would interpret as taking chances). Whatever the reasoning for the style, it paid off with an Academy Award for best cinematography, and might just win the award if you included all films from 1960 - 2010. The film is done purely with natural light; famously, a good portion of the filming is done during the 'magic hour' (shown above) where the sun has set but the horizon is still lit. The existence of the Criterion Blu-Ray is reason enough to purchase a Blu-Ray player. There's plenty said & written about the film, and not all of it is filled with praise; the content of the story is where most criticism arises. I'll let those involved shed more light on some of the themes that people may have missed. Sam Shepard, who was a writer around the time that Malick told him about the script (eventually asking him to act in the movie) saw it as a film of collision: quote:I think the center is the era of the time, the collision of these cultures. This eastern culture and this western culture, this urban and rural collision that happened in America. It was post-Civil War - (pumps fists together) - it was a head on collision between the urban and the rural. And I think that's where the center of this film is. It doesn't lie in one or another of the characters. It has to do with the time. It was a very crucial time. We get so carried away with this thing of progress. It's always called progress, right? The railroads coming! This is coming. We're exploiting the land, or we were marching forward, and it was manifest destiny. And all of this other poo poo. But what was actually happening is that there was this horrible collision of cultures. Jack Fisk, again the art director, saw another conflict and theme in the work: quote:I think the interior of the house was filled with art work, and that seemed wonderful in conjunction with the force of nature outside. There was this human identity and there was God's identity out there. And God was much more powerful than man. And I would add, too, that the horizon is an important element in the film. It's often at the center of the picture, as if two forces have approached each other. So while different people see different things (there is of course Biblical references aplenty), I think the main takeaway from the story is its ethereal nature. The movie is un-graspable, and purposefully so, because you're held at arms-length from the story: the narrator (the young sister) is completely uninvolved in the events except as an observer remembering days long since gone. The dream-like nature of the story against persists. Haskell Wexler, who took over for Néstor Almendros as cinematographer halfway through the shoot (but unfortunately didn't get to share the Academy Award), talks about working with Malick: quote:Terry asked me to do a lot of things for which I had to suppress my laughter. I remember I did a shot of what was supposed to be a wolf running up a hill, I didn't know what the hell was in his mind. I did begin to see that he sees some connection between human beings and animals, and also of things that grow. I don't know if this it too philosophical, but it seems that he sees a connection between life things, between animals, the growth, and the land. I guarantee he would never say any of this to me, but these were some of the subconscious messages I got from him. Ennio Morricone describes Malick as detail-oriented, if a bit misguided: quote:When we recorded the music, he was very demanding. He didn't know me very well, so he made suggestions, and in some cases, gave musical solutions. This kind of annoyed me. Because he'd say: "This thing, try it with three flutes." Something impossible! So, to humor him, I would do it with three flutes and then he'd decide to use my version after all. His was impossible, or I would have written it myself. And more nitpicking like that, which means he was very attentive and very careful about music. Whatever misgivings he had, Malick was so impressed with the score that he would play it for the cast and crew in between shoots. So there we have it, Days of Heaven is released, a few more acting careers launched, and the director is celebrated both in Hollywood as well as overseas. Malick is now 35 years of age. And, as far as just about everyone is concerned, he disappears for two decades (the last photograph before ~1996ish is below). Seclusion and Reemergence  Much of the 'disappearance' is a slight myth because he was loosely involved with the movie business most of the time. For a couple of years, while still under contract with a studio or some such, he was working on script/pre-production work for a film that featured an origin-of-life prologue: quote:Exhausted and bruised by Days of Heaven, Malick spent considerable time with his girlfriend, Michie Gleason, in Paris. While she directed a film called Broken English, he labored in their Rue Jacob apartment on his new script, tentatively entitled Q. Its prologue, which dramatized the origins of life, became increasingly elaborate and would ultimately take over the rest of the story. (We have reason to believe that this has now been completed in some form, and will be attached to The Tree of Life as either a prologue or an epilogue. Alternatively, it will be shown on its own as something called The Voyage of Time. It was either shot in IMAX or will be shown in IMAX. That is where the dinosaurs come in. From someone who saw it, and I read this a long time ago on some message board so a few grains of salt here, it's loving amazing. So who knows...maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't, maybe it will be released, maybe it will be edited until he dies.) He became variously involved in writing screenplays and the like, and there's sagas upon sagas in this Vanity Fair article (from which I've already pulled a few quotes). So while he hadn't disappeared, he wasn't all that gung-ho about making a movie either. That altered when presented the opportunity to direct his script for The Thin Red Line. The word script became a very loose term. As a segue into the discussion of the movie, here is John C. Reilly talking about Malick and the filming: quote:He is an amazing guy. Despite his reputation, he is not some Howard Hughes like hermit figure, he is very open and friendly and warm and encouraging, he is just a very private person. I heard that he studied philosophy before he started directing films, and it makes sense, because he doesn't really seem like a film director. He just seems like a truth seeker. I'll give you an example with a story. we were making The Thin Red Line and there was this day when there was this army base, with hundreds and hundreds of extra, in this huge base with tents and trucks and vintage airplanes taking off and landing, and there this big massive truck with some of the main actors, myself included, as it drove through the camp. So in order to get the shot, they had to orchestrate this massive group of people. Like an entire camp. And they were like STAND BY! CUE THE AIRPLANES! GET THE TRUCKS GOING! OKAY, EXTRAS!!! There is dust everywhere, and there is noise. Everyone is waiting, in the back of the truck...here we go, here we go. STANDBY!!!! And all of a sudden Terry is like, 'Oh, look it's a red tail hawk. Look, John, John, get the camera, there it is.' And we're all like what...? Are they really filming a hawk right now? There are airplanes taking off. And we sat there for 5 or 10 minutes minutes while he got different angles of this bird flying through the sky. It was like the script didn't really matter, the story didn't matter. Although we shot the script and shot the story, the movie didn't resemble the script. But I think that shows real vision. He didn't let anyone distract him from being truthful or meaningful....It's like he was gathering moments and taking them with him, 'let's turn this into a movie.' The Thin Red Line  Billy Weber, the editor of the movie, considers it a culmination (not difficult with just 2 previous films!) of his work: quote:So much of The Thin Red Line is a combination of music, and voiceover, and film, and moreso than Days of Heaven and more than Badlands. Sort of each time, each movie, he stepped it up a little more. More footage, more music, more shots of non-linear storytelling. And I feel like The Thin Red Line takes the most chances of the three of them. Martin Scorsese considers this the best film made in the 1990s (sound byte type review because it was given on Ebert's TV show): quote:"The Thin Red Line works very differently from most films, as you watch it, you wonder 'What is narrative in films?' I'll take it a step further and say it's my favorite film made since at least the 1970s (where Apocalypse Now, The Godfather I, and The Godfather II reside). And I'll also say that when people ask 'what is a film that will eventually be viewed as a masterpiece, like Vertigo and Citizen Kane?' this film pops into my mind. I'm almost afraid to talk about it except in superlatives, because any description I offer won't encapsulate what I think about it (which goes back to Siskel's quote about testing the limits of description). I'll try, though: I think this is film-making on a different level than anyone. Because he is different; he is approaching film-making from a completely different perspective with completely different goals. What other director is working with philosophical underpinnings combined with introspective voiceovers that films scenes principally using natural light? It's a movie that does things with the medium that no one dare try because the chance of success is so minimal. The cinematographer John Toll talks about the inspiration for the style of filming: quote:During the shoot, Jack Fisk brought us this book called Images of War: The Artist's Vision of World War II, which presents 200 paintings by many different artists. These were artists who spent time in the front lines and came back with this fantastic artwork depicting the scenes they had witnessed, including many combat situations. All of the artists had different and unique styles. We didn't necessarily try to reproduce these pieces of art, but they did give us good ideas about color schemes and so on. The illustrations basically served as a guide to the kind of atmosphere we were after. As I read and watched interviews with people involved, I was struck by how touched they are by their involvement in the movie. You can tell in the way that they talk that this was a deeply moving experience. When I watched Caviezel, he refers to weeping on set because he was so struck by the images. Elias Koteas, in trying to put words to his opinion of Malick, is holding back tears: quote:To me when I saw the movie, the moment that it becomes magical is when in the beginning of the film, the start of the battle, this one captain sends two guys out, the two first guys, and they're both looking at each other going 'what? I don't want to be the guy, you be the guy.' And then they go out. They go out, boom boom, they're gone. And suddenly....woosh...quiet. You see the golden wheat fields blowing in the wind. Gold and green, quiet. And then you the captain looking out, and everything is quiet. To me, that was the moment. The little that I know of Terry Malick, suddenly when I saw that moment I was like ahhh, its magic. To just take a few word line from the movie: "If I go first, I'll wait for you there....on the other side of the dark water", we know what it literally means immediately, a man in love and contemplating death. But there is such depth and richness in the context and the meaning that you could spend days and weeks just contemplating that small snippet. What it says about life, love, hope, and the human experience. And even after all of that contemplation, you would get no further than anyone else because you cannot imagine the unimaginable. It can be an extremely uncomfortable watching this movie with your 2010 mindset; the inevitable isn't a subject that is fun to ponder. But these soldiers stared it in the face every day, and I think this film encapsulates that sense better than any other. It was a shared experience, and one that couldn't be repressed like we do so now. Sean Penn, reflecting on the movie: quote:[Terry] is concerned with the way that we are innocent, he's concerned with the way that we are damaged, the way that we are cruel, the way that we love, he's concerned about all of the things that represent our lives. Whereas the end product continues to amaze people, the casting, shoot, editing, and scoring for this movie is best described as a giant clusterfuck. And me writing it here, while possibly interesting, would take me a few hours. Suffice it to say that every single actor in Hollywood wanted to be in the movie (one agent said in response to being told that there wasn't a female role available, only a picture of a loved one: "She'll be that picture!!!"). He had to turn down the likes of Johnny Depp (who begged to be in it), because he wanted unknowns whose innocence could be captured. The script was adapted from a book of the same name by James Jones; the script deviated from the book, and the final film deviated even further from the script (this was acceptable, because the author's widow said to Malick that she felt he spoke with her late husband's voice and gave him latitude to do whatever he wanted). To give an idea of the type of shoot that went on, Terry would go out with actors and feed them lines he had just made up, or tell them to make up lines. He would write poems, and tell Nick Nolte to translate this 5 page poem into a single line. Just pure craziness. The amount of footage shot boggles the mind, and cutting it into something workable was no small task. Big time actors had their screen time cut to seconds or cut altogether. John C. Reilly said that big-time actors would spend a long time putting on their costumes and getting ready for the day only to sit there day after day. The main character changed from Adrien Brody to Jim Caviezel. The voiceover was done, re-done, done, re-done, done, re-done, ad infinitum. Malick's first cut of the movie was 5 hours long; he was forced to cut it down to 3 hours for the studio's requirements (the 5 hour version may or may not exist anymore). So if you are to deride the movie for not quite flowing enough, a valid critique, bear in mind that this isn't Malick's fault per se. We may never see what he wanted us to see, which is both frustrating (looking back) and exciting (looking to his future films). The upcoming Criterion release will attempt to right some wrongs. Mickey Rourke, who was despondent at being cut from the movie, is added back in (along with 15 additional minutes).  The cover art evokes the feel of the movie more than the studio posters/artwork (which put more emphasis on the battles):  (Both in the interest of shortening this far-too-long thread up and also because it's my 4th favorite film, I'm going to skip The New World and move right into the present. The only interesting thing I would've brought up, because pretty much all of the cast delivered boring by-the-book interviews, is that Malick pulled it out of theaters, re-edited it, then re-released it!). The Tree of Life and the future    The Tree of Life is supposedly coming out this year, having entered production in 2008, but no trailer exists that we know of, nor does a website. There aren't any interviews, (authorized) production stills, or anything one would remotely expect to see from a movie starring two of Hollywood's biggest actors (Brad Pitt actually replaced Heath Ledger in this project) and a director of Malick's caliber. Part of this blame could lie in the hands of Apparition, the almost-bankrupt studio which is/was supposed to release The Tree of Life. The one thing we do know is that the film has been rated by the MPAA, and Malick has started/is starting a new movie in September. All signs point to the film being completely edited, and it only being a matter of distribution and marketing. But who knows. Signs have pointed places before. As I posted earlier, the short The Voyage of Time, which is about the origin of the universe (glad Malick has curbed his ambition in his older years), may or may not be attached to The Tree of Life to punctuate the storyline. Someone who has claimed to have seen it (the believability is highly suspect), compared it to 2001: A Spacey Odyssey in its abstractness and visuals. His next project, which doesn't have a title but is a love story, stars these fine folk (along with Rachel Weisz):  We also know that he has quite a lot of screenplays and ideas that he wants to get to, so maybe this semi-quick turnaround time (2-3 years) for Malick is here to stay. One can only hope. Arkane fucked around with this message at Sep 3, 2010 around 22:44 |
| # ? Sep 3, 2010 22:22 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 08:02 |
|
|
I watched The New World almost completely blind as to it's content, or the director, back in 2006, and was enthralled. I enjoyed it enough to check out his entire back catalogue, except for The Thin Red Line, which I simply never got around to. I figured, after the announcement of the Criterion Blu-Ray, that I'd be doing myself a service just waiting for that. Based on what I've seen, I can safely say that Malick is my favorite director out there. He's a goddamned genius. Westopher fucked around with this message at Dec 8, 2010 around 07:10 |
| # ? Sep 3, 2010 22:49 |
|
|
Your OP was so good it subsequently altered my Netflix queue. I can't believe I never saw The Thin Red Line  .
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2010 23:07 |
|
|
Great thread, very informative; I didn't even know Malick had ever gone on record speaking about his films. I actually think he's getting better with each next one, with The New World being one of my favorite movies ever, so understandably I'm looking forward to The Tree of Life more than any other 2010 release. I just hope it doesn't get pushed back again, cause it's getting ridiculous. Something I can't wrap my head around about this project is what the hell a CG dinosaurs scene in a Malick movie would look like. His preferred style of cinematography, with natural light and locations and everything, as well as his whimsical approach to the shooting process make it hard for me to imagine him communicating with a VFX team or setting up a green screen shoot or whatever. I honestly have no idea what to expect of those sequences. I'm guessing it will be either really clumsily handled or sensational.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 00:13 |
|
|
Very thoughtful summation of a very thoughtful director. I know I've fully descended into film geekery because every time I watch Malick I can't imagine how anyone could not love him.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 00:57 |
|
|
perfect timing for some Tree of Life news! http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46382
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 01:16 |
|
|
Holcane posted:Something I can't wrap my head around about this project is what the hell a CG dinosaurs scene in a Malick movie would look like. His preferred style of cinematography, with natural light and locations and everything, as well as his whimsical approach to the shooting process make it hard for me to imagine him communicating with a VFX team or setting up a green screen shoot or whatever. I honestly have no idea what to expect of those sequences. I'm guessing it will be either really clumsily handled or sensational. For the life of me, I cannot find this interview I read a while back, but I remember it discussing how they shot a bunch of stuff with a Red camera, but were completely dissatisfied with the result and wound up re-shooting all of it on film. There was also an interview in Empire magazine with one of the computer artists and he said Mike Fink posted:I think when it’s finished it’ll be something that’s referred to for years. Everything I've read points to heavy practical effects enhanced with digital when absolutely needed, or, as you put it, sensational.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 02:02 |
|
|
Tree of Life was locked, but he decided to open it back up, that's part of the reason why it's delayed. Terry doesn't allow his picture to be taken... ever. He was notoriously reclusive in Austin, if he showed up to something, he'd demand that news outlets and such not take his picture. And this, still, remains my favorite Terrance Malick film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92fc6Hs-Fso
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 02:26 |
|
|
I love Malick. The first of his movies I saw was Days of Heaven; I'd read over and over how beautiful it was, but even that couldn't prepare me for what an amazing film I got. His ability to keep viewers at arm's length with regards to plot and character, and yet make everything feel so immediate and thrilling, is indescribable. I especially love his use of voice-over narration. Narration is at its best when it's describing thoughts and feelings rather than actions (see: GoodFellas, my favorite use of narration), but even that doesn't get at how the narration in his films work. It's so tangential, often meaningless in a literal sense but works so well to set the tone of everything. I haven't seen The Thin Red Line yet. I have no reason to believe I won't absolutely adore it, so I'm super excited for the Criterion blu-ray in a few weeks.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 03:16 |
|
|
When I watched the Thin Red Line, I felt like I was drunk when it was over. I had no idea what time it was - it could have been two days later for all I knew. When you watch it, it feels like time stands still - or YOU stand still while the world continues on around you. One of the two.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 03:59 |
|
|
Great OP but I must say I was a little disappointed by the lack of The New World.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 04:00 |
|
|
Nice write up, Arkane. Malick is one of my top 3 favorite directors and Thin Red Line is one of my favorite movies too. I happened to be taking a college class on screenwriting at the same time that Thin Red Line was first in theaters. So I happened to see that and Saving Private Ryan pretty much back to back as part of assignments. I saw Thin Red Line first and found Private Ryan to be pretty much unwatchable as a result. Reactions to those two films always perplexed me a little after that. I remember watching the Academy Awards telecast that year and afterward Bill Maher did a post-Oscar show where he pretty much ranted endlessly about how the whole Oscar show was a giant sham and travesty because Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture over Private Ryan. One of the myriad stupid things he said that night was that Thin Red Line not only should not have won, but also should not have even been considered for a nomination because it was a stupid movie. That was the moment when I realized that I would never have to take Bill Maher or anything he ever might have to say seriously ever again.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 04:16 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Great OP but I must say I was a little disappointed by the lack of The New World. Chiming in on this. "The New World" is one hell of a film, even if I'm not sure what to make of it.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 07:30 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Great OP but I must say I was a little disappointed by the lack of The New World. Absolutely, I think it's greatly underrated and believe it's by far the most visually rich and engrossing of his films. Strong performances from the cast as well, particularly from Colin Farrell and the girl who plays Pocahontas.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 08:01 |
|
|
You reminded me I haven't seen any of his films besides The Thin Red Line, I'd better get on that.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 11:28 |
|
|
As far as the exclusion, I was more going for describing Terrence Malick and his unique style. Towards that goal (which was a lot of research, but was fun to do), much of what I was posting I had transcribed from a little-seen, unreleased-in-the-US Italian documentary about Malick called Rosy-Fingered Dawn (very low production values, no clue how this guy got access to all of these celebrities), and it was made before The New World. I also read old articles, such as in Vanity Fair, Sight & Sound, etc. And by chance, John C. Reilly's interview (who completely off-the-cuff came up with the pretty drat apt "truth seeker") was given just a couple of months ago over in Italy while he was promoting Cyrus. So when I went to try and get slices of interesting text from people involved with The New World, there wasn't much of it (Farrell was in rehab, the main actress was like 15 or 16 at the time and the interviews were very blah, and Christian Bale is....The Batman). So instead of the OP being sort of anti-climactic, I figured skipping it would be fine. Plus, I guess we could argue this, but I'm not sure The New World brought NEW stuff to the table (as far as Malick's style), as much as reinforced what we have already seen. It's definitely a Malick film, with the haunting narration and amazing cinematography (Roger Ebert describes the feel of the movie: "We know with four centuries of hindsight all the sad aftermath, but it is crucial to "The New World" that it does not know what history holds. These people regard one another in complete novelty, and at times with a certain humility imposed by nature."), but I don't think it pushed the envelope like the 3 previous films. And my hunch is that The Tree of Life, which looks to be an incredibly personal movie, just might do that. But I'm not the arbiter of what is great/isn't great and what pushes the envelope/doesn't push the envelope, and movies are highly subjective, so taking issue with my opinion on it (or thinking I'm a doofus for excluding The New World) is all good with me! Arkane fucked around with this message at Sep 4, 2010 around 16:37 |
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 16:33 |
|
|
Well, time to rewatch all of his movies. Fantastic OP and I'm so excited to see Tree of Life. Hopefully, like you said, this marks a quick turnaround time for Malick. Also, those cast interviews are amazing. They seem in awe of the guy.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 17:44 |
|
|
To be honest, Malick is like Antonioni. You don't even need to discuss the films, all you need to do is post stills.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 18:51 |
|
|
I'm feeling guilty here. I tried to watch The thin red line and found it incredibly boring and pretentious. At the same time, it was pretty clear to me that the director behind it (who at that time I didn't know) was "something else". I was maybe too young (19) and expected a completely different movie. Should you re-introduce someone to Malick, what would you suggest to see? Badlands? Maybe something will click this time, I hear him praised as one of the best directors out there and this thread sparked my interest. Also I do know Heidegger very well and studied philosophy (I'm european and have what you would call an ivy league education, for what it's worth in this economy) but Thin red line still didn't make a lick of sense.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2010 22:44 |
|
|
Paino posted:Also I do know Heidegger very well and studied philosophy (I'm european and have what you would call an ivy league education, for what it's worth in this economy) but Thin red line still didn't make a lick of sense. Well, this wound up being much longer than I had intended, but I wanted to open a few different avenues for discussion and lay some grounds for people who are wanting to look into the Heidegger relationship. I've only started wading into Heidegger relatively recently (so let me know if I'm way off base), but I definitely see echoes of his ideas in The Thin Red Line. His "Being-toward-death" is probably the most directly addressed, it's the central conflict for Private Witt. When he's talking with Welsh about the possibility of his death, he describes his mother's calm just before she died, saying "that's where it's hidden, the immortaility I hadn't seen." Over the course of the movie he takes on that calm in the face of death, calls it "the glory". He becomes an example of "Being-toward-death": he recognizes that just because his death will come in the future at an unknown time, that doesn't mean it isn't a part of his Being now. His death is, above all else, entirely his own, and it enables him to live in full understanding of his exestential freedom, as he does in the choice he makes in the third act. Malick contrasts him with Welsh (love those converstaions), who doesn't make this connection and sees no freedom. Another of Malick's concerns I think is interesting is summed up in this line from Witt, my favorite by far: "What is this war in the heart of Nature?" I've had Wittgenstein on the brain, lately, but I think it's great that the question is "what?", rather than the usual "why?". I think in The Thin Red Line Malick is interested in the nature of conflict as part of Being, it's role in the world, rather than the origins of specific instances. This is where my Heidegger gets murky, but from what I've read so far he calls back to the pre-Socratic Greeks, particularly Heraclitus' 53rd fragment: "War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free." He seems to be arguing that "presence" unfolds through conflict. By presence, I take it he means a sort of objective reality, the appearance of an object free of signifier, role, or any contextual meaning, e.g. a broken tool, having lost its usefulness, does not appear as a tool. And that's the thing I really want to get a handle on, Heidegger's idea of "presence", because from the little I've been able to work out thus far, it seems like a fantastic starting point for understanding Malick's style. Especially in The Thin Red Line; the intercut "beautiful" images of nature amongst the horror take on new sense: all become documents of unfolding "presence". Aorist fucked around with this message at Sep 5, 2010 around 01:08 |
| # ? Sep 5, 2010 01:01 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:To be honest, Malick is like Antonioni. You don't even need to discuss the films, all you need to do is post stills. I couldn't believe the cinematography when my roommate sat me down and had me watch The New World Director's Cut(At least I think it was). The shots, editing; every piece of the movie comes together with the theme to make something really beautiful. I think I watched that a few times in a week. Then he made me watch The Thing Red Line. Oh man, if you are kinda depressed about something and come back to your room drunk...Well, the beginning of the movie will have you thinking. Several times I put it on and listened to Jim Caviezel say, "I remember my mother when she was dying. Looked all shrunk up and gray. I asked her if she was afraid. She just shook her head. I was afraid to touch the death I seen in her. I heard people talk about immortality, but I ain't seen it. I wondered how it'd be when I died. What it'd be like to know that this breath now was the last one you was ever gonna draw. I just hope I can meet it the same way she did. With the same... calm." And, well, that was that. Although I kinda forgot about Malick and seeing Badlands slipped through my mind, I do hope Tree of Life turns out well, I'd like to see something with such awesome power in theaters.
|
| # ? Sep 5, 2010 01:41 |
|
|
Your write-up of The Thin Red Line was fantastic and really gets at what makes this movie so....indescribable and special.Arkane posted:I'm almost afraid to talk about it except in superlatives, because any description I offer won't encapsulate what I think about it (which goes back to Siskel's quote about testing the limits of description). quote:I'll try, though: I think this is film-making on a different level than anyone. Because he is different; he is approaching film-making from a completely different perspective with completely different goals. What other director is working with philosophical underpinnings combined with introspective voiceovers that films scenes principally using natural light? It's a movie that does things with the medium that no one dare try because the chance of success is so minimal. quote:But there is such depth and richness in the context and the meaning that you could spend days and weeks just contemplating that small snippet. What it says about life, love, hope, and the human experience. And even after all of that contemplation, you would get no further than anyone else because you cannot imagine the unimaginable. It's hard for me to talk about this movie without stuttering into incoherence, but it is the one film that has affected me and my life most profoundly. As crazy as this might sound, I'm deeply grateful to it, because it healed me. I first saw it when I was really messed up in my head, and I left the theater a changed person. I then saw it again in the theaters 4-5 times, and then I've seen it at home maybe 6 times more. It's not just that the movie itself is great -- it's the whole experience of the movie. It gets at the most important questions about humanity and evil and love and mankind's place among creation in the most pointed and beautiful manner, and it involves you in asking those questions. It asks those questions to you, and so it continues to affect you long after you've finished seeing it as you contemplate those questions. You could watch it with the sound off, or listen to it without images, and it would still be a powerful work of art. It's amazing and hilarious that it was created in such messy circumstances. In a way, that's perfect -- it's almost fitting in with the themes of the movie, creating beauty out of chaos. And I'm really excited for the Criterion release -- that's great news. 
|
| # ? Sep 7, 2010 18:25 |
|
|
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=69664 Fox Searchlight picked up Tree of Life, but it won't be released this year.
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2010 16:59 |
|
|
FoneBone posted:http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=69664 I thought all that noise at Telluride would be a surprise screening of some kind. But...this just sucks. I remember being pumped for this movie coming out last December. Then it was Cannes, then Venice, then December 2010...now we have another 14 months to go. So drat disappointing. The one little sliver of silver lining is that Fox Searchlight is about as good as it gets.
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2010 17:56 |
|
|
Hopefully more news will come out in the next few days now that its been officially picked up. At least now we know it will be released. My completely uniformed hope is a Cannes release and some teasers/trailers/press starting early 2011.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 01:35 |
|
|
Terrence Malick is my favourite director. All of his films are exceptional, thought-provoking and a treat for the eyes. The Thin Red Line is the best movie about war and conflict I have ever seen, and I doubt that there will ever be a better film about it. It has been a few years since I saw it the last time ( I have to get it on blu-ray ), but it is always just as astounding to experience. Like some of you already put it, the film is hypnotic; a visual poem about life and death, and the human experience amidts the tranquility of nature and the chaos of human greed. I still can't remember exact details about the film - my memories are hazy, as if trying to remember a powerful dream. I really can't describe it. To say that I look forward to The Tree of Life is an understatement. There isn't a single thing that I am more enthusiastic about right now.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 11:49 |
|
|
Another Heidegger thing: Malick's films often have a shot of a landscape, followed by a shot of an animal, and finally a shot of a human character. (I remember this especially in The Thin Red Line) Perhaps this is a reference to Heidegger's distinction: rocks are worldless, animals are poor in world, while man is world-forming. Aorist posted:"Being-toward-death" is probably the most directly addressed, it's the central conflict for Private Witt. When he's talking with Welsh about the possibility of his death, he describes his mother's calm just before she died, saying "that's where it's hidden, the immortaility I hadn't seen." Over the course of the movie he takes on that calm in the face of death, calls it "the glory". He becomes an example of "Being-toward-death": he recognizes that just because his death will come in the future at an unknown time, that doesn't mean it isn't a part of his Being now. His death is, above all else, entirely his own, and it enables him to live in full understanding of his exestential freedom, as he does in the choice he makes in the third act. Malick contrasts him with Welsh (love those converstaions), who doesn't make this connection and sees no freedom. I think you are right that it's all about death, but I don't think it's a story of Witt "becoming an example of" being-towards-death. We are all examples of being-towards-death because Heidegger thinks death serves as the "horizon of possibility" for humans: the fact that we are gonna die one day means we are finite beings who are always thrown into a particular environment which we are already concerned with (we are beings in the world). In this sense we are all beings-towards-death because even though our death is always in the future it still conditions our present existence by serving as the absolute limit of all our possibilities. I think the difference with Witt is that he recognises this role that his death plays in his existence - which is what Heidegger calls authenticity. The movie begins with Witt's angst or dread in the face of his own finitude. In this state of anxiety, he feels uncanny or "not-at-home" in a world (and a war) that he has been thrown into. Eventually Witt undergoes what Heidegger calls the "call of conscience" and takes up responsibility for his own being-in-the-world, despite having no "choice" over it in the normal sense. But that part of Heidegger is crazy hard. Aorist posted:"What is this war in the heart of Nature?" This is my favourite quote from the movie too And I think you are right that the idea of presence is important to understanding what it means. Later Heidegger talks a lot about "strife", and particularly the strife between "the Earth" and "the world." The Earth is always revealing itself to the world, and beings "come to presence" within the world. But the world is partly structured according to the environment of concerns we are thrown into as finite beings, and so it cannot fully incorporate all that the Earth has to give. The Earth is therefore simultaneously concealing itself as it is revealing itself. I think this strife between the concealing and unconcealing of beings is the "war within the heart of nature." Heidegger says that Truth is unconcealment, and for me the shots of nature in Malick's films have always been about the unconcealing of the Earth. Heidegger also says that the essence of freedom is "letting beings be", and I think this is a good description of what Malick achieves with many of the images in his films: letting beings be in their pure unconcealment.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 19:35 |
|
|
Some notes about the new supplements for The Thin Red Line.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 20:43 |
|
|
fuf posted:...which is what Heidegger calls authenticity. Thank you, I thought he had given it a name, I just couldn't remember it for the life of me. "An example of authentic Being-toward-death" makes a world of difference, but clarity has never been my strong point. As you said, Welsh's death is still a huge part of his life, he just doesn't embrace it as a part of his freedom. fuf posted:Heidegger says that Truth is unconcealment, and for me the shots of nature in Malick's films have always been about the unconcealing of the Earth. This is spot on. The images of Bell's wife feel the same way: their ambiguity, whether they're memories or imaginations, frees you from needing to "read" them. They're just a shared moment of being. edit: Holy poo poo, Crispin Glover auditioned for TTRL. What could have been... Aorist fucked around with this message at Sep 10, 2010 around 22:23 |
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 22:14 |
|
|
Aorist posted:"An example of authentic Being-toward-death" makes a world of difference, but clarity has never been my strong point. haha, my initial reply was just gonna be that one suggestion (adding the word "authentic") but I ended up writing more.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 22:22 |
|
|
I just wanted to mention that Netflix currently has The Thin Red Line streaming in HD if you have a set top box, or an xbox/ps3, not on computers though. I really need to see the rest of his movies. The copy of The New World on Netlix is 135 minutes, is that the Director's Cut? Looking at IMDB there are three different lengths 135, 172 and 150. I think the 150 minute version is the very first cut, that they changed while it was still in theaters. Should I track down the 172 minute version or is the 135 minute one still good?
|
| # ? Sep 12, 2010 07:02 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:I just wanted to mention that Netflix currently has The Thin Red Line streaming in HD if you have a set top box, or an xbox/ps3, not on computers though. I really need to see the rest of his movies. The copy of The New World on Netlix is 135 minutes, is that the Director's Cut? Looking at IMDB there are three different lengths 135, 172 and 150. I think the 150 minute version is the very first cut, that they changed while it was still in theaters. Should I track down the 172 minute version or is the 135 minute one still good? Netflix only carries the theatrical DVD but if you have a Blu-Ray player (which is the best way to watch it) You can watch the 172 min cut which is amazing. An extended cut on dvd exists but you would have to buy it. I'm sure it isn't expensive. The Lucas fucked around with this message at Sep 12, 2010 around 07:17 |
| # ? Sep 12, 2010 07:10 |
|
|
When I first saw Thin Red Line I knew nothing about it or Malick, just picked it up from the video store on a whim. I smoked a joint and watched it and my god, that was one of the craziest, most beautiful, film experiences I've ever had. I read the book after that, but it's nothing like the movie, other then the actual setting, the two are barely related at all.
|
| # ? Sep 12, 2010 14:53 |
|
|
Thanks for the thread; it was a great read. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the New World if you want to post them. e: Woops... thanks. JibbaJabbaJimmy fucked around with this message at Sep 12, 2010 around 16:32 |
| # ? Sep 12, 2010 15:56 |
|
|
JibbaJabbaJimmy posted:Thanks for the thread; it was a great read. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the New World if you want to post them. About halfway down the thread, buddy. Awesome OP Arkane. Very interesting stuff, that also significantly altered my Netflix queue. I have The Thin Red Line Criterion Blu-Ray preordered, but I have yet to check out any other Malick film. Thanks!
|
| # ? Sep 12, 2010 16:02 |
|
|
Excellent OP. I had wanted to tackle Malick after finishing the musical primer, but judging by my current schedule and the rate I've been able to come on the forums, it'll be a little while longer before that's done. Malick has struck me as being one of the more literary directors in the history of the medium. A while back there was discussion on whether voice-over was even necessary in film; clearly, no one had seen Badlands.
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2010 04:01 |
|
|
RussianGuyovich posted:Malick has struck me as being one of the more literary directors in the history of the medium. A while back there was discussion on whether voice-over was even necessary in film; clearly, no one had seen Badlands. Literary is absolutely the best way to describe Malick. As far as the discussion on voice-over narration goes, I think you have to keep in mind that there's a huge difference between the way Malick employs the technique compared to how it's more commonly used; as a lazy cheat to tell the story and explain important facts rather than allowing a plot to unfold naturally. Malick's usage is more for insight, perspective, even being very poetic.
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2010 06:02 |
|
|
Tree of Life was screened to 6 people at Telluride. One of whom called it Cinema Changing. http://aintitcool.com/node/46510
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2010 04:08 |
|
|
BonoMan posted:Tree of Life was screened to 6 people at Telluride. One of whom called it Cinema Changing. I almost wish some bad reviews would start coming out so it would make the wait easier. 
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2010 04:12 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 08:02 |
|
|
His new movie is already filming  Who is this man and what has he done with Terrence Malick?http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/19...ng-in-oklahoma/
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 14:10 |
|
