>You shall love whether you like it or not. Emotions, they come and go like clouds. Love is not only a feeling. You shall love. To love is to run the risk of failure, the risk of betrayal. You fear your love has died, perhaps it is waiting to be transformed into something higher.
Not an atheist or an agnostic. I just know sanctimonious preaching when I see it. Even worse when it's Sorkin-esque platitudes
>You shall love whether you like it or not
That is real grade-a shit
Not cynical. 2001 is one of my favorites and it's the most optimistic film of all time. Malick is just ill-quipped and overall not technically skilled enough to make true visual poetry. His characters in his last three movies all sound like the same stoned guidance counselor.
You sound quite intellectual good sir. Such topics as love and grace are well beneath your advanced understanding, I see. Impressive really. Stay in this thread to enlighten us further please.
You're legitimately upset that someone has grown out of his Care Bear phase? Judging from the hellish and spacey productions his movies are known for having, it seems love and grace are beyond Malick's understanding as well.
Yes, you've certainly upset me my good man, very good indeed bringing true intellectualism to the plebeians. I commend you for growing out of said Care Bear phase, tis quite the accomplishment. We are but honored to have such an intellect in our midst. Please, keep going.
You're typing like a real redditor. Embarrassing.
No. You're obviously mentally ill-equipped to take any other explanation other than the convenient one that proves your point. You have no interest in my point of view on 2001 like I have no interest in your point of view on Malick. Doesn't change that his last three movies are the fucking same.
>2001 is one of my favorites and it's the most optimistic film of all time.
>Love isn't an emotion created by neurochemicals like every other emotion. It's spiritual woo woo magic.
Fuck Malick and his bullshit spiritism. I'm glad this asshole got drummed out of Oxford.
>>"Malick has made the same movie three times in a row"
Even if that were true doesn't mean they are inherently bad. Do you have the same problem with Ozu?
There are only 7 people besides OP and myself in this thread.
And yet you've posted nearly 35 replies.
And who the hell is terrance malik anyway?
His movies sound pretentious as fuck
>Ozu made great melodramas about the human condition and social change.
Ozu made the same films about generational differences using the same visual style with chest high static cameras and elliptical transitions and edits. Even film scholars agree that he made the same film over and over again, but that's no real criticism in art. Monet made hundreds of works about the same objects, that does not diminish their artistic value.
>appeals to people who believe crystals can heal them.
Yeah, I'm quite sure that meshes perfectly with his Christian existentialist viewpoint as well as his interest in science and cosmology.
>Yeah, I'm quite sure that meshes perfectly with his Christian existentialist viewpoint as well as his interest in science and cosmology.
They are both based on the personal cognitive bias that the sum total of reality is maintained by invisible magical forces.
While you roll around in the dirt, slinging mud, reducing existence to something understandable to your pathetic, finite bodily circumstance, Malick is erupting out of history with his eyes on God, taking the brave leap that resentful, cynical pussies like you are too self-absorbed to even see as an option. Malick is the most courageous artist alive. The soulless cowards criticizing his quest just don't realize the stakes. `
Malick's recent films are like when you read someone's amateur writing and know, you just KNOW, that they just finished reading Ulysses for the first time. Film was not meant for literal expositions on continental philosophy, and if you remove the image what you have is banalaties and platitudes that don't say anything beyond how smart and enlightened they make Malick fanboys feel.
But you don't remove the image, ignoramus. It's integral, and the text and philosophy you're dissing only make sense and achieve their true value with the images, creating cinema.
I didn't say that. In my opinion, Malick is offensive to the human spirit - he woefully reduces it to platitudes and well-wishes.
I didn't say to remove the image, I said that without the imagery you would see how truly mediocre is his waxing.
>While you roll around in the dirt, slinging mud, reducing existence to something understandable to your pathetic, finite bodily circumstance, Malick is erupting out of history with his eyes on God, taking the brave leap that resentful, cynical pussies like you are too self-absorbed to even see as an option. Malick is the most courageous artist alive. The soulless cowards criticizing his quest just don't realize the stakes. `
It's weird - this is the most fedora thing I've read in ages, but it's explicitly anti-fedora... we need a new term, I'm thinking.
It's clear to me that Malick's spiritual endeavors are a sham by just looking at the actors he works with. What kind of man could even tolerate the anti-humanity present within a Pitt or a Penn? Malick is everything bad about Hollywood dressed in everything bad about the bottom of the barrel of arthouse, and somehow to some people this comes across as an epiphanic vision from god in film format. The idolatry present in these threads is ridiculous, and would probably make Malick himself wince in grief.
I don't see idolatry, but people are generally craving for artists that offer a unique, truth-searching vision. And his use of Hollywood actors is besides a financial and marketing very useful tool, something not relevant to assess the quality of filmmaking.
If his mind is on marketing and money-making, he's not an artist. His films are absolutely brought down by the quality of the actors - they are not suited for art. Other art directors have no problem finding their visions on the screen, why must Malick resort to making his films look like art-blockbusters?
nice shitpost son. here's your reply.
When you use big dummies like Brad Pitt you attract the wrong crowd and end up having to do things like pic related.
The main theme of Malick's films on spiritual dematerialism is not sublimation, but neosublimation. Thus he implies that we have to choose between predialectic construction and deconstructivist neodialectic theory, essentially Heideggerian as seen in the concept of Dasein. The subject is interpolated then into a cinematic dematerialism that includes spirituality as a whole. But if the Kierkegaardian worldview holds, we have to choose between the cultural paradigm of expression and atomism. In Malick's own "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger" he says that "dread marks the ‘collapse of the world’”. Inherent in this is how the function of Lebenswelt (translated by Malick as "world of life") operates in all his films, chiefly in Days of Heaven and The Tree of Life. We see a phenomenological approach to the world showing a cinematic logic that presupposes a strucutral constraint in rootedness, another intentionality central to his filmography and philosophy. Because "metaphysical comfort" is not an object of temporality per se, but rather an aspect of automatic condition, as suggested by Cavell. Hermeneutic interpretations are also apparent in his post-hiatus movies; in fact the interchangeable subjectivities are but another representation of Husserl's and Wittgenstein's "form of life". As his academic hero Heidegger succintly noted, "freedom is the ‘abyss’ of Dasein, its groundless or absent ground". This is essentially the thesis operating in Malick's films.
Can you tell me, then, what the whisper poems are supposed to be accomplishing? Can you take your structure of intent and influence and actually apply it to unlocking his aesthetics and understanding them, or is it an ivory tower of terminology?
>what the whisper poems are supposed to be accomplishing?
You can understand more by reading Being and Time and/or his own translation of Heidegger.
"On a movie screen the horizon is often so slight that we cannot tell whether the camera is panning or the scene is moving."
Your post sets up only the philosophical intention. It does not, at all, give any example of any scene in any film of Malick's actually expressing his intention. There is no analysis, no real thorough demonstration on how your jenga tower of terminology actually relates to the content of his films on a directorial level. You've not answered even the example I gave to you:
How does the poetic whispering narration reflect the ideologies you posited?
>>How does the poetic whispering narration reflect the ideologies you posited?
It reflects the internal thoughts of the characters. The ideologies are embedded in this narration along with the presentation in the image and the montage.
If you cannot compose a simple rebuttal to the philosophical approach to Malick's filmography, I again ask you to read his main academic influences. You will learn something even if you end up rejecting it all.
Malick has never made a bad film. Knight of Cups continues his trend of shedding extraneous plot and narrative to focus on emotions, thoughts and memories brought forward in his trademark fragmented visual and aural style. It, like his other films, is about age old universal themes, in this case the quest for enlightenment and the paradox of beauty. The sermon in the movie says that our now imperfect soul gets a taste of the higher existence it once knew whenever it is confronted with beauty, and so Rick immerses himself in all the beautiful sensual pleasures in the modern Babylon of LA. He is quite literally submerged all the time in ephemeral worldly pleasures, yet he still finds his life empty and devoid of any higher purpose and like his soul longing for a transcendental gratification, he is always by the end again quite literally looking upwards to the heavens for a higher meaning. The movie is an impressionistic retelling of his search for God, the Wonder, nirvana, call it whatever - any metaphysical peak that will give his hollow life meaning. But at the end he realizes that the journey itself is the source for his existential quest, the nourishment for the shadow of perfection his anguished soul seeks.
Knight of Cups is not just any "story" movie, but a sweeping visual symphony of the search for spirituality in an increasingly materialist world.
There were poor niggers in Tree of Life
There was a nigger church worker in To the Wonder who spoke in tongues
There were deformed, injured niggers in Knight of Cups
Based Malick, showing real negros
I'm not arguing against his beliefs or intentions, they're not objectionable at all. My opinion is that his films don't actually succeed on those grounds. And you've yet to show that they do. Everything you just said is general. Give me a scene that accomplishes his goal, and show me why.
That Malick's films are an attempt to render the reality of perception, which is often more poetic than concrete - and that through nonlinear image-narrative one can express a truer sense of 'structure' (in a spiritual sense, of order) that conventional plot through-lines have all but defiled.
>My opinion is that his films don't actually succeed on those grounds. And you've yet to show that they do. Everything you just said is general. Give me a scene that accomplishes his goal, and show me why.
Sam Shepard says in Days of Heaven that he is "haunted by place". This is the primary argument in Being and Time that Being (Dasein) can only be understood against the worldiness of temporality.
>That Malick's films are an attempt to render the reality of perception, which is often more poetic than concrete - and that through nonlinear image-narrative one can express a truer sense of 'structure' (in a spiritual sense, of order) that conventional plot through-lines have all but defiled.
This is not at all what I said. Read some Heidegger and Husserl.
>My opinion is that his films don't actually succeed on those grounds
There you go. There's nothing I can say that will make you change your mind because it's a phenomenological subjective experience. I thought the film elevated the human spirit and gave expression to abstract human emotions and ideals, reminding us what it is to be human, no matter how platitudinous the experience may seem to an outside observer.
>this fedora being schooled by students of Malick and Heidegger
The pompous vocabulary present in this thread is absolutely disgusting. It's embarassing that people can't even admit that art is a subjective experience without stroking their own ego and acting as if they're appreciating that which cannot be easily understood.
my God. Literally kill yourself. You realize you're having a conversation with yourself, right? Do you realize how pathetic that is? You're pretending to be conversing with other people. You're an embarrassment.
>Mann has finally surpassed Bresson
>Malick has finally surpassed Tarkovsky
>Miller has finally surpassed Keaton
2015 is Kino's best year yet
>It's clear to me that Malick's spiritual endeavors are a sham by just looking at the actors he works with. What kind of man could even tolerate the anti-humanity present within a Pitt or a Penn?
An autobiographical meditation on vice vs. virtue, carnal pleasures vs spiritual love, money vs poetry, from a deeply Christian philosophy erudite from Texas, who has struggled with finding his place in the Jewified degenerate capital and is still crying everyday about his suicidial mariachi brother and harsh father. Experimental editing to evoke fragments of memories, intimate thoughts as prayers or confessions to evoke universal feelings, interweaving the micro and the macro. Just like tree of life opened with a story about nature vs grace, the pearl parable is about this constant struggle and quest to be a better man in this meaningless world; the pearl is the light (thin red line), the grace (tol), the wonder (to the wonder)
Terry admits in this flick that he's too fascinated with beauty, as he views it as the closest thing we wingless beasts have to reaching heaven; even though beauty is really the devil's temptation to make us shallow. He's a sinner and a hypocrite and he knows it. Bums and cripples are ugly and he knows they don't really belong alongside his perfume ads aestheticsand Hollywood actors. He knows Hollywood is Jewish hell but he still stays there and accepts their money because he loves shooting pretty Jewish actresses and their feetsies. He knows its a real struggle. It's an admission of guilt
>tfw you want to follow the way of Grace but Nature keeps pulling you back down
>tfw you want to be brought back to the Wonder but the Wonder is forever fleeting
>tfw the only way to be happy is to love, but love brings more pain than happiness
>tfw you'll never find the pearl
>tfw you wanna be like the monk but are closer to the pimp
>tfw you're a dog chasing a tennis ball in a swimming pool
>tfw Hershlag will never tell you to open your mouth
>tfw you still do not live a happy and meaningful life and constantly go back to your addictions and failures but you know what Malick will understand your sorrow and forgive you for being human
>I'm a mad fedora who hates anything remotely spiritual so I can look cool and detached and use irony to mock anything attempting sincerity because I'm a postmodern baby
>>>/r/flicks is that way
Not who you're responding to, but:
why is there seemingly a dichotomy between sincerity and faith and disliking Malick? Don't you think it's entirely possible for a sincere person to dislike Malick, or a spiritual person to dislike him?
It's not film, it's visual poetry.
It's entirely possible, and I'd be hopeful that these individuals, here were present, would have a solid base to dislike a cinema so powerful for so many like the Malickian is. Instead, we get redditors and memers.
Tarkovsky looked faith in the face and challenged it on multiple fronts in order to deepen its meaning and utility and value - Malick's version of faith is escapist, blockbuster fluff.
A bad film with spiritual themes, is still bad film, and Malick seems to be serving them up one after one at the moment. Maybe he should go back to being a recluse and waiting years.decades between works.
>Tarkovsky looked faith in the face and challenged it on multiple fronts
lel when did that happen?
When the message of Andrei Rublev is that faith will help make a giant bell?
Or when he says in The Sacrifice that faith will save you from the apocalypse?
Where were the times when faith was challenged here?
>His characters in his movies all sound like the same stoned guidance counselor
Fixed that for you
To be honest though, I think that is Malick's charm. It has to be anyway, I stil don't get the love for him but I understand the inspiration he provides. To be honest ive only seen Badlands and Days of Heaven, but they were edited so quickly they left me cold. (Michael Bay suffers from this, but mostly it works for him). Also my favourite movie The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is very inspired my Malick, so I appreciate the inspiration he provides.
Give it a few years. Then give it a few more. After MAlick has passed it will definatly get released and/or shelved forever. Then give it a few more years.
24 now? I guess
What I feel is validated for disliking Malick, knowing that there's one lone autistic fanboy riding his dick all day long every single day, without any semblance of irony in idolizing a man whose movies are anti-idolatry. He's a recluse for fuck's sake, but you express the same fervor for him as tweens do for Bieber. It's shameful.
Filming something in 1:1 doesn't magically make something art
I've seen his entire filmography plenty of times. If you don't understand that his works are about the struggle that is faith, you may as well have never watched a second of his films. No wonder you love Malick so much, movies that feature cognitive dissonance to the same level as a Halmark gift card.
>If you don't understand that his works are about the struggle that is faith
Care to provide any examples like I did to support your claims, or will you reply with more generalizations and poorly worded polemics?
How cute, redditboy. However you seem to have an unhealthy obsession in believing I alone support Malick. I'm sure you would rather a lonely enemy, makes you feel better about your own failure to appreciate cinema.
>for one of the shots in The Thin Red Line, [Adrien Brody] was held underwater by an enemy soldier for over three minutes in an elaborate torture scene. To portray the brutality it was shot as one long-take, and Brody claimed to 'come up gasping for air desperately' afterwards, feeling 'close to death'. Terrence Malick was however displeased with the actor's performance and ordered three more takes. This scene was not used in the final cut.
>Malick resorted to guerrilla style tactics where the actors were not told who they would be interacting with, requiring them to improvise entire scenes. Bale said that Malick referred to this as "torpedoing" and that as a result he mistook Teresa Palmer for a real stripper. These methods came to a head when the cast and crew entered a Hollywood party without permission. When the production was politely asked to leave, Malick looked the hosts and their security guards straight in the eye and whispered, "Your words are thoughtless, my thoughts are wordless" as a single gust of wind suddenly blew his hat up into the sky.
>In early 2000, during an interview with Le Monde regarding his new production facility, Poilâne asserted that he had unwittingly employed Malick between the years of 1980 through 1986 as an apprentice baker. Malick was using the pseudonym Antoine de Tournesol, and Poilâne recalled one of his interview responses 'de Tournesol' gave for wanting to work with him; "Our minds are like dough, our hearts like flame." De Tournesol was a model employee, according to Poilâne, and the reason given for leaving was "hearing again the drums of war." Poilâne proceeded to laugh the experience off, and was apparently "fond of Antoine's war movie," though didn't care for the pacing.
>In 2004, during the filming of The New World, Malick forced Christopher Plummer to climb a tall oak tree. The task was very difficult for Plummer, who was 74 at the time, and took 3 unsuccessful attempts before Malick was satisfied with his performance . This footage was not used in the final film.