Just started my foray into Malick with Song to Song. That was

Also, what could "BV" possibly stand for? Such a weird name.

File: 1445819671946.jpg (10KB, 171x176px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 171x176px

I don't know how to write dialog so everything will be voiceovers, lmao

>>85822491
WTF? There was plenty of dialogue.

>>85822491
Watch more films you humongous faggot and pleb.

>I just started my foray into Malick with Song to Song
why did you start with that one?

>>85822412
Big vguy

File: my bloody valentine.gif (3MB, 322x354px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 322x354px

>>85822412
Blue Valentine

>>85823021
Mainly 'cause it had The Goose in it. I like to start with the film that grabs me the most. And I've heard his newer films are very different stylistically from his older work so I wanted to see what that "new style" was like.

>>85823156
Props for that. Typically I approach directors chronologically, and even still would recommend that. But since you like Malick's style, sticking to his new films first could also be rewarding. I love The Thin Red Line, but I personally find his other later efforts to be what grab me the most. Knight of Cups is incredible; in my opinion, its the peak of what Malick can achieve with this style.

To answer your original question, he's not the only one. But they are few and far between, and he is by far one of the most experimental currently, and, despite common criticisms, is incredibly sincere with his work.

if more films was like it then Malick wouldn't be as amazing as he is.

>>85823156
Is Gossling really that good of an actor?

Malick shooting prime Rooney making out with every hot guy in Hollywood

absolutely based

>>85823793
I'm actually surprised /tv/ likes Rooney Mara so much since she's flat-chested and I wouldn't expect this place to be enlightened enough to appreciate DFC.

Just looked this up on google. Why is this movie universally panned? The cast looks fantastic and I like the idea of it.

>>85824254
Critics, or at least modern day critics, cannot understand films that are not as straightforward as possible. If they have to actually think about what they watched, they tend to give it a bad score. I don't know how we got to this point but I suspect the advent of YouTube was responsible.

>>85824328
Yes they can. Plenty of positive reactions in film review sites like Letterboxd.

>>85824406
Those are mostly amateurs though

>>85824406
Yes, but those sites are used by people who understand film. Dude who googles the film is going to get shitty RottenTomatoes and see a list of opinions of shitty YouTube critics. And for whatever reason these are the critics who are "verified" so their opinions are "respected." Yet nobody knows by who. It's all a bunch of phony shit fed to Americans by the media.

File: Song to Song.mkv_snapshot_00.57.02_[2017.06.19_23.26.48].jpg (779KB, 1920x808px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1920x808px

>>85823971
/tv/ likes Rooney because she has autism

>>85824680
Girl version of Ryan Gosling? No wonder they have such good chemistry.

>>85824406
It has. 3.2 score on letterboxd, most mew Malick films have low ratings, fucking Guardians Of The Galaxy has a 4 I think, and Logan as well.

>>85825368
Aren't those good? The ratings are out of 5 and GotG/Logan are among the better comic book films to come out in the last few years.

For those who really liked STS can you guys explain what it was that you liked? Thought it was alright but I really like every other Malick movie including KoC but this just didn't grab me the same way. Genuinely curious, just want a fresh persepctive when I rewatch it.

>>85824254
Every single modern Malick kino except "The Tree of Life" (2011) was poorly received, it just goes over the heads of the vast majority of newspaper and magazine critics.

>>85825400
Yes of course a 4/5 is a good score, specially for capeshit.
And no 3.1 is not a good score, it's 62/100.
>>85825527
The frantic editing, the floating camera, the heartbreaking Natalie Portman scene, Patti Smith, everything works in it, it's a 10/10.

>>85825577
Wonder what made Tree of Life so different for them. Saw a list the other day and it was apparently considered the 7th best film of the 21st century (#1 was Mulholland Drive, for anyone curious).

How does Song to Song stack up against the rest of Malick's work? I've been meaning to watch Knight of Cups, Tree of Life, and The Thin Red Line, but so far I've only seen Song to Song and I wasn't crazy about it (might have to give it a re-watch).

>>85825676
probably because it was Malick's first film using this more radical new style, and that it also had a bunch of pretty CGI for ADHD modern brains that can't into nature

>>85825708
His best films are his first two, Badlands and Days of Heaven. Watch those first.

>>85825770
No, you are just scared of non narrative experimental cinema.

>>85823156
his new style is basically everything after his 20 year absence

>>85824254
because even moreso than malicks other films, this feels like there never was a script or any overarching idea, its just random material he shot over many years and then tried to fit in some sort of narrative. Its neat to look at but that is all.

So is Malick incredibly rich or something? He seems to be able to get all these huge actors for each of his films and travel all over the place with them which can't be cheap, but obviously they don't make a whole lot of money. So how is he funding them?

>>85825811
No, his films made in the teens are noticeably more radical than his first post-hiatus films.

File: Song.To.Song-RooneyxGosling.webm (3MB, 960x402px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 960x402px

>>85825800
No, I can appreciate it. I enjoyed and found merit in Song to Song. His first two films are simply worthwhile and competent in all aspects. The problem with his break is that he aged, and so had no choice but to realize a new style of filmmaking; were Malick younger, he wouldn't feel the need to rush.

>>85825925
Credibility.

A lot of the actors he uses and have used are actors that do or at least did it mainly for the art.

>>85825925
Brad Pitt produced Tree of Life, and I think a lot of his actors work with him because they recognize that he's the only good director Hollywood has right now. And yeah he's rich.

>>85823156
Watch Tree of Life and The Thin Red Line next. Then watch Badlands. You're well on your way to being a Malickbro.

>>85825527
Sure, I'll give it a shot. (Keep in mind Knight of Cups is still my favorite Malick film; that style does grab me)

As opposed to his last few films, Song to Song is very character oriented. It is focused on their development, something that can be done because there are essentially 4 characters that are all main characters. Whereas in KoC a scene may flesh out the world the character lives in, or the people around him, every scene in StS delivers tons of subtle characterization. The result of this is moments of greater emotional impact than may exist in his previous efforts; Song to Song feels more grounded and relatable, meaning the struggles and trials and pain of the characters really strikes you harder.

On top of this, Malick's style is more aggressive than ever. Its beautiful like always, but the editing is even more fractured, intending to even more accurately create that collage-like feeling of memory and nostalgia; the ethereal flow that makes Malick's films work on a subconscious level as well.

Now, I speak only praise because you want a new perspective, and I believe that one should love as many films as possible. I haven't quite settled my feelings on StS. I do feel it had incredibly impactful moments, but I think the focus on people clashed with the even more experimental editing; Song to Song could have been even more overwhelming than KoC, but the characters and narrative held it back - or Song to Song could have been an emotional story of complex people and themes, but the editing distracted. It seemed to develop Malick's style in two different directions, and, while I really did like the movie, I'm not sure it worked entirely. I'll have to see on a rewatch

Literally directing feature-length life insurance commercials now.

>>85825901
I did a short film for uni a long time ago where I just filmed a bunch of shots of flowers in my backyard. Then I found out the project needed to have a story so I overlaid some thoughtful-sounding text over it in a few places.
>mfw I discovered Malick years later and realized I inadvertently copied his style

>>85825925
He gets A list casts because he's one of the last true great auteurs in the business. Actors know he makes art and want to be a part of it, even if the roles are tiny (George Clooney was in Thin Red Line for all of two minutes)

>>85825951
This is the first point against Malick's recent efforts that I actually find truly credible. His style now resonates with me greatly, so I have no complaints, but its a really interesting thought that perhaps he's rushed it a bit. I appreciate that people like TTW for example, but I always felt it a bit of a misstep, a bit rushed.

I guess where we differ is our thoughts on his first two films. I, like you, found them to have merit. They were gorgeous and impeccably made. But they had no emotional impact on me. That came when I got to TTRL and pretty much everything after it. Thats all very subjective though, and I do really appreciate your thoughts on Malick as an agin artist

>>85823971
>surprised /tv/ likes Rooney Mara so much since she's flat-chested
How new are you?

>>85823971
This is /tv/ bro. Flat chested prepubescent girls are half the fucking catalogue.

>>85825676
It has a more accessible narrative. Its unique and has moments of experimentation, but it has a highly relatable and clear cut story that even more casual viewers can connect to. Don't get me wrong, ToL to me is a 10/10. But further evidence of this lies right in your post. MD being #1. Of all of Lynch's "lynchian" films, MD is the most accessible. Yes it has the humor and weirdness and false reality, but its still spelled out in a way that anyone can digest

>>85826064
Look at your post compared to those that are actually discussing the film. If this isn't bait, then take your pleb parroting skills elsewhere

>>85826606
There's no need to respond to posts like that. People like that always leave the thread quickly because they realize that they aren't going to stop people from having in-depth discussion.

>>85826655
Fair point, just trying to bump and also ward off other shitposters hopefully

>>85824254

half of those """"""""""critics""""""""" give perfect reviews to starwars and capeshit. why should you heed their opinions?

>>85826158
>But they had no emotional impact on me.
How is this possible? Not even Badlands, when he is finally caught and taken away as both a villain and a hero? That film is so American it reeks of emotion

>>85826678
You can't win with critics, I wasn't a fan of TFA but I actually like Rogue One. The critics get accused of being paid off for praising it but if they call it a shit movie then everyone says "Look the critics called it shit, must be right." When either way I enjoyed it.

>>85826930
I mean, I guess I understand the impact of the moment, but I didn't feel particularly moved; perhaps I was just unable to relate enough, I did watch them when I was much younger. I'm not sure if its the grand style or just the more intimate, individual emotions of his late films (the combination of which creates overwhelming love, nostalgia, loss, peace), but they just left much more of an impact on me

File: Logan (14).jpg (640KB, 1920x808px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1920x808px

>>85825368
Logan is great, but I wasn't talking about overall avg. score, just the positive reception.

>>85821962
>first Malick
I guess that's the reason you are so smitten by it. After you watch more than one of his newer films you'll notice he's essentially making the same film over and over again. I really liked Tree of Life but everything since has been the same shit, and what you would describe "artsy for the sake of artsy".

>>85827312
Why poison someone against a film? If that was your experience, fine, bur perhaps OP is one that will find value in all his films, or more in another that StS. Giving your opinion is fine, but I never understood discouraging someone from watching any film, or trying to direct the way they will fell about it

>>85827312
>being unable to tell the differences between his new film
pleb
also ttw is his best

>>85827684
Is it true that To the Wonder is completely silent? My mother said as much but I don't know if she watched the whole thing.

>>85829070
No that's obviously not true, inbred.

>>85829070
I am pretty sure there is not one piece of directly spoken dialogue in the film, as it's all recorded dialogue superimposed on tangentially related images.

>>85829165
Inbred? What?

>>85829678
I see. Maybe that's what she meant. She said she watched it back when it came out (probably because she likes Affleck) but couldn't enjoy it because of the lack of speaking. I was going to see if I could get her to watch Song to Song (she also likes Fassbender) and see if she felt any differently about that one.

>>85829826
Unless your mother somehow watched the whole film with the sound off without noticing, that would definitely have to be it as its definitely not a film with particularly sparse dialogue.

>>85829869
Well that's good to know, because that made me a bit hesitant about watching it and now I'm more interested. Not to say I can't enjoy quiet films, but they're not my first priority. Granted, her memory's not the best for films she doesn't enjoy (and like I said, this would have been around five years ago) so I had to verify it.

>>85823705
Ryan Gosling is a serviceable actor who has never really given a bad performance but I think what makes him appealing to a lot of people is that he is just an extremely likable person. Add to that his deep respect for film as an art form as demonstrated by the projects he takes on and you just have an all around great guy.

>>85821962
I tried watching Knight Of Cups but i couldn't finish it. I have already seen Song To Song twice and i think it's the best film i have seen xthis year. I will try Tree Of Life next.

File: tumblr_inline_nt0vm22PRG1spsojg_540.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>85821962
I watched it yesterday and anticipated. But It was fucking boring and no fun..

Currently in the process of watching it due to this thread, the drunken ethereal camera movements are really sketchy while high.

Can anyone explain how Malick achieves that close up to the actors whilst maintaining the gorgeous backgrounds?