Post by spiderwort on May 17, 2018 20:22:43 GMT
First, let me say that I'm not up to date on Malick's films after The Tree of Life (2011), because I stopped watching them after that one, having grown weary of his lack of interest in the importance of a strong narrative.
That said, I do think he's a real artist, and I have many thoughts about his works. First and foremost, the characters in his films are products of the space they inhabit, which inherently forms and informs their lives (perhaps true in any film, but profoundly true in a Malick film). Forever a prairie man, Malick's great muse is the land. I truly believe that for him it's a manifestation of the divine, which he imbues in the visual context of all his films.
For me, Badlands (1973) is his best film. It has the strongest narrative. I also love Days of Heaven (1978), though I think its narrative is weaker. But there's enough clarity in both the internal and external conflicts to provide a relatively strong story progression, which maintains suspense. And of course, its visual beauty is simply stunning.
What I remember most about The Thin Red Line (1998), besides the distracting canon of star-laden cameo roles, was the way in which at every opportunity Malick found a way to include and explore the landscape so lovingly - most particularly the grasslands, which are his roots. In the film that undulating world often provides the only solace for the soldiers, whether they're fully aware of it or not. It's this deep, animal connection of human to earth that Malick's films portray so powerfully - an important but virtually alien concept in our American culture today.
With The New World (2005), he seemed to eschew narrative almost completely in favor of a beautiful but somewhat self-indulgent poetic visual odyssey. I say this as a person who reveres nature and landscape as much as Malick does, for our roots are the same. But I had trouble with the film from the beginning, because I was waiting, endlessly it seemed, for the story to begin, and I don't think I was ever able to fully engage. I felt very much the same way about The Tree of Life - a film filled incredible visual beauty but that had a narrative, which, in my opinion, would have worked much better as a half-hour film, not one that lasted 2 and 1/2 hours (I think his cut was over 3).
As he drew further and further away from a narrative filled with more clearly defined external and internal conflicts his films became less interesting to me, and less meaningful, despite their astonishing visual beauty.
But he's a true artist, as I said. I just regret that I can't engage in his vision as I did in the seventies. It's my hope that he'll find his way back to a stronger narrative before he gets too old to make films. His artistry is at times simply stunning. But I miss that genius being tied to an equally brilliant story.
That said, I do think he's a real artist, and I have many thoughts about his works. First and foremost, the characters in his films are products of the space they inhabit, which inherently forms and informs their lives (perhaps true in any film, but profoundly true in a Malick film). Forever a prairie man, Malick's great muse is the land. I truly believe that for him it's a manifestation of the divine, which he imbues in the visual context of all his films.
For me, Badlands (1973) is his best film. It has the strongest narrative. I also love Days of Heaven (1978), though I think its narrative is weaker. But there's enough clarity in both the internal and external conflicts to provide a relatively strong story progression, which maintains suspense. And of course, its visual beauty is simply stunning.
What I remember most about The Thin Red Line (1998), besides the distracting canon of star-laden cameo roles, was the way in which at every opportunity Malick found a way to include and explore the landscape so lovingly - most particularly the grasslands, which are his roots. In the film that undulating world often provides the only solace for the soldiers, whether they're fully aware of it or not. It's this deep, animal connection of human to earth that Malick's films portray so powerfully - an important but virtually alien concept in our American culture today.
With The New World (2005), he seemed to eschew narrative almost completely in favor of a beautiful but somewhat self-indulgent poetic visual odyssey. I say this as a person who reveres nature and landscape as much as Malick does, for our roots are the same. But I had trouble with the film from the beginning, because I was waiting, endlessly it seemed, for the story to begin, and I don't think I was ever able to fully engage. I felt very much the same way about The Tree of Life - a film filled incredible visual beauty but that had a narrative, which, in my opinion, would have worked much better as a half-hour film, not one that lasted 2 and 1/2 hours (I think his cut was over 3).
As he drew further and further away from a narrative filled with more clearly defined external and internal conflicts his films became less interesting to me, and less meaningful, despite their astonishing visual beauty.
But he's a true artist, as I said. I just regret that I can't engage in his vision as I did in the seventies. It's my hope that he'll find his way back to a stronger narrative before he gets too old to make films. His artistry is at times simply stunning. But I miss that genius being tied to an equally brilliant story.