Malick is also unique in that while I love his work, I understand anyone who can't get into them and finds them dull or pretentious. It's as if some people are tuned to his frequency and others just receive white noise.
When you're tuned to it, it's a timeless meditative, spiritual experience. Our wedding bands carry the words of the Tree of Life's 'Mrs. O'Brien': 'Unless you love, your life will flash by'.
I hope he can finish 'The Way of the Wind' in times for Cannes this year.
Not many directors able to produce fully avant-garde work with those budgets and that mainstream distribution. Closest I can think of is Harmony Korine around his commercial peak but that lasted a few years not decades.
I see Malick in a lot but similarly I see Tarkovsky in a lot of overlapping movies. I don’t think Americans are as attuned to Tarkovskys influence on modern film. I definitely recommend Stalker as an amazing film.
I would also recommend his movie Andrei Rublev, though that is probably even harder to watch because of the length and medieval setting; but, for people that like to see something different, this is very different to current movies.
And from his disciples definitely recommend Zvyagintsev and his The Return and Leviathan.
The final act and ending of Rublev is in my opinion the greatest ending in all of film. So brilliant, you can be thinking the rest of the film is slow and tough to decipher, but it pays off as the ending hits so well.
If you liked Andrei Rublev, you should check out Alexei German's adaptation of the Strugatsky brothers "Hard to Be a God." It's insane, gorgeous, disgusting, teetering on the edge of madness, and monumental.
German's "Khrustalyov, My Car!" is also the purest cinematic distilation of paranoia I have ever seen.
He is definitely a director's director. The people who study cinema like him, people who become young directors and cinematographers like him, college professors teaching cinematography like him, but is he definitely not for the general audience.
I completely understand why your average moviegoer (is there such a group of people any more?) would walk out of his movies.
When Thin Red Line came out (1998) I saw it a few times in the theaters, then Saving Private Ryan came out about the same year, and I remember having interesting debates with my friends about which one was a "better" war movie. It was this perfect A/B study. They found Thin Red Line completely boring and terrible: no main hero, one who is sort of the main character dies senselessly in the end (well he sacrificed himself, but it wasn't with any sense of bravado or anything). And my point was, that's kind how war is: there are no heroes and people die senselessly and often stupidly, and there is a lot of boredom and sitting around waiting, too.
> This kind of earnestness stood out in an age of relentless irony and snark.
That's why I like him. And to be fair, I am the first one to enjoy relentless irony and snark, but on a deeper level I realize it's also unhealthy and often is an escape from something terrible or a way of distancing from what's happening, so when something more honest and authentic some about, I pay attention.
I wanted to appreciate Malick's films out of a sense of intellectual snobbery, but it was too difficult for me. And I think most people who love his films appreciate them in a snobbish way; they really try to convince themselves that it is great cinema.
The Thin Red Line had some good moments, but it clearly came together in the editing room--but in the end, it came together only somewhat and weakly. He had hours of scattered footage (famously, a couple of major characters/actors had 90% of their planned screening time reduced in the final release), and in the editing room, he was trying to make sense of it, but unsuccessfully. What somebody interpreted as genius, I saw as disorganization, poor planning, and imprecise editing.
Well, someone may say, when talking about The Thin Red Line, that's what war is: confusing, boring most of the time, very violent in bursts. But that is akin to saying that life is mostly about eating and using the bathroom and doing pedestrian stuff and cleaning counters. But most of us, and not because we are simpletons, don't go to movies to see actors doing chores.
It might be for others, but not for me.
Interesting - I got something completely different out of The Thin Red Line. To me it was fascinating to see how different people processed the war and their different struggles, whether philosophical (Private Witt), with relationships back home (Cpt Staros), or PTSD. It was a little scattered as it bounced between so many soldiers but the central theme seemed to centre around Pvt Witt and Sgt Welsh - the actual battle was almost secondary. IMO there’s no snobbery - though Malick is maybe a little self indulgent - and I enjoyed movies like Saving Private Ryan or even Fury just as much.
> And I think most people who love his films appreciate them in a snobbish way; they really try to convince themselves that it is great cinema.
Absolutely he is very much a snobbery magnet. Same as Tarkovsky.
The reasons I like him: I like the visual style, the poetic narrative structure, and the cinematographic techniques: camera work, lighting, etc. The second part I think is what trips up most people. Not many people like poetry nowadays. I can only think of two people in my circle of acquaintances and both were English majors, one is an English teacher. So it's a bit like that with films -- to some people it looks like disjointed random scenes that don't make sense, to someone else it looks like visual poetry.
> But most of us, and not because we are simpletons, don't go to movies to see actors doing chores. It might be for others, but not for me.
That's a perfectly fine view of cinema. I think most of it should be that way. If people pay their hard earned money to see something, it should be something they'd enjoy and not random disjoined scenes that don't make sense. That's why folks like Malick are a director's director. It's someone who film makers look up to, but not someone the majority of filmgoers would recognize or appreciate much, and for good reasons either way.
Lots of inner monologues that have a sort of stream of consciousness feel to them. Plot is secondary or non-existent. But I do feel like his movies usually have a coherent theme and he gets it across successfully. I don’t know anything about films so am unable to appreciate any technical feats like lighting - but I really like his movies. I feel like a lot of “good” movies are also fairly formulaic; I enjoyed f1 and predator badlands, but it feels like they followed the Hollywood formula and were good movies because the executed it well.
I'm a huge Malick fan. If you are curious about his very unique style, this 20-minute video outlines why his cinematography is so unique and so powerful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waA3RXy13aA
"Disciples", but seemingly without back and forth feedback from the "teacher". Many happy to ride on the coattails of his reputation, though. This particular style might also be attractive to new film-makers because it allows them to dispense with learning the basics of traditional film language.
Tree Of Life is nothing short of a masterpiece IMO. Influential on me personally as my first exposure to how much editing and structure (or lack thereof) build directorial style. It left an impression on me to feel so much for a film that explicitly says so little.
Obligatory mention of that iconic low-angle shot of The Mother floating gracefully across the plains. One of the best of all time.
The Tree of Life is singular to me as a piece of cinema, americana and a meditation on the beauty of life and especially childhood.
When I saw it the first time, I was so awestruck by the breathtaking cinematography and the incredible music, but even more so by the vision of it all. I had simply never seen anything like it.
Badlands and Days of Heaven are definitely his most conventional films and thus good starting points. Badlands especially is a great film, Days of Heaven is a bit uneven in terms of plot and pacing, but the cinematography is beautiful.
Then you have The Thin Red Line and The New World, which to me feel like a transitional period between the more conventional films and The Tree of Life, which is the first film that is characterized through and through by Malick's extremely divisive style. I personally love The Thin Red Line, but I can see why it's not for everyone. (I would skip The New World.) All later films have a very recognizable style, for which I think The Tree of Life is the best starting point.
Long story short: I'd start with Badlands, then watch The Thin Red Line, then The Tree of Life. If you like the last one, watch any of his later films.
I recommend turning on subtitles for Tree of Life. There's a lot of random whispered voice-overs, and without subs you'll have no idea who is speaking, let alone what they are saying.
I’m a huge Malick fan and agree that The New World is his masterpiece. I still remember seeing it in the cinema 20 years ago and almost levitating out of there. Just a beautiful piece of work. I’m glad there’s just about room for Malick somewhere in the film industry.
Or dive at the deep end and watch Knight of Cups or A Hidden Life. You will either like it or not, frankly I don't think it matters what you'll see first, I love all of his movies even though I didn't understand Thin Red Line when I was 20. But Knight of Cups hit me hard when I was 36.
Malick is also unique in that while I love his work, I understand anyone who can't get into them and finds them dull or pretentious. It's as if some people are tuned to his frequency and others just receive white noise. When you're tuned to it, it's a timeless meditative, spiritual experience. Our wedding bands carry the words of the Tree of Life's 'Mrs. O'Brien': 'Unless you love, your life will flash by'. I hope he can finish 'The Way of the Wind' in times for Cannes this year.
Not many directors able to produce fully avant-garde work with those budgets and that mainstream distribution. Closest I can think of is Harmony Korine around his commercial peak but that lasted a few years not decades.
David Lynch perhaps.
Korine and Lynch both had to retreat to independent distribution. It's amazing that Malick continues to have major studio support
To be fair, The Return, which is an entire 18 hours of avant-garde Lynch heroin, was distributed by Showtime.
Dino de Laurentis wants his money back
I see Malick in a lot but similarly I see Tarkovsky in a lot of overlapping movies. I don’t think Americans are as attuned to Tarkovskys influence on modern film. I definitely recommend Stalker as an amazing film.
I would also recommend his movie Andrei Rublev, though that is probably even harder to watch because of the length and medieval setting; but, for people that like to see something different, this is very different to current movies.
And from his disciples definitely recommend Zvyagintsev and his The Return and Leviathan.
The final act and ending of Rublev is in my opinion the greatest ending in all of film. So brilliant, you can be thinking the rest of the film is slow and tough to decipher, but it pays off as the ending hits so well.
If you liked Andrei Rublev, you should check out Alexei German's adaptation of the Strugatsky brothers "Hard to Be a God." It's insane, gorgeous, disgusting, teetering on the edge of madness, and monumental.
German's "Khrustalyov, My Car!" is also the purest cinematic distilation of paranoia I have ever seen.
[dead]
This article made me think of Shane Carruth. He's best known for his debut film Primer, but his follow-up Upstream Color is very Malickean.
He is definitely a director's director. The people who study cinema like him, people who become young directors and cinematographers like him, college professors teaching cinematography like him, but is he definitely not for the general audience.
I completely understand why your average moviegoer (is there such a group of people any more?) would walk out of his movies.
When Thin Red Line came out (1998) I saw it a few times in the theaters, then Saving Private Ryan came out about the same year, and I remember having interesting debates with my friends about which one was a "better" war movie. It was this perfect A/B study. They found Thin Red Line completely boring and terrible: no main hero, one who is sort of the main character dies senselessly in the end (well he sacrificed himself, but it wasn't with any sense of bravado or anything). And my point was, that's kind how war is: there are no heroes and people die senselessly and often stupidly, and there is a lot of boredom and sitting around waiting, too.
> This kind of earnestness stood out in an age of relentless irony and snark.
That's why I like him. And to be fair, I am the first one to enjoy relentless irony and snark, but on a deeper level I realize it's also unhealthy and often is an escape from something terrible or a way of distancing from what's happening, so when something more honest and authentic some about, I pay attention.
I wanted to appreciate Malick's films out of a sense of intellectual snobbery, but it was too difficult for me. And I think most people who love his films appreciate them in a snobbish way; they really try to convince themselves that it is great cinema.
The Thin Red Line had some good moments, but it clearly came together in the editing room--but in the end, it came together only somewhat and weakly. He had hours of scattered footage (famously, a couple of major characters/actors had 90% of their planned screening time reduced in the final release), and in the editing room, he was trying to make sense of it, but unsuccessfully. What somebody interpreted as genius, I saw as disorganization, poor planning, and imprecise editing.
Well, someone may say, when talking about The Thin Red Line, that's what war is: confusing, boring most of the time, very violent in bursts. But that is akin to saying that life is mostly about eating and using the bathroom and doing pedestrian stuff and cleaning counters. But most of us, and not because we are simpletons, don't go to movies to see actors doing chores. It might be for others, but not for me.
Interesting - I got something completely different out of The Thin Red Line. To me it was fascinating to see how different people processed the war and their different struggles, whether philosophical (Private Witt), with relationships back home (Cpt Staros), or PTSD. It was a little scattered as it bounced between so many soldiers but the central theme seemed to centre around Pvt Witt and Sgt Welsh - the actual battle was almost secondary. IMO there’s no snobbery - though Malick is maybe a little self indulgent - and I enjoyed movies like Saving Private Ryan or even Fury just as much.
> And I think most people who love his films appreciate them in a snobbish way; they really try to convince themselves that it is great cinema.
Absolutely he is very much a snobbery magnet. Same as Tarkovsky.
The reasons I like him: I like the visual style, the poetic narrative structure, and the cinematographic techniques: camera work, lighting, etc. The second part I think is what trips up most people. Not many people like poetry nowadays. I can only think of two people in my circle of acquaintances and both were English majors, one is an English teacher. So it's a bit like that with films -- to some people it looks like disjointed random scenes that don't make sense, to someone else it looks like visual poetry.
> But most of us, and not because we are simpletons, don't go to movies to see actors doing chores. It might be for others, but not for me.
That's a perfectly fine view of cinema. I think most of it should be that way. If people pay their hard earned money to see something, it should be something they'd enjoy and not random disjoined scenes that don't make sense. That's why folks like Malick are a director's director. It's someone who film makers look up to, but not someone the majority of filmgoers would recognize or appreciate much, and for good reasons either way.
Lots of inner monologues that have a sort of stream of consciousness feel to them. Plot is secondary or non-existent. But I do feel like his movies usually have a coherent theme and he gets it across successfully. I don’t know anything about films so am unable to appreciate any technical feats like lighting - but I really like his movies. I feel like a lot of “good” movies are also fairly formulaic; I enjoyed f1 and predator badlands, but it feels like they followed the Hollywood formula and were good movies because the executed it well.
I'm a huge Malick fan. If you are curious about his very unique style, this 20-minute video outlines why his cinematography is so unique and so powerful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waA3RXy13aA
"Disciples", but seemingly without back and forth feedback from the "teacher". Many happy to ride on the coattails of his reputation, though. This particular style might also be attractive to new film-makers because it allows them to dispense with learning the basics of traditional film language.
Tree Of Life is nothing short of a masterpiece IMO. Influential on me personally as my first exposure to how much editing and structure (or lack thereof) build directorial style. It left an impression on me to feel so much for a film that explicitly says so little.
Obligatory mention of that iconic low-angle shot of The Mother floating gracefully across the plains. One of the best of all time.
The Tree of Life is singular to me as a piece of cinema, americana and a meditation on the beauty of life and especially childhood.
When I saw it the first time, I was so awestruck by the breathtaking cinematography and the incredible music, but even more so by the vision of it all. I had simply never seen anything like it.
I saw it another 4 times before it left theaters.
I should give Malick another shot. I love film, but only first tried him when I was much younger (Thin Red Line) and don’t think I really got it.
Never tried Tree of Life or any of his more recent stuff.
Got any recommendations in the first 2-3 of his you’d suggest?
Badlands and Days of Heaven are definitely his most conventional films and thus good starting points. Badlands especially is a great film, Days of Heaven is a bit uneven in terms of plot and pacing, but the cinematography is beautiful.
Then you have The Thin Red Line and The New World, which to me feel like a transitional period between the more conventional films and The Tree of Life, which is the first film that is characterized through and through by Malick's extremely divisive style. I personally love The Thin Red Line, but I can see why it's not for everyone. (I would skip The New World.) All later films have a very recognizable style, for which I think The Tree of Life is the best starting point.
Long story short: I'd start with Badlands, then watch The Thin Red Line, then The Tree of Life. If you like the last one, watch any of his later films.
I recommend turning on subtitles for Tree of Life. There's a lot of random whispered voice-overs, and without subs you'll have no idea who is speaking, let alone what they are saying.
I think that is at least partially intentional
Days of Heaven (1978)
I'd suggest Badlands (1973) and The New World (2005 (172 minutes version)) as the other two.
Badlands is his first movie and is very approachable.
The New World is also very approachable but can be long for some people. Personally, it's one of my all time favorite movies.and worth every minute.
I’m a huge Malick fan and agree that The New World is his masterpiece. I still remember seeing it in the cinema 20 years ago and almost levitating out of there. Just a beautiful piece of work. I’m glad there’s just about room for Malick somewhere in the film industry.
Or dive at the deep end and watch Knight of Cups or A Hidden Life. You will either like it or not, frankly I don't think it matters what you'll see first, I love all of his movies even though I didn't understand Thin Red Line when I was 20. But Knight of Cups hit me hard when I was 36.
best malick movie that wasn't a malick movie i saw recently was "here".
[dead]