Malick

[tweetybird]

Love him. He's great. I haven't seen The New World yet, but I doubt it would make me change my mind

[Mr Maps]

My only real problem with Thin Red Line was that after making two brilliant films in the 70's he comes out of retirement and every actor in Hollywood desperately wanting to be involved with the project so he tried to jam them all in. It becomes a game of spot the cameo and they distract from the story and visuals. I mean, what the fuck was the point of Clooney in there? I know he shot tons of footage and could have made seveal different films but he didn't have to keep everyone who walked on set in the film.

[James R]

I can't believe I'm the only person to have voted "hate" so far.

Can you elaborate on your vote? Have you seen all four of his films?

Yes. I have been bored to death by all four of them. The New World is the only one I've been able to sit through in its entirety, and that was purely because I was at a media preview for the film and I have a policy of sitting through media previews until the occasionally bitter end. It's years since I've seen the first three so I can't pin down any more what aggravated me about them, but I did consider the writing of The New World to be fairly poor, particularly the pseudo-poetic voiceovers. It engaged me considerably on the visual level, I will admit, but beyond that, nothing.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I can't believe I'm the only person to have voted "hate" so far.

Can you elaborate on your vote? Have you seen all four of his films?

Yes. I have been bored to death by all four of them. The New World is the only one I've been able to sit through in its entirety, and that was purely because I was at a media preview for the film and I have a policy of sitting through media previews until the occasionally bitter end. It's years since I've seen the first three so I can't pin down any more what aggravated me about them, but I did consider the writing of The New World to be fairly poor, particularly the pseudo-poetic voiceovers. It engaged me considerably on the visual level, I will admit, but beyond that, nothing.

I won't try and change your opinion. Judging by your other posts you obviously know film well and know what you like and don't like. I'm not surprised by the nature of your objections to his work though. It makes absolute sense that the words would bother you and the visuals would engage you more. That is, I believe, how the artist intended things.

I meant to post some of this in answer to the discussion Moddies and I had started regarding Badlands, but with Malick it is really important to prioritize what you see ahead of the words you hear. Often his words are unreliable. The best example of this is in The New World where John Smith warbles on the usual platitudes about how peaceful and lacking in guile the "naturals" are. Meanwhile we actually see the Indians lie, steal, shun their own, and contemplate brutality at various points in the film. In other words, the "pseudo-poetic voiceovers" are meant to be exactly that. Malick seems to like to contrast our attempts to infuse life with a meaning that we can define with the reality of the natural world precisely to show how unnatural our need for control is.

Perhaps all of that is obvious to you, but just doesn't move you. Or maybe it'll give you another way to consider his work. Whatever...it works for me.