Terrence Malick looks ready to return to the big screen with a biopic on Che Guevara.

Any excuse for Malick to be directing again is reason for rejoicing as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe he should get the script figured out first, though? Or maybe someone should get him an editor?

Ditto to Jeffrey. PTC: You are not touched by Malick's work?

gregory wrote:
: You are not touched by Malick's work?

I watched Badlands and Days of Heaven on video around the time The Thin Red Line came out in theatres, nearly five years ago, and while I don't remember the first two films all that well, I do remember that the third film was a ponderous, pretentious bore. A beautiful bore, perhaps, but still a bore. The second time I saw it -- and yes, I saw it twice, just to see if I had missed something -- I found myself thinking during the first two hours, "Actually, this isn't as bad as I remembered it," but then, oy vey, came the third hour.

When a basically positive, three-star review of the film like Jonathan Rosenbaum's complains that the film is boring ("all three times I've seen it, it starts to defeat me by the third hour because the level of generality isn't sustained by enough particularity. I become sufficiently detached from Malick's own level of detachment to become bored"), then you know the film's got problems. And since I don't quite share Rosenbaum's hatred of Saving Private Ryan, and thus I don't quite feel the need to counterbalance that film's popularity by cheering Malick on, all I can do is quote Ty Burr, who said it better than anyone else when he wrote:

[ snip ]

There are some people, here in the halls of EW and out there in the real world, who find Terry Malick's three-hour adaptation of the James Jones novel to be a spiritually transcendent experience. I sure ain't one of them. What I see is an hour of unusually gripping combat scenes surrounded by two hours of utter and total wank. It is, to paraphrase a beloved college film professor of mine, "thumpingly bad."

Don't get me wrong: I love Malick's "Badlands" and have a soft spot, too, for "Days of Heaven," flawed as it is. Nor do I have anything against movies that move slowly -- give me a week and a pile of Ozu videos, and I'm happy as a hog. But "Thin Red Line" is the work of a director who either can't remotely get a grip on character and story or, even worse, holds them in contempt.

If you haven't seen the movie, "Thin Red Line" ostensibly concerns the Allied assault on Guadalcanal in 1943; Malick's real aim -- and it's an admirable one -- is to place the struggles of human beings within the larger context of a natural world that just goes on, existentially ignoring the battle as if it were a fray on an anthill. Unfortunately, "Line" makes its point in the first half hour and then proceeds to belabor it with the most misguided, rambling fake-poetic "inner monologues" imaginable, spoken by characters with whom we have no identification. Really, you'll find deeper thoughts on a Hallmark card.

The idea to do the voice-overs apparently came late, in the editing stages. They feel like a desperate patch, too. And they're so bland and endless and affectless that they actually had me questioning Malick's earlier work. For instance, I'd always assumed that Sissy Spacek's monologues in "Badlands" were meant to ironically point up her inner numbness -- but they sound exactly like the words spoken by "Thin Red Line"'s actors, words we're meant to marvel over as pearls of plainspoken wisdom.

So why is Malick being feted by Oscar? Because, I think, Hollywood is self-loathing enough to love someone who rejects them for two decades -- Malick's priestly reticence gives him some kind of moral high ground. The town simply loves a comeback story, too. And then, "Thin Red Line"'s empty-headed monologues are just New Age-y enough to go over in a place that worships Deepak Chopra.

Remarkable. Once again, the nominations for Best Picture include a film that shows what Hollywood does worst.

Make of that what you will!

I'll never forget watching "The Thin Red Line" on opening night, with a packed house, and the murmurs of anger that began just as the credits began to roll.
I was in the "pro" camp on the film, but I haven't seen it a second time and now probably would be in agreement that the film trails off in the third hour. I don't know if that's enough to sink the other two-thirds of the film, though.
Anyway, the main reason I posted in this thread is to alert everyone to Darrell's thread on "Northfork," a film that opened in D.C. today and is drawing comparisons to Malick's "Days of Heaven." The early reviews, at least locally, indicate the same kind of split that greeted Malick's "Thin Red Line."

It almost sounds to me like at least the one reviewer was simply angry that the movie didn't remain a 'movie' for him. I will take their words into consideration, but we have to remember that childlike simplicity is always hated and resented from some quarters, usually simply for existing at all. One thing that is interesting, and may be more than coincidental, is the fact that the 'Christ' character, Witt, the one who believes "in the great light", becomes more and more Christlike ( i.e. sacrifices more ) as the movie goes on. I admit that in the theater ( and I saw Malick's works in much the same order you did Peter ) I expected the film to end a few times before it actually did. But as the movie continued, something in me was thrilled along with the 'something' within me that was tempted to 'boredom'. Perhaps I was glad to be with Christ ( Witt ) on his journey, no matter the pain? That's why I think that part of what Malick is intending to do, part of the thing he HAS to do, is heal our way of seeing the world at the same time that he shows us specific things to see in that world. Though I don't think he is necessarily deliberate about any of this in the way that I am describing.

gregory wrote:
: It almost sounds to me like at least the one reviewer was simply angry
: that the movie didn't remain a 'movie' for him.

Meaning who, Rosenbaum or Burr?

: One thing that is interesting, and may be more than coincidental, is the
: fact that the 'Christ' character, Witt, the one who believes "in the great
: light", becomes more and more Christlike ( i.e. sacrifices more ) as the
: movie goes on.

This would be the character who comes up with dippy, New Agey platitudes to the effect that we're all part of One Big Soul, and so on, I believe?

I don't have much time on this computer. I will read the Rosenbaum when I can.

I remember Witt, and most of the other characters seeming to be searching for the truth more than stating things dogmatically. But I have just bought the DVD of this and I am ready to watch it again. Perhaps I will end up agreeing with some of these thoughts? But, then again, I don't want to be 'talked out' of something good, like some kids are talked out of innocence by more adult minds. It's hard to tell when and/or if this happens in life. Maybe there is such a thing as looking too much? I don't know.

Thank you for those reviews Peter.

The Rosenbaum article was very good, I thought. It was maybe even 'as good as can be'. But I'm not sure that he isn't doing the thing I was complaining of before: dissecting the movie into parts ( as if it were a dead thing ). Maybe this is related to the 'absence' of Christ in his review? I think these two things may be related. When we don't acknowledge Christ ( when he is there ), we are unable to imagine a world where ideas are eternal and uncaused, so to speak. Perhaps we live in a time for silence? Time for Christ to stop sharing the spotlight with so many other 'icons'?

[quote]gregory wrote:
: You are not touched by Malick's work?

I watched Badlands and Days of Heaven on video around the time The Thin Red Line came out in theatres, nearly five years ago, and while I don't remember the first two films all that well, I do remember that the third film was a ponderous, pretentious bore. [/quote]

Not remembering DAYS OF HEAVEN all that well may have had to do with seeing it on video. It's at the very top of my list of Movies That Have To Be Seen On The Big Screen - not only because so much of what the film is about is visual (and indeed big visual), but also because the rest of what the film is about is (until the climax) so understated and incremental in its development that you need the focused attention of a movie theatre for it all to work together.

I found DAYS OF HEAVEN brilliant, stunning. Tremendous resonance with Old Testament stories, or the world of John Steinbeck. Maybe the most effective use of voice over I can think of? I really do think it's a masterpiece (in a way that THIN RED LINE reaches for and misses) - but trying to catch its genius on a small screen in your living room is like trying to appreciate an understated watercolour in a video arcade. (Maybe I should disable Similes in this post...)

Ron



Ron

gregory wrote:
: The Rosenbaum article was very good, I thought. It was maybe even 'as
: good as can be'. But I'm not sure that he isn't doing the thing I was complaining
: of before: dissecting the movie into parts ( as if it were a dead thing ).

I don't see how he can be accused of doing that if he has seen the film three times and begun to feel "defeated" by the third hour every time. In what way is he treating the movie like a "dead thing"? (Or are you reluctant to back up your argument with examples because that, in turn, would be dissecting Rosenbaum's review into parts as if it were a dead thing? Just wondering.)

: Maybe this is related to the 'absence' of Christ in his review? I think
: these two things may be related. When we don't acknowledge Christ
: ( when he is there ), we are unable to imagine a world where ideas are
: eternal and uncaused, so to speak. Perhaps we live in a time for silence?
: Time for Christ to stop sharing the spotlight with so many other 'icons'?

Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you mean by this, in relation to this film or to Rosenbaum's review. And I can't help wondering what you mean when you say "Christ is there" -- is he there because you think the director meant to put him there, or is he there because you think you felt him there whether the director meant for him to be there or not, or for some other reason, etc.?

Ron wrote:
: Not remembering DAYS OF HEAVEN all that way may have had to do with
: seeing it on video. It's at the very top of my list of Movies That Have To
: Be Seen On The Big Screen . . .

When was the last time it played on a big screen in Vancouver? I don't think I've ever heard of any screenings of it -- not even at the revival houses when Thin Red Line came out, though I might be forgetting something.

: . . . trying to catch its genius on a small screen in your living room is like
: trying to appreciate an understated watercolour in a video arcade.

It was even worse in my case -- I saw it on a tiny 12" screen sitting on a shelf over the keyboard in my bedroom. For all I know, I might have been multi-tasking at the time and catching up on e-mail or something, too. Must rectify that someday.

QUOTE

In what way is he treating the movie like a \"dead thing\"?

I think that when we say things like, "This worked." or "That didn't work." in a review, or when we point out, in a certain way, the multiple times an idea may have been used before in other movies or in other works of art, we may be subconsiously trying to control a movie. How do we know that the best thing at any given moment in a movie is for it NOT to work? Perhaps "dead thing" isn't the best choice of words. But, I am convinced that we are not used to movies coming 'alive'. And if you asked me to define alive in this sense? I'm not sure I could, or would even want to... But perhaps we know it when we see it?

QUOTE

...I am convinced that we are not used to movies coming 'alive'.  And if you asked me to define alive in this sense?  I'm not sure I could, or would even want to...  But perhaps we know it when we see it?

I'm curious about this idea of movies coming alive.

If a precise definition is a problem, can you give some examples? Is it particular moments in a film, or is it the entire thing?

Are you talking of the experience of finding yourself completely swept up in the film? Or is that too subjective a way to look at it?

Ron

I think we may know it intuitively, when we see it, if we would only trust ourselves. I think that it may be possible to think of a movie as something 'bigger' than ourselves, and above our judgement, perhaps even standing in judgement over us somehow. Kind of like how we can think of the Bible ( if we have faith? ).

There are some directors who do not have chapter stops on there DVDs. One of these directors, on the "Tonight Show" referred to the characters in the clip ( from his movie ) but not at all to the actors who played those characters. Watch the eyes of the actors within this same director's movies and you will find them burning with an 'ultra-realness'. I believe that only God can breathe life into art like this. Only he can direct from the 'inside'.

gregory wrote:
: There are some directors who do not have chapter stops on there DVDs.
: One of these directors . . .

Name?

Or by naming someone, do we kill him?

You will know him when you begin to believe in him... :roll:

gregory wrote:
: You will know him when you begin to believe in him... :roll:

Now that's just silly. You said this director made an appearance on The Tonight Show -- if true, then that's a publicly verifiable and objective fact. So ... who is it? Who did you see on The Tonight Show?

On another note, I watched "In the Bedroom" last night, and the choral music reminded me that "The Thin Red Line" had two soundtracks, one of which was choral music from the South Pacific, or something like that. That music in the film made a big impression on me, and for a long time after seeing the film I kept an eye out for a used copy of that second soundtrack. I never found one.

Has anyone else heard that separate soundtrack?

Sorry, by "believe in him" I meant: Believe in the possibility that a movie can be much more than we ever thought it could be, like he does. You will know him when you see him 8) .

BTW, PTC, and others, do you have a method or any kind of preparation before seeing a movie? Perhaps a small ( or large ) prayer. If this is too personal I will understand.

gregory wrote:
: Sorry, by "believe in him" I meant: Believe in the possibility that a movie
: can be much more than we ever thought it could be, like he does.

Whoever "he" is. I certainly believe a movie can be more than we expected. Indeed, I go to movies HOPING they will be more than I expect. Who goes to a movie hoping ONLY for what they expect?

: BTW, PTC, and others, do you have a method or any kind of preparation
: before seeing a movie?

Not especially. It's not like I'm going to church and partaking in a liturgy that is familiar to me or central to my spirituality and how I view God and the sacred, etc. Unless I'm going to a movie for the second or third time, I'm basically going to a movie blind, and since I have no idea what to expect, I wouldn't have any idea how to prepare for it even if I DID want to "prepare" for it.

Perhaps "prepare" for the unexpected or for the 'unpreparable'??

I think you may be on to something with, "Who goes to a movie hoping ONLY for what they expect?" It may be impossible to go to a movie consciously or intently hoping for the UNEXPECTED. Because this is a matter of Faith, isn't it? Or, at least it is like Faith, in that it is something we cannot give to ourselves. By definition it ( the unexpected ) has to come from 'somewhere else', right? It's like literally pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps: Impossible. Now I've confused myself, I think, but still I would like to hear other thoughts on this.

My thoughts are that this is one flipped out thread and that David Eugene Edwards is probably lurking in the house somewhere.

-s.