Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Knight of Cups (2015)

Recommended Posts

Joel Kinnaman:

 

You filmed scenes for Terrence Malick’s Knight of Cups, did you know before you saw it if you had been cut out or not? I know with Malick, an actor never knows…

I still haven’t seen it. I don’t think I’m in the movie.

I’m sorry.

I’m not.

You’re not sorry?

No, no, not so sorry. I didn’t feel too comfortable.

Why not?

He films in a very different way. He has a very detached way of shooting his films where you don’t feel very involved. I guess some people like it and some people like it less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel Kinnaman:

 

You filmed scenes for Terrence Malick’s Knight of Cups, did you know before you saw it if you had been cut out or not? I know with Malick, an actor never knows…

I still haven’t seen it. I don’t think I’m in the movie.

I’m sorry.

I’m not.

You’re not sorry?

No, no, not so sorry. I didn’t feel too comfortable.

Why not?

He films in a very different way. He has a very detached way of shooting his films where you don’t feel very involved. I guess some people like it and some people like it less.

 

 

If I read that last response with Steve Martin's voice, it comes out more like this...

"Some directors have a way with actors, while other directors.....  ohhhh....  have not way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yaron Dahan at Senses of Cinema:

 

If the world is dual as Malick’s film insists, and Beauty is a sign signifying Love, then how can we be blamed for the pursuit of beauty? For within the Christian ethic which holds above all else love to be most dear, how can one man be blamed for seeking love so hard that he can only fail?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Overstreet said:

Filmspotting's Josh Larsen at Letterboxd

 

It could also be very easily argued that Malick views men, women, and sex in line with a deep tradition in Christianity that describes human sexual intimacy as an expression or inhabitation of our intimacy with God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M. Leary said:

It could also be very easily argued that Malick views men, women, and sex in line with a deep tradition in Christianity that describes human sexual intimacy as an expression or inhabitation of our intimacy with God.

Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is certainly an attractive evaluation, although I don't think it fully accounts for Malick's presentation of women as spiritually superior life-bringers. The Christian sensibility is dominant, but there may be the faintest whiff of Graves's White Goddess in there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe (I mean that seriously--maybe). But I wonder if this is especially true of Jack's recollection of his mother more than it is of Malick's presentation across multiple films?

Edited by Nick Olson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, okay. I can see that. I guess I am just not too opposed to that kind of mythmaking either. Those nature/grace/mother overtones are explicit in The New World, for example.

Edited by M. Leary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to it, either. I was just trying to meet those criticisms halfway. I guess I'll have to wait until I've seen Knight of Cups to really understand what Larsen is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nathaniel said:

I'm not opposed to it, either. I was just trying to meet those criticisms halfway. I guess I'll have to wait until I've seen Knight of Cups to really understand what Larsen is talking about.

Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My review. I could have written more, and may do so in the future, as I barely scratched the surface of the structure and images. The best way I can describe this movie is the book of Ecclesiastes on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't give what you have in your mind, heart, and soul to Terrence Malick's most recent film, it might come off like Willem Dafoe's laughable movie in "Mr. Bean's Holiday." If you do give all of yourself to this film and you still find it empty and pretentious, then perhaps you need to explore the notion that you have forgotten what is important in life and beyond. Do you look downwards to earthly matters and mere materialism, or do you look up to the sky as a limping bird does - yearning to get back up there?
 
In a dreamlike series of images, sounds, words and actions, "Knight of Cups" unfolds as a poem. An odd form for a movie - we're used to stories in films being told dramatically, or like novels. Three acts. A to B to C to Z. Malick has been attempting, especially in his last few films, to tell basic truths about flesh and spirit, nature and grace, living for the moment vs. living as a prologue to something better. Like all good art, you must add your own story, thoughts, memories and wisdom to what is presented to you. No, I'm not a well-off Hollywood screenwriter who looks like Christian Bale and courts beauties like Freida Pinto and Natalie Portman, but I identified with Bale's character's dilemma. Malick is reminding us of the age-old question: What good is it to gain the world, but lose your soul? So the "perfume-ad" glamour of his (and D.P. Emmanuel Lubezki)'s stunning images and women is necessary - we need to see the highest end of pleasure, happiness and comfort this world can offer us, and still note it's a shadow of greater things.
Edited by Mark R.Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mark R.Y. said:
If you don't give what you have in your mind, heart, and soul to Terrence Malick's most recent film, it might come off like Willem Dafoe's laughable movie in "Mr. Bean's Holiday." If you do give all of yourself to this film and you still find it empty and pretentious, then perhaps you need to explore the notion that you have forgotten what is important in life and beyond. Do you look downwards to earthly matters and mere materialism, or do you look up to the sky as a limping bird does - yearning to get back up there?

I'm looking forward to this film, and I expect that I will like it based on all that I've read about it. Nonetheless, there's something about the phrasing of this that rubs me the wrong way. I would never tell someone that even if they had "given all of them-self" to a film(which I'm going to take to mean, approaching the film in an open spirit and without preconceptions of what it should be) and that if it still didn't work for them that there was something wrong with them. I believe that it's possible for intelligent people to come to different conclusions about a work of art. To suggest otherwise, to suggest that it's because they have their spiritual priorities in the wrong place is presumptuous, and, frankly, insulting.

That said, instead of making this an argument about tone, I'd love to tease out more here. Can you tell me more about how Malick's film works to point us away from materialism? Malick isn't the only one making "poetic", borderline non-narrative films. What is it about his recent films that points to the truth, since I have had a similar experience with his films (I adore THE TREE OF LIFE, was more mixed on TO THE WONDER)? How does the memory-image you're describing here compare to the one in THE TREE OF LIFE, for instance, in allowing us to engage with the memories and particular subjectivity of its main character?

Anyway, the film opens in my town on Good Friday. I'm going to try to go see it then. Sounds like it might be good Easter weekend viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was okay. Honestly, I have very little to say about it other than it had some really fascinating ideas, but I didn't feel it came together. It seemed like Malick was recycling themes and ideas that he handled much better in Tree of Life. Or, if The Revenant was Lubezki doing an inferior copying of his own work in The New World, then Knight of Cups is Malick doing an inferior copying of his own work in Tree of Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...