Match Cut Directors Consensus - Terrence Malick

[StanleyK]

Five years ago I wouldn't have hesitated to call him my favorite director, but he's lost me during his recent experimental phase. Still, I have hopes for his next movie, Radegund, which is supposed to be a return to his previous style.


No guarantee I'll actually tally the results, but post your lists.

In case tallying does eventually happen, please follow the format of the original threads to make the job easier: chronological order with a rating from 1 to 10 (half-points allowed) next to each movie.

[StanleyK]

Badlands - 10
Days of Heaven - 10
The Thin Red Line - 10
The New World - 10
The Tree of Life - 10
To the Wonder - 5
Knight of Cups - 5
Song to Song - 5

[Winston*]

Dude has directed maybe three of my favourite films of their respective years and I have little interest in seeing any of his last three. A bit sad.

[Spinal]

Badlands - 7.5
Days of Heaven - 8
The Thin Red Line - 8
The New World - 8
The Tree of Life - 10

[transmogrifier]

Badlands - 5.5
Days of Heaven - 9.0
The Thin Red Line - 8.0
The New World - 5.5
The Tree of Life - 5.5

You couldn't pay me to watch his last three four (forgot about Voyage of Time).

[Stay Puft]

Days of Heaven - 9
The Thin Red Line - 10
The New World - 10
The Tree of Life - 8.5
To the Wonder - 8
Knight of Cups - 7
Voyage of Time: The IMAX Experience - 9
Song to Song - 5.5

[Winston*]

Badlands - 5.5


Hmm

[transmogrifier]

Hmm

Don't remember much about it, to be honest. Just going off my score in my movie spreadsheet. Saw it about 15 years ago now.

[Winston*]

Don't remember much about it, to be honest. Just going off my score in my movie spreadsheet. Saw it about 15 years ago now.

Give it a revisit maybe.

[Dukefrukem]

The Thin Red Line - 5
The Tree of Life - 1.5
To the Wonder - 2

[baby doll]

Badlands (1973) - 8
Days of Heaven (1978) - 10
The Thin Red Line (1998) - the first two hours 9, the last hour 5; average grade 7.666667
The New World (2005) [second theatrical and extended versions] - 7
The Tree of Life (2011) - 7
To the Wonder (2012) - 7

[baby doll]

Five years ago I wouldn't have hesitated to call him my favorite director, but he's lost me during his recent experimental phase. Still, I have hopes for his next movie, Radegund, which is supposed to be a return to his previous style.I don't see too big of a difference in style per se between 70s Malick and what he's done lately; the main difference between early and late Malick seems to be more a matter of method. Apparently, he no longer bothers with a detailed script (I remember seeing a junket interview with Olga Kurylenko where she says Malick gave her a reading list of 19th century Russian lit rather than a script), but instead shoots acres of footage and then "finds" the movie in the editing, which may explain why all his post-70s movies are so choppy as storytelling. I still like all of his films I've seen but the overall trajectory of his career is starting to seem more and more like a cautionary tale about the dangers of convincing everyone you're a genius who can do no wrong.

[Lazlo]

Badlands - 8
Days of Heaven - 9.5
The Thin Red Line - 9.5
The New World - 9.5
The Tree of Life - 9.5
To the Wonder - 8
Knight of Cups - 4
Song to Song - 8

[Peng]

Badlands - 9
Days of Heaven - 7.5
The Thin Red Line - 8
The New World - 9
The Tree of Life - 9.5
To the Wonder - 8
Knight of Cups - 5
Song to Song - 6

[Mysterious Dude]

Badlands (1973) - 10
Days of Heaven (1978) - 7.0
The New World (2005) - 8.5
The Tree of Life (2011) - 10
To the Wonder (2012) - 6.0

I've been meaning to revisit The Thin Red Line. I haven't seen it since it was new.

[Grouchy]

Badlands - 9
The New World - 8
The Tree of Life - 6? A hard film to rate, since I don't like it at all but it has its merits.
To the Wonder - 1

[PURPLE]

Personally, I love that Malick is experimenting not just with the form and structure of films but with the basis of filmmaking. This is not to say he is alone or unique - Greenaway has a great many diatribes about the poverty of cinema due to the dominance of the screenplay. That Malick not only doesn't work from a screenplay but doesn't even work from a synopsis is I think exciting. This is not to say that every film will work flawlessly, but it is to say that its flaws will be different from the flaws that come about from using the same rigid structure.

In this way, for me to criticize one of Malick's new films is essentially me saying, "Yes, I really disliked a lot of things that I was delightfully surprised by." Like, is that even a complaint? Turning that another way you can always say," I was delightfully surprised by a lot of things, and while I didn't necessarily like these things at all on first glance, I also can't say that I could readily process what was in the film as easily as a boring, unsurprising structure which can at times create something great."

I could also say, "I can't say I liked it, but I can say I'm an ignorant, unimaginative boor - but I'm working on it!"

All this is to say - it's better to explore than to fail predictably.

1. The Tree of Life - I love the moments that linger after things that have been said, or seem to have been said but weren't heard...
2. Song to Song - I love the way the film is crafted around a barrage of little moments, and I especially love the structure-less stream around 4/5 of the way through, even if I was disappointed when a structure crept back through for the finale.
3. The Thin Red Line - I love the way
---
4. The New World - I adore the way I doubt all of my memories of this film, and the compulsion to watch it again, and the knowledge that I have nothing of value to write about it and yet you still read all the way to this point...
5. To the Wonder - I adore the expressionist passages, and how at other times the film is almost a melodramatic tone poem - does that even exist anywhere else?
6. Days of Heaven - I adore the way the world exists to lash out against the lead duo's mad struggle, and the completeness of the world, but more and more miss the scattered pieces of the later works...
---
7. Knight of Cups - ...and yet here the pieces seem too obvious, and lack mystery and spontaneity and the joy of the creative process. I can see the strain to break further afield, and I love what's on the other side... but I feel the splinters of the breaking fence...
---
7. Badlands - Is a film, like many others. I have no superlatives, and no negativity.

[transmogrifier]

.
In this way, for me to criticize one of Malick's new films is essentially me saying, "Yes, I really disliked a lot of things that I was delightfully surprised by." Like, is that even a complaint? Turning that another way you can always say," I was delightfully surprised by a lot of things, and while I didn't necessarily like these things at all on first glance, I also can't say that I could readily process what was in the film as easily as a boring, unsurprising structure which can at times create something great.". .

"Delightfully" and "disliked" do not work together at all, so honestly I don't really know what you are trying to argue here except "I'm told he's good so he must be even if I actually don't like what he does."

[StanleyK]

I don't see too big of a difference in style per se between 70s Malick and what he's done lately; the main difference between early and late Malick seems to be more a matter of method. Apparently, he no longer bothers with a detailed script (I remember seeing a junket interview with Olga Kurylenko where she says Malick gave her a reading list of 19th century Russian lit rather than a script), but instead shoots acres of footage and then "finds" the movie in the editing, which may explain why all his post-70s movies are so choppy as storytelling. I still like all of his films I've seen but the overall trajectory of his career is starting to seem more and more like a cautionary tale about the dangers of convincing everyone you're a genius who can do no wrong.

I see some significant differences between his first two films (much shorter and focused mostly on a central character and narration), his next three (more fragmented, longer as a result, more scattershot but there's still narrative progression), and his last three, in which he seems to have lost all interest in anything but immediate emotion and none of his shots seem to last more than 4 seconds.

[StanleyK]

Don't remember much about it, to be honest. Just going off my score in my movie spreadsheet. Saw it about 15 years ago now.

Man, I wouldn't assign a rating to a movie I've seen five years ago, let alone 15. I just don't trust my younger self that much.

Yeah, you should definitely revisit Badlands. I find it hard to imagine someone liking Days of Heaven but not Badlands, or vice versa.

[Thirdmango]

Tree of Life - 3

[Melville]

Badlands - 9
Days of Heaven - 9.5
The Thin Red Line - 9
The New World - 10
The Tree of Life - 6
To the Wonder - 5.5

Although my ratings of Tree of Life and To the Wonder are almost the same, my reactions to them were totally different. To me, Tree of Life felt overly constrained to hitting its thematic points. I owe it a rewatch. But To the Wonder, despite some moments of beauty, mostly felt like a lot of repetitive, vacuous twirling devoid of emotion or resonance (and I love the sound of a melodramatic tone poem). So much so that I haven't had much interest in seeing his later stuff.

[baby doll]

Personally, I love that Malick is experimenting not just with the form and structure of films but with the basis of filmmaking. This is not to say he is alone or unique - Greenaway has a great many diatribes about the poverty of cinema due to the dominance of the screenplay. That Malick not only doesn't work from a screenplay but doesn't even work from a synopsis is I think exciting. This is not to say that every film will work flawlessly, but it is to say that its flaws will be different from the flaws that come about from using the same rigid structure.

In this way, for me to criticize one of Malick's new films is essentially me saying, "Yes, I really disliked a lot of things that I was delightfully surprised by." Like, is that even a complaint? Turning that another way you can always say," I was delightfully surprised by a lot of things, and while I didn't necessarily like these things at all on first glance, I also can't say that I could readily process what was in the film as easily as a boring, unsurprising structure which can at times create something great."

I could also say, "I can't say I liked it, but I can say I'm an ignorant, unimaginative boor - but I'm working on it!"

All this is to say - it's better to explore than to fail predictably.Ideally filmmakers would succeed unpredictably.

In any case, there's a difference between experimenting with form and mere formlessness. The early Malick films, and the first two hours of The Thin Red Line, develop and cohere; the last hour of The Thin Red Line and Malick's subsequent three features are little more than a series of loosely connected episodes in search of a form.

Incidentally, Greenaway may talk a lot of guff about how much he hates screenplays but he's also clearly obsessed with structure and form.

[dreamdead]

Badlands - 7.5
Days of Heaven - 10
The Thin Red Line - 10
The New World - 10
The Tree of Life - 10
To the Wonder - 6.5
Knight of Cups - 5
Song to Song - 5

It's been depressing to see how much Malick has de-emphasized narrative in his last few features, where profession of a main character dissolve, so that whatever tension that could be drawn from their work absolutely retreats from narrative focus. It's what makes his last two features especially feel formless. I'd have held up Malick as my favorite director as recently as 2014, but his emphasis on 20somethings have hindered any sense of progression. I think he could do something drama-less like Marilynne Robinson's novel Gilead, but the retreat into post-adolescence isn't helping him.

I'm tentatively optimistic that this next project could at least move into something interesting. Song to Song is worth seeing if only to imagine how it could be re-conceived into something with more form (beyond Lubezki's push-ins and quick editing).

[Yxklyx]

Badlands - 10
Days of Heaven - 9
The Thin Red Line - 8
The New World - 10
The Tree of Life - 5

[PURPLE]

"Delightfully" and "disliked" do not work together at all, so honestly I don't really know what you are trying to argue here except "I'm told he's good so he must be even if I actually don't like what he does."I'm told that Badlands is amazing, but I don't feel that, so I don't say it. I'm not told that Knight of Cups is amazing, and I don't say it is. I don't see your point. To be patronizing you also need to be correct, otherwise you're just being stupid.

Delightfully and disliked don't seem to work together at all, and yet through the power of paradox and the artistic license I put them together anyway to explain my ambivalence. Ambivalence does go together with reality, and it means that you have mixed or even opposed feelings, like the two I mentioned.

Any other comments on how I should feel?

[PURPLE]

Ideally filmmakers would succeed unpredictably.I'm not the ideal person, though - my experiences vary, and perhaps in the future the experience will be, at that moment, an unqualified success. I don't even know that that is ideal - I always welcome a struggle and a qualification. The ideal is often boring and lacks nuance. Success isn't ideal, or perhaps even coherent. This is a lot of semantic ballet to say, simply, ideally, boringly: I'm not looking to find films made simply to please and placate me.


In any case, there's a difference between experimenting with form and mere formlessness. The early Malick films, and the first two hours of The Thin Red Line, develop and cohere; the last hour of The Thin Red Line and Malick's subsequent three features are little more than a series of loosely connected episodes in search of a form.

Incidentally, Greenaway may talk a lot of guff about how much he hates screenplays but he's also clearly obsessed with structure and form.I agree that there is a difference between experimenting with form and mere formelessness, but the latter is surely a subset and I'm not convinced it's worse than any other subset.

As I said, I preferred the formless stream of montage/story/consciousness in Song to Somg to any more formed story segments - the story was simple, but the flow of moments captivated me.

i love Greenaway for his rigid formalism - he has films which are nothing more than structuralist experiments in form as parodies of structuralist experiments in form, for god's sake! And it's by far my favorite of his shorts! But I still appreciate his sentiments, and his efforts, even if he is incapable of truly indulging in his experiments (on film, anyway). His Stairs installation is a far better step, though: so formless that it doesn't even have a sequence. There's a Swiss film I stumbled upon but have yet to watch that is similar: a set of sequences, but no set order in which to watch them. Even then, perhaps there is less structure in forcing the viewer into a sequence that they then can't find a way to structure? An imprisonment within an absence of restriction? Sounds fun! I approve of Malick's indulgence in this silliest of games (and whose films have sillier games in them than Greenway?)

[transmogrifier]

I'm told that Badlands is amazing, but I don't feel that, so I don't say it. I'm not told that Knight of Cups is amazing, and I don't say it is. I don't see your point. To be patronizing you also need to be correct, otherwise you're just being stupid.


Yeah, nah, I think I'll leave you to it. It's nice when someone announces right off the bat that there is nothing to be gained from discussing things with them, so thanks for saving me time.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Badlands - 9
Days of Heaven - 9
The Thin Red Line - 8
The New World - 8
The Tree of Life - 10
Song to Song - 4

[baby doll]

I'm not the ideal person, though - my experiences vary, and perhaps in the future the experience will be, at that moment, an unqualified success. I don't even know that that is ideal - I always welcome a struggle and a qualification. The ideal is often boring and lacks nuance. Success isn't ideal, or perhaps even coherent. This is a lot of semantic ballet to say, simply, ideally, boringly: I'm not looking to find films made simply to please and placate me.I think you're confusing success with stasis. As Jurji Tynjanov once wrote, "The unity of a work of art is not a closed symmetrical whole, but an unfolding dynamic integrity; between its elements stands, not the static sign of equation and addition, but always the dynamic sign of integration and correlation." Regarding Malick's films specifically, Badlands and Days of Heaven are much more dynamic than anything he's done since as the films' narrative structures struggle to unify their materials, which are constantly attempting to split apart into atomized fragments; if anything, it's the later, relatively formless works that lack struggle and qualification.

[PURPLE]

Yeah, nah, I think I'll leave you to it. It's nice when someone announces right off the bat that there is nothing to be gained from discussing things with them, so thanks for saving me time."I'm told he's good so he must be even if I actually don't like what he does."

I agreed.

[PURPLE]

I think you're confusing success with stasis. As Jurji Tynjanov once wrote, "The unity of a work of art is not a closed symmetrical whole, but an unfolding dynamic integrity; between its elements stands, not the static sign of equation and addition, but always the dynamic sign of integration and correlation." Regarding Malick's films specifically, Badlands and Days of Heaven are much more dynamic than anything he's done since as the films' narrative structures struggle to unify their materials, which are constantly attempting to split apart into atomized fragments; if anything, it's the later, relatively formless works that lack struggle and qualification.I like the plays on language that you're using - but I don't agree with the contents. There are many elements going on in these later films, not merely "struggle and qualification" with regard to structure. I think the point is entirely tangential: The films are interesting in part because the structure is not an issue, not a point of reference. Had no work of art with a narrative structure existed prior to Song to Song, would that film automatically be better because "the film's narrative structure struggles to unify its materials", whereas all films to that point were merely "relatively formless works that lack struggle and qualification"? I don't think so. They are two different modes of approach, each with innumerable different nuances. The fact that I care more for the composition of images than the composition of narrative threads in Malick's films indicates simply that the structure is not the principle feature of value in his films. If you are saying that the situation is the opposite for you - or, indeed, some innumerable number of other options - that's totally OK! I'm only trying to explain my own experiences, based on my own tastes and viewpoints and experiences.

I find absolutely no contradiction between my preferences and Tynjanov's quote in the slightest. Perhaps support, given that a structureless film is far more like an undulating ocean as opposed to a waterfall - each element can unfold in an endlessly dynamic configuration, as there is no force (structure, gravity) to render any configuration incoherent or impossible. It's lovely, sure, but it can be co-opted by anyone to support their preferences. And, anyway, no film can have or lack struggle or qualification - those are restricted to the mind of the viewer. I do like, though, that while you can say that certain events certainly happened in Days of Heaven, and people would care - I don't think the same thing happens with certain events in Song to Song, and if I spoke about a certain element that I cared about I doubt everyone would share the same experience of that montage, of that glance, of that sweep away from what seemed to be a cornerstone moment in some story not really being told. Not only are the experience of these moments not "unqualified" - they won't even be shared between any two given people. Talk about dynamism!

[baby doll]

I like the plays on language that you're using - but I don't agree with the contents. There are many elements going on in these later films, not merely "struggle and qualification" with regard to structure. I think the point is entirely tangential: The films are interesting in part because the structure is not an issue, not a point of reference. Had no work of art with a narrative structure existed prior to Song to Song, would that film automatically be better because "the film's narrative structure struggles to unify its materials", whereas all films to that point were merely "relatively formless works that lack struggle and qualification"? I don't think so. They are two different modes of approach, each with innumerable different nuances. The fact that I care more for the composition of images than the composition of narrative threads in Malick's films indicates simply that the structure is not the principle feature of value in his films. If you are saying that the situation is the opposite for you - or, indeed, some innumerable number of other options - that's totally OK! I'm only trying to explain my own experiences, based on my own tastes and viewpoints and experiences.

I find absolutely no contradiction between my preferences and Tynjanov's quote in the slightest. Perhaps support, given that a structureless film is far more like an undulating ocean as opposed to a waterfall - each element can unfold in an endlessly dynamic configuration, as there is no force (structure, gravity) to render any configuration incoherent or impossible. It's lovely, sure, but it can be co-opted by anyone to support their preferences. And, anyway, no film can have or lack struggle or qualification - those are restricted to the mind of the viewer. I do like, though, that while you can say that certain events certainly happened in Days of Heaven, and people would care - I don't think the same thing happens with certain events in Song to Song, and if I spoke about a certain element that I cared about I doubt everyone would share the same experience of that montage, of that glance, of that sweep away from what seemed to be a cornerstone moment in some story not really being told. Not only are the experience of these moments not "unqualified" - they won't even be shared between any two given people. Talk about dynamism!I haven't seen Song to Song but all the Malick films I've seen have continuous characters, so structure clearly is a reference point. However baggy the structure, they're not simply a random collection of "attractions." Furthermore, no matter how affecting any individual sequence might be in isolation, the narrative structure enhances (rather than lessens) its emotional impact by providing a context and a significance for it. Therefore, as Malick moves away from any kind of structure (narrative or otherwise), his films become less powerful rather than more.

[Pop Trash]

Badlands - 8
Days of Heaven - 10
The Thin Red Line - 8
The New World - 10
The Tree of Life - 10

I'm honestly a bit weary of watching the next three, given everything I've read about them. I might wait to watch them until homeboy joins George A. Romero in the sky.

[PURPLE]

I haven't seen Song to Song but all the Malick films I've seen have continuous characters, so structure clearly is a reference point. However baggy the structure, they're not simply a random collection of "attractions." Furthermore, no matter how affecting any individual sequence might be in isolation, the narrative structure enhances (rather than lessens) its emotional impact by providing a context and a significance for it. Therefore, as Malick moves away from any kind of structure (narrative or otherwise), his films become less powerful rather than more.I would challenge this and say, "As Malick moves away from any kind of structure his films become less powerful due to that structure. There are innumerable benefits to not strictly adhering to a structure, though, thus by the same transitive property you're applying it's clear that it's not clear, by way of rational argument, which is preferable. It's a matter of taste, opinion, familiarity, etc. - it's a matter of differing people with differing tastes. For my tastes, less structure and more unstructured moments create elements not possible in more highly structured works, and I prefer them.

If Malick made terrible films with structure, and OK films without as much structure (but still with structure as a reference point), I don't think you would have posed the same logic, because it doesn't actually overcome the individual's preferences, it can merely be a justification due to your own preferences.

[baby doll]

I would challenge this and say, "As Malick moves away from any kind of structure his films become less powerful due to that structure. There are innumerable benefits to not strictly adhering to a structure, though, thus by the same transitive property you're applying it's clear that it's not clear, by way of rational argument, which is preferable. It's a matter of taste, opinion, familiarity, etc. - it's a matter of differing people with differing tastes. For my tastes, less structure and more unstructured moments create elements not possible in more highly structured works, and I prefer them.

If Malick made terrible films with structure, and OK films without as much structure (but still with structure as a reference point), I don't think you would have posed the same logic, because it doesn't actually overcome the individual's preferences, it can merely be a justification due to your own preferences.That's a big "if." And the way I see it, Malick's made two great films that have a fairly solid narrative structure and a series of pretty good ones that suffer from a lack of focus. (The second hour of The Tree of Life especially seems to go on forever, even if some individual scenes are brilliant.) So whatever benefits arise from Malick's indifference to narrative (and if you could enlighten me as to what they are, I'd be grateful), it seems to me that they're far outweighed by the costs. After all, it's not as if there was a dearth of beautiful shots and sequences in Malick's early films. But more than that, those moments added up to something greater than the sum of their parts.

[Ivan Drago]

Badlands - 7.5
Days of Heaven - 8.5
The Thin Red Line - 10
The New World - 9
The Tree of Life - 10
To The Wonder - 4
Knight of Cups - 8
Song To Song - 7

[PURPLE]

That's a big "if." And the way I see it, Malick's made two great films that have a fairly solid narrative structure and a series of pretty good ones that suffer from a lack of focus. (The second hour of The Tree of Life especially seems to go on forever, even if some individual scenes are brilliant.) So whatever benefits arise from Malick's indifference to narrative (and if you could enlighten me as to what they are, I'd be grateful), it seems to me that they're far outweighed by the costs. After all, it's not as if there was a dearth of beautiful shots and sequences in Malick's early films. But more than that, those moments added up to something greater than the sum of their parts.In your experience, the moments added up to something greater than the sum of their parts. Based on your comments, I would think that what they added up to was probably a thematically reinforced idea that was a result of the structure. Essentially, the film has a thesis (a theme), and it builds a nuanced examination of this theme through a structured set of ideas, of symbols, of images, of feelings, of moments, etc. This is one way to make art. There are certainly others.

To reference a different way of making art, the essential underlying feature of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema is to refrain from creating a single, unified theme, or a single potential interpretation. This is done through essentially the opposite of "epic theater" - to refrain from breaking even the "third wall" of imposed structure or the "second wall" of editing. All images and compositions have some common interpretations or usage in "film language", as all words have strict definitions, but just as words can be used figuratively, images can be far from limited to a single meaning (especially since they don't inherently have any meaning). Similarly, words strung together will have a meaning, but that meaning need not be of any significance to the intent or value of the poem - like a tone poem. This is just to say: there can be many ways in which the images are used that run contrary to another possible purpose.

Let's take my favorite segment late in Song to Song: I can't tell you what happened, necessarily, because I don't know that I even noticed the events, but I can tell you that: Yes, certainly, the characters involved could reasonably be assumed to have been involved in these scenes in a structured, logical manner. Does this logic, this structure of a "narrative", contribute meaningfully to the sequence, though? I would say: Clearly not; it's my favorite sequence in the film and I don't remember what happened. What I can tell you is how it happened, and the impression I took from it. What is important is not that the characters could reasonably be in this situation, it is important why this situation was chosen, and why it was shot in this way, and why each successive shot was placed in order and in such a rhythm next to the other. There are innumerable ways in which this sequence could have been shot (and, for the purposes of the story, it didn't need to exist at all, because I don't even know what it was but I understand the story, especially since it's exceedingly simple and, to me, not of interest). You could even say that the fact that the characters are logically connected is not because they are the subject, but because they are simply a motif. They recur because they are utilized as repeated elements within the compositions for the purpose of texture, contrast, and layering. The subject, such that there can be said to be one in a tone poem, is the tone and not the characters. Would the sequence have been less effective with different actors swapped into each frame? Possibly, possibly not - it would have been an entirely different experience, and the discordance would have likely disturbed the way the images flowed together seamlessly. The opposite can be seen in The Obscure Object of Desire: actresses substituted for each other without comment, from frame to frame, and it, intentionally, distracts the mind from the simple flow of the images. In that sense, it makes complete sense to see the actors as a motif.

There's also another interesting effect I love in non-narrative (or, at least, narrative as a minor, coincidental element): Contemporary Contemplative Cinema uses long takes to create "space" for the viewer from the inundation of modern cinema's onslaught of information, whereas Malick's tone poems create the same effect by distancing the viewer from the need to intellectually analyze the story, especially as the cuts become more rapid and the interplay between scenes becomes less a focus. When your mind understands that it doesn't matter what intellectual context the next shot has with the last one, it means that the brain has "space", on an intellectual front, to wander, even whilst being presented with a more rapid onslaught of images than in Contemporary Contemplative Cinema. This may be one reason why I don't actually remember what happened in this, my favorite sequence in the film: Whatever context within the greater film this may have had, I simply stopped paying attention because the character of the film created a space where I didn't feel that it would add anything to the film, and I certainly felt that freeing myself from that concentration would aid in the experience. And it did! When the story came back, slightly, later in the film I felt robbed! My brain again had to parse the meaning between different scenes into a thematic context - how laborious! Call me lazy (I'll gladly take it), but sometimes a tone poem simply can't be beat.

[baby doll]

In your experience, the moments added up to something greater than the sum of their parts. Based on your comments, I would think that what they added up to was probably a thematically reinforced idea that was a result of the structure. Essentially, the film has a thesis (a theme), and it builds a nuanced examination of this theme through a structured set of ideas, of symbols, of images, of feelings, of moments, etc. This is one way to make art. There are certainly others.I wasn't being so grand; I simply meant that those moments added up to a story with a cumulative emotional impact. There certainly are other ways of making art, but I would contend that all works of art require some kind of unifying principle, whether or not that happens to be a narrative. (And at the end of the day, Malick is still making narrative films.)


To reference a different way of making art, the essential underlying feature of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema is to refrain from creating a single, unified theme, or a single potential interpretation. This is done through essentially the opposite of "epic theater" - to refrain from breaking even the "third wall" of imposed structure or the "second wall" of editing. All images and compositions have some common interpretations or usage in "film language", as all words have strict definitions, but just as words can be used figuratively, images can be far from limited to a single meaning (especially since they don't inherently have any meaning). Similarly, words strung together will have a meaning, but that meaning need not be of any significance to the intent or value of the poem - like a tone poem. This is just to say: there can be many ways in which the images are used that run contrary to another possible purpose.There are a lot of unsupported assertions in this paragraph (not to mention the eccentric jargon: second and third walls, etc.): Do all images and compositions have common interpretations in the same manner that words have definitions? Do other, non-contemplative kinds of cinema, impose a single, unified interpretation on the viewer? The underlying theory here seems to be a communications model of art, where the viewer's activity is largely restricted to "decoding" the meanings in the text. Personally, I don't accept this model. Any photographic image, no matter how spare or clichéd, will have some perceptual excess not reducible to meaning, and a theme or thesis is just one kind of meaning a text can produce, and not necessarily the most important or interesting. (I'm more interested in effects than meanings myself.)


Let's take my favorite segment late in Song to Song: I can't tell you what happened, necessarily, because I don't know that I even noticed the events, but I can tell you that: Yes, certainly, the characters involved could reasonably be assumed to have been involved in these scenes in a structured, logical manner. Does this logic, this structure of a "narrative", contribute meaningfully to the sequence, though? I would say: Clearly not; it's my favorite sequence in the film and I don't remember what happened. What I can tell you is how it happened, and the impression I took from it. What is important is not that the characters could reasonably be in this situation, it is important why this situation was chosen, and why it was shot in this way, and why each successive shot was placed in order and in such a rhythm next to the other. There are innumerable ways in which this sequence could have been shot (and, for the purposes of the story, it didn't need to exist at all, because I don't even know what it was but I understand the story, especially since it's exceedingly simple and, to me, not of interest). You could even say that the fact that the characters are logically connected is not because they are the subject, but because they are simply a motif. They recur because they are utilized as repeated elements within the compositions for the purpose of texture, contrast, and layering. The subject, such that there can be said to be one in a tone poem, is the tone and not the characters. Would the sequence have been less effective with different actors swapped into each frame? Possibly, possibly not - it would have been an entirely different experience, and the discordance would have likely disturbed the way the images flowed together seamlessly. The opposite can be seen in The Obscure Object of Desire: actresses substituted for each other without comment, from frame to frame, and it, intentionally, distracts the mind from the simple flow of the images. In that sense, it makes complete sense to see the actors as a motif.Don't motifs imply some kind of structure, even if it's not a narrative one (or in the case of Ozu's films, a structure of parametric variation existing alongside, and occasionally deforming, the narrative)?


There's also another interesting effect I love in non-narrative (or, at least, narrative as a minor, coincidental element): Contemporary Contemplative Cinema uses long takes to create "space" for the viewer from the inundation of modern cinema's onslaught of information, whereas Malick's tone poems create the same effect by distancing the viewer from the need to intellectually analyze the story, especially as the cuts become more rapid and the interplay between scenes becomes less a focus. When your mind understands that it doesn't matter what intellectual context the next shot has with the last one, it means that the brain has "space", on an intellectual front, to wander, even whilst being presented with a more rapid onslaught of images than in Contemporary Contemplative Cinema. This may be one reason why I don't actually remember what happened in this, my favorite sequence in the film: Whatever context within the greater film this may have had, I simply stopped paying attention because the character of the film created a space where I didn't feel that it would add anything to the film, and I certainly felt that freeing myself from that concentration would aid in the experience. And it did! When the story came back, slightly, later in the film I felt robbed! My brain again had to parse the meaning between different scenes into a thematic context - how laborious! Call me lazy (I'll gladly take it), but sometimes a tone poem simply can't be beat.I find it odd to look to the movies for a relief from the pressures of modern life since photography and cinema are both products of the industrial revolution, and odder still to consider inattention at the movies to be a positive, vaguely liberating event. Taken to its logical conclusion, wouldn't this notion suggest that the ideal film is simply a blank screen or Rorschach blot that the viewer can assign their own meanings to? I've always thought that long take directors like Akerman, Kiarostami, and Tarr wanted to focus the viewer's attention more closely on what's onscreen rather than less.

[StanleyK]

I'll tally this tomorrow. Last call for votes.

[PURPLE]

I wasn't being so grand; I simply meant that those moments added up to a story with a cumulative emotional impact. There certainly are other ways of making art, but I would contend that all works of art require some kind of unifying principle, whether or not that happens to be a narrative. (And at the end of the day, Malick is still making narrative films.)I will agree that Malick's films still have elements of narrative. I disagree that the primacy of the narrative is the same throughout, or that the presence of a narrative, or an impression of a narrative, is a primary element, or, even if it were, that it mattes in the slightest. Even a "purely" narrative film can be appreciated entirely independent of the narrative. I was making the case that his films function well independent of narrative, and perhaps even because of the function it renders the narrative irrelevant (at least in parts. In the other parts the narrative is "optional", you could say, and certainly not


There are a lot of unsupported assertions in this paragraph (not to mention the eccentric jargon: second and third walls, etc.): Do all images and compositions have common interpretations in the same manner that words have definitions? Do other, non-contemplative kinds of cinema, impose a single, unified interpretation on the viewer? The underlying theory here seems to be a communications model of art, where the viewer's activity is largely restricted to "decoding" the meanings in the text. Personally, I don't accept this model. Any photographic image, no matter how spare or clichéd, will have some perceptual excess not reducible to meaning, and a theme or thesis is just one kind of meaning a text can produce, and not necessarily the most important or interesting. (I'm more interested in effects than meanings myself.)It's "unsupported" because it's not a theory of art, it's a rhetorical contrast between other modes. To this point, a narrative is, I think, an explicitly "communicative" or at least "highly communicative" element, and is difficult to conceive of without communication (like satire, etc.). I was emphasizing (and probably overemphasizing) the way in which a film can be considered "communicative". This was to contrast with other ways the film could be - and the way that I interact with it. So, I agree with you that this "model" is not all-encompassing, and is highly reductive, but that was the point of considering it - that it was restrictive and that there are other ways of approaching it.


Don't motifs imply some kind of structure, even if it's not a narrative one (or in the case of Ozu's films, a structure of parametric variation existing alongside, and occasionally deforming, the narrative)?Structure, yes, but I explicitly was referencing these motifs as not being necessary to narrative. You made the opposite point, and I disagreed:

"no matter how affecting any individual sequence might be in isolation, the narrative structure enhances (rather than lessens) its emotional impact by providing a context and a significance for it."


I find it odd to look to the movies for a relief from the pressures of modern life since photography and cinema are both products of the industrial revolution, and odder still to consider inattention at the movies to be a positive, vaguely liberating event. Taken to its logical conclusion, wouldn't this notion suggest that the ideal film is simply a blank screen or Rorschach blot that the viewer can assign their own meanings to? I've always thought that long take directors like Akerman, Kiarostami, and Tarr wanted to focus the viewer's attention more closely on what's onscreen rather than less.I didn't mean "modern" in the sense you're using here: You're saying "The film takes you out of the time you live in". I meant: "The film, unlike modern popular cinema, allows for contemplation." I also think it's completely ridiculous to say that "a film cannot provide relief from modern life because it is a modern invention", because that's a literary construct unrelated to reality; it would be like saying: "if you are being crushed by a car, which is a mechanical invention, a mechanical jack cannot save you." I would prefer a jack to a shaman, for instance. I can't say that I know what it would mean to "find relief from the pressures of modern life", since I'm not all that pressured by modern life, but I see no basis for discarding the tools of the modern era to do so!

I can say that for certain there is a wealth of literature which speaks of the long-take style of cinema as allowing the viewer to pay less attention to the specifics of the film. I can tell you that the literature speaks of the possibility of viewing an Akerman, Kiarostami, and Tarr film in this way (which is why I used the term "allows for" above). I can tell you that I typically experience the films this way, instinctively. I can't tell you what those filmmakers intended, and at the end of the day I can't say it matters, because just as I can't escape the modern world with a film, the filmmakers can't make me actually escape my instincts.

As for your "logical conclusion", I don't think you've found a logical conclusion, and you'd certainly not be in agreement with the principles of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema as either an explanation of the way we engage with films or with many other thinkers' preferences, and certainly not mine. It's possible that there are such people, but it's unlikely that they watch many films, since all films would be inferior to the blank space on their wall by default. The basis of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema is, as I understand it, that time is an essential element of creating this "contemplative space" for the viewer, but it is not to say that this space should be blank. With Malick, I think this "contemplative space" is created be reducing the primacy of inherently or strongly or commonly utilized "communicative" modes (such as narrative) through a densely woven tone poem (especially in the strongest segment of Song to Song that I was highlighting, and probably in many other ways I haven't touched on here). This is surely the opposite of staring at a blank wall.

[baby doll]

I will agree that Malick's films still have elements of narrative. I disagree that the primacy of the narrative is the same throughout, or that the presence of a narrative, or an impression of a narrative, is a primary element, or, even if it were, that it mattes in the slightest. Even a "purely" narrative film can be appreciated entirely independent of the narrative. I was making the case that his films function well independent of narrative, and perhaps even because of the function it renders the narrative irrelevant (at least in parts. In the other parts the narrative is "optional", you could say, and certainly not

It's "unsupported" because it's not a theory of art, it's a rhetorical contrast between other modes. To this point, a narrative is, I think, an explicitly "communicative" or at least "highly communicative" element, and is difficult to conceive of without communication (like satire, etc.). I was emphasizing (and probably overemphasizing) the way in which a film can be considered "communicative". This was to contrast with other ways the film could be - and the way that I interact with it. So, I agree with you that this "model" is not all-encompassing, and is highly reductive, but that was the point of considering it - that it was restrictive and that there are other ways of approaching it.I see no need to bracket narrative off from the purely perceptual aspects of watching a movie, since it's through perception that the viewer mentally constructs the narrative. And if Malick is only interested in abstract qualities (colour, shape, texture, etc.), as you seem to suggest, he should he stop structuring his films around narratives.


Structure, yes, but I explicitly was referencing these motifs as not being necessary to narrative. You made the opposite point, and I disagreed:

"no matter how affecting any individual sequence might be in isolation, the narrative structure enhances (rather than lessens) its emotional impact by providing a context and a significance for it."The patterning of motifs may not be necessary to the narrative that ostensibly motivates their presence, but as the example of Ozu shows, such patterning isn't incompatible with a compelling story line.


I didn't mean "modern" in the sense you're using here: You're saying "The film takes you out of the time you live in". I meant: "The film, unlike modern popular cinema, allows for contemplation." I also think it's completely ridiculous to say that "a film cannot provide relief from modern life because it is a modern invention", because that's a literary construct unrelated to reality; it would be like saying: "if you are being crushed by a car, which is a mechanical invention, a mechanical jack cannot save you." I would prefer a jack to a shaman, for instance. I can't say that I know what it would mean to "find relief from the pressures of modern life", since I'm not all that pressured by modern life, but I see no basis for discarding the tools of the modern era to do so!

I can say that for certain there is a wealth of literature which speaks of the long-take style of cinema as allowing the viewer to pay less attention to the specifics of the film. I can tell you that the literature speaks of the possibility of viewing an Akerman, Kiarostami, and Tarr film in this way (which is why I used the term "allows for" above). I can tell you that I typically experience the films this way, instinctively. I can't tell you what those filmmakers intended, and at the end of the day I can't say it matters, because just as I can't escape the modern world with a film, the filmmakers can't make me actually escape my instincts.It sounds like you're instinctively bored by these filmmakers and therefore find yourself paying less attention to specifics. Maybe this isn't what Akerman intended, but when I watch a film like Jeanne Dielman..., my instinctive response is just the opposite: I find myself paying very close attention to minute variations across the film (e.g., subtle differences in camera position in similarly framed scenes). I don't see any point in watching a movie just to tune it out.


As for your "logical conclusion", I don't think you've found a logical conclusion, and you'd certainly not be in agreement with the principles of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema as either an explanation of the way we engage with films or with many other thinkers' preferences, and certainly not mine. It's possible that there are such people, but it's unlikely that they watch many films, since all films would be inferior to the blank space on their wall by default. The basis of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema is, as I understand it, that time is an essential element of creating this "contemplative space" for the viewer, but it is not to say that this space should be blank. With Malick, I think this "contemplative space" is created be reducing the primacy of inherently or strongly or commonly utilized "communicative" modes (such as narrative) through a densely woven tone poem (especially in the strongest segment of Song to Song that I was highlighting, and probably in many other ways I haven't touched on here). This is surely the opposite of staring at a blank wall.Since you keeping bringing up this term Contemporary Contemplative Cinema (as opposed to classical contemplative cinema?), maybe it would be helpful if you could cite some of the texts you're referring to.

[PURPLE]

I see no need to bracket narrative off from the purely perceptual aspects of watching a movie, since it's through perception that the viewer mentally constructs the narrative. And if Malick is only interested in abstract qualities (colour, shape, texture, etc.), as you seem to suggest, he should he stop structuring his films around narratives.But, why? I like them.


The patterning of motifs may not be necessary to the narrative that ostensibly motivates their presence, but as the example of Ozu shows, such patterning isn't incompatible with a compelling story line.I never said that it was incompatible. The vast majority of literature, plays, and films show that it's compatible. I'm simply saying: it's compatible with something else. And I liked that something else. No more. Ozu makes great Ozu films (perhaps the best!), I'm fine with Malick making something else.


It sounds like you're instinctively bored by these filmmakers and therefore find yourself paying less attention to specifics. Maybe this isn't what Akerman intended, but when I watch a film like Jeanne Dielman..., my instinctive response is just the opposite: I find myself paying very close attention to minute variations across the film (e.g., subtle differences in camera position in similarly framed scenes). I don't see any point in watching a movie just to tune it out.I agree with that. It has nothing to do with what I said, though, so I don't see the relevance. What I don't see any point in, myself, is pretending that characterizing what I said in such a manner is anything but ridiculous and disingenuous.


Since you keeping bringing up this term Contemporary Contemplative Cinema (as opposed to classical contemplative cinema?), maybe it would be helpful if you could cite some of the texts you're referring to.Plenty of differing takes on the subject offered here. I imagine the contrary term would be "Contemporary Uncontemplative Cinema", which doesn't exist, but it is the context I contrasted it with when I said "the inundation of modern cinema's onslaught of information". One of the articles mentions the data behind the idea.

http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2006/12/table-of-content.html

[baby doll]

But, why? I like them.Film is a time-based medium. If you're going to make a two hour theatrical feature, you need to sustain the viewer's interest for that duration of time. Narrative is one pervasive way of sustaining interest. If Malick's not interested in narrative any more, that's fine, but he needs to replace it with something else. It's the same when people become vegans; they need to find a way of getting the same nutrients they used to get from eating meat from a different source or they're going to get very sick. And I think what we have here in Malick's recent films is a sick vegan.


I never said that it was incompatible. The vast majority of literature, plays, and films show that it's compatible. I'm simply saying: it's compatible with something else. And I liked that something else. No more. Ozu makes great Ozu films (perhaps the best!), I'm fine with Malick making something else.And if I understand you correctly, that "something else" I gather is Contemporary Contemplative Cinema? But of course, not all contemplative movies are automatically good (anymore than all non-contemplative films are automatically bad). Jeanne Dielman... is an example of a contemplative movie that's on point for three and a half hours. The Thin Red Line is a contemplative movie that starts out well, but collapses in the home stretch because nothing is happening. Static ≠ contemplative.

[StanleyK]

1. Days of Heaven - 9.00 (14)
2. The New World - 8.83 (15)
3. The Thin Red Line - 8.54 (14)
4. Badlands - 8.43 (14)
5. The Tree of Life - 7.74 (17)
6. Song to Song - 5.79 (7)
7. Knight of Cups - 5.67 (6)
8. To the Wonder - 5.55 (11)

Average: 7.61

Didn't qualify:
Voyage of Time - 9.00 (1)

Biggest fan: Pop Trash and Yxklyx had a higher average, but I think it's fair to say Stay Puft is the biggest fan for actually watching and liking his last three feature films, as well as being the only one who saw Voyage of Time.
Biggest hater: Dukefrukem

[StanleyK]

A few notes:

- Back in the days, a movie with a 9+ rating would be inducted in the Hall of Fame, meaning that Days of Heaven would just barely have squeaked in.
- Without transmogrifier's 5.5 rating, The New World would actually be #1 with a 9.07 average (another Hall of Famer). He also had the only <7 rating for Badlands.
- The Tree of Life actually had the most perfect 10 ratings (7), but was rated #4, showing how polarizing a movie it is. The New World was second with 6.
- Without Malick's last three movies, his average would go up almost a full point to 8.51.
- For full disclosure, I used babydoll's 7.66667 rating for The Thin Red Line and rounded it up to an 8.0 (rounded down to 7.5, its average would have been 8.50).

[baby doll]

- For full disclosure, I used babydoll's 7.66667 rating for The Thin Red Line and rounded it up to an 8.0I'm fine with that.

[PURPLE]

Film is a time-based medium. If you're going to make a two hour theatrical feature, you need to sustain the viewer's interest for that duration of time. Narrative is one pervasive way of sustaining interest. If Malick's not interested in narrative any more, that's fine, but he needs to replace it with something else. It's the same when people become vegans; they need to find a way of getting the same nutrients they used to get from eating meat from a different source or they're going to get very sick. And I think what we have here in Malick's recent films is a sick vegan.I feel like narrative films are "wastes of time", often, because they include so much detail that is not aesthetic, and is there simply to tell a set of facts that could be written as a synopsis, and so you're basically just watching empty filmmaking with some later payoff, and rewatching this sort of thing is pointless. For something that is purely aesthetic, it can never be less than it is to begin with, and probably will improve. In this way, in my opinion, Malick is clearly moving toward the only thing that can sustain the viewer's interest for multiple hours with a single 2 hours. As for you saying that his new films don't hold interest in the first two hours - that, to me, sounds more like, "I don't like those two hours" moreso than "His filmmaking style can't work." I'm saying his new filmmaking style is perhaps more interesting and has the capacity to be inherently better; your negative opinion of the films made thus far isn't really relevant to the potential of the method. But, I mean, I do hope that you take something positive away from his films. You'll have to watch Song to Song to try it!


And if I understand you correctly, that "something else" I gather is Contemporary Contemplative Cinema? But of course, not all contemplative movies are automatically good (anymore than all non-contemplative films are automatically bad). Jeanne Dielman... is an example of a contemplative movie that's on point for three and a half hours. The Thin Red Line is a contemplative movie that starts out well, but collapses in the home stretch because nothing is happening. Static ≠ contemplative.No, I don't think that Malick's new films are CCC, as discussed. They have an entirely different method. I also don't think that all CCC films are good, nor do you think that all narrative films are good, so it seems irrelevant.

[baby doll]

I feel like narrative films are "wastes of time", often, because they include so much detail that is not aesthetic, and is there simply to tell a set of facts that could be written as a synopsis, and so you're basically just watching empty filmmaking with some later payoff, and rewatching this sort of thing is pointless. For something that is purely aesthetic, it can never be less than it is to begin with, and probably will improve. In this way, in my opinion, Malick is clearly moving toward the only thing that can sustain the viewer's interest for multiple hours with a single 2 hours. As for you saying that his new films don't hold interest in the first two hours - that, to me, sounds more like, "I don't like those two hours" moreso than "His filmmaking style can't work." I'm saying his new filmmaking style is perhaps more interesting and has the capacity to be inherently better; your negative opinion of the films made thus far isn't really relevant to the potential of the method. But, I mean, I do hope that you take something positive away from his films. You'll have to watch Song to Song to try it!Trying to separate narrative from aesthetics betrays an extremely limited conception of both. The experience of watching a narrative film, of mentally constructing a sequence of events from cues provided by the film, is highly dynamic and very different than reading a written synopsis (which itself would be an aesthetic experience). Incidentally, part of what I like about a film like Carlos Reygadas' Post Tenebras Lux--which might be described as The Tree of Life done well--is that it partially blocks the viewer's mental construction of a narrative sequence of events.


No, I don't think that Malick's new films are CCC, as discussed. They have an entirely different method. I also don't think that all CCC films are good, nor do you think that all narrative films are good, so it seems irrelevant.As far as I can tell, Malick's "method" is increasingly to slap together a loosely connected series of vignettes, which hardly strikes me as new or revolutionary.

[Henry Gale]

Ah damn, I was holding off until I saw Song to Song. Didn't know these were being tallied so soon. Anyway:

Badlands – 8.5
Days of Heaven – 9.5
The Thin Red Line – 10
The New World – 9.5
The Tree of Life – 9.5
To the Wonder – 9
Knight of Cups – 7
Voyage of Time: Life's Journey – 7.5

[Ivan Drago]

Crud, I forgot to vote for Voyage of Time. That would have gotten an 8.5 from me.