I watched Tree of Life in the cinema. I was spellbound. It spoke directly to me, no mental processing of a story, I was tuned to this film. I didn't feel its time.
As the film ended a girl behind me said to her friends 'this was the biggest piece of shit I have ever seen'. I understood her and it was a perfectly fine opinion. She didn't 'get it', but it didn't have to do with taste or intelligence or anything like this. She was just not able to receive it - as if it was a signal sent she could not process.
Our wedding rings have these words from the film engraved: 'unless you love, your life will flash by'. We married late - our kids were already almost at school. The love in the words is about the love of your family, just like in the film.
And why the Thin Red Line is perfect - just view the "Swing Scene" as a work of religious art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s40YpEsVkxk
The inner monologue of Ben Chaplin's private Bell about what the role of love is when you encounter war, asking 'Who lit this flame in us' is a visual prayer.
I know what you mean, I had the same effect from the David Lynch Dune movie. I went in blind, had no idea what I was about to see other than that it was scifi.
Put it on and didn't even make it to a chair before I was spellbound. I stood for the whole movie, feeling as if ages had passed while I was rooted to the ground like a mountain watching seasons pass in stop motion.
I've watched it maybe 6 times since, nothing has quite recaptured that perfect first watch.
I think I loved everything about The Tree of Life except for the scenes with Sean Penn. Whatever mysterious antipathy the girl behind you in the cinema felt for the movie, I felt for Sean Penn. The kind and probably accurate interpretation is that actors are at the mercy of their directors and editors in movies like this, but his scenes don't feel like they're part of the same movie.
The Tree of Life was one of the only films I’ve ever considered walking out of, I hated every moment of it. I’m delighted to hear you were spellbound by it.
I actually walked out of it. I was not alone, several others did before me.
I saw it without knowing what it was about, it was a summer evening, I was alone and just decided to see a movie as I passed the theatre.
When I came home and learned it was the same director as the Thin Red Line, I was blown away. Same director of both the best and the worst movie I have seen.
That’s totally valid. I think the film either resonates deeply or not at all, and both responses are completely legitimate. I can absolutely see how it could feel pretentious drivel to some. I assume for me it directly evokes emotions of my childhood (catholic upbringing by a loving mother).
I also really appreciate you being happy for me. That's true empathy.
Like the first line says, he is probably the least known famous director. That is, he is not an activist and not flashy, doesn't make a lot of movies, and the general public simply doesn't know about him. But all the other movie directors and famous actors know him and kind of idolize him.
When Thin Red Line came out in 1998 he hadn't done a movie since 1978 (Days of Heaven) and yet he snagged all the famous actors to play in it: Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel (though he wasn't as famous then), George Clooney, Jared Leto, Nick Nolte, John Travolta and others. It's like they were tripping over themselves to be in his film.
But I can't fault the general public for not knowing him either. His movies are more "artsy" so he is like like an American version of Andrey Tarkovsky -- you have to really be in the mood for his movies, like watching Stalker or Mirror by Tarkovsky.
If you haven't seen it, A Hidden Life has the most Tarkovsky feel to it for me. It felt very inspired by Mirror, specifically. I say that as a person who loves both films, too.
I can't believe the author of the article so blithely dismissed To The Wonder, Knight of Cups, and The New World. The New World is probably my favorite of all Malick's films so far.
Kind of like a "musician's musician"—ones whose names come up often in interviews with famous musicians, and often have covers of their songs by more-famous artists become very popular, but are largely out of the limelight, at least relative to their fame and influence in certain circles.
IIRC Travolta was a furious that his role was brutally cut to almost nothing after shooting a decent amount of footage, and at least a couple of well known actors were fully out of the final cut.
They were indeed tripping to be in the film, that's one thing I remember clearly, rumours of some actors begging to be in the movie for free.
They were falling over themselves to make *a* movie with him. Not so much *another* movie with him. I just happened to watch a video about that this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqoQoN-Pb5I
> They were falling over themselves to make a movie with him. Not so much another movie with him. I just happened to watch a video about that this morning
I think one of the main points of the movie is there is no "lead actor". In that regard it's realistic as far as wars go -- there is no "Tom Hanks" character going to rescue a "Private Ryan" with magic plot armor surrounding him. As an aside, that movie was released the same year, so it makes for a great contrast.
Jim Caviezel's character (Witt) sort of became like a main character in the end but he still dies, surrounded and shot. Granted he sacrificed himself, which is notable, as well.
There have been other war films with uncannily twinkly star studded cast lists.
The Longest Day (1962) claims Sean Conery, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda, and Robert Mitchum amongst it's cast members.
A Bridge Too Far (1977) Includes Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, Sean Connery, James Caan, Gene Hackman, Ryan O'Neil and Lawrence Olivier amongst it's ensemble.
A Thin Red Line is notable for the number of high profile actors whose parts got whittled down to almost nothing in the editing room.
His movies may be "artsy" but he had a big influence on cinema. I watched Badlands for the first time a couple of years ago and I kept having to remind myself that it was made in 1973, not 1993 or 2003. It just seems like a film that's out of place in time, but that seems to be because it influenced later films.
> His movies may be "artsy" but he had a big influence on cinema
Of course, that's why all the movie directors and actors and people who are into film like him. But take a person off the street and put in front of a Malick movie and don't be surprised if they walk out. Someone in the sibling threads said that much.
But yeah, I watched The Thin Red Line in the cinema twice when it came out, but also acknowledge that I am probably in the minority.
This book is particularly great about discussing the process of filmmaking, which in Malick's case often seems to involve a ton of experimentation through editing in order to shape a film after photography had finished.
(Some of this editing work notably led to major actors having their roles cut from films. Adrien Brody, for example, apparently believed that he was going to have the lead role in _The Thin Red Line_ but ended up entirely cut.)
For those interested, Richard Brody's book about Godard and Carrie Rickey's book about Agnes Varda are similarly detailed about the specifics of their filmmaking work!
Seeing it in a packed theater with a bunch of teenagers on a Friday night ruined it for me the first time. They were expecting another “Saving Private Ryan” and got something totally different, so decided to entertain themselves through obnoxious behavior and mockery.
I think I would call it cinematographically beautiful, and parts of it were meant to be really be visually beautiful. But it all had to be contrasted with carnage, death, fear, and all the ugliness of war.
Readit News
Our wedding rings have these words from the film engraved: 'unless you love, your life will flash by'. We married late - our kids were already almost at school. The love in the words is about the love of your family, just like in the film.
And why the Thin Red Line is perfect - just view the "Swing Scene" as a work of religious art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s40YpEsVkxk The inner monologue of Ben Chaplin's private Bell about what the role of love is when you encounter war, asking 'Who lit this flame in us' is a visual prayer.
(And yes, this is Miranda Otto, aka Eowyn)
Put it on and didn't even make it to a chair before I was spellbound. I stood for the whole movie, feeling as if ages had passed while I was rooted to the ground like a mountain watching seasons pass in stop motion.
I've watched it maybe 6 times since, nothing has quite recaptured that perfect first watch.
Highly recommend the upscaled to 4k fan edit on YouTube. They splice in lost footage that was cut from Lynch’s initial edit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=faHQA_0d9Mo
I saw it without knowing what it was about, it was a summer evening, I was alone and just decided to see a movie as I passed the theatre.
When I came home and learned it was the same director as the Thin Red Line, I was blown away. Same director of both the best and the worst movie I have seen.
When Thin Red Line came out in 1998 he hadn't done a movie since 1978 (Days of Heaven) and yet he snagged all the famous actors to play in it: Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel (though he wasn't as famous then), George Clooney, Jared Leto, Nick Nolte, John Travolta and others. It's like they were tripping over themselves to be in his film.
But I can't fault the general public for not knowing him either. His movies are more "artsy" so he is like like an American version of Andrey Tarkovsky -- you have to really be in the mood for his movies, like watching Stalker or Mirror by Tarkovsky.
I can't believe the author of the article so blithely dismissed To The Wonder, Knight of Cups, and The New World. The New World is probably my favorite of all Malick's films so far.
They were indeed tripping to be in the film, that's one thing I remember clearly, rumours of some actors begging to be in the movie for free.
I think one of the main points of the movie is there is no "lead actor". In that regard it's realistic as far as wars go -- there is no "Tom Hanks" character going to rescue a "Private Ryan" with magic plot armor surrounding him. As an aside, that movie was released the same year, so it makes for a great contrast.
Jim Caviezel's character (Witt) sort of became like a main character in the end but he still dies, surrounded and shot. Granted he sacrificed himself, which is notable, as well.
The Longest Day (1962) claims Sean Conery, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda, and Robert Mitchum amongst it's cast members.
A Bridge Too Far (1977) Includes Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, Sean Connery, James Caan, Gene Hackman, Ryan O'Neil and Lawrence Olivier amongst it's ensemble.
A Thin Red Line is notable for the number of high profile actors whose parts got whittled down to almost nothing in the editing room.
Of course, that's why all the movie directors and actors and people who are into film like him. But take a person off the street and put in front of a Malick movie and don't be surprised if they walk out. Someone in the sibling threads said that much.
But yeah, I watched The Thin Red Line in the cinema twice when it came out, but also acknowledge that I am probably in the minority.
Deleted Comment
(Some of this editing work notably led to major actors having their roles cut from films. Adrien Brody, for example, apparently believed that he was going to have the lead role in _The Thin Red Line_ but ended up entirely cut.)
For those interested, Richard Brody's book about Godard and Carrie Rickey's book about Agnes Varda are similarly detailed about the specifics of their filmmaking work!
> My work became "de-illuminating," that is, removing the false and conventional light.
Deleted Comment
If you are able to grok cinema as a spiritual tone-poem then you dig him, otherwise you will hate him.