Author Topic: Terrence Malick  (Read 38907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #60 on: February 06, 2004, 12:17:15 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
i dont have a problem with a psychological experience type of movie.

please name a "psychological type movie" that u enjoyed..
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • Respect: +216
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #61 on: February 06, 2004, 12:19:56 PM »
0
Quote from: P
Quote from: themodernage02
i dont have a problem with a psychological experience type of movie.

please name a "psychological type movie" that u enjoyed..


and don't say silence of the lambs.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #62 on: February 06, 2004, 12:26:10 PM »
0
haha cbrad, ur such a psychological type guy..
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10761
  • Respect: +698
    • Floating Heads
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #63 on: February 06, 2004, 12:26:16 PM »
0
Quote from: P
Quote from: themodernage02
i dont have a problem with a psychological experience type of movie.

please name a "psychological type movie" that u enjoyed..

look theres no reason to talk down to me because i dont have discussions like budgie.  hardly anybody here does.  sorry that i didnt think 'the holy malicks comeback' was any good.  he didnt seem to be inventing the wheel like he was 20 years ago, so all i'm asking is WHY IS THIS the greatest war film?  because i dont see it.  so maybe someone can help me understand what i missed.

Quote from: NEON MERCURY
2.)the narrationn/voive overs......i love that psychological sh*t in this film....you donnn't get that usually in war films....

look, just because a movie has something going on, doesnt mean it has to be boring.  you can get your ideas across in a way that is still interesting to watch.  whats wrong with expecting a filmmaker to deliver a movie that is as watch-able as it is ponder-able?  whats wrong with getting your ideas across in an entertaining way?  all those actors wanted to work with him on the strength of his previous two works, but i doubt most really had a great time performing in the film wandering through the background with 2 lines.  war sucks and theres no point, i get it.  but couldnt you tell me that in 100 minutes instead?  or illustrate your point like a movie, instead of someone narrating passages from the book over shots of people walking around?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #64 on: February 06, 2004, 12:49:36 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
war sucks and theres no point, i get it.  


but I don't think that was the point. It was closer to "war is perpetual, in all forms", and the film was a poem about it.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #65 on: February 06, 2004, 12:57:07 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
because i dont see it.  so maybe someone can help me understand what i missed.

no dude, see that's impossible, no one can do that. ur insistance that it can be done is what's driving this and every other why-didn't-i-get-it discussion into boring circles.

i wasn't talking down to u, but lately u've been dissing "arty" movies like there's sumthing wrong with the ppl who like it or "get it". i've noticed that ur a normal and decent person, and u seem to hav a consistently normal and decent taste in movies. that's all that can be said about this. what ur lookin for in a movie is way different to what say I or budgie found.

the first thing i think about when watching a "meaningful" film is the idea it's working with, if the performances and the visuals are working to expand it. this is a perfect example of a movie i can absolutely agree would SUCK if u didn't grab onto one of its ideas. all this shit to u comes off as "three hours of ppl talking deep shit that doesn't mean anytjhing". that's fine. i think ur totally normal. and i think u hav to come to peace with that.

u could've at least answered my question so i could get a better idea of where ur head is at. since u didn't i assume u were actually going to say silence of the lambs. which is a totally normal response. and decent.

ps. "war sucks and there is no point" is not even close to what the film is about, sorry. and it is about sumthing. perhaps u should consider that the subject matter is not sumthing u hav thought seriously about. this film gives ppl too much credit, and it suffers for it.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10761
  • Respect: +698
    • Floating Heads
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #66 on: February 06, 2004, 01:16:41 PM »
0
Quote from: P
u could've at least answered my question so i could get a better idea of where ur head is at. since u didn't i assume u were actually going to say silence of the lambs. which is a totally normal response. and decent.

i like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket.  they had ideas too, but were interesting.  

Quote from: P
i wasn't talking down to u, but lately u've been dissing "arty" movies like there's sumthing wrong with the ppl who like it or "get it".

no i dont have any problem with arty movies.  i just dont cut them any slack because they are presenting me with an idea like its something new.  movies can have something going on under the surface, but that doesnt mean you can let the surface suck.  

Quote from: P
this film gives ppl too much credit, and it suffers for it.

i think this film assumes that everyone watching it is so in love with the director that they will accept a meandering ponderous go-nowhere film as a work of art.  even ebert who enjoyed it admits that

Quote from: Roger Ebert
The actors in "The Thin Red Line" are making one movie, and the director is making another. This leads to an almost hallucinatory sense of displacement, as the actors struggle for realism, and the movie's point of view hovers above them like a high school kid all filled with big questions. My guess is that any veteran of the actual battle of Guadalcanal would describe this movie with an eight-letter word much beloved in the Army.
The movie's schizophrenia keeps it from greatness (this film has no firm idea of what it is about), but doesn't make it bad. It is, in fact, sort of fascinating: a film in the act of becoming, a field trial, an experiment in which a dreamy poet meditates on stark reality. It's like horror seen through the detachment of drugs or dementia. The soundtrack allows us to hear the thoughts of the characters, but there is no conviction that these characters would have these thoughts. They all seem to be musing in the same voice, the voice of a man who is older, more educated, more poetic and less worldly than any of these characters seem likely to be: the voice of the director.

well, i agree more with sonowthen's assesment that its hardly a war film, and really about other things, than neon's that it is the best war film ever.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #67 on: February 06, 2004, 03:08:08 PM »
0
Malick has about the most tangible photographic/cinematographic/visual beauty you'll find in cinema, which I think transforms one's concept of "pacing," "content," etc if you really look at it. Malick is a sensualist, no matter what "happens" in the movie or at what temporal rate, and I've always really enjoyed that foremost about all of his films. The only people I see really following in his footsteps in this visual-sensualist/painting-with-light way are Lynne Ramsay and David Gordon Green (whatever other arguments I've had with Green's work, it looks wonderful).
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10761
  • Respect: +698
    • Floating Heads
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #68 on: February 15, 2004, 10:57:59 PM »
0
just watched Days of Heaven.  the score was fantastic.  the length was managable, and the story was watchable.  i thought it was strange that the movie was narrated by the little girl who wasnt even hardly a character in the film, and that the end of the movie was with her as if she were someone we knew something about.  it seemed to go off into the melodramatic during the fire, but was shot well.  i liked badlands best.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2004, 01:43:09 AM »
0
Is the river raft sequence not amazing though?!!!


Check out Ebert's column on Days, mod, if you haven't already. It's a solid little read.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10761
  • Respect: +698
    • Floating Heads
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2004, 08:48:51 PM »
0
Location: Universal City CA

Date Posted: 2/11/2004 7:56:09 PM

Description: LAURA BICKFORD PRODUCTIONS is currently looking for interns for its Universal Studios-based office. Laura Bickford most recently produced the Academy Award-winning film, TRAFFIC. The company has several projects with A-list talent in development and is in pre-production on CHE, to be directed by Terrence Malick and filming this summer.

Essentially, the intern functions as a second assistant in the office duties include: maintaining databases (competitive development report,talent logs, etc.); maintaining project files; research; script coverage; and the fundamental responsibilities of phones, copying, faxing, etc.

Requirements: Interested students should be reliable, dedicated,resourceful, knowledgeable about movies, and willing to take initiative. We are inundated with material, so students who like to read are ideal. We also prefer students who can intern full days.

Salary: Unpaid
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4209
  • ...
  • Respect: +180
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2004, 08:55:23 PM »
0
To work even somewhat closely to Terrence Malick would be worth not being paid, I'd think.  Big opportunity, I imagine, if you play your cards right.  Even if it is grunt work.  And I don't mind reading.  Too bad I don't live in California.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2004, 01:44:29 AM »
0
Variety says that Terrence Malick will direct "Che," a biopic that will star Benicio Del Toro as Cuban revolutionary hero Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Malick also wrote the script. The film is scheduled for a four-month South American shoot to begin in July. Javier Bardem is planning to take a supporting role in the pic.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2004, 12:42:53 AM »
0
Malick Lands Four for Che Biopic
Source: Variety

Terrence Malick has landed a strong quartet for the revolutionaries that will surround Benicio Del Toro in Che the Che Guevara biopic that will shoot this summer, reports Variety.

Malick has set Ryan Gosling, Javier Bardem, Benjamin Bratt and Franka Potente to play Guevara's closest confidantes in the revolution.

The film is an epic about the life and death of the Cuban revolutionary.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Re: Terrence Malick
« Reply #74 on: February 25, 2004, 12:53:22 AM »
0
Goddamn this is exciting.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy