Xixax Film Forum

you know, i am fuckign excited about the new world and if any of ya'll were worth a shit you would be too  :yabbse-wink:.  i recently watched all three of his films as sort of a celebration thing.  i wanted to see what people liked most by malick.  i still cant believe that his first film is considered a fucking classic.  his first film!  so, hes done three films that have been released, and they all are classic.  malick has to be the example or quality over quantity.  and they have to be the most beautifully photographed films ever.  discuss this man.  tell me what you think of hiss hit.  i dont have agood vocabulary , so all i can do is say cheesy cliched adjectives.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2Fbadlands.jpg&hash=bd222fad8833190e058659a469cb80b522f21a98)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2Fdays_of_heaven.jpg&hash=f2925bdce3b2b690b0aa3ae6b734e4a57647e870)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv720%2Fithica45%2Fthin_red_line.jpg&hash=5fecaa4c9ea9cb000c668d1bd8191729b8cf566b)

related threads:
Terrence Malick (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1195&start=0)
The New World (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=7024&start=0)

Badlands only because I haven't seen the other two.  :crimeagainstcinema:

I made comments somewhere else on Badlands, but a quick recap: so poetic.  And these stupid people have something to say, or at least something to teach.  And Musica Poetica is a perfect little ending tune.

Malick is batting 1.000.  I like Days of Heaven the most, but Badlands and Thin Red Line are classics as well.  I expect New World to be equally great.

I liked his early film, "Pull My Daisy."  MY GOD! IS THERE ANYWAY TO FIND THIS MOVIE?

hahahaha!

Days of Heaven is about the closest I've seen a film come to pure visual poetry while still following a conventional narrative structure.  There wasn't a wasted moment in the entire thing, and I've a strong desire to see it again and again.  Badlands had strong performances and cinematography, but it had little to say and the story simply didn't interest me.  With The Thin Red Line, it felt like Malick established his philosophy within the first half hour, then repeated it for the next two and a half.  Still, it was very watchable, and was a respectable attempt to bring back the "star-studded" war picture.  Can anybody tell me what the big deal is with Badlands?

Glad to see there is yet another Malick fan surfacing. I go in circles trying to personally rank his films...very similar to when I've tried to rank Kubrick's films. This may be just the excitement of something new, but I'm obsessed with The New World right now. I don't remember having the same type of obsession for The Thin Red Line when it came out, but it certainly grew on me over time to the point where I consider it a masterwork. I consider The New World a masterpiece right out of the gate...I hope it will wear well over time. My hunch is my affection for it will only deepen and take on alternate meanings in the future.

Yeah, but we had different frames of minds when Thin Red Line came out didn't we? 

Completely.

Quote from: Split Infinitive on January 26, 2006, 01:21:30 PM
Can anybody tell me what the big deal is with Badlands?

it's the only malick film i'd ever watch again. 

Quote from: modage on January 26, 2006, 06:12:05 PM

Quote from: Split Infinitive on January 26, 2006, 01:21:30 PM
Can anybody tell me what the big deal is with Badlands?

it's the only malick film i'd ever watch again. 

Not to sound flippant, but why?

Quote from: Split Infinitive on January 27, 2006, 12:07:35 AM
Not to sound flippant

I guarantee that if you continue posting here for a while, you will start your sentences out much differently.

Quote from: Walrus, Kookookajoob on January 30, 2006, 03:54:17 PM

Quote from: Split Infinitive on January 27, 2006, 12:07:35 AM
Not to sound flippant

I guarantee that if you continue posting here for a while, you will start your sentences out much differently.

Not to sound flippant, but why?

flippantry is in abundance

i just watched the thin red line and although it was one of the many movies i watched with my dad when i was a youngster, i had almost no recollection of the movie.  its malick and its brilliant and this quote from P sums up why: 

Quotethis was the first and only time where i was overwhelmed by the immediacy of impending mortality, and i freaked out

i dont know why this inspired me to bump the thread cus these days i try my best not to post unless i have nothing new or well thought out to add, but i just had this overwhelming sense of "yes that it is it" and i felt i needed to share. 

malick movies are so intrinsic and so profound and resonant that they're hard to talk about, so what do i possibly say?  i loved the conflict between the unconcious and impulse and the concious and rationale thought and how its all expressed so eloquently and visually and how malick films are cinema in the purest sense, a combination images and sound coalescing into the single greatest art form in the world.   maybe time and perspective will allow me process and understand my relationship to the film, but right now im working on my little review of the new world, a movie which i enjoyed ever more than the magnificent thin red line. 

ah malick, yes yes yes yes.     

JG, your posts come from the right place and your intentions show through, but i suggest you pay more attention to your writing for this upcoming New World review. it's conducive to good discussion for us to actually understand your points without being forced to decipher your writing errors.

the point is to avoid losing the substance in a mess of mistakes, ranging from:

--spelling and grammatical..

Quote from: JG on June 20, 2006, 07:26:35 PM
...a combination images and sound ...
...will allow me process and understand ...
...the unconcious and impulse and the concious and rationale ...

--to baffling..

Quote from: JG on June 20, 2006, 07:26:35 PM
"yes that it is it"

--to embarrassing..

Quote from: JG on June 20, 2006, 07:26:35 PM
cus these days i try my best not to post unless i have nothing new or well thought out to add

don't fear prepositions, watch out for double negatives, look up words when you're unsure of the meaning and you'll be set.  :salute:

isn't it incredibly odd that i didn't see any of those mistakes until you pointed them out?  its not like i didn't look it over at least once before i hit post and i certainly read it once more after i posted it, yet i didn't pick up on any of my mistakes.  here i was, thinking i was getting better at this whole posting thing, and now i feel like i'm back to square one. thanks for being sincere about it, though :yabbse-grin:

Days of Heaven is a beautiful film and my favourite of the three.
Badlands is classic and absolutely brilliant for a debut.
I saw The Thin Red Line for the first time when I was quite young and didn't think much of it. Rewatched it recently and engaged with it much more, a visually breathtaking film with a worthwhile commentary on humans killing humans, not just war is hell.

Liked Malick initially then got into David Gordon Green movies and ever since have revisited Malick and appreciated it much more.

Malick's style is fantastic because it doesn't spell everything out for the viewer like too many films do.

I haven't seen The New World yet but intend to very soon.

Thin Red Line is mine, it just had that intangible ability to connect with me a little better than his earlier movies.

New World ranks up there though. See that. It would seem Malick can do virtually no wrong.

Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven'
Source: Dennis Lim; Los Angeles Times

IT'S safe to say that the movies have never seen a career quite like Terrence Malick's. After studying philosophy and working as a journalist, he enrolled at the American Film Institute in the late '60s. Upon graduation, he made two of the defining masterpieces of the '70s, then took a 20-year break. He resumed filmmaking a decade ago and has since made two more beguiling movies, "The Thin Red Line" (1998) and "The New World" (2005).

Malick's second feature, "Days of Heaven" (1978), a turn-of-the-20th-century romantic tragedy distilled into the form of a nature reverie, has a well-deserved reputation as one of the most beautiful movies ever made. (It's out on DVD this week in a restored edition from the Criterion Collection.)
 
As in his 1973 debut, "Badlands," the central characters in "Days of Heaven" are a couple on the run and the prevailing flavor is rural Americana. But Malick's insistence on subverting storytelling conventions is apparent here even in the opening minutes. In a sequence that flits by before one fully registers its implications, Bill (Richard Gere), a Chicago steel mill worker, gets into a fight with his boss, accidentally kills him, and flees town, accompanied by his little sister, Linda (Linda Manz), and his lover, Abby (Brooke Adams). Arriving in the fields of the Texas Panhandle (Abby pretending to be Bill's sister), they work the wheat harvest for an ailing farmer (Sam Shepard), who falls for Abby, thus setting up a doomed love triangle.

The plot is fragmented and diffuse; the relationships often seem underdeveloped. And yet the movie takes on a powerful strangeness, an almost Greek-tragic intensity. As repressed passions bubble up, a biblical plague of locusts arrives and the suspended idyll evaporates; the days of heaven are swallowed up in a hellish conflagration.

The film's oddest aspect may be the voice-over narration (a Malick trademark) from Manz's character, a deadpan observer and an oddly logical viewer surrogate. The "Days of Heaven" combo of wide-eyed voice-over and mystical landscapes has become so common that it's now practically a cliché (discernible, for instance, in the recently released "The Assassination of Jesse James" and "Into the Wild"). But Manz, a first-time child actor (who popped up again many years later in Harmony Korine's "Gummo"), remains a unique narrator, at once dreamy and prickly, lyrical but not quite articulate.

An expansive epic that runs a tidy 94 minutes, "Days of Heaven" proceeds with an associative rhythm more common to music or poetry than movies. Some of the punctuation shots -- a faraway train on an elevated bridge, a dropped wine glass at the bottom of a river bed -- are jolting in their sheer unexpected beauty. The editor, Bill Weber, has worked on all four of Malick's features as has the brilliant production designer Jack Fisk, who built the Shepard character's home -- a lone, imposing mansion on the vast plains -- from the ground up.

Across the board, the film is a triumph of craft, from Patricia Norris' period costumes to Ennio Morricone's indelibly haunting score, which quotes a refrain from Camille Saint-Saëns' "Carnival of the Animals." And there is of course Néstor Almendros' Oscar-winning cinematography (Haskell Wexler, who took over at the end of the shoot because of scheduling conflicts, is credited with additional photography). Malick insisted that parts of the film be shot at "magic hour," the brief window between sunset and nightfall when natural light takes on an almost otherworldly glow.

There's some truth in the oft-repeated claim that you can only do "Days of Heaven" justice by seeing it on the big screen. But Criterion's typically excellent transfer, supervised by Malick, is a more than satisfactory substitute. Extras include a featurette on the cinematography and a joint commentary track by Malick's faithful collaborators (Fisk, Weber, Norris and casting director Deborah Crittenden).

Looking back from this vantage point, it's clear that "Days of Heaven" stands as this singular filmmaker's statement of purpose. It's a crystalline expression of what Malick, like few filmmakers before or since, has striven for in his work: the possibility of a new language for narrative cinema.

DVD Beaver's review:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews9/days-of-heaven.htm

I read an essay my first year of university that changed a lot  of how I go about the practice of enjoying art; even if I don't always stick to it. For the last couple of days I've been searching for this paper in my archives so I could include it in this review but alas I couldn't find it; I think I threw it out by mistake a long time ago. Insult to injury, its further unfortunate I don't remember the name of the essay because it could be online somewhere. If someone else knows this essay, after reading my description below, by all means post it. It's an enlightening read.

I'll do my best to summarize it: We were doing a unit on iconography and the paper delved into the idea of the audience vs. the artist vs. the art. The entire thesis was to establish a code; the best way to preserve the viewer's enjoyment of a piece of art. It mainly attacked the foolish desire in the audience to find out as much about the artist as possible. Not only does the fan seek to find out about the life of the artist, but also how said artist felt about each piece of work and what it took (emotionally and technically) to create it. The paper argued, the less you know about how a piece of art gets made, and the less you know about the artist, the more rewarding it is for you. Successfully doing so will keep the art uniquely special. It stated that as you find out more behind the scenes trivia, you experience a slow estrangement from the work. The beauty is no longer yours, but rather you start seeing it from the artist's perspective. Inversely, if you didn't fundamentally agree with the artist's intent, you will be unsatisfied and thus feel less connected with what was your original interpretation.

This strongly resonated with me, especially at that time. As with all great ideas, I somehow felt I already knew this to be true because my past experiences could easily validate the concept. I also loved what the thesis was ultimately standing for, that the love of art is autonomous within the viewer. The audience member, as a single person, has the power and a unique understanding of what makes it special.

In high school I was a huge TOOL fan. In the mid to late 90s there really wasn't any good rock music coming out, or any genre of popular music for that matter. I was a huge fanboy of their work, and I wanted to learn everything about the band. I quickly realized they were arrogant dicks; at least Maynard in particular. It affected the lyrics; I heard a new tone in his voice I had never experienced before. The closer I got to understand him, the less it was about me and what I thought of the message. I slowly became apathetic. This same cycle has happened with the Mars Volta recently. They're douchebags; the type of douchebag that I will not let inspire me on principle. Spoiled, California, douches.

I think an argument could be made that one might appreciate the art more with this same model, that after getting to know an artist, what you thought was trite somehow becomes more genuine. However I rarely (and would suspect others would be the same) investigate art I don't appreciate. So by default, there is no opportunity for a positive subversive reaction. I do think it is possible though.

In my attempts and efforts to get deeper into the art, I was being pushed (pulled) away. I have countless other examples of this happening. QT is one example, as I got to know him as a person; I saw the movies as his expression, less my own experience. I still like his films, but the 4th wall is broken, forever.

I see a similarity to something else I've experienced. Though less direct than the thesis's intent. The thing that motivates me as a writer/film maker usually isn't other films, its music. So it would be a natural assumption I have probably dabbled from time to time in music. The truth is, in my teens when I finally picked up a guitar and was determined to learn what I loved so dearly, I started to realize music is math. At least this is how the vast majority of music is taught. I was instantly turned off. I didn't want to know the formula for what was magic to me. Sounds cheesy I know, but ignorance was truly bliss in this case. I never picked the guitar back up after this revelation, and I've never regretted it.

I know this reads like an emo manifesto that's counter to the reason I post on this site (as with all of you), and I guess it is. The reality is I haven't really shed all the fandom cravings, because it's always been in me. But I think I've trained myself to let some things remain unknown, because in the process I will love certain films much longer than if I don't apply this discipline.
On that note, on to the reason this post is in this thread:

I HATED the criterion release of THE THIN RED LINE.

This is one of my favourite movies of all time. I see now that the magic that is this movie shouldn't be dissected. I want it to exist as a poem with no footnotes. I realize I am mostly to blame for what is happening in my relationship with this film. Regardless, I'm still disappointed. I know it's silly for me to ask for something, and in turn get what I want. And I DID want it. I waited for it. Now that I got it, I regret it.

It's a strange situation.  The features as advertised on the blu ray could have delivered a way I would have liked. I wanted to see this (from IMDB):

   "Billy Bob Thornton recorded a narration for the three-hour-plus epic under the supervision of director Terrence Malick. However, the final print of the film has voice-overs by eight of the main characters in the film; none of the narration from Thornton is in the final print. In addition, several other stars who filmed scenes were left on the cutting-room floor, including Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, Lukas Haas, Viggo Mortensen, Martin Sheen, and Mickey Rourke."

You don't get any of that. You get boring scenes, no gems and no insightful moments that you get to ponder why it wasn't included in the film. While these scenes might end up doing exactly what I've been writing about, I'm willing to take that risk. I don't enjoy Apocolypse redux more than the original, but it still doesn't make the original film any less special since it came out. This is because the additional scenes are further expression to make a point, while i feel an inferior point, it's still expression.

Virtually everything else that they call a special feature is not expression. They work against my best interest as an audience member. All of the interviews come across not like this was a masterpiece, but more of a shit show and no one ever knew what was going on. The audio commentary is the most disappointing. Its three people doing the typical "oh you remember that alligator, oh by the way guys we shot this in a swimming pool" type of commentary. This isn't like listening to the commentary on boogie nights or the limey. Nothing in this release enriches, it just explains.

These transgressions cannot be undone. It's not just poor special features; it's giving me insight on the actual process. Francis Ford Copolla's insight on the process enriches the experience. Everyone on this Thin Red Line release can go fuck themselves. It's telling me what that movie really was. I'm losing the magic.

The transfer is beautiful, I just wish the film had been given in 1080P with the deleted scenes (plus way more than the 16 mins they gave) and the beautiful chants/music. Every other feature, slowly works to estrange me from my own love of this film.
I wanted to end this review stronger, but I lost my steam at the end; unable to articulate the disappointment I have with this release and with myself.  I need to learn this lesson some day.

Quote from: socketlevel on September 30, 2010, 03:45:50 PM
   "Billy Bob Thornton recorded a narration for the three-hour-plus epic under the supervision of director Terrence Malick. However, the final print of the film has voice-overs by eight of the main characters in the film; none of the narration from Thornton is in the final print. In addition, several other stars who filmed scenes were left on the cutting-room floor, including Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, Lukas Haas, Viggo Mortensen, Martin Sheen, and Mickey Rourke."

You don't get any of that.

Whaaaat? Damn, sounds like these guys were being interesting while the release people wanted some more of:

Quote from: socketlevel on September 30, 2010, 03:45:50 PM
"oh you remember that alligator, oh by the way guys we shot this in a swimming pool" type of commentary.

I read somewhere that while they were taping Billy Bob Thornton's commentary, the guy responsible for that said

Quote from: Some dude
hey Billy Bob, maybe stop commenting with your personal thoughts.

Quote from: socketlevel on September 30, 2010, 03:45:50 PM
Everyone on this Thin Red Line release can go fuck themselves.

Damn, son. Your whole post was pretty epic.

If Malick can't even make a final cut of his movies, I doubt he would be able to make additional cuts. I ain't mad at them for not including more stuff. Would have been cool to hear Billy Bob narrations and see the other cameos, but I get why they weren't there. With Malick it makes sense.

I still think it's just a beautiful package. Haven't listened to the commentary yet but I plan to this weekend.

Quote from: Stefen on November 13, 2010, 12:15:33 AM

Quote from: socketlevel on September 30, 2010, 03:45:50 PM
Everyone on this Thin Red Line release can go fuck themselves.

Damn, son. Your whole post was pretty epic.

If Malick can't even make a final cut of his movies, I doubt he would be able to make additional cuts. I ain't mad at them for not including more stuff. Would have been cool to hear Billy Bob narrations and see the other cameos, but I get why they weren't there. With Malick it makes sense.

I still think it's just a beautiful package. Haven't listened to the commentary yet but I plan to this weekend.

Truthfully, i should probably wait until my anger has died down to post something like that. I just reread it and was embarrassed with a couple moments. i still stand by my point, even if it's lashing out, but ya... oh well.

basically, you are too affected by what other ppl think of movies.

but not just any "other ppl".. you like to focus a specific group you've decided is representative of some kind of definitive or highly influential view of a film.

that rant is the same as what you said about almodovar, where you created this weird group of ppl who said/thought certain things about him and then based on that you decided he wasn't worth your time. who cares what some idiots say or don't say in a commentary or extras. they are not malick and they didn't make the movie, whose message is completely separate to the internal hollywood politics that always surrounds any film and lingers like a stench against which the only defense is the nose pinch of watching the film itself and ignoring all the shit that goes on underneath... including and especially actor's commentary.

there is only one person's turds that actually count here, and that's malick's

Quote from: P on November 18, 2010, 07:25:40 AM
basically, you are too affected by what other ppl think of movies.

but not just any "other ppl".. you like to focus a specific group you've decided is representative of some kind of definitive or highly influential view of a film.

that rant is the same as what you said about almodovar, where you created this weird group of ppl who said/thought certain things about him and then based on that you decided he wasn't worth your time. who cares what some idiots say or don't say in a commentary or extras. they are not malick and they didn't make the movie, whose message is completely separate to the internal hollywood politics that always surrounds any film and lingers like a stench against which the only defense is the nose pinch of watching the film itself and ignoring all the shit that goes on underneath... including and especially actor's commentary.

there is only one person's turds that actually count here, and that's malick's

regarding the "other ppl" you mention, while i do think your argument stands up for my opinion of almodovar, this is an entirely different beef. i don't give a shit what other people think of this movie, nothing i said above indicates that i do. i was talking about seeing the creation process and how it spoils the experience of the end product. whereas with almodovar i was talking about the reception and praise of his films. i think your connection between my two criticisms is flimsy at best; that's not to say you maybe disagree with both, but they're very different. every opinion of the thin red line is my own and not a reaction to someone else's.

the opportunity for a glorious criterion release of the thin red line was so promising, i was excited leading up to the release. in turn we got the average (insert studio of your choice) supplemental material. nothing enriches the experience by what was given. the supplemental material is even a let down when compared to other criterion releases. ironically there was enough stuff in the untapped treasure trove to trump even redux in sheer volume.

"there is only one person's turds that actually count here, and that's malick's"

you're right it is all about malick... and that was my point. did you miss that i was saying that? more importantly, i was saying it was all about me. it's all about mallick the artist and myslef the viewer. no one else matters. I'm a little frustrated you're teaching the very point i made. Now if you're saying I am personally influenced too much that i lose the ability to keep it as my own subjective experience, then you're right. but i'd be hardpressed to believe anyone is fully immune to change their opinion as they hear other perspectives or see the creation first hand. that was the basis of the article i mentioned. So I'll take what you're saying as empathy. because P, you're really making my point lol. which is cool, but you say it like i don't realize it.

also, as a point of clarification, it was the producers in the commentary. The actors were video interviewed. i don't think you've watched the material I'm talking about by getting this wrong. maybe you should watch it before finding loose connections to another thread. maybe you'd even agree with me after you do so.

Side note, i guess the impression i got after listening to the commentary and watching the interviews was that this film was made in the editing room. I guess i always knew this, and on some level was impressed by it. i always thought mallick was overcome by a new narrative that ignited as a creative spark in his head. this would have happened long after the traditional story no longer did it for him.

however, after watching the material it's more apparent mallick had no plan of attack from the get go. after watching these special features and listening to richard gere talk on the days of heaven disc I'm left thinking Mallick doesn't know what he wants while making the movie, and furthermore doesn't know how to get what he wants out of actors. this is not something said by the people involved in the film, this is my own deduction.

this type of film making is a recipe for making movies in the editing room, and the dude strikes gold, but who knows how much of that is luck. just look how hit and miss altman was, he had the same easy breasy approach to narrative. when it was on, it fucking rocked, when it was off, it really fucking sucked.

My wife and I just watched Criterion's Blu-ray edition of The Thin Red Line and I am being honest when I say that it was perhaps one of the most profound cinematic experiences I've had, both inside and outside of a theater, just total, pure cinema.  The sound and image are so crystalline, the visuals so clear yet warm and filmic.  I've seen the film five or six times, but the Blu-ray was like seeing it for the first time, like stepping through a window into Malick's Guadalcanal.

I realized while watching that in our cynical, ironic age, what's difficult for some viewers with Malick's films is their utter sincerity.  Malick asks us to surrender ourselves, to step out of the comfortable confines of sarcasm and irony, and to confront life's most basic questions.  I cannot wait for The Tree of Life.

i don't know about the extras.
seeing this on blu ray was...a spiritual experience.
i truly have no words.
fuck the extras.

alex.

fyi - Badlands shows on TCM at 7pm ctrl tonight (1-19-11)

So one afternoon I met up with a bunch of my film friends and we got to talking about Terry. How his films often change so much in the editing room. What started off as a serious conversation about the freedom and balls it takes to explore your creative side with so much money on the line, turned into a jokefest about Terry's directing style. We were hung over from the night before. Maybe even still a little drunk. But we just got silly with it. Soon the jokes led to us promoting the fact that he was on set directing from a unicycle, spinning plates. Much laughter ensued.

Bored at work today i made this for those friends, i posted it on Facebook and I thought of you guys; maybe one or two of you will get a chuckle.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi80.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj176%2Fsocketlevel%2Fterrydaysofheaven.jpg&hash=f97d82f02f120c957ca364297e808dbba6aab4c0)

I know he's bigger than he should be, and probably in focus more than the lens would allow, but it played funnier this way.

Must be nice to have smart friends like that. That you can joke around about Malick with. Mine mostly are stupid assholes but I still like them I guess.

Unless, of course, your friends actually refer to Malick in casual conversation as "Terry". That shit would get on my fucking nerves.

Maybe it was the delivery leading up to the pic?

it's one of those things that you have to live through to understand how funny it was in the first time.

ya for sure, but the thought of him riding a unicycle and spinning plates still makes me smile regardless.

holy crap, footage of malick calling ACTION on thin red line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uqMPOzXqLs&t=2m25s

where is the rest of this footage i wonder..

ps. make your own malick soundboard by hitting 7 repeatedly on your keyboard.

Nolte is awesome, this clip is awesome

Yes that was a great find. thanks pic.

nolte's massive pause when he's asked whether malick would turn up to the oscars if he's nominated is very interesting.. why would he take so long to answer that? it's obvious to him that malick would NOT turn up, and i think that was going to be his initial answer, but because this was a year where he (Nolte) was making all the right moves, getting huge praise for Affliction, he played the conservative answer of "yeah.. yeah.. that's my guess".

why wouldn't he just tell it like it is? if he'd said no he would have been playing into the hermitic insinuation present in the question, and he might have inadvertently proliferated bad press about terry and had to have gone on the defensive to justify why the dude doesn't have to turn up. so yeah, that was a very long pause to arrive at the shortest answer which was obviously wrong.

were you a psyche major, P? Or a poker player?

yeah that's really good analysis of a long pause. i like to think he was also wishing really hard.

I bet it was also so malick would get the nod too, if he says "no way. it's not his style" than maybe the academy might snub him.

He's got Malick in an earpiece telling him exactly what to say. That pause was him listening to Malick rant about how he'd "kick his fucking ass" if he as much as hinted at agreeing with the "reclusive artist"-bit. Everything must seem normal.

Because the reason Malick never shows his face is because he sits at home at his giant control center, whispering in the ears of all his actors and crew members, at all times, threatening them. They must never reveal the secret of how he really works: that he yells "action" like a boss and kicks ass twenty-four seven.

Quote from: Just Withnail on May 31, 2011, 05:32:44 AM
He's got Malick in an earpiece telling him exactly what to say. That pause was him listening to Malick rant about how he'd "kick his fucking ass" if he as much as hinted at agreeing with the "reclusive artist"-bit. Everything must seem normal.

Because the reason Malick never shows his face is because he sits at home at his giant control center, whispering in the ears of all his actors and crew members, at all times, threatening them. They must never reveal the secret of how he really works: that he yells "action" like a boss and kicks ass twenty-four seven.

See:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.media-imdb.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTcwNjIyOTAyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNzc2OTc2._V1._SX450_SY288_.jpg&hash=5951b8de1416bf7b1550fec5120c07430ed7c146)

check out this great piece featured in GQ chronicling the making of Badlands (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201105/badlands-oral-history?printable=true) by the people who helped make it.

That was such a great read! Thanks!

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/11_things_you_need_to_know_about_terrence_malicks_badlands/

Malick Speaks! http://youtu.be/phv5ZMRVn4w (his "Badlands" cameo)

Quote from: modage on June 03, 2011, 02:38:26 PM
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/11_things_you_need_to_know_about_terrence_malicks_badlands/

Malick Speaks! http://youtu.be/phv5ZMRVn4w (his "Badlands" cameo)

You write for Playlist but this isn't you, right?  I'm curious about this:

"But according to Billy Weber on the Criterion edition of 'Days Of Heaven,' 'Badlands' was made for $350,000 and was bought by Paramount for $900."

It seems almost ridiculously obvious that the writer means $900K but I want to make sure.


Hmmm, it then later says:

"But Jack Fisk is less convinced that Warner Bros.—who GQ says paid $1 million for "Badlands" and picked up "Mean Streets" on the same day—knew what they there dealing with."

What kind of article is this?

These days, The Playlist is basically the TMZ of movie blogs. Gossip and holier than thou uninformed opinions. They did like 3 gossipy stories on a supposed Nicolas Winding Refn and Lars Von Trier beef/falling out. Seriously.

Quote from: Stefen on June 03, 2011, 03:02:49 PM
These days, The Playlist is basically the TMZ of movie blogs. Gossip and holier than thou uninformed opinions. They did like 3 gossipy stories on a supposed Nicolas Winding Refn and Lars Von Trier beef/falling out. Seriously.

Yeah. Getting rolled up with IndieWire has not done much for them.

Their coverage of fanboy movies and standard fare has gone way UP while their coverage of international cinema and experimental film has gone way DOWN. I'm sure that has to do with them being eaten up by Indiewire and looking for hits, but it really sucks because they used to be great.

But the worst if how they shove their opinions down your throat as if they're fact. They'll give their opinion about a movie that the article isn't even about. "Jennifer Lawrence, she of Winters Bone fame (which was terrible and this website can't understand why it received so many accolades) stars as Mystique"

I mean, is shit like that really necessary?  :ponder:

That's true. I remember the article about the LVT Cannes controversy... Though it was smart enough to realize that LVT is not actually a Nazi, it had incredible attitude and random attacks on his filmmaking, for no reason at all.

was playlist the same one when, in the middle of an article clearing up the connection between this man  (http://www.thisman.org/history.htm) and inception, started pitching its own script and acting like it was part of the news?
Or was that Twitch?

Quote from: pete on June 30, 2011, 10:53:58 PM
was playlist the same one when, in the middle of an article clearing up the connection between this man  (http://www.thisman.org/history.htm) and inception, started pitching its own script and acting like it was part of the news?
Or was that Twitch?

ahahaha it was Cinemtatical.

Quote from: modage on May 06, 2010, 12:56:09 PM

Quote from: picolas on October 26, 2009, 03:20:09 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisman.org%2Fthisman_small.jpg&hash=d32b84f6d749bf9113f8fff77e4ebfeeea2dcfb9) (http://thisman.org/)
http://thisman.org/

i'm convinced this is BRILLIANT viral marketing for inception. it's too fucking freaky to be real. i also think part of the premise for the movie lies in this part of the site:

'Strangers' Director to Question 'This Man'
Source: Cinematical

Deadline's Michael Fleming is reporting that director Bryan Bertino will be following up his debut on The Strangers (he wrote a script for The Strangers 2, but will not direct it) with the This Man, a film with a fascinating, potential-packed premise behind it. According to Fleming, the film is an adaptation of a web site Ghost House Pictures acquired from an Italian sociologist who, supposedly, created it as a global connection portal for people who claimed to have all seen the face of the man (pictured in the top right) in their dreams. The film, however, won't just be a chronicle of this sociologist's "discoveries", but about the man who has no idea that people the world over are seeing him in their nightmares.

The reason I sound doubtful as to the history of the project is because I don't think it's quite so fact-based as Fleming presents it to be. Jawbone.tv has a handy breakdown of when posts about This Man started to appear on the Internet as well as who registered ThisMan.org. Their registrant is the same "Italian sociologist" Fleming mentions, Andrea Natella. Granted he may actually be a sociologist, but Jawbone also pinned Natella as the director of an Italian guerrilla marketing company.

I don't really care if the story is fact-based or just the result of some clever viral marketing because I think the concept behind This Man is rock solid and ripe for speculation. I'm hoping it goes a little something like this: Strangers start to recognize the man on the street and as soon as he realizes it's because people are convinced they're having nightmares about him, he's led into a world where cults have risen in frightful devotion to him and people everywhere have him on their minds. His life starts to spiral out of control as his 'fans' come out of the wood-work and eventually he discovers it was all just a viral experiment on the Internet and that he happened to have a face that was generic enough to look like the generic face an Italian marketer/sociologist chose for his little experiment.

Again, I have no idea if that's actually what the script is about, but that's where I would go with it-- and getting people to speculate on the vaguest of details is a great sign that you've got the potential for something great on your hands. It doesn't hurt, either, that Bryan Bertino's first film managed to transform a predictable script into something that was legitimately creepy (thanks in no small part to an outstanding sound design). Here's hoping his team-up with Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert's production shingle refines those talents even more.

More importantly, however...has anyone out there actually seen this man in their dreams?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmhttp.14409.nexcesscdn.net%2F806D5E%2Fwordpress-L%2Fimages%2Fwacky_lambs.png&hash=5203e58876799d08c4ac7aea28ccd4e2b5d69e14)


It Looks Like Terrence Malick's 'Badlands' Is Headed To The Criterion Collection
Source: Playlist

"Warner Bros. or Criterion is putting out a new version of 'Badlands' fairly soon," Terrence Malick's longtime editor Billy Weber said last fall, and now almost a full year later, it looks like the company with the wacky C will be giving the auteur's debut film the full treatment.

Yesterday, the Criterion Collection issued their monthly email newsletter and as usual, there was a clue to go with it. As you see above, it featured two bad lambs (=badlands, get it!?) dressed up in what looked to be greaser gear not unlike what Martin Sheen's character wears in the movie. And while Criterion generally hasn't had much luck in licensing titles from Warner Bros. who have the movie in their catalog (and continue to do brisk business with their excellent Archive Collection shingle), according to the folks at the usually plugged in Criterion Forum, the boutique label has managed to snag a few titles from the studio with "Badlands" said to be among them.

Of course, when this will street remains to be seen, but it won't be until 2013 at the earliest as Criterion has already tied up their slate for the year. As for extras, again, we'll have to wait and see. However, Weber did state he recorded a commentary for the film that is being used for a brewing British re-issue of the film. And while Malick himself continues his press silence, his collaborators still often provide illuminating insights, so here's hoping Sheen, Sissy Spacek and designer Jack Fisk all get involved (along with Weber, they all took part in GQ's excellent oral history on the film). And maybe we'll get Malick's 17-minute short "Lanton Mills" in there as well? Currently, the movie -- which stars Harry Dean Stanton, Warren Oates and Malick himself -- is housed at the American Film Institute and is only viewable by students. It would be great to get it out there for more people to see. Fingers crossed.

Of course, this could be totally wrong, but all the clues and details seem to link up.