BADLANDS/DAYS OF HEAVEN/THE THIN RED LINE

[hedwig]

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..

...a combination images and sound ...
...will allow me process and understand ...
...the unconcious and impulse and the concious and rationale ...

--to baffling..

"yes that it is it"

--to embarrassing..

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. 

[JG]

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

[gob]

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.

[Chest Rockwell]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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.

[MacGuffin]

DVD Beaver's review:

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

[socketlevel]

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.

[Pas]

   "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:

"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

hey Billy Bob, maybe stop commenting with your personal thoughts.

[Stefen]

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.

[socketlevel]

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.

[Pubrick]

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

[socketlevel]

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.

[adolfwolfli]

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.

[Alexandro]

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.

[tpfkabi]

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