Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: GunRunner

“The plot was a historical retelling of soldiers’ experiences on Guadalcanal with internal monologues. A traditional plot like your average ‘guys on a mission’ flick would’ve missed the point”

You’re confusing a short summary of the story with plot, which consists of a sequence of events that usually form the cause-and-effect of a story. Usually, scenes relate to one another and are laid out in a discernable pattern. And though occassionally discreet parts of The Thin Red Line make sense in isolation, the movie as a whole can be said to have no plot because the parts don’t fit together in any recognizable manner. Or at least in a manner that amounts to something more than random soldiers’ memories which happened to take place in the same battle.

“What caused your special hatred for Terrence Malick?”

I don’t normally advocate comparing serious things to pornography, but Malick’s style has been called “scenery porn.” That’s all his movies amount to, in my opinion: they look good. Which is why, no doubt, you say, “I could watch Thin Red Line with the sound off.” I could probably also watch some of my favorite movies with the sound off, but it would never occur to me to do so because, unlike with Malick, I get something out of the other elements.

That’d be okay, if that’s all people wanted. But his movies are held up as masterpieces, and he a genius. I require more. Little things like plot, theme, character, and dialogue. All he manages is setting and perhaps symbolism (though Lord knows what they’re symbolic of).

“That’s kind of the point with a Malick film. Criticizing his films for not having a traditional plot is like criticizing expressionist paintings for not being realistic.”

It’s perfectly appropriate to criticize non-representative art for not representing things if the former is being held up as every bit as good as representative art and you think differently. I wouldn’t go out of my way to damn, for instance, Islamic mosaics or graphic advertising. They serve their own purposes. It is only in the contex of what constitutes high art that I’d rail against them.

Likewise, I speak in the context of The Thin Red Line being nominated for Best Picture and Malick being hailed as a filmmaking genius. Film is a narrative form. In my opinion, a movie cannot be great if it looks good and has a bad story, every bit as much as a good story can overcome the worst possible direction.

The very fact that it’s “kind of the point with a Malick film” that the cinematography and nothing else is great is exactly the problem.


25 posted on 01/25/2011 11:08:43 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane
I disagree. Film can be whatever you make of it, and it's primarily a visual art more than a narrative one.

I thought that I learned more about the characters in the TTRL through the flashbacks and internal monologue than any of the stereotypically clichéd characters in Saving Private Ryan, and while the so-called story might have been thin, I wouldn't call it 'bad'.

Good visuals impress me, things like natural light, non-CG action, conservative use of screen smoke, and backlighting are all really hard to get right. The best parts of movies like 2001 and Apocalypse Now, or Schindler's List in my mind are the parts where nothing is said for minutes at a time.

Malick and his DPs do it better than anyone, and he constructs stories that are more akin to poetry rather than prose. The cool thing is that just by watching five minutes of one of his movies you can see his style, and tell you're in a Malick movie. It reminds me of how you can tell you're in a Robert Altman movie just by the little things like the crosstalk between different character conversations. It's his style, and it's not for everyone, but I can see why people call him a genius because in many ways, what he does with the camera is genius. But people are also aware of his shortcomings as a filmmaker when it comes to budget and schedule. I think it took him something like three years to edit Days of Heaven, which is ridiculous.

I thought it odd that you mentioned hating Malick films, just because he's not clogging up the theater with a new film every other year. In fact I think he's only directed four or five films in the past 40 years.

I'm looking forward to The Tree of Life, not just because it was filmed nearby in central Texas, but because looking at the previews I can tell that it will be something beautiful to look at.

28 posted on 01/25/2011 11:50:10 AM PST by GunRunner (10 Years of Freeping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson