The Criterion Collection

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by dtyner92

Picnic at Hanging Rock, is absolutely brilliant! Its doesn't hurt that it's beautifully shot as well. I watched it for the first time a few days ago, and it quickly shot up the list as one of my favorite films. I'm planing on getting into more Bergman films as well. I've only seen The Seventh Seal and Persona. Very interested to see what else he has in store.
Any recommendation for Bergman would be very useful. Fanny and Alexander, has really caught my interest.

Fanny and Alexander
Fanny and Alexander
Fanny and Alexander

I am suggesting Fanny and Alexander.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

IMO, yes, The Tree of Life pretends to be something it is not. I absolutely love Badlands and Days of Heaven. In those films, Malick's style was at the service of his plots. TToL is, to me, almost a parody of his early work. It (his style) has almost become an affectation.


If you want to see a film where a master filmmaker didn't lose his touch very late in life, watch Robert Bresson's L'Argent. It is streaming on Hulu Plus.

Someone mentioned L'Argent.

I watched this film about 12 years ago, it burned into my memory. It is a fantastic film based on Tolstoy's short story The Forged Coupon and it is in desperate need of a blu-ray transfer.

As mentioned by other posters, The Tree of Life has a big divide, you love it or you hate it. I fall in the category of loving the film. It had me when the father is bewildered by his newborn's foot and when he is helping him take his first steps in the grass. It hit a note within me. Like Tolstoy, Malick uses long narratives and multiple perspectives to bring out certain essences of life.

Here is my explanation to the ending, (I hate putting out my ideas to the public, because they end up in someone's review, essay, website, etc..but what the hell). The movie is a requiem in sense (a musical, in this case a filmic, prayer to the dead). Like in any musical requiem, the last part represents an ascension to Heaven, an overcoming of death.

This ending is in contrast to films such as L'Argent. Bresson in his later films has a very pessimistic view of human nature and life in his films, a "somewhat" contrast to his earlier films.

Again thank you for mentioning L'Argent

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question above. Quite an ignorant generalization. ...and two people thought it was so wonderful that they even liked your comment.

I don't know jack all about your taste, other than a few statements in here that I have disagreed with. Your question also reads pretty poorly, so I'm not quite certain how to respond. I'm assuming you're asking about my conclusion that you haven't seen a film that requires effort, which I did not imply. But Malick, alongside Antonioni and a few others, delivers some of the most demanding works in fictional film making, especially in this later period. Malick is probably the director who the term "pretentious" is launched at the most often, and also the most incorrectly.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

really? you don't understand that? if ANY filmmaker could possibly be described as pretentious, you don't think that person could be Malick?

I thought Blu-Ray Forum>Criterion Discussion consensus was that "pretentious" was "over-rated" and therefore, Verboten?

Need to chat up the Commissar and get an official ruling one of these days, I guess.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by lemonski

One of those was me. As for your question, I read it four times and I still can't understand it, it makes no sense. Maybe that's why you're not getting an answer.

what part of it don't you understand? don't make generalizations about people you don't know. that was the point. to say that I am calling Malick (mostly I'm just calling TToL) pretentious because the film requires thought is an extremely tired generalization. The Tree of Life was not my first art film, my friend.

I don't know how to explain it you any better. you might want to understand the context of a conversation before you go liking comments, don't you think?

[dtyner92]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Fanny and Alexander
Fanny and Alexander
Fanny and Alexander

I am suggesting Fanny and Alexander.

Edward J Grug III, your comment has convinced me to stop putting it off. This will be the next Criterion I buy when I head back to B&N.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

I don't know jack all about your taste, other than a few statements in here that I have disagreed with. Your question also reads pretty poorly, so I'm not quite certain how to respond. I'm assuming you're asking about my conclusion that you haven't seen a film that requires effort, which I did not imply. But Malick, alongside Antonioni and a few others, delivers some of the most demanding works in fictional film making, especially in this later period. Malick is probably the director who the term "pretentious" is launched at the most often, and also the most incorrectly.

Ahhh.. the source of the debate. I said something to the effect of "if any filmmaker could possibly merit being called pretentious, don't you think that director could be Malick?"

and about it being poorly written, I was on my way out the door, leaving work when your purported intelligence was bestowed upon me. it was a quickly written post that actually was almost a direct quote of what you said.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by dtyner92

Edward J Grug III, your comment has convinced me to stop putting it off. This will be the next Criterion I buy when I head back to B&N.

I hope you enjoy it!

[ngower]

Just to chime in: I don't think anyone disagrees that Malick can be verbose or obtuse, but I think folks find fault with your use of the word pretentious as it implies intentionality or desire on Malick's part to impress—as if Malick's whole purpose in being a filmmaker is to impress others. Certainly his reclusive nature suggests the contrary?

I've always found it a more fruitful exercise to consider Malick's training in philosophy as analogous to his methods in filmmaking. He was a well-trained academic philosopher, and if you've read any modern western philosophy (Malick's specialty was in Heidegger, who is notoriously obtuse) you might understand how he's approaching film. If you've read any philosophy, you'll know it can be incredibly dense and often requires slow, deliberate reads (and re-reads). Hell, it's even often criticized as pretentious! But a major difference between reading a philosophic text and watching a film is that you're permitted to read at your own pace. Film, on the other hand, is a medium to which you are at its mercy. You cannot keep rewinding in the theater, so Malick's density of ideas and emotions might end up losing some of the audience.

That's not to say you didn't understand or 'get' the film. It's possible that Malick's lost you and you've understood his intended narrative. Rather, I'm suggesting that the basic premise behind philosophy is the undermining and critique of existing ideas, so if Malick is attempting the same with filmmaking conventions, he's more than likely to run into issues. You can't attempt to redefine the medium (which isn't to call him a visionary or innovator—all philosophers are attempting to redefine the medium and many of them fail) and not expect speed bumps.

I'm just sort of brain-spilling here, and I know I'm not making a whole lot of sense, but as both a film fanatic and someone who studied philosophy in college, I think it's most beneficial to approach him as if you were approaching a philosophic text—ask what you find most important in Malick's voice, and what's most important to you? Are there particular conventions or tropes Malick is abandoning in favor of his more anarchical presentation and sequencing? So on and so forth in this inquisitive style.

My two cents...

[EDIT] On a different note, all this George Washington talk had me re-watch it tonight, and man do I love that flick. I'd venture to say it's in my top ten of all time. I tend to have a soft spot for early digital independent cinema, and for student/young director's films, and this is (at least to my knowledge) one of the best that fits that mold. I'm turning 25 at the end of the month and to think David Gordon Green accomplished this work at this same point in his life is just astounding.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

I don't know jack all about your taste, other than a few statements in here that I have disagreed with. Your question also reads pretty poorly, so I'm not quite certain how to respond. I'm assuming you're asking about my conclusion that you haven't seen a film that requires effort, which I did not imply. But Malick, alongside Antonioni and a few others, delivers some of the most demanding works in fictional film making, especially in this later period. Malick is probably the director who the term "pretentious" is launched at the most often, and also the most incorrectly.

Read this, Brandon. I posted it a couple weeks ago. It isn't any kind of article that will "prove right and wrong" or anything like that. It does, however, represent some ideas that I strongly agree with. I saw that you have Like Someone in Love in your top 10 films from last year and Spring Breakers as your #1 film. ..and the first director you cite during our Malick conversation is Anotnioni.

We will never agree and that's fine.

http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/a...oing-to-pieces

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ngower

Just to chime in: I don't think anyone disagrees that Malick can be verbose or obtuse, but I think folks find fault with your use of the word pretentious as it implies intentionality or desire on Malick's part to impress—as if Malick's whole purpose in being a filmmaker is to impress others. Certainly his reclusive nature suggests the contrary?

I've always found it a more fruitful exercise to consider Malick's training in philosophy as analogous to his methods in filmmaking. He was a well-trained academic philosopher, and if you've read any modern western philosophy (Malick's specialty was in Heidegger, who is notoriously obtuse) you might understand how he's approaching film. If you've read any philosophy, you'll know it can be incredibly dense and often requires slow, deliberate reads (and re-reads). Hell, it's even often criticized as pretentious! But a major difference between reading a philosophic text and watching a film is that you're permitted to read at your own pace. Film, on the other hand, is a medium to which you are at its mercy. You cannot keep rewinding in the theater, so Malick's density of ideas and emotions might end up losing some of the audience.

That's not to say you didn't understand or 'get' the film. It's possible that Malick's lost you and you've understood his intended narrative. Rather, I'm suggesting that the basic premise behind philosophy is the undermining and critique of existing ideas, so if Malick is attempting the same with filmmaking conventions, he's more than likely to run into issues. You can't attempt to redefine the medium (which isn't to call him a visionary or innovator—all philosophers are attempting to redefine the medium and many of them fail) and not expect speed bumps.

I'm just sort of brain-spilling here, and I know I'm not making a whole lot of sense, but as both a film fanatic and someone who studied philosophy in college, I think it's most beneficial to approach him as if you were approaching a philosophic text—ask what you find most important in Malick's voice, and what's most important to you? Are there particular conventions or tropes Malick is abandoning in favor of his more anarchical presentation and sequencing? So on and so forth in this inquisitive style.

My two cents...

[EDIT] On a different note, all this George Washington talk had me re-watch it tonight, and man do I love that flick. I'd venture to say it's in my top ten of all time. I tend to have a soft spot for early digital independent cinema, and for student/young director's films, and this is (at least to my knowledge) one of the best that fits that mold. I'm turning 25 at the end of the month and to think David Gordon Green accomplished this work at this same point in his life is just astounding.

this is a good post and I will read it again when I have time tomorrow.

[smoss469]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I hope you enjoy it!

I've had it since November... and haven't watched it yet.

[dtyner92]

Originally Posted by ngower

Just to chime in: I don't think anyone disagrees that Malick can be verbose or obtuse, but I think folks find fault with your use of the word pretentious as it implies intentionality or desire on Malick's part to impress—as if Malick's whole purpose in being a filmmaker is to impress others. Certainly his reclusive nature suggests the contrary?

I've always found it a more fruitful exercise to consider Malick's training in philosophy as analogous to his methods in filmmaking. He was a well-trained academic philosopher, and if you've read any modern western philosophy (Malick's specialty was in Heidegger, who is notoriously obtuse) you might understand how he's approaching film. If you've read any philosophy, you'll know it can be incredibly dense and often requires slow, deliberate reads (and re-reads). Hell, it's even often criticized as pretentious! But a major difference between reading a philosophic text and watching a film is that you're permitted to read at your own pace. Film, on the other hand, is a medium to which you are at its mercy. You cannot keep rewinding in the theater, so Malick's density of ideas and emotions might end up losing some of the audience.

That's not to say you didn't understand or 'get' the film. It's possible that Malick's lost you and you've understood his intended narrative. Rather, I'm suggesting that the basic premise behind philosophy is the undermining and critique of existing ideas, so if Malick is attempting the same with filmmaking conventions, he's more than likely to run into issues. You can't attempt to redefine the medium (which isn't to call him a visionary or innovator—all philosophers are attempting to redefine the medium and many of them fail) and not expect speed bumps.

I'm just sort of brain-spilling here, and I know I'm not making a whole lot of sense, but as both a film fanatic and someone who studied philosophy in college, I think it's most beneficial to approach him as if you were approaching a philosophic text—ask what you find most important in Malick's voice, and what's most important to you? Are there particular conventions or tropes Malick is abandoning in favor of his more anarchical presentation and sequencing? So on and so forth in this inquisitive style.

My two cents...

[EDIT] On a different note, all this George Washington talk had me re-watch it tonight, and man do I love that flick. I'd venture to say it's in my top ten of all time. I tend to have a soft spot for early digital independent cinema, and for student/young director's films, and this is (at least to my knowledge) one of the best that fits that mold. I'm turning 25 at the end of the month and to think David Gordon Green accomplished this work at this same point in his life is just astounding.

One of the best interpretations of Malick, that i've read. Fantastic job! I've seen the cover of George Washington for years and never really thought much of it. Bought it and watched it on blu-ray last night, and it was absolutely incredible. One of the best blind buy purchases i've made in quite sometime.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by smoss469

I've had it since November... and haven't watched it yet.

I have to assume that post was the last thing you did before popping it in to your Blu Ray player ;D

[oildude]

Originally Posted by smoss469

Except I've never, and I do mean never, been remotely entertained by something I've seen on stage.

Dude, you're doing it wrong. One night at the Cheetah Club will cure you of that pretention.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

what part of it don't you understand?

The part written in English. Read it yourself, it's borderline gibberish. Your edit made it worse.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

..and what do you know about my taste in film that leads you to draw the conclusion that I have seen a film that "requires effort while viewing it (them)" and that has lead me to call him pretentious?

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

you might want to understand the context of a conversation before you go liking comments, don't you think?

Why? Do I have to read through 50 posts and replies before liking something? I simply liked his statement:

Offering films with a greater sense of purpose, works that require effort when viewing them, does not equate a director to being pretentious.

This is completely reasonable to me. Are you trying to argue otherwise - that films with a greater sense of purpose, or that require effort while viewing, do equate to a director being pretentious?

[smoss469]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I have to assume that post was the last thing you did before popping it in to your Blu Ray player ;D

Not exactly.... I've got 1 more movie to finish out the huge Humphrey Bogart boxed set. After I'm finished with it, not sure what will be next. I really need to get through the 2nd half of the Buster Keaton Kino set as well. That'd clear a lot of stuff off the "pending" pile on my desk.

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by dtyner92

One of the best interpretations of Malick, that i've read. Fantastic job! I've seen the cover of George Washington for years and never really thought much of it. Bought it and watched it on blu-ray last night, and it was absolutely incredible. One of the best blind buy purchases i've made in quite sometime.

I was just about to post that very often the cover art on Criterions can determine my interest in whether to further research the title and gauge my interest in a blind buy, which is kind of unfortunate in some cases because I know I am missing out on great movies. I do indeed judge some movies by their cover in the Criterion Collection. If the cover looks boring or uninteresting to me, I'll likely pass on it, as I have with George Washington (so thanks to those who are praising it, it is now on my radar), Grey Gardens, and others. I wish I wouldn't do this, but it happens. Is anyone else like this?

[starman15317]

I still haven't seen The Thin Red Line or The New World (the latter I'm not too interested in for some reason) but I always have different feelings about Malick. I like Badlands (in fact I own the Criterion) but I don't really like the other films. I admit that sometimes I use the P word to describe Malick, but usually, I can at least appreciate his films because they are unlike anything I've seen before.

To the Wonder just sucked though.

[ngower]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

I was just about to post that very often the cover art on Criterions can determine my interest in whether to further research the title and gauge my interest in a blind buy, which is kind of unfortunate in some cases because I know I am missing out on great movies. I do indeed judge some movies by their cover in the Criterion Collection. If the cover looks boring or uninteresting to me, I'll likely pass on it, as I have with George Washington (so thanks to those who are praising it, it is now on my radar), Grey Gardens, and others. I wish I wouldn't do this, but it happens. Is anyone else like this?

You have to see Grey Gardens! I consider it one of the best documentaries of all time. I even have a Little Edie tattoo!

And George Washington is just damn good. If you've got Hulu watch it there. Or check your library system. Mine had a copy, surprisingly.

Originally Posted by starman15317

I still haven't seen The Thin Red Line or The New World (the latter I'm not too interested in for some reason) but I always have different feelings about Malick. I like Badlands (in fact I own the Criterion) but I don't really like the other films. I admit that sometimes I use the P word to describe Malick, but usually, I can at least appreciate his films because they are unlike anything I've seen before.

To the Wonder just sucked though.

I'd prioritize the Thin Red Line, but don't let The New World go unwatched. I think it's one of his weaker titles, but it's still great and it's his first flick with Lubezki, so you can see both feeling out one another stylistically. Make sure you watch The Director's Cut, though, as the theatrical version is sloppy.