The Criterion Collection

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I disagree about the "fame" part.
I think every artist deep in his heart (even if he doesn't admit it) wants fame, or else, he would do his art for himself as you say and he would also enjoy it himself alone (or with a few friends at home. )
I don't think one day big studios knocked on the door of an unknown man and told him to make films.
Malick himself (and every Malick) pursued it. And whoever is in any art form business, knows you've got to pursue it very ardently to achieve something. Nothing is given for free.

Yeah, but there's a reason Malick took ~20 years off between films:

Malick received a A.B. in philosophy from Harvard College, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1965. He did graduate work at Magdalen College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. After a disagreement with his tutor, Gilbert Ryle, over his thesis on the concept of world in Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein, Malick left Oxford without a degree.[16] In 1969, Northwestern University Press published Malick's translation of Heidegger's Vom Wesen des Grundes as The Essence of Reasons.

After returning to the United States, Malick taught philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology while freelancing as a journalist. He wrote articles for Newsweek, The New Yorker, and Life.[17]

It's not like he needs to make films. He could have endeavored in any number of lines of life. But he came back to film. And I seriously doubt that anyone who has watched him interact with the world beyond his films could argue that he did it for "fame."

He's a unique individual, from what I can tell.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I cant blame Malick for not wanting to do interviews.

He makes films for himself because he is passionate about life and cinema - he doesn't do it for money or the fame. Also, people are so cruel and have been pretty nasty about his films, so why would he waste time on people with such negativity when he is just sharing his life.

what cruel and nasty things have been said about his films? he didn't direct The Brown Bunny or Heaven's Gate, I don't think.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

what cruel and nasty things have been said about his films? he didn't direct The Brown Bunny or Heaven's Gate, I don't think.

I think a good deal of vitriol has been sent in the direction of To The Wonder and Knight of Cups (probably Tree of Life as well, in lesser volume).

[pedromvu]

Talking about contributions, I am not sure if this can only be changed by the reviewer, but I noticed there is some missing information on the supplements section of the Monsoon Wedding Review:

- The Laughing Club of India (2001) documentary short (35 min)
- New video interview with actor Naseeruddin Shah, conducted by Nair (21 min)
- New video interviews with Quinn and production designer Stephanie Carroll (11 min)
- Theatrical trailer (3 min)

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I think a good deal of vitriol has been sent in the direction of To The Wonder and Knight of Cups (probably Tree of Life as well, in lesser volume).

Don't even get me started.

[shadedpain4]

New Janus acquisition.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/kir...ry-janus-films

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Reddington

"Oft-revered" but also often excoriated; by those familiar with his films in forums such as this one, in objective reviews, etc.

As for the actors, it's up to them. For those who thought they had a lead or major supporting role but were cut, what a waste of their time. As for those who sign up in the knowledge their performance may be cut just to say they've worked with the "great" man - frankly, there's nothing more pretentious. But the thrust of the article - for me - was an implicit indictment of Malick's approach to his craft.

There are simply too many films to watch from universally acclaimed directors that I have to make a decision on my time somehow, right? And of course, I never said never.

Are you serious? Getting paid is a waste of time? Sounds like its the actors who are more pretentious here. If the film works better without them, then they will be cut EVERYTIME, no matter the director.

Sometimes actors fired and replaced by someone else... maybe you shouldn't watch Back to the Future since the lead actor was canned 4 weeks into filming. Does that make Zemeckis pretentious? Do you refuse to watch any of his films because you feel like he was "unfair" to Eric Stolz?

Sounds like you're just trying to find excuses not to give a director a chance, and using other people's opinions to make up your own without any basis in what YOU might like.

As for "There are simply too many films to watch from universally acclaimed directors that I have to make a decision on my time somehow, right?" So watch ONE. 2-3 hours of your precious time isn't going to take away from any other filmmakers. Then decide for yourself, instead of letting other people decide for you.

[buffetfroid]

Malick

[llj]

A lot of people object to Malick's religious elements and themes that have come more and more to the forefront lately.

Personally, I have no problem with it though. He's making personal films, we don't have to believe in what he believes to still enjoy his films. It seems a lot of audiences today tend to get uptight about artists with different beliefs than theirs, which is absurd and narcissistic, imo.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I think a good deal of vitriol has been sent in the direction of To The Wonder and Knight of Cups (probably Tree of Life as well, in lesser volume).

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Don't even get me started.

Okay. Cite one example of a reviewer being "cruel," "unfair," or displaying "vitriol" towards Malick.

Nearly every great filmmaker has had to endure bad reviews.

I could just be uninformed here. If thats the case, then I'd be interested to read what was said, but yeah - I'm not familiar with anything terrible directed at Terry.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Talking about contributions, I am not sure if this can only be changed by the reviewer, but I noticed there is some missing information on the supplements section of the Monsoon Wedding Review:

- The Laughing Club of India (2001) documentary short (35 min)
- New video interview with actor Naseeruddin Shah, conducted by Nair (21 min)
- New video interviews with Quinn and production designer Stephanie Carroll (11 min)
- Theatrical trailer (3 min)

Thank you for pointing this out, Pedro. (And thank you for the PM, DB).

I just looked, but I think that there is some sort of a coding problem and something was misplaced -- probably a long time ago. I am unsure why, maybe this was one of the reviews that we had to "restore" after the big site crash where we lost data. But there is definitely something wrong because in the supplemental features section "booklet" is the first paragraph. I never place the booklet right at the top.

I will fix this review shortly.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Okay. Cite one example of a reviewer being "cruel," "unfair," or displaying "vitriol" towards Malick.

Nearly every great filmmaker has had to endure bad reviews.

I could just be uninformed here. If thats the case, then I'd be interested to read what was said, but yeah - I'm not familiar with anything terrible directed at Terry.

Unfair? That's a personal impression.

But the sorts of stuff that was thrown at those films? Come on.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Unfair? That's a personal impression.

But the sorts of stuff that was thrown at those films? Come on.

Cite one.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Cite one.

The Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line director’s new movie is “vapid”, “decadent” and a “ludicrous self-parody”, critic Nicholas Barber says.

Is that OK?

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Cite one.

Terrence Malick finally crawls all the way up his own ass with the unwatchable and laughably pretentious Knight of Cups... David Nusair

How many times do we need to see Terrence Malick tell the same pointless wisp of a story before someone starts to wonder if he has any other stories to tell at all? Travis Hopson

Do not be hoodwinked into believing this is meaningful, abstract thought. It is a load of crap. Jeanne Kaplan

Often beautiful to look at but is yet another piece of pretentious vacuity from a one of today's most overpraised directors...brings more exhaustion than enlightenment. Frank Swietek

Some are harsh but which director hasn't had to endure such type of reviews?, it is normal, I doubt it is personal just people putting their thoughts on the films.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Is that OK?

Vapid, decadent, and ludicrous aren't cruel or nasty adjectives - it sounds like the reviewer simply didnt like the film.

What art film director hasn't had a film called "vapid?"

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Are you serious? Getting paid is a waste of time? Sounds like its the actors who are more pretentious here. If the film works better without them, then they will be cut EVERYTIME, no matter the director.

Sometimes actors fired and replaced by someone else... maybe you shouldn't watch Back to the Future since the lead actor was canned 4 weeks into filming. Does that make Zemeckis pretentious? Do you refuse to watch any of his films because you feel like he was "unfair" to Eric Stolz?

Sounds like you're just trying to find excuses not to give a director a chance, and using other people's opinions to make up your own without any basis in what YOU might like.

As for "There are simply too many films to watch from universally acclaimed directors that I have to make a decision on my time somehow, right?" So watch ONE. 2-3 hours of your precious time isn't going to take away from any other filmmakers. Then decide for yourself, instead of letting other people decide for you.

Firstly, the only person trying to decide things for me is you. But thanks for looking out for me. I never said I wouldn't watch a Malick film, did I? Again, it is not a priority due to competing claims on my time. Many of us here have a huge stack of unwatched films. Maybe even you?

Secondly, actors of course get let go from films - mostly due to "creative differences." And yes, entire parts are cut from films, too. But Malick would seem to be on another level, in terms of frequency, and the reason for cutting performances. And yes, I do think an actor has a right to feel aggrieved if they commit time and talent to a film in a significant role, only to end up on the cutting room floor. Maybe the director should have done a little more pre-production? Which prompted my original statement - admittedly sarcastic in tone - about cobbling masterpieces together in the editing room.

Which leads me to my final point: It's okay for me to draw broad conclusions from the article because, as I said, it is supported by many other dissenting views on his directorial style and output.

Look, I come here for a bit of fun away from a very demanding day job. I didn't trash Malick, or his films; it would be stupid to do so anyway, given that I've never seen one of them. If I wasn't as erudite as I could have been, I apologize.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Some are harsh but which director hasn't had to endure such type of reviews, it is normal, I doubt it is personal just people putting their thoughts on the films.

The "up his own ass" and "it's a load of crap" are a bit immature. I still wouldn't call it cruel or nasty. They aren't taking personal jabs at him. And the topic was brought up when someone said "why would he want to have a public presence after so many terrible things were said about him?"

[MifuneFan]

Wow, the Brooklyn Academy of Music will be showing The Tree of Life accompanied by a live orchestra

http://www.bam.org/film/2016/the-tree-of-life

More than 100 musicians and singers from the Wordless Music Orchestra perform live accompaniment to a special screening of Terrence Malick’s (Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line) 2011 masterpiece The Tree of Life, starring Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain. Winner of the Palme d’Or at Cannes and hailed by Roger Ebert as one of the 10 greatest films of all time, Malick’s dazzling formal achievement takes a tender portrait of a 1950s Texas family as the seed for a sweeping inquiry into cosmological existence. Music by Mahler, Berlioz, Brahms, Górecki, Mozart, and Couperin courses throughout this gorgeously shot hymn to the sacred within the secular, where time eternal merges with fallible human love.

[joie]

^^ Were there any musician credits on "Tree of Life?" There was someone like a "Music Supervisor" credited, but I didn't see (missed?) any credited musicians.