Leave spiritual kino to me

>Leave spiritual kino to me

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob's_Ladder_(film)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_1910s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>10/10 t b h famalam

What did I mean by this?

he wants to guide you into the light

>kino
Sorry kiddo, but Malick makes art not trashy "kino" for Sup Forums teens that haven't grown out of their IMDB phase.

Unironic same

this

i unironically didnt enjoy this. gonna watch badlands

What didnt you like?

well i felt like it was all emptiness. But like a bland story. And some loose stuff. Like something was missing in some parts of the film, like a unfinished work.

KoC isnt empty, while it might be about emptiness of life like Rick's.

Try watching the last three chronologically, that worked for me.

which last 3?

latest three films, Tree of Life, To the Wonder and Knight of Cups.

will do then lad.

Perhaps no film in the history of cinema follows the movement of memory as faithfully, as passionately, or as profoundly as Terrence Malick’s new film, “Knight of Cups.” It’s an instant classic in several genres—the confessional, the inside-Hollywood story, the Dantesque midlife-crisis drama, the religious quest, the romantic struggle, the sexual reverie, the family melodrama—because the protagonist’s life, like most people’s lives, involves intertwined strains of activity that don’t just overlap but are inseparable from each other. The movie runs less than two hours and its focus is intimate, but its span seems enormous—not least because Malick has made a character who’s something of an alter ego, and he endows that character with an artistic identity and imagination as vast and as vital as his own.

As such, “Knight of Cups” is one of the great recent bursts of cinematic artistry, a carnival of images and sounds that have a sensual beauty, of light and movement, of gesture and inflection, rarely matched in any movie that isn’t Malick’s own. Here, he—and his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki—surpass themselves. Where “The Tree of Life” is filled with memories, is even about memory, “Knight of Cups” is close to a first-person act of remembering, and the ecstatic power of its images and sounds is a virtual manifesto, and confession, of the cinematic mind at work.

Sure, I can agree with that

What was his fucking problem?

lol

What was this character's end game?

post YFW Voyage of TIme this year

Huh, really makes you think

And 2 versions at that, one in IMAX

is it me or has the collective IQ of this already pretty substandard board shot down and diminished these last few weeks? proof: the countless posts in this thread that add nothing of value. some are even reposts of the same dumb things in the previous thread about KoC yesterday. are the memes here just devoid of wit? yeah, i think i'll fuck off for a while.

>is it me or has the collective IQ of this already pretty substandard board shot down and diminished these last few weeks? p
Considering language got dumped down to 'meme, meme meme, meme xDDD' the *effective IQ* of the board is in the shitter.

Yes, yes, well done Terrence, well done Terrence

HOWEVER

> Malick has made a character who’s something of an alter ego
Any writer that uses his characters as alter-egos is shit, because he doesn't have the ability to create nothing new, yet he uses experiences from his life to build a story.

I'm not judging the movie, because I haven't seen it, but alter-ego characters are always shit.

You think he's a genious because he adapted an old story to the modern times?

...

>authors don't base their characters on their own experiences
>you can't adapt universal stories for modern cinema because that would be bad

Well tipp'd

how does this site have any credibility

Are you talking about RT or Sup Forums?

People who do that are usually poor writers, they can't do a new story, they do everything based on their experiences it's a cheap escapism for them.

I'm not saying the movie is shit, I'm saying that writers who use alter-egos on any media are shitty writers, not because of the quality of their story, but because they lack any imagination and their stories are hostages from their own experiences.

>Retarded generalizations.
>Hasn't even seen the film and comes to shit on it.
nek urself kid

Do you have the whole set?

>they do everything based on their experiences it's a cheap escapism for them.

Of course not.
It is, Bob Odenkirk admitted that in a interview, and guess what, he's a shitty writer, like many others who do the same.

What the ever loving fuck has Odenkirk got to do with Malick

Fuck off to /s4s/ or whatever shit hole you crawled out of

>The first poster for the film features 'The Tree Of The Soul' by Dionysius Andreas Freher (1649-1728), a Christian mystic born in Germany, who was particularly fascinated by and wrote extensively about the ideas of Jacob Böhme (1575-1624), a German mystic, philosopher and theologian who believed that humans fall from grace, and that in order to find God again, they have to go through hell first.

>Böhme's mentor was Abraham Behem who corresponded with Valentin Weigel. Böhme joined the "Conventicle of God's Real Servants" - a parochial study group organized by Martin Möller. Böhme had a number of mystical experiences throughout his youth, culminating in a vision in 1600 as one day he focused his attention onto the exquisite beauty of a beam of sunlight reflected in a pewter dish. He believed this vision revealed to him the spiritual structure of the world, as well as the relationship between God and man, and good and evil. At the time he chose not to speak of this experience openly, preferring instead to continue his work and raise a family.

>Another place where Böhme may depart from accepted theology (though this was open to question due to his somewhat obscure, oracular style) was in his description of the Fall as a necessary stage in the evolution of the Universe.[14] A difficulty with his theology is the fact that he had a mystical vision, which he reinterpreted and reformulated.[15] According to F. von Ingen, to Böhme, in order to reach God, man has to go through hell first. God exists without time or space, he regenerates himself through eternity, so Böhme, who restates the trinity as truly existing but with a novel interpretation. God, the Father is fire, who gives birth to his son, whom Böhme calls light. The Holy Spirit is the living principle, or the divine life.[16]

What did they mean by this?

Seriously, what the fuck did they mean by this? What exactly is christian mysticism? I can't find any easy explanation for these ideas.

>Bob Odenkirk

Speaking of LA alt-comics like Bob odenkirk why the fuck were Dan Harmon and guys from The State in this fucking movie?

>Malick resorted to guerrilla style tactics where the actors were not told who they would be interacting with, requiring them to improvise entire scenes. Bale said that Malick referred to this as "torpedoing" and that as a result he mistook Teresa Palmer for a real stripper.[23][24] These methods came to a head when the cast and crew entered a Hollywood party without permission.[24] When the production was politely asked to leave, Malick looked the hosts and their security guards straight in the eye and whispered, "Your words are thoughtless, my thoughts are wordless" as a single gust of wind suddenly blew his hat up into the sky.[25][26][27]

You lack the capacity to understand a sentence? Bob Odenkirk is a shit writer, he writes stories based on his experiences instead of creating an original one. Malick did the same in this movie, which means he's shit as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

I don't get it. I can't find a single explanation for this stuff that isn't mystical. You can't define mystical ideas in a mystical manner. In order for a hammock to leisurely it has to be made in a non-leisurely manner- if you don't make the hammock seriously you won't be able to relax because it'll collapse as soon as lie on it and you'll hurt yourself.

Likewise don't be mystical when you're explaining what mysticism is to people new to it.

Yeah sure he did you little faggot that admitted to not watching it

Epic shitposts bro, fucking brilliant

>as a single gust of wind suddenly blew his hat up into the sky.[25][26][27]

He truly is the modern day John Ford.

It's cheap escapism no matter what. I'm not the only one who says that btw, there were several writers that were criticized to write stories based on their own experiences instead of creating one. I'm not saying the movie is shit for christ sake, I'm saying the writer is shit, the story could be good, but there was nothing to do with his creativity, which means that he's a shit writer.

btw Bob admitted it, not Malick.

>Talking about Bob.
>In a thread about Malick.
>While lying.

Check out Jacob's Ladder Meister Eckhart if you haven't already.

>writing should be this
>writing shouldn't be that
You sound like a failed screenwriter who attends those workshops along with other failed writers who are desperate to learn about the magic formula for writing more boring three act exec fellated screenplays
What you fail to realize is that we're talking about film, not a Barnes and Noble bestseller
Harry Potter threads are that way

I'M GIVING AN EXAMPLE. I'm probably talking to an ape.

>because Malick has made a character who’s something of an alter ego
>Alter-ego, character based on the writer
>Which means that he writes about his experiences, which makes him a shitty writer
>Like Odenkirk or Barreto (considered the 2nd best writer in my country, yet the foreword of one of his books there's one of the best sociologists of my nation saying how shit that book was, because it wasn't creative, it was a rehash of his memories turned in a story)

GOT IT NOW?!

Link?

>What exactly is christian mysticism?
It's like Sufi but with Jesus

I've never written a screenplay.

I'm just saying he's not as good as you guys worship him.

>He still talks about Bob in a thread about Malick while lying through his teeth and trying to save his face.

You wouldn't talk about Bob if you had watched KoC, you'd be talking about Malick, you admitted to not watching KoC and just shitposting.

Neck urself lebanon

What is Sufi?

I'm looking at the wiki for sufism and I don't get it.

>>Which means that he writes about his experiences, which makes him a shitty writer
Are James Joyce and Philip Roth shit too? Fuck off.

meant to separate the two

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob's_Ladder_(film)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart

Check out Gnosticism, Plato, Neoplatonism, and Aristotle if you're really that interested. Then move on to christian mysticism. Christian mysticism is an offshoot of a lot of philosophical ideas.

Mysticism is always preoccupied with deeply personal spirituality while accepting the broader framework of the religion in which they find their spirituality
Thus a Sufi mystic accepts the oneness of Allah, the role of the Prophet and the Quran in general while always striving for their own individual spiritual fulfillment which may or may not be in line with traditional religious belief and institutions
It's not surprising that Sufis are generally more tolerant than traditional Muslims, preferring extolling God's greatness through songs rather than bombs

Why would I lie here? I'm just trying to say that he's not a great writer because he didn't create the story, it's based on his experiences. The movie can be good, the story as well, I'm saying that TM, the person, is a shit writer, because he's not creative.

Their books can be good, but if they wrote them based on their experiences rather than creating one, that makes them bad writers, because their books are cheap escapism. I'm not saying the books are bad, they can be masterpieces, but they were not conceived through creativity, but through experiences.

Here he goes again! Writing about Bob Odenkirk in a Malick thread talking how shit Malick is!

Also completely detached notions of how outdated tabula rasa is.

>Joyce and Roth are bad writers
I give up.

>my favorite authors are George RR Martin, JK Rowling, Suzanne Collins, the list goes on!

the death of the old, and the birth of the new

I prefer Harold Robbins, Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum, Jacqueline Susann, and John Grisham tbqph senpai.

Jesus Christ.

>I prefer this pile of shit to that pile of shit, at least all the shit is arranged in a creative way!

>"What did they mean by this?" he wonderered to himself curiously as he opened up the reply box excitedly, ready for another few minutes of unproductive procrastination.

>curiously
>excitedly
See? Those writing seminars don't help.

I used Bob as an example. I like Malick, I'm just saying he's not creative as a writer (because there are people who conceive stories who are created by them, therefore they are better writers, but the stories can be worse, I'm talking more about the process rather than quality of the story itself). But he's a master filmmaker.
Shit is not a good adjective, I'm just stating that they are not creative enough due to writing based on their experiences and the best writers are the ones who concieve something that was created by them. My bad

I'm this guy
Not this guy, btw.

In all seriousness, everyone always says "popular fiction has always been mostly trash, it's just that we don't remember the trash that used to be popular, we only remember the things that have lasted the test of time." but I'm not sure that's the case. Sure, you could say popular fiction has always been trash in terms of content, but in terms of technique and prose I see a definite aesthetic decline compared to 100 years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_1910s

Take any any random passages from any of these forgotten popular books and I guarantee you they're better written than anything on the best-seller list today.

Here he goes on about retarded backpedaling while talking about Bob and Odenkirk after admitting he hasn't seen Knight of Cups while shitting on it

Knight of Cups is about a man seeking the solar strength inside himself. This is the spiritual masculinity of the Hindu kshatriyas, the Hesiodic heroes, and even Arthur and his knights.

This is what Rick is talking about when he says he can still remember the "man he wanted to become."

This isn't about becoming le epin manly man XDD, but attaining a Center in oneself that transcends and conquers the feminine, lunar world of flux, image, emptily beautiful women and fleeting pleasures.

For this kind of spirituality, ever action is sacrifice, and every moment is consecrated. The man does not Le for the content of experience, for "the love experience", but for the fact of experience itself.

When Rick's father says he can't even name this nebulous thing that he hungers for, it's because he thinks it will be some particular experience, some image or woman that will be just right that will eradicate his desire for wholeness forever. But this is a mistake. Plotinus said desire does not negate privation, but creates it.

This world, or even the individual's own hedonism treadmill, doesn't burn with craving because it just hasn't happened to acquire this perfect happiness yet. No, it is the principle of craving and eternal insufficiency ITSELF.

Rick compares suicidal depression to being swallowed by a snake. Most people take this line at face value, and it is a great line. But the snake is also an esoteric symbol of wisdom and knowledge of the subtle mysteries. The snake is hell, but once you come out the other end it is transformed into life and wisdom. The lunar Whore becomes the virgin, the snake trampled at its feet. The solar male has taken his rightful Seat. He's found the pearl.

Nothing worse than bad adverbs usage, except perhaps redundant adverbs.

...

>Sailing stones, also known as sliding rocks, rolling stones, and moving rocks, are a geological phenomenon where rocks move and inscribe long tracks along a smooth valley floor without human or animal intervention.
>Stones with rough bottoms leave straight striated tracks, while those with smooth bottoms tend to wander.

>Knight of Cups is a card used in Latin-suited playing cards, including tarot decks. It is part of what tarot card readers call the "Minor Arcana".
>If the card is upright, it represents change and new excitements, particularly of a romantic nature. It can mean invitations, opportunities, and offers. The Knight of Cups is a person who is a bringer of ideas, opportunities and offers. He is constantly bored, and in constant need of stimulation, but also artistic and refined. He represents a person who is amiable, intelligent, and full of high principles, but a dreamer who can be easily persuaded or discouraged.

>Reversed, the card represents unreliability and recklessness. It indicates fraud, false promises and trickery. It represents a person who has trouble discerning when and where the truth ends and lies begin.

Here's an example of what I mean, here's the opening paragraph to the best-selling book of 100 years ago, Seventeen, by Booth Tarkington

>William Sylvanus Baxter paused for a moment of thought in front of the drug-store at the corner of Washington Street and Central Avenue. He had an internal question to settle before he entered the store: he wished to allow the young man at the soda-fountain no excuse for saying, "Well, make up your mind what it's goin' to be, can't you?" Rudeness of this kind, especially in the presence of girls and women, was hard to bear, and though William Sylvanus Baxter had borne it upon occasion, he had reached an age when he found it intolerable. Therefore, to avoid offering opportunity for anything of the kind, he decided upon chocolate and strawberry, mixed, before approaching the fountain. Once there, however, and a large glass of these flavors and diluted ice-cream proving merely provocative, he said, languidly--an affectation, for he could have disposed of half a dozen with gusto: "Well, now I'm here, I might as well go one more. Fill 'er up again. Same."

Here's the opening paragraph to the best-selling book of 2015, Grey by EL James

>I open my eyes and my dream fades in the early-morning light. What the hell was that about? I grasp at the fragments as they recede, but fail to catch any of them. Dismissing it, as I do most mornings, I climb out of bed and find some newly laundered sweats in my walk-in closet. Outside, a leaden sky promises rain, and I’m not in the mood to be rained on during my run today. I head upstairs to my gym, switch on the TV for the morning business news, and step onto the treadmill.

wow really makes you think

It's Bob Odenkirk, it's only one person.
I didn't say the movie is bad, how can I say that if I haven't watched it.
I said Malick is a "shit" (wrong word) writer because he's not a creative person if the character is his alter ego, a person who creates their own stories is a better writer because he's more creative. But Malick's stories can be better than the other person's stories, I'm talking about creative process and I'm judging the writer using this lens, not their stories.

...

>"B-b-but you can't compare booth tarkington to the 50 shades of grey books, that's not f-f-fair!'

Ok, here's the opening paragraph to Girl On The Train, the second-best selling book of 2015

>I am exhausted, my head thick with sleep. When I drink, I hardly sleep at all. I pass out cold for an hour or two, then I wake, sick with fear, sick with myself. If I have a day when I don’t drink, that night I fall into the heaviest of slumbers, a deep unconsciousness, and in the morning I cannot wake properly, I cannot shake sleep, it stays with me for hours, sometimes all day long.

Here's the best-selling book of 2015 that's not from booth tarkington, A Far Country by Winston Churchill.

>My name is Hugh Paret. I was a corporation lawyer, but by no means a typical one, the choice of my profession being merely incidental, and due, as will be seen, to the accident of environment. The book I am about to write might aptly be called The Autobiography of a Romanticist. In that sense, if in no other, I have been a typical American, regarding my country as the happy hunting-ground of enlightened self-interest, as a function of my desires. Whether or not I have completely got rid of this romantic virus I must leave to those the aim of whose existence is to eradicate it from our literature and our life. A somewhat Augean task!

Again the older writing destroys the newer.

You've gone from person saying that he hasn't seen KoC to lying that you aren't the same person to admitting you are the person that hadn't watched KoC and here you are talking about Oden, Kirk and Bob like they fucking matter at all.

Malick should totally edit the footage from ToL+TTW+KoC to one single epic and soul journey.

...

Any movie made with a budget of over $100k isn't art.

I did all these posts:

He meant that Bresson, Bergman, Dreyer, and Tarkovsky are all dead and that Malick is the last high-brow spiritual filmmaker left.

Get out of my thread there's never any decent discussion of actual art outside of warcraft and capeshit on this meme board stop ruining it reeeeeeeeeeeee

The dogs trying to get the ball in the pool is symbolic of everything going on in the movie. Beings prevented by the "Waters" from getting what they want.

The woman with the red, bottomless eyes that asks "Are you afraid?" in the Vegas party scenes is every pretty girl turned into a symbol of desire and salvation by spiritually frustrated, hopeless men.

The dog scene is great, one of my favorites from it.

The simple act of "portraying" an act of cognition is already making use of an alter ego. So every film maker ever is shit. Every writer is shit. etc

Rather reduce to object, flesh and nothing else, by spiritually empty part of society but what ever floats (HUEHEUHEUHEU) with you

Yes, a symbol and an object. Object because you want to stick your dick in it, symbol because you've been conditioned to believe sex with enough pretty young things will complete you

So is it watchable? Does it have some plot? Or it's some visual masturbation?

>believe sex with enough pretty young things will complete you
That's every woman, not just the strippers, in the film though.

I wonder if Rick leaves with Portman's character at the end or did he somehow decide she was 'distraction' too.

...

When Rick's dad is talking about damnation being your life "just splashing out there", I was reminded of a passage from Plotinus that describes the fully lived life as "holding tight to experience". That is, being awake to the present, and not experiencing your life as a dim procession of images.

Afterwards, we get a bunch of shots of women on billboards set to some really eerie music. This is the false glamour of materialism and Hollywood excess. These women are beautiful, but it is a dream beauty that can only exist in images. Notice the cut to the jellyfish in the aquarium: same thing here, all these prim, pretty girls are like jellyfish, luminescent in their medium, but take them out of the "water" and they deflate into nothing.

>That is, being awake to the present, and not experiencing your life as a dim procession of images.
I don't know if you are trying to be ironical but Knight of Cups helped me to realize and understand this fairly simple truth.

>This is the life you live.

omg lol did this really happen in taht movie? how cringey

There's a reason Rick talks with a Zen monk near the end of the film

It's a funny film. You can tell people without empathy when you read reviews of it.

'lol whats his issue he got money and women'
'white rich person lmao having problems sure'