Redpill me on Malick

Redpill me on Malick

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W_seBLuIQjU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

He's a messenger of God.

Thank you.

Moderators please delete this thead.

is this shopped? or is his face really like that?

He makes movies exclusively for pseudointellectual chin strokers

>ywn be present last night for the meeting of these two absolute mad men

Badlands and the thin Red Line are pretty good and stand apart as more accessible from the rest of his work.

this

Trips of truth, Mallick confirmed for pretentious trash

t. heathens

When did this happen? Is there a recording?

Holy shit. This would be like hearing Plato and Aristotle talk to one another.

is he /ourguy/?

He saved Sup Forums in 2011

cumslut

>saved Sup Forums
he tore the heart outta this community
but you don't fucking remember

>bunch of plebs saw the light
>actual patricianhood flourished
It was for the greater good, but gingerlord made sure Sup Forums won anyways so its ok, gen
you got the board you wanted in the end

i loved this part and the plane scene just before

you're too good for this world, terry

This movie is indisputable proof of God.

isn't that lifted straight from tarkovsky?

Last night, as posted by Mark Romanek, haven't had a chance to investigate but yea, wtf

MALICK or GILLIAM

Who the other guy?

Gilliam cares for his vision and is a very sincere film maker, but he doesn't have the complexity and genius which Malick possess.

>reddit doesn't know who Herzog is

youtube.com/watch?v=W_seBLuIQjU
enlighten yourself

They aren't very similar at all. Malick does dramas and slow shots while Gilliam always has humor and the type of gags from his Monty Python days in his films.

>His movies are misogynistic
>He covers it up in a bunch of dreamy shit
>no one calls him out on it

weird

Knight of Cups was pretty brutal on women

>His movies are misogynistic
not really

The main character wasn't supposed to be looked up to you silly little pleb.

herzog you pleb

I didn't look up to him, but the imagery was pretty fucking blatant.

I watched Badlands before it, which may have affected my perception of it a little.

Your complaint is that the character was a misogynist, and he was sure. He treated women as toys. This is a bad thing though and the movie treats it as such. Then you say that the imagery was blatant, and it was supposed to be.

He's dishonest.

Accelerated summary on this guy please

Converting plebs to Christianity since the 70s.

My complaint wasn't about the character.

And he certainly does not treat women like toys. He tries numerous times to create a meaningful relationship with women, but they are incapable of doing so.

>And he certainly does not treat women like toys. He tries numerous times to create a meaningful relationship with women, but they are incapable of doing so.

Did we watch the same movie?

>My complaint wasn't about the character.

What is your complaint then? I'm very confused.

I could not think of a word less appropriate to describe his work than "pretentious". There's a purity of intention that his films contain that very few directors can replicate.

Absolutely. His work is pure sincerity. He puts on screen what he believes in and has no pretence behind it.

Apparently his face turns to the left when his head turns to the right.

The entire movie is lined with imagery of the beach, of his chasing the prints of women. The only person to actually stand by his side at the tide is his brother. Only males are constant in the movie, them being his brother and father.

This is hammered in the most by Natalie Portman's character. She spews all the bullshit about love and the moment, but she refuses to stand in the tide with him, when he tries to carry her in she locks her legs around him, when he brings in so far that she has to get wet, we don't see them together, we see a shot of her leaving.

Finally he brings her to the pier, he takes a plunge, and she once again refuses to follow.

The next scene we have her oogling a wedding dress, her, an adulterer, is looking longingly at the symbol of purity. It's revolting.

Finally, after all the women he's pursued we end on a woman whose face we don't even see, we see her, and a son.

Keep in mind the central conflict in Badlands is about Kip's frustrations that Holly is a shallow little bitch.

>Women have always been an issue for Malick, because for all of his love of the sensual nature of cinema, he has been visibly afraid of women's sexual power. He found a way to displace this in Badlands and Days of Heaven by making his heroines uncommonly wise, nearly sexless teenage girl-women able to survive the disasters around them. Holly loses her virginity off screen, and Linda Manz's Linda is so tomboyish that she transcends gender and sex itself. The all-male world of The Thin Red Line is interrupted for only a few moments by female indigenous Micronesians. Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher) in The New World is both indigenous - and therefore tied to Mother Earth - and a throwback to the smart teen girls of the early films, but, once again, desexualized. More troubling, she's opaque in a way that Holly, for example, is not. Holly remains the single most interesting character in any Malick film because he allows her a space for an examined life, pondering at one point what her life may have been had it gone in a different direction, while often behaving on screen in a far less weighty, almost callow way. By the time he's arrived at Mrs. O'Brien and Marina, Malick has clearly given up on even trying to fathom women. They are now ghosts, literally floating spirits, more chimeras than human beings, defined by such vague concepts as "Grace."
(cont.)

>Mrs. O'Brien is simply Mother America, raising her three sons, putting up with hubby's stern dinner-table manner and flitting (and flying) around the front lawn when she isn't cleaning the kitchen. She has no ideas, no hobbies, no interests, no position. She's an adult zygote. Marina is even less: more of a child than her own child (who at least expresses a point of view), Marina enters and exits and reenters the movie without meaning, will, desire, or reason. (Except that, for no known reason, she suddenly hates Paris after returning there from Neil's utterly depressing and soul-sucking Oklahoma tract home development.) Kurylenko is directed by Malick to keep moving, almost as if were she to stop, she would die on camera. She's rendered a joke, without the comedy. (Malick's greatest enduring flaw, besides his alienation from the erotic, is his total lack of a sense of humor.) Malick wishes her to be the center of his movie, but she simply slides off the screen. Other male directors objectify their female subjects, but Malick does something less and worse: averse to the uncomfortable mortal vibrations of flesh and blood, he means to turn them into transcendent beings, Holy Marys for a modern world.

...

there's no eroticism at all in Malick. both male and female characters lack "sexual power"
pretty myopic assessment desu

I think the 80 mil get should be about Mallick.

Thoughts?

Can get get a pasta going for the get? An image perhaps?

Thanks for the rundown.

No problem, if you're interested check out Agguire or Fiztcaraldo for narrative films to start, and any number of his documentary films, some of which are Malick-like, or at least revel in His majesty and absurdity.

every get should be about Malick

how does his face turn like that without his head changing angles?

this kino is very similar to zerkalo

Fucko looks like Ben bernanke desu

Is he a pleb filter?

This is a really nice analysis. However keep in mind the film's narrative goal of telling the journey of the man, the trap of his cyclical life style. If all the women he ends up with are valid and hypocritical, then it's just as telling of his "taste" and the people that constitute that lifestyle.

Now, even if it was just being harsh on women, it's not inaccurate. I've known plenty of women that were shallow and unaware to a sickening degree. I suppose if your argument is that women are this way in all Malick's films then maybe you have a point. But their portrayal in KoC is not false and serve more of a purpose than simple misogyny

inauthentic cinema meets pure filmmaking

Since crafting a potently polarising masterpiece with 2011's The Tree Of Life, Malick has become a man on a mission. A mission to stuff a movie so full of coded self-indulgence it seems like a perverse joke that has misplaced its own punchline. The result is ludicrous self-parody - somewhere between a Calvin Klein aftershave advertisement and a coffee-table book about the modernist mansions of the rich and famous.

Tree of life is his Magnum orphus

old movies = great
new movies = bad and getting worse
future movies = horrendous, no doubt

and so the wheat wars begin

no its,
Grass V Wheat :Dawn of Agriculture™

You can hate Malick as much as you want, but I don't think that there's a more honest filmmaker currently working. He could get either love or shat on by critics, and he still sticks to his style.

This. Trips confirm.

I know it sounds pasta, but it's so dumb. Self parody? That's such a shallow observation. His style has become much more realized. The errors of TTW and even ToL were fixed in KoC and, while it's a style that definitely turns people off, for those that it doesn't it's his most effective and intricately crafted.

>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]

And self-indulgent? What artist would indulge in anything else? Malick has an honest vision and he sticks to it sincerely. He's not making films to please anyone, nor should he or any artist

Best Sup Forums meme?

worst part is half of it is true

He has faith

How can on man be so based?

>caring about misogyny

>Malick has an honest vision and he sticks to it sincerely

You should've said "religiously." As he believes god is working directly through him to make movies.

...

Which half?

Give me a quick rundown on this webum