Song to Song

>For Mercy has a human heart,
>Pity a human face,
>And Love, the human form divine,
>And Peace, the human dress.

He did it again, Sup Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=I8piMHsOya4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>I went through a period where sex had to be violent.

MOTY or MOTCentury?

>random images of Saturn and silent films
Kino to end all kinos

He is, I'm afraid, eating Terence Davies's dust.

I haven't seen it, I'm kind of nervous because I love Malick but I HATE that hipster indie musical festival shit, ESPECIALLY SXSW and Coachella. Honestly, every time I hear some faggot indie rock band in a Sprite commercial I reach for my revolver.

Is it heavily involved in that subculture, or is that just the setting to tell a universally human story?

>still haven't seen voyage of time

It's just background, the focus is mostly on the relationships of Rooney, Goose and to some extent Fassbender
Although Patti Smith drops in from time to time to give Rooney some life advice

I assume that's some pretentious folk singer-songwriter. I'll check it out.

Is it even available to watch anywhere? I wanna see both versions.

>I assume that's some pretentious folk singer-songwriter.
m8 how do you not know who Patti Smith is?

>I assume that's some pretentious folk singer-songwriter. I'll check it out.

>Whiz is in the movie
>she calls him Bang
>"whizbang"
Funny!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=I8piMHsOya4

You sound like one of those faggots who's afraid to go to a concert because people and loud noises frighten you. What the fuck do you listen to, anyway? Billboard 100?

He's lucky to be so uninformed, and his description is essentially accurate. John Peel didn't r8 her, m8.

>armpit hair

I KNEW IT!

>m8 how do you not know who Patti Smith is?

I hate rock music. I like jazz from before the 1950s and classical only.

>hipsters

>universally human story

There's no such thing, really.

Here's the thing - I never got what was supposed to be so impressive about Malick, unless it's the a cultural cringe thing because of his philosophical background, but his training is in Heidegger's thought, which is about as idea-free as it gets - Louis B. Mayer would have found it no stretch. It was always mainly about the myth of him, the legend of the guy who was happy to withdraw from the industry rather than compromise, as we're seeing now that all the people who overpraised him are now having to deal with the reality of his regular presense on the scene, year on year.

This fucking sucks. It sounds like every song in a Ford commercial. Indie rock fucking sucks dick.

I do hate concerts.

>I hate rock music. I like jazz from before the 1950s and classical only.

You may be too patrician for Malick.

Jesus christ, there isn't a fedora big enough for you

I can't comment on Song By Song, but Tree Of Life is the greatest film of the 21st century.

And before anyone calls me a hipster because I like jazz, that's ok, that's fair to say, but I'd describe that as close-minded elitism more than hipsterdom. And I'm more happy to be called a close-minded elitist than a hipster, because I suspect I really am the former, but don't think I'm the later. Especially considering my fashion sense can be described as "wal-mart business casual" and I'm more preppy and normie than anything.

yeah user this movie might be too modern for your delicate sensibilities.

Nah, I dress like a frat boy.

His movies always have great music. I quite like that Del Shannon song in the trailer.

Tree of Life is some abysmal shit. I'm very suprised it convinced you.

Malick's films are so universal that I'm willing to overlook the main characters being hipsters. Same reason I like The Comedy- it's about hipsters but it's about also the emptiness of hipster life, it's the anti-hipster movie (I'm not saying that's what Song To Song is, Malick seems to be wanting to tell a love story, which I love, but I'm saying my hatred of hipsters can be overcome by a good movie)

The profundity that used to be ascribed to this man's films is going to date the film criticism of his era more than anything.

As a Christian from Texas it really spoke to me. I had a strict mother and father, some parts of it really rang true even though it took place in the fucking 50s.

I love that movie so much. I cried the first time saw it in theatres.

Malick is king!

They aren't universal though, they're just this lardy guy masturbating to the sight of Aryans eye-fucking.

why the fuck do you keep saying hipsters? it's a movie about people who go to rock concerts.

This is it, it says something to do you because you had the good fortune, or bad fortune, to have a similar upbringing, but as you get older I think you'll notice the embarrassing provincialism of trying to tie the processes of geological time to the local mores of Peckerwood Town, Dipshit County, Texas.

Also, finding out more of Malick's life has really diminished him. Now we know he basically spent his twenty-year hiatus doing gentlemanly odd jobs and sportfucking, it seems frivolous rather than noble.

Bowsley Crowther had that happen to him, but if anything I think critics who fellate him miss the point of his movies.

I think they think Malick is being more philosophical than he really is. Malick's CHARACTERS are philosophical, but I think they miss a lot of irony in his work considering how innocent and naive a lot of his characters are. Malick is portraying people searching

Here is Malick on Badlands:

>There is some humour in the picture, I believe. Not jokes. It lies in Holly's mis-estimation of her audience, of what they will be interested in or ready to believe. (She seems at time to think of her narration as like what you get in audio-visual courses in high school.) When they're crossing the badlands, instead of telling us what's going on between Kit and herself, or anything of what we'd like and have to know, she describes what they ate and what it tasted like, as though we might be planning a similar trip and appreciate her experience, this way.

>She's a typical Southern girl in her desire to help, to give hard fact; not to dwell upon herself, which to her would be unseemly, but always to keep in mind the needs of others. She wants to come off in the best possible light, but she's scrupulous enough to take responsibility where in any way she might have contributed.

>When people express what is most important to them, it often comes out in cliches. That doesn't make them laughable; it's something tender about them. As though in struggling to reach what's most personal about them they could only come up with what's most public.

It's going to be shit like TTW with meme cinematography and floaty cam.

>Now we know he basically spent his twenty-year hiatus doing gentlemanly odd jobs and sportfucking, it seems frivolous rather than noble.
He was looking for the Wonder, user!

>I hate rock music.
Yet Malick loves Green Day

Heh, good one!

I may have been misinformed. I thought it was about indie rock musicians.

But Malick takes those particular local mores and makes them universal. I felt the same thing in some scenes of Thin Red Line, Badlands, and The New World (his other movies were ehhhhh, even Days Of Heaven)

As for provincialism, here is Malick on that subject:

>I suggest to Malick that the film has been criticised for patronising Holly and her milieu. "That's foolishness. I grew up around people like Kit and Holly. I see no gulf between them and myself. One of the things the actors and I used to talk about was never stepping outside the characters and winking at the audience, never getting off the hook. If you keep your hands off the characters you open yourself to charges like that; at least you have no defence against them. What I find patronising is people not leaving the characters alone, stacking the deck for them, not respecting their integrity, their difference.

His CHARACTERS are provincial at times. Pocahantas is the ultimate naive innocent, a literal savage. But the point of that is to contrast it with the "normal" European culture that seems so alien to us when we finally see it.

Malick uses it to interrupt a pattern of normal life, to make the normal seem strange. I have trouble looking at contemporary office building architecture and furniture and not thinking of Sean Penn's offices in Tree Of Life

Malick also loves Austin, which is an entire city that needs to be deported.

Yeah, I think they do, which is that he's shallow. It is perfectly possible to have specialized in philosophy - Heidegger's philosophy, which is bone-headed - and still be not especially bright. The condescension revealed in that quote is a great example. If your central gag can be lifted by Quentin Tarantino, you're not doing all you could. "People talk in cliches when they're being sincere" is like something Stephen King or Somerset Maugham would say.

>not dancing in wheat fields looking for the Wonder
>not constantly searching in the East for the Pearl
>not gazing upon the rosy fingered dawn for the Spark
>not ruminating on the birth and death universe and how they connect with Nature and Grace
>not living Song to Song© ®™
plen

What's condescending about that quote?

No, by definition, he cannot make them universal. There is no such thing as a universal human experience.

In the other quote he's openly said that he's winking at the audience. Winking played straight is still winking.

Being more ignorant about Pocahontas than a fucking Disney movie is a problem. European culture only seems alien to you because you're a provincial American. Again, he's a provinicial phenomenon.

If you genuinely find it hard not to look at things with the eyes of Malick, you're evidently a pretty young guy, and like a lot of pretty young guys, you aspire to the sage-like authority you perceive Malick to have. The problem is... sages need disciples. This limits how intelligent the audience is allowed to be in relation to the work, which is why I think its reputation will age badly.

Anyone who thinks they can define the "typical Southern girl", or the typical anyone of anywhere, is being condescending.

So generalizations are condescending?

>© ®™

Exactly.

Yes, absolutely. The film whose protagonists the filmmaker couldn't imagine being as smart as him/her is always going to be limited.

You seem to think that Malick thinks of Kit and Holly as somehow unintelligent or at least dumber than him.

When I say "provincial American", I mean provincial in terms of time as well as space, which we must all resist being wherever we live.

He plainly does, though. He's made that clear in the quotation.

Where exactly?

>People talk in cliches when they're being sincere" is like something Stephen King or Somerset Maugham would say.

Perhaps because it's true?

I'm thinking of that scene in Grapes Of Wrath- near the end, Henry Fonda is slowly saying something "profound" to his mother about every human being one soul. Is it true? Is it stupid? That's not the point. The point is Henry Fonda's character is trying not to cry as he speaks. His mother is also barely holding it in. He's speaking... very... slowly... because... he's... not really sure about what he's saying. He's a redneck, not a philosophical person. He's trying to express something he doesn't understand. And all the while, the emotion of the scene is being held at bay very carefully by a boy and his mother like some animal that wants to escape from its cage. The door is open, so they're carefully holding the animal in their hands, gently grasping it, before it runs off out of control. Let's get the door back on the cage.

That's hot real people are when they try to be philosophical. It's the same reason Iike that scene in Boogie Nights where the black guy says something like "Here's my philosophy- if you have love, you can survive anything, because how hard can the world hurt you when you have love?" It's a banal cliche, but I've heard people say things like that while drunk at parties all the time. That's why it's touching. It's true. People say things like that when trying to be sincere, and they mean it deeply. They're embarrassingly exposed.

Henry Fonda is ignorant, but it's a beautiful ignorance, like a hurt animal that's knows it's going to die, but doesn't know why.

That's what all of us are like in conversation, especially deeply emotional ones. We never speak how we imagine it in our heads. Malick portrays people as they are. We're all dumb vulnerable animals.

And I find that sensitive portrayal of vulnerability extraordinarily moving.

The whole part beginning "She's a typical Southern girl..." is pure condescension. Every Southern woman young enough to be called a girl is a well-meaning, decorous airhead.

You seem to have a talent for pulling all that generalization out of five cliched words, almost as if you're being condescending.

The DIRECTOR is winking. The actors aren't. They're playing it straight.

And really he's not even winking. He's portraying sincere people as they really are when they're trying to be sincere. Holly is a naive girl raised in a certain fashion. It would be winking for her to NOT have a disconnect with the audience. For example, if in her voice-over she said "I know what you're thinking: why would I build a treehouse when we're on the run from the cops! What am I, in a fairy tale?" Holly thinks she's in a fairytale.

No, because none of them are especially good writers, which is why Malick has dispensed with actual screenwriting as much as possible recently. He's interested in making looseleaf collections of faintly corny epiphanies that are only credible because we're assured he knows how obvious he's being.

This sentimental appeal to the behavior of "real people" you're making is indefensible.

No, the point of that Grapes of Wrath scene is that it's sentimental writing, in a sentimental film. The question is whether the sentimentality is in the service of anything more important than accuracy, which most people would consider that it is. Also, even if it were true that sincere people generally talk in cliches, which it isn't, though I've certainly heard some cliched statements offered in all seriousness, the writer's job is to do better than that. Bearing in mind that nothing in any of Malick's films bears any resemblance to natural psychologized drama, the least he could do is put in a little craft. What we get is slackness.

Not every Southern girl, but a PROPER Southern girl. And that's not me saying what's proper, that's HOLLY. Holly is living up to what is expected of her. She is who she is because of where she was raised, but that doesn't make shoe she is insincere or phony. Holly has an idea of how a proper young lady should express emotions, and she keeps to that.

Why should she pander to an audience? She'd rather express the beauty of her fairy tale tree house.

She's a romantic. Malick portrays the character and they are, not how alien people from decades removed think they should be.

No, it's the entire paragraph, and the patronage is manifest.

The actors are doing as the director tells them in the service of his aim, which is winking. There's no division.

The fact that you feel comfortable calling the moral center of a film "naive" is my entire point. This can only be condescension. Films that condescend to their protagonists while flattering the vanity of their viewers are finally unserious.

You're smart and seem to know what you're talking about, but I still disagree, so let's agree to disagree.

But Grapes Of Wrath is NOT sentimental. If it was, John Ford would have put in Max Steiner music and had the characters cry as they said goodbye, but Ford keeps it restrained and fearful and full of bathos.

The whole conception you're describing is condescending. Nobody like Holly has ever actually existed, and if they had, Malick, with his class background, would never have met them beyond a superficial level anyway. It's "holy fool" bullshit, or "noble savage" bullshit, all the way with him, which is why he finally fails to attain the level claimed for him by people who like being flattered.

>The fact that you feel comfortable calling the moral center of a film "naive" is my entire point.

Badlands isn't about morality, it's about naivete and innocence masking tragic and violence consequences, which is why of course I'm comfortable calling her naive. The same way I'm comfortable calling her female, and southern, and teenage. On a moral basis the two characters are violent criminals.

>The actors are doing as the director tells them in the service of his aim, which is winking

It is not winking to tell the truth.

Cool, let's agree to disagree.

But no, the whole notion of humanity that it puts across is sentimental, and the sentimentality of attention-seeking stoicism - stoicism that wants you to notice it, a very male kind of bullshit - is some of the most powerful sentimentality you can get. The final speech, written by Daryl Zanuck and obediently shot by Ford, is pure baloney, however much we might want to believe in it for as long as the film lasts.

>No, it's the entire paragraph, and the patronage is manifest.
Not at all. Malick is only showing her innocence. It seems you would think any writer/filmmaker who creates a young, naive character is automatically being patronizing to them if only for the reason that otherwise they wouldn't have made them innocent or naive. There are certain stereotypes that exist whether you like it or not and Malick was merely bringing it up as a facet of the character.
And just so you know, the word "typical" doesn't mean "every".

Every film is about morality and/or politics, because people make moral choices and they live with each other. A film that forgoes ethical specificity in favor of vague, ponderous keywords like Naivete, Innocence, Tragic and Violent Consequences is, if it's being offered as serious cinema, not doing its job.

There is absolutely no basis for assuming that there's any truth to the portrayal at all. It isn't internally convincing.

>Nobody like Holly has ever actually existed,

My nigga, I knew a thousand girls like her growing up, their heads stuck in Bronte and Jane Austen books, writing overly dramatic and sincere Facebook posts. And some of my aunts, too. Is your grandma an ironic, detached person, or is she corny?

I don't see how you can say it's noble savage bullshit when the character is so specific, and so obviously portrayed with tender affection. Malick LOVES his characters.

The only time I would say Malick did the noble savage thing is the African tribe in The Thin Red Line. I hated how one scene with the Americans made me violent. Primitive tribes have been violent and at war with other tribes for a long times.

But why not give Malick the benefit of the doubt? Maybe the "idyllic" scenes in the african tribe at the beginning are meant to be the delusions of the naive main character who thinks the tribe is perfect and peaceful. But then when he gets into the shit, his eyes change, and he sees the truth.

Considering the entire movie is about nature's neverending war against itself, portrayed with alligators and animals, I'd say that's a valid interpretation.

>stereotypes

Bingo. It's stereotypical. Look at the level Malick is claimed to work on and it becomes embarrassing.

So basically you want him to have characters that are completely unique in every aspect, even though he is bringing up the stereotyped traits to critique or demolish them.

Why are you so sure that you're more sophisticated than any of those people? The Brontes and Jane Austen possessed more critical intelligence than Malick. Your grandma isn't ironic and detached because had more important things to do and grew out of it. Both my grandmothers, now dead, were perfectly capable of using ironic humor when the situation suited it. That isn't being "corny". Your belief in your greater sophistication than the little people is what's corny. Because you like Malick's philosophically and aesthetically cornball movies.

Nature doesn't have a neverending war with itself. "Nature" is a human generalization on a massive series of interrelating and complex processes which are not yet fully understood. Please understand, what you're doing here, following Malick's lead, is not thinking, but a replacement for thinking. It's finally New Yorker-tier.

>Because you like Malick's philosophically and aesthetically cornball movies.
I think you're being condescending here.

Tolstoy would disagree with your definition of the "job" art. And to quote once again Louis B Mayer, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union." The point of art is EMOTION.

>Every film is about morality and/or politics, because people make moral choices and they live with each other.

Sounds like when Marxists talk about how ever movie is about class struggle. Bullshit, dude.

>But no, the whole notion of humanity that it puts across is sentimental, and the sentimentality of attention-seeking stoicism

His characters sentiment is sentimental, the way the scene is shot and played is not- because Ford turns it into a character grappling with thing he doesn't understand, because he's a ignorant farmer from Oklahoma trying not to cry. Ford's direction is what makes it unsentimental, since the point of the scene becomes about wanting to turn away from the emotion. If I said goodbye to my mother, I'd probably just cry.

>stoicism that wants you to notice it, a very male kind of bullshit

I don't even know what that means. What's wrong with males acting like males? Why wouldn't Fonda act like a male? That's putting yourself above the characters.

Go up to an ex convict and tell him he should cry more and if he doesn't he's just pulling "male bullshit." You'll get punched in the face, and when you cry, you'll get called a faggot or a woman. I'm not threatening you, I'm just saying it's normal for Tom Joad to NOT cry. He's an American rural male born in 1910 or whatever.

Who is he trying to get to notice? His mom? On a diagetic note, he's being strong for HER. They're alone.

How is he demolishing the stereotyped traits when he relies entirely on them to the point that his characters don't really make sense except as deadpan jokes, and then uses the old "not being condescending would be condescending" paternalist conservative rug-pull when challenged?

No, I'm being fair. You like something far cornier than those girls you're condescending to.

Go to bed, grandpa

>Why are you so sure that you're more sophisticated than any of those people?

YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT. My point is not better than those girls, and nobody really is, we're all cliche-slinging jizzbuckets, and that's what Malick's characters are.

You keep bringing up a shallow interpretation of Heidegger- have you considered it's his characters that have that shallow interpretation?

>Nature doesn't have a neverending war with itself. "Nature" is a human generalization on a massive series of interrelating and complex processes which are not yet fully understood.

I didn't say that, Malick didn't say that, the CHARACTER said that. I don't get why you're unable to separate the author from the character.

His characters are all asking spiritual and philosophical questions, sometimes in the form if oversimplifications and misunderstandings (a mother is teaching her son about God, and points to the sky. "That's where God Lives."

In that same movie when her sons dies she questions God. Meanwhile, we see the creation of the cosmos. This is not just a reference to a Job, it's a reference to her limited yet completely understandable perspective on life, the human life. Meanwhile, we're seeing the world before humanity, or life, even existed.

The juxtaposition makes us identify with her questions, and also see the bigger picture. We wonder what she wonders, but we wonder about her wondering. Does that make sense?

I'm saying his characters tackle important issues, but that doesn't mean they're the final world. They're just humans, like us. We're equal.

The fact that you think that simply referring to Tolstoy settles everything says everything about the limitations of Malick. Serious cinema of the kind Malick's work is presented and marketed as is expected to attempt certain things. The issue here is that it fails to bear out the claims made for it, not any one-size-fits-all requirement of art. It was Goldwyn who said that.

No, if you're making pictures of people, what you think about people matters. If you're making dramas, what you think about ethics matters. This is unavoidable. If you don't really think about ethics or people, you're either a formalist, or you're working on a secondary level. If you're offering a philosophy, but on examination it's intellectually retrograde or ill-thought-out, then you're working on secondary level, at best.

No, the character's sentiment needn't be sentimental. The style is sentimental, but we wouldn't want it not to be.

What it means is that men often make a big deal of not making a big deal. Check out Only Angels Have Wings - by Hawks' own standards, the male characters' repeated declarations of how much hurt they're refusing to declare is effeminate. Stoicism that shows isn't quite stoicism - it's the way men call for help. It's fair to call it melodramatic.

Sorry, but the way you're referring to in-universe, in-character motivations for an artist's choices reveals you as ill-equipped for this conversation. This is fanboy territory you're getting into. Tom Joad didn't exist, nor did anyone like him; he's a fictional character invented by Steinbeck primarily to make political points, then authored secondarily by Ford, Johnson, Toland, Daryl Zanuck and Henry Fonda. What he wants is determined entirely by the effects those artists wanted to create.

You're being condescending towards Malick by saying he's a blockhead who makes terrible film and towards me for liking his films. Can you stop with the patronizing tone?

If you're still hung up about the "typical Southern girl" that Malick was referring to, I don't think it's a stereotype for that kind of character to be tagging along with a roving murderer, no matter how delusional her fantasies are.

But 1. we aren't all cliche-slinging, and 2. the writer's job is to come up with something better than a cliche. There's no excuse for not bothering to do this.

You directly said that nature was having a neverending war with itself, accepting the character's view of the situation.

You're almost getting my point now - we are repeatedly given an oversimplified idea of spiritual and philosophical questions which is posited as "the way these people think". The problem is that from Malick's claimed position, this can only be condescending, and the real problem is, it puts the viewer in a subordinate position because the ideas can never be faced as ideas. They're found things, ineffable - and this is in line with the reified mystical bunkum of Heidegger's philosophy.

>we aren't all cliche-slinging
That's a cliche.

I don't think he's neccesarily a blockhead, I think he's condescending to his characters, thus implicitly condescending to his audience, and is often overpraised by people who don't realize how corny they're being. Like I say, the Brontes and Austen have more critical intelligence, but you seem to have assumed they must be "girl stuff".

Or to put it another way, if I were being condescending (which I'm not), wouldn't it be fair in view of your condescension to a thousand girls you met growing up?

>I don't think he's neccesarily a blockhead
Yet you said he's shallow, not especially bright and called his philosophical view bone-headed.

>but you seem to have assumed they must be "girl stuff".
Never did I say or imply that but thanks for being condescending.

>which I'm not
You're being condescending again.

No, it isn't. That's the problem.

one of the greates choruses of all time THATS WHEN I REACH FOR MY REVOLVER!!!!!

Speak for yourself.

Yeah, he's shallow, not especially bright (by the standards of the claims made for him), and the philosophy of Heidegger is pretty inarguably bone-headed, it's not far in some respects from the kind of thing that self-consciously traditionalist Sup Forums posters profess to believe. Specializing in Heidegger doesn't neccesarily make you intellectually better off than a guy who runs a creationist museum, though it is more intellectually respectable within its own closely circumscribed limits (ie., more people take Malick seriously as an intellectual because he's putting a philosophy - ANY philosophy - across in cinema than would have taken him seriously as an academic seriously defending Heidegger beyond a purely literary basis).

>You're being condescending again.
Okay, if you've decided to crash this conversation with no survivors, I guess we're done here. Enjoy your cornfields.

Why are you so condescending towards Malick?

The fact that we all finally do is precisely why I distrust an "intellectual" filmmaker who deliberately chooses to write airheaded characters.

I wonder what characters you qualify as decidedly not airheaded?

If I'm condescending, it's because he's condescending, and because a lot of people who value his work end up following him into condescension, as the earlier post about "a thousand girls" did. But I don't think anything I've written in this thread could fairly be described as condescension. Anyway, like I said, you seem to be in troll mode, which only confirms the fanboy element in Malick's following, I'm afraid.

>But I don't think anything I've written in this thread could fairly be described as condescension.
Really? You pretty much called him and his philosophy stupid while demonstrating yourself to be the lord high arbiter of what things are or aren't cliched or mawkish or airheaded, while denying being the lord high condescender in chief.

>Anyway, like I said, you seem to be in troll mode, which only confirms the fanboy element in Malick's following, I'm afraid.
So if I don't agree with you, I'm an unintelligent fanboy troll? Add another penny to your condescension jar.

I think any character who's as intelligent as the author believes him or herself to be is what I look for in art cinema, particularly - there are lots of comic relief characters in entertainment movies who aren't taken seriously, but the art cinema that Malick is contributing to generally involves protagonists who are as smart as their author.

Well, Tree of Life, To the Wonder and Knight of Cups are autobiographies so I'm guessing Malick considers himself a moron.

>this nigga is too autistic to realize that neo-Malick movies are basically recreations of the act of recall and stream of consciousness, where you only remember the little profound details

I must say, I think you're in a good place if you are able to entertain my argument to the point that you feel condescended to by it. This is better than being complacently sure of Malick's genius.

It's not a matter of not agreeing with you, it just seemed that you were resorting to "I know you are, but what is he?" If you aren't, great.

If you think he recognises that his self-portraits in those films comes off as moronic, you may be right, in which case he's come to a level of self-awareness. But I'm not sure.

>I must say, I think you're in a good place if you are able to entertain my argument to the point that you feel condescended to by it.
As opposed to feeling condescended to by Malick?

I just wanted to say hershlag was fucking hot in this

"I was only pretending to be retarded." - Terrence Malick.

in that case all of us are retarded because that's how people think, remember and even talk - in fragments

You're nearly there, I think. Bearing in mind what I've said here, see what you make of his films next time to watch them. Of course, you may grit your teeth and will yourself not to have a different experience, but anyone who has the ability to construct an argument and deal with opposition has the ability to perceive the limitations of Malick's worldview and the just-so philosophy of Heidegger that underpins it.

>and the just-so philosophy of Heidegger that underpins it.
Care to explain?