Why do liberals and millennials hate this movie?

Why do liberals and millennials hate this movie?

They do?

The fuck are you talking about? Malick is clearly conservative.

I didn't get that movie, so I hated it too.

It fucking sucked
>dude nature and the cosmos and classical music LMAO

Gay ass movie can suck my nutssssssssssssss

Why are you pretending to be over 35?

I just hate Sean Penn

>projecting this hard

Any movie that summarised the history of the universe as "the Big Band happened, yadda yadda yadda, then I was born!" would be obnoxious, whatever the director's worldview.

can someone briefly gibs spoiler and plot rundown of this movie.
neither wiki or the trailer tell me anything about wtf this movie is about

*Bang

The Big Bang happens, yadda yadda yadda, then Terrence Malick is born.

Probably because it portrays a white family having problems but being ultimately good and human

well that doesn't say much

It explores archetypal themes of family, the balance/tension between masculinity and femininity, and death. Set in the context of a 1950s/60s family in suburban Texas. It's good, user.

No, it's because it portrays Malick's family as the center of the universe. Literally. I'm a white Christian conservative and I find it laughable. People who defend the film on traditionalist grounds are outing themselves as LARPers who'll like a work of art for what they perceive its ideology to be, regardless of its quality or level of insight, exactly like SJWs.

Exactly user, exactly.

When you're asked for a plot summary and you get a rundown of "themes", you know you're looking at a shit sandwich.

I'm not defending the film. I'm answering OP's question of why liberals and millennial hated the movie. The most likely people to judge the movie purely on ideology is that group and they didn't like it purely because of superficial shit like presenting a white conservative family in a positive light. Your opinion on the film, and mine for that matter, is inconsequential to the current discussion on the film

Best film ever made.

>Muh plot summary of a hyper detailed stream of consciousness non linear movie.
Kys when u get the opportunity

uh waht?
im the most liberal person you will ever meet and I love it, in my top 5.

>everybody who hate something I like must be the opposite of my current of thought

things you can do:
*stop being retarded and never post here again
*kill yourself
*go back to red.dit

I made a judgement call and decided to disclose the themes because I think they're more important than the plot, in a sense. Some movies are driven by themes, some by atmosphere, some by cinematography, some by plot, some by a combination, etc.

If you want a plot summary, it's something like: a boy struggles through adolescence with a loving mother and stern/commandeering father. He begins to reject this family structure and act out in various ways. The family's faith in their lifestyle/identity is shaken twice: once when the father loses his job, and again when one of the sons dies in the war. The film also has flash-backs/forwards to the main character as an adult, reflecting on his family relationships.

That's what happens. If you only care about plot, and prefer superficial themes, watch marvel movies.

gaaaaay

liberals by definition hate authenticity

Wtf is it even?

Looks like some shit for middleage housewives.

Fuck outta here

Why are you trying to elevate a bad, pompous movie with your own bad, pompous writing? This is a film in which the minor crises of Malick's family as a child are made into the literal center of recorded time. This is laughable.

It's not a question of only caring about plot, it's the fact that when asked for a plot summary your instinct was to prevaricate - because on some level you know that the film's solipsism is indefensible.

It's for immature twentysomething men who seek reassurance that thinking that the world revolves around them means that they're "visionaries".

you forgot the part about the dinosaurs.

And before you say it, I say "minor" because anyone crises are minor in the face of the existence of the universe, not because I have some particular contempt for Malick's family.

Pedophile shit edgy life is meaningless turd. Reminder that only spiritually dead morons find it brilliant.

If you haven't seen the entirety if Malick's significant filmography, regardless of what you think of his work, you're a spewing pleb.

As compared to the more mindful beliefs of what?

you could have just simplified it as it is a family unit drama.
That is all i wanted to know
so for me it's

They were the second "yadda".

If you're really asking me what's so bad about self absorption, I have nothing to say. If you mean "as opposed to whose beliefs", I'd say anyone else's - maturity could be summed up as knowing that you aren''t the center of the universe, and no amount of erudition can make up for the lack of that awareness. Malick may possess it, but fusing the furthest imaginable vastness of the scale with the personal problems of a moody adolescent and an avatar of his adult self as "visionary" gives us reason to doubt it.

*scale, not the scale

it was better without the correction

My interpretation of the film is not that it elevates Malick's family in particular, but rather that it elevates the archetypal themes that the family interactions represent/capture. So for example, it places gravity not on one particular mother fighting with one particular father, but on the broader theme of the conflict between society (the father, masculine) and nature (the mother, feminine). I think that theme is pretty central to the human experience, and I think Malick represents it well.

I agree that the presentation was at times a little heavy-handed, but I think the film does a better job of capturing those themes than most, so I enjoyed it.

Basically, what you saw as navel-gazing, I saw as thematic representation. I guess that's just subject to interpretation. No need to be rude about it.

The crucial point is that without a sense of the gravity of one particular mother and father - which is also a sense of their mortal limitations - the archetypes can't mean anything. This is, from a Christian point-of-view, the point of the Incarnation. We specifically matter. We exist. The archetypes are a human fiction, already an elevation of local norms into a universal principle. Making his family representative of the archetypes is simply solipsism squared. He's chasing his tail into inspecific pomposity.

Why exactly should society be represented by the masculine and nature by the feminine? Society contains both masculine and feminine participants, and nature obviously contains masculinity and femininity. A conflict between society and nature is a very different thing from a conflict between masculinity and femininity, but what both have in common is that they're both polarized caricatures - no society exists without nature, and social interaction is itself naturally occuring - check out the interactions of trees or chimpanzees. American society in the 50s was very focused on a sense of hearth and home identified with the mother, whereas masculinity was equally typified as something to be measured against nature. In other words, anything you can say of either of these poles can equally be said of the other - it's not a question of balance, but of recognising the illusionary nature of the imagined "opposition".

And Malick doesn't get there. He's in this Heideggerian, perennialist fog where everything is representative of something else and what it all comes down to is the power of mystificatory assertion about eternal truths which arent. The family represents the poles of a cosmic worldview which ignores specifics in favor of generalities, and the cosmos matters because his consciousness lives there.

I wasn't being as rude as I found your post, which was clearly intended to be condescending. I'm glad you've moved on from that.

>Why exactly should society be represented by the masculine and nature by the feminine?

I'll just add that if, as I suspect, the reason is "dads go out to work, moms don't (or shouldn't)", then we don't have to be raging progressives to say that this was already untrue in the 50s. There are a lot of traditional societies where this has never been the case, and both men and women work. This is particularly true in the case of peasant societies - and I guess subsistence farming is as close to the "perennial" human condition as any kind of life.

If you don't like this movie KILL YOURSELF PLEB

>Why do liberals and millennials hate this movie?

Because it's about a traditional nuclear family coupled with christian themes?

You guys are insufferable.

Love the movie btw, one of my favs

malick is pure plebbait, though

>people shitting on Malick's cinematography in the current year
They are just asking for it.

>Why do liberals and millennials hate this movie?
You'll have a lot of trouble finding movies like this playing in the South. So conservatives don't love it much either.