Knight of Cups

True Kino

An absurdist classic. Modern existentialism in a postmodern world through a gnostic framework.

Any review (which is 99% of them) that does not talk about the significance of the Hymn of the Pearl are brainlets.

jesus christ, stop it you pseudo intellectual

>too stupid to understand Malick's philosophical framework for his films so you resort to calling those who do psueds

embarrassing senpai, read more

Obvious brainlet that does not understand why this movie is pure kino. Go back to your justice league "intellectual"

I absolutely adore this movie. I just can't stand average intelligent people pretending they are clever by writing a two sentence paragraph, throwing in some fancy words and think that they are anything else than a worthless consumer.

but he said kino, he must be a real smart person

>absurdism, existentialism, postmodern and gnostic are 'fancy' words that trigger insecure brainlets now

yikes

> adore this movie but disagree that about the philosophical and gnostic framework that Malick clearly uses.

>Love starwars but disagree that it is sci-fi/ fantasy

Honestly critics are retards. It's baffling to me that not a single review I read understood the ending of Birdman.

The ending:

Towards the end of the movie Joseph repeatedly says to Rick
Joseph: “The pearl… My son, Remember, Begin.”
Throughout the movie:
Joseph: “The pearl, somewhere in the sea. A chaos, hungry. Longing for something other … without knowing what it is.”
Joseph: “Remember. The pearl. Whispering. Beckoning. Each man, each woman. A guide, a god.”

> Hurr Durr whats gnosticism got to do with it? Its clearly first-world problems

Those words would never be grouped into one sentence unless you were trying way too hard

Absurdism is a vareity of existentialism.
Existentialism is only possible in a post-modern outlook, since existentialism laments the disappearance of structures.

And Malick fits gnosticism in here because he is a fricking genius.

>Starting discussion about a film with something other than 'wow this is so good!' or 'this sucks!' is trying too hard

You got one sentence off wikipedia, i hope you can fool yourself into feeling you are smart. Let's not pretend you aren't a brainlet trying to blend in as a connaseur..

> user doesn't know how these words link together because he's a pseudo-intellect. Thus he strikes out that these "fancy" words do not fit together.

> user strikes out that SmartAnon got the sentence off wikipedia despite wiki saying blatantly false things about the movie.

> Therefore, user is a brainlet

>i just read the stranger
look at me

> I just watched Knight of Cups
Posted factually true statement on Sup Forums

buddy we both know that you don't know shit about philosophy. using philosophical themes doesn't make you smart. proof your substance...

You don't know shit about the Knight of Cups, show me that it isnt about Absurdism in the framework of the Hymn of the Pearl?

Pro tip: you can't

bullied

Absurdism isn't compatible with existentialism. Existentialism maintains that we can create our own meaning out of our experiences. Absurdism denies that these invented meanings possess any value. You have to pick one or the other.

This is the most retarded thing I've ever seen written.

Glad I could provide that experience for you brainlet.

Explain the ending please, I honestly don't get it

You went onto to reddit to get the answer, but the answer is wrong. Camus thought that we still created our own meaning in an absurd universe. So, you dont know shit.

Knight of Cups is a different movie for you: one with guns and bombs, because you dont understand his message

Joseph: “You think when you reach a certain age things will start making sense. Then you find out you're just as last as you were before. I suppose that's what damnation is. The pieces of your life never to some together. Just splashed out there.”

According to Camus, whose clearest depiction of the absurd is in his short essay the Myth of Sisyphus. In his characterisation of the absurd, the absurdity is not an inherent property in the universe but rather rises due to our relationship with the universe. That is, this absurdity manifests because we have a “wild longing for clarity” (MS, 21) and the “unreasonable silence of the world.” (MS, 28). Should either side of the equation no longer exist, then the absurd relationship will no longer persist.

>Aburdism is not in the movie .. look at me, I'm a retard

that actually is a good response, user

I've read the myth of sisyphus, I haven't seen the movie. Camus searches for meaning without the expectation of finding any and finds joy in the pursuit. If he does find any then he's no longer the absurd man, because he'd be making a leap of faith (philosophical suicide) and breaking the conditions of the absurd relationship. Absurdism is not prescriptive, it is descriptive.

I think Alien: Covenant is a genuinely better movie than this dreck. I could, however, say that if you don't think so, then you obviously haven't watched, live, Wagner's Ring Cyle, (in the original German), or read Ozymandias, and had you, you would recognize Alien: Covenant to be a masterpiece. And even if you had done that, you are a brainlet who is stupid for kino. That's how asinine your current approach is. Don't actually argue the merits of the movie, just call the people you're arguing stupid while assuming their ignorance.

Correcto.

But in my case, I'm getting called a psuedo-intellect for stating, analogusly, the same thing about Alien: Covenant.

> You're a pseudo-intellect user. Wagner and Ozymandis don't exist in the same sentence, brainlet.

Now, that's is asinine

Did you miss the part where I said I "could" say that, but then didn't? Are you so stupid that it wasn't obvious that I was describing a hypothetical situation where I would make that argument? I even said that's how stupid you are, which seems to imply I don't think I'm that stupid.

I'd agree if the Ring Cycle or Ozymandias were even remotely important in understanding what's going on in Alien Covenant, the thing is, they're not. Not at all. You can watch Covenant without knowing anything about those references because that's all they are in Scott's movie, just pointless references that do nothing beyond letting him flex his tastes. Malick doesn't require references, his works aren't referential so much as they are responsive, and they require prior-understanding if you wish to 'understand' exactly what's 'going on' in his films.

>Existentialism is only possible in a post-modern outlook
The guy from a pic doesn't know shit about your fancy shmancy post-modern and he was all fucking existential before it was cool.

>I'd agree if the Ring Cycle or Ozymandias were even remotely important in understanding what's going on in Alien Covenant
That's where you're wrong. You basically can't appreciate Scott's ingenious symbolism. And who says you can't understand what's going in in Night of Cups? You can literally understand what's going on on screen, just like in Alien:Covenant. Sure, you can follow as the Alien kills people on a purely situational level, but you aren't going going to get the deep symbolism, unless, of course, you've done exactly what I said, and you have a 150 IQ. It's the deep, appreciating of Scott's symbolism that makes the deep study of those works worthwhile. In fact, one might say, as excellent as those works are on their own, they pale in comparison to Alien: Covenant, and perhaps can justify their existence not so much on their merits, but how Scott was able to symbolically reference them in his magnum opus. But again, I'm probably speaking to somebody who hasn't made it a solemn practice of going to Bayreuth every single year the entire Ring Cycle is played, and somebody who hasn't memorized pretty much all of Ozymandias. So you won't get it.

Don't

I already have.

Damn ... you are so deep. I don’t even know what you are trying. I say this film is awesome painting that depicts a man!s life point by point til the point of making the decision of life time.

I would say Alien: Covenant works on an equally good and superficial level, but better.

Wait. Who even is Isabel?