@@teaCupkk idk man, I used to think like that too but then Terry does it so perfectly. I have changed my perspective on them, they feel to me like remnant of memories in his work perhpas because of the unsnyced cuts which work amazingly so. I'd never be able to do what he does withe voice overs, i think he has found a beauty in them if you let it work you
If Malick were to make a completely dialog-free film with only shots of nature, I would be happy. Weirdly, I was bored during dialog scenes in The Thin Red Line, but the shots he gets in the grasslands are some of the most intriguing images I’ve ever seen.
Great video! Malick is an inspiring filmmaker to say the least. He inspired me a lot in my film making process. He is in my top 4 of filmmakers, right next to Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Lynch.
How is it possible that your all time favorite directors are on the one hand the best director of all time and then Malick, which is prob. the worst? Its just a bunch of stock videos put together, and the off voice tells us what to think, what to feel etc. In the thin red line for expample, he shows war scenes, and after that, he naturalizes this war with pictures of the sun, flowers and so on...its just perfidious propaganda bullshit. Tarkovsky on the other hand, is the goat! His story telling, his pictures, everything...
@@jan-hendrikkammann7125 Can't you see beyond your raging hate against Malick to recognize the common thread between these four directors? Hint: Quit bitching, mute the sound, watch again.
A thing I've learned making movies is that the concept of: "it's good" or "it's bad", "it's ugly" or "it's beautiful", "it's understandable" or "it's confusing", doesn't matter when you treat film making as an artistic process. The only two question I permanently ask myself when working on a project is: "Does it works, yes or no?" and "Is it interesting, yes or no?".
Thanks for your comments! I also have a lot of respect for the filmmaker's you mentioned. I also have a similar philosophy to you when it comes to filmmaking but unlike Malick it seems I also live by the words if you fail to prepare you prepare to fail :)
@@flickfanatics7948 I agree with your quote. But... I was curious to see how Malick writes a screenplay. I downloaded the screenplay of The Tree Of Life, and I was blown away by how dense, full and well thought out it is written. Malick has a very unusual way of writing. In between every action or dialogue, he writes the feelings and thought-processes of the characters. It makes for a compelling and even more visual read-through.
Malick is a man in his 70s with a lifetime of personal trials, tragedies, failures, successes and lessons to live with, reflect upon and hopefully gain insight from in relation to his artistic medium of choice - film. With all due respect, I commend you as one so young for having the will to interrogate films by the likes of Malick, but in order to understand the core themes of Malick's body of work you would have to be older. Births, deaths, marriages, war, inter-generational familial burdens and trauma are not things that a teenager could or should be expected to fully understand or be able to rationalise or conceptualise in relation to art. The critique of Malick's lack of adherence to established script-writing norms and his predilection for letting his actors just 'get on with it' is actually a positive. You opened your essay with the acknowledgment that Malick seems to attract stellar name actor to his films (a good observation that I have often reflected upon myself), isn't it probably refreshing for such heavyweights as Imedla Staunton and Michael Fassbender et al to be left to do their thing without being hamstrung by rigid lines, or poorly fleshed out characters, these are not enthusiastic amateur dramatists, these actors are masters of their craft, surely they should be able to be active creators in the artistic process with Malick.
If I have to direct this conversation elsewhere, as a sixteen year old myself, I'm highly dubious of whether the extent of age has anything to do with the comprehension of a film. However varied each person's interpretation may be, and how fully they comprehend it, is, wholly, in my view, independent of age. Yes, the majority of adults may have experienced more, however, the ability to internalise and feel as a living being is universal and is not something that just comes through time. Different backgrounds, classes and environments will all influence/change a persons maturity - these are acquired through experiences. And yes, though such burdens, wars and 'inter-generational' familial issues are not felt as much by children in countries that are predominately modernised, the vast majority of kids and teenagers in the world do, in fact, have a fair amount of struggles they may go through, whether that may be because of neglect, poverty and etc. To say that such movie cannot be understood simply because one is young is definitely too simplistic in the context of the movie, which tries to allow viewers to portray life in their own, universal, way.
Loved Tree of Life...I think the reason I like Malick films is the same reason I like Wes Anderson, they have their own style which is different from a lot of films.
Thank you for your video. I think Malick is not suitable for an audience expecting a good and interesting story. But if you are interested in big questions Malick is an excellent director. One has to know that Malick is a philosopher. Knowing this, his style makes a lot more sense. He is not interested in stories, he is interested in the (subjective) truth. He is clearly struggling with the question of good and evil and purpose and the meaning of life. We can observe this inner conflict in The Thin Red Line where he is not interested in the historical conflict but the nature of the conflict itself. Already in this film Private Witt represents grace and Stg. Welsh nature. The Tree of Life can be seen as a continuation, i.e. the idea of nature (efficiency, selfishness, abusiveness, reckless, tough) vs grace (loving, selfless, giving, forgiving, soft). The movie might be Malick's attempt to answer the question of the meaning of life for himself. The New World uses the story of Smith and Pocahontas to question our loss of connection to nature and question the progress we made. It shows what we may lost/destroyed in our civilized world. And I agree an argument between two people feels so real in Malick's movies it is astonishing. He is like a documenter, observing the small subtleties which can be boring especially for a young audience.
As a Filmmaker I must respect how TM has created his own style and how he has changed a culture, through such a unique manner of filmmaking. His storytelling skills need work, but he philosophizes through two plus hours of poetic voice narration and his visually stunning use of forced perspective dutch angles, 360 stediicam shots, natural lighting, and amazing landscapes.
You sort of answered your question as to why Malick is so interesting: he is more akin to a painter than a traditional filmmaker. A painting doesn't move but it can evoke feelings and themes with just color and shapes. Malick seeks to do the same thing but with 24 frames per second. Malick is still just using shapes and colors and music to evoke the same emotions that one would get when looking at a painting. Malick's works are more like moving paintings to me.
This is one very good essay. Very honest and sincere. I love Mailk's films purely for the angles, perspectives and the use of space around the subject(s). I am slightly obsessed with his style without maybe knowing why- it just does something for me on a visual level, much like photography. You made a lot of sense to me and I am not really a film analyst. Respect and 'subscribed'. Thank you.
I'm currently reading infinite jest. Its like the novel version of this new era of anti-anti conventional artistic formalism, while still breaking conventional artistic formalism. David foster Wallace gets pretty meta, specifically with his character "James Incandenza". The book is staggering, it addresses contemporary culture from existential destitution I.e., Drug addiction, Depression,... Then it goes really high-brow and analyses art in all its (post) modern guises. The reason I'm saying this is because James Incandenza is like an amalgam of Mallick, Lynch et cetera. Check it out.
I think above all else regarding his evolution as a director, the most interesting thing to me is easily just the timeline itself. He made Badlands and Days of Heaven in the mid 70s, then fucking vanished from filmmaking for over 20 years, and came back with the Thin Red Line, a movie that, if I hadn't seen it already, you could convince me was made this decade. And as his movies became more and more frequent, his abstract, more poetic style of filming and storytelling became more and more refined, and has implemented it into all his movies since The Tree of Life, for better or for worse. I do think he won't make a movie as good as The Tree of Life any time soon, and I will admit that this new style has resulted in some of my least favorite movies in his filmography in To the Wonder and Song to Song, but I still love him and his incredibly unique and enthralling style regardless.
this is why people call you kid when you don't like movies like stalker(tarkovsky) persona(Bergman)space Odyssey (kubrick),this is because you're not enough mature to really understand the art they're providing.....but soon on later you're gonna age and will see the movie with patience and without judgement....one day you will be enough mature to truly appreciate the art form
Bra-vo. The comparison to Picasso seem so obvious to me now I don’t know how I had never seen it before. Various musical artist follow this path as well. Fiona Apple and Radiohead just out at me off the bat. Found you through your inception video and have been barreling through some of you back catalog. Subscribed and can’t wait to see more!
So I was "like" no. 13 - a very Malick-ian coincidence, it seems to me. I love this video essay, from the title (My Love/Hate Relationship) to the way it combines the exquisitely personal to actor sound bites and the clips from his films that are used effectively, but not overused. The 15-year-old know-it-all and self-described dork who does a Malick parody is both self-deprecating and charmingly self-aware. I adore Malick's style - I've fallen hook, line and sinker for it. I love, too, though, that you included Christopher Plummer, who, - name drop! - I interviewed a few years back and have always admired for his craft and meticulous approach to his material, but who famously is Malick's sternest critic in the creative community. Ordinarily, I just hate these self-involved indulgences that are self-indulgent to a fault, that reveal more about the doorknob doing the commenting than the subject being commented about. material. But this really worked for me. Clearly I'm a tad touched in the head - To the Wonder is my favourite Malick, by far, followed by, in order, Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven, Knight of Cups and New World, arguably a Top Five that no one else on the planet would single out. (You'll note that arguably Malick's best, certainly his most critically acclaimed, didn't make my shortlist.) Perhaps, Panwa, as you pointed out, that's the whole point. Nicely done, and thanks for sharing.
Wow! Thank you so much for your kind words, I glad you understand where I'm coming from and hopefully I grow to appreciate his films more and more as I get older :)
Loved the video Panwa. Malick is certainly a weird one but similar to David Lynch there is something about his films which is simply magnetic. Weird question, what font did you use for your thumbnail? It looks very professional. (I don't make masterpiece thumbnails necessarily)
hahah thanks! I definitely agree with you and was considering mentioning Lynch in the video. Regarding the thumbnail the font is TW cent MT STD extra bold, there are some really nice variations to the TW cent MT font which you can play around with :)
Artistically Malick is by far my biggest influence. Every time I create something it is with malicks creative process in mind. This is because I was exposed to malick at a very young age. My father took to me see the tree of life when I was 11 and even though I didn’t fully process why I found it deeply moving and comforting in a way no other art had done up to that point. Literally about 3/4 of the people in the cinema left during the first half an hour which I found tremendously exciting because there is no more visceral reaction possible to a film then to walk out of it. It also drew me further into the film because it meant that if I was enjoying this film that people couldn’t even watch that it was really speaking to me personally. I thought about the film a lot as a teenager I came to conclusion that the conventional story’s of most art don’t tell us anything about who we truly are and that a work of art that is itself actively searching for answers like we all are rather then just telling us them is the best most beautiful, profound, life affirming, soul lifting experience we can have.
I just saw Tree of Life for the first time, and came away thinking that it was to poetry what standard films are to prose. In general, I prefer prose (Tree of Life isn’t even in my top 50 films, and I haven’t seen that many at this point), but it was kind of cool seeing something different, and it definitely has a place in my library. Now I’m looking to give Badlands and New World a chance.
First time I saw Thin Red Line I hated it deeply. Many years later, it became my favorite film and has impacted me deeply AND differently everytime ive watched it. Which is about 16+ times.
Knight of Cups was the first Malick movie I watched, I loved it because of how different it felt. It was like the first time I watched Tarkovsky's Stalker. A story tells you things, even if the theme is left open ended, it tells you who the characters are and what happened to them. Stalker and Knight of Cups ask you things, almost unrelentingly: Who is the Stalker? What is Christian Bale's character looking for? What is the Stalker looking for? What brought them to this moment? What is life? What is music? What is their meaning? What even is 'meaning'? and perhaps most importantly or most obviously, what is Faith? Also, I read once that Terrence Malicks favorite movie is Zoolander. Idk if that's true but it's hilarious and weirdly fitting.
The only film of his I loved was “A Hidden Life” because he could not veer off too much and forget what the hell it was he was doing, as a true story he was FORCED to go with a structure and he created a something beautiful. “A New World” is bearable for the same reason but only just.
Interesting video. I recently discussed my feelings about Terrence malick with a fellow cinephile/writer friend and how we struggle to like his films. To The Wonder I think is gorgeous cinematography wise but as piece of cinema, it is lack lustre
But, yeah, I have a love hate relationship with Mallick too. I haven't been able to watch them all the way through on first sitting, I quit in frustration, then after a week, they're still on my mind in a way few other movies are.
I completely agree, they are some of very few films that kind of feel like an effort watch but like them or not I think there's something to be learnt, thanks for the book recommendation as well :)
I think there are just some ideas that simply can't be captured or expressed in a well structured story/film, and most of Malick's ideas, thoughts or obsessions happen to be like that. He wants to show us something different, something you won't find in any other filmmaker's works.
I just stated to watch knight if cups and there was a lot to pick up on that I love but I was afraid 20 minutes in the film would get static and start ti repeat itself, gonna true again and check out his earlier work but still there’s something there worth appreciating, it’s that convention that I’m used to. Even if I end up hating it it’s fine
Unfortunately, people need their hands held with cookie cutter story structure and a happy conclusion slapped on at the end. We like to watch the same thing over and over. Directing is how one matches a visual to a story...many don't understand that and just want all the answers spelled out for them like Speilberg and most others do. Yes, some of his films are not great, perhaps not even good. However, as a director one can't dispute his mastery.
I find it very interesting, the analogy between Malick and Picasso, but I think Malick goes further, his images (his film) wants to be a philosophical vision of the world, Being and time, that duality of Martin Heidegger's philosophy, is always in his films, the film is the visual support to pose the dualities of existence that stress the lives of men, in that he is different from Picasso, the painter evolved in his way of capturing reality, he achieved a new look at the object of his art. Malick in my opinion wants to go to the beginning of everything, to the human being himself in his relations of existence.
I agree with you for what about the analysis of Malick, but I can't agree on the reading of Sein und Zeit: it's not a matter of dualities and there's not a Real stress within Being and Time, because essentialy Being is Time (and I'm totally condensating the content of the book). Being is not something still in or around which the Time flows. There's not this kind of tension. It's pretty clear if you read the last paragraphs about Past, Present and Future as three "moments" that are originally always united together. The Being gives itself to the Being-there (horrible translation of Sein and Da-Sein) in its temporality. I didn't want to criticize you, maybe you have another perspective on the book and I would be happy to discuss about it.
Simone Zanello Thanks for your comment, I am inspired to re-read Heidegger, in what I wrote I wanted to show that Terence Malick has been inspired by Heidegger in his films, the director graduated in philosophy and these themes are recurring in his films. what you wrote demonstrates a knowledge that I envy about Heidegger's fundamental text, I have it and I assure you, I will reread it.
@@cbrown11846 Yes, the deep and nearly "explicit" philosopycal echo in all is films is surely influenced by a certain kind of Continental philosphy, Heidegger above all. Sein und Zeit is surely a point of reflection, but even the late works of Heidegger play an important roles. I suggest you to search for the translations of certain key words of the book in German, it gives you a total different perspective on the book. Just few words, it's not needed a full comprehension of the German text, but if you're interested in it there are these awesome little shifts of Meaning that leaves you the original thinking of Heidegger.
Not a bad film maker analysis for a young man. Nice job on Malick. :-) ....and i would say that's probably exactly how almost everyone feels about his work over the years, and I was a little younger than you when Badlands came out, and remember it well.
I guess people dislike things they don't understand. Post haitus malick is...well, post haitus. It's visual poetry, there is no story so every frame and every moment on screen is an end to itself. It's spiritual and incredibly subjective. Most people either love it or hate it, but it's unlike anything you'll see. I took time to really soak in his new stuff, and after watching Knight of cups 20 times (I couldn't help it, it kept pulling me back) I'm officially a fan of the new malick. And I piss on people who brush him off.
I've always loved Malick, I think principally because I discovered unconventional film before I started watching his films. Thats probably why I found Badlands to be his weakest film and The Thin Red Line and The Tree of Life to be his strongest.
Wow! I think it's pretty cool our film "upbringing" is so integral to how we perceive later films. I rewatched Tree of life recently and liked it a lot more, might do the same for Thin Red Line :)
@@flickfanatics7948 please do, I just want to add that although Badlands is in my opinion his weakest film, I still think it is a 5/5, just not my personal favourite. Have you seen anything by Lars Von Trier?
@@willwalters8391 Fair enough, I have seen quite a few Lars Von Trier films, he certainly is a very interesting guy who makes very interesting films. I've seen Melancholia and The House that Jack Built, both films have a lot to love and are very ambitious in their storytelling approach :)
@@flickfanatics7948 Awesome, those are both great films. When you have the time check out 'Antichrist' and 'Dancer in the Dark' (his two best). I feel his approach is similar to Malick's, he just lets the actors improvise most of the time, and rolls the camera. He then picks out the best parts in the edit, which is why you see so many jump cuts in his films.
I agree and disagree at the same time. You hate me yet? lol. TM is a Philosopher. His filmmaking style comes from that place. If you look at he shows the light, or the flame in the Tree Of Life. Anyone who has experienced it, or them, cannot deny how spot on he gets it. Absolutely beautiful. Ultimately he is doing what all artists should do through their work, and that is express his individual interpretation of the Human Experience.
Malick has lost the art of the scene in his recent films. They just seem like high falutin music videos. Maybe Tree of Life still had some structure and scenes and storytelling. The earlier films are brilliant (and I'd include Thin Red Line and the New World and even Tree of Life in that category). But the later ones are more like music videos.
Note: Picasso was not trying to make something beautiful, Malick is not in the same league as Kubrick, lots of potential, some amazingly sublime moments, but rarely does he land, I agree with Plummer he needs a writer or someone to reign him in
Malick is too pretentious for his own good. He makes the most beautiful home movies of all time. They 're not stories, though, and that's what movie making is. I honestly don't knew how he gets financing for these movies anymore.
I think that your video is good, but at the end, to state that no once can say that his process isn't interesting, just isn't true. There are plenty of people who think his methods are boring and his movies are boring, and that's the end of it.
9 mins and not a single mention of God. I don’t see how you can miss this in Malick. Perhaps the one thing he is most and least subtle about. 15 year old you didn’t appreciate his movies because you don’t see God in them. Seeing they don’t see. Hearing they don’t hear. Else they would turn around and their sins would be forgiven. Ultimately this film essay says nothing because it missed the everything!
Funny that you quoted lines from "American Psycho" in your imitation of Malick. Oh, BTW your camera technique sucks. I think Knight of Cups & Song to Song are thought of as experimental films. Hope you saw "A Hidden Life" ✔✔✔😎😎
He lost his way after/because of the new world. Too many fart huffing scenes of grass and characters staring at the natural world. 1. The Thin Red Line 2. Badlands 3. Days of Heaven 4. The New World 5. The Tree of Life 6. To the Wonder
Around the 5 min mark when you started talking about Picasso I realized this guy has no idea what he’s talking about and turned this off. You completely gloss over the historical reasons for Picasso painting the way he did, Matisse and African art. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you are miseducating people who are looking to understand these two artists.
That's what most of what this side of CZcams is. Uneducated people educating their naive audience. Video essays started with people who were informed and passionate about the subjects they talked about, but as time has gone on it's become an easy way to get views so the plebs jumped on board and started making hollow videos that don't have any real point to make.
As a Terrence Malick fan, I laughed through the first part of the vid because I do understand the pain of those who don't like his style.
SAME LOL and i love malicks revolutionary style.. his mimic was hilarious i bust out laughing here at work LOL
@@thedivinemessenger lol I bet, it just needs to find you at the right time is all
There's one thing i still intensely dislike in his movies: voice over, and plenty of it. The most uncinematic thing, ever.
@@teaCupkk idk man, I used to think like that too but then Terry does it so perfectly. I have changed my perspective on them, they feel to me like remnant of memories in his work perhpas because of the unsnyced cuts which work amazingly so. I'd never be able to do what he does withe voice overs, i think he has found a beauty in them if you let it work you
@@teaCupkk i actually enjoy that the most! lol
If Malick were to make a completely dialog-free film with only shots of nature, I would be happy. Weirdly, I was bored during dialog scenes in The Thin Red Line, but the shots he gets in the grasslands are some of the most intriguing images I’ve ever seen.
I agree. I am a cinematography major and Terrance Maliks DP was John Toll. All you have todo is look at his Filmography. #Genius
Voyage of Time is like that pretty much... still has dialog but very sparse
@@MizterMoonshine I’m very intrigued, Cate Blanchett narration as well
Great video! Malick is an inspiring filmmaker to say the least. He inspired me a lot in my film making process. He is in my top 4 of filmmakers, right next to Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Lynch.
Tarkovsky and Malick are my all time favorite directors. Brilliant men making beautiful and existentially rich films.
How is it possible that your all time favorite directors are on the one hand the best director of all time and then Malick, which is prob. the worst? Its just a bunch of stock videos put together, and the off voice tells us what to think, what to feel etc. In the thin red line for expample, he shows war scenes, and after that, he naturalizes this war with pictures of the sun, flowers and so on...its just perfidious propaganda bullshit.
Tarkovsky on the other hand, is the goat! His story telling, his pictures, everything...
@@jan-hendrikkammann7125 Can't you see beyond your raging hate against Malick to recognize the common thread between these four directors? Hint: Quit bitching, mute the sound, watch again.
A thing I've learned making movies is that the concept of: "it's good" or "it's bad", "it's ugly" or "it's beautiful", "it's understandable" or "it's confusing", doesn't matter when you treat film making as an artistic process. The only two question I permanently ask myself when working on a project is: "Does it works, yes or no?" and "Is it interesting, yes or no?".
Thanks for your comments! I also have a lot of respect for the filmmaker's you mentioned. I also have a similar philosophy to you when it comes to filmmaking but unlike Malick it seems I also live by the words if you fail to prepare you prepare to fail :)
@@flickfanatics7948 I agree with your quote. But... I was curious to see how Malick writes a screenplay. I downloaded the screenplay of The Tree Of Life, and I was blown away by how dense, full and well thought out it is written. Malick has a very unusual way of writing. In between every action or dialogue, he writes the feelings and thought-processes of the characters. It makes for a compelling and even more visual read-through.
@@samuelfaict5755 Wow, I'll definitely be checking out that script now, thanks!
Malick is a man in his 70s with a lifetime of personal trials, tragedies, failures, successes and lessons to live with, reflect upon and hopefully gain insight from in relation to his artistic medium of choice - film. With all due respect, I commend you as one so young for having the will to interrogate films by the likes of Malick, but in order to understand the core themes of Malick's body of work you would have to be older. Births, deaths, marriages, war, inter-generational familial burdens and trauma are not things that a teenager could or should be expected to fully understand or be able to rationalise or conceptualise in relation to art. The critique of Malick's lack of adherence to established script-writing norms and his predilection for letting his actors just 'get on with it' is actually a positive. You opened your essay with the acknowledgment that Malick seems to attract stellar name actor to his films (a good observation that I have often reflected upon myself), isn't it probably refreshing for such heavyweights as Imedla Staunton and Michael Fassbender et al to be left to do their thing without being hamstrung by rigid lines, or poorly fleshed out characters, these are not enthusiastic amateur dramatists, these actors are masters of their craft, surely they should be able to be active creators in the artistic process with Malick.
If I have to direct this conversation elsewhere, as a sixteen year old myself, I'm highly dubious of whether the extent of age has anything to do with the comprehension of a film. However varied each person's interpretation may be, and how fully they comprehend it, is, wholly, in my view, independent of age. Yes, the majority of adults may have experienced more, however, the ability to internalise and feel as a living being is universal and is not something that just comes through time. Different backgrounds, classes and environments will all influence/change a persons maturity - these are acquired through experiences. And yes, though such burdens, wars and 'inter-generational' familial issues are not felt as much by children in countries that are predominately modernised, the vast majority of kids and teenagers in the world do, in fact, have a fair amount of struggles they may go through, whether that may be because of neglect, poverty and etc. To say that such movie cannot be understood simply because one is young is definitely too simplistic in the context of the movie, which tries to allow viewers to portray life in their own, universal, way.
@@webkinzrocks4ever Wow!!
Loved Tree of Life...I think the reason I like Malick films is the same reason I like Wes Anderson, they have their own style which is different from a lot of films.
Should have finished the video all the way through first...you had Wes Anderson yayy
Thank you for your video. I think Malick is not suitable for an audience expecting a good and interesting story. But if you are interested in big questions Malick is an excellent director. One has to know that Malick is a philosopher. Knowing this, his style makes a lot more sense. He is not interested in stories, he is interested in the (subjective) truth. He is clearly struggling with the question of good and evil and purpose and the meaning of life. We can observe this inner conflict in The Thin Red Line where he is not interested in the historical conflict but the nature of the conflict itself. Already in this film Private Witt represents grace and Stg. Welsh nature. The Tree of Life can be seen as a continuation, i.e. the idea of nature (efficiency, selfishness, abusiveness, reckless, tough) vs grace (loving, selfless, giving, forgiving, soft). The movie might be Malick's attempt to answer the question of the meaning of life for himself. The New World uses the story of Smith and Pocahontas to question our loss of connection to nature and question the progress we made. It shows what we may lost/destroyed in our civilized world. And I agree an argument between two people feels so real in Malick's movies it is astonishing. He is like a documenter, observing the small subtleties which can be boring especially for a young audience.
You trying to mimic Malick with that quality = CRINGE.
please just stfu and watch this well crafted video
Y’a he should have spent thousands of dollars on equipment for a one minute bit 🤦♂️
Great job putting this analysis together! Enjoyed it very much.
Thank you!
As a Filmmaker I must respect how TM has created his own style and how he has changed a culture, through such a unique manner of filmmaking. His storytelling skills need work, but he philosophizes through two plus hours of poetic voice narration and his visually stunning use of forced perspective dutch angles, 360 stediicam shots, natural lighting, and amazing landscapes.
You sort of answered your question as to why Malick is so interesting: he is more akin to a painter than a traditional filmmaker. A painting doesn't move but it can evoke feelings and themes with just color and shapes. Malick seeks to do the same thing but with 24 frames per second. Malick is still just using shapes and colors and music to evoke the same emotions that one would get when looking at a painting. Malick's works are more like moving paintings to me.
This is one very good essay. Very honest and sincere. I love Mailk's films purely for the angles, perspectives and the use of space around the subject(s). I am slightly obsessed with his style without maybe knowing why- it just does something for me on a visual level, much like photography. You made a lot of sense to me and I am not really a film analyst. Respect and 'subscribed'. Thank you.
Well, yes. I find Malik´s work as Experimental films
This was a really interesting analysis, so cool!
Great video! Awesome seeing a young guy into film
I'm currently reading infinite jest. Its like the novel version of this new era of anti-anti conventional artistic formalism, while still breaking conventional artistic formalism. David foster Wallace gets pretty meta, specifically with his character "James Incandenza". The book is staggering, it addresses contemporary culture from existential destitution I.e., Drug addiction, Depression,... Then it goes really high-brow and analyses art in all its (post) modern guises. The reason I'm saying this is because James Incandenza is like an amalgam of Mallick, Lynch et cetera. Check it out.
I think above all else regarding his evolution as a director, the most interesting thing to me is easily just the timeline itself. He made Badlands and Days of Heaven in the mid 70s, then fucking vanished from filmmaking for over 20 years, and came back with the Thin Red Line, a movie that, if I hadn't seen it already, you could convince me was made this decade. And as his movies became more and more frequent, his abstract, more poetic style of filming and storytelling became more and more refined, and has implemented it into all his movies since The Tree of Life, for better or for worse. I do think he won't make a movie as good as The Tree of Life any time soon, and I will admit that this new style has resulted in some of my least favorite movies in his filmography in To the Wonder and Song to Song, but I still love him and his incredibly unique and enthralling style regardless.
"it even has a watetmark.." 🤣🤣🤣🤣
this is why people call you kid when you don't like movies like stalker(tarkovsky) persona(Bergman)space Odyssey (kubrick),this is because you're not enough mature to really understand the art they're providing.....but soon on later you're gonna age and will see the movie with patience and without judgement....one day you will be enough mature to truly appreciate the art form
I m from india .. loved tree of life . It is still one of my favourite. In order to like the movie you hv to love the art.
Bra-vo. The comparison to Picasso seem so obvious to me now I don’t know how I had never seen it before.
Various musical artist follow this path as well. Fiona Apple and Radiohead just out at me off the bat.
Found you through your inception video and have been barreling through some of you back catalog. Subscribed and can’t wait to see more!
Thank you so much!
So I was "like" no. 13 - a very Malick-ian coincidence, it seems to me. I love this video essay, from the title (My Love/Hate Relationship) to the way it combines the exquisitely personal to actor sound bites and the clips from his films that are used effectively, but not overused. The 15-year-old know-it-all and self-described dork who does a Malick parody is both self-deprecating and charmingly self-aware. I adore Malick's style - I've fallen hook, line and sinker for it. I love, too, though, that you included Christopher Plummer, who, - name drop! - I interviewed a few years back and have always admired for his craft and meticulous approach to his material, but who famously is Malick's sternest critic in the creative community. Ordinarily, I just hate these self-involved indulgences that are self-indulgent to a fault, that reveal more about the doorknob doing the commenting than the subject being commented about. material. But this really worked for me. Clearly I'm a tad touched in the head - To the Wonder is my favourite Malick, by far, followed by, in order, Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven, Knight of Cups and New World, arguably a Top Five that no one else on the planet would single out. (You'll note that arguably Malick's best, certainly his most critically acclaimed, didn't make my shortlist.) Perhaps, Panwa, as you pointed out, that's the whole point. Nicely done, and thanks for sharing.
Wow! Thank you so much for your kind words, I glad you understand where I'm coming from and hopefully I grow to appreciate his films more and more as I get older :)
Lol there is a reason why Terrence is one of the best ever don't try that cutscene again mate
Loved the video Panwa. Malick is certainly a weird one but similar to David Lynch there is something about his films which is simply magnetic. Weird question, what font did you use for your thumbnail? It looks very professional. (I don't make masterpiece thumbnails necessarily)
hahah thanks! I definitely agree with you and was considering mentioning Lynch in the video. Regarding the thumbnail the font is TW cent MT STD extra bold, there are some really nice variations to the TW cent MT font which you can play around with :)
Artistically Malick is by far my biggest influence. Every time I create something it is with malicks creative process in mind. This is because I was exposed to malick at a very young age. My father took to me see the tree of life when I was 11 and even though I didn’t fully process why I found it deeply moving and comforting in a way no other art had done up to that point. Literally about 3/4 of the people in the cinema left during the first half an hour which I found tremendously exciting because there is no more visceral reaction possible to a film then to walk out of it. It also drew me further into the film because it meant that if I was enjoying this film that people couldn’t even watch that it was really speaking to me personally. I thought about the film a lot as a teenager I came to conclusion that the conventional story’s of most art don’t tell us anything about who we truly are and that a work of art that is itself actively searching for answers like we all are rather then just telling us them is the best most beautiful, profound, life affirming, soul lifting experience we can have.
Omg I felt the same about “Song to song” and “Knight of cups”. However, his movies are extremely beautiful
People walked out of tree of life, I absolutely loved the style.
While his earlier films were sorta wonderfully dreamy 'tone poems', these days they seem more like the visual equivalent of jazz improvisations.
I just saw Tree of Life for the first time, and came away thinking that it was to poetry what standard films are to prose. In general, I prefer prose (Tree of Life isn’t even in my top 50 films, and I haven’t seen that many at this point), but it was kind of cool seeing something different, and it definitely has a place in my library. Now I’m looking to give Badlands and New World a chance.
What is the editor u used ?
First time I saw Thin Red Line I hated it deeply. Many years later, it became my favorite film and has impacted me deeply AND differently everytime ive watched it. Which is about 16+ times.
I like your work; how did you get the young Leo Dicaprio to do it?
Knight of Cups was the first Malick movie I watched, I loved it because of how different it felt. It was like the first time I watched Tarkovsky's Stalker. A story tells you things, even if the theme is left open ended, it tells you who the characters are and what happened to them. Stalker and Knight of Cups ask you things, almost unrelentingly: Who is the Stalker? What is Christian Bale's character looking for? What is the Stalker looking for? What brought them to this moment? What is life? What is music? What is their meaning? What even is 'meaning'? and perhaps most importantly or most obviously, what is Faith?
Also, I read once that Terrence Malicks favorite movie is Zoolander. Idk if that's true but it's hilarious and weirdly fitting.
The only film of his I loved was “A Hidden Life” because he could not veer off too much and forget what the hell it was he was doing, as a true story he was FORCED to go with a structure and he created a something beautiful. “A New World” is bearable for the same reason but only just.
Interesting video. I recently discussed my feelings about Terrence malick with a fellow cinephile/writer friend and how we struggle to like his films. To The Wonder I think is gorgeous cinematography wise but as piece of cinema, it is lack lustre
YOU A REAL ONE FOR THIS🤣
But, yeah, I have a love hate relationship with Mallick too. I haven't been able to watch them all the way through on first sitting, I quit in frustration, then after a week, they're still on my mind in a way few other movies are.
I completely agree, they are some of very few films that kind of feel like an effort watch but like them or not I think there's something to be learnt, thanks for the book recommendation as well :)
@@flickfanatics7948 no worries, man. Great vid.
I think there are just some ideas that simply can't be captured or expressed in a well structured story/film, and most of Malick's ideas, thoughts or obsessions happen to be like that. He wants to show us something different, something you won't find in any other filmmaker's works.
Agreed!
I just stated to watch knight if cups and there was a lot to pick up on that I love but I was afraid 20 minutes in the film would get static and start ti repeat itself, gonna true again and check out his earlier work but still there’s something there worth appreciating, it’s that convention that I’m used to. Even if I end up hating it it’s fine
Unfortunately, people need their hands held with cookie cutter story structure and a happy conclusion slapped on at the end. We like to watch the same thing over and over. Directing is how one matches a visual to a story...many don't understand that and just want all the answers spelled out for them like Speilberg and most others do. Yes, some of his films are not great, perhaps not even good. However, as a director one can't dispute his mastery.
My guy. You're doing The Thin Red Line a real disservice!
I have not seen any of his films, probably should.
I find it very interesting, the analogy between Malick and Picasso, but I think Malick goes further, his images (his film) wants to be a philosophical vision of the world, Being and time, that duality of Martin Heidegger's philosophy, is always in his films, the film is the visual support to pose the dualities of existence that stress the lives of men, in that he is different from Picasso, the painter evolved in his way of capturing reality, he achieved a new look at the object of his art. Malick in my opinion wants to go to the beginning of everything, to the human being himself in his relations of existence.
Brilliant observation!
I agree with you for what about the analysis of Malick, but I can't agree on the reading of Sein und Zeit: it's not a matter of dualities and there's not a Real stress within Being and Time, because essentialy Being is Time (and I'm totally condensating the content of the book).
Being is not something still in or around which the Time flows. There's not this kind of tension. It's pretty clear if you read the last paragraphs about Past, Present and Future as three "moments" that are originally always united together. The Being gives itself to the Being-there (horrible translation of Sein and Da-Sein) in its temporality.
I didn't want to criticize you, maybe you have another perspective on the book and I would be happy to discuss about it.
Simone Zanello Thanks for your comment, I am inspired to re-read Heidegger, in what I wrote I wanted to show that Terence Malick has been inspired by Heidegger in his films, the director graduated in philosophy and these themes are recurring in his films. what you wrote demonstrates a knowledge that I envy about Heidegger's fundamental text, I have it and I assure you, I will reread it.
@@cbrown11846 Yes, the deep and nearly "explicit" philosopycal echo in all is films is surely influenced by a certain kind of Continental philosphy, Heidegger above all.
Sein und Zeit is surely a point of reflection, but even the late works of Heidegger play an important roles.
I suggest you to search for the translations of certain key words of the book in German, it gives you a total different perspective on the book. Just few words, it's not needed a full comprehension of the German text, but if you're interested in it there are these awesome little shifts of Meaning that leaves you the original thinking of Heidegger.
Badlands... amazing.
Not a bad film maker analysis for a young man. Nice job on Malick. :-) ....and i would say that's probably exactly how almost everyone feels about his work over the years, and I was a little younger than you when Badlands came out, and remember it well.
Thanks!
I guess people dislike things they don't understand. Post haitus malick is...well, post haitus. It's visual poetry, there is no story so every frame and every moment on screen is an end to itself. It's spiritual and incredibly subjective. Most people either love it or hate it, but it's unlike anything you'll see. I took time to really soak in his new stuff, and after watching Knight of cups 20 times (I couldn't help it, it kept pulling me back) I'm officially a fan of the new malick. And I piss on people who brush him off.
Hahahaha, I hope I can get to that level one day :)
I've always loved Malick, I think principally because I discovered unconventional film before I started watching his films. Thats probably why I found Badlands to be his weakest film and The Thin Red Line and The Tree of Life to be his strongest.
Wow! I think it's pretty cool our film "upbringing" is so integral to how we perceive later films. I rewatched Tree of life recently and liked it a lot more, might do the same for Thin Red Line :)
@@flickfanatics7948 please do, I just want to add that although Badlands is in my opinion his weakest film, I still think it is a 5/5, just not my personal favourite. Have you seen anything by Lars Von Trier?
@@willwalters8391 Fair enough, I have seen quite a few Lars Von Trier films, he certainly is a very interesting guy who makes very interesting films. I've seen Melancholia and The House that Jack Built, both films have a lot to love and are very ambitious in their storytelling approach :)
@@flickfanatics7948 Awesome, those are both great films. When you have the time check out 'Antichrist' and 'Dancer in the Dark' (his two best). I feel his approach is similar to Malick's, he just lets the actors improvise most of the time, and rolls the camera. He then picks out the best parts in the edit, which is why you see so many jump cuts in his films.
@@willwalters8391 Will do!
I agree and disagree at the same time. You hate me yet? lol. TM is a Philosopher. His filmmaking style comes from that place. If you look at he shows the light, or the flame in the Tree Of Life. Anyone who has experienced it, or them, cannot deny how spot on he gets it. Absolutely beautiful. Ultimately he is doing what all artists should do through their work, and that is express his individual interpretation of the Human Experience.
2:35 boiiii thats hilarious😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
isn't interesting better than boring?
hmmm, interesting :p
Find it interesting that you didnt enjoy tree of life. I think its a masterpiece, and imho malicks best work
He's one of those directors that I actually pull from a lot but I don't really enjoy his films while I watch them with one or two exceptions :)
Can back and review your own "essay" in 10 years time when you're a big boy and less condescending.
Malick has lost the art of the scene in his recent films. They just seem like high falutin music videos. Maybe Tree of Life still had some structure and scenes and storytelling. The earlier films are brilliant (and I'd include Thin Red Line and the New World and even Tree of Life in that category). But the later ones are more like music videos.
I’ve seen that interview. I always found Christopher Plumber, and the other actors, came across as the pretentious ones. It was salty gossiping.
Note: Picasso was not trying to make something beautiful, Malick is not in the same league as Kubrick, lots of potential, some amazingly sublime moments, but rarely does he land, I agree with Plummer he needs a writer or someone to reign him in
Malick is too pretentious for his own good. He makes the most beautiful home movies of all time. They 're not stories, though, and that's what movie making is. I honestly don't knew how he gets financing for these movies anymore.
@@johnbailey2850 what? You are an idiot
I think that your video is good, but at the end, to state that no once can say that his process isn't interesting, just isn't true. There are plenty of people who think his methods are boring and his movies are boring, and that's the end of it.
9 mins and not a single mention of God. I don’t see how you can miss this in Malick. Perhaps the one thing he is most and least subtle about. 15 year old you didn’t appreciate his movies because you don’t see God in them. Seeing they don’t see. Hearing they don’t hear. Else they would turn around and their sins would be forgiven. Ultimately this film essay says nothing because it missed the everything!
U must watch bela tar's the turin horse
Thn you will say nah man malik was good
I've seen that, really liked it actually haha
02:30 hahaha
Post-Tree of Life Malick movies are hard to watch. Like he said it’s just a bunch of A list actors walking around talking nonsense.
Dude malick is a genius wtf are you talking about?
Sukked. Keep moving.
Poor Picasso lol
THANK the Panavision GODs that brodie was NOT involved any higher...Read the book
Funny that you quoted lines from "American Psycho" in your imitation of Malick. Oh, BTW your camera technique sucks. I think Knight of Cups & Song to Song are thought of as experimental films. Hope you saw "A Hidden Life" ✔✔✔😎😎
2:13 ok that's a very pathetic attempt at trying to make a Terrence Malick scene lol
His process is interesting. Good. Great. Glad he gets paid money to make bs movies...... I'll just starve to death. But Terrence is an artiste!
He lost his way after/because of the new world. Too many fart huffing scenes of grass and characters staring at the natural world.
1. The Thin Red Line
2. Badlands
3. Days of Heaven
4. The New World
5. The Tree of Life
6. To the Wonder
And he's a idiot to for not embracing some of mainstream sensibilities in order to have that perfect balance of art and commercial.
Around the 5 min mark when you started talking about Picasso I realized this guy has no idea what he’s talking about and turned this off. You completely gloss over the historical reasons for Picasso painting the way he did, Matisse and African art. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you are miseducating people who are looking to understand these two artists.
That's what most of what this side of CZcams is. Uneducated people educating their naive audience.
Video essays started with people who were informed and passionate about the subjects they talked about, but as time has gone on it's become an easy way to get views so the plebs jumped on board and started making hollow videos that don't have any real point to make.
dunning kruger
effect, people with no knowledge have the most confidence on subject they're far from qualified to even talk about
I don't like when he cuts the characters of the story, very very disrespectful! You hired those actors, and just wasted their talent!
Picasso sucks. Malick is brilliant.
Fool