Plummer: 'I'll Never Work With Him Again'
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- In this clip from Newsweek's 2012 Oscar Roundtable, Christopher Plummer tells of his experience working with Terrence Malick on 'The New World.' "I love some of his movies very much," he says, "but the problem with Terry is he needs a writer, desperately."
- Zábava
I love that Christopher Plummer was being real, whether you agree or disagree with what he said and whether he's right or wrong. He gave a real opinion and wasn't being a phony to be polite, I have a tremendous amount of respect for that.
I like people who are honest and direct-unless they are mean-spirited.You may not agree with them,but I respect their honesty.At least you know where you stand with them.
yes
indeed. Usually actors are playing actor's studio during those interviews, but I guess that with the career he had, he can afford to say his truth about the frustration he felt when this masterpiece of cinema was release.
I'm not agreeing with him (I think Malick's choices are very bold and makes the film great, and I don't think Malick did that on purpose), but I can understand the frustration of dedicating so much time and not being in the movie (or only 2 minutes for Georgie)...
Its pretty disappointing seeing so many Malick fans get so salty over what is ultimately some perfectly legitimate and honest criticism that wasnt rude or aggressive. I still dont agree with Plummer, I like the non-conventional narrative structure to Malick's films that make them feel more like experiences than traditional stories, but its completely understandable why others would find it frustrating, especially if youre part of the crew and have worked your tits off only to have all your contributions edited out. Fans are being pretty childish, so many are speaking about the egos of the actors but they should probably look at their own egos if they get this needlessly aggressive over someone not liking a director that they do.
Fuckin' amazing presence on stage, too.
Just heard the very sad news of Christopher Plummer’s passing at 91... May He Rest In Peace
I come back to watch this again and again because this particular round table scene is an example of how actors communicate with each other about their work. Putting Plummer on this panel provides depth and perspective for the younger people on the panel.
Love Plummer's frankness. I love Malick's film's, for the most part, but I definitely appreciate Plummer's criticisms.
Yes it’s interesting because I know exactly the scene he is talking about. I actually love how Malick will have the character talking in the background while the focus is on something else like idk…it’s a very interesting and authentic take
lol I love how uncomfortable Charlize Theron got when Christopher said, "The problem with Terry..." and it was clear he was about to talk shit about him. Tilda Swinton noticed it and laughed.
Haha yeah that was great. You can feel the awkwardness. "Oh boy here we go..."
Good point. He's later along in his career, he chooses to air his thoughts, but others can't be caught enjoying this too much.
Everyone is agreeing with Plummer - which happens to have a lot of experience in his field as an actor. Someone that wants to do it all writing, and editing should allow those experts to do that instead of the T. Malick.
Has she done a Malick flick? Planning to? Maybe she got uncomfortable because she thinks the same but doesn't like to feel the awkwardness if her own thoughts getting aired?
Any sensible actor wouldn't say anything about anyone that could hire them. Thats all hire.
Whilst I agree the film should always be the directors and he can edit the movie however he feels fit to. Not telling Adrien Brody that you've completely cut him out of the film is a dick move.
That was just an oversight on the part of the production company, it had nothing to do with Malick.
@@ElectricLabel Malick cut the film and Brody was the lead. He should've told him.
Malick did not cut Brody out of the movie, he's still in the movie, he's just not the lead actor.
@@sansebastiansj he's barely in it
@@ElectricLabel - I am a filmmaker and director and screenwriter. If I'd cut a substantial amount of one of my talent's performances from the film--I'd personally be in touch about it. For the final (festival cut) I had to cut only a bit of my leading lady's work, but it is a short film--and I warned her about it beforehand. It's the courteous thing to do no matter how big a director you may be.
Malick is exceptional and his work is exceptional but I feel some of the comments here are unfair to Plummer and the other actors. No one knocked Malick's work even Plummer praised it as 'paintings' but the point remains that actors carefully choose what movies they will invest in and put in a lot of effort in to their performances and for Malick to ignore that because he's filming the wind blowing on a field is disrespectful to other people's craft.
If Malick wants to film the leaves of a tree then he shouldn't drag the actors out in the middle of nowhere and then have them give performances that you don't give a shit about.
Plummer clearly and respectfully stated that he would not work with Malick again and gave valid reasons why. In my opinion it's not ego, it's just his honest opinion
These actors should be grateful to have been paid to participate in Malick's films, as these films will become relics and recorded pieces of art in the centuries to come. These actor's ego got attacked, because Malick revealed to them that they participate in the form of a circle and no statue.
oh please
50 years from now, we will be watching films like Thin Red Line and The Master. We will have forgotten 80% of the shit these actors were in by then. They should be kissing Malicks feet for having gotten a chance to be in something genuinely memorable and important. If they were completely cut out, they should still be happy they had the chance to be there.
thefan12345 Malick need to tell a cohesen story with in the parameters of the heavy themes with work in, and he not going to destroy his art just because a guy do this or that, the movie is higher for him, and that has worked for him a bunch o time, very well if I can add
Not wanting to work with him because the work and possible cut is not worth it to him as an actor is one thing and another to judge his work by saying he needs a writer and him overwriting things till it's pretentious.
Hey they asked him an honest question and got an honest answer... from an actor's perspective and a movie fan. I think he's hit the nail on the head for some of Malick's movies.. Beautiful... but so artsy that the story get's lost.
People always want celebrities to be politically correct, the man is stating his opinion based on his experiences. Its how he feels, if you feel differently and you've also worked with Malick then you're entitled to your own also.
It was really wrong of Malick (or a producer) tell Adrien Brody that his part had been cut (not the first time that has happened) but The Thin Red Line is a brilliant film. And Jim Cazievel was incredible as the main character. Sometimes things like that happen - the end product was not the original intention.
I hate malick for that...
I heard he didn’t tell Brody and Brody found out at the premiere
@@1Animal486, you just heard that in this video.
In his 90s Plummer is still interesting when most actor's are forgotten.
*was, but yes I could listen to him all day.
Most actors don't continue to act into their 90's, but that doesn't mean they're not interesting, much less forgotten.
That's why you have to love Christopher Plummer. Unlike too many of today's stars, that rarely say what they mean and mean what they say, Christopher Plummer kept it 💯, like it/him or not! 👏🏾
Plummer’s points were so well-made and articulated he was speaking properly and people were listening intently to what he said. Except of course for George Clooney who had to keep interrupting and trying to make it about him
He’s a rapper
In Malick's defence, The Thin Red Line turned out as a masterpiece. Jim Caviezel was perfect as the lead actor.
I didn't like thin red line
Thin Red Line is ..... okay.
Given the talent at that movie's disposal, it should have been another "Saving Private Ryan" but with a different slant.
It's... not.
Iain MacLennan The Thin Red Line was a far greater and more moving film than Saving Private Ryan, in my opinion. The only thing I would take away from it was its pacing in parts was too slow.
I think it is a good movie but I hate the dialogue.
The best war movie for me. Perfect.
R.I.P. An absolute legend.
Funny thing is Michael Fassbender went on to star in a Malick film (Song to Song) with the exact same issues that Christopher Plummer was talking about. I can imagine for some actors, unless you buy into his style of working then it probably won't be best experience. Malick's made some fantastic films (Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven, The Tree of Life, Badlands even the recent A Hidden Life was a massive return to form for Malick) and amount of talent he gets to act in his films like Christian Bale, Brad Pitt. Richard Gere, Sean Penn (although him and Penn supposedly fell out during Tree of Life), George Clooney (again doesn't seem his experience was all that great either), Colin Farrell, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman etc... show they are willing to put up with his style of filming.
He's one of those directors that actors will happily give up months to act in his films even at the risk of having their performances either left to the cutting room floor or left to been a cameo at best.
Meanwhile, Mallick just makes movies that are pure magic. Days of Heaven, Tree of Life, Thin Red Line,...each of them is a masterpiece.
tree of life was not a masterpiece.
Sergant Kornballz More like a masturpiece.
IMO, it was a masterpiece
nope. it was merely good.
IYO
Fassbender's reaction: "Shit I just signed to work with this guy, shit"
He also didn’t play Assassin’s Creed until after making that movie
RIP, Christopher Plummer best supporting actor ever...2/05/2021
It’s strange he only got oscar nominations in his 80s and had 3
I actually like the way he edits his films, he sacrifices a more direct A to B to C plot in favour of creating an over-all vibe. Because he has so many actors in his films perform these grand character arks, from which he takes bits and pieces, you get a feeling as a viewer that even though you are not seeing the whole picture, you know that that whole picture exists. Essentially he's placing as much emphasis on background characters as he is foreground characters, so even if you only see Adrian Brody like 3 times, his character has so much more weight than he would otherwise because he was paid the same attention as the protagonist of the film.
Granted this is just a happy accident born out of how Malik makes films, and it may suck for the actors but it makes for a great piece of cinema.
I like The Thin Red Line because it feels like you're watching a lot of very important events that all have weight but you're experiencing them from an outsiders perspective, I think he keeps just enough continuity to keep the viewer invested though.
And yet his films are really good. Weird how that is
+ricochet188 I dont think Plummer was ever criticizing Malicks artistic editing skills. I think he was just saying Malick shouldnt control all these aspects of filmmaking and just try to focus on directing and helping with producing or writing. As a director, you basically are the person who has knowledge of every aspect, but one of the most vital roles is casting the right actors and crew member. Once youve done that, youre film is already half-finished.
Malick is a very unique and prestigious filmmaker, but he either is too character-driven or plot-driven centric. He needs a good mix of both which he tends to lack in one of the areas or goes overboard with them.
+Then It said I think people who criticize Malick just don't have the right mindset to really enjoy his films. His films aren't so much the telling of a story as they are poetic pieces of cinema. He is observing human behavior. He makes it look very real through the cinematography and the soundtrack and voice overs make it into a poem about the human race.
Not everyone will like his style but for the philosophical and deep thinkers his films are pure gold. I've watched all of them at least twice and have yet to find a fault with his style.
Once again. For people looking for a movie made by following established rules of filmmaking, you need to look further.
His films are often incoherent nonsense. Pure psychobabble.
Then he needs to go paint or be a cinematographer. Movies are about storytelling.
I’ve been watching interviews of Christopher Plummer for a video I’m making and I can see that he was quite a character. Incredibly funny and entertaining, and unbelievably honest and real. He’s an influence to be missed. What a loss for the acting world.
Great anecdote ''we're just gonna be a couple of fucking ospreys''
That really was the perfect statement about being in a T.M. film!! It made me laugh.
There should be an in-depth chat show that is sealed until the guest has passed away. Where they can say what they really think.
“Dying declaration” would be a good title.
There's no reason to wait until someone passes away. One of the benefits of getting older is that you have zero f--k's to give.
“Parting Shots.”
@@radioactivehalfrhyme fantastic!!!
@@Mr21scott Every year the host could ask the guest if they want their interview aired in case they give zero f--ks earlier than expected
I love this interview. You guys need to do more of these once this horrible pandemic ends. And I really miss Christopher Plummer now. :(
Everyone who keeps saying Clooney needs to shut up and not interrupt need to remember he WAS in The Thin Red Line, so anything he has to say about Adrien Brody or working with Malick has a strong amount of validity. Also, he didn't interrupt Plummer, notice when Plummer acquaints Clooney at 0:45
Clooney is a dick. A sly, fake, unpleasant mug full of his own self-importance.
Yeah also Michael Fassbinder is looking at George, George is clarifying to Michael
There will be time, he just need to stop interrupting
I like how Michael Fassbender takes interest in Mickie Rourke’s work. It shows that even though he’s become such an accomplished actor and a star he still respects the work of those that came before him.
My favorite part of this is Clooney pretending he was happy he got most of his scenes cut.
He’s a self-absorbed asshole. I like some of his work, but I find him to be a little full of himself.
That was rather ridiculous. Who would be happy about being cut out of "The Thin Red Line?" He acts like it's "Gigli" when it's a certified masterpiece. Not communicating with Adrien Brody about his part was wrong, but the Caviezel character is more interesting and a better performance. Malick wasn't wrong. Today, "The Thin Red Line" would probably make a great limited series (with all those performances left in).
@@fiarandompenaltygeneratorm5044
He's being self efacing. He probably felt that after everything you went through, Clooney was more diverting than needed. His star power had grown that much during the making of it. It made him miscast. Cause we all thought the same thing when he appeared on screen. "What's George doing here?"
He meant it. His star power had grown during the making if the film, and even his small leftover appearance seems oddly out of place. Not anyone's fault. By then it should have been a nobody. But the character was important.
I think he said he was "happenin'" meaning even though he was hot shit at the time he still got cut down
Straight talker. What's not to love about Mr Plummer 🤍 RIP
Michael Fassbender could play young Christopher Plummer.
Rest in Peace Sir.
Absolutely!
Michael Fassbender no longer has a career so that ship has sailed
@@Sciencespipo Next Goal Wins, Kung Fury 2, The Killer, The Wild Bunch (rumored)
I liked when Plummer did an imitation of Colin Farrell. Fellow Irishman
@@Sciencespipo what do you mean? He's still making movies isnt he?
Plummer is one of the world's greatest actors, even better on stage than in movies. He is also a very fine writer, based on his memoir, "In Spite of Myself". It's a blessing that he is still active. CP is absolutely right about Malick's poetic shots and how "he gets lost in that and the stories get diffused..." Of course it's not just TM's magical photography that's beautiful, it's also the music he puts with it. Too bad he wasted the music of Plummer's fantastic voice.
"we're just going to be a bunch of fuckin ospreys" - such a great line and does sum malick up hilariously. that said, i love the thin red line.
I disagree with Plummer’s conclusion that malick should get a writer and this story becomes diffused. Malick’s storytelling is less plot driven and symbolic and subtly guiding, even though the visuals are poignant they allow you to see the sculpt of time in each of his shots and scenes. I understand this not everyone’s flavor but I do think he was wrong about Malick not having a coherent story. Malick in my view is one of the few filmmakers (Nolan is in this list) that can truly be compared to Kubrick or Tarkovsky in the way he plays with time while still retaining a very unique style. His films are just masterpieces because they’re pretty and visually gorgeous but because they have so much thematic and symbolic weight that they peak past the material world like a third person observer.
His more recent films, Knight of Cups and a Hidden Life have been, in my mind, the best contrasts of his style. Knight of cups plays out like a biblical allegory, particularly the Prodigal Son, but allows you to feel the emotion throughout of a lost man. He uses the visuals to reinforce this story not the other way around, however it is very floaty and delicate in its breath like an angelic judge who has compassion for his subject. He then weaves the tarot tapestry as a way to contextualize the light amount of dialogue.
In contrast, A Hidden Life is more plot than his more recent work, like a paradoxically ease into a suspenseful conclusion. But his story again leads the cinematography, not the other way around. He holds on actors and little details to bring weight to his character’s actions. He shows the light moments to show what the character is sacrificing for the great truth and glory to justice and faith of salvation. All concepts that are explored throughout the plot gently.
I think Plummer, who I respect his opinion, was more theatrical in his approach to acting where he wanted the story to be more character driven than Malick wanted. I may be wrong in saying this but I really think it was just a creative difference on the nature of storytelling
I'm a Malick fan, but "To The Wonder," "Knight of Cups" and "Song to Song" were visually masturbatory and emotionally hollow. Plot was completely forgotten in lieu of "poetic shots" (most of which weren't Tree of Life caliber)
@@FilmaticProductions usually that is how a lot of geniuses work, whether it’s art, music or movies, their first body of work is amazing then they just get lost in their own madness that their later work becomes parodies of itself. Good example is James Cameron doubling down on all these avatar sequels nobody asked for. Where I will give Malick credit though is being able to convince the Hollywood bean counters to keep giving him money for all these glorified art projects.
I personally like Malick films. They are different he is not typical filmmaker he is an artist and its not for everyone, sure his films can be slow at times but there is always a reasons why. Do I think its fair to cit lead actor and dont tell..no. but on the end its his film, that actor was paid and he can do whatever he wants with the material. Malick is different and his perspective is something else. Experimentations like Malik's are what still gives to Cinema an opportunity to develop and grow.
I think that’s a great point and I agree that experimentation pushes the expectations of what’s possible in cinema, but I think I’m on Christopher Plummer’s side when he’s talking about the director’s narrative, which feels a little self-indulgent in its presentation. For example, in the Tree of Life there’s a lot of exposition and a lot of unconnected sequences that warrant repeat viewings to understand but that I don’t think benefit the story overall. So what you have is actually quite tedious, in my opinion.
When an actor picks a film they're doing it because they want to be recognised for their work and use it as a stepping stone to better things. Sure he was paid, but he could've picked a different role instead which would've given him exposure or added to his resume in some way to lead to better roles.
I would say that director's early work is often their best because they have to accept with some humility the push and pull of various factors, studio, financing input (though not overtly as budget will have been lower), and also contribution from actors, producers, writers and to a great degree the audience. whom at the end of the day they have to please in order to ever be allowed to make another film. what can present a problem is when that director is then told they are a 'genius' they begin to all too conveniently forget about the various balancing factors that helped them create their early work, and they start to self indulge in their more extreme preferences. crucially they can sometimes forget about the audience, whom they were supposed to be communicating with in the first place. Malick is amazing and definitely played a part in changing cinema. but i can't help to compare and contrast the humour, the pathos, the sheer perfection of Badlands with the pretentious swamp of beauty that was Tree Of Life. in this scenario Malick would do well to take the advice of a seasoned professional like Plummer and use it to make sure his work was balanced. and not too introverted and impenetrable. i'm all for directors pursuing their vision. but heck sometimes people saying 'yes' to them instead of 'no' is actually a cruelty rather than a kindness. they can lose their way. everyone needs feedback. actors get it. why not directors. which is why i totally respect Plummer saying this. directors aren't hallowed gods, they should be able to receive constructive criticism like anyone else. especially from a trusted source. for example, a studio might just be thinking about the mainstream and commercial, and screw cinema. but I truly believe that was not Plummer's motivation here.
I love his films. Most of them anyway. They're so easy to get lost in, the photography is always stunning. One of my favourite filmmakers.
From the actors point (you know the ones you judge a movie off of) Its about respect and the contract. You don't know what you're talking about.
You can feel it in Thin red line. The movie could have ended halfway through but instead it keeps exploring new storylines. Albeit one of the most beautifully constructed I’ve ever watched. Those poetic voice overs were amazing.
The thin red line is the masterpiece and exception for what Plummer is talking about. There was the solid plot about conquering of enemy position and it was keeping Malick in limits in his creating. Probably other his movies don`t have solid plots and Malick swim in them.
@@sims8505 I like Thin Red Line but what the op is saying is true. It feels like a movie that should've ended at a certain point but doesn't, and the rest of the movie is window dressing.
Difference that separates an Actor's artistry and a Director's artistry: Nobody auditions Directors. Their art speaks for them, only, and they are not interchangeable or easily replaced.
Well said.
I could listen to these folks talk just about forever.
I think the voice-over of the thoughts of the soldiers is beyond brilliant, it adds such an amazing dimension to the poetry of the thing. "Maybe all men got one big soul that everyone's a part of." The big universal questions that these simple men ask are so timeless, and the situation that prompts them is just sublime.
I love the movie! Terrence paints his movies onto the screen. He’s into the whole canvas, not just the actors performance.
Good point, however as a film major and seeing Malick's work for the first time, I found it incredibly deep and unlike anything Hollywood tries to sell this day in age. His style is poetry, and if you dissect it, you'll find it a question. Every line has a question at its heart. That's not sucking, that's an incredible skill. Just my observation. He isn't a god, not even Spielberg is, but he has a certain style that seems to target human questions and emotions in a plethora of ways. He's unique.
he's a real artistic genius. these idiots are just tools he's using.
I enjoy Malick's films. They're the type of films where you just sit back, relax, and let everything sink in.
Yeah, I am sure Malick is directing with you in mind: "Engage brain in neutral...."
EXACTLY what he has in mind...
Just sit back, relax and go to sleep is what you mean to say.
I can do that in my backyard for free. Why do I need to pay money to do that?
Well… Tree Of Life was queasy and pretentious horseshit.
Terry's images ARE the story.
TheDensley7 Makes sense that Malick's fans are as pretentious as he is.
***** How the hell is that pretentious?
TheDensley7 pure filmaking in Hitchcock words
are you fucking kidding how is that not pretentious?
Movie muscle, the tingling I feel in my balls tell me you're insecure.
Nobody makes films like Malick. It's too easy to dismiss them as pretentious; they are poetic. And the narration he often uses is more effective than regular dialogue because it's more truthful. In life we don't mean what we say, much of the time. It annoys me that he gets sneered at by people who plead they're _just being real._ They're not - they're just being bitter. Everyone's making fast paced thrillers or rom coms. There isn't room for one dissenting voice? The beautiful thing about Malick's films is that you come out of the cinema noticing things you'd taken for granted.
I remember watching 'Badlands' and walking home on a summer's evening and really _noticing_ the grass for the first time in ages; the smells of nature. The light. You get that sensation you had as a child. Terrence Malick is that rare thing, a truly distinctive voice and for that he should be treasured. I can understand actors being angry with him if they'd been led to believe they were going to have more screen time, but that's something they should realise before they go onto one of his productions. I wonder if Plummer would have been so violently dismissive had his ego been fed by Malick.
I admire a good actor as much as the next person, but I admire good writers and directors more. I don't see why I should care that some actor didn't get the screen time he felt he deserved. Why should it matter to me as a film fan?
+aerialkate Perfect comment. Wish I could up-vote it several times. Love this line especially: "The beautiful thing about Malick's films is that you come out of the cinema noticing things you'd taken for granted."
Couldn't have said it any better.
avedic
Thanks!
I think it does matter. Being a great artist is not an excuse for being so mean. Its not that they didn't get the screen time they felt they deserved, its that he manipulated them into thinking they were the lead of a film and then cut their roles out fully. That's months an actor works and slogs through his/her scenes, and then after being duped into doing those scenes and even doing press to benefit Terrence's films, he's not even told that he /she has been cut? There is something wrong about it. Being a great artist doesn't give you the right to play with people like that. These weren't all cameo roles, but lead roles
+Pran97 I think what you are referring to is during the final marketing and pushing the film in front of audience phase is when the film is already finished and at that point Malick is out of the picture.
The studios and their marketing department are in control of press junkets and interviews not the director. After Malick cuts the film together he is out of the picture as far as how the film gets marketed. If Malick truly never reached out to Brody to reveal that he is no longer the lead in the film then that is shady, but just know that it is not the responsibility of the Director to make everyone happy. From the beginning, all cast and crew understand they are there to serve the vision of the director not themselves.
yeah, and that missed my point. Malick deliberately cut the film in the end according to his own needs without ever informing Brody that he was completely cut. This might be alright if Brody had a small part he knew was at risk of getting cut out. He was deliberately misled to think he was the main character of the film by Malick. Worse than that, Malick didn't have the decency to even warn him that he was being cut. So Brody did all the marketing for Malick to benefit his film. Brody only found out he was cut after doing a full interview press session and then sitting the audience and watching the film. That is a humiliating experience the fault of which mostly lies with Malick. He could have informed Brody he was cutting him after editing the film himself, but no. Brody kept talking about the picture as if he was the main character. Malick could have prevented the humiliation especially when he deliberately caused it, but he only let it escalate. Malick's own issues with the script are no excuse for that. Being a creative genius is no excuse for being a dick.
"He lets the actors just be what they are, human beings. But they have no control over the final result." So right, Larsgathe.
When you become so legend you can publicly say what everyone in the industry actually thinks about a creatively abusive director. Editing out entire roles, let alone scenes without notifying the actors seems plain cowardly and passive aggressive rather than artistic.
meh.
Just shut up when you dont know about art and especially terrence mallik films , yes editing out actors is bad , he just had a bad post prod and doesnt plan his films accordingly but he is an artist of a highest degree and tree off life is one of the most moving films i have ever seen
@@anantambisht4895 - No artist is a deity. Regardless of their talent, they can still behave terribly and make stupid/disastrous decisions, and just as you and I would and should be called out for foolishness, so should they all.
Therefore, take your own advice and zip it, Zippy.
@@eme.261 that is what you dont understand that it is not foolishness , he didn't have any personal vendetta against the actors he removed from final cut . It is just the way his artistic process is. So does he have terrible planning yes...is he not a great artist ?? Hell yes he is one of the greats.
@@anantambisht4895 he is a great artist, and a piece of shit. Being a dick is not prerequisite to being a great artist, you can just be decent and considerate.
Maybe malick is nice in person, but film is a collaborative process, and there is no excuse for his professional behaviour.
Calling it "his artistic process" is pretentious nonsense and not excusable.
You can still love him and his work though. There are far more problematic artists that are beloved.
Why would I need a story when I am looking at the most perfect visual scenes ever committed to film, with tear invoking voiceovers and haunting music. I would watch every Malick film back to back in one go rather than sit through the next Michael Bay monstrosity. If you are new to Malick I would recommend watching The Thin red Line first as it is the most story focused.
Not Badlands?
I was assuming most people on yCZcams new to Malick wouldn't even consider watching a film made before 1990 ;)
Glenuig Hahaha! Nice one. ;) As much as that was a good joke, sadly, there is probably a LOT of truth to it. Cheers.
Saying that Malick would win in a fight against Bay is hardly the most ringing of endorsements, though, is it?
i love how if you don't like Malick people always automatically assume you have to like Michael Bay or films like that, like you can't just not like him or else you're stupid and like mindless blockbusters
I don't blame Plummer or any of the actors for being upset. Sure, they probably still got paid, but Malick wasted a lot of their time and efforts. Who would want to work on a project for a significant amount of time just to be relegated to a meaningless purpose/part? I love Malick and don't have anything against his movie or his process; I just don't blame the actors for being upset
What an icon Christopher Plummer is. Love his authenticity. And if you've not seen the movie Beginners oh, it is wonderful. Ewan McGregor is in it as well. It's one of my favorites and I do believe it's one of his last films. RIP Christopher Plummer and thank you for all you've given us over the years.
Y'know I could see letting Brody know about the changes, but I just saw The Thin Red Line at my independent theater, and I was blown away. An intensely powerful and moving film. The director should be held above everything else, as the sole arbiter of his/her film. Any ego needs to stand out of the way. And the looseness of Malick's narratives and his editing I think are just hallmarks of his work. They evoke a feeling. Hitchcock said it's not about the story, it's about what you're feeling.
The Thin Red Line is puke inducing in it's pretentiousness
@@DrJones20 much like your comment....
@@bestbeloved2704 No
@@DrJones20 it’s a great film. You don’t have to like it. But it’s a great film nonetheless.
@@cicerogsuphoesdown7723 Good photography, horrible writing
A brillant actor who truly shone in all his films but especially late in his career.He will be sorely missed.
Malick’s movies really do look like paintings. Girls twirling in open fields, wide nature shots, quietness etc. But yeah, imagine being cut in the edits after giving a passionate performance.
It doesn't matter. Their vanity is not what the movie is about. Any movie. The Director's vision is what every movie is by definition. The director is the painter, painting his/her masterpiece. The actors are just along for the ride and paid to do a job. So long as they get paid what's the problem?
@@vaskylark Because actors are entitled to their artistic integrity too. You're asking a lot from a person to have them put in dozens of hours of work preparing for a written role which was the lead and then being cut out of the film completely without being given a heads up until they find out at the premiere. I agree that the director's vision is important but you need to remember that film is a collaboration. It is self-indulgent when you completely ignore the work that you told others to do. Most actors do not work for money alone
@@thorkarr3601 I disagree. They should be paid for their work but nothing else, and a true actor who cares about story over character which is what its all about or should be anyway (all the best actors will say its about the overall story not character) won't be caught up with their vanity of having scenes cut out. Movie making is a Directors medium.
@@vaskylark No one who claims to like film should think that plot is more important than character. The character is the vessel through which the viewer experiences the story. If no one cares about the character then why should they care about the story? This is the case for many of Malick's films.
@@thorkarr3601 I never said plot was more important than character. Characters move the plot. I said story, meaning the overall story, the whole shabang! If a director feels that one actors performance helps to tell the story he/she is trying to tell, over another actor's performance, then I think the Director should cut as much of their performance as need be to tell his or her story--meaning the final product. Better to have a great movie than to have one solid performance by one actor but the movie itself is crap. I think you misunderstood me. I am all about character moving the plot and I love certain actors but all of this actors will say that when they took the role they paid more attention to the over arching story, NOT their particular character. That is why they are successful because their acting is geared towards telling a story NOT focusing solely on their performance or character. Those actors are the ones who don't care if their scenes are left on the cutting room floor, so long as the movie tells a great story.
I legit want to see the rumored 6 hour cut of Thin Red Line.
The thin red line is one of my favourites. Masterpiece
Isn't Michael Fassbender cast in Terrence Malick's latest film? Must've not cared for Plummer's advice ;)
+Jean Genie Good, he shouldn't. :)
That was like a year before this
Jean Genie He should've listened because, as the film is finally seeing the light of day, the criticisms against it are exactly what Plummer said.
Jean Genie and Fassbender is terrific in the movie by the way.
Yeah and he seems pretty interested to hear what Plummer has to say :D They propably shot the movie already at this point or were middle of shooting.
Christopher Plummer *RIP* Great actor.
From the research on Malick, I would say when you sign on to do a movie with him, you're signing on to a period of total chaos! LOL
I love Terrence Malick’s work. And Christopher Plummer’s also. Even if they don’t t like working together. 😊
The Thin Red Line is a beautifully shot movie. Great ensembly cast. Probably in my top 10 war movies.
In the book the Thin Red Line the character of Fife is one of the main POV in a company of soldiers on Guadalcanal. Adrien Brody played Fife and was led to believe he was one of the main characters as they shot the movie, along with Nick Nolte and Sean Penn. Then in editing the director cut most of Brody's scenes and dialogue and enhanced Jim Caviezel's character Witt. Now Witt also plays a main character in the novel so this doesn't ruin the movie. But poor Brody was not told this until very late in the marketing and viewing process long after they shot the movie. Very embarrassing. And also what Plummer said about Malick's directing style can be seen in this movie as well. Beautiful shots, with a bare narrative holding it all together. and plenty of pretentious dialogue.
Some actors appreciate Malick's style and can function within it, some don't. Simple as that. Personally I'm a huge fan of Malick's, I think he's the greatest living filmmaker out there but I can totally understand if there are some actors who find working with him intolerable. The solution is simple, don't work with him again, and it seems Mr. Plummer is doing just that. (but I don't agree that Malick needs a writer, his writing fits his films just beautifully)
What stood out to me here was foremost, the quality of the actors/actresses in the room, they're all top shelf. Secondly, the fact that the most senior in the group spoke critically about a highly acclaimed director had to be heartening for all of them. They certainly seemed to be paying close attention to Plummer's comments. I'm also sure all of them have had to contend with controlling or dominant directors, who've put them (the actor) in his or her place. I suspect having had their feathers ruffled, in this case by Malick, they're glad to hear one their own standing up to such a figure...they all probably hope one day they'd be strong enough to do the same...
I understand the perspectives of both. I understand that Malickmakes the movies in the way that he does in order to give them a layer of uniqueness which is what makes his movies special. However, I also understand Plummers point that it's incredibly frustrating as an actor to have to work with pretentious material and then not even have it in the final cut. They didn't even go into detail that Malick forced Plummer to climb a tree despite the fact that he was 75 when filming it.
nicolas daf
Everything is pretentious. And pretentiousness is a good thing. We just have to overcome our nausea lol. No but seriously, it's just poetry. Just gotta approach it as awkward incomprehensible poetry. Then it's great. Well knight of cups- I didn't feel the vibe there much.
Great assessment by Christopher Plummer. I've always said the same thing again and again! Malick needs a writer and a good down to earth editor. If he did that a couple of his movies would be absolute masterpieces.
I knew that Gary Oldman, Viggo Mortensen, Mickey Rourke, Jason Patric, among other were cut...and George Clooney only appears 36 seconds ....but i never knew the story with Adrien Brody (i remember him on the Pt Witt dead scene)!
Personally i loved Thin red line and loved Caviezel character!
Adrien Brody should be cut out of all movies, really.
@@pamclonee9624 The Pianist? He was amazing in that film
I may not love everything he's done but I respect a unique vision...and the sheer beauty.
"I was in that film. I was cut out too, I was happy!"
Somebody needs to tell George that not everything is about him
@@mandaqu Except that he worked on TTRL so his input is important here.
@@mandaqu At least he wasn't Adrien Brody.
Typical Clooney acting like a bitchy schoolgirl.
@@1977Suspiria -- Where was he being bitchy? He was laughing about the fiasco. Methinks you're projecting your own grade-A bitchiness.
To defend Terrence, the vision an artist can have should be the most important aspect of a film… even if it is not convention or even necessarily immediately coherent, a single vision needs to be conveyed in any piece of art
If I was Christopher Plummer I can't imagine I'd feel any different. Malick's approach has obviously always been completely batshit. If he's cutting a lot of scenes that literally no other director would ever think about cutting it's got to be maddening. But I loved The New World, and I wonder if a more conventional edit with dramatic speeches and the like would have detracted from the whole experience. Because in the end the film doesn't feel like theatre - where actors are communicating with and expressing to the audience. The camera is representing the character's point of view....like it's they who are directing the movie, and as such there isn't this perfect God's-eye view of the events around them, it's about their subjective experience in the landscapes they find themselves in, and I found it to be all the more powerful for it. I completely understand not everyone is gonna feel this way though, you have to buy into it and sort of give yourself up to it, and if you aren't prepared to do that, then you'll find it a chore (when I first saw it I could barely keep my eyes open for the second half)
Up until Colin Farrells John Smith decides to leave Pocahuntous or Rebecca's as they call her is where the film starts to drag into boring bullshit territory.
Ironically it seems when Malick really tries to add poetic meaning to one of his films is where he loses the films meaning.
It becomes dull and pretentious like the William Dafoe parody film at the end of Mr. Beans Holiday. "Oh mother, what is life" ? 😂😂😂
Feel you
Love Christopher Plummer. Old School. RIP Sir.
Some great score for it. I'm a huge fan. He made it holy.
The Thin Red Line worked much better structured around Jim Caviezel. It is telling that whatever his style, certain actors keep going back to work with Malick (Sean Penn, Christian Bale). Penn stuck around on TTRL just to watch Malick work after his scenes were done.
Much better than what? You didn't see the edit of the film that had Brody as the lead. Sorry, but what a stupid comment.
That's the biggest table they could get? They're all crammed in there
The Thin Red Line - A moving depiction of war felt through the eyes of a crying America. The roughshod editing captures the inner tears of lost souls on the bloody fields of war. Malik demonstrates his genius by painting a grey perspective on the soldiers hopes. The dreams of a country at loggerheads with it's own identity versus the dark thoughts of aimless generals makes for a fascinating insight into Malik's opinions on the shadows of not always obvious wrongdoing.
I think you are talking about Jack and jill. Easy to mix them up
i knew i liked christopher plummer
It seems he has a evolving vision during his productions, which makes it obviously difficult for his actors.
"evolving vision".. aka jerking around an entire cast and crew of hundreds of people, wasting millions of dollars, and keeping people from getting home or to other jobs on time, for zero payoff.
That's fine when your writing a book or composing, not when there are millions at stake including the jobs and craft of countless people.
His process is reckless at best.
Terrence Malick is a living genius. His films have never failed.
Thin Red Line didn't even makes it's budget back.
@@Bale4Bond Kubrick never won an Oscar and he's the great director in history
@@Bale4Bond one of the best movies about war. Not everything is about money. Shut up.
@@saran5263 In Hollywood it is. 😄
@@Bale4Bond who cares about what Hollywood thinks? That movie was released years ago and still appears in the top 10 lists of a lot of people so...
Does anybody know where I can see the full conversation?
That film has been on my radar for many years and I must get around to seeing it. Caught some of it on television but see at some point.
Some directors can use methods that seem chaotic while others can be very controlled but they can both produce similar end projects.
How dare they scorn at Terrence Malick. His films have never failed. He has always made masterpieces.
Badlands: Masterpiece: Best Film of 1973
Days of Heaven: Masterpiece: One of the Most Beautiful Films Ever Made!
The Thin Red Line: Masterpiece: Best Film of 1998
The New World: Masterpiece: A Visual Triumph: One of the Best Films of 2005
The Tree of Life: Masterpiece: The Most Beautiful Film Ever Made: Roger Ebert: One of the Greatest Films Ever Made
😂😂😂 what a crock of 💩💩
Roger Ebert is my favourite film as well
Full show full show! Upload the full show.
Malick is the auteur director much like Robert Altman. Love his movies still.
RIP Mr. Plummer, he will be missed.
On one hand, not many directors can say they have their own style rather than just variations on somebody's already doing. Not many people make films like Malick and if they do, they do it poorly. But he's definitely an acquired taste.
That must have been awkward for Fassbender because he was about to work with Terrance right after this.
Before anybody ever watches a movie they should be thought at school the history of movie making starting with Le Frères Lumières, the Nouvelle Vague and everithing in between. Everybody should be obligated to watch at least 1 movie of Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Bresson, Andrei Tarkovski, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Terrance Malick... Its like taking your kids to McDonalds and only McDonalds, when you take them to Haute Cuisine they almost imediately puke everithing out. Education is important, being educated on movies is equaly important.
And yet you left out Huston ,Ford And Hitchcock
No, that would just result in an entire generation of people who hate films because they were forced to watch them when they were kids and learn all the history, which is what happens with most people and books
The New World is an absolute masterpiece and Terence Malick is a genius.
I could listen to him all day
It feels weird hearing Captain Von Trapp say the "F" word. (:
The Thin Red Line is an amazing movie. Clooney's just bitter that he got cut.
he was actually in the very end of the movie :D
BlastOffBrothers He had like 1 line.
did you even listen to what was said? He was more upset for AB who was the lead in the movie, and then was cut completely out of the film without being told. BTW GC was in the movie
jakob rhinehart Adrien Brody was cut completely out of The Thin Red Line? Did you even see The Thin Red Line? If you could try to not comment about movies you haven't seen, it might work better for you!
ironichipster I disagree with you there. The Pianist was just you average Holocaust movie elevated to a very good movie by a terrific central performance and stunning cinematography. The Thin Red Line is haunting and spellbinding filmmaking. It's also the purest form of existentialism because Malick explores man's connection with nature in its rawest form. The Thin Red Line is both engaging and philosophically ambitious, that's something rarely found in movies.
Rip mr plummer ty fr sounds of music,begginers etc rest easy
I really liked Plummer's performance in The New World. It was powerful. Probably he thinks the same as me, and is disappointed that he was cut as he could get nominated for an oscar if he wasn't. Well, but Malick doesn't care much about theatrical performances; he is more after natural, innocent and unintended stuff... Plummer should have known that before working with him.
The way Clooney says "He was on the cover of Vanity Fair."
I wanted ANYONE else in that room to say "Who gives a @#$%?"
He's not saying that to impress the room. He's saying it to give context to how Adrien Brody was being touted as the Next Big Thing at the time... only to then have practically zero to show for it.
I thought the context was that he was on the cover of Vanity Fair "to promote that movie he was staring in (that he was ultimately cut from)", though I could be mistaken there.
He was giving insight as someone who is in the field does. Clooney knew it was messed up to tout Broody around like your lead and he was a glorified extra, if that.
the reason why i like terrence more than any other director today is because he celebrates the beauty of nature and mankind he shoots as he sees it in the moment to capture the best and most candid of pictures of cinema in a philosophical way much like poetry. For me i would have to say that one has to have a higher understanding of the world to truly understand the cinematic genius Malick is. true that Malick is very possessive but look at what being possessive gets you NEW WORLD.
His style is unique and is every bit as amazing as other top directors.
Christopher Plummer was merely answering a question that was catered towards how 'he' found working with this person, so of course his speech was bound to centre around what he felt!
R.I.P. Legend.
Viola Davis seems mildly amused. Like "I am not even going to pretend I give a shit about this story".
_Maidez_
Probably doesn't know who they are talking about...
Lol
GFY, you racist idiot !!! Do you think a smart actress like Viola Davis would not know who Terence Malick is? LOL !!!
She’s smiling and enjoying it at the end when Plummer says he sent the letter
@@anthonybailey8317 whoa, where did race come into it?
It was so cool to hear someone as talented, accomplished, successful, and hard working as Christopher Plummer talk shit about someone lol
hi, i dont have audio right now in this computer....what clooney said about malick????.....
You may criticize some of Malick's later works but The new world is an absolute masterpiece, Plummer made a fool of himself here.
mobbaddict the New World is an amazing screensaver for the first 10 minutes and then you quickly leave the theater before the dialogue starts. I can only criticize 3 movies that I saw on purpose and 1 where I got dragged to see a movie I had no knowledge about and partially through I said to myself, this makes me feel like a Malick movie - I want to kill myself. Plummer rocks. You've made a fool of yourself here.
+Zennofobic What can i say, you missed a great film. The new world is Malick's last movie with a rock solid storyline. It's pretty long (especially if you watch the director's cut) but the structure is very cohesive with each scene being built like a visual poem.
+mobbaddict that was my general advice to others, I watched the whole thing and I suppose in all honesty it wasn't horrific. The movie I walked out of was Thin Red Line somewhere halfway or 2/3 through, I just found it unbearable. Then someone tricked me into seeing Tree of Life and once I realized it was Malick I left as quickly as I could.
+mobbaddict A New World is in many ways Terrence Malick's most impressive film, a harrowing statement of man's relationship to nature, explored through the clash of 2 darwinian cultures
Love this. Actors never talk smack about a big director openly like this. Christopher Plummer is obviously at a point in his career when he just doesn't give a shit. Of course, he's spot-on about Malick, and saying what tons of actors (and viewers) think.
I would love actors and directors to be more honest - they're famously too nice about others. Tell the fucking truth, because as actors that's what you do on stage, as it were.
Okay, so where's the rest of it ?
That's interesting to hear. Considering how beautiful his movies are to watch. They are also very challenging to watch. I make a point to see his movies, at least twice. To see if I'm missing something he wants us to see. It's very hit and miss. I've seen "Thin red line" maybe 4 times. But I can't get through an hour of "The new world". Again, shot beautifully. Lots of non dialogue space.
Christopher Plummer was simply being real here and stating his unadulterated opinion. A lot of people, both in and out of the industry, blindly praise directors of Malick's caliber due to their reputation and acclaim. It's refreshing to see a new opinion and a different look at these titans of filmmaking. You'll note that Plummer still considered Malick talented and found his shots specifically beautiful, but his screenwriting abilities much less concrete. This is a perfectly sound opinion.