I've been wrestling with what to write about the film since we saw it. Kind of like how I was wrestling with what to say when we came out of the theater and ended up just not really saying anything except: "That was intense guys." I need time to process things, I'm not good with immediate reactions. Compounding that problem is the fact that you guys are all huge Malick fans, and I have not seen any other Malick films. I'm sure I would have a completely different reaction to this film if I had seen his others. But hey, maybe that's why it's worth throwing in my two cents on the thing as maybe a representative of the "average" viewer.
I liked the discussion you guys were having in the car about the film critic who asked about a Godard film (I think) - would you have liked it so much if you didn't know it was Godard and thought you were watching a student film? And you guys were saying something like that that doesn't really even make sense because you have to take a film in the context of the rest of the author's work. Clearly I do not have such strong allegiances to directors (i.e. I love Wes Anderson but Bottle Rocket put me to sleep and I thought "Hotel Chevalier" was bizarre), and as someone who has not seen anything else by Malick, honestly I think the critic had a decent point. When the screen went black for the 800th time and inexplicably the credits came on and I saw that big name Terrence Malick flash on the screen, I was thinking that it could have been 2 and a half hours of a big red dot with ants crawling around it, and no matter what it was, all these Malick fans would say "wow that was fucking GENIUS" "that was the greatest movie of the century" "I can't wait to get that on DVD" and like be masturbating in the aisles even if they didn't understand it at all. Because all the other Malick fans would be saying the same thing, and nobody could admit to each other that they were a little confused, or didn't quite understand the themes, or didn't love it, because then they wouldn't be in the cool club. And no matter what Malick makes, it will be genius. His name is more important than the movie itself, and in another 8 years, everyone will be saying his next film is the most important film of the millennium, because he made it.
NOTE: I'm not saying this is you guys, I just mean in general. John and Jeff, I loved your reviews, and I was glad you weren't just like, OMG THAT WAS SO FUCKING AMAZING AND EVERYONE WHO DIDN'T GET A HARD-ON FROM THAT MOVIE SUCKS. Haha. By the way Jeff the end of your post about watching Planet Earth with the sound off and a Brahms record playing in the background? I laughed out loud. That's good stuff. :)
My problem with this whole phenomenon with a director like Malick is that to me the fact that he actually probably could pull a Warhol and release an 8 hour film of the Empire State Building and everyone would think it was genius just diminishes the amazingness of their individual films and robs everyone of the discussion and maybe even some worthwhile feedback, because the answer from the superfans is just, "you just don't get it." I mean, I know why people have that reaction. And art is art, I know that, and that's cool, I'm a musician, I understand.
But I remember when I was in high school I wrote some poems and my teacher was like, I don't get this stuff, I'm sure this all means something to you, but the way you're expressing it, it's hard for someone else to relate to what you're trying to get at, and with poetry you want someone else to feel this too. With a movie like this, that's kind of what I want to say to Malick. Like, I'm sure this makes total sense to you dude, and obviously you're working through some shit, and that's awesome. But I didn't quite catch all that.
And it's not even that I didn't "get it." I mean... I thought I was getting it. I like all the themes (or non-themes) a LOT, I think these are such big important issues to deal with in film, and where better to do that than in an epic film like this. I also don't mean my comparisons literally, I didn't think it was like watching 8 hours of footage of the Empire State Building by any means, I just wanted to make a point.
I think my problems with it stem a lot from what John said earlier - it didn't make an emotional connection. I mean, obviously Jeff and Brandon you brought your personal pasts into the context of the movie, and you were able to relate to the characters, so it worked for you. But let's be honest guys, me not having an emotional reaction of any kind to a movie is... unusual to put it mildly.
I do think I have a pretty open mind when it comes to movies, which I think is why I watch them so indiscriminately. I am completely open to a nonlinear movie. I actually love when movies are told "out of time," I've said that a few times on here. Part of why I watch so many indies is because they can and do try out different, cool stuff, like in Conversations With Other Women where the entire movie is split-screen and sometimes it's showing memories instead of present action. Pi: Faith in Chaos. I drooled through that movie. MOARRRR!!!! I love seeing experimentation, I have not bought into the Hollywood film 'there is only one way to make a movie' nonsense. Memento. Eternal Sunshine. Magnolia. Shit, the musical Merrily We Roll Along is told backwards. The musical The Last Five Years is told BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AT THE SAME TIME ON A FUCKING STAGE. Blows my mind. There are a billion examples, I could list them forever. My point is that I love love love this kind of stuff.
Here's what else I love. Aesthetically it was absolutely by far the most beautiful movie I've ever seen. The footage was GORGEOUS. And I absolutely LOVED the music, I can't remember a film whose score I loved this much. I thought the way he tied together the footage and the music was fantastic and lovely and brilliant. Every frame, every image (except the CGI dinosaur) was delectable. Including the Bill Murray cameo, right John? (HA - just kidding!) And I thought the performances were terrific. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain impressed me, but the real win for me were the kids. Great acting, visual perfection, and I would even say brilliant editing. I loved the prayer dialogue. I didn't fall asleep during the movie. And it didn't bother me at all that it dragged so much. (It did drag.) It was beautiful to watch, it really was kind of like watching a nature documentary at some points, and I thought that was a truly inspired idea. I was into it though, I had patience for it, I was with him on all of this stuff.
But I think in our long tradition of being a storytelling culture it's hard to enjoy something that SEEMS like it's going to have a narrative, and then doesn't really. I think people can "put up" with a lot cinematography- and editing-wise, but start messing with plotline and you're treading dangerous ground. Especially when it's set up like it's going to have a structural narrative. I mean, there are characters for heaven's sake. One thing people don't like about indie movies is that a lot of times the ending is ambiguous. That annoys people. This was that times a billion, the whole damn thing was ambiguous.
What was the center of the story? Who or what were we focusing on? Was it Sean Penn's character? Or the little boy version of him? Was it the brother who died? Or was it just about the dynamic with the parents and the boys (which was all that 4 out of the 5 guys in our group could talk about when the movie ended)? If it was about Jack and his father, why even have the brother die and why have all this prayer stuff in it? If it was about the brother dying, why have Sean Penn in it as the modern day character and why focus enough of the movie on the stuff with the father and the son to make you guys come out talking mainly about that? Was it somehow purely supposed to be about faith? Beauty? Grace? Regret? Suffering? Job? Or God? Or the gods? Was it nature? The actual tree itself, literally? Childhood? Adulthood? Love? Death? Life? That all life is related? The *circle* of life? SIMBA?!
TELL ME GODDAMMIT!
Without at least a single theme that I could be sure of, I became convinced we were going to find out at the end how the boy died, to tie the whole thing together. Like, that Jack killed him because of the temper he inherited from his father and because of his anger with his father manifesting itself in these weird ways, and his need to be his mother's favorite, and then he pushed him over some rocks or something, and that was going to mean something Very Important. I fell back on reliance on the plot, because I didn't even have a clear theme to hang my hat on. Why were all these themes, or non-themes, put together in one movie? I couldn't process this. I knew with all those shots at the end, the movie must be ending, and I thought, "please please don't be the ending, please don't just cut to black after one of these shots..." and it did.
I think I could get behind all of it anyway, if then it had provided something emotionally. It didn't, for me. If it was about what I thought it was about, I wanted not only emotion but like John said, anguish. Anything. I know people whose young children have died. This was nothing like that. I wasn't touched by anything emotionally in the film. I was touched by the beauty of the shots. But nothing with the characters or story. When she gave her son to God at the end, I didn't care. I didn't know why I was supposed to care. Was this about her all this time? She was barely in it. And I didn't know why all those people were on the beach, were they dead NOW and all in heaven? Why was Sean Penn the only one who was older though? Oh my god was this the apocalypse? Where the hell was Will Smith with an oozie and a rabid zombie dog, then?
Maybe the point of the movie was to not know what the hell the point of all of that was, because what is the point of life, anyway. Or something like that. ;) Like, "Everything in life is connected... but we don't know how. Suck it." Maybe he's messing with us. If so, it worked on me.
You guys say it's the most important movie of the year. I have to challenge that. Important to whom? Is it important in terms of important to watch? I think it's pretty inaccessible for the general population, who even if they saw it (not likely, unless they thought it was Benjamin Button) would honestly probably not be getting much from it. Tara slept through it and said it was not her cup of tea - I think that's the reaction you're going to get from most everyone who watches it. NOT that I'm saying you should go by that. But it also didn't teach me something about myself, or about you guys, or about humanity, I can't say it's necessarily important in the life scheme kind of way. Is it important because it's a different kind of filmmaking? Or because it's Malick? Important because it's a different kind of filmmaking AND because it's Malick? I have a hunch that if this was an indie film I made you watch and it was by NOT Malick, you guys would not be saying it's the most important film of the year. Is it important in terms of like breaking boundaries for filmmakers? I don't think he's the first filmmaker ever to do something interesting like this, but I would still probably buy that argument anyway... but Jesus if all the films from now on have no coherent plots I'm going to stop watching them. ;)
I like that the movie made me think about all this stuff, but I can't help but think of the teacher who criticized my poetry. Why did Malick make this movie this way? It seems selfish. Like she said, I wanted to feel it too. But the way this is expressed, I can't understand it. But I really really want to feel it too.
You might call me a philistine, and that's okay, that's why I switched from a concentration in film criticism to one in TV and pop culture. ;) I liked watching this film, it was beautiful and a great film-going experience. I wouldn't be booing it at Cannes or walking out of a theater on it, obviously. I don't want my criticisms to outweigh the good things I thought about it. But I can't help challenging the unconditional MalickMania. I know all the film VIPs are salivating over this movie, and I know I "just don't get it." Ah well. I can't wait to watch other Malick films to see what they're like though - honestly from what I've heard I think I'll like them better. Sorry this was rambling, it's 4am!
No comments:
Post a Comment