Filmography: Terrence Malick

    

    As some of you may have noticed (if anyone is still out there), the frequency of posts on this blog has dropped significantly over the last few weeks. My weekly retrospective Oscar article "If I Picked the Winners" has ceased and with the exception of some new trailers and one or two reviews of some of the summer's newest films, I haven't been on the ball in terms of updating this blog. The reason for scarcity of new articles is due to some work I am doing on side projects, and in all honesty, the sparse posting rate will likely continue for a few more weeks. I've missed writing articles for this blog though, so I thought I would take a breather from some of the other things I'm working on to introduce a new feature for auteurfan: Filmography. The idea behind Filmography is to review the entire body of work from an auteur (and maybe some actors too). It won't be a weekly article like "If I Picked the Winners" was (which I do plan to pick up again at some point), but I will periodically pick an auteur, discussing his style and imprint on cinema, and than rank his (or theoretically her) entire filmography, from my least favorite film in their repertoire to their absolute best.

     For my opening edition of Filmography, I thought I'd start with the auteur who has been most on my mind this summer: Terrence Malick. The enigmatic filmmaker (he never does interviews and hasn't allowed a photo of himself to be published since the 1970's) is coming off the success of his highly praised new film "The Tree of Life", starring Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain. The film (which is semi-autobiographical) is loosely based on a family growing up during in Waco, Texas during the 1950's, but it is more a menagerie of images contemplating and reflecting on the nature of existence. I recently reviewed film (which if you missed it, you can check out by clicking here), where I gushed over it's philosophical prowess and general brilliance, given it the highest ranking of 10. The film is easily the best film I've seen this year, and even if that isn't much of an endorsement (and so far it isn't), and encourage every filmgoer to go see it (keeping an open mind and adventurous attitude toward non-narrative filmmaking).

     "The Tree of Life" may be the culmination of what Malick has been trying to get across since his feature film debut in 1973, "Badlands" (a review for which I wrote here). Even within the confines of the film's narrative about two young lovers who go on a cross country killing spree, staples and themes are established that Malick has dealt with in every film since. In terms of raw filmmaking techniques and trademarks, the reliance on reflective narration by either the central protagonist(s) or some secondary observer (usually spoken in a hushed voice and mannered pace), revelrous shots of nature from the ground (or human's ) perspective, and measured pacing that let the film's events unfold instead of being foisted on the audience, all can be found in Malick's first film all the way through his last. In particular, in Malick's obsession with nature, I think we find the driving force behind Malick as an artist.

     Malick again and again comes back to man's relation to nature, and his love/hate relationship with his caretaker/captor, as his primary concern. A philosophy-major Rhode Scholar at Harvard who then went on to Oxford where he attempted to get a PhD in philosophy, but left after a falling out with his advisor (his thesis was unsurprisingly to be on Martin Heidegger, another man obsessed with man's place in nature), Malick's philosophical roots are always at the forefront of his films. In fact, the intellectual nature of his films are one of the hallmark signs of a Malick film. Ironically though, even though philosophy (outside of film) is one of my favorite subjects, the cerebral flavor of Malick's films has always been a barrier stopping me from embracing his work to the extent that others have. It's not that the ideas he presents are so beyond the grasp of the human mind as to make them indecipherable, even if hidden, they are usually plain (but interesting) enough to comprehend, but they exist in such a realm of the mind to almost dehumanize them. At times, his films have an almost academic feel to them, as if we were God study his creatures, like scientist watching lab mice attempting to navigate the maze we have built for them. In other words, they lack a certain subjectivity, making them feel a bit icy in their staunch objectivity. The result (for me anyway) is I end up admiring them more than loving them (although this is not the case with my favorite Malick film).

     The thing that Malick is famous (notorious) for is his slow work rate. Since his debut feature in 1973, Malick has made an astonishingly few 5 films, which includes a twenty year break between his second feature, "Days of Heaven" (1978), and his third feature, "The Thin Red Line" (1998) (most of the absence was spent teaching in France). His sparse output though has only added to his mystique and has made the release of his films eagerly anticipated epic events. Even during his long hiatus though, Malick did not abandon film altogether, as he continued to develop ideas during his cinematic fallow. In particular, through much of the 1980's he was developing a project simply referred to as "Q", which would explore the origins of life on earth. Although he eventually ended up abandoning the project, some of the ideas lasted and appeared in the wonderful "evolution" sequence in "The Tree of Life".

     Since his return to film in 1998, his work rate has steadily increased. After 1998's "The Thin Red Line", he was back with another film a mere seven years later (cut down from the previous twenty year span between "Days of Heaven" and "The Thin Red Line") with 2005's "The New World". For his next film, he managed to cut a year off of that for a six year difference between "The New World" and this year's "The Tree of Life", but now the unthinkable may occur. We may get two Malick films in two years, as he has already wrapped filming on his newest film with a release tentatively scheduled for some time next year. Nobody knows a lot about the film yet (right now it doesn't even have a title) other than the fact it supposedly fits into the "romance" genre, but it does sport an impressive cast that includes Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Rachel Weisz, Javier Bardem, Jessica Chastain (from "The Tree of Life"), and Barry Pepper just to name a few. After the film's release, maybe I'll go back and place it among the rest of his work, but for now Malick has five films to his name, so lets delve into those films.

5. "The New World" (2005)

     Out of Malick's five films, this is the only one that I wouldn't say I liked. I wouldn't say I disliked it either, but rather I feel pretty indifferent towards it. "The New World" tells the story of the English settling of Jamestown, Virginia, and more specifically, it deals with the life of the legendary Algonquian princess Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher) and her relationships with two Englishmen, a tumultuous relationship with the man she loves, Captain John Smith (Colin Farrell), and a more genial relationship with her eventual English husband who brings her back to England, John Rolfe (Christian Bale, who oddly enough, did some voice work for the much different Disney version of the same story, "Pocahontas"). Malick had actually completed the script for the film way back in the late 1970's, but for whatever reason did not get around to filming much later. The main obsession with Malick in this film appears to be authenticity. He and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki set up some ground rules before the shoot which included the strict use of only natural light (which they were able to achieve except for one minor scene) and the banning of any crane or dolly shots, which gives the film a very subjective "man-on-the-ground" feel.

     Malick attention to detail and devotion to authenticity does come across and is one of the film's strong points, although the single-minded obsession with creating the perfect mise en scene may have come at the expense of other aspects of the film. The other strong part of the "The New World", which I'm sure was one of the things that inspired Malick to make the film in the first place, is how it captures the incredible clash of culture that occurred in the settling of the "New World". If we landed on another planet to find an intelligent living species (or vice versa), the awkwardness of trying to come to terms with one another would likely be similar. Obviously, the English knew the Indians were human, as the Indians knew the English were human, but the differences between the two peoples and cultures were so great at the time to approximate alien species, and the film gets this feeling across.

     The problem with the film though, and ultimately the Achilles heel that brings it down, is Malick overplays his sympathy, showing his hand on who the "truly wise" people are. Now given Malick's worship of the natural world throughout his films, it comes to no surprise that in a culture clash between the "advanced" British culture and the "primitive" Algonquian culture, Malick would side with the nature worshippers, and this is perfectly fine, but even when making a movie where you clearly favor one side over the other, it's still best to let the events speak for themselves instead of manipulating the audience to see things a certain way. There are countless examples throughout film were we can guess were the directors sympathies lie, but even so, they manage to present the events in an object enough way to leave things up to the viewers interpretation, which is of great benefit to the film. Unfortunately, Malick's overzealous reverence towards all things created by someone other than man leads him to almost canonize the Algonquian people, and when you pile this on top of adoring shot after adoring shot of trees and all things green, and at a running time of 150 minutes, it gets to be a little much.

4. "Badlands" (1973)

     "Badlands" is the film in Malick's filmography in which I feel most conflicted about. In some ways, the 1973 debut film of Malick is his best. Based on the real life 1958 cross country killing spree of Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate, the film is easily Malick's most focused, with something that actually resembles a traditional narrative, although his trademark lyricism that would come to define his career is still present. The film's greatest strength though comes from the performances Malick elicited from his two serial killing costars, Sissy Spacek as the implicit ally Holly, and Martin Sheen in an absolutely astounding performance as the heartless (and maybe thoughtless) trigger man Kit. Both performances were deserving of Oscar nominations (and maybe victory for Sheen), although neither received a nomination from the Academy, as their turn as the callous killing lovers is what captivates the audience from beginning to end. Sheen's free spirited aloofness (a la James Dean), and Spacek's faux-naive country girl (twirling a baton in her daddy's front yard as carefree as can be when Sheen's Kit first comes across her) are two unique characters in cinema who will forever cement the film's place in cinema as a "must-see".

     My problem with the film though comes in its coolness towards the subject matter. While showing a serial killing spree in a simple matter-of-fact manner is much better than the overheated tripe that many a modern director would likely handle this subject matter with, the film goes too far in reflecting it's characters outlook on the world. I have absolutely no problem with a film seeming to empathize with its protagonists' duplicitous behavior, in fact, I love this approach (which is why "Taxi Driver" is one of my all-time favorite films), but Malick goes so far in presenting the horrendous acts in a nonchalant manner, that instead of coming off as sympathetic, it comes off as patronizing. By the end, you feel like saying, "We get they lack empathy, they get they lack empathy, the whole world gets they lack empathy, so I can we please stop fussing over it and get on with the story". At times, Malick comes off as the omnipresent patriarchal figure shaming his children for their bad, bad behavior, and while it is true they were basically still children, this lack of respect for the film's central characters does not serve the film well in it's overall goal.

     From a technical standpoint, even in his debut feature, Malick shows off his visual prowess. The beautiful cinematography, showing off the breathtaking landscape of the United States' "fly-over" country, is one of the film's strongest points. Like most of Malick's work, the landscape becomes a character in and of itself. This includes Malick's trademark subjective "ground-level" shots of the surrounding nature, which works pretty well in the context of the film, as the runaways hideout from the law in the woods, almost like kids camping and "roughing it" in a tree house. And like children experiencing the "wonders of nature" for the first time, the sense of awe displayed in the camera work and Spacek's phlegmatic narration reflect a paradoxical calm that many feel when exposed to harsh realities of "the elements". All in all, "Badlands" is a good film definitely worth checking out sometime in your movie-going life, but Malick's overzealous devotion to getting one, and one mood only to the audience ultimately hamper what otherwise could have been one of the all-time greats.

3. "The Thin Red Line" (1998)

     Out of all Malick's films, "The Thin Red Line" is the film I feel least qualified to talk about. While I have seen the film two or three times, it has been some years since my last rendezvous, and frankly, my memory is pretty hazy. The film, which was highly anticipated as it marked Malick's return to cinema for the first time in twenty years, is based on the autobiographical novel of the same name by James Jones. The film (and the book, presumably) focuses on the infamous Battle of Guadalcanal, one of the many deadly battles in the less glamorous "War in the Pacific", that would eventually be ended by the only use of atomic weapons in the history of the world. Like most of Malick's films, the word "narrative" can only be used in the slightest sense, as the film jumps around its large ensemble cast (made up of an impressive mix of who were then "newcomers", along with some astounding veterans), never really settling down to tell the story of any one particular soldier, but instead giving us a glimpse inside the ruminations of multiple men as they try to make sense of the horrific chaos surrounding them.

     Interestingly, the film was released the same year as another high-profile World War II film, Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", and the two went up against each other head-to-head at that year's Oscars (causing a split in the "World War II" vote that possibly allowed the comparatively light-weight comedy "Shakespeare in Love" to shock the world and steal away 1998's Best Picture award). While nothing in "The Thin Red Line" can top Spielberg's revolutionary "storming the beaches of Normandy" sequence that opens "Saving Private Ryan", comparing the films as a whole, I actually prefer the moody contemplation of "The Thin Red Line" over to what boils down to a Spielbergian adventure flick in "Saving Private Ryan". The philosophical meditations of "The Thin Red Line", and its long running time (which was cut down from its original six hour length, including cutting whole characters out who were bright to life by some fairly famous actors), likely put many off (or at least much more than the more typical tone and pacing of "Saving Private Ryan"), but I actually got a greater feeling of authenticity with Malick's version of the Second World War than Spielberg's.

     As always, Malick's primary concern seems to be man's place in nature, and specifically in this film, the contrast between the beauty of the tropical surroundings with the hellish acts of death and brutality the soldiers inflict on one another. Even though Malick's intentions are pretty obvious, which includes more indulging of Malick's obligatory nature shots (which do become a bit ponderous here and there), the end results are pretty effective. To see the luscious beauty of what might be an island paradise, twisted into the pain and suffering of men getting limbs blown off and burnt to death by flame throwers, really brings home the the dualistic nature of existence, and more particularly, of man's existence. Malick proves to be just as adept as any more traditional "action-oriented" director at staging brutal, realistic war sequences, and the film also has some standout performances from a great ensemble cast (in particular, from Nick Nolte as a "get the job done come hell or high water" lieutenant). While the film may not be as profound as it thinks it is, "The Thin Red Line" is still a first class war film, taking a uniquely philosophical look at the genre that has not been repeated since.

2. "Days of Heaven" (1978)

     Malick's second film, "Days of Heaven", centers around a love triangle between two displaced city dwellers and a rich farm owner around the dawn of the 20th Century. After having about all he can take of the city of Chicago, Bill (Richard Gere) brings his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams), who pretends to be his sister, along with a adolescent girl named Linda (Linda Manz, who serves as the film's narrator), to the country side of the Texas panhandle, were they work as migrant workers as on a rich man's estate (simply known as The Farmer in the film, played by Sam Shepard). The Farmer soon falls in love with Abby, and although she is initially hesitant to respond to his advances, at the encouragement of Bill, who wants to ride the gravy train of The Farmer's wealth, she eventually accepts the Farmer's request for marriage. Once married though, she begins to genuinely love the Farmer, which makes Bill jealous to no end. Torn between the two men she loves, her indecision make Bill's animosity towards the Farmer all too clear, eventually leading the Farmer to discover the true relationship between Bill and Abby, sending him off into a furious rage.

     What I love about the film is it's sense of time and place, which in this case is the late 19th/early 20th century. This is an extremely fascinating time in history, as it was a time of rapid technological growth, where the old and quaint awkwardly clashed with the new and bold, but for some reason Hollywood (and all of cinema for that matter) has spent precious few hours delving into the vastly interesting period of history. Coming back again to Malick's obsession with the antagonistic/symbiotic/dependent relationship man has with nature, "Days of Heaven" encapsulates this tumultuous relationship well by mirroring it twofold: first in the love triangle between the three leads, and secondly in showcasing the strenuous and desperate work that it takes to run the farm, which is beset by all kinds of naturally hardships such as locust, and most memorably in the film's best scene, fire. At this time in history, humans finally felt like they were getting the upper hand on nature, with new mechanical inventions that made farming much "easier". "Easier" of course is a relative term, for even with these new efficient machines, it wasn't like setting some controls and let the farm run itself. The technology still required extensive (backbreaking) human input, and despite all this hard work, we see again and again nature take it all away in an instant.

     The film also sports some wonderful performances. Richard Gere, an actor I'm usually not a fan of, gives the best performance of his career, and Brooke Adams, as a sympathetic woman torn between two men who each have their own unique strengths and flaws, is also magnificent. Sam Shepard, as the sensitive but prideful Farmer, does a spectacular job as well. Shepard's role could easily be played as a suffocating patriarchal figure, but the actor wisely infuses the character with more dimensions, making us sympathize with, as well as judge, him. Linda Manz, who plays the "street smart" innocent, plainly narrating the tragic events from the "eyes of a child", overplays the "old-timey latchkey kid" chord, but she does some great expressive moments, and there have been kids in other movies who have played similar roles much worse. Given the fact though that in the middle of shooting the film, Malick threw away the script and made the actors, "find the story", they all should be praised for there terrific role in shaping this fine film.

1. "The Tree of Life" (2011)

     As I stated in my review of the film a few weeks ago, "The Tree of Life" is easily my favorite Malick film, the film that in my eyes finally brings him up to the level of the all-time greats. His first true masterpiece. The reason why "The Tree of Life" succeeds to a point where the others could not reach, is "The Tree of Life" is his most human movie yet. Maybe due to the personal autobiographical nature of the story, for the first time in Malick's career we are really allowed to empathize with the characters, not simply look down at them with pity from the clouds on high. We see things from their perspective, feel things from their perspective, and no emotion is off limits. And while Malick obviously favors the "way of grace" (represented by Mrs. O'Brien, played by Jessica Chastain) over "the way of nature" (represented by Mr. O'Brien, played by Brad Pitt), he only does so because one way leads to happiness and joy, while the other leads to pain and hate, not simply because they correlate to ideals of "good" and "evil". By having the film's protagonist, Jack (played by Hunter McCraken as a boy, in an amazing performance that deserves award attention) naturally tend towards the "way of nature" himself, we also come to understand this view point as not some evil Nazism that must be shunned forever, but as an understandable misguided viewpoint that is an almost inevitably part of the human experience.

     The film also stands out for the fact that it is Malick's most "auteur" work, by which I mean not only that is it his most "unconventional and individual" work yet, but the film that most represents him as a person. Now I don't Malick personally, but through his work we have gotten a sense of who the man is, and while in his other films he strongly hints at his real identity, there is always something held back. Something that isn't fully authentic. But with "The Tree of Life", Malick finally lets it all go, showing us the man behind the curtain for the first time in his career. This is achieved mostly from a wholesale abandoning of the conventions and traditions of "narrative filmmaking". Something about Malick's tone, pace, and subject matter never totally blended with the usual story telling methods, and by dropping attachment to convention, Malick is allowed to express himself as he has always meant to. Using constantly moving images, (including his typical "ground-level nature" shots, but put in a much better context than in his other work) connecting things as seemingly disparate as the creation of the universe and children playing "kick the can", and giving significance to the characters' emotions, Malick is finally is able to paint the picture he has been conceiving all his life.

     This has to do I think also with a shift of focus from nature, to Nature. For the first time, Malick does not only delve into the natural world created by God, but the natural world that is God. The last sentence may sound like some circular Eastern Philosophical Mysticism gibberish, but the distinction between the two is real. In Malick's other films, it is clear he views nature as the by product of God himself, which is why we should cherish it, but he still ends up worshipping the physical manifestation of His will. In "The Tree of Life", Malick seems to move beyond the worship of the physical world itself, but existence itself, from the creations of the cosmos, the the finely cut line of their suburban Waco home. In other words, Malick moves beyond surface questions to deeper contemplation on space and time, and most importantly, on life. As a human. And this is why "The Tree of Life" is so brilliant to me, because beyond all the amazing technical skills, the superb acting, and the brave non-narrative auteur choices made, Malick finally embraces humanity, and all the good times and bad times that come with the "human experience".