Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 8:59 AM   
 By:   KevinSmith   (Member)

I know this is old news but I found Christopher Plummer's thoughts on working with Terence Malick on The New World. It affirms of what James Horner was saying in that infamous interview a while back about Malick being difficult to work with:

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 9:40 AM   
 By:   mulan98   (Member)

Great clip. Thanks for posting.

 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 9:48 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

The movie was on tv two days ago, I watched the first hour, recorded the rest. Interesting.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 10:58 AM   
 By:   John B. Archibald   (Member)

The title of this thread is misleading; it seems to indicate that Plummer is angry, and refuses to work with Malick again. But, what Plummer actually says is that, after sending Malick a critical letter, he doubts that Malick would ever want to work with him again.

Frankly, I find Plummer's observations about Malick's work to be accurate.

Malick shoots beautiful movies, but they are oblique to the point of mystery.

Which may be the point, for all I know....

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 11:17 AM   
 By:   Ian J.   (Member)

His comments (and those of Clooney) certainly chime with me. I find Malick's movies to be beautifully shot but indecipherable as far as any kind of story is concerned. But as said, that might be Malick's point, in that he makes motion paintings and collages, not movies as perhaps most people would understand them.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 12:43 PM   
 By:   joan hue   (Member)

Interesting interview. I had no idea Adrian Brody was the lead in The Thin Red Line and that all of his scenes were removed. I like Plummer's comments. For me Malick needs to make a choice between filming lovely scenery for maybe a travel documentary and filming an actual movie with dialogue and a decipherable narrative. With few exceptions, his movies seem more like a travel documentary.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 1:22 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)



With his few equal peers on the classical stage (his only theatrical cousin where his decades-long reign at Canada's Stratford Shakespeare Festival is England's also royally-esteemed Brian Bedford) and the fact he's been directed by lowlies and lords in every medium - up to and including Olivier - his comments aren't so much surprising as practically inevitable as Mr. Plummer admirably (and sometimes puzzlingly) isn't shy about his perspective, even when they warrant considerable - not in the present example for extortion - head-scratching.

This is the dude, mind yu, who thought John's score for



was rather underwhelming eek

smile

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 1:39 PM   
 By:   Timmer   (Member)

I wonder how he felt about the towering artistic brilliance of...



Starring alongside that fine Shakespearean actor The Hoff.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 4:12 PM   
 By:   Eugene Iemola   (Member)

Interesting interview. I had no idea Adrian Brody was the lead in The Thin Red Line and that all of his scenes were removed.

Not all of his scenes Ms. Hue- but most of them.

You must see The Thin Red Line. I think it was an overlooked masterpiece. Malik-style.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 5:17 PM   
 By:   joan hue   (Member)

I did see The Thin Red Line and did like it, but it has been a long time, and I don't remember Brody in scenes. I'll have to watch it again.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 9:56 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Malick is surely a pretentious film maker. Occasionally the pay off merits the pretention, like Kubrick, Malick, not so much.

 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 10:07 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

Malick is surely a pretentious film maker. Occasionally the pay off merits the pretention, like Kubrick, Malick, not so much.


What does 'pretentious' mean?

It's a derogatory term to denote that which PRETENDS to a degree or depth that it hasn't actually got. That's not true of Kubrick.

If something has depth we don't appreciate or see, we narcissistically proclaim that it's pretentious to reassure ourselves. It's to do with where we think this or that belongs. If great truths appear in a cartoon film, we assume it's pretentious because we're not USED to seeing them there.

It's the well-worn grooves of habit that are the real tyrants.



And what is a 'pay-off', by what criteria?

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 10:40 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Malick is surely a pretentious film maker. Occasionally the pay off merits the pretention, like Kubrick, Malick, not so much.


What does 'pretentious' mean?

It's a derogatory term to denote that which PRETENDS to a degree or depth that it hasn't actually got. That's not true of Kubrick.

If something has depth we don't appreciate or see, we narcissistically proclaim that it's pretentious to reassure ourselves. It's to do with where we think this or that belongs. If great truths appear in a cartoon film, we assume it's pretentious because we're not USED to seeing them there.

It's the well-worn grooves of habit that are the real tyrants.



And what is a 'pay-off', by what criteria?


Well I pretty much agree with you on the first part. Otherwise you seem to be saying that no one can ever proclaim something pretentious. Well, I think that Christopher Plummer is qualified.

There are massive film achievements such as 2001 that are an artistic pay-off.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 12:08 PM   
 By:   Morricone   (Member)

One of the deadly things I think that happens with many film directors is that they start believing their own publicity. They read reviews that declare how important their work is and start making films accordingly. After Kubrick did 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and put together that book about it and the myriad interpretations it elicited (and for that film it was justified), I think he fell in love with the idea that his films were abstract paintings that everybody would see different things in. Hence he became known for his hundred-take scenes that would wear down the actor until they stopped acting, stopped behaving to the point of becoming ciphers. You project anything you want on them. Pauline Kael declared Alex was the only human being in CLOCKWORK ORANGE and I have no argument with that. I have difficulty finding fleshed out human beings in his films beyond that. Perhaps Vincent D'Onofrio in FULL METAL JACKET but he seems to be the exception. What worked for 2001 did not serve him well after.

Which director was it that said "directors don't die, they become cinematographers."?

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 12:23 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

One of the deadly things I think that happens with many film directors is that they start believing their own publicity. They read reviews that declare how important their work is and start making films accordingly. After Kubrick did 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and put together that book about it and the myriad interpretations it elicited (and for that film it was justified), I think he fell in love with the idea that his films were abstract paintings that everybody would see different things in. Hence he became known for his hundred-take scenes that would wear down the actor until they stopped acting, stopped behaving to the point of becoming ciphers. You project anything you want on them. Pauline Kael declared Alex was the only human being in CLOCKWORK ORANGE and I have no argument with that. I have difficulty finding fleshed out human beings in his films beyond that. Perhaps Vincent D'Onofrio in FULL METAL JACKET but he seems to be the exception. What worked for 2001 did not serve him well after.

Which director was it that said "directors don't die, they become cinematographers."?


Yeah, I mostly agree, case in point is Barry Lyndon, which is probably one of the, perhaps the top most beautiful film ever made. But as a story and as characters, they are somewhat hard to care about.

But 2001 is a stunning work, the craft level of the effects alone still impresses effects people 40 years later, and the sets and all the details were impeccable and convincing.

I think as far as after 2001, I find his Shining the most entertaining. I know that is not a popular view.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.