 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 - 1:23 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
