Malick has this near flawless capacity to humanize some of the biggest names in acting to a point where they become indistinguishable from the extras in the background. And personally, that speaks so much more to his style than any other director I've seen dare to push such an envelope.
Your comment makes me wonder how Malick can afford the big names when a lot of his films don't rake in a lot of cash. I wonder if stars like Christian Bale respect him so much that they work for less $?
@@MindfulWavesStudio Almost assuredly the case. It's not super uncommon for actors to take pay cuts to work with directors/screenwriters they respect (look at all the names that flock to the likes of Nolan, Tarantino etc.) and Malick is probably no different.
Maybe these visual obsessions emerge because this is what emerges when beauty is looked for by anyone. One thing I’m always astounded by in Malick’s films is the perspective his camera angles give to the viewer. At times we the viewer are looking up and out on the world and the living things in it as a small child. Shorter in stature and perceiving the world from almost ground level perceiving the world in wonder. Grand. Intimidating. Beautiful. Harsh. Comforting.
This was beautiful Thomas! Malick is definitely one of the greats and I think your video beautifully captures the essence of his latest films which were pretty much shot without a script and created in the editing phase (I referred to it as his experimental trilogy in my video on Knight of Cups).
I genuinely think his work the trilogy during the 10s requires a knowledge of philosophy, personal experiences and current positions. Film is a medium which allows us to find a connection especially when they are made for relativity between the auteur and the viewer. I can watch this and see literally all my life especially TMI but someone who is in a position that Rick is and worked from age 10 to 25. Now all there is a mirage of events. Corny and personal as that sounds.
Song to song hit me like a ton of bricks with its beauty and portrayal. It’s my favorite film of all time. I’ll never forget it and how I related to it.
Inciting instead of insisting; constance; searching; transience; processuality; reactiveness; beauty in motion; emergence; curiosity; how well you condensed the essence of Malick's style! Thank you.
Hey everyone! Hope you enjoyed this video, Malick is a challenging filmmaker to talk about, but I can't leave his stuff alone. If you're interested check out my Patreon where I have Audio Commentaries for my videos and more. www.patreon.com/thomasflight
I do not watch Malick to be merely entertained. I watch Malick to be experienced through word, visual, sounds in an escape and existence the deepest parts of mind, body, spirit claw to breach in the daily affect of all and everything that drowns us. In a world that numbs, his films are a feeling. I appreciated this breakdown.
Terrence Malick’s films are incredibly moving and are poetic in their beauty and artistry. He goes beyond the narrative script to capture a moment, a thought, a flicker of emotion that sets the tone of the entirety of his films. Feeling is his final destination with his audience. Truly he directs masterpieces. 👌🏻❤️☺️
I think Terrence Malick wants to bring a certain emotion to the audience rather than a story. I think the story of a particular Malick project helps to bring that emotion to the viewer. Something that bothered people who watched Tree of Life is that there was barely any dialogue in the movie. But it is what you see, not what you hear, that is the actual story. Terrence Malick is an interesting director.
Thin red line. Captured the depth, the soul and breath of war, the bonds and struggles, the scenic metaphors of the stages we were set upon in those theaters. As a veteran of foreign wars I can only be humbled each time I watch that film, and think of my brothers I served with in hauntingly beautiful places, good tribe and bad, trust, loss, life, yearning. For me that is his best film
Malick does what myself and other people of a similar opinion appreciate more than anything else: Malick's films are pure cinema. The visual medium that is film comes first in all of his work. When cinema is in its purest form, everything becomes secondary to the ACTUAL images being framed on the screen. In too many current movies, the images on the screen are secondary to the written narrative and the actors playing their part.
Malick is pure in his presentation of life. Sometimes beauty is a just genuine presence in a moment. No chatter. No exposition to drive a linear narrative. Just existing, suffering, finding joy, and ultimately putting together our own spiritual meaning with nature’s clues. His movies are so ambiguous regarding human relations and suffering, because the best part is discovering that your focused perspective on the characters are petty compared to the wonder of the canvas of an absolute, a god, a truth, or a universe. An expansive backdrop ready for us if we feel it as the characters subtly do. It’s an awakening. It’s refreshing. He never manipulates you how to feel about the characters or the story. They just live as we do figuring things out. Boring yet familiar.
His movies aren't entertainment (even though they're very entertaining at times), they're experiences. And experience impacts you so strongly when you understand it in the slightest sense. Amazing video my friend.
And, as far as I'm concerned, you definitely pulled it off. With the long pauses between each statement mirroring the pensive voice-overs of the characters that Malick paint :) Great things are to come Thomas. Blessings your way
Love Malick as a departure from the norm and a sincere seeking of beauty and meaning in a picaresque documentary process. The viewer becomes as much part of the telling as those showing the work. For me he is always a delicate and vulnerable breath amongst so many loud and convoluted plot threads in modern thrill-ride cinema.
This is phenomenal. Thank you. Malick has become my favorite director this year. His films are such an honest portrayal of human experiences, with it's wide range of emotions and depth. He's one of the few filmmakers that actually embrace an actual style and run with it. Most critics just don't get it.
There are films. And then there is the Malick universe that manifests in films. For some reason which you manage to capture here the most poetic way his work creates a deep comfort. Your essay is just brilliant! In all levels.
I love what you have put together here, thank you, and how you articulate his magic. I just watched To The Wonder yesterday, and today I shall revisit The Tree of Life.
I was deeply affected by "The Tree of Life", it's probably the most beautiful film visually that I've ever seen. I remember not being able to hold my tears when young Jack said the line "Mother. Father. Always you wrestle inside me; always you will."
This really changed the way I looked at these movies. Personally, I really enjoyed Knight of Cups and thought the other 2 were meh, but this video really hit me. I think all 3 of these are some of the most defining films of our generation, and they're so slept on. They definitely obsess with the unconventions and the quest for meaning, and too many people bashed it without appreciated what it was collectively trying to show and connect. Thank you for making this.
You're welcome! That's my goal with my videos so I'm glad to hear it worked. If I can get someone to examine something more closely, even if they didn't love it at first, I've succeeded :)
To The Wonder and Song to Song felt similar, almost too self-indulgent compared to the pared minimalism of Knight of Cups. Christian Bale also carried the detached sensibility needed for a Malick film better. He reminded me of James Caviezel in The Thin Red Line.
Malik works on a higher plain and merely invites us to glimpse what he is trying to say. That insight is normally deep and profound. I treasure every moment, however long the journey.
He's unique in an amazing way, deep and bold. He also has a degree in philosophy, I suppose that's the reason why you can see really interesting things going on in his films. In my opinion The tree of life is the best film I've ever seen, and the matters he exposes are truly important in life. You can't help feeling touched by any of his films.
'analysis of his recent work seems antithetical to the work itself' Truely a wonderfully constructed video, I wonder how you get this good at putting your thoughts(analysis) onto paper. Much respect.
You’re at the beginning but it goes further than ‘existentialism’. Remember, malick was on track to being a ‘playboy philosopher’. The first to translate Heidegger’s being in time into English, before giving it all up to pursue film. He’s a prodigy and a polyglot. So the philosopher and the filmmaker are inseparable. So to truly understand malick or begin to understand what he infers through his cinematic avatars (Bale, sheen, Ferrell, caviezel etc.) as they wander awestruck at the world around them you have to consume his diet of philosophy to begin to truly understand. It’s not enough to say he’s concerned with themes of existentialism and spirituality (I used to think it was) but if you read the ancients and truly appreciate the message of say the republic let alone Heidegger or Wittgenstein, you will understand the inherent absurdity in walking around in a world constructed from ideas. Tables, chairs, cars, pavement even organic matter. We are participating in a manifestation of pure thought and it is stupefying and also hilarious. So you see ‘finding ones place’ or some kind of ‘meaning in existence’ is far too complex a question and is not, as presumed, the true aim of these films. Existence, and we’ll refrain from defining what that is in and of itself for that is far too complicated and coded a word or a conversation. Existence in and of itself is absurd and packed enough to marvel at without questioning it or the id’s place in it all. Simply put- keep going. But beware, there be sea monsters ahead
Thanks.I kept puzzling myself about the feeling of of an overarching similarly and now I see the shots that are same but with their unique That's Malick.
because film will always be the same thing every time you see it story can feel constrictive to the experience of watching it its refreshing to have films existing as long form experience the audience can get lost in with the characters rather than having a story the characters tell to the audience
Well said. Here is why, I think, Malick's work feels less constrictive: Malick does not so much base his films on a syntactical script form, analytically broken down into units from which to reassemble frames; he rather takes characters as a starting point and then places them in an environment and traces point of views around them which (both: environment & POV) mirror their internal journey harmonically. Being used to the syntactical approach and constantly looking for clues on that level, an audience in this mode of perception, can easily miss the more harmonic clues given by Malick and thus evaluate/misinterpret his films as lacking form or direction. Coming from a syntactically narrowed perspective they might appear random. But Malick does not use the medium film without intention or a sense of cinematic form to create his fiction. On the contrary, he uses what is very specific to cinema as an art form as opposed to stage acting or still photography or chapterised script or storyboard arrangement: movement AND imagery AND sound continuity AND time dilution - not so much serialized as a chronological array of units than all at once as a synchronized synaesthetic blend. Yes, his is a more naturalistic approach than most would take, but nevertheless it is also artistic; the craft is in the way light and pacing is used, not as spotlights or hard cuts, but to create visual moods within a flow of time, a very "liquid" style. He also does use camera angles and variations of distance a lot, to create perspective; yet again not as dominating single frames, but as a movement like in a symphony, long-form. Lots of recent movies, even though using real-life sets instead of setpieces, nevertheless use these like they would use a studio or stage: Confined frames for the action. Malick uses locations as a whole in a way; he could zoom in or out of what we actually do get on the screen and we would still see the same things more or less; with many other directors we would either lose important parts of the body language or props or backdrops immediately if they zoomed in just a little, or we would notice the lighting equipment, tape or whatever used to seal off the location, auxiliary cameras, gaffers and so on when zooming out just a little; Malick on the other hand seems to give more breathing space, blurred borders, extension of imagery beyond the frame, a sweeping panoramic air to his films. There's a lightfooted almost sleepwalking/dancing approach to how he uses perspectives and light, not a preset, cutout one. Thus in his movies all the effects appear to be immediate and intuitive rather than processed and filtered through rational thought. This does not mean it's not premeditated, though. Malick might put just as much if not more planning and thought into his arrangement than other directors. But Malick seems to be more interested in using what is already in a scene or a location to his advantage by the way he captures and portrays it than arranging a composition of things he adds or moves in a frame before filming. Malick puts the main focus of his works on other techniques than most: Whereas other contemporary directors tend to put the tools of their trade inside (and some around) the picture, Malick tends to put the techniques around (and some beyond) the picture. His POV seems to be behind the camera, somewhat removed and from afar oriented into the frame, using light for overall mood and angles for psychological effects (audience perceptive mode manipulation; triggering immediate emotional response; impressionistic direction); most other directors' POV rather seems to be inside the camera, oriented along lines of sight onto the frame, using light to specifically contrast and highlight and angles for perceptive effects (audience concrete focus manipulation; triggering abstract associative thought; expressionistic direction). For comparison, Malick in this respect is going even beyond the Tarkovski side of the spectrum, very ethereal, whereas the mainstream fashion has gone even beyond Kubrick in turning to single frame by frame arrangements. The average amount of cuts per minute has drastically increased in recent years, replacing harmonic flow with contrastive rhythm. The fashion is to go for compartmental train of thought, but Malick goes with emulsionised stream of consciousness.
"The director [God] becomes the facilitator, putting things into motion and then looking for patterns of beauty in that motion. Maybe these visual obsessions [heartbreak, illness, love, touch, birth, death, etc.] emerge across his [Creation] films, not because he has something to say about [these things] ... but because this is what emerges when beauty is looked for [when life has temporarily moved away from itself]" I know I've tampered your words and added some too, but I couldn't help but associate what you said about Malick's films with life itself. You have a really superb understanding of his films, and I appreciate his films all the more from your videos. Great job!
2:18 - Kind of how a master shot is used as a transitional establishment of the beginning of a scene in order to next move on to the center of the action with medium and close-up shots. Basically, every shot in a Malick film is a master shot. I like that.
Tree of life is one of my favorite movies, behind inglorious bastards, bladerunner 2049, interstellar, momento, and hostiles. LSOO and Thomas you make me want to watch every movie because of their meaning and their beauty. I am definitely watching Knight of cups when I get the chance. You guys are great channals, please don't stop doing what your doing!
He moves the camera with the character of important during a scene via unconventional angles to get a more intimate portrate of what they see and how they're feeling in that moment. Almost like a cinematic documentary.
He shows the world from the character's pov. Unlike most movies, where we are watch the character, where we're the subject and the character is the object. With Malick, the character is the subject. Is he/she watching us?
Watching Days of Heaven really changed how cinematography is shot, natural shots and perfect timing rather than special affects make the movie that much better.
Hi everybody but firstly Thomas Flight. For me this kind of "channelling" of Mallick's incredible work is another masterpiece in itself and never got occurred to any similar one at this or similar fields. Thank you so much. About Terence Mallick and his trilogy, till now I was wondering (however its a great piece of art) why in the hell he spent his time for making an interchangeable resemblance of a kind in 3 different movie with almost exactly the same approach. I do understand now the reason why, and also that they are not almost exactly the same versions of similar stories. It is not so simple and the issue of being interchangeable (as Flight pointed) is the key to comprehend this trilogy with Mallick's free footage and no script work of making movies about searching, meaning and understanding (which is shorty the life and being, of your own's too) where one doesn't need to be so rich as in the movies by materialistic meaning/measuring to watch and to think about these movies). One last point from me: He is using the music background (soundtrack) as his biggest aide (or help you may say) and apparently classical music pieces have more credit in his heart. "
i saw thin red line 4 times.. some part of the movie.. even 10 times... when something troubles u.. u need a shoulder to lean on.. trl is like a shoulder... for me i know what i get.. but turbulence fear and anxiety evaporates... i m very greatful to terrence sir... a lot of love frm india...
He is under appreciated because most movie-goers (who pay the bucks at the box office) see films for a clearly-defined story-- beginning, middle, end, hero, heroine, etc. Not to sound elitist, but I think the general public simply doesn't understand how brilliant Malick's art really is.
@@jjtsmom You keep perpetuating this nonsense that ''''the general public doesn't understand'' because you cannot come to terms with the simple fact that tastes vary and many find your taste boring...
Zen, did you actually READ my comment? Or are you one of the “general public “ of which I speak? In any case, I recognize that Malick isn’t for everyone, especially those with no eye for cinematic artistry.
@@jjtsmom Yes, and you're still doing it... Again you cope with insults that they -[those who disagree with your opinion] have no eye for artistry... You need to stop... To each his own etc...
@@jjtsmomaccurately stated, I certainly agree, and I just discovered Mr flight's channel tonight. I've been binging for hours on his video essays, he, like the subjects he discusses, are brilliant.
I don't know if this is the case for every Malick's movie, but something struck me in your video. When man made elements are in the picture, they nearly always include an element of perspective, usually created by straight lines (buildings, walls, tree lines, roads...). But when in a natural setting, this is almost never the case. The image is arranged in a much more conventional way : foreground and background. Imo, this is a nuanced depiction of reality : although we as humans need what we built around us, society if you will to have a sense of belonging, we are actually dwarfed and constrained by it. Where we really belong is in nature, where we are free to roam, without obstacles to our vision, no paved road, and no scale to compare ourselves. I might read too much into this tho. But look at the video again, and tell me if I'm wrong...
Recently rewatched The Tree of Life on my Oculus Go. So nostalgic watching it on the big screen again (in a virtual theater lol). I actually saw the movie premiere at Cannes back in 2011 and it's always struck a deep chord. After watching it again for the first time in 9 years I think the most impactful takeaways this time were from the cinematography and sound design. I walked my dogs afterwards and everything from my pov continued to feel as if I was still in the movie lol. All the sounds, the lighting, etc. It was lovely. Lasted for a couple days. Wish I could stay in that mode for longer. Might have to watch again.
No joke while I was editing this I experimented with overlaying the films on top of each other and watching them simultaneously and it was a pretty interesting experience. But yeah it would be interesting to see all these as one extended piece intercut for sure.
Saw Thin Red Line again recently and had forgotten how moving and poetic so much of the narration is, especially when married with the incredible visuals. Like this narration seemly coming from the dead Japanese soldier to Jim Caviezel, "Are you righteous? Kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too. Do you imagine your suffering will be any less because you loved goodness and truth?"
Terrence Malick makes what I think can be called visual films. Each color, composition, frame explores philosophical elements that can not be properly verbalised. In this respect I think the person who helps him the most is his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. Without Lubezki, Terrence Malick's films wouldn't be the way they are. These two people complement each other.
One of my favorite filmmakers. My only question is why does he rely on so many A-list actors, if they're not really the best, but simply more famous? Not all, but there are so many people that are so much better at revealing their humanity, rather than stiffly projecting their imagined persona.
I wonder if it has anything to do with him getting funding? I imagine these a-listers want to work with him and having their names attached probably makes it easier to fund projects. But I agree, I'd love to see him work with non-actors and b/c-listers.
It's probably a funding thing. I would asume that because of the nature of those particular films finding funding without a-listers can get difficult and a lack of proper funding could damage the visual aspect of the films. Also I really love the editing on this video, it reinforces the points throughout so well.
It could also be due to his style that relies heavily on the expressions of his characters rather than just line delivery. All these A-list actors are incredibly talented and can do much more than convincingly recite their lines. These actors all have the ability to express themselves through their characters. Rather than just being Natalie Portman or Christian Bale, they become they characters that they play. But who knows, I could be reading into this too much.
P1tri0t No I completely agree with you! I saw Michael Fassbender in a movie called Shame and there were so many scenes where facial expressions said so much. In many scenes almost no words were necessary and so much was conveyed just by expressions.
If you search "cinematic video" you'll find a ton of video with beautiful nature or scenery with some people walking or wondering the view with some naration, just like what Malick has been doing in his films :)
I have only watched The Tree of Life (twice) and A Hidden Life, and I love them both! I hope I could watch Malick’s other films. They feel transcendent and beautiful.
a beautiful analysis, though i'm afraid i don't fully share it. Malick's atypical style and exploratory meditative scenes can look like a "free" contemplation, the association of the forementioned series of reactions (actor's, cinematographer's, director's). With some scrutiny though, it's clear that beyond their originality, these movies are well-structured poems, with recurrent themes, ideas, and astmosphere. I would rather say that the director's point of view prevails here, the rest is merely tools and images to illustrate it. What we are seeing is just Malick's train of thoughts, of sensations and obssessions, and that's paradoxically how it attains universality. I would call it passing from the "writer-director" to the "poet-director".
Great breakdown of the most recent trilogy. I love Malick's style and you helped relate to the past 3 films are so similar. Do you know of any other directors that make films in this narrative format?
Malick's films are breathtaking... but who do we credit? Makick? Or his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki? Either way, amazing, but I still wanna know.
Malick has this near flawless capacity to humanize some of the biggest names in acting to a point where they become indistinguishable from the extras in the background. And personally, that speaks so much more to his style than any other director I've seen dare to push such an envelope.
Thats a really good point. Sorry im seeing this 5 years later
Your comment makes me wonder how Malick can afford the big names when a lot of his films don't rake in a lot of cash. I wonder if stars like Christian Bale respect him so much that they work for less $?
@@MindfulWavesStudio Almost assuredly the case. It's not super uncommon for actors to take pay cuts to work with directors/screenwriters they respect (look at all the names that flock to the likes of Nolan, Tarantino etc.) and Malick is probably no different.
@@MindfulWavesStudio Its not the money, its that they dont know whats next, what to do since there is no script....
The Tree of Life is my favorite film of all time. The symbology and artistry in that film is of mindblowing levels
TheatreofSymphony I would love to discuss this movie that changed my life.
Me too. Just saw again at aero theater in Santa Monica. A wonder
I just didn't get that movie! Can you explain!!?? What was the purpose?
It was really cool, but when I watched it I didn't really understand it. I need to watch it again sometime when I don't have anything else on my mind
Hari Jariwala The point not ‘getting’. It is a visual examination of inexpressible questions and fierce evocation of obscure existential feeling.
Maybe these visual obsessions emerge because this is what emerges when beauty is looked for by anyone. One thing I’m always astounded by in Malick’s films is the perspective his camera angles give to the viewer. At times we the viewer are looking up and out on the world and the living things in it as a small child. Shorter in stature and perceiving the world from almost ground level perceiving the world in wonder. Grand. Intimidating. Beautiful. Harsh. Comforting.
His movies are so calming and comforting. They feel like a warm hug
This was beautiful Thomas! Malick is definitely one of the greats and I think your video beautifully captures the essence of his latest films which were pretty much shot without a script and created in the editing phase (I referred to it as his experimental trilogy in my video on Knight of Cups).
He's not a video.
Hey, Stories, watch "you're" spelling. Coming from you, it's particularly annoying. We expect better.
Like Stories of Old!
I heard someone call it the 'Twirling Trilogy' and think that fits pretty well
I have been defending Malick's work for a good while now. I feel like I will let it rest, whoever gets it gets it.
that's my conclusion as well.
Yep
That's the conclusion I came to as well
I genuinely think his work the trilogy during the 10s requires a knowledge of philosophy, personal experiences and current positions. Film is a medium which allows us to find a connection especially when they are made for relativity between the auteur and the viewer. I can watch this and see literally all my life especially TMI but someone who is in a position that Rick is and worked from age 10 to 25. Now all there is a mirage of events. Corny and personal as that sounds.
Song to song hit me like a ton of bricks with its beauty and portrayal. It’s my favorite film of all time. I’ll never forget it and how I related to it.
Inciting instead of insisting; constance; searching; transience; processuality; reactiveness; beauty in motion; emergence; curiosity; how well you condensed the essence of Malick's style! Thank you.
Hey everyone! Hope you enjoyed this video, Malick is a challenging filmmaker to talk about, but I can't leave his stuff alone.
If you're interested check out my Patreon where I have Audio Commentaries for my videos and more. www.patreon.com/thomasflight
I do not watch Malick to be merely entertained. I watch Malick to be experienced through word, visual, sounds in an escape and existence the deepest parts of mind, body, spirit claw to breach in the daily affect of all and everything that drowns us. In a world that numbs, his films are a feeling.
I appreciated this breakdown.
Terrence Malick’s films are incredibly moving and are poetic in their beauty and artistry. He goes beyond the narrative script to capture a moment, a thought, a flicker of emotion that sets the tone of the entirety of his films. Feeling is his final destination with his audience. Truly he directs masterpieces. 👌🏻❤️☺️
I think Terrence Malick wants to bring a certain emotion to the audience rather than a story. I think the story of a particular Malick project helps to bring that emotion to the viewer. Something that bothered people who watched Tree of Life is that there was barely any dialogue in the movie. But it is what you see, not what you hear, that is the actual story. Terrence Malick is an interesting director.
Thin red line. Captured the depth, the soul and breath of war, the bonds and struggles, the scenic metaphors of the stages we were set upon in those theaters. As a veteran of foreign wars I can only be humbled each time I watch that film, and think of my brothers I served with in hauntingly beautiful places, good tribe and bad, trust, loss, life, yearning. For me that is his best film
Malick does what myself and other people of a similar opinion appreciate more than anything else: Malick's films are pure cinema. The visual medium that is film comes first in all of his work. When cinema is in its purest form, everything becomes secondary to the ACTUAL images being framed on the screen. In too many current movies, the images on the screen are secondary to the written narrative and the actors playing their part.
Please leave this up forever, it gives me solace in darkness
Light prevails…. Breaks through the darkness
Malick is pure in his presentation of life.
Sometimes beauty is a just genuine presence in a moment. No chatter. No exposition to drive a linear narrative.
Just existing, suffering, finding joy, and ultimately putting together our own spiritual meaning with nature’s clues.
His movies are so ambiguous regarding human relations and suffering, because the best part is discovering that your focused perspective on the characters are petty compared to the wonder of the canvas of an absolute, a god, a truth, or a universe. An expansive backdrop ready for us if we feel it as the characters subtly do. It’s an awakening.
It’s refreshing. He never manipulates you how to feel about the characters or the story. They just live as we do figuring things out. Boring yet familiar.
Terrence Malick's work is as bewildering and mysterious as what he actually looks like
His movies aren't entertainment (even though they're very entertaining at times), they're experiences. And experience impacts you so strongly when you understand it in the slightest sense.
Amazing video my friend.
So glad other people appreciate Malick's newer work. It's honestly baffling how... "free" they all are.
Malick's my favorite director... Dazzling video Thomas ! I got pretty emotional watching this, thank you
Thank you. My hope was to try to channel him a little in how I made the essay, so hopefully it worked :)
And, as far as I'm concerned, you definitely pulled it off. With the long pauses between each statement mirroring the pensive voice-overs of the characters that Malick paint :) Great things are to come Thomas. Blessings your way
Love Malick as a departure from the norm and a sincere seeking of beauty and meaning in a picaresque documentary process. The viewer becomes as much part of the telling as those showing the work. For me he is always a delicate and vulnerable breath amongst so many loud and convoluted plot threads in modern thrill-ride cinema.
Actors, Cinematographers: So, what are we shooting today ?
TM: I came here as an audience
This is phenomenal. Thank you. Malick has become my favorite director this year. His films are such an honest portrayal of human experiences, with it's wide range of emotions and depth. He's one of the few filmmakers that actually embrace an actual style and run with it. Most critics just don't get it.
Malick is an artist. Highly controversial but the way he paints in film through Lubezki’s cinematography is legendary
There are films. And then there is the Malick universe that manifests in films.
For some reason which you manage to capture here the most poetic way his work creates a deep comfort.
Your essay is just brilliant! In all levels.
I love what you have put together here, thank you, and how you articulate his magic. I just watched To The Wonder yesterday, and today I shall revisit The Tree of Life.
I was deeply affected by "The Tree of Life", it's probably the most beautiful film visually that I've ever seen. I remember not being able to hold my tears when young Jack said the line "Mother. Father. Always you wrestle inside me; always you will."
Great video. Malick has been a huge influence on me, as a filmmaker. His style is unmatched.
I think this is one of the greatest video essays on cinema ever done.
Thank you so much für this Essay! So many similarities in all his movies & such an epic outstanding visual poet!
This really changed the way I looked at these movies. Personally, I really enjoyed Knight of Cups and thought the other 2 were meh, but this video really hit me.
I think all 3 of these are some of the most defining films of our generation, and they're so slept on.
They definitely obsess with the unconventions and the quest for meaning, and too many people bashed it without appreciated what it was collectively trying to show and connect.
Thank you for making this.
You're welcome! That's my goal with my videos so I'm glad to hear it worked. If I can get someone to examine something more closely, even if they didn't love it at first, I've succeeded :)
To The Wonder and Song to Song felt similar, almost too self-indulgent compared to the pared minimalism of Knight of Cups. Christian Bale also carried the detached sensibility needed for a Malick film better. He reminded me of James Caviezel in The Thin Red Line.
I had no idea what this video was going to be about, but I know you put out fantastic content. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.
That's the goal! Glad you weren't disappointed.
Malik works on a higher plain and merely invites us to glimpse what he is trying to say. That insight is normally deep and profound. I treasure every moment, however long the journey.
Malick’s work is more than just movies. It is living painting !
Yes! Song to song is too underrated
He's unique in an amazing way, deep and bold. He also has a degree in philosophy, I suppose that's the reason why you can see really interesting things going on in his films. In my opinion The tree of life is the best film I've ever seen, and the matters he exposes are truly important in life. You can't help feeling touched by any of his films.
'analysis of his recent work seems antithetical to the work itself'
Truely a wonderfully constructed video, I wonder how you get this good at putting your thoughts(analysis) onto paper. Much respect.
You’re at the beginning but it goes further than ‘existentialism’. Remember, malick was on track to being a ‘playboy philosopher’. The first to translate Heidegger’s being in time into English, before giving it all up to pursue film. He’s a prodigy and a polyglot. So the philosopher and the filmmaker are inseparable. So to truly understand malick or begin to understand what he infers through his cinematic avatars (Bale, sheen, Ferrell, caviezel etc.) as they wander awestruck at the world around them you have to consume his diet of philosophy to begin to truly understand. It’s not enough to say he’s concerned with themes of existentialism and spirituality (I used to think it was) but if you read the ancients and truly appreciate the message of say the republic let alone Heidegger or Wittgenstein, you will understand the inherent absurdity in walking around in a world constructed from ideas. Tables, chairs, cars, pavement even organic matter. We are participating in a manifestation of pure thought and it is stupefying and also hilarious. So you see ‘finding ones place’ or some kind of ‘meaning in existence’ is far too complex a question and is not, as presumed, the true aim of these films. Existence, and we’ll refrain from defining what that is in and of itself for that is far too complicated and coded a word or a conversation. Existence in and of itself is absurd and packed enough to marvel at without questioning it or the id’s place in it all.
Simply put- keep going. But beware, there be sea monsters ahead
@1:34 malick made the same movie 3 times and didn't expect anyone would notice
100% correct
Thanks.I kept puzzling myself about the feeling of of an overarching similarly and now I see the shots that are same but with their unique That's Malick.
In case you liked music as much as I did: the track is
Caleb Etheridge - Skies Above.
Thanks for this beautiful video!
Terrence Malick is a genius.
Best TH-cam channel. You are so underrated.
Every single one of your vids makes me cry, and that's a good thing
because film will always be the same thing every time you see it story can feel constrictive to the experience of watching it
its refreshing to have films existing as long form experience the audience can get lost in with the characters rather than having a story the characters tell to the audience
Well said.
Here is why, I think, Malick's work feels less constrictive:
Malick does not so much base his films on a syntactical script form, analytically broken down into units from which to reassemble frames; he rather takes characters as a starting point and then places them in an environment and traces point of views around them which (both: environment & POV) mirror their internal journey harmonically.
Being used to the syntactical approach and constantly looking for clues on that level, an audience in this mode of perception, can easily
miss the more harmonic clues given by Malick and thus evaluate/misinterpret his films as lacking form or direction. Coming from a syntactically narrowed perspective they might appear random.
But Malick does not use the medium film without intention or a sense of cinematic form to create his fiction. On the contrary, he uses what is very specific to cinema as an art form as opposed to stage acting or still photography or chapterised script or storyboard arrangement: movement AND imagery AND sound continuity AND time dilution - not so much serialized as a chronological array of units than all at once as a synchronized synaesthetic blend.
Yes, his is a more naturalistic approach than most would take, but nevertheless it is also artistic; the craft is in the way light and pacing is used, not as spotlights or hard cuts, but to create visual moods within a flow of time, a very "liquid" style.
He also does use camera angles and variations of distance a lot, to create perspective; yet again not as dominating single frames, but as a movement like in a symphony, long-form.
Lots of recent movies, even though using real-life sets instead of setpieces, nevertheless use these like they would use a studio or stage: Confined frames for the action.
Malick uses locations as a whole in a way; he could zoom in or out of what we actually do get on the screen and we would still see the same things more or less; with many other directors we would either lose important parts of the body language or props or backdrops immediately if they zoomed in just a little, or we would notice the lighting equipment, tape or whatever used to seal off the location, auxiliary cameras, gaffers and so on when zooming out just a little; Malick on the other hand seems to give more breathing space, blurred borders, extension of imagery beyond the frame, a sweeping panoramic air to his films. There's a lightfooted almost sleepwalking/dancing approach to how he uses perspectives and light, not a preset, cutout one. Thus in his movies all the effects appear to be immediate and intuitive rather than processed and filtered through rational thought.
This does not mean it's not premeditated, though. Malick might put just as much if not more planning and thought into his arrangement than other directors.
But Malick seems to be more interested in using what is already in a scene or a location to his advantage by the way he captures and portrays it than arranging a composition of things he adds or moves in a frame before filming.
Malick puts the main focus of his works on other techniques than most: Whereas other contemporary directors tend to put the tools of their trade inside (and some around) the picture, Malick tends to put the techniques around (and some beyond) the picture. His POV seems to be behind the camera, somewhat removed and from afar oriented into the frame, using light for overall mood and angles for psychological effects (audience perceptive mode manipulation; triggering immediate emotional response; impressionistic direction); most other directors' POV rather seems to be inside the camera, oriented along lines of sight onto the frame, using light to specifically contrast and highlight and angles for perceptive effects (audience concrete focus manipulation; triggering abstract associative thought; expressionistic direction).
For comparison, Malick in this respect is going even beyond the Tarkovski side of the spectrum, very ethereal, whereas the mainstream fashion has gone even beyond Kubrick in turning to single frame by frame arrangements. The average amount of cuts per minute has drastically increased in recent years, replacing harmonic flow with contrastive rhythm. The fashion is to go for compartmental train of thought, but Malick goes with emulsionised stream of consciousness.
Well said, Thomas.
"The director [God] becomes the facilitator, putting things into motion and then looking for patterns of beauty in that motion. Maybe these visual obsessions [heartbreak, illness, love, touch, birth, death, etc.] emerge across his [Creation] films, not because he has something to say about [these things] ... but because this is what emerges when beauty is looked for [when life has temporarily moved away from itself]"
I know I've tampered your words and added some too, but I couldn't help but associate what you said about Malick's films with life itself. You have a really superb understanding of his films, and I appreciate his films all the more from your videos. Great job!
Fantastic work Thomas
Thank you kindly!
Brilliant observation on the works of the master and amazingly put together.
That was a truly great video essay!
Thank you. A thoughtful, nuanced analysis of a genius and his enigmatic art.
I just saw "A Hidden Life" and it is truly spectacular..... I will watch all of his movies.
2:18 - Kind of how a master shot is used as a transitional establishment of the beginning of a scene in order to next move on to the center of the action with medium and close-up shots. Basically, every shot in a Malick film is a master shot. I like that.
Tree of life is one of my favorite movies, behind inglorious bastards, bladerunner 2049, interstellar, momento, and hostiles. LSOO and Thomas you make me want to watch every movie because of their meaning and their beauty. I am definitely watching Knight of cups when I get the chance. You guys are great channals, please don't stop doing what your doing!
great video, sir. well spoken and nailed it.
I think this is the best cut of Malik I've ever seen...it was so emotional
He moves the camera with the character of important during a scene via unconventional angles to get a more intimate portrate of what they see and how they're feeling in that moment. Almost like a cinematic documentary.
He shows the world from the character's pov. Unlike most movies, where we are watch the character, where we're the subject and the character is the object. With Malick, the character is the subject. Is he/she watching us?
Great video Thomas. you do justice to Malick's amazing work.
Watching Days of Heaven really changed how cinematography is shot, natural shots and perfect timing rather than special affects make the movie that much better.
Hi everybody but firstly Thomas Flight. For me this kind of "channelling" of Mallick's incredible work is another masterpiece in itself and never got occurred to any similar one at this or similar fields. Thank you so much. About Terence Mallick and his trilogy, till now I was wondering (however its a great piece of art) why in the hell he spent his time for making an interchangeable resemblance of a kind in 3 different movie with almost exactly the same approach. I do understand now the reason why, and also that they are not almost exactly the same versions of similar stories. It is not so simple and the issue of being interchangeable (as Flight pointed) is the key to comprehend this trilogy with Mallick's free footage and no script work of making movies about searching, meaning and understanding (which is shorty the life and being, of your own's too) where one doesn't need to be so rich as in the movies by materialistic meaning/measuring to watch and to think about these movies). One last point from me: He is using the music background (soundtrack) as his biggest aide (or help you may say) and apparently classical music pieces have more credit in his heart. "
i saw thin red line 4 times.. some part of the movie.. even 10 times... when something troubles u.. u need a shoulder to lean on.. trl is like a shoulder... for me i know what i get.. but turbulence fear and anxiety evaporates... i m very greatful to terrence sir... a lot of love frm india...
Why are you so underrated?
He is under appreciated because most movie-goers (who pay the bucks at the box office) see films for a clearly-defined story-- beginning, middle, end, hero, heroine, etc. Not to sound elitist, but I think the general public simply doesn't understand how brilliant Malick's art really is.
@@jjtsmom You keep perpetuating this nonsense that ''''the general public doesn't understand'' because you cannot come to terms with the simple fact that tastes vary and many find your taste boring...
Zen, did you actually READ my comment? Or are you one of the “general public “ of which I speak? In any case, I recognize that Malick isn’t for everyone, especially those with no eye for cinematic artistry.
@@jjtsmom Yes, and you're still doing it... Again you cope with insults that they -[those who disagree with your opinion] have no eye for artistry... You need to stop... To each his own etc...
@@jjtsmomaccurately stated, I certainly agree, and I just discovered Mr flight's channel tonight. I've been binging for hours on his video essays, he, like the subjects he discusses, are brilliant.
Really well put.
That was stunning dude. I have chills
Thank you 🙏! Very, very well done !
Love this video, one of your very best!
I don't know if this is the case for every Malick's movie, but something struck me in your video. When man made elements are in the picture, they nearly always include an element of perspective, usually created by straight lines (buildings, walls, tree lines, roads...). But when in a natural setting, this is almost never the case. The image is arranged in a much more conventional way : foreground and background. Imo, this is a nuanced depiction of reality : although we as humans need what we built around us, society if you will to have a sense of belonging, we are actually dwarfed and constrained by it. Where we really belong is in nature, where we are free to roam, without obstacles to our vision, no paved road, and no scale to compare ourselves.
I might read too much into this tho. But look at the video again, and tell me if I'm wrong...
Thank you. I see this too
Thank you so much !
Just discovered you today, your content is very well done, i'll tell about you to everyone i know buddy. Keep it up !
This is gooooooooooooood stuff.
Thank yuoooooo
I like that he uses wides and deep focus shots
Thank you for inspiring my latest short film, Take Me Out, with this music. Credit is due to both you, your edit, and Mr. Malick himself 🙌🏻
i know this a late question but do you remember the title of this music?
Finally saw the Artist recently, that movie stole Malick's directing Oscar!!
Recently rewatched The Tree of Life on my Oculus Go. So nostalgic watching it on the big screen again (in a virtual theater lol). I actually saw the movie premiere at Cannes back in 2011 and it's always struck a deep chord. After watching it again for the first time in 9 years I think the most impactful takeaways this time were from the cinematography and sound design. I walked my dogs afterwards and everything from my pov continued to feel as if I was still in the movie lol. All the sounds, the lighting, etc. It was lovely. Lasted for a couple days. Wish I could stay in that mode for longer. Might have to watch again.
try the holyspirit he will open your eyes to the beauty in God's creation..
It would be interesting to watch all three movies intercut into one. Something like SHORT CUTS or MAGNOLIA, but more thematic.
No joke while I was editing this I experimented with overlaying the films on top of each other and watching them simultaneously and it was a pretty interesting experience.
But yeah it would be interesting to see all these as one extended piece intercut for sure.
That's a huge insult to Magnolia
Lmao Magnolia has no theme? Are you an alien?
Thanks for giving his work justice
Men, your video is a piece of art. Analysis and visual treasure. THANK YOU
Nicely done, thanks for this.
My favourite Malick film is still Thin Red Line and I still ache for them to release the full cut. A Malick film looks like no other.
Thin Red Line is my favorite as well.
Saw Thin Red Line again recently and had forgotten how moving and poetic so much of the narration is, especially when married with the incredible visuals. Like this narration seemly coming from the dead Japanese soldier to Jim Caviezel, "Are you righteous? Kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too. Do you imagine your suffering will be any less because you loved goodness and truth?"
Ditto. Thin red line is like food for the soul
Love his movies!!
Real art!!
His best movie for me is,,The Tree of Life" and his second best ,,A Hidden Life".
Have been putting off viewings of Malick's newer movies for a while now, definitely have to give one of them a try this weekend.
They're definitely worth giving a try. Even when I don't enjoy the film completely, I love what he's doing stylistically and with the craft.
Terrence Malick makes what I think can be called visual films. Each color, composition, frame explores philosophical elements that can not be properly verbalised. In this respect I think the person who helps him the most is his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. Without Lubezki, Terrence Malick's films wouldn't be the way they are. These two people complement each other.
Wow, I am just learning now that Malick did three similar movies with the same visual. I like this new kind of focus.
hello thomas,
mind if you share the title name of artlist music background on this video ?
Skies Above by Caleb Etheridge
Discovered Arthur Rimbaud 2 weeks ago, Malick must be a fan
One of my favorite filmmakers. My only question is why does he rely on so many A-list actors, if they're not really the best, but simply more famous? Not all, but there are so many people that are so much better at revealing their humanity, rather than stiffly projecting their imagined persona.
I wonder if it has anything to do with him getting funding? I imagine these a-listers want to work with him and having their names attached probably makes it easier to fund projects. But I agree, I'd love to see him work with non-actors and b/c-listers.
It's probably a funding thing. I would asume that because of the nature of those particular films finding funding without a-listers can get difficult and a lack of proper funding could damage the visual aspect of the films.
Also I really love the editing on this video, it reinforces the points throughout so well.
@@ThomasFlight exactly.
It could also be due to his style that relies heavily on the expressions of his characters rather than just line delivery. All these A-list actors are incredibly talented and can do much more than convincingly recite their lines. These actors all have the ability to express themselves through their characters. Rather than just being Natalie Portman or Christian Bale, they become they characters that they play.
But who knows, I could be reading into this too much.
P1tri0t No I completely agree with you! I saw Michael Fassbender in a movie called Shame and there were so many scenes where facial expressions said so much. In many scenes almost no words were necessary and so much was conveyed just by expressions.
Love this. Definitely something i will be coming back to in the days/weeks/months ahead...thank you.
He makes wonderful screensavers
Love your work
This soundtrack blends so well with the visuals, I actually thought it was from the films at first.
Congratulations,man, this is beautiful
If you search "cinematic video" you'll find a ton of video with beautiful nature or scenery with some people walking or wondering the view with some naration, just like what Malick has been doing in his films :)
I have only watched The Tree of Life (twice) and A Hidden Life, and I love them both! I hope I could watch Malick’s other films. They feel transcendent and beautiful.
no a word on Lubezki, the director of photography of the 3 mentionned films?
a beautiful analysis, though i'm afraid i don't fully share it. Malick's atypical style and exploratory meditative scenes can look like a "free" contemplation, the association of the forementioned series of reactions (actor's, cinematographer's, director's).
With some scrutiny though, it's clear that beyond their originality, these movies are well-structured poems, with recurrent themes, ideas, and astmosphere. I would rather say that the director's point of view prevails here, the rest is merely tools and images to illustrate it. What we are seeing is just Malick's train of thoughts, of sensations and obssessions, and that's paradoxically how it attains universality.
I would call it passing from the "writer-director" to the "poet-director".
Great breakdown of the most recent trilogy. I love Malick's style and you helped relate to the past 3 films are so similar. Do you know of any other directors that make films in this narrative format?
Malick's films are breathtaking... but who do we credit? Makick? Or his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki? Either way, amazing, but I still wanna know.
Why not both?
Malick’s work looks like a youtuber camera test
Beautiful mate.
well put