What's this twats genre of film?
Talking about his more recent stuff.
Bloated garbage
He doesn't use any script. He just films random things like an autist. A true hack
>>63182988
Don't give two fucks.
I'm trying to pin down what's his genre as I cannot define it.
Could he have made a new fucking genre with his autistic need to film grass?
>>63182925
There's none. His films transcend all known definitions of motion picture. He doesnt shoot pictures, he shoots life.
>>63183022
It's called grasscore and there is a rec image floating around somewhere.
>>63182925
>>63183022
Why do you need to reduce art into a specific genre? Anyway, whatever it is, it's the same as Tarkovky's.
drama.
anything with normal people is a normal setting is drama.
>>63183064
>implying by giving it a genre it's reduced
>implying creating a new genre isn't actually quit important to film
>>63183090
You're an idiot.
>>63183116
>implying by giving it a genre it's reduced
Not implying, i stated that.
>creating a new genre
You mean more imaginary barriers? Art isn't black and white you idiot, stop wanting to categorize everything.
>>63183173
You're the one categorizing it with that mindset of negativity, anon.
Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and quit subjugating everything to your arbitrary values.
>>63183116
>You're an idiot.
it's literally the definition.
putting apart the supernatural, you got noir, action, thriller, slasher (sometimes just "horror"), war, comedy, maybe erotic, maybe "epic" or "period" as qualifiers, and everything else is "drama".
is it a misuse of the term? that's debatable, but that's how it is used.
>>63182925
It's called "Help Me Pay For The Therapy I Need In Order To Reconcile My Assyrian Christianity With My Brother Being A Faggot And Committing Suicide".
is he one of the 4 tenors?
>>63183217
>You're the one categorizing it with that mindset of negativity, anon.
Except i'm not. I accept the fact that most (non-hollywood) films have more than one predominant theme or element, and labeling as one thing is reductive.
>Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and quit subjugating everything to your arbitrary values.
Are you talking to yourself right now?
>>63183025
He doesn't shoot anything. Lubezki does.
>>63183025
Too bad watching films isn't the same as watching life. Life doesn't make a good film, a good film makes a good film.
>>63183036
>grasscore
>>63183256
I'm not attributing any values by seeing genres in film. They deal with certain themes and it's easier to handle them that way, as well as it's often the directors, writers and or producers choice as well to present it under these genres/themes.
You're the one coming in here with your negativity and calling labeling 'bad' and that it somehow lessens the movie in some arbitrary and convoluted way.
Ain't nothing wrong with genre's, anon.
Sculpting In Time.
There aren't any superheros in his films so you wouldn't be interested,
>>63182925
>What's his genre
Whatever you call filming a 2 1/2 hour Celebrex commercial.
>>63183319
>Ain't nothing wrong with genre's, anon.
I agree with that. But the way you're talking makes me think you're that kind of person that needs to label everything in order to understand it better. As i said before a lot of great films defy being labelled as a single genre, and you shouldn't waste a second thinking about it. That's when it's reductive, you're basically making it "easier" for you to digest by ignoring the overall complexity.
>>63183417
Keep your assumptions to yourself, bub.
I'm pointing out his works because it's unlike any others and there's nothing that comes close really.
It's fitting to have a genre for it, not for ease of consumption. But as an ease of understanding, that's not a negative thing, it's a beneficial thing for the sake of educating and preserving knowledge. A person's mindset is what gives it poor values, not the label itself.
>caring about genres
Why does something need a gimmicky label to be good?
>>63183412
I am stealing this. It's the most accurate tear down of The Tree of Life I've ever seen.
>>63183534
>implying it does
You're giving it a value there, not the label.
See: >>63183319
>>63183495
>Keep your assumptions to yourself, bub.
It's not an assumption, genres are restrictive by definition. They're fine for netflix suggestions, but worthless when discussing films in depth.
>I'm pointing out his works because it's unlike any others and there's nothing that comes close really.
Tark comes pretty close. It'd be ridiculous to label Solaris as just a sci-fi film, can't you understand that?
>>63183495
>It's fitting to have a genre for it, not for ease of consumption. But as an ease of understanding, that's not a negative thing, it's a beneficial thing for the sake of educating and preserving knowledge. A person's mindset is what gives it poor values, not the label itself.
Enlighten me then. What genre is:
>Otto e Mezzo, La dolce vita
>The turin horse, Almanac of Fall, Satantango
>Solaris, Stalker, Nostalgia, Mirror
>L'aventura, La notte, L'eclisse, Red desert, Blow up
What good is it to classify those films as a single genre? I seriously can't understand
>>63182925
Whole-Slice-of-Life genre
It's like you are a fucking pleb or something
>>63183657
They'd span across a few established one. It doesn't need to be put into a box. There's one outside the box currently, nothing wrong with creating a box for it as well. Breeds creativity as well.
Hackcore
or
College Film student core
>>63183706
>It doesn't need to be put into a box
That's exactly what i'm saying. Stop giving a shit about genres. Forget about the box, they're designed for the masses for easier consumption and marketing. Watch more films and you'll understand that, meanwhile, stop asking these stupid questions.
>>63183765
>they're designed for the masses for easier consumption
No, anon. That's how they're widely used. Genres have an important role, not just in film by the way. It's important in all aspects for the sake of education, and many films are not restricted to one box, as if it implies any value.
Quit being so cynical.
also I told you about those assumptions, bro.
>>63183838
Everything you said in your post was already said before and i already replied to it. If you feel like it helps with your "education", Tree of life is drama and To the wonder is romance. Does that make you feel better or appreciate the films differently in any way? No? Can't you see how useless that is?
>>63183935
>Can't you see how useless that is
No because those terms aren't adequate, now you're mislabeling.
You really cannot let go of the concept that labels don't add or detract value unless intended with said label, huh?
>>63183989
>No because those terms aren't adequate, now you're mislabeling.
What genre would you label those films then? Why did you even make this thread if you didn't want an actual answer?
>labels don't add or detract value
I already said that i agree with this. The labels inherently don't have any value attached to it, what i'm saying is that needlessly labeling films that defy a conventional genre is reductive.
He doesn't make genre-film. Genre-film is Hollywood bullshit.
And it's not drama either. Drama is characterized by DRAMA in every scene (someone wants something and is blocked at getting it).
>>63184126
Name a Malick piece of work where this precise formula does not apply.
>>63182925
IS there a less likeable looking director? Even Lucas still looks like he could be someone's cool dad that has a bunch of ww2 models in his office.
>>63185766
He's never had to work a day in his life. Oil money from daddy.
This is what that turns you into. Also, it makes you think you can actually comment on life.
Romanticism
>>63185847
>muh tortured artist
>>63182925
Look at that massive brain
>>63182925
Boringcore.
>>63185895
Name an artist that came from material wealth.
>>63186163
Rembrandt
Mendelssohn
>>63186258
K now how about one from the 20th century...
>>63186258
now guess how many more i can name that didn't come from wealth.
>>63186349
>>63186368
And? What does their wealth have to do with their art?
>>63186382
You named a painter and a musician from more than two hundred years ago. The fact that you provided those as opposed to a contemporary storyteller to Malick means my point is made.
>>63186410
rich people make shitty, forgettable artists, which is why for every rich artist you name i can name ten, twenty ones who lived and died in poverty.
do you know what the word passion actually means?
>>63186475
do you know what the word passion actually means?no ;_;
>>63186518
it comes from the Latin for "to suffer".
also see>>63186442
>>63186442
Godard
Korine
Bunuel
Kubrick
Welles
>>63186475
Rich people can have more resources and time to follow their passion. Poor people are more concerned with getting food on the table and surviving the next week on their meager paychecks. Why do you think great art comes from advanced countries with booming middle and upper classes that patronize art? Why do you think the mercantile age gave us the Renaissance and the explosion of humanist art, literature and music that followed? You sound like a butthurt poorfag.
>>63186580
Not a single one of those is a contemporary to Malick.
Third time is the charm.
>>63186580
>Rich people can have more resources and time to follow their passion.
Rich people can't have passions because rich people don't suffer.
A poor person is in touch with the human experience, which is why poor people make the best artists. Poor people's art tends to be critical of the social elite of the time so it isn't recognized by the time.
>>63185847
>This is what that turns you into. Also, it makes you think you can actually comment on life.
This is the most retarded thing i've ever seen. Only poor people can "comment on life"?
>>63186827
>Rich people can't have passions because rich people don't suffer.
You might actually be retarded.
>A poor person is in touch with the human experience, which is why poor people make the best artists.
Agree here.
>Poor people's art tends to be critical of the social elite of the time so it isn't recognized by the time.
Not true as of today, but in the past, yeah.
>>63186773
Korine and Godard are still working, moron. What do you want, people born the same year as Malick? Most of them are dead or semi-retired.
New Hollywood rich brats:
Altman
Coppola
de Palma
Kubrick
>>63186827
How much autismbux do you collect?
>>63186994
>New Hollywood rich brats
Yes.
>Kubrick
No.
>>63187064
>Remove kubrick
>There we go, now i'm right
His point still stands you moron
>>63187064
>By the district standards of the West Bronx, the family was fairly wealthy, his father earning a good income from his work as a physician.[9]
Hell, his first film was produced by his wealthy uncle.
>>63186994
I'm willing to concede to Altman. That's one, and his body of work is ten times greater than Malickmyballsack.
>>63187104
We're talking on par with Mallick's daddy's Texas oil wealth. Not "my dad had to work while he was a physician".
Kubrick wasn't wealthy. Upper middle class maybe.
>>63187108
PTA pls go
>>63187138
Inherent Vice was a mistake.
>>63187137
>>We're talking on par with Mallick's daddy's Texas oil wealth.
Wait, how do you know how rich Malick's family was? All we know is that his father was a geologist, and that sentence about "hurr he's independently wealthy from oil money I have no source to back this up" comes from fucking IMDb.
>>63187270
>his father was a geologist
No his father's family owns the land where the oil is. This is common Texas panhandle lore.
>geologist
Yeah they're all "geologists". That's more PC than "oil baron".
>IMDB
>>63187307
>No his father's family owns the land where the oil is. This is common Texas panhandle lore.
Source?
>Yeah they're all "geologists". That's more PC than "oil baron".
Source?
>>63187325
Literally 0.667 seconds on Google.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/hollywood-bigfoot-terrence-malick-and-the-20-year-hiatus-that-wasnt
>His love of film is equalled only by his despair at contemporary cinema – not least his own. He insists no director has made a masterpiece since the 1970s. What about Scorsese? He snorts, and glugs. "Goodfellas is bullshit. It is the lousiest film ever, ever made. After Raging Bull, he was a lousy amateur." Terrence Malick? "The first one [Badlands] was OK. That was in the 1970s. After that they were Christian bullshit."
>>63187364
>according to an unnamed executive
Still waiting on that source on Malick's family owning oil land and his dad being an oil baron.
>>63187409
Exactly.
>>63187437
The article I literally just posted is a source. If you dispute those words, take it up with the LA Review of Books.
>>63187466
Where in the article does it say that "his father's family owns the land where the oil is" and that he was an "oil baron"?
>>63187325
>this is common lore
>source?
>>63187492
Your mother getting railed by Jamal is also common lore.
>>63187483
At the land deed office in the county seat.
>>63187533
Can you go to Texas and get me a copy? Thanks.
>>63187561
I'm in Texas but you can't get copies of deeds. Feel free to come to the county clerk here though.
>>63187561
Not him but i'm in texas. If i do will you suck my dick?
>>63182925
contemplative cinema maybe but that isn't exactly a genre and he hardly fits there anyway
I don't think that labeling things is necessary or a good thing in this case
>>63187580
Can you ask the clerk for me and make him sign an affidavit about how much land Malick's family owns and then post the affidavit here? I'll suck your dick.
>>63187594
Yes.
>>63187647
Why would an elected official sign anything merely upon request?
>>63187693
You could suck his dick.
>>63187647
I'll make it happen, no problem. Post your face, i wanna make sure it's worth it first.
>>63187740
>>63187718
This is Texas. Everyone's dick is already being sucked.
>>63187833
Who's sucking your dick right now?
>>63187803
That's Terrence Malick bro. You think you can fool me? Silly boy, nice try ;)
>>63187844
Terrence Mallick. He can't get enough of that shit. He wants to help his brother's soul return from the pits of eternal fire and he's convinced that acts of fellatio and classical guitar and graceful CGI dinosaurs are the ticket.
His words, not mine.
>>63187848
>>63187928
Are you made of grass?
>>63187932
That's Kripke, come on man...
>>63187985
>>63188002
>Ben Bernanke
I guess my dick won't be getting sucked after all, it's your loss, i don't even like it
>>63183022
There is no "genre." For better or worse, he's not trying to stick to anyone else's formula. He picks a subject, and he tries to find the most interesting and truthful way to discuss that subject, according to his own tastes and sensibilities. The genre is "Terrence Malick."
The same can be said about pretty much any "auteur" director. Not all films are genre films
