>You shall love whether you like it or not. Emotions, they come and go like clouds. Love is not only a feeling. You shall love. To love is to run the risk of failure, the risk of betrayal. You fear your love has died, perhaps it is waiting to be transformed into something higher.
>>64998745
Malick pls go
>>64998802
He is everywhere.
>>64998745
There's maybe ten minutes worth of good scenes in Tree of Life and that isn't one of them.
>>65001084
>Tree of Life
You're doing great
>>65001125
The fact that Tree of Life and Into the Wonder and Knight of Cups are so interchangeable is not a good sign honestly.
>>65001170
>are so interchangeable
To absolute morons honestly
>>65001219
The only morons are the film student freshmen who think Malick's mindless rambling is deep.
>>65001259
>being an atheist
>>65001467
Not an atheist or an agnostic. I just know sanctimonious preaching when I see it. Even worse when it's Sorkin-esque platitudes
>You shall love whether you like it or not
That is real grade-a shit
>>65001583
>being so cynical that you get triggered by a line about basic human emotion
>>65001612
Not cynical. 2001 is one of my favorites and it's the most optimistic film of all time. Malick is just ill-quipped and overall not technically skilled enough to make true visual poetry. His characters in his last three movies all sound like the same stoned guidance counselor.
>>65001583
You sound quite intellectual good sir. Such topics as love and grace are well beneath your advanced understanding, I see. Impressive really. Stay in this thread to enlighten us further please.
>>65001807
You're legitimately upset that someone has grown out of his Care Bear phase? Judging from the hellish and spacey productions his movies are known for having, it seems love and grace are beyond Malick's understanding as well.
>>65001770
>Not cynical. 2001 is one of my favorites
Yeah you're totally not cynical for liking a movie about humans becoming less human, where the most emotional character is a computer.
>>65001912
>for liking a movie about humans becoming less human
Holy shit you actually think that's what the point of 2001 was? No wonder you defend Malick.
>>65001910
Yes, you've certainly upset me my good man, very good indeed bringing true intellectualism to the plebeians. I commend you for growing out of said Care Bear phase, tis quite the accomplishment. We are but honored to have such an intellect in our midst. Please, keep going.
>>65001966
>Holy shit you actually think that's what the point of 2001 was?
Enlighten me, Kubrick kid.
>>65001992
You're typing like a real redditor. Embarrassing.
>>65002000
No. You're obviously mentally ill-equipped to take any other explanation other than the convenient one that proves your point. You have no interest in my point of view on 2001 like I have no interest in your point of view on Malick. Doesn't change that his last three movies are the fucking same.
B A S E D M A L I C K
A
S
E
D
M
A
L
I
C
K
>>65002093
>explain your position
>nah u r dum
Thanks for the cop out. Unsurprising really that is the level that Kubrick fanboys operate on.
>>65001770
>2001 is one of my favorites and it's the most optimistic film of all time.
>>65002153
>*Gushes over Malick*
>"Malick has made the same movie three times in a row"
>"NUH UH YOU'RE JUST AN ATHEIST AND CYNICAL AND WAAAAAH LEAVE TERRY ALONE"
>>64998745
>Love isn't an emotion created by neurochemicals like every other emotion. It's spiritual woo woo magic.
Fuck Malick and his bullshit spiritism. I'm glad this asshole got drummed out of Oxford.
>>65002214
so cute how much credit you keep giving yourself, your classmates must love you
>>65002265
I don't make myself a target in classrooms like Malick fanboys tend to with their hippy musings.
>>65002214
>>"Malick has made the same movie three times in a row"
Even if that were true doesn't mean they are inherently bad. Do you have the same problem with Ozu?
>>65002252
>he fell for the higher education meme
>>65002322
And even that isn't true. His last 3 films are quite different, but the blind are many.
>>65002322
>Ozu
We haven't got to him in class yet, I think maybe next year
>>65002322
Ozu made great melodramas about the human condition and social change. Mallick makes amateurish bullshit that appeals to people who believe crystals can heal them.
>Voyage of Time will never be released
>>65002322
>someone actually made that
Ozu shits all over Malick by the way.
>>65002416
mate, it's getting released in two forms this year, one IMAX with Pitt and Blanchett narrative. Never doubt Him.
>>65002416
>documentary
D R O P P E D
>>65002344
>Being a Rhodes scholar is a meme.
Well this is what I get for posting on /TV/ on a Sunday afternoon.
>>65002411
I'm sorry
>>65002479
>/TV/
trolling or tourist?
>>64998745
B-b-b-but how do I know to distinguish between love, lust, and a sick infatuation?
There are only 7 people besides OP and myself in this thread.
And yet you've posted nearly 35 replies.
LOL@(YOU)
And who the hell is terrance malik anyway?
His movies sound pretentious as fuck
>>65002411
>Ozu made great melodramas about the human condition and social change.
Ozu made the same films about generational differences using the same visual style with chest high static cameras and elliptical transitions and edits. Even film scholars agree that he made the same film over and over again, but that's no real criticism in art. Monet made hundreds of works about the same objects, that does not diminish their artistic value.
>>65002411
>appeals to people who believe crystals can heal them.
Yeah, I'm quite sure that meshes perfectly with his Christian existentialist viewpoint as well as his interest in science and cosmology.
>>65002648
>39 replies
>nearly 35
Cant explain that
>>65002648
>>65002730
>Yeah, I'm quite sure that meshes perfectly with his Christian existentialist viewpoint as well as his interest in science and cosmology.
They are both based on the personal cognitive bias that the sum total of reality is maintained by invisible magical forces.
>>65002900
Oh man. You couldn't make this stuff up.
>>65002900
>the sum total of reality is maintained by invisible magical forces.
So you have no idea about Christian existentialism or even the notion of theism?
>>65002900
While you roll around in the dirt, slinging mud, reducing existence to something understandable to your pathetic, finite bodily circumstance, Malick is erupting out of history with his eyes on God, taking the brave leap that resentful, cynical pussies like you are too self-absorbed to even see as an option. Malick is the most courageous artist alive. The soulless cowards criticizing his quest just don't realize the stakes. `
>>65004046
This is a good post
>>65002479
Hello Reddit!
>>65004181
Sup Reddit? Nice sunday, huh?
>>65002900
Hello Reddit!
Malick's recent films are like when you read someone's amateur writing and know, you just KNOW, that they just finished reading Ulysses for the first time. Film was not meant for literal expositions on continental philosophy, and if you remove the image what you have is banalaties and platitudes that don't say anything beyond how smart and enlightened they make Malick fanboys feel.
>>65004310
>you just KNOW,
>>65004310
>and if you remove the image what you have
LOL at not understanding cinema this completely
>>65004310
>elevating the human spirit is a bad thing
>people who ennoble the human experience should be flouted
>>65004310
But you don't remove the image, ignoramus. It's integral, and the text and philosophy you're dissing only make sense and achieve their true value with the images, creating cinema.
>>65004046
>Malick is the most courageous artist alive. The soulless cowards criticizing his quest just don't realize the stakes. `
Is that what your finite body leads you to believe?
>>64998745
is malick the TarTar of our generation?
>>65004467
Dolan looks like JB kek
>>65004467
>no Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
shit list
>>65004422
I didn't say that. In my opinion, Malick is offensive to the human spirit - he woefully reduces it to platitudes and well-wishes.
>>65004442
>>65004407
I didn't say to remove the image, I said that without the imagery you would see how truly mediocre is his waxing.
>>65004467
>Schrader
>Greenaway
>DOLAN
>>65004549
>Gonzalez Inarritu
Gonzáles Iñárritu
Shit computer yours
>>65004467
Put Dreyer instead of Dolan, senpai
>>65004046
>While you roll around in the dirt, slinging mud, reducing existence to something understandable to your pathetic, finite bodily circumstance, Malick is erupting out of history with his eyes on God, taking the brave leap that resentful, cynical pussies like you are too self-absorbed to even see as an option. Malick is the most courageous artist alive. The soulless cowards criticizing his quest just don't realize the stakes. `
It's weird - this is the most fedora thing I've read in ages, but it's explicitly anti-fedora... we need a new term, I'm thinking.
>>65004659
Vulgar Sincerity
>>65004467
>no dreyer
>no eisenstein
>no bergman
>no griffith
>no bunuel
>no tarkovsky
>no tarr
>no visconti
>>65004604
>without the imagery the film would be mediocre
What are you even saying at this point
>>65004046
>Malick is the most courageous artist alive
I'm pretty sure that would be one of those chinese guys
>>65004659
tiara
It's clear to me that Malick's spiritual endeavors are a sham by just looking at the actors he works with. What kind of man could even tolerate the anti-humanity present within a Pitt or a Penn? Malick is everything bad about Hollywood dressed in everything bad about the bottom of the barrel of arthouse, and somehow to some people this comes across as an epiphanic vision from god in film format. The idolatry present in these threads is ridiculous, and would probably make Malick himself wince in grief.
>>65004467
>that Futura
>>65004704
I'm saying that his films are pretty but that his ramblings are hackneyed and bring his films down, because his films as of late are whisper-poems speckled onto pretty images.
>>65004680
>Danish loser
>Communist faggot
>Swedish whinger who should have stayed in theatre
>Klansman
>Surrealist hack
>Ruskie
>le long take man
>Italian homo
>>65004728
I don't see idolatry, but people are generally craving for artists that offer a unique, truth-searching vision. And his use of Hollywood actors is besides a financial and marketing very useful tool, something not relevant to assess the quality of filmmaking.
>>65004772
That's some quality shitposting right here. Try reddit, friend, there you would get gold for such a feat.
>>65004825
If his mind is on marketing and money-making, he's not an artist. His films are absolutely brought down by the quality of the actors - they are not suited for art. Other art directors have no problem finding their visions on the screen, why must Malick resort to making his films look like art-blockbusters?
>>65004772
nice shitpost son. here's your reply.
>>65004825
When you use big dummies like Brad Pitt you attract the wrong crowd and end up having to do things like pic related.
>>65004972
>Ameriburgers need warnings before watching deep films
How pathetic. Nice 'Country' you got there
>>65005025
muh american cultural degeneracy
>>65004728
The main theme of Malick's films on spiritual dematerialism is not sublimation, but neosublimation. Thus he implies that we have to choose between predialectic construction and deconstructivist neodialectic theory, essentially Heideggerian as seen in the concept of Dasein. The subject is interpolated then into a cinematic dematerialism that includes spirituality as a whole. But if the Kierkegaardian worldview holds, we have to choose between the cultural paradigm of expression and atomism. In Malick's own "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger" he says that "dread marks the ‘collapse of the world’”. Inherent in this is how the function of Lebenswelt (translated by Malick as "world of life") operates in all his films, chiefly in Days of Heaven and The Tree of Life. We see a phenomenological approach to the world showing a cinematic logic that presupposes a strucutral constraint in rootedness, another intentionality central to his filmography and philosophy. Because "metaphysical comfort" is not an object of temporality per se, but rather an aspect of automatic condition, as suggested by Cavell. Hermeneutic interpretations are also apparent in his post-hiatus movies; in fact the interchangeable subjectivities are but another representation of Husserl's and Wittgenstein's "form of life". As his academic hero Heidegger succintly noted, "freedom is the ‘abyss’ of Dasein, its groundless or absent ground". This is essentially the thesis operating in Malick's films.
>>65005376
kill yourself for actually taking the time to type that out
>>65005376
Can you tell me, then, what the whisper poems are supposed to be accomplishing? Can you take your structure of intent and influence and actually apply it to unlocking his aesthetics and understanding them, or is it an ivory tower of terminology?
>>65005954
>what the whisper poems are supposed to be accomplishing?
You can understand more by reading Being and Time and/or his own translation of Heidegger.
"On a movie screen the horizon is often so slight that we cannot tell whether the camera is panning or the scene is moving."
>>65006068
So you operate only on referents and can't actually parse the films at all.
>>65006122
The meaning of his films has already been discussed in this thread and in my post. If you are still confused, you can read the previous posts.
Official Terry biopics ranking:
TTW > TTOL > KOC
>>65006122
And you refuse valuable referents for an useless internet argument?
>>65005954
>ivory tower of terminology
Don't be mad that you don't understand 20th century philosophy.
>>65006189
Your post sets up only the philosophical intention. It does not, at all, give any example of any scene in any film of Malick's actually expressing his intention. There is no analysis, no real thorough demonstration on how your jenga tower of terminology actually relates to the content of his films on a directorial level. You've not answered even the example I gave to you:
How does the poetic whispering narration reflect the ideologies you posited?
>>65006294
I understood the post, that doesn't mean it's not written in a deliberately obfuscating way.
>>65006318
>>How does the poetic whispering narration reflect the ideologies you posited?
It reflects the internal thoughts of the characters. The ideologies are embedded in this narration along with the presentation in the image and the montage.
If you cannot compose a simple rebuttal to the philosophical approach to Malick's filmography, I again ask you to read his main academic influences. You will learn something even if you end up rejecting it all.
Malick has never made a bad film. Knight of Cups continues his trend of shedding extraneous plot and narrative to focus on emotions, thoughts and memories brought forward in his trademark fragmented visual and aural style. It, like his other films, is about age old universal themes, in this case the quest for enlightenment and the paradox of beauty. The sermon in the movie says that our now imperfect soul gets a taste of the higher existence it once knew whenever it is confronted with beauty, and so Rick immerses himself in all the beautiful sensual pleasures in the modern Babylon of LA. He is quite literally submerged all the time in ephemeral worldly pleasures, yet he still finds his life empty and devoid of any higher purpose and like his soul longing for a transcendental gratification, he is always by the end again quite literally looking upwards to the heavens for a higher meaning. The movie is an impressionistic retelling of his search for God, the Wonder, nirvana, call it whatever - any metaphysical peak that will give his hollow life meaning. But at the end he realizes that the journey itself is the source for his existential quest, the nourishment for the shadow of perfection his anguished soul seeks.
Knight of Cups is not just any "story" movie, but a sweeping visual symphony of the search for spirituality in an increasingly materialist world.
>>65006371
>I understood the post
Prove it.
>>65006518
Beautiful, friend
malick has literally never cast a nigger in one of his films
>>65006693
There were poor niggers in Tree of Life
There was a nigger church worker in To the Wonder who spoke in tongues
There were deformed, injured niggers in Knight of Cups
Based Malick, showing real negros
>>65006420
I'm not arguing against his beliefs or intentions, they're not objectionable at all. My opinion is that his films don't actually succeed on those grounds. And you've yet to show that they do. Everything you just said is general. Give me a scene that accomplishes his goal, and show me why.
>>65006554
That Malick's films are an attempt to render the reality of perception, which is often more poetic than concrete - and that through nonlinear image-narrative one can express a truer sense of 'structure' (in a spiritual sense, of order) that conventional plot through-lines have all but defiled.
Even if they naturally attract plebs and shiposting, Malick threads present some of the best quality arguments and cinema discussion on this board.
Malick posters confirmed for patricians.
>>65001467
>I believe in religion so I am correct
>le fedora meem XDD
>>65006752
>My opinion is that his films don't actually succeed on those grounds. And you've yet to show that they do. Everything you just said is general. Give me a scene that accomplishes his goal, and show me why.
Sam Shepard says in Days of Heaven that he is "haunted by place". This is the primary argument in Being and Time that Being (Dasein) can only be understood against the worldiness of temporality.
>That Malick's films are an attempt to render the reality of perception, which is often more poetic than concrete - and that through nonlinear image-narrative one can express a truer sense of 'structure' (in a spiritual sense, of order) that conventional plot through-lines have all but defiled.
This is not at all what I said. Read some Heidegger and Husserl.
>>65006752
>My opinion is that his films don't actually succeed on those grounds
>My opinion
There you go. There's nothing I can say that will make you change your mind because it's a phenomenological subjective experience. I thought the film elevated the human spirit and gave expression to abstract human emotions and ideals, reminding us what it is to be human, no matter how platitudinous the experience may seem to an outside observer.
>this fedora being schooled by students of Malick and Heidegger
Fantastic thread
>>65007108
The pompous vocabulary present in this thread is absolutely disgusting. It's embarassing that people can't even admit that art is a subjective experience without stroking their own ego and acting as if they're appreciating that which cannot be easily understood.
Fags
>>65008276
this post is poop
>106 replies
>23 posters
my God. Literally kill yourself. You realize you're having a conversation with yourself, right? Do you realize how pathetic that is? You're pretending to be conversing with other people. You're an embarrassment.
>>65008358
Cuck.
>>65008276
Some people are just more receptive and sensitive to beauty. There's nothing pretentious in saying that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person
>>65008358
>STOP YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE PROLONGED DISCUSSIONS. THIS IS NOT THE REDDIT WAY, STOP TRIGGERING ME WHERE'S THE SHITPOSTING? OH WAIT I AM IT :)
>>65008469
>>65008543
samefag
you're not even having a fucking conversation. you're one person talking to yourself. literally 75% of the posts ITT are by the same person.
>>65008605
Crawl back to >>>/starwars/
>>65008605
a cuck
>Mann has finally surpassed Bresson
>Malick has finally surpassed Tarkovsky
>Miller has finally surpassed Keaton
2015 is Kino's best year yet
>tfw Malick made you believe in God again
>>65004728
>It's clear to me that Malick's spiritual endeavors are a sham by just looking at the actors he works with. What kind of man could even tolerate the anti-humanity present within a Pitt or a Penn?
An autobiographical meditation on vice vs. virtue, carnal pleasures vs spiritual love, money vs poetry, from a deeply Christian philosophy erudite from Texas, who has struggled with finding his place in the Jewified degenerate capital and is still crying everyday about his suicidial mariachi brother and harsh father. Experimental editing to evoke fragments of memories, intimate thoughts as prayers or confessions to evoke universal feelings, interweaving the micro and the macro. Just like tree of life opened with a story about nature vs grace, the pearl parable is about this constant struggle and quest to be a better man in this meaningless world; the pearl is the light (thin red line), the grace (tol), the wonder (to the wonder)
Terry admits in this flick that he's too fascinated with beauty, as he views it as the closest thing we wingless beasts have to reaching heaven; even though beauty is really the devil's temptation to make us shallow. He's a sinner and a hypocrite and he knows it. Bums and cripples are ugly and he knows they don't really belong alongside his perfume ads aestheticsand Hollywood actors. He knows Hollywood is Jewish hell but he still stays there and accepts their money because he loves shooting pretty Jewish actresses and their feetsies. He knows its a real struggle. It's an admission of guilt
>tfw you want to follow the way of Grace but Nature keeps pulling you back down
>tfw you want to be brought back to the Wonder but the Wonder is forever fleeting
>tfw the only way to be happy is to love, but love brings more pain than happiness
>tfw you'll never find the pearl
>tfw you wanna be like the monk but are closer to the pimp
>tfw you're a dog chasing a tennis ball in a swimming pool
>tfw Hershlag will never tell you to open your mouth
Begin
>>65008881
Same senpai. Malick is a modern day prophet
>>65008778
Only one of these claims is truthful. Nice try
>>65008962
>tfw you still do not live a happy and meaningful life and constantly go back to your addictions and failures but you know what Malick will understand your sorrow and forgive you for being human
>>65008979
Which one?
>>65009159
Malick
Mann is on a bad streak in the last decade and Miller is on par but not better than prime Keaton.
>>65006518
>Malick has never made a bad film.
Plebs believe this.
>>65009618
Which you consider to be?
>>65008881
If you need films to reaffirm your believe in God, then you truly are a lost cause.
>>65009740
>not being influenced by art in search of your spiritual self
>>65009846
Film though, FFS! Is your life that fucking empty?
Man thank god I grew out of this.
>>65010059
Out of what?
>>65010118
Thinking Malick is anything other than a boring hack.
>>65010165
>>>reddit.com/r/flicks
And stay there
>>65010213
>le ebin malick grass shot
>so deep so spiritual so enlightening
>at last i am truly /tv/ patrician
>>65010282
>le cynical cinemasins meme
Back to Reddit
>>65010282
Did daddy touch you in the funny places?
>>65010331
>le whispering unintelligible voice over
>i will pretend i get it so /tv/ thinks i am le smartie pants and not from reddit
>>65010365
Ironic considering Malick is a convicted pederast.
>>65010420
>I'm a mad fedora who hates anything remotely spiritual so I can look cool and detached and use irony to mock anything attempting sincerity because I'm a postmodern baby
>>>/r/flicks is that way
>>65008881
Reminder being christian is literally just as retarded as being athiest. Agnosticism is the only logical belief.
>>65010599
>malick
>spiritual
Lel. Please tell me you're not the same fag who claimed he rediscovered God after watching shitty renders of dinosaurs and Brad Pitt jutting his jaw out.
>>65010707
Here is your reply
>>65010615
>agnosticism
>belief
>logical
Lots of contradiction here, no?
>>65010728
Here is yours
>>65010707
Do you enjoy having shit taste and being unable to respond with sincerity to cinema?
>>65010864
So much projecting.
>>65010864
>>65010599
Not who you're responding to, but:
why is there seemingly a dichotomy between sincerity and faith and disliking Malick? Don't you think it's entirely possible for a sincere person to dislike Malick, or a spiritual person to dislike him?
>>65009963
It's not film, it's visual poetry.
>>65010954
Of course they don't. They think Malick is somehow the pinnacle of Christian spirituality.
Is malick the logical successor to tarkovsky?
>>65010967
>le pretentious film meme
>>65011036
If you're an uncultured pleb, I guess.
>>65011036
He is the chronological successor to Jankovsky.
>>65010954
It's entirely possible, and I'd be hopeful that these individuals, here were present, would have a solid base to dislike a cinema so powerful for so many like the Malickian is. Instead, we get redditors and memers.
>>65011036
Tarkovsky looked faith in the face and challenged it on multiple fronts in order to deepen its meaning and utility and value - Malick's version of faith is escapist, blockbuster fluff.
There's a very mad redditor here since the last half-hour. Comical, if not pathetic.
>>65011144
Oh look, it's the same Malick-fag who accounts for 90% of the posts here, and in every Malick thread.
>>65011006
A bad film with spiritual themes, is still bad film, and Malick seems to be serving them up one after one at the moment. Maybe he should go back to being a recluse and waiting years.decades between works.
It's hilarious than Malickfags think there's no way someone who dislikes his work could be on /tv/, they must be from Reddit.
>>65011134
>Tarkovsky looked faith in the face and challenged it on multiple fronts
lel when did that happen?
When the message of Andrei Rublev is that faith will help make a giant bell?
Or when he says in The Sacrifice that faith will save you from the apocalypse?
Where were the times when faith was challenged here?
>>65001770
>His characters in his movies all sound like the same stoned guidance counselor
Fixed that for you
To be honest though, I think that is Malick's charm. It has to be anyway, I stil don't get the love for him but I understand the inspiration he provides. To be honest ive only seen Badlands and Days of Heaven, but they were edited so quickly they left me cold. (Michael Bay suffers from this, but mostly it works for him). Also my favourite movie The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is very inspired my Malick, so I appreciate the inspiration he provides.
>>65002416
Give it a few years. Then give it a few more. After MAlick has passed it will definatly get released and/or shelved forever. Then give it a few more years.
>>65004310
Lol
>>65005376
>>65006518
good reads
>>65008358
24 now? I guess
>>65011192
It's a detriment to your argument that Malick hasn't produced any 'bad' film, with spiritual themes or not. Would you like to try again?
>>65011236
Malick fans, everyone, unable to understand art.
>>65011171
Do you feel threatened, reddit? Why?
>>65011344
Good rebuttal. I'll assume you're not trolling and have never actually seen a Tarkovsky film.
>>65011348
What I feel is validated for disliking Malick, knowing that there's one lone autistic fanboy riding his dick all day long every single day, without any semblance of irony in idolizing a man whose movies are anti-idolatry. He's a recluse for fuck's sake, but you express the same fervor for him as tweens do for Bieber. It's shameful.
>>65004467
>Dolan
Filming something in 1:1 doesn't magically make something art
>>65004310
This. So true. Best post on the thread.
>>65011267
Terry, pls.
>>65011379
I've seen his entire filmography plenty of times. If you don't understand that his works are about the struggle that is faith, you may as well have never watched a second of his films. No wonder you love Malick so much, movies that feature cognitive dissonance to the same level as a Halmark gift card.
>>65004369
RARE
A
R
E
>mfw grass captcha
>>65011429
Fucking rekt!
>>65005376
>>65006518
Thoughtful and intelligent posts that demonstrate knowledge of cinema and philosophy on my /tv/?
Reported.
>>65011500
>If you don't understand that his works are about the struggle that is faith
Care to provide any examples like I did to support your claims, or will you reply with more generalizations and poorly worded polemics?
>this one buttmad redditor ITT
>yfw you realize God exists
>>65011429
How cute, redditboy. However you seem to have an unhealthy obsession in believing I alone support Malick. I'm sure you would rather a lonely enemy, makes you feel better about your own failure to appreciate cinema.
This thread is great, it's literally a battle right now. I never even watched a Malick film, but this is great entertainment.
Malickposters are legitimately worse than the worst shitposters.
>come back to this thread
>that one redditor is still desperately baiting after having been destroyed by Heideggerbro
I might bookmark this thread for future reference.
>>65011740
There's more life and thrill in this thread than anything Malick has laid his mitts upon.
>>65011757
Can't handle anymore, bb?
>>65011740
Oh, young soul, don't be contaminated by all the reddit venom. Tread with care.
>>65011757
Malick is literally reddit's first arthouse director
Makes sense that /tv/ sucks his dick so much
>>64998745
"No"
>>65011889
>babby's first false-flagging experience
*parp*
>>65011932
Hello reddit!
How many times a day do you masturbate to dinosaurs rolling in grass?
>>65011926
WEW LAD, THAT'S RAD
>>65011976
Sup, Reddit? Many cocks this weekend?
>>65012042
Just a few but at least none of them were Malick's.
>>64998745
Great film. Very underrated
>for one of the shots in The Thin Red Line, [Adrien Brody] was held underwater by an enemy soldier for over three minutes in an elaborate torture scene. To portray the brutality it was shot as one long-take, and Brody claimed to 'come up gasping for air desperately' afterwards, feeling 'close to death'. Terrence Malick was however displeased with the actor's performance and ordered three more takes. This scene was not used in the final cut.
>>65012577
>Malick resorted to guerrilla style tactics where the actors were not told who they would be interacting with, requiring them to improvise entire scenes. Bale said that Malick referred to this as "torpedoing" and that as a result he mistook Teresa Palmer for a real stripper.[23][24] These methods came to a head when the cast and crew entered a Hollywood party without permission.[24] When the production was politely asked to leave, Malick looked the hosts and their security guards straight in the eye and whispered, "Your words are thoughtless, my thoughts are wordless" as a single gust of wind suddenly blew his hat up into the sky.[25][26][27]
>>65012577
>>65012665
malickposting bestposting
does anyone have the apprentice baker story and/or the one about Christopher Plummer climbing a tree?
>>65013177
>In early 2000, during an interview with Le Monde[18] regarding his new production facility[19], Poilâne asserted that he had unwittingly employed Malick between the years of 1980 through 1986 as an apprentice baker. Malick was using the pseudonym Antoine de Tournesol, and Poilâne recalled one of his interview responses 'de Tournesol' gave for wanting to work with him; "Our minds are like dough, our hearts like flame." De Tournesol was a model employee, according to Poilâne, and the reason given for leaving was "hearing again the drums of war." Poilâne proceeded to laugh the experience off, and was apparently "fond of Antoine's war movie," though didn't care for the pacing.[20]
>In 2004, during the filming of The New World, Malick forced Christopher Plummer to climb a tall oak tree. The task was very difficult for Plummer, who was 74 at the time, and took 3 unsuccessful attempts before Malick was satisfied with his performance [12]. This footage was not used in the final film.
>>65013253
I've read it pretty much hundreds of times, but it literally never gets old. Based Malick
>>65012665
>>65013253
aww damn, I forgot to add some references to my new malickpost >>65012577
, I knew it was missing something.
>>65001259
>>65001583
>>65001770
Explain the Tree of Life. What is it about in your eyes?
