The main theme of Malick's films on spiritual dematerialism is not eschatological, but a phenomenological ontology. 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.
Nah
Malick forgets that film is a narrative medium.
>>67662311
>film is a narrative medium.
lol
>>67662311
this idea has held it back as an art form
>>67662311
>film is a narrative medium.
>>67662311
>film is a narrative medium.
Idiot
>>67662383
>>67662604
>>67663613
Oh? Then what is it, eh retards? Quick, grab your thesauruses, I'll wait.
>>67664459
The baits too good, gotta bite
Film is a visual medium, that's the only defining characteristic. Plot is not necessary, nor are characters or defined subjects or even sound.
What you are thinking of is a flick, a movie that tells a story for the sake of entertainment. Film can do a far more than that however, and filmmakers like Malick are merely bending the boundaries of the traditional elements of a film into territory typically only occupied by "arthouse" films.
Lol^^
>>67662383
>>67662444
>>67662604
>>67663613
>>67664595
Film displays a sequence of events ("events" = shit happening on the screen). That makes it inherently a narrative medium.
>>67664459
jfc, there should be a test to pass to allow people to post in here. no wonder all the long threads and discussion are capeshits.
>>67664832
>music displays a sequence of events ("events" = notes happening in the air). That makes it inherently a narrative medium.
>>67664832
by this incredibly loose and vague definition what >>67662311 is saying is still wrong then
>>67662217
Sorry, you seem to have this confused with a film board
This board is for the discussion of capeshit and starwars only
>>67662311
Film is not a narrative medium
But Malick also doesn't make non-narrative films
>>67664858
Notes are not representations of other things. Pictures are.
>>67664910
>Notes are not representations of other things
Sorry, didn't know you were deaf.
>>67662311
>film is a narrative medium.
>>67664930
What are you on about? This image represents a dog. Can you tell me what this A flat note represents?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o1T6oV9YIQ
(I am talking about the note itself btw, not the recording. The recording tells the story that someone hit a note on a piano.)
I prefer films with a nice fun plot, bc without it, critics and "patricians" get all exited about imposing their own narrative on it (see OP's post), weaving it into philosophy or art history, and then they jerk themselves off thinking about how clever they are for finding the secret message in this great film that nobody else understood. Not for me. I'll take a thrilling crime caper over a camera spinning around trees in sunlight any day.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between
within and without. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a surrealism
that includes reality as a reality. Lyotard uses the term ‘postdialectic
capitalist theory’ to denote the bridge between society and art.
If one examines neotextual dematerialism, one is faced with a choice: either
accept surrealism or conclude that class, somewhat surprisingly, has objective
value, given that narrativity is interchangeable with art. Thus, the subject is
contextualised into a postdialectic capitalist theory that includes culture as
a totality. The main theme of the works of Rushdie is not, in fact, discourse,
but subdiscourse.
But Marx suggests the use of neotextual dematerialism to read sexual
identity. The subject is interpolated into a surrealism that includes sexuality
as a paradox.
Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term ‘dialectic neocultural theory’ to
denote the difference between society and language. Sontag promotes the use of
neotextual dematerialism to deconstruct class divisions.
But the subject is contextualised into a surrealism that includes culture as
a whole. Several theories concerning postdialectic capitalist theory exist.
>>67665581
>weaving it into philosophy or art history
do you honestly believe these were completely absent from the film and people are just projecting their views into it? Malick is a fucking philosophy major
>>67664832
Narrative implies a connection between those events.
>>67665581
>>67665619
Can't we all agree that regardless of what you think of Malick, the OP is literally nonsense and probably randomly generated? Same for this post >>67665596, it's even more obvious.
>>67665778
read some philosophy faggot.
