Anyone else in the Badlands-is-the-only-Malick-movie-I-love camp?

I like but don’t love Days of Heaven. From then on, he loses me. The difference for me isn’t Badlands’s more conventional narrative structure; it’s that Badlands is more coherent and fully realized in its vision than his other films. It comes alive for me in a way that the rest simply don’t. Elsewhere, it’s like I’m too aware of what he’s trying to do; his devices feel less natural and more heavy-handed.

From reading about Malick’s creative process the end result makes sense. I think his extreme perfectionism hampers his creativity and his ability to make firm decisions when he’s filming. He’s said that his movies only come into being during the editing stages, and it really shows in their lack of clarity. I get the sense his early success with Badlands slightly paralyzed him because he felt so much pressure to outdo himself.

Now it’s like he’s the guy in class who speaks up so rarely that when he does he feels pressure to say something brilliant. If he made films more often and embraced occasional failure, I think he’d produce better work and regain some of the flow he had going when he was just an unknown working on his first film. In other words, I think he overthinks things.

Thoughts?

whatever you posted isn’t showing up.

I liked but didn’t love Badlands. The rest of his films I can live without. Looks like Tree of Life is more of the same only more so. Can’t say I’m particularly looking forward to it, though I’ll give it a go.
I remember seeing The Thin Red Line at the cinema when it came out and it was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud at some of the forced lyricism of it. It all seemed so overblown and absurd to me I just couldn’t take it seriously. It seemed like every soldier out there in the jungle was a sensitive poet and all the heavy handed symbolism with the menagerie of wildlife he kept cutting away to (sometimes quite jarringly as I recall) was annoying.

I know exactly what you mean Kate. I think Badlands is his 2nd best film, and I think Days of Heaven was his best film, I think that was the perfect combination of all his talents and it ended up being just the right amount of his trademark elements (beautiful cinematography, voice-over). So I don’t think those elements got away with him like they did in TTRL and TNW. His films after that I completely agree with you that I’m too aware of what he’s trying to do, and I think they’re unfocused and a bit over the top. I think theres much to like about The Thin Red Line but it wasn’t my cup of tea and I agree pretty much with everything Scampi said above.

Badlands is Malick’s masterpiece, no doubt about it. Is he overthinking things after setting the bar so ridiculously high with his debut picture? Maybe, but more importantly, he has lost his sense of humor over the years. Badlands is one of the most hilarious films I have ever seen. His other films lack that spontaneity and wit and tend to take themselves too seriously. I am still a sucker for his style and would therefor not consider myself a member of the Badlands-Is-the-only-Malick-Movie-I-Love Camp.

I read somewhere that Francis Ford Coppola wanted Terry Malick to act in Apocalypse Now because he thought that Malick was one of the funniest people he had ever met.

Terrence Malick is currently my favourite director and I consider all four of his films masterpieces (and place three of them in my top 30), so um…yeah :P Strangely Badlands was the one I struggled with the most. On the first viewing I found it so parred back that I didn’t really get a whole lot from it and it was only on the second viewing that its emotional core and subtler poeticism came alive for me (and left me a weeping emotional wreck…). The other three films I’ve adored from the moment I’ve seen them.

I can see why someone might find him heavy-handed, but personally I love the narration, the big bold images (that often dwarf over the characters), all those things that other people might accuse of heavy-handedness really speak to me on a very personal level. His films are mood poems for me: again I can understand why someone might accuse them of lacking clarity when it comes to their themes or something like that, but the very same thing that they’re accusing is what I love about them…that they can speak to me one way and say something very different to someone else, that mood and the ebing and flowing of it is the core of the film and everything else is seemingly built around that, that you can sink into them and get lost in this sea of emotions and ideas. He’s remarkable, and I anticipate The Tree of Life very much.

Yeah, Malick is a perfect 40/40 for me, and Badlands is the lowest of the four 10/10s.

Badlands is the most narrative driven of his films, whereas his other films are driven a little more by the images and the emotional experience of the characters, so I can see why people who aren’t a fan of his later films would prefer Badlands more.

Badlands is the most narrative driven of his films, whereas his other films are driven a little more by the images and the emotional experience of the characters, so I can see why people who aren’t a fan of his later films would prefer Badlands more.

Did you read the thread? Narrative conventionality wasn’t a reason listed by anyone who prefers Badlands. I also think the emotional experience of the characters is more palpable in Badlands than in his other films, even if it’s more understated in a way. Badlands has a light touch that his later films totally lack.

double post

“Narrative conventionality . . . the emotional experience of the characters is more palpable in Badlands”

You don’t think the two are connected?

I agree with Cecil will Nekomimi, although I enjoyed Badlands the first time I saw it.

@Kate -

Have you seen ToL? I thought there was several light touches in the film – especially in comparison to DoH and TRL (I havent seen NW).

“Narrative conventionality . . . the emotional experience of the characters is more palpable in Badlands”

You don’t think the two are connected?

Can you elaborate?

@Poopbutt — No, I haven’t, and I don’t have high expectations based on the trailer and what I’ve heard from others. But I will see it.

How is the emotional experience of the characters communicated in Badlands?

Well actually yes, but that is because it’s the only one of his I’ve seen up to this point.

—PolarisDiB

How is the emotional experience of the characters communicated in Badlands?

I don’t think it’s just the narrative. It’s how all the film’s elements come together so perfectly: soundtrack, visuals, dialogue, acting.

I also think that convention narratives relate (or can relate to) emotional connection with the characters. Generally, for a conventional story to work, the viewer must care about the characters—not necessarily relate to them, but find them compelling in some way. (If the viewer does like the protagonist and/or dislike the villain, generally, that helps the film even more.)

The films after Badlands seem less and less concerned about both the story and the characters—at least in a conventional sense. Indeed, the way Malick uses characters reminds me of the way Kubrick did in 2001 or Cronenberg in Crash. These films aren’t very interested in creating a strong connection between the viewer and characters. The characters are more like “tools,” in a way.

Kate said, …it’s that Badlands is more coherent and fully realized in its vision than his other films. It comes alive for me in a way that the rest simply don’t. Elsewhere, it’s like I’m too aware of what he’s trying to do; his devices feel less natural and more heavy-handed.

What do you think Malick was trying to do in his later films? (Let’s focus on The New World, because I know that one much better than TTRL.) I think this might be a good place to start when discussing these later works. We may have different ideas about what these films are about and what they’re trying to do. From there we can discuss if the films are coherrent, too heavy-handed, etc.

I love Malick’s work but Badlands is my least favorite among all of them. That isn’t to say that I don’t think it’s a great movie, but it’s a rung or two under the rest for me personally. I actually feel less emotionally connected to Badlands than the others because the characters are almost alien to me in a way.

I find his last two(The Tree of Life, The New World) to be his best, despite the fact that it’s perhaps the unpopular opinion.

Badlands is more focused than his other films partly because It only has two main characters.

@Kate

But that can’t be the only reason, can it? TNW has three main characters (one more than Days of Heaven if you count Linda Manz’s character).

Nah. NEW WORLD is too fantastic.

Take a look at the opening shots of Badlands:

They are better to me than anything else he’s produced. They aren’t epic or spectacular, but in their unaffected simplicity they immediately establish the dreamy, detached world that the characters inhabit. That’s what I mean by lightness of touch.

@Kate

That’s not the way I meant it, I guess I worded it wrong. Badlands is more grounded than his other films, and more concrete. All the characters are focused directly on the situation in front of them. The camera fixes on the action, whereas in his later films it wanders around where it feels like it, more interested in showing the audience the full spiritual and emotional ambiance of the scene than showing you the characters and the story.

I don’t agree that he’s trying too hard to be brilliant. I agree he’s a perfectionist, but my sense from Tree Of Life is that he wanted to show you the scenes in between the major dramatic events, rather than the events themselves. If you look at the way the film is paced, he leaves something on screen long enough for you to get an emotional impression but not a logical grasp on what you see on screen. He wanted you to process the film emotionally to share the feeling of the main character, and get the rush of emotions as he tries to piece together the path of his childhood to where he is now.

They aren’t epic or spectacular, but in their unaffected simplicity they immediately establish the dreamy, detached world that the characters inhabit. That’s what I mean by lightness of touch.

I’m not sure I agree about Malick’s later films lacking a “lightness of touch” or “an unaffected simplicity,” but why does this necessarily make the later films worse than Badlands? Also, your remarks sound as if you think the later films aren’t very good (not just inferior to Badlands). If so, I’m not sure how the remaks above, demonstrate this.

That’s not the way I meant it, I guess I worded it wrong. Badlands is more grounded than his other films, and more concrete. All the characters are focused directly on the situation in front of them. The camera fixes on the action, whereas in his later films it wanders around where it feels like it, more interested in showing the audience the full spiritual and emotional ambiance of the scene than showing you the characters and the story.

I don’t agree that he’s trying too hard to be brilliant. I agree he’s a perfectionist, but my sense from Tree Of Life is that he wanted to show you the scenes in between the major dramatic events, rather than the events themselves. If you look at the way the film is paced, he leaves something on screen long enough for you to get an emotional impression but not a logical grasp on what you see on screen. He wanted you to process the film emotionally to share the feeling of the main character, and get the rush of emotions as he tries to piece together the path of his childhood to where he is now.

Often, counterintuitively the best way to convey emotion is to look at it obliquely as he does in Badlands. I think he tries too hard in his later films to stare emotion in the face, which ironically diminishes its power.

I’m not sure I agree about Malick’s later films lacking a “lightness of touch” or “an unaffected simplicity,” but why does this necessarily make the later films worse than Badlands? Also, your remarks sound as if you think the later films aren’t very good (not just inferior to Badlands). If so, I’m not sure how the remaks above, demonstrate this.

See my response to Jirin about staring emotion in the face.

Badlands is the best Malick film.

NEXT!

@Kate

I think he tries too hard in his later films to stare emotion in the face…

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

@Blue

And you’re reason is?