There’s really not a correct answer for this. Badlands is his most widely loved and probably the safest bet (and it is completely and utterly brilliant), however as his career has progressed his style has become a larger part of his films, grander, more overt yet no less satisfying, so much so that Badlands might give you false expectations of what to expect from his other later films. The Thin Red Line probably gives you the best idea of his style, but is his most difficult film imo. I started down my Malickian affair with The New World and adored it from the first time I watched it and it would probably be the one I would instinctively recommend except a lot of people who love Malick’s work aren’t quite so fond of it. Days of Heaven is Days of Heaven: a glorious, majestic, masterful film, but one that for all its immediate gifts still benefits a lot from reflection and so perhaps is best approached with other Malick films under your belt as a frame of reference.
tldr: I don’t know
badlands is his best movie. it’s all downhill from there (even though I like most of his other stuff), so maybe better to save that one for last.
I pretty much agree with most of what Cecil has said. Start with Badlands because it’s his most conventional film, but still very much a Malick film.
While Badlands is definitely his most conventional/accessible film, it’s my least favorite. I’d say start with Thin Red or Days of Heaven, especially on Criterion blu, but that’s just my opinion :)
Just watch all of them and ignore Kate. Badlands is as good a start as any.
Well, Badlands is my favorite, but I started with The Thin Red Line. If you like one Malick movie, you should probably like them all at least to some degree. Days of Heaven might be a good starting point.
The first one I saw was DAYS OF HEAVEN so I say start there simply because the cinematography is terrific and that is the film that [for me at least] made his reputation. But BADLANDS is an excellent first film. I suspect some like it better because it is has more conventional storytelling and is less ethereal and contemplative than DAYS OF HEAVEN or THE THIN RED LINE.
I would say THE THIN RED LINE would probably be the ‘purest’ Malick film and perhaps the one to see last. That leaves just one other film; THE NEW WORLD, which I think one can watch without knowing anything about his style and enjoy just fine.
The one caveat to all of this is you should watch his films on a decent sized screen with a good transfer. If your only choice is a small computer screen then go with BADLANDS and wait to watch the others on a bigger screen.
Well, there really aren’t that many and Badlands is his first and most accessible film, so I’d just start there and go in order. Not sure it really matters, though. Badlands seems the safest place to start. I agree with most of what Cecil said.
I suspect some like it better because it is has more conventional storytelling and is less ethereal and contemplative than DAYS OF HEAVEN or THE THIN RED LINE.
That’s not why at all. Badlands is far more fleshed out than Days of Heaven, and it also has more a palpable mood in my opinion (though I like both).
I pretty much agree with Cecil, too. Basically, Badlands probably has the strongest narrative—whereas the subsequent films become more poetic, mythical, and philosophical. So, if you actually prefer poetic/mythical/philosophical films, you could start with the later films like TTRL or TNW.
For me it’s not about Badlands having more of a story, but the characters being more fully formed than they are in his other films.
Days of Heaven has more of a mythic quality, which means that the characters are more types than actual persons. Beyond that TTRL is not about people or narrative in a strict sense, and The New World returns to Days of Heaven territory.
^Yep, I agree with that. I’d even say that TTRL is not really about a War film or even about WWII.
I need to finish TTRL; haven’t been able to get through it. I think I was too distracted by the bizarre cameos of every famous actor on the face of the planet for even the smallest parts. Is there a reason Malick chose to do this? I mean John Travolta?
Badlands…. the characters being more fully formed than they are in his other films
Yes and no. The character development in BADLANDS exists in a more conventional narrative structure than DAYS OF HEAVEN.
DAYS OF HEAVEN has all the motivations and character development but it come off – as some have said here – more mythic due to the pacing, shot selections and editing. That’s my reading anyway.
I would add that THE THIN RED LINE is a bit too abstract in the character / story development – although it still has brilliant moments. But I could see someone not warming to that film as much.
Kate, The Thin Red Line Why all the famous cameos? In a word : FINANCING
Badlands was my intro. In a 10th grade Film as Lit. class
And I was lucky enough to’ve seen them chronologically after that.
I saw The New World in theatre & since then it has surpassed Days of Heaven as the one I have rewatched the most.
I’d say start with Badlands watch them chronologically if possible.
Kate, The Thin Red Line Why all the famous cameos? In a word : FINANCING
That’s my feeling, too. My sense is that actors want to work with Malick, so why not? Plus—and this is going to sound insulting—I don’t think the actors matter a whole lot in Malick’s films—as the films aren’t about the characters and don’t depend on great acting.
I wonder if Malick would agree that his actors don’t matter : /
I guess the irony being how much Martin Sheen was praised for Badlands & Q’orianka Kilcher for New World.
I know a kid that said the trailer for Tree of Life looked like an insurance advertisement (& he’s right)
In some sense I agree with Jazz, that really it’s the script, moreso the mood, that matters.
And the actors are basically interchangeable so long as the mood is conveyed.
@Hau
I wonder if Malick would agree that his actors don’t matter.
Yeah, I think that’s too harsh on my part. Both Sheen and Spacek are solid, if not very good in Badlands, bu then the acting is just OK in the rest of the films. Kilcher has a terrific presence and look, but that has less do with acting, imo.
that really it’s the script, moreso the mood, that matters
The ideas—very philosophical and cerebral—conveyed poetically via images and sound that matters the most. Imo, very few directors are on the same level as Malick when it comes to this type of filmmaking.
I agree. i guess i was thinking of the ideas as the mood.
the way in which his characters speak & what they speak of is what creates the feel of his films.
i’m not sure there are any directors on his level; he’s like a lone skyscraper on an uncharted island, unto himself.
@Jazz — I think his characters are crucial in Badlands, but less so in his other movies.
@Kate
You’re right. I meant the films besides Badlands.
What’s cool about Badlands is the characters feel simultaneously mysterious and developed.
@Kate
What’s cool about Badlands is the characters feel simultaneously mysterious and developed.
Yeah, although I think the characters and storyline seem a bit overdone, imo. (What’s the American fascination with this storyline/characters? You got Bonnie and Clyde, Gun Crazy, and several more in that vein.)
I missed this: For me it’s not about Badlands having more of a story, but the characters being more fully formed than they are in his other films.
And so you prefer Badlands, which is fine. At the same time, imo, that doesn’t make Badlands Malick’s best film—especially since his later films don’t attempt to create, nor depend on, “fully formed characters.”
@Jazz — I think it’s really hard to make a great film without fully developed characters. I would argue Malick’s lack of developed characters is as an objective flaw in his later work.
Blade Runner is one of the few films I can think of that is great despite its sketchy characters, but only because of the spectacular visuals and mood. I know you disagree with me about BR, though. :)
I’d also argue that strong characters are almost the most important aspect of a film (at least one that is more than just entertainment), the framework on which everything else is built, because their presence is usually necessary to give emotional resonance to all other aspects of the film from mood to sound to story to cohesion. Even movies without people in them usually have some sort of anthropomorphic character as a stand in.
@Kate
…lack of developed characters is as an objective flaw in his later work.
and
I’d also argue that strong characters are almost the most important aspect of a film, because their presence is usually necessary to give emotional resonance to all other aspects of the film from mood to story.
A couple of things:
Imo, the importance of the characters depends on the nature of the film—specifically what the film is trying to do and what it’s about. I’d say most films that attempt to tell a good story, also need strong characters (or at least likable ones). But there are many films that don’t depend on fully developed/strong characters for the film to work and be great, imo.
I bet we could name a bunch of great films with weak/poorly developed character (and, as you know, BR doesn’t count. ;)
@Jazz — Can you offer some examples of other films you consider great with sketchy characters?
What Jazz said.
The Thin Red Line isn’t trying to tell a conventional story, and as a result well-rounded characters aren’t necessary. Objectively, according to Malick’s needs, well-rounded characters might actually get in the way.
Drunken Father Figure of Old
Considering that none of the synopses of his movies sound very interesting to me, but I really like the things people say about him, which Terrence Malick movie would be the best introduction to his style?