The Films and Filmmaking of Terrence Malick

Part of the enjoyment of watching Malick’s Tree of life was the emerging thoughts and possible insights into his other films as well as his filmmaking and overall concerns in general. I’m sure those of you who have taken the time to watch all of a filmmaker’s films can relate to this feeling of emerging revelation about a filmmaker and his/her films. What is especially gratifying and exciting is to see the way a filmmakers style and treatment of ideas evolve over time. I think one can see that in the progression of Malick’s films.

Anyway, I wanted to start a thread that discusses this—Malick’s filmmaking style as well as his recurring themes and concerns and the evolution and development of both. I’m a little intimidated by the subject, as I think there are many different aspects to cover (each of which could warrant a separate thread)—and I hardly feel knowledgeable and qualified to discuss it. But my approach on this forum has always been to throw something out there and let the chips fall where they may. Why stop now?

To start things off let me suggest limiting the discussion (at least initially) to make it more manageable. I’d like us to start with a more descriptive process, rather than an analytical or evaluative one. By “descriptive,” I mean identifying the specific themes, ideas, storylines, etc. that Malick seems most interested in; furthermore, identify any general qualities (if any) that characterize and distinguish Malick’s filmmaking style (compositions, sense of story, use of sound and music, etc.) from others. I think identifying these qualities alone could take up quite a bit of time, but if not we can move on to a more interpretive discussion (e.g. the meaning of trees and nature in his films, etc.).

Let me throw some ideas out there:

On themes, ideas, etc.

>There’s something very American about his films. (What makes them American—besides the fact that the films take place in America?) And he also seems very interested in myths—as if he wants to make new myths or recontexualize older ones for our times, specifically, he draws heavily on the Biblical stories. (What are they?)

>He seems concerned with darker forces in human nature (which we could call sin). He wants to understand this part of us—why we have this darker side (especially if God exists and He is good and omnipotent); what can we do about it.

>Nature and/or God seems to play a significant role in his films. (What do we mean by nature and God?)

Filmmaking style

>The first thing that pops into my head is grand visuals—like a master painter; there is an operatic quality of both his images and sound.

>I think of his use of natural light—which is almost unmatched (although where does the cinematographer fit into this?)

>I think he doesn’t get enough credit for his use of both music, sound and silence—especially in the last two films.

>The use of VO is very important and a distinguishing feature of his style. Initially, those added some commentary that complemented the characters and story, but later I think the VO became clues or commentary to certain ideas.

Water

ive sadley only seen 3 of his films, badlands,the thin red line and the tree of life but from watching those films i can tell that he has a very artistic vision his films are truly beautiful

I think of his use of natural light—which is almost unmatched (although where does the cinematographer fit into this?)

well for starters even natural light can be flagged, shaped, or otherwise modified. just the act of using artificial light doesn’t make one a cinematographer. also there’s color, composition, stocks/processing, lens choice, operating in some instances, overseeing color timing etc etc. I haven’t read it yet but the latest issue of American Cinematographer features Tree of Life as cover story if you’re interested in more.

most interesting to me is Malick’s work style, nearly all on-set discovery, chasing down elusive one-of-a-kind moments that can’t be replicated – exhausting obviously for cast and crew and creates enormous shooting ratio but oh so worth it, at least to me.

@Brian

I guess my question involves the individual we give credit to—Malick, the cinematographer or both? I tempted to give more of the credit to Malick as his films seem to have a consistent look to them, film by film, even though he’ll use different cinematographers.

It would be interesting to hear the specific details that make his films visually stand out from other films.

@Matt

Yeah, I’d say water is significant in his films. That reminds me of something. Do you think his use of water, trees and even religious themes/motifs is somewhat unoriginal? I’m not questioning the beauty of the visual presentation, but the meaning behind these images and story lines?

In terms of cinematography, Malick is like Kubrick in that no matter who shoots their films, the films are gonna look awesome. Malick is so involved in the cinematography that I think it really knowledgeable person to decipher Lubezki’s contribution to Tree of Life compared to Toll’s work on The Thin Red Line.

Well, speaking at the broadest possible level, Jazz, I think he uses trees and water and light as archetypal images to suggest archetypal events and/or archetypal motifs, but I think it would perhaps be mistake to take his lack of willingness to brick his films up inside specifics as a lack of originality.

@Santino

I agree with everything you said.

@Matt

What do you mean by “brick his films inside specifics?” I’m not suggesting that the images should refer to some specific meaning; rather, the meanings associated with these images seems a bit cliched (at least with some of his films).

Like Montresor does to Fortunato in “The Cask of Amontillado,” Jazz. What would you identify as cliche is in his films? To me for something to qualify as a cliche is has to not only be familiar, but also the intent has to be a shortcut to meaning. There’s also a stylistic component: having a short story set late at night while its storming isn’t necessarily a cliche, but starting a short story “it was a dark and stormy night” is.

I don’t think I’ve read “Cask” or at least I don’t remember enough of it to know what you’re referring to.

As for “cliche,” perhaps that’s the wrong word—although I do think it’s in the same ballpark. Here’s an example. The “heaven” sequence in Tree of Life. What is cliched about this? Well, as far as I can tell, the meaning or “message” from that sequence is that one day everything will be alright—either because Jack will be in heaven with this family or that someone how Jack has found some way to re-connect with this family, as well as find peace over the death of his brother.

In Badlands, when Kit and Holly live in the forest, there’s a sense that they’re returning to Eden. They’re eventually chased out of “Eden” and Kit continues his killing, while Holly just sort of observes from the side. Is the going to live in the woods a cliche? Maybe not, but certainly we wouldn’t call this very original or a creative update on older ideas or themes, right?

The most obvious Terrence Malick cliche is hands running through tall grass. I made a funny bet with my friend before we went to see Tree of Life that I would yell and throw popcorn every time there’s a character on screen that runs their hand through tall grass blowing in the wind.

And it happened twice (I didn’t actually yell during the movie).

Is “one day everything will be alright” specific enough to really be a cliche, though. It’s a basic tenant of most every spiritual belief system, no?

“In Badlands, when Kit and Holly live in the forest, there’s a sense that they’re returning to Eden. They’re eventually chased out of “Eden” and Kit continues his killing, while Holly just sort of observes from the side. Is the going to live in the woods a cliche? Maybe not, but certainly we wouldn’t call this very original or a creative update on older ideas or themes, right?”

By that logic, wouldn’t Michelangelo’s ceiling and alter at the Sistine Chapel also be cliched?

@Matt

It’s a basic tenant of most every spiritual belief system, no?

Right. But isn’t making this simple point again rather disappointing? It sort of is to me. To the film’s credit, I think there are some terrific beautiful cinematic moments during the “heaven” sequence—especially the use of music and images when Mrs. O’Brien gives her child over to God.

By that logic, wouldn’t Michelangelo’s ceiling and alter at the Sistine Chapel also be cliched?

Well, I think the Sistine Chapel is a different situation—at least from the little I understand about it. Isn’t it supposed to be a literal or direct depiction of certain events in the Bible? In Badlands, Malick draws on older myths/stories—in very direct ways—to tell his story. I don’t really penalize Malick’s films for these things, but I do think they’re somewhat valid criticisms. Ultimately, Malick’s presentation of his ideas via his filmmaking is where his artistic greatness can be found.

On a side note, I’m starting to watch TTRL, and it’s starting to feel closer to Tree of Life in terms of themes. One of the VOs in the beginning speaks of two natures—one being an avenging one. There’s also a discussion about the world we live (dog-eat-dog) versus another one (God’s world/heaven). It should be interesting.

Btw, I hope others will feel motivated to re-watch Malick’s films and participate in this discussion.

I recently did my dissertation on the creation myth in Malicks (then) first four feature films. Even with 7,000, I only briefly touched upon what there was, and with The Tree Of Life out now, there is a whole host of new things to discuss. Im not 100% motivated in writing a long post about that now, just because I’ve got a headache right now, but maybe later I can write down some ideas I found and discussed if people are interested. I’d personally like to look at The Tree of Life in this relation as well, as there are heaps of stuff in that film that direct relate to the creation of Earth, of Man, Adam and Eve etc.

In terms of the other ideas that you discuss, visuals are an obvious, Philosophy is an obvious (theres a very new book out, called ‘Terrence Malick and Philosophy’ I believe, if people are interested in reading more.)

Im not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the representation of innocence, and how that has been lost (that of America, shown through Holly (Badlands), The young girl (I forget her name, in Days of Heaven), The musings in The Thin Red Line, Pocahontas (The New World) and Jack (The Tree Of Life), is perhaps one of the most vital themes in his films.

….to brick his films up inside specifics as a lack of originality.

The Color of Pomegranates seems original and it is very specific.

Im just very happy to live in a time when this man is still creating works of art. It gives me hope for film and humanity in general.

“The Color of Pomegranates seems original and it is very specific.”

The way we’re employing “cliche” in this thread, cliche in The Color of Pomegranates = artist biopic.

See how inadequate that feels in relation to what the film actually is?

“Well, I think the Sistine Chapel is a different situation—at least from the little I understand about it. Isn’t it supposed to be a literal or direct depiction of certain events in the Bible?”

I’m not sure the artist would have been happy with you putting it in those terms, visual art can’t be a literal depiction of text (unless it’s actually text itself), it’s a visual metaphor for the stories it represents, I would say . . . but, yes, it’s supposed to resonate with the depictions in another work.

In a similar way, Malick’s use of archetypal images and story elements are supposed to resonate with . . . something.

Here’s the thing—
why do people still respond to stories in the Old Testament? Because they resonate with something in their own lives, right? When one alludes to these things in a work is one alluding merely to the things in the stories or to the things in “real life” with which these things resonate? This is one of the questions Jung was wrestling with in his writings on collective unconscious:

“This deeper level manifests itself in universal archaic images expressed in dreams, religious beliefs, myths, and fairytales. The archetypes, as unfiltered psychic experience, appear sometimes in their most primitive and naive forms (in dreams), sometimes in a considerably more complex form due to the operation of conscious elaboration (in myths). Archetypal images expressed in religious dogma in particular are thoroughly elaborated into formalized structures which, while by expressing the unconscious in a circuitous manner, prevent direct confrontation with it. Since the Protestant Reformation rejected nearly all of the carefully constructed symbol structures, man has felt increasingly isolated and alone without his gods; at a loss to replenish his externalized symbols, he must turn to their source in the unconscious. The search into the unconscious involves confronting the shadow, man’s hidden nature; the anima/animus, a hidden opposite gender in each individual; and beyond, the archetype of meaning. These are archetypes susceptible to personification; the archetypes of transformation, which express the process of individuation itself, are manifested in situations . . .”

" . . . This collective unconscious is considered to consist of preexistent thought forms, called archetypes, which give form to certain psychic material which then enters the conscious. Archetypes are likened to instinctual behavior patterns. Examples of ideas such as the concept of rebirth, which occur independently in various cultures and ages, are advanced as evidence for the collective unconscious. It is felt that there are as many archetypes as there are recurring situations in life, that when a situation occurs that corresponds to a particular archetype, the archetype presses for completion like an instinctual drive"

Celery said, …but maybe later I can write down some ideas I found and discussed if people are interested.

Please do.

Im not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the representation of innocence, and how that has been lost (that of America, shown through Holly (Badlands), The young girl (I forget her name, in Days of Heaven), The musings in The Thin Red Line, Pocahontas (The New World) and Jack (The Tree Of Life), is perhaps one of the most vital themes in his films.

Interesting point. I think this definitely occurs in BL, DoH and ToL. I’m not sure if it’s in TTRL. I never consider the loss of innocence in TNW, but you might be right. Hopefully, I watch the movie again soon.

The way we’re employing “cliche” in this thread, cliche in The Color of Pomegranates = artist biopic.

Are we saying something that isn’t original must be a cliche?

I liked the notion that a definition of originality is ‘something bricked up with specifics’.
Part of the problem with originality in a pure form is that one has no way to understand it – unless everything in life is an archetype pressing for completion.
In which case….

“Are we saying something that isn’t original must be a cliche?”

I think we are . . . or at least coming dangerously close to saying that.

“I liked the notion that a definition of originality is ‘something bricked up with specifics’.
Part of the problem with originality in a pure form is that one has no way to understand it”

Right . . . and I think there’s always the question of what’s the correct level of magnification to set the microscope at when testing a work for originality. At some level, there’s always going to be something I’ve seen before. In regard to Malick, as a generalization, my first impulse is to say what’s “original” (although here I would prefer to call it “innovation” rather than "originality . . . based on a distinction you made here somewhere) in Malick is not his ideas or themes or plots (in fact, in his later work, plotting seems to have become almost of a scaffolding for building the film which is later removed) , but rather the way he embodies them in the, for lack of a better catch-all, stuff his films.

Jazzaloha, I will develop the whole creation stuff in a later post, theres too much to go through right now.

But in terms of the loss of innocence, which is a more reasonable size to start a discussion on, I think I can get something going.

I think in TNW, the whole film is about this.Its the pure, innocent America giving way to the European, whom bring with them famine, war etc. Pocahontas becomes the embodiment of this native American innocence, whereas the English (barring Captain Smith, who’ll I’ll come back to), pretty much try to remove this from her. However as we see when she is in England, she cant help but return to the way she use to be, playing in the field with her child for example. When we are told of her death, we are told as she plays in the gardens, done on purpose in my opinion, her maintaining her innocent roots.In a more general point, I feel that The New World is perhaps his most complete film, in terms of collecting all the themes that often occur in his films, perhaps only (in my opinion) beaten in this by The Tree of Life, which I feel is a total culmination of his work (as well as is maybe his best, and in my top five favourite films of all time).

In terms of TTRL, my memory is slightly more sketchy, however that innocence (or loss) is still there. Again, we see America losing its innocence. This is a time of a whole generation going to war, dying for a reason that should never be, young men that should be living, enjoying their life, but rather wasting it in far-gone lands. Pvt. Witt (Jim Caviezel) sacrifices himself at the end. Witt is the embodiment in TTRL of the spirit we see in the likes of Holly and Pocahontas, perhaps one of the few hopes in the war that they have to remain humane, but he falls like the rest of the men, for a unhumane war (not suggesting war can ever be humane). His musings are extremely deep, but also rings of naivety and innocence (not a negative personality trait by any means). Im sorry this point is less developed, but im sure there could be someone who can help develop this.

I know for a fact that naivety and innocence is important to Malick. In his two published interviews (you can find them in ‘Terrence Malick: Contemporary Film Makers’, although I imagine they will be on the net), he talks of the importance of this with Holly, as well as his own inspiration of coming-of-age stories such as Huck Finn.

@Matt

…it’s a visual metaphor for the stories it represents, I would say . . . but, yes, it’s supposed to resonate with the depictions in another work.

I’m fumbling to express myself well here, but something like the Sistine Chapel is more of direct translation (literal is probably the wrong word.) It doesn’t indirectly draw upon the Bible—whereas Malick does. See what I’m saying? (Ugh, pardon the clumsy writing.)

why do people still respond to stories in the Old Testament? Because they resonate with something in their own lives, right? When one alludes to these things in a work is one alluding merely to the things in the stories or to the things in “real life” with which these things resonate?

Off the top of my head I would say that people respond to both the truths captured within the stories and symbols as well as the way these truths are expressed. I don’t think you can separate them.

Part of my ambivalence with Malick’s use of these references is that they don’t seem to be very fresh or creative uses of them. Well, I’m not even sure of that is true. One may be argue that Malick is recontexualizing these stories in a American setting, for modern viewers. I think you could make a case for that. On the other hand, I feel like other American artists have done that and Malick’s handling of these references isn’t very fresh. Or am I off base on that?

“the Sistine Chapel is more of direct translation (literal is probably the wrong word.) It doesn’t indirectly draw upon the Bible—whereas Malick does. See what I’m saying?”

Hmm . . . to me the whole comparison is iffy because we’re talking about representing aspects of a narrative (the OT) with a non-narrative (painting) vs. representing aspects of a narrative in a medium that can include narrative.

Celery brings up an interesting angle—naivety. What if we substitute the idea(s) of naïve/innocent for the idea of cliche? The fact that the POV in the film is aligned with relatively naïve characters (or characters looking back at time when they were naïve) would account for perceiving these things direct and unsophisticated way.

I think part of my objection or disappointment is in the way Malick uses these references. The usage of them doesn’t seem very fresh or interesting; maybe they’re too obvious and lacking in subtlety, too. Do you know where I’m coming from? If so, what is your take on it? I mean, do you feel like some of Malick’s ideas—both in terms of its substance and his use of older myths/narratives—isn’t very fresh or interesting? (Btw, I feel a bit differently with regard to TNW. There, I feel found the ideas and use of older myths/motifs a bit more interesting and creative.)

What if we substitute the idea(s) of naïve/innocent for the idea of cliche? The fact that the POV in the film is aligned with relatively naïve characters (or characters looking back at time when they were naïve) would account for perceiving these things direct and unsophisticated way.

I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not sure if that surmounts the problem for me. Maybe this could work for Badlands and Days of Heaven, but I’m not sure if it works for the other films. (I still need to re-watch TTRL and TNW.)

OK, I recently watched TTRL and I wanted to jot down some notes:

>I feel the film is very close to Tree of Life, maybe a companion film—except Malick focuses on depicting the world of nature (man; the worldly) versus the world of grace (heaven; God’s world). Where TTRL emphasizes the a Darwinian world and only hints at another option, ToL flips this around.

>I see Sgt. Welsh (Penn) similar to the father (Pitt) In Tree of Life. Capt. Staros (Koteas) is akin to the mother in Tree of Life. Both care about the men (the children), but they care about them in different ways. Latter Staros is seen—by the most worldy figure, Col. Tall (Nolte)—as unfit for the war (the world of nature/man).

>Like all of Malick’s films, this one wants to avoid easy explanations and maintain the mystery of things like pain, evil and the dark impulses within us. I noticed this TTRL doing this by almost negating two possible “solutions”—love or romantic love and the “noble savage” or returning to nature. At the end of the film, the film seems to negate these two options—or at least make them questionable—by showing Pvt. Bell’s wife leave him for another man and the shots of fighting and disease in the Solomon Island village. Pvt. Wit’s death also leaves the viewer feeling a little uncertain.

I think what Malick talks about is more about Evolution and God, rather than Evolution or God. There seems to be a belief that one can not co-exist with the other, but I know many people who believe it. A God who is forever learning, forever changing, and forever at one with itself seems to be the God that Malick tries to represent. His God is not prefect, and can make mistakes. I think his God is the same, innocent child that we often see in his films. It could be true that in TTRL and TTOL focus on two parts of this, Malick however never dismisses the either.

I personally see The New World as the closest to The Tree of Life, and find it more closely links up with it, however The Thin Red Line clearly progresses towards that direction.

@Celery

My sense is that Malick’s depiction of God is different from the one you describe; it’s more a long traditional Christian ideas, I think. According to the TTRL and ToL, the world is mostly Darwinian—a kind of unforgiving, brutal world. Yet, a supposedly good and all-powerful God created this world—which is a source of confusion and dismay from those who believe in this God (as we see in Jack and one of Sgt. McCron’s (John Savage) monlogues and Train’s VOs) I think both films wrestle with this this (although ToL even more).

How can a good, loving and omnipotent God create a world of cruelty and evil? Why does He allow these things to happen, especially to innocent people? I think the films touch on this and there are moments in TTRL that suggest that God somehow works through things that are ugly and evil or that they’re mysteriously part of some larger plan. For example, in one of Train’s VOs, he mentions two different ways people see a dead bird.

One man looks at a dying bird and thinks there’s nothing but unanswered pain. But (or that?) death’s got the final word. It’s laughing at him. Another man sees that same bird (and the scene cuts to Witt sleeping) feels the glory; feels something smiling through it. (In the VO prior to this one, Train asks, “What keeps us from reaching out, touching the glory?”)

So in some ways, I sympathize with the view that Malick talks about “evolution and God”, but I don’t know if I agree that the God in the films is one that is one that “is not perfect and can make mistakes;” that he is the “same innocent child that we see in all of his films”—although I’m open to an argument for this reading. I assume by “mistakes” you mean all the bad things that occur in the world, but are these God’s “mistakes” or are the reasons for these bad events just beyond the capacity for our understanding? I think Malick’s films (certainly ToL) suggests the latter.

I personally see The New World as the closest to The Tree of Life, and find it more closely links up with it

How so ?

I in many respects agree with what you have said, and the fact that the films can hold host to a number of interpretations is part of the reasons I really enjoy his films.

I believe the God that Malick tries to show us is one that understands Its ‘mistakes’ (or bad events as you call them) are there to make the human grow.It does not need to be perfect, as it can never be perfect. Like you quoted, where someone sees un-answered pain, someone else (Pvt. Witt) sees the glory. That for me says itself how God can never be perfect, because It will always be seen in two different ways. What it comes down to is faith.

About The New World, I just feel that the way it looks more than anything closely resembles that of The Tree of Life. I feel that you could almost watch the two back to back and (if you had no sound on), and see very little difference. The colours, the tone, the way the camera seems to float around, be a character by itself, all of that stuff. Where (broadly speaking) Badlands is a straight story, Days of Heaven a straight story with moments of pure standalone beauty (i.e the seed growing), The Thin Red Line a collection of moments and musings that form into a story (albeit slightly messy at times), The New World a collection of thoughts put together with the story secondary, The Tree of Life to me is a dream (dream like for the viewer, memory for Adult Jack) like collection of moments, that could all be short films, or part of a 6 hour film. It seems to me that Malick has been progressively been working towards this.

I believe the God that Malick tries to show us is one that understands Its ‘mistakes’ (or bad events as you call them) are there to make the human grow.It does not need to be perfect, as it can never be perfect.

(“It” refers to God?) I agree that our understanding or dealing with evil in the world comes down to faith, but I think there is another approach towards evil and bad things that happen to people—neither seeing that as mistakes or acts that make us grow. That approach is to say that these occurrences are beyond our scope of understanding, which, imo, is the essentially a big part of God’s response to Job—and which we see depicted in the ToL’s creation sequence.

As for The New World, I agree that in terms of the filmmaking and style, it’s closer to ToL than TTRL—although in terms of content, I think TTRL and ToL are more similar. I haven’t seen TNW in a while, but I don’t think it really deals with the problem of pain and evil. All three films deal with two “worlds”—the cruel, unforgiving world of nature and the world of grace, mercy, God. And I agree that the films seem to be become progressively more abstract.

Hmm. I think I think the opposite—that ToL is more like TTRL, at least in the way it’s constructed. Thematically, I see TNW as closer to Days of Heaven—the “days of heaven upon the earth” thing, I guess.