criterionforum.org

Not having seen this, I'm not really sure of what the value in remaining in the thread to respond to enthusiasts with 'yes but the movie is bad garbage for stupid people to like' is.

aox wrote:While I'm sure my last post was ignorant in terms of film grammar, and since it has come up, what film(s) are/is Malick aping with ToL, TtW, and KoC?

Just based on the first two films mentioned it's fair to point to, without getting into broad every man stuff like the already mentioned Vertov, 2 or 3 Things I know About Her which definitely has had to have a play on his narration, some of the editing is similar to Kossakovsky's work, Terence Davies work is quite similar especially in terms of how they attempt to show memory as an action, and I don't really think I need to mention Tarkovsky whose influence seems obvious enough just to name a few off the top of my head.

knives wrote:

aox wrote:While I'm sure my last post was ignorant in terms of film grammar, and since it has come up, what film(s) are/is Malick aping with ToL, TtW, and KoC?

Terence Davies work is quite similar especially in terms of how they attempt to show memory as an action...

I'd even argue that Davies is even better at it. Formally much more elegant and coherent, but even the rush of images (or rather sensations, not just pretty pictures) has a flow and arrangement that better resembles the flow of actual memories. The way they're stitched together from one to the next is executed more carefully and the effect is much stronger. It helps that Davies thinks these things out before shooting whereas Malick tries to come up with structure after amassing a pile of footage (similar to what cinéma vérité documentaries typically do with their narratives). To be fair, you could say Malick's methods mimic the way a person may consciously sort through their own memories to find meaning or patterns long after the fact, whereas Davies' films are more deliberate and methodical in their planning, but it just goes to show you that what you physically do in filmmaking doesn't necessarily translate that way into the final result.

Malick's movies (KoC aside since I haven't watched it yet) since The Thin Red Line work like poems to me. They relies on flow and metaphors and association of ideas rather on chronology or action.

That's fine to me when the movie themes resonates in me (The New World and The Tree of Life) but can keep me rather outside of it when it doesn't (The Thin Red Line and To The Wonder).

I also find a lot of myself in the way heartthesilence compares Malick to Davies. The differences pointed are why I tended to be rather cold towards the Davies I've seen (The Deep Blue Sea and The Long Day Closes) despite recognizing obvious qualities (which is why I'm actually rather eager to see Sunset Song).

Vertov and Godard also felt to me "meta" in the way they're playing with construction. It seems to me oriented to a discussion towards the medium itself, while Malick's movies seemed to me more using this to provide a construction based on flow of consciousness.

Vertov and Godard also felt to me "meta" in the way they're playing with construction. It seems to me oriented to a discussion towards the medium itself, while Malick's movies seemed to me more using this to provide a construction based on flow of consciousness.

Yes, I think it must be remembered that Malick is in many ways a Romantic artist, as opposed to figures like Godard and Vertov who are explicitly political or intellectual artists.

Like many of the Romantic poets, Malick's attempts to engage with grand themes (the meaning of life and death, love, nature, etc.) risk feeling silly and self-indulgent (like a freshman college paper, as domino says). When the films work they can feel sublime. Tree of Life worked for me; To the Wonder didn't. But Tree of Life easily could have tipped over into silliness--and did for some.

A lot of Malick actually reminds me of D. H. Lawrence, whose novels are incredibly earnest and committed to grasping Big Themes, but which only succeed about half the time (the rest of the time they feel laughable). Lawrence's approach was already dated and embarrassing in the 1910s and '20s when he was writing. The same could arguably said about Malick--the films feel a little bit embarrassing because they are so very, very sincere, and so largely uninterested in/unaware of things like irony, a political worldview, social issues, etc. In other words, Malick's unapologetically Romantic sensibility seems to be the really divisive thing about his work, much more so than the technical aspects of the films or the fact that he likes to use VO or whatever (though of course these aspects of the work are difficult to separate).

I know you guys are going to point to The Mirror, but I can't help but feel Malick abandoned his Tarkovsky aping after The Thin Red Line.

Really, I thought the Tarkovsky aping didn't really begin in earnest until Tree of Life. I'm curious why you think that reverse when at least as far as I know the conventional wisdom is my position.

hearthesilence wrote:

knives wrote: Terence Davies work is quite similar especially in terms of how they attempt to show memory as an action...

I'd even argue that Davies is even better at it. Formally much more elegant and coherent, but even the rush of images (or rather sensations, not just pretty pictures) has a flow and arrangement that better resembles the flow of actual memories. The way they're stitched together from one to the next is executed more carefully and the effect is much stronger. It helps that Davies thinks these things out before shooting whereas Malick tries to come up with structure after amassing a pile of footage (similar to what cinéma vérité documentaries typically do with their narratives). To be fair, you could say Malick's methods mimic the way a person may consciously sort through their own memories to find meaning or patterns long after the fact, whereas Davies' films are more deliberate and methodical in their planning, but it just goes to show you that what you physically do in filmmaking doesn't necessarily translate that way into the final result.

Oh, absolutely and I should bring up that I'm more in line with all of the examples I gave then Malick. I can appreciate Ian's idea which seems mostly accurate to me, but considering how much personally the romantic seems like such a massive step down from the baroque and not as compelling as cinema as the modern and post modern that's already as good as any argument for a lack of preference towards him. That said I don't think he's terribly accomplished even within that model. Hawthorne, Goethe, Schiller, Keats, Wodsworth, ect. approaches to typical narrative concerns through the idea of the medium seem better considered and more fully composed around their central thematic explosion. Admittedly it is hard to critique Malick fully as a romantic filmmaker since there are so few directors so fully in that mode. I can think of a few stray examples like Mank's Dragonwyck or Leigh's Mr. Turner which sort of had to consider romantic ideas, but James Whale seems like the only other fully romantic director I can think of. Whale's simple editing allowing the stage whether bare like in Journey's End or fully opulent like in Bride of Frankenstein functions better as romantic to me then Malick's reverse.

Some of the party scenes in "Knight" almost feel impressionistic, especially the low-resolution, high-contrast, high-saturation shots done on GoPro and Harinezumi digital cameras. Malick seems to be slightly drifting away from realism in "Knight". In some ways, the film reminds me more of Murnau's "Sunrise" than it does anything from Vertov or Godard. Some of the party scenes, for example, reminded me of the futuristic carnival/expo scenes in "Sunrise". To ianthemovie's points about Malick being a romantic and unabashedly sincere filmmaker, this also points more toward a film like "Sunrise".

ianthemovie wrote:Yes, I think it must be remembered that Malick is in many ways a Romantic artist, as opposed to figures like Godard and Vertov who are explicitly political or intellectual artists [...] The same could arguably said about Malick--the films feel a little bit embarrassing because they are so very, very sincere, and so largely uninterested in/unaware of things like irony, a political worldview, social issues, etc. In other words, Malick's unapologetically Romantic sensibility seems to be the really divisive thing about his work, much more so than the technical aspects of the films or the fact that he likes to use VO or whatever (though of course these aspects of the work are difficult to separate).

You seem to have a very mistaken view of the Romantics, or at least the English ones, the majority of whom were explicitly political, indeed revolutionary, committed to social changes, and frequently either atheists or denouncers of traditional religious institutions.

Wordsworth and Coleridge were committed leftists and supporters of the French revolution, with Coleridge founding along with Robert Southey a Utopian egalitarian governmental system called Pantisocracy.

Shelley was a radical leftist and atheist and follower of William Godwin.

Blake was a revolutionary who supported both French and American revolutions.

Byron (a satirist and ironist, by the way) had an actual political career where he argued for social reforms. He died fighting for Greek independence.

All of these men wrote explicitly political poems. Romanticism was itself a movement with a strong foundation in revolutionary politics. As for not being intellectual, poems like Prometheus Unbound, Don Juan, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, The Prelude, and Hyperion would seem refutations on the face of it. And Coleridge was a well known philosopher whose Biographia Literaria discusses most of the leading continental philosophers of the day.

I don't think you really understand the terms you're using. And while I hesitate to state outright that Malick is not a Romantic, I'm suspicious of the claim that he is one. Amidst all the yearning for transcendental experience, the questioning of the purpose or aim of life, creative energy and the imagination are rarely if ever mentioned. Malick compares oddly with a true Romantic filmmaker like Terry Gilliam, for whom the imagination is of the most vital importance.

I think it's reasonable to say that Malick is on a similar wavelength to Christian Romantic artists, like Dostoevsky (whose work he has used at least once to inform an actor's performance) or Blake (whom he has referenced a bunch, especially in Tree of Life)- the Blake of "Auguries of Innocence" moreso than that of "The French Revolution." It's true that Malick doesn't mention much about creative energy and the imagination, but the outlook represented in Prince Myshkin's "Beauty will save the world" and Blake's "If a thing loves, it is infinite" is no less Romantic, and to my mind very in line with Malick's own.

I'm not an expert in English poetry but I think you've taken an unduly narrow view of Romanticism to sustain an attack on a fair characterisation of Malick, mistaking interesting (and doubtlessly useful) trivia about the political views of a handful of authors at a point in time for a valid characterisation of a much larger intellectual and artistic movement across Europe and the Atlantic world. If you take a broader view of the Romantic movement its political affiliations are much more ambiguous. If I recall correctly, Alfred Cobban characterised it as a revolt against the Enlightenment the foundations of which, in part, were laid by the counter-revolutionary parliamentarian Edmund Burke. In Germany it coincided with an interest, sparked by Herder and Fichte, in what we would now consider a reactionary politics of nationalism and a critique of the atheism of French revolutionary politics from disillusioned early enthusiasts like Schleiermacher. Much of its politics is primarily aesthetic in orientation, as different from the screeds of typical Enlightenment revolutionists like Price and Paine as it is from the highly formalised intellectual commitments of twentieth century leftists like Vertov and Godard, and barely recognisable to most people as politics today.

I certainly don't think it's fair to accuse ianthemovie of ignorance for holding a common view of Romanticism as something wrapped up in sincerity, subjectivity, and feeling instead of trying to pin it down on the basis of specialised research into a small subset of authors from one country.

I'll admit to being somewhat reductive in my characterization of Romanticism; the point was to make a distinction between the sensibility of Malick and those of figures like Godard and Vertov, the comparisons to whom seemed off-base to me. However we may want to define Malick's politics--or the politics of Romanticism generally--it seems clear that he is not a political filmmaker in the manner of either of those other two.

HJackson wrote:I'm not an expert in English poetry but I think you've taken an unduly narrow view of Romanticism to sustain an attack on a fair characterisation of Malick, mistaking interesting (and doubtlessly useful) trivia about the political views of a handful of authors at a point in time for a valid characterisation of a much larger intellectual and artistic movement across Europe and the Atlantic world. If you take a broader view of the Romantic movement its political affiliations are much more ambiguous. If I recall correctly, Alfred Cobban characterised it as a revolt against the Enlightenment the foundations of which, in part, were laid by the counter-revolutionary parliamentarian Edmund Burke. In Germany it coincided with an interest, sparked by Herder and Fichte, in what we would now consider a reactionary politics of nationalism and a critique of the atheism of French revolutionary politics from disillusioned early enthusiasts like Schleiermacher. Much of its politics is primarily aesthetic in orientation, as different from the screeds of typical Enlightenment revolutionists like Price and Paine as it is from the highly formalised intellectual commitments of twentieth century leftists like Vertov and Godard, and barely recognisable to most people as politics today.

No, what I have done is counter a false binary built on an "unduly narrow view of Romanticism" by giving a few prominent examples to demonstrate its falseness. I was not supplying a total characterization of Romanticism--it is absurd and uncharitable of you to think I was. I was describing the elements of Romanticism that refute the argument. Why would I need to do more?

The political views of the English romantics is not trivia whatsoever; it is central to their poetry and thought.

HJackson wrote:I certainly don't think it's fair to accuse ianthemovie of ignorance for holding a common view of Romanticism as something wrapped up in sincerity, subjectivity, and feeling instead of trying to pin it down on the basis of specialised research into a small subset of authors from one country.

His view is common, therefore not ignorant?

He is wrong about Romanticism being defined by non-intellectualism and an absence of political and social content. To refute that I don't need to start counting up all the examples that might admit it--I just need to find the ones that refute it, and happily I don't even have to leave Britain to do that. Pretty well all the major figures of one of the great centres of Romanticism refute it. Nor does it take any specialized research to discover that, despite your puzzling claim to the contrary.

I just saw this this afternoon (Kendall Square Cinema).

First off, I genuinely enjoyed this ... knowing full well the mixed reactions this has been receiving since its Berlin premiere last year. Yes, I am an admirer of Malick's films and yes I am very aware of the style he's comfortable utilizing at this point. But I like it and I like where it can go at times.

It's interesting to read all the nods to Romanticism and there's no denying it especially considering Malick's known tastes. For me, I picked up an air of the Middle Ages, even The Pilgrim's Progress is 1678 and some other nods are found in the third century. This could be a contemporary interpretation of the Middle Ages (a la Umberto Eco ... RIP) but I tend to see it as having a holistic view of the world where everything serves to be a part of a greater whole. In the film, the view is how do become whole in a world that not only is but also thrives on being fragmented and even broken.

I want to sit with this some more but all in all, I really enjoyed it, even as someone who has seen all of his other films.

Anyway, to quote M.H. Abrams saying the same thing:

M. H. Abrams wrote:First, [Blake, Wordsworth, Southey, Coleridge, and Shelley] were all centrally political and social poets. It is by a peculiar injustice that Romanticism is often described as a mode of escapism, an evasion of the shocking changes, violence, and ugliness attending the emergence of the modern industrial and political world.

To move on from this, I think Malick has definitely started to move away from intellectual modes of knowing towards something more intuitive or maybe gnostic. It's not wholly metaphysical, tho', because it is very concerned with texture. For all the etherealism he gives to his films, they rely heavily on textures and patterns. The very feel and texture of the physical world is minutely inspected and cataloged, and certain textures are repeated throughout individual narratives (eg. water in The New World and The Thin Red Line). Pattern is very important in his use of memory, too, as memories are explored using the same kind of editing structures in each of his films. The effect of this pattern is that the importance lies less on this or that specific memory than on the form that memory, or clusters of memories, takes in general (at least in Malick's films) and what importance that form has for the characters and I guess us as viewers. That formal repetition is significant. Memories, too, are often less content than textures and the emotions attending them (the soldier in The Thin Red Line remembers his wife mainly in images of touching and caressing, and not through significant events).

I don't know a lot about Malick the person, but I do recall that he received an advanced education in philosophy, taught the subject in a University, and has or had an affinity for Heidegger. Malick is evidently not unintellectual, and films like The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven use more traditional modes of intellectual discourse like monologues, dialogues, and religious symbolism to explore their themes, in addition to the more Malickian stuff. For whatever reason these modes of discourse don't interest him any more. I suspect he's interested in strange and elusive things that he tries to approach by organizing meaningful patterns and textures, ones which get the audience to apprehend things difficult to speak about. What those things are and whether or not Malick's conceptions of them are brilliant or nonsense, I'll leave to someone smarter and more knowledgeable than me to say. But I'm not sure Malick is hiding from politics or society or the intellect. Perhaps he's getting at those things in an oblique fashion.

Mr Sausage wrote:No, what I have done is counter a false binary built on an "unduly narrow view of Romanticism" by giving a few prominent examples to demonstrate its falseness. I was not supplying a total characterization of Romanticism--it is absurd and uncharitable of you to think I was. I was describing the elements of Romanticism that refute the argument. Why would I need to do more?

The political views of the English romantics is not trivia whatsoever; it is central to their poetry and thought.

I have no doubt that these details are highly important to an informed reading of the revelant works, but once you try to stake a working definition of Romanticism on them - and then police general discussions about contemporary art by reference to them - then these details really do seem to sink to the level of trivia in the context of the discussion we're having.

HJackson wrote:His view is common, therefore not ignorant?

I mean it isn't fair to call him ignorant for using a general and less than rigorous concept of Romanticism, which may not perfectly account for every single particular instance, to illuminate our understanding of a contemporary artist. It seems like the kind of attack that a Neil deGrasse Tyson or a Richard Dawkins might launch against some poor soul for daring to utter the words 'the sun rises' before them.

Mr Sausage wrote:He is wrong about Romanticism being defined by non-intellectualism and an absence of political and social content.

Is he? If he was making a universal claim about the definition of Romanticism that is binding in all instances of the term's application then you have surely refuted him but I think that's a very precise and academic kind of claim and it isn't the kind of claim you could really be expected to have been making in a thread about a twenty-first century filmmaker - or really any topic other than something as direct as 'what is Romanticism?' If, as I believe he was, he was decribing a general Romantic aesthetic that serves as a reference point for most educated people - and not only those who majored in English Literature - then I'm not sure he was wrong at all.

Mr Sausage wrote:To refute that I don't need to start counting up all the examples that might admit it--I just need to find the ones that refute it, and happily I don't even have to leave Britain to do that. Pretty well all the major figures of one of the great centres of Romanticism refute it.

Again, this only really makes sense if he was trying to set out a binding and academic definition of Romanticism that is rigorous and applies totally to every figure who might be seen to be working under the influence of the movement. This is a thankless and perhaps impossible task. I don't know why you would believe that he set this for himself in his interesting post, the purpose of which was to draw a contrast between the film style Terrence Malick and the film styles of Jean-Luc Godard and Dziga Vertov - at least that's what I took to be its purpose.

Mr Sausage wrote:Nor does it take any specialized research to discover that, despite your puzzling claim to the contrary.

Specialised research was of course an exageration, but I don't think there is anything puzzling about suggesting that the political and religious views of English Romantic poets (beyond maybe their critique of the industrial revolution) will be a mystery to many educated people who will otherwise have a reasonable working definition of Romanticism from a fleeting acquaintance with Romantic painting and the spirit of some later work like Wuthering Heights.

You seem very interested that I leave people's inaccurate and mistaken received opinions alone. I find those opinions unjust and slanderous to a lot of politically committed and deeply intelligent artists and thinkers, and inaccurate historically and socially, but that seems to be something that moves me quite a bit more than it does you to judge by your repeated shoulder shrugs.

HJackson wrote:If, as I believe he was, he was decribing a general Romantic aesthetic that serves as a reference point for most educated people - and not only those who majored in English Literature - then I'm not sure he was wrong at all.

Once again, we return to the argument that so long as it's widely believed, it's neither false nor evidently up for refutation (outside of academic journals at least). We're in a rhetorical land, here, where the political and social commitments of the artists in the movement in question are deeply important, but also trivia; where people admittedly don't know crucial, necessary things about a movement, but are also not ignorant because we shouldn't want these things to be known (a peculiar definition of ignorant); where things are not at all the case specifically but somehow still the case generally; where up is up except when it is also down, and words mean precisely what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less.

I don't much go in for arguing with people more interested in creating rhetorical boomfogs than getting at whether or not a claim is true. You can have your erroneous received opinions if you want them so badly.

This discussion has gotten pretty far astray from the film itself. Maybe it could be broken off into a different thread?

It's relevant to this film and the arguments being raised for/against it, for now at least

HJackson wrote:he was describing a general Romantic aesthetic that serves as a reference point for most educated people

There is no vox populi notion of Romanticism; there is merely the word "romantic" that could mean any number of things to any one person and therefore requires a little bit of term-defining before we can have a meaningful discussion about it. Otherwise, there would be heated discussions about pigs and cats without realizing they were two different animals. Mr. Sausage is not being pedantic; he is providing a quite common historical view of the word that is still very active today within and without the ivory tower. The tremendous impact of the French Revolution, for example, on the politics and aesthetics of the Romantics--and not just the British poets typically associated with Romanticism--is so basic as to be one of the few things we must all concede before proceeding with a discussion on the subject. This is not some fussy intellectual point; it is foundational. I'm as suspicious of the academy as you seem to be, but I don't think this is an unconventional view, nor a purely academic one, and it certainly isn't a matter purely of subjective aesthetics; it is basic to the history. There have been equally important discussions on this forum about the word "liberal," a description which also requires some base-touching before a Brit, an Aussie, and a Yank, for example, can have a sensible conversation about it. This is not preciosity; it is for the sake of clear communication.

So enough with your boomfoggery.

It's fascinating how some brush Malick off as if his work is dispensed from a candy machine for a couple of quarters. As if they are getting something about cinema Malick isn't. I'm not saying the film warrants universal praise. I'm saying the man knows what he's doing and is clearly far more complicated than your butterfinger, twix or if we're being classy bag of trail mix. Therefore if you're unwilling to meet him on his terms then why bother to watch his films? To criticize him for not meeting you on yours is lazy, unimaginative and as indulgent as what Malick is accused of.

I wonder how much of the vitriol this has received is due to it being 'A Terrence Malick Film'? I also wonder how people would react if Rick was lets say a high school principal, someone less resented than a Hollywood person? Or if the women who a lot of the film's feelings are channeled through were more plain as opposed to stunningly beautiful? The first two are distractions or as Malick would cut to, not seeing the forest for the trees. The third problematic, but explainable given the work's autobiographical bent.

This movie reminded me so much of La Dolce Vita with Rick an introverted Marcello. The women, the debauchery, the emptiness, the randomness of characters popping up, the music. People always run to the Malick/Tarkovsky connection, but I've always seen one with Fellini which has only been increasing with each film.

Malick is a lot of things, but I think the one thing everyone who has seen his latter work can agree on is, he's not a literal filmmaker. This was why whether it was reading Richard Brody's effusive praise or Domino's trite dismissal by either exalting or making fun of the portrayal of Hollywood was a head scratcher. It is a fundamental misreading of the film to describe it's essence as being about Hollywood.

Let's begin with the film's title, Knight of Cups. Leaving aside all the implications thru having an understanding of tarot. What does one associate with the word 'knight'? Noble, courageous, gallant, chivalrous, a sense of moral responsibility, protecting beautiful maidens but above all we see knights as individuals. When you think 'knight' a singular image comes to mind, not a battalion of faceless warriors. Knight of Cups first and foremost is the story of an individual.

The film begins with the narration of a 'dangerous journey and safe arrival' whereupon we see Christian Bale standing aimlessly in the middle of nowhere. Your immediate questions, who is he? Where is he? Why is he there? Where is he going? Bale's opening line 'All those years living the life of someone I didn't even know.' Here Malick cuts to a tunnel with light bleaching into it fading into images of his childhood. Not even five minutes in and it's clear this film is about a single man's life, memories and journey.

Malick's "Life Trilogy" films are revealed by connecting images, happenings, lines to your own experiences. Interestingly as his films have become more and more personal re: individual, the audience he reaches reacts in much the same way. His memories connect with your own. Two people could love this film, but tell you why without having a single image, line or happening resonating in common.

The first striking image shot in black and white was a beautiful disturbed woman, seemingly imprisoned. There's her face or is it a mask? Maybe it's two? There's more eyes here. How am I looking at her face and her back at the same time? Two X's on her breasts. She seems caught between multiple personalities, but at the end of this sequence she's covered in black paint making gestures as if taunting you. We learn here our Knight's tale has everything to do with wanting to feel love with a woman.

Our first happening is an earthquake. In an earthquake it's instinctual for humans to hit the ground, but even there Rick looks lost, unaware of what's happening.

His first woman with the pink hair is the mercurial one. Gorgeous and exciting, but like a fire if you get too close she will burn you. She even tells him she'll 'drive him crazy', 'make him suffer' before denouncing him as 'weak'.

The next happening is walking in downtown L.A. along Skid Row. Here for not the last time in the film we are shown what suffering is actually like. The juxtaposition between the harsh realities for the people on Skid Row and Rick's seemingly trivial pain is stark. Here it is revealed one brother is dead, the other a drug addict and the father sick quite possibly the reason for it all.

The next striking image is a picturesque shaped topless woman pouring champagne out of a flute glass on to a sleeping, brooding Rick. It is fantastically decadent, but meaningless and tired.

Throughout Knight of Cups Exodus by Wojciech Kilar is played. Outside of the obvious meaning it's a piece of music which would be ominous. The consistency of the tambourine, breath of the wind & brass instruments capped off with a flurry of piano make you feel there is a place you will reach. Full disclosure I had no idea what this piece of music was but it's claim to fame is being used in the trailer for Schindler's List.

The next happening is the Hollywood sequence. This also contains Malick's latest habit of having Spaniards give awkward sounding voiceovers about harsh realities. The image from this was Rick on all fours being led by a leash. Unsurprisingly the scene bleeds into the segment of the story devoted to his ex wife played by Cate Blanchett. He was 'unkind to her', 'almost cruel' she says. They walk down a street, she's dressed in leather, unique, covered but looking sexy, dominant. Much like himself Blanchett is someone to unwrap. There are two gorgeous women in mini skirts walking in front of them who are softer, lighter. He wants her to stay, but he doesn't know how to do it. Here we see thru Blanchett being a doctor treating badly injured people she is better than him. He knows it too. His cup is over flowing with guilt, from not being good enough for her. He is lost in a valley of his own fears. 'She gave me peace', he says. She knows she can not. 'You are still the love of my life', she says.

Next we have the model like one of those leggy women who walked in front of him on the street. 'Is this a friendship we have' she doesn't ask. 'I don't want to wreak havoc men's lives anymore' he wishes she said. She's only a face from the opening sequence. The black paint will soon cover her too, but she does appear to introduce him to spirituality. Like Cate, but unlike the mercurial one she joins him in the ocean. There's a shot of a homeless person sitting, brooding like he would with head in hand who looks like she hasn't lifted her head in years nor will she. His mother is introduced telling us how even as a child he never felt like he had a place at the table. He is the victim of a burglary but his robbers tell him he has nothing of value.

Rick moves on to a person whose job it is to be superficial in an effort to gain material value. Forever she says, 'is no such thing'. The stripper excites him, brings him out of his staid not because she doesn't understand him, but rather because she has shed every layer he has not. Her materialism gives her the satisfaction he's looking to find from his peace, his love. Like falling down a well he bottoms out with these scenes of excess, decadence. He comes back up for air with the aid of a true love a married lady, Natalie Portman's character. He continues his path to spiritual enlightenment visiting the amazing Peter Matthiessen who tells him 'Everything is there perfect, complete... to live in this moment'. She doesn't give up on him, 'There is love in you'. Calling back the 'At last' from one of the more memorable scenes of To The Wonder, asks if he's 'finally found' her? Interestingly he doesn't say come to be with him to live, he says 'come away with me'. The Knight is figuring it out, but his connection to her isn't strong enough to survive adversity. 'What are we now?'

Why Malick is incredible, operating on a different plane than everyone else are little moments which have no reason to impact you destroying you. His recollections intersect with your own. In this film there's a shot of of only Bale's legs. He's laying on the bed one leg stretched out with his other knee up with Natalie Portman leaning over to that leg to trace her hand over his kneecap. It's a one second shot, but perfect. A moment as deep for me as I suspect the whole film was for Malick.

The Knight gets his seal of approval from his father and finally lets out much of the emotion pent up inside of him. He visits the beach, but this time it's not alone with a loved one but full of people, children having fun. He still remembers his ex wife. She's sad like him, but brings people joy and health. There's a new woman but he's content and happy to be playing tennis with her tho she can't play. The films subverts story telling completely by ending with 'begin' and open roads. The Knight is now free to roam the earth.

Knight of Cups is a remarkable film. Tree of Life was about family, To the Wonder about country, Knight of Cups about the self. The Hollywood aspect to the film is entirely tangential. How he ended it makes sense because it's about him with the proof being his increased output in recent years. The man studied philosophy so clearly he's going to investigate his own life's value(s). Perhaps more than anything the best word to use to describe the film is courageous.

Jesus, U.S. critics have been pretty brutal.

Dave Kehr retweeted this from Mark Harris:
Knight of Cups made me think that a crass, vulgar studio that demands to see a script might be the best thing that could happen to Malick.

Carrie Rickey then agreed with that sentiment. Michael Atkinson wrote "Poetry, or a fine warmup reel for the next Ralph Lauren campaign?" and Glenn Kenny (who trashed it on his own blog) wrote "I actually have no problem with poetic, non-narrative works. I do get a little twitchy with pompous, condescending, humorless, sexist, know-somethingish tripe…"

I like Harris a lot so that's disappointing. Atkinson's joke, either that or a 'perfume ad', is an obvious one which has been quite common but this is a perfect example of how lazy critics have been. I like Kenny too, but nobody gets more 'pompous' or 'condescending' than he does when things fly over his head.

Just because it is "lazy" doesn't mean it isn't apt.

It's more reductive than apt.