therewillbeblus wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:59 pm
This isn't the only Malick I've watched at home, but it is the only Malick I've flat-out hated
Damn it...
This is on the agenda this weekend (it's streaming on HBO Max). I was really looking forward to it as I had heard this was a return to narrative form (well, as "narrative" as Malick gets), and a move away from the total embrace of Tree of Life/To the Wonder/Knight experimentation. ](*,)
This is on the agenda this weekend (it's streaming on HBO Max). I was really looking forward to it as I had heard this was a return to narrative form (well, as "narrative" as Malick gets), and a move away from the total embrace of Tree of Life/To the Wonder/Knight experimentation. ](*,)
I’d say it’s definitely a lot more grounded than the rest of his films from the last decade.
(I’m also in the “loved it” camp, but then I’ve liked every film he’s made so far to varying extents.)
I didn't dislike it, but I couldn't see what was supposed to be so amazing about it. At times it almost felt like a parody of a Malick film, with a visual style that never varied and eventually felt really monotonous. But at the very least I'd say it's more memorable than Knight of Cups and Song to Song, neither of which I could describe a single image from if my life literally depended on it.
I thought the end of Song to Song was so powerful it was enough to merit a fond stamp of approval, and rise far above this and Knight of Cups for last decade’s batch.. and yet all I can recall are the final images and how I felt by it on a spiritual level with whatever music and voiceover were clicking into place in that moment.
aox, definitely don’t let any naysayers, myself included, sour your hopes completely. I posted my thoughts on the last page and a few of us had a dialogue there about how subjective Malick is in particular. There’s a better chance that I could rewatch this and fall in love, or rewatch Song to Song and totally hate it, than my mind could be changed about most other films- and that’s the risk/reward consequence of Malick’s ethereal methods. Though this film really rubbed me the wrong way and I felt totally empty and even angry at it at times, DI got out of it what I think both he and I did from The Thin Red Line and To the Wonder for example, which removes any predictive measures from the question of likeminded tastes when it comes to Malick. Just ‘go with god’-or Malick’s surrender to his higher power that he attempts to get close to every movie- maybe it’ll turn out to be your favorite film.
I've seen this a couple of times now actually and was greatly impressed as I frankly expected to be; for me, it would have been a great disappointment and a genuine shock had I not been. But still, what is so impressive about it stands out as it always does in Malick's work. If anything though, the films seem replete with greatness and this is no exception. Here what distinguishes it most from the rest I guess is the supposed "return to form" of Malick's return to more conventional narrative filmmaking. And I suppose there is truth to that assertion but really he has just done here what I had hoped he would do which is to bring the results of his more experimental period into that familiar form, to infuse it with what he has learned and enrich it and enhance it accordingly (here it's the intensiveness of the style of these later films that informs it most obviously). For me, the entire corpus of Malick's 2010's experimental work is the finest and most extraordinary accomplishment for a filmmaker in this decade, as he has continued to refine his specific poetic technique throughout (since New World really). Either way, Malick's overall wayward style, barely perceptible as narrative, remains the predominant one. All the Malickian tropes are here in abundance to guide this film and give it form.
Despite everything, I continue to be genuinely amazed by the surfeit of extraordinary images; it really is almost like being overwhelmed by a tidal wave, an endless sea of such imagery (I kept thinking, "How many more ways can he find to shoot this already stunning landscape?"). It's a technique that yields not only subtly powerful images, only briefly glimpsed and grasped but also suggestions or associations which transform, such as the cathedral being shot in much the same way as the grim jail cells which, along with voice over, serves to suggest the sacredness Franz venerates can be found anywhere, even in the most dismal and life denying of conditions. I do find myself wondering how much footage Malick actually pulls in during these shoots because it seems that he obviously samples from all that to find his way through his films and yet there must be an incredible abundance just to do that. What's more, of course, and what makes all this especially special, is the way the imagery is structured within the film. All this vast mosaic bricolage of often the briefest snatches of shots here and there come together through masterful intuitive editing to evoke and convey a sense or understanding of something without belaboring that insight. I can think of only Claire Denis at her very best who can match that accomplishment.
Of course the other components contribute as well, such as the much derided (by some) voice overs which are as crucial as the imagery or the music. Here I think they may be made more palatable for some by often being actual excerpts from letters between the principle couple. But what I love about Malick's technique is that regardless of the source, he always manages to find something apt and he still presents it in a way consistent with his overall body of work (e.g. the excerpts may be from letters but they are broken up and presented in fragments of single sentences and words emphasizing the expressiveness of those words and simple single ideas rather than focusing on the complete context of the letters themselves--the context then is the film). I also like how he handles the German language as an unsubtitled "foreign" language, with an emphasis then on the sudden intrusiveness of aggression or incomprehension. Obviously this turns things upside down in terms of verisimilitude but it's an effective dramatic and aesthetic approach.
The narrative here is clearer and more direct, even gut wrenchingly so, with what is at stake also perhaps more comprehensible, put into high relief by the scenario. This is also the first time in a long time in which actors and performances were critical to the accomplishment of the film. Though this is very much of a piece in terms of performance style with all of Malick’s recent work, the dramatic intensity and legibility of the situation are far greater. Thankfully, the film is blessed with superb performances all around of delicate interior work, carefully rendered in a match for Malick’s own sensitivity. I do wonder how he gets performances of this scale and grand dimension when he is far from known as an “actors’ director”. The story of one man’s quiet rebellion against a society otherwise capitulated to corrupt authority may strike us as particularly culturally relevant but part of Malick’s achievement here is, as always, his universality, his own quiet defiance toward any easy, reductionist analogies. So, in other words, it may have that dimension but it is not defined by it or restricted to it. The focus is instead on the repercussions of Franz’s resistance, both for himself and his family and his larger community. What is emphasized throughout is the outrageous seeming irrationality (certainly impracticality) of Franz’s stance with virtually everyone, not just captors and tormentors, reminding him that his rebellion will make no difference to anyone ultimately but what is missed of course is that Franz’s view is on ultimacy itself; his many comments to that effect are disregarded or misunderstood. Still , something lingers and nags even the captors at times, forcing a subtle reevaluation of principles and standards. This is only ever suggested in Malick’s pensive way but what is very clear is that Franz’s action, his very position on the subject of loyalty to what he understands to be corruption is disruptive to everyone around him in a rippling effect sort of way which is far from subtle. And Malick succeeds at the hardest thing which is communicating Franz’s virtually incomprehensible level of commitment in a way which is comprehensible to us, at least enough so that it truly does prompt either marvel or an unsettled disruption of our own.
This film would make for a fine double feature with either Silence or Peter Glenville’s The Prisoner with Alec Guinness as a similarly imprisoned captive of conscience. Also, most oddly perhaps, I thought of Thelma & Louise at the end of this, specifically the scene between the two women when Geena Davis’s character is offered a chance to turn back from the direction they are going and says with resolution that something had crossed over in her and she couldn’t go back. Malick’s film (far more than Ridley Scott’s) convinces us of that.
Ha, I was going to say that endings are one of Malick's strengths, whatever the quality of the rest of the film--but then I couldn't recall the ending of Song to Song at all (I have not seen Knight of Cups. So put that statement down as both objectively true and yet more evidence of the subjective nature of a Malick film.
It's hard to describe this film--it's not really a return to "narrative" as aox suggested above: the elliptical, voiceover-heavy style is still there and the people tend to flit across the screen. However, the clear stakes of the scenario and the march of time give it a much stronger structure and something of a clear narrative arc. I think it's closest to To the Wonder in that it's mainly structured as a back-and-forth of perspectives between the central couple, which also helps give focus. If I recall, there are still a few digressions centered on other characters, but they mainly come as those people are introduced. There's no one like Bardem's priest here who keeps intruding with his own separate narrative to provide thematic shading.
I agree that the film is too long, but I think some of the earlier complaints about it just being a dude being tortured by Nazi's over and over again do the film no justice. There's a lot here, and a lot of it is repetitive: man and woman run through fields, man refuses to go to war, man is challenged by authority figure, man gets pushed around by Nazis. But I think there are distinctions in those repetitions. There aren't really that many scenes of physical abuse--much of the consequences Franz faces is stuff like isolation. All the various authority figures (friends, villagers, military generals, bishops, lawyers, Bruno Ganz's pathetic military judge) try to convince/threaten Franz into giving up with the same basic arguments. It's repetitive to see similar conversations over and over, but the different sources all give different insights into how other people are coping with Nazism and exhibiting their own resistance or lack there of.
Perhaps what makes late Malick so frustrating is his approach to character--or lack there of. It's hard to recall anyone's name in the late Malick films, and they seem to exist as archetypes rather than people (the son, the father, the wife/mother). It's disconcerting that despite how much internal narration we're given, the actors on screen never quite seem to come together as a character. It feels much more a cinema of ideas and abstractions, even when there's obvious attempts to tug at emotional chords.
But maybe that's why the endings work so well--somehow Malick resolves that tension. To respond to Brian's comment about how the epitaph isn't apt given that Franz chooses anything but a "hidden life": I found myself breaking down in the theater when the title card came up (and not really before) and couldn't articulate why at the time. I too assumed that it referred to Franz, but on reflection, I think it refers equally to his wife, and that's what I felt so hard when that title card hit.
Some of my favourite posters here flat out hate(d) this film, or decided not to watch it. I wonder if, 7 years later, opinions have shifted?
(I finally found and ordered the bluray for less than an arm and a leg. I seem to recall that this was hard to find, and I just forgot about it until these pre - Way Of The Wind days...months...years...!?)
I did precisely 58min of this tonight. I believe that is exactly one third of the film. Various forces (including/(especially?) this thread?) compelled me to watch over 3 nights.
The responses to my previous post above are completely overwhelming! Please allow me to overlook some of these as I now post some very general / broadbrush reactions thus far:
I expected sloooow / old / tired Malick. But what I've seen so far dispels all of these criminal preconceptions. (Damn this thread!?) The pace - cutting - narrative arc here is always quick and compelling. Nothing lingers. Nothing seems wasted. It's as if Malick woke up from a slumber. Mid 2010s Malick often seems to involve endless twirling about in fields, with voiceover and dialogue that I often barely understand, and people staring vacantly at mountains and streams. (And sound equipment.) No such excess appears before my eyes and ears here, thus far. I'm honestly shocked at how urgently and meaningfully this progresses.
I worried about cringe German accents in English. Surely Malick would not stoop so low? He didn't. The English seems to be an amalgamation of various/all accents. It works for me. No Hogans Heros here, thank fuck.
So far, the main plot point of this is really working for me. The consequences of refusing to buy into the party line / propoganda are very damaging and hard to watch. There's a very 2026 component to this. Was this film released a few years too early?
I previously stated that some of my favourite posters here dismissed this film outright, or even refused to watch it. Well, I'm only one-third in, but I cannot wait for the next installments, and I don't remember feeling this way about Song To Song or To The Wonder (which, admittedly, I need to revisit.) I'll crawl back here and admit to overenthusiasm if the last two-thirds fails.
Is it possible that A Hidden Life is quite unfairly overlooked?
My favorite part was when Pocahontas was hanging from the trailer over the cliff and her inner monologue went into the things she’s trailed behind her in this life. Classic Malick
I agree with Noiretirc that A Hidden Life is very strong and comparable to Thin Red Line-to-Tree of Life run. No doubt it would've had a more prominent reception if there hadn't been the much weaker trilogy of films proceeding it. Still, it shows that Malick is able to conjure up characters and drama that are almost overwhelming: the lead-up to the execution made me almost physically sick in the cinema.
Well I did precisely 0:58 to 1:56 tonight - ie the middle third. Quite coincidentally, this began exactly with the call-up, and ended with continued torment in the Berlin prison.
Like the first third, this flew by very quickly for me. There's a particular rhythm in the cutting/editing here that never lets up, never sags, unlike a couple of the mid 2010s Malicks that I encountered. (But I need to revisit those.)
I wonder if my somewhat random/accidental 3x installments creates a rather different experience / feeling towards this film. 3 hours in the cinema might have been a hell of a slog. I feel somewhat drained after tonight's harrowing chapters.
And yet, I'm not actually saying that the film is too long! (This probably makes no sense.) I would hate for Malick to cut / condense anything that I've seen so far. Someone above mentioned that a lot gets repeated here. I'm not seeing that. There's a very gradual arc to the prison treatments, to the challenges that the wife and daughters encounter...
I'm on the edge of my seat before the final 3rd. I know it's not going to end well. But what will Malick provide in the form of closure / resolution, if anything?
I feel increasingly drawn to John Cope's excellent post above. I already know that I love this film, it's one of Malick's very best, and yet somehow it flew under the radar, and some of my favourite posters here rejected it.
Way Of The Wind is sure taking time, but I trust that Malick is doing the very best that he can, and I cannot wait to see what he does after the brilliance of A Hidden Life. Who knows if this is the last one?
Did he just get a little carried away with the post-Tree trilogy? Too much too soon? Too many things to juggle?
I think he started and finished the 2010s in absolutely epic fashion.
Well, thank you all for your patience as I've droned on and on over 3 nights of this viewing. Tonight's last third more than solidifies all of my previous praise for this magnificent, and criminally under-appreciated epic.
This is surely the hardest Malick to watch, content-wise. His Frenzy.
The prison sound design haunts me: constant, distant, agonizing cries. Village life scenes, interspersed, with all of their sadness and difficulties, were actually a great relief.
Bergman themes emerged for me in this last part. The absence and abandonment of God.
The nearly unbearable execution scene was a masterclass in choreography - what is shown and not shown.
I know I'm not eloquent or convincing. But will at least a couple of the naysayers in this thread give this another look? This film truly deserves to be elevated.
I tried watching this film a few years back and I gave up because some characters were speaking in native tongue and some in English, which didn't make sense to me.
It's my problem really, I find it extremely challenging when characters speak in English. For the same reason I hated Chernobyl tv series as there were a load of different nglish accents, when they all should have been speaking Russian / Ukranian. It took me out of the on screen experience.
Anyway, is my recollection right or not? I like Malick and feel I should give this more patience.
It's true that here we have unsubtitled German, and English that is thankfully not given the Hogan's Heroes treatment. Obviously this choice of Malick's has caused some controversy.
Would people still be bothered if all of the German was in English instead? Must it be one or the other?
Are people bothered that the German is not subtitled?
It works for me. I accept that this is a universal story of unheroic / unknown (to the larger world) acts, which happens to be set in Nazi Germany.
Noiretirc wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 8:18 pm
It's true that here we have unsubtitled German, and English that is thankfully not given the Hogan's Heroes treatment. Obviously this choice of Malick's has caused some controversy.
Would people still be bothered if all of the German was in English instead? Must it be one or the other?
Are people bothered that the German is not subtitled?
It works for me. I accept that this is a universal story of unheroic / unknown (to the larger world) acts, which happens to be set in Nazi Germany.
I think it just jarrs my brain that some characters set in historical time are not speaking the language they would have been. It's not accurate.
I guess this is a directorial choice and sometimes to get the actors you want this is the sacrifice you have to make. But it's significant. At least for me.
Soy Cuba wrote:I think it just jarrs my brain that some characters set in historical time are not speaking the language they would have been. It's not accurate.
I guess this is a directorial choice and sometimes to get the actors you want this is the sacrifice you have to make. But it's significant. At least for me.
I can relate to this, because I used to feel the same way. But I think it made me a better viewer to get over it. Eventually I came to see it as mere pedantry on my part.
Honest to god, a big part of changing my mind was Gibson filming The Passion of the Christ in Aramaic, which, for reasons that I still can’t entirely put my finger on today, struck me as a deeply silly poser move. Inauthenticity masquerading as a deep commitment to authenticity.
And so it goes, I feel, with a lot of conspicuous attempts at authenticity. The more one calls attention to themselves for how hard they’re striving for authenticity, the more it calls attention to how manufactured that “authenticity” is. I didn’t really like A Hidden Life, but other people obviously did - if Malick would have had to devote all the energy to period-specific language (including, presumably, authentic accents and dialects, and so forth), would that have compromised the elements that its admirers have found meaning in?
I think very likely so. But to what end, ultimately?
(especially since the Aramaic was very poorly pronounced)
Honestly even Malick provides evidence why using a character’s actual language doesn’t automatically create authenticity with The New World. My understanding is that the native language spoken in the movie was written entirely as a woman would speak it which for those in the know was a distraction.
It seems to me that complaints about using the authentic language are really complaints about the audience members’ own ability to engage with the text. This might not be true of anyone here, but certainly many who complain about these things don’t speak in the language in question and would be pacified with, in this instance let’s say, German sounding gibberish.
Please allow me to overlook some of these as I now post some very general / broadbrush reactions thus far:
