criterionforum.org

Real smooth...

Antoine Doinel wrote:Got this today and though I haven't popped in the disc yet, I must say that the DVD art on the physical disc is gorgeous. Probably the best since the implementation of the new logo.

Everything about this disc is gorgeous.Although the film itself was kind of predictable, having never seen it before.I must agree that the whole package is beautiful.It has to be one of the sharpest transfers I have ever seen.Great addition to the collection.

Finally had a chance to watch the film tonight and the first time I saw Days Of Heaven must have been well over seven years ago. Watching it tonight, I was bowled over by Linda Manz's extraordinary narration. It's something I didn't remember at all when I saw the film for the first time. She manages to get the cadence, timing and mannerisms of speech down in such a naturalistic way. It's utterly mesmerizing at times, adding to the overall dreamlike quality of the film. It's a shame her career afterword was so spotty and uneventful.

Hoped to luck out and see this via Netflix, but alas, it was the Paramount version.

Best blind buy I've made in a long, long time. An absolutely amazing movie, in every way.I wanted to start it over again as soon as the end credits appeared. This will definitely be one of the most-played discs in my house.

=D>

I liked this better than Badlands, though not as much as The Thin Red Line. (for whatever that's worth -- very little, I assume).

(Edit: I could try to explain why: narrative plays less of a role, so that the visuals take over, simply put. I felt that in this film Malick seemed less constrained by the movements of plot and was able to explore light and landscape to better effect.)

The transfer on this disc is stunning, however, was I the only one who noticed a slightly darker vertical bar near the right side of the frame? It runs through the whole film, though it's really only noticeable when the camera pans. I found this at times to be somewhat annoying.

denti alligator wrote:I liked this better than Badlands, though not as much as The Thin Red Line. (for whatever that's worth -- very little, I assume).

That's interesting, I feel just the opposite. My favorite Malick movie is Badlands, followed by this, then TRL. This one is definitely his most well photographed and beautiful work, but there is an almost intangible charm to Badlands that makes it my favorite. Linda Manz's narration in Days is really great, but not as listenable to as Sissy Spacek's in Badlands. (I have maintained for a while that True Romance ripped off Badlands' music and narration style.) In my opinion TRL represents what Malick's style becomes when applied to a much larger and more epic project. The narration, when spread to multiple characters just becomes confusing. The storytelling, when spread to a much longer running time begins to lag. Anyways, that's just my opinion.

Anyone else here use RSS feeds to read this forum? And if so, does Klaylock have a picture as his signature? Just curious.

justeleblanc wrote:Anyone else here use RSS feeds to read this forum? And if so, does Klaylock have a picture as his signature? Just curious.

As an amateur Photoshop artist and someone used to picture signatures on other forums... Yes. Am I breaking some sort of forum rule by doing so? If so, I apologize.

Klaylock wrote:I have maintained for a while that True Romance ripped off Badlands' music and narration style.

You're not the only one who maintains it. I would say that every person who has seen both films must conclude that True Romance completely rips off Badlands, but makes everything good about the earlier film into something unwatchable.

For me Days of Heaven is the superior film, but I find DoH to be a transcendent experience, where Badlands is a thrilling earthbound film.

I must really need to see Badlands then, as True Romance is one of my favorite films.

Adam wrote:You're not the only one who maintains it. I would say that every person who has seen both films must conclude that True Romance completely rips off Badlands, but makes everything good about the earlier film into something unwatchable.

For me Days of Heaven is the superior film, but I find DoH to be a transcendent experience, where Badlands is a thrilling earthbound film.

Yeah, I guess I just don't know a lot of people who have seen both. Unless you watch a ton-load of movies it's not very likely your tastes would lead you to watch both of them. I saw TR because a friend convinced me to a while before I ever watched Badlands for the first time. I've mentioned the connection to him recently, and though he's never seen Badlands, he merely suggested that it wouldn't be the first time Tarantino ripped someone off. Or hundreth.

TRUE ROMANCE is merely a better than average thrill ride - BADLANDS is based on the true story of the Charles Starkwether murders with which Malick took any number of liberties; but, I don't hear anyone accusing him of "ripping off a true story".

Enough of that. If anything, Malick resonates for me in the same way Antonioni resonates. A bit more plot, a bit more lyricism, a bit less ennui, but somewhat similar concerns with people as "passengers" imperfectly moving through perfect landscapes.

I reach for my DVD's of BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN after a ten minute internal monologue on whether I should rewatch L'ECLISSE or L'AVVENTURA instead. This happens much less often with THE THIN RED LINE or THE PASSENGER, since both are, in my opinion, examples of films in which the filmmaker is not quite sure of what he is trying to tell us - unless it is that warfare adversely affects plants and trees and that stealing the identity of a dead man means the same fate is yours and you won't know why.

I don't need to know why; but mixing visual poetry and plot can be risky business and I feel that Malick did it almost perfectly in DAYS OF HEAVEN and absolutely perfectly in BADLANDS.

Mike Sutton's DVD Times review

My mind is still wrapped around DoH since watching it last night. The film opens and concludes with the girl narrating.

A question. Are we supposed to view the film (including the scenes without the girl) through her? The film does leaves a feeling of the girl guiding us through the story but I'm afraid if I leave it just like that, I miss out much. Does that make sense?

Linda Manz basically launched a generation of great voiceovers...and some really bad ones too. I don't think her career afterwords was spotty. Short, yes, but for my money, Out of the Blue and Gummo are very impressive additions to anyone's filmography. I'm pretty sure this is not the majority opinion, though.

Michael wrote:A question. Are we supposed to view the film (including the scenes without the girl) through her? The film does leaves a feeling of the girl guiding us through the story but I'm afraid if I leave it just like that, I miss out much. Does that make sense?

That's very interesting to me. Clearly the strict adherence to her POV can't be maintained throughout--for example, she can't possibly see the wine glass under the water. And with Malick, it seems to me, his presence, most strongly visually, is there always. I view this as the narrator introducing us, guiding us through the "facts" of the piece (with her own terrific inflection), but at the same time, it's Malick telling the real story from the start. He's not bound by POV, he's using it as part of his scheme.

I think we see the film with Linda Manz rather than through her. There's definitely a lot going on that see wouldn't see (the glass for one, and that whole evening outing). Like all the best narration, there is a detachment from her thoughts and what is going on on screen. She grasps most of what is happening in the film, but sees it all through a veil of innocence which prevents her from discussing the love triangle in depth.

Like the images themselves Manz manages to say a lot just by touching the surface. And while both may share a predilection for looking at the world rather than focusing on the plot, I do not believe the images tell her story. Those come from someone else.

My review. I mostly liked it, and it's probably the most beautifully shot film I've ever seen. Considering the film's overall disinterest in plot, I found the sudden transformation of Gere into a gun-toting outlaw at the end kind of disorienting, in an unwelcome way. The film is at its best when it's not really working on a human scale. Its pacing and sense of time are just about perfect.

sevenarts wrote:Considering the film's overall disinterest in plot

Ugh. The plot is one of the most beautiful aspects of the film.

Klaylock wrote: (I have maintained for a while that True Romance ripped off Badlands' music and narration style.)

I'm sorry to come to this late, but nobody seems to have corrected your misapprehension. You talk of "Badlands' music". It isn't, it's Carl Orff's Musica Poetica from Schulwerke, and has been used in at least two other films Ratcatcher and Finding Forrester. It no more belongs to Badlands than, say, Vivaldi's mandolin concertos belong to The Wild Child.

The music and narration at the beginning of True Romance are clearly a parody. Some might say an hommage. Either way, it's not a rip-off.

Now back to the topic.

sevenarts wrote:Considering the film's overall disinterest in plot, I found the sudden transformation of Gere into a gun-toting outlaw at the end kind of disorienting, in an unwelcome way.

Disinterest in plot? Hmm. All I have to say is "wait a few months or a year and watch it again".

Gere running away from the law, defending himself is very consistent with his character all the way from the first frames.

I just watched this the other night and find it is really sticking with me. It is indeed one of the most beautifully shot films I've ever seem. I only have two gripes. The first being the narration. I found it utterly inconsequential. It offered absolutely nothing that couldn't have been gleaned simply from the images and dialogue. I read through this thread to look for other thoughts, but remain unconvinced. Further, I guess part of my annoyance with the narration was with how low it was compared with the rest of the soundtrack. Or at least some of the louder moments that nearly made my ears bleed. I found myself having to constantly adjust the volume. Plus, I found the girl doing the narration unconvincing..."or sumthin'."

Chull wrote:I only have two gripes. The first being the narration. I found it utterly inconsequential. It offered absolutely nothing that couldn't have been gleaned simply from the images and dialogue. I read through this thread to look for other thoughts, but remain unconvinced. Further, I guess part of my annoyance with the narration was with how low it was compared with the rest of the soundtrack. Or at least some of the louder moments that nearly made my ears bleed. I found myself having to constantly adjust the volume. Plus, I found the girl doing the narration unconvincing..."or sumthin'."

Gah. Days of Heaven has the most amazing narration I've ever heard.