criterionforum.org

My Blus of Days of Heaven and Sanjuro arrived today, courtesy of movietyme. Alas, my Sony BR player does not arrive until end of next week!

I finally sat down to this last night. This was my 4th Malick film and the fourth time is the charm for me. I actually loved this film, and it is the only Malick film I really enjoyed and could watch again. (I liked Badlands, but don't have a desire to ever watch it again)

Despite a lot of grand landscape shots being aided in filming in the "Golden Hour", the cinematography was incredible. Everything from the wheat to the time-lapse; one of the best looking films/Blu Rays I have seen (despite what seemed to be some occasional print damage). Malick finally finds a perfect balance here between his pacing of the narrative and overbearing bloated imagery (which can be marvelous when taken by itself) that exhausts his last two films. He's no Tarkovsky and his last two films have been absolute chores for me.

I have to agree with others in this thread that the only irksome quality of this film for me was the narration. This is not a note against the attress' delivery; she was fine. However, the narration was too constant to be that inconsequential. In my opinion, Malick either needed to drop it all together or severely muzzle it. There were times when she was simply describing a previous scene or narrating what we were seeing. Really nothing she said couldn't be explained with imagery, something I thought I would never say with Malick.

I love how Malick kept the narrative going in this film (a trait from Badlands he would drop after DoH). It flowed. Every scene was important literally (not just thematically or figuratively as in his last two).

Additionally, I get a disturbing feeling that if Malick were to make this film today, he would have added a superfluous hour of 'character development' in between the wedding scene and the fire/prairie scene, extending this film to a needless three hours. Call it assumption or supposition on my part. I am still shocked this film is only around 90 minutes.

All in all.. excellent film. and I was pleased to finally get something out of Malick to my liking.

bout of insomnia and a recent move to Kansas City on the edge of the Great Plains inspired me to put in the blu ray I snagged in the recent B&N sale...I had seen the Criterion DVD...and the Paramount, and the vhs...once every couple of years. For some reason what has always stuck with me were images. the locusts, the house...just the feel of it all. This was probably the 6th or 7th time i've seen it, and out of nowhere Linda Manz's narration just grabbed me. In an instant I did what I usually do: "oh yeah, I forgot about that" and then settle in, but this time I focused as much on her as the beauty of what I was seeing and it opened up in a way it never had before. It really is her film, and I don't know why I never got that until now. The first time I saw it she annoyed me and the accent seemed forced, but I see now that it is anything but. I don't know...everything really clicked and the blu ray is just a wonder to behold. truly gorgeous. what an amazing film.

I have a question on the music that I hope someone can answer: There are a few moments where the soundtrack shifts to what I can only describe as "Nutcrackery" kind of twinkly - almost Christmasy - music...including the very end when the girls are running away from the school. It reminds me of the kind of thing you hear in commercials with Santa sneaking in or something, and i'm wondering if it is an actual classical composition Malick chose like he did with Badlands, something specific to this film that was later used by many others, or just part of the soundtrack and it's merely similar. It's kind of driving me crazy.

HistoryProf wrote: I have a question on the music that I hope someone can answer: There are a few moments where the soundtrack shifts to what I can only describe as "Nutcrackery" kind of twinkly - almost Christmasy - music...including the very end when the girls are running away from the school. It reminds me of the kind of thing you hear in commercials with Santa sneaking in or something, and i'm wondering if it is an actual classical composition Malick chose like he did with Badlands, something specific to this film that was later used by many others, or just part of the soundtrack and it's merely similar. It's kind of driving me crazy.

I'm pretty sure it's "The Aquarium" by Camille Saint-Saens. And you're right, it has been used in commercials.
Mind you, that's just from memory. I haven't seen "Days of Heaven" since it first came out in theatres.

tojoed wrote:

HistoryProf wrote: I have a question on the music that I hope someone can answer: There are a few moments where the soundtrack shifts to what I can only describe as "Nutcrackery" kind of twinkly - almost Christmasy - music...including the very end when the girls are running away from the school. It reminds me of the kind of thing you hear in commercials with Santa sneaking in or something, and i'm wondering if it is an actual classical composition Malick chose like he did with Badlands, something specific to this film that was later used by many others, or just part of the soundtrack and it's merely similar. It's kind of driving me crazy.

I'm pretty sure it's "The Aquarium" by Camille Saint-Saens. And you're right, it has been used in commercials.
Mind you, that's just from memory. I haven't seen "Days of Heaven" since it first came out in theatres.

It was also used in early trailers for "Benjamin Button."

tojoed wrote:

HistoryProf wrote: I have a question on the music that I hope someone can answer: There are a few moments where the soundtrack shifts to what I can only describe as "Nutcrackery" kind of twinkly - almost Christmasy - music...including the very end when the girls are running away from the school. It reminds me of the kind of thing you hear in commercials with Santa sneaking in or something, and i'm wondering if it is an actual classical composition Malick chose like he did with Badlands, something specific to this film that was later used by many others, or just part of the soundtrack and it's merely similar. It's kind of driving me crazy.

I'm pretty sure it's "The Aquarium" by Camille Saint-Saens. And you're right, it has been used in commercials.
Mind you, that's just from memory. I haven't seen "Days of Heaven" since it first came out in theatres.

Yes, that's definitely the piece in question - and now somewhat bludgeoned to death by its inclusion in countless commercials, trailers and television documentaries.

antnield wrote:Yes, that's definitely the piece in question - and now somewhat bludgeoned to death by its inclusion in countless commercials, trailers and television documentaries.

The same goes for the Carl Orff piece (I think it's Orff?) in Badlands, which I'm pretty sure has since been used to persuade me of the merits of some building society or other. At school, when I was about 13, they showed us one of those cringe-making "what's happening to my body?" videos about how tough it is been a teenager, and when that music came on I smirked at the thought of the rather different account of troubled youth to which Malick had coupled it!

And of course the Carl Orff piece later turns up in the opening credits of True Romance and in Ratcatcher (the fantasy of the mouse flying off to the moon).

Actually, part of my eureka moment with seeing Days of Heaven for the first time was finally identifying the Saint-Saëns piece. I believe I'd only heard it once before, some ten or more years earlier on a PBS program, but it lingered in my mind long after, and became something of a holy grail for me. I would even try to hum the tune to various people and see if they could tell me what it was, but to no avail. (Though in their defense, I'm a terrible hummer.) So when DOH opened with it and the thought occurred to me that my answer might finally be revealed during the closing credits, it was as though I'd literally been waiting half of my life to see this film.

colinr0380 wrote:And of course the Carl Orff piece later turns up in the opening credits of True Romance and in Ratcatcher (the fantasy of the mouse flying off to the moon).

It's in "Ratcatcher" but not "True Romance". The TR piece is a parody, or hommage if you like, of that music. It's doodled by Hans Zimmer.

Is anyone troubled by the explanation of why Richard Gere and Brooke Adams portray themselves as brother and sister? The narration simply says, "Oh, you know how people talk". Given that the plot with the farmer doesn't come until 20-30 minutes into the film, I don't understand why they would pretend. What benefit to the two of them awaits them by living this essential lie to the film's structure?

I haven't seen the film in a while, so please forgive if there is more exposition on this that I am misremembering.

swo17 wrote:Actually, part of my eureka moment with seeing Days of Heaven for the first time was finally identifying the Saint-Saëns piece. I believe I'd only heard it once before, some ten or more years earlier on a PBS program, but it lingered in my mind long after, and became something of a holy grail for me. I would even try to hum the tune to various people and see if they could tell me what it was, but to no avail. (Though in their defense, I'm a terrible hummer.) So when DOH opened with it and the thought occurred to me that my answer might finally be revealed during the closing credits, it was as though I'd literally been waiting half of my life to see this film.

This is my exact experience as well.

tojoed wrote:It's in "Ratcatcher" but not "True Romance". The TR piece is a parody, or hommage if you like, of that music. It's doodled by Hans Zimmer.

Making it even more Tarantino-esque in its casual appropriation!

And that piece has had a life of it's own, strangely enough. I can swear I heard "You're So Cool" (from the True Romance OST) in a couple of commercials over the years.

tojoed wrote:

HistoryProf wrote: I have a question on the music that I hope someone can answer: There are a few moments where the soundtrack shifts to what I can only describe as "Nutcrackery" kind of twinkly - almost Christmasy - music...including the very end when the girls are running away from the school. It reminds me of the kind of thing you hear in commercials with Santa sneaking in or something, and i'm wondering if it is an actual classical composition Malick chose like he did with Badlands, something specific to this film that was later used by many others, or just part of the soundtrack and it's merely similar. It's kind of driving me crazy.

I'm pretty sure it's "The Aquarium" by Camille Saint-Saens. And you're right, it has been used in commercials.
Mind you, that's just from memory. I haven't seen "Days of Heaven" since it first came out in theatres.

That's it...thanks. It was really driving me crazy trying to place it...I think it was even in a Christmas Wendy's commercial or something.

ETA: it was apparently also used in a Ren & Stimpy Episode I can picture that one now...hilarious.

aox wrote:Is anyone troubled by the explanation of why Richard Gere and Brooke Adams portray themselves as brother and sister? The narration simply says, "Oh, you know how people talk". Given that the plot with the farmer doesn't come until 20-30 minutes into the film, I don't understand why they would pretend. What benefit to the two of them awaits them by living this essential lie to the film's structure?

I haven't seen the film in a while, so please forgive if there is more exposition on this that I am misremembering.

that's the only part of the film that remains elusive for me too. I don't really understand the point. It would seem to be completely counter to their needs actually, and put both of them in a lot more danger since it was fairly obvious to anyone paying attention. I just can't come up with any compelling reason for it, other than somehow being a cover for what happened in Chicago?

HistoryProf wrote:

aox wrote:Is anyone troubled by the explanation of why Richard Gere and Brooke Adams portray themselves as brother and sister? The narration simply says, "Oh, you know how people talk". Given that the plot with the farmer doesn't come until 20-30 minutes into the film, I don't understand why they would pretend. What benefit to the two of them awaits them by living this essential lie to the film's structure?

I haven't seen the film in a while, so please forgive if there is more exposition on this that I am misremembering.

that's the only part of the film that remains elusive for me too. I don't really understand the point. It would seem to be completely counter to their needs actually, and put both of them in a lot more danger since it was fairly obvious to anyone paying attention. I just can't come up with any compelling reason for it, other than somehow being a cover for what happened in Chicago?

I've always thought it obvious that they believe that they won't get hired if they present themselves as a couple, especially since they are partly (to me) depending in Shepard's attraction to Adams to keep them on after the harvest.. If they were a couple, Shepard would just give them both the boot.

It's always struck me as an odd detail, but during my latest viewing it struck me that this couple probably never bothered to marry, and that would have been a fairly big scandal at the time.

And the idea/rational but not quite explanation sound like something Richard Gere's character could have come up with on the fly and then subsequently convince himself of its rightness just because he thought of it. I can also understand Gere not liking the simpler option of pretending to be married, since that would raise the question of why don't we actually marry, which would offend his ambitious, dandyish sensibilities.

Adam wrote:

HistoryProf wrote:

aox wrote:Is anyone troubled by the explanation of why Richard Gere and Brooke Adams portray themselves as brother and sister? The narration simply says, "Oh, you know how people talk". Given that the plot with the farmer doesn't come until 20-30 minutes into the film, I don't understand why they would pretend. What benefit to the two of them awaits them by living this essential lie to the film's structure?

I haven't seen the film in a while, so please forgive if there is more exposition on this that I am misremembering.

that's the only part of the film that remains elusive for me too. I don't really understand the point. It would seem to be completely counter to their needs actually, and put both of them in a lot more danger since it was fairly obvious to anyone paying attention. I just can't come up with any compelling reason for it, other than somehow being a cover for what happened in Chicago?

I've always thought it obvious that they believe that they won't get hired if they present themselves as a couple, especially since they are partly (to me) depending in Shepard's attraction to Adams to keep them on after the harvest.. If they were a couple, Shepard would just give them both the boot.

but in the first 20 minutes, they aren't depending on that...they are expecting to move on like they do after every other job. Staying on does become possible because of the charade, but it had nothing to do with conceiving it. It's rather backwards really...it unwittingly puts them in the situation and mucks up their original plans.

Ultimately it doesn't bother me too much, but it's the kind of detail that would be lovely to hear Malick's thoughts/intentions on as he clearly doesn't do anything without great forethought. I'm sure he has a simple rationale for it tied to the period or a more detailed backstory we aren't privy to.

I've had problems with the brother/sister matter in the past as well. My most recent viewing was in the company of my brother who is a big Malick fan and asked him about this. He said that he recalls it being a biblical reference. A google search later and I turned up this.

Bill and Abby have fled Chicago with his young sister after he accidentally murders his boss, and decide to tell everyone they are brother and sister to just make things easier. In the Genesis 20 story this references, Abraham likewise claims that beautiful Sarah is his sister, lest the Philistines kill him and take her for themselves.

I'm sure some more thorough research will turn up more.

Unless you track down the original script, I don't think you're ever going to get all of your plot-based questions satisfactorily answered. By all accounts, the film was radically reworked and "found" in Malick's tedious, two-year long editing process. In the end, the plot's a basic potboiler that only gets tied together narratively through the afterthought use of voiceover from an (unreliable) narrator. But that's okay: Days of Heaven is exhibit A of a film where the plot is almost entirely incidential to its pleasues.

theflicker wrote:I've had problems with the brother/sister matter in the past as well. My most recent viewing was in the company of my brother who is a big Malick fan and asked him about this. He said that he recalls it being a biblical reference. A google search later and I turned up this.

Bill and Abby have fled Chicago with his young sister after he accidentally murders his boss, and decide to tell everyone they are brother and sister to just make things easier. In the Genesis 20 story this references, Abraham likewise claims that beautiful Sarah is his sister, lest the Philistines kill him and take her for themselves.

Actually, Abraham was afraid that an Egyptian (the Pharaoh at the time) not a Philistine would kill him for Sarah. Not sure if that is significant here, but the error in that essay bugged me somewhat.