criterionforum.org

anne_zombie wrote:I most certainly hope you are right, thank you for responding. There are so few titles available from Malick(I wonder how he fills his days in-between his films). THE NEW WORLD does not appear as a likely candidate for a future Criterion release, if I read you correctly? If so, do you have something to say about my presumption?

I just realize my post was worded poorly due to a last second edit on my part (I've since changed it.) What I meant to say was, "Just because we're getting a Criterion Thin Red Line doesn't mean they're not working on Badlands." (Double negative be damned.)

So, yes, a Criterion Badlands is probably in the works. The New World? Probably not.

Jun-Dai wrote:The film is a bit of a collage on the experience of war. It's also a step on the path of the celebration of being close to nature and the horrors of civilization, something that seems to have grown from a theme (in Badlands) to an obsession (in The New World). I've never particularly cared for that side of Malick, and that's probably why I found The New World particularly tough to swallow, because the entire film basically seems to boil down to that.

I feel that's a very shallow reading of the film. John Smith romanticized approach to the natives matches that which you attribute to Malick, but he is ultimately revealed to have been misguided. Furthermore, when Rebecca is brought to London, it's as beautiful and wondrous to her as Virginia was to Smith.

aox wrote:18 years between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line must have been grueling for any fan of his work.

By the 90s I think most people had stopped expecting him to release another film.

dadaistnun wrote:So, yes, a Criterion Badlands is probably in the works. The New World? Probably not.

A shame. The recentness of the Extended Cut Blu-Ray probably means we won't be seeing a Criterion version for quite a while, but it would be great to have a definitive edition containing all three cuts.

Cde. wrote:

aox wrote:18 years between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line must have been grueling for any fan of his work.

By the 90s I think most people had stopped expecting him to release another film.

I have a segment from the last series of the BBC's Moving Pictures programme from 1996 in which they go through all the various rumours about where he had gotten to since Days of Heaven (suggesting that it was the experience of making that film that put him off cinema), point out his brief cameo as the door-to-door salesman in Badlands, and finally come to the conclusion that, despite rumours of a new film, that he is never going to return to cinema, and if he does would likely never be able to live up to the standard he set with his first two features.

Luckily for us they proved to be wrong in their bleak estimations, but it perhaps shows that even a couple of years before The Thin Red Line, he was still being talked about in general terms as a 'whatever happened to...' director (though we should factor in the way that it must have been easy to write general interest articles/produce TV segments going into all the embellishments to apocryphal stories surrounding Malick dropping out of films to take up hairdressing, etc).

Oh... Well let's hope and pray that an extended cut rears it's head here. The Extended Cut of The New World is perfection and I've always found the last hour of The Thin Red Line to be horribly rushed. The timing isn't good, though, you're right, with Malick in-beteween two major feature projects.

Nothing wrote:The Extended Cut of The New World is perfection.

In other words, do you deem the PQ quality of the extended cut of the SD DVD of The New World to be superior to that of its initial DVD release?

Again I ask re: Badlands - doesn't Warner still have US distribution rights? Wouldn't that be the primary hold up for a Criterion release?

captveg wrote:Again I ask re: Badlands - doesn't Warner still have US distribution rights? Wouldn't that be the primary hold up for a Criterion release?

Here's the relevant post from the speculation thread.

Nothing wrote:Oh... Well let's hope and pray that an extended cut rears it's head here. The Extended Cut of The New World is perfection and I've always found the last hour of The Thin Red Line to be horribly rushed. The timing isn't good, though, you're right, with Malick in-beteween two major feature projects.

Although I think The New World is the single greatest film of the past decade and even enjoyed The Extended Cut, the long version is... too long. I actually prefer the standard theatrical release with its occasional elliptical quality. It's not necessary to fill in every detail, especially in an episodic narrative like this.

Adding footage to The Thin Red Line might make it better, but it might not. I've always found the voiceovers stilted compared to those in Badlands, Days of Heaven--or even compared to The New World, where they sit somewhere in between stilted and hauntingly poetic. In other words, I think that there are flaws in The Thin Red Line that can't be fixed without reworking it altogether. But I still welcome the opportunity to see it on Blu-ray in a Malick-approved edition and would still very much be interested to see an alternate cut.

My question is still the same one I've had all along (since '98): is there still even an extant version of the fabled five hour cut or has it been disassembled? Because if it doesn't presently exist in something like a finished form I doubt we'll be getting it anytime soon. Obviously, I'll take deleted scenes over nothing but there is something about Malick's method of working, the nature of the construction of his films, that demands such scenes be integrated into some kind of finished form. I suppose it has to do with his prioritizing of the effect of flow over individual "moments".

anne_zombie wrote:do you deem the PQ quality of the extended cut of the SD DVD of The New World to be superior to that of its initial DVD release?

Not sure. The Bluray certainly beats them both... In any case, I was refering to the actual edit; unlike many recent special editions (eg. Miami Vice) this showed that Malick had simply been rushed/pressured over the earlier incarnations, that the extended cut should be considered the full and final version of the film. A similarly refined cut of The Thin Red Line would be.... ah.... O:)

nb. I'm not necessarily thinking of the five hour version, just something which hasn't been rushed or pressured or squeezed into 170 minutes; this would probably require Malick to return to the original materials.

Where is the source for the alleged "five-hour cut" of THE THIN RED LINE? I've read editors and other people associated with the production refer vaguely to the fact that the film was, at one point, around five hours. But I get the sense that there were a number of rough cuts, none definitive or close to final, and that Malick eventually whittled these down to the cut we know today. Meaning there were probably several other "cuts" prior to the one that was released to theaters.

Speculation about whether a longer cut of the film would be better or worse seem absurd--not least because we have no idea what would be added or how it would be added. My impression of the longer cut of THE NEW WORLD is not that it's a better or worse film, just different. The extended sequence of Pochahontas's reverie (the one with all the fast, arty cutting), probably the boldest addition, didn't work for me.

jonah.77 wrote:Where is the source for the alleged "five-hour cut" of THE THIN RED LINE? I've read editors and other people associated with the production refer vaguely to the fact that the film was, at one point, around five hours. But I get the sense that there were a number of rough cuts, none definitive or close to final, and that Malick eventually whittled these down to the cut we know today. Meaning there were probably several other "cuts" prior to the one that was released to theaters.

I'm sure this is true. I'm just referring generally to the longer version which, by most accounts, seemed to clock in around this length. I'm referring more to a hypothetical cut adhering closer to the more linear, conventional narrative logic of the original script. It would be of great interest to see this (especially to gauge the effectiveness of the whole deleted Adrien Brody arc) but I make no claims for it being better or worse and I doubt I would after I saw it either.

The twenty-minute "making of" that followed the film on my old UK VHS (which I still have since the featurette never made it to DVD) had a few wee glimpses of scenes that never made the final version, if I remember correctly. I certainly remember another shot of Clooney sitting inside inside a tent, which stood out given he's obviously only in one scene in the final film.

Is there a site or anything that gives specific details about what was shot and cut out and their significance to the story? I'm dying to know what Mickey Rourke played and how Brody's character was fleshed out

Mickey Rourke played a sniper slowly going mad in the jungle. He runs out of ammo, and starts talking either to his gun or the trees, I can't remember which. If Malick hadn't chose to cut it, Mike Medavoy would have tried to get it excised. Supposedly, Malick only chose to cast him after Medavoy told him point-blank that Rourke was the one actor he didn't want in the movie.

jonah.77 wrote:My impression of the longer cut of THE NEW WORLD is not that it's a better or worse film, just different.

That is true if one compares the NY premiere cut to the theatrical. In regards to the extended cut, however, I sincerely believe you're not looking closely enough. Throughout the film, the editing is subtly different, more refined. Meanwhile, the additional material and the chapter segmentation provides a greater sense of balance. The reverie sequence you refer to is part of this, giving us some necessary insight into Pocahontas' perspective on events.

Re: The Thin Red Line, I seem to recall that Fox insisted on a <3 hour cut - the resulting pacing issues in the last 60 minutes being something that a more perceptive viewer will notice. I don't believe, however, that Malick will ever want to release the 5 hour linear version of the film, being by most accounts happier with the stream-of-consciousness approach that ultimately resulted (and which he then repeated intentionally, with even stronger results, in The New World).

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:The Runaway Genius

This is kind of sad, and a prime example of why I'm cautious to learn too much about those whose work I admire. It interferes with the art.

For what it's worth, though, Peter Biskind is reportedly a bit of a dick, so while there may be some truth to what's in the article, his manner of presenting it errs on the side of Perez Hilton.

inneyp wrote:This is kind of sad, and a prime example of why I'm cautious to learn too much about those whose work I admire. It interferes with the art.

It's very sad, but hey... at least he's not Richard Wagner or Ezra Pound. Great artists are not always not nice people or easy to live with. That doesn't excuse problematic behavior, though, and there are no doubt plenty of counter-examples of great artists who are also fine human beings.

And "MyNameCriterionForum" raises a good question about Biskind's objectivity. I wonder whether this account is supported by other sources, though it seems well-researched.

jsteffe wrote:And "MyNameCriterionForum" raises a good question about Biskind's objectivity. I wonder whether this account is supported by other sources, though it seems well-researched.

LOL. You should try reading his Beatty book.

Biskind's book on the 70s Cinema is like the bitchiest gossip ever-- it's basically ONTD 1.0

John Cope wrote:

jsteffe wrote:And "MyNameCriterionForum" raises a good question about Biskind's objectivity. I wonder whether this account is supported by other sources, though it seems well-researched.

LOL. You should try reading his Beatty book.

Sorry to head further off topic, but if anybody's interested, Biskind will be appearing at the School of the Visual Arts in NYC on April 16 to discuss the Beatty book.

Join us for an exciting evening with the author of several bestsellers on American film. Peter Biskind serves up Hollywood dish and explores the life and creative talent of Hollywood Warren Beatty. In his latest book, Biskind gives us an entertaining, three-dimensional, no-holds-barred portrait of one of the most influential, charismatic and talked-about leading men in American film. Find out why. You will also see clips from some of Beatty's best films, including Reds, Bulworth, Heaven Can Wait and Shampoo.

WHEN: Friday, April 16, 6:30 to 8:00 pm
WHERE: SVA Theater in Chelsea, 333 West 23rd Street (between 8th and 9th Aves)
RSVP: visit http://www.cencom.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, e-mail [email protected] or call 212.686.5005

I read Biskind's 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' some years ago and found it to be a poorly written and highly annoying. I wouldn't bother with anything further of his... I'd rather read real film criticism.

A lot of what Biskind reports about the shooting and editing of DAYS OF HEAVEN is clearly wrong (Morrison and Schur's book on Malick goes into the details), so I would take what he writes about Malick with a few cups of salt.