criterionforum.org

I like Robert Wyatt's take on 'pretension', i.e. what's wrong with it? Pretending we know about stuff we don't, overreaching and making stuff up as we go along is how people learn and grow, particularly as artists. And however much you learn, there will always be areas in which you are ignorant and in which you'll be starting out as a beginner.

A lot of contemporary movie critics are simply ill-equipped to competently assess the intellectual content of the work they're looking at (something which is relevant to a critique), so they assess its ambition instead (which is much less relevant in the context of an achieved work). If artists are using their work in an exploratory way - e.g. asking questions they don't already know the answers to - then that's prima facie pretension, but it's also artistically necessary.

indiewire with another rave

zedz wrote: A lot of contemporary movie critics are simply ill-equipped to competently assess the intellectual content of the work they're looking at (something which is relevant to a critique), so they assess its ambition instead (which is much less relevant in the context of an achieved work). If artists are using their work in an exploratory way - e.g. asking questions they don't already know the answers to - then that's prima facie pretension, but it's also artistically necessary.

Amen. The truth is that wrestling with the work of someone who used to translate Heidegger before becoming a director will challenge anyone. However, too many people are either annoyed or afraid of experiencing something (let alone 'entertainment') that is largely on level beyond expression in some kind of clearly defined language. Therefore it becomes 'pretension'.

jwd5275 wrote: Amen. The truth is that wrestling with the work of someone who used to translate Heidegger before becoming a director will challenge anyone.

Ironically, I would argue that this sentiment is pretentious, working on the assumption that high art/high culture is better and smarter than other forms, with the implication that it will go over most people's heads- that if they don't like Malick's work, it's because it's too smart for them, based solely on Malick's ability to work with high-culture material.

matrixschmatrix wrote:

jwd5275 wrote: Amen. The truth is that wrestling with the work of someone who used to translate Heidegger before becoming a director will challenge anyone.

Ironically, I would argue that this sentiment is pretentious, working on the assumption that high art/high culture is better and smarter than other forms, with the implication that it will go over most people's heads- that if they don't like Malick's work, it's because it's too smart for them, based solely on Malick's ability to work with high-culture material.

I don't see where you're getting those assumptions and implications from. Heidegger is enormously difficult to read. There aren't any high-art assumption there, it's just a fact. While it doesn't follow that someone who can translate Heidegger is necessarily going to make movies of a similar difficulty (tho' I doubt jwd5275 was being that literal), it does mean that the translator is capable of working through ideas and concepts that are going to challenge pretty much everyone. There's nothing snobbish or pretentious there. It's just the nature of philosophy. You should expect it to be challenging.

The reaction to the reaction of those who have seen the film really irks me. There is this built-in mentality that is usually reserved for the AICN types on Rotten Tomatoes to any response less than full-on fawning for the film. The impenetrability of any criticism out of hand, that the film MUST be a classic because people want it to be one, unseen, is just obnoxious. It reminds me of the dubious built-in defense to Satantango, where either you think it's a masterpiece or you just didn't get it, man-- no middle ground! It is possible, you know, that Malick has made a film that is merely above average...

Mr Sausage wrote: Heidegger is enormously difficult to read. There aren't any high-art assumption there, it's just a fact. While it doesn't follow that someone who can translate Heidegger is necessarily going to make movies of a similar difficulty (tho' I doubt jwd5275 was being that literal), it does mean that the translator is capable of working through ideas and concepts that are going to challenge pretty much everyone. There's nothing snobbish or pretentious there. It's just the nature of philosophy. You should expect it to be challenging.

One of the world's foremost Heidegger scholars was my mentor as an undergraduate philosophy student. Among many other things, he introduced me to Malick's films. He was a crystal clear writer himself, but I could barely understand his translations of Heidegger. Without a doubt, I found him to be the most difficult writer in the western canon this side of Joyce.

domino harvey wrote: It is possible, you know, that Malick has made a film that is merely above average...

Well he's done it before! (ducks)

Badlands? To be honest I do find that one to be wholly average.

knives wrote:Badlands? To be honest I do find that one to be wholly average.

Ha, that's the only Malick I really like! \:D/

days of heaven

Yeah, Badlands, that's the one. Badlands.

I'm going to take a guess that zedz is referring to Days of Heaven (or am I truly alone in thinking its Malick's weakest work? The friendly farmhands scenes mixed with the dark love triangle plot didn't always work for me....)

Oh edit: Soulmate

To be honest I find both to be merely average, but I can go to sleep to Days of Heaven so it wins. I do think the in the forest scenes for Badlands make it slightly trump Days of Heaven though.

You guys should start a support group.

Mr Sausage wrote:I don't see where you're getting those assumptions and implications from. Heidegger is enormously difficult to read. There aren't any high-art assumption there, it's just a fact. While it doesn't follow that someone who can translate Heidegger is necessarily going to make movies of a similar difficulty (tho' I doubt jwd5275 was being that literal), it does mean that the translator is capable of working through ideas and concepts that are going to challenge pretty much everyone. There's nothing snobbish or pretentious there. It's just the nature of philosophy. You should expect it to be challenging.

Hmm, to me, there's a shade-of-meaning difference between 'difficult' and 'challenging'- with the latter having positive connotations, implying that the difficulty means an equally rich reward. Thus, I read an implication that the feat of comprehending Heidegger means that a director is talented, and that there is always some highflown purpose behind whatever is going on- whereas 'difficult' could mean merely obtuse.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Ironically, I would argue that this sentiment is pretentious, working on the assumption that high art/high culture is better and smarter than other forms, with the implication that it will go over most people's heads- that if they don't like Malick's work, it's because it's too smart for them, based solely on Malick's ability to work with high-culture material.

Has nothing to do with the difficulty of either individual's work or the perception that understanding them makes one smarter or somehow better than others, high culture/high art. It is that Malick like Heidegger is attempting to understand that which is essentially ineffable. That is something that makes many people very uneasy, not necessarily because they are idiot lunkheads, but because it makes them very uncomfortable.

jwd5275 wrote: Has nothing to do with the difficulty of either individual's work or the perception that understanding them makes one smarter or somehow better than others, high culture/high art. It is that Malick like Heidegger is attempting to understand that which is essentially ineffable. That is something that makes many people very uneasy, not necessarily because they are idiot lunkheads, but because it makes them very uncomfortable.

Ah, ok, that's fair- I misunderstood the connection you were making.

domino harvey wrote:There is this built-in mentality that is usually reserved for the AICN types on Rotten Tomatoes to any response less than full-on fawning for the film.

Not really. Dave Calhoun confirms a fear I raised months ago about the 'angelic-naif' portrayal of Chastain's character - and I'm sure I'll hate the overt religiosity no less than Nigel Andrews and Derek Malcolm (who nevertheless gave the film a positive write-up). However, anyone who calls the best film of the last decade a "pretentious snoozefest" clearly has no place as a film critic (nor someone who trots out the middlebrow cliche that Badlands is Malick's best film).

domino harvey wrote:It is possible, you know, that Malick has made a film that is merely above average.

Even setting aside Malick's spotless track record, the available images, clips and trailer already demonstrate that this film is anything but average. And to quote Indiewire:

Eric Kohn wrote:The very fact that Malick can get away with such a highly experimental and inherently non-commercial effort, while still casting two of the most recognizable movie stars in the world [and, I would add, securing a $50m+ budget, ed.]... deserves admiration.

domino harvey wrote:The reaction to the reaction of those who have seen the film really irks me. There is this built-in mentality that is usually reserved for the AICN types on Rotten Tomatoes to any response less than full-on fawning for the film. The impenetrability of any criticism out of hand, that the film MUST be a classic because people want it to be one, unseen, is just obnoxious. It reminds me of the dubious built-in defense to Satantango, where either you think it's a masterpiece or you just didn't get it, man-- no middle ground! It is possible, you know, that Malick has made a film that is merely above average...

Could not agree with you more ... and what pisses me most is that (and I'm not referring to posters on this board) is that the people who disagree with the negative reviews are always going for the low blow (i.e. he/she wasn't intelligent enough to 'get it').

I can't wait to see this film (name a Malick film that that didn't draw extreme derision from some on release), but I'm equally happy to acknowledge both the positive and the negative reviews ... and even accept that the film may not be all that I sincerely hope it will be.

I mean (to draw comparison to an artist in a different medium), even Tom Waits has started to make shit albums ...

knives wrote:Badlands? To be honest I do find that one to be wholly average.

For me, it was the first half of The New World, though not wholly average (just disappointing).

I think all of Malick's films have their flaws: the love triangle in DoH; the segment of New World with Bale's character; the portrayal of the natives in TRL as some sort of pure innocents. I think Badlands holds up best narratively, but it's less striking than Malick's other films. However, I have yet to see any other film surpass the sheer beauty of the final ten or so minutes of the New World, for my money the greatest ending ever filmed.

domino harvey wrote:The reaction to the reaction of those who have seen the film really irks me. There is this built-in mentality that is usually reserved for the AICN types on Rotten Tomatoes to any response less than full-on fawning for the film. The impenetrability of any criticism out of hand, that the film MUST be a classic because people want it to be one, unseen, is just obnoxious. It reminds me of the dubious built-in defense to Satantango, where either you think it's a masterpiece or you just didn't get it, man-- no middle ground! It is possible, you know, that Malick has made a film that is merely above average...

Well, to be fair, these are reviews posted the day of the first screening, not well thought out reviews, so the reactions befit the content. You won't find those sorts of reactions to a 6,000 word piece written about the film posted on sensesofcinema because, well, those people don't read film criticism. They read reviews. And they keep score (Rotten Tomatoes). Others' criticism is only useful to me when it enhances my own appreciation of a film, not merely reflects my current outlook on the film (or reflects the kind of outlook I want to have on the film before I see the film).

And, really, would it bother you if these AICN types posted this sort of comment 12 years on? It's all immediate reactions to immediate reactions to immediate reactions.

I'm going to wait for the insightful criticism, wait for the film, and enjoy it as much as I can, a degree certainly influenced by the time and thought I myself bring to the film. All this... this is much ado about nothing.

My anticipation for Tree of Life hasn't diminished one iota. Anyone who thought that any Malick film would approach anywhere near universal acclaim or be accessible to all sorts of audiences was nuts. Every film he's made has been met with heavily mixed reviews. The New World is currently sitting at 61% on Rotten Tomatoes. Days of Heaven was booed at Cannes too (I'm looking at you, teenage zedz). He's like Kubrick in that it takes time and multiple viewings to even begin to absorb. Remember how Eyes Wide Shut was widely panned as a failed last gasp upon release, then hailed as a masterpiece a couple of years later?

Tree of Life may indeed suck (or worse, be mediocre), but I sure couldn't come to that conclusion based on any reviews or tweets I read today. The guys I respect and find myself agreeing with most (Scott Foundas, Matt Zoller Seitz, Scott Tobias, Peter Bradshaw) all flipped for it, and the bits of reviews I allowed myself all mentioned things I was expecting (personal, non-narrative, Proustian, elliptical). It sounds just as up-my-alley as it ever did, and I'm counting the days until its commercial release.

Nothing wrote:Right, but:

Julio Quintana wrote:That is my RED ONE M-X, and I am the sweaty guy pulling focus. The majority of the movie will be shot on film.

I'd lay a bet that none of the RED footage makes it into the final edit.

I'm not sure Malick is happy even with super 35, so I don't imagine he'd consider switching to digital until it can match the resolving power of 65mm. I'd give it another 3–4 years at least.