Malick's Obsessions 

Thats a really good point. Sorry im seeing this 5 years later

Your comment makes me wonder how Malick can afford the big names when a lot of his films don't rake in a lot of cash. I wonder if stars like Christian Bale respect him so much that they work for less $?

@@MindfulWavesStudio Almost assuredly the case. It's not super uncommon for actors to take pay cuts to work with directors/screenwriters they respect (look at all the names that flock to the likes of Nolan, Tarantino etc.) and Malick is probably no different.

@@MindfulWavesStudio Its not the money, its that they dont know whats next, what to do since there is no script....

TheatreofSymphony I would love to discuss this movie that changed my life.

Me too. Just saw again at aero theater in Santa Monica. A wonder

I just didn't get that movie! Can you explain!!?? What was the purpose?

It was really cool, but when I watched it I didn't really understand it. I need to watch it again sometime when I don't have anything else on my mind

Hari Jariwala The point not ‘getting’. It is a visual examination of inexpressible questions and fierce evocation of obscure existential feeling.

that's my conclusion as well.

Yep

That's the conclusion I came to as well

I genuinely think his work the trilogy during the 10s requires a knowledge of philosophy, personal experiences and current positions. Film is a medium which allows us to find a connection especially when they are made for relativity between the auteur and the viewer. I can watch this and see literally all my life especially TMI but someone who is in a position that Rick is and worked from age 10 to 25. Now all there is a mirage of events. Corny and personal as that sounds.

He's not a video.

Hey, Stories, watch "you're" spelling. Coming from you, it's particularly annoying. We expect better.

Like Stories of Old!

I heard someone call it the 'Twirling Trilogy' and think that fits pretty well

Thank you. My hope was to try to channel him a little in how I made the essay, so hopefully it worked :)

And, as far as I'm concerned, you definitely pulled it off. With the long pauses between each statement mirroring the pensive voice-overs of the characters that Malick paint :) Great things are to come Thomas. Blessings your way

That's the goal! Glad you weren't disappointed.

Thank you kindly!

i know this a late question but do you remember the title of this music?

100% correct

Thanks.I kept puzzling myself about the feeling of of an overarching similarly and now I see the shots that are same but with their unique That's Malick.

You're welcome! That's my goal with my videos so I'm glad to hear it worked. If I can get someone to examine something more closely, even if they didn't love it at first, I've succeeded :)

To The Wonder and Song to Song felt similar, almost too self-indulgent compared to the pared minimalism of Knight of Cups. Christian Bale also carried the detached sensibility needed for a Malick film better. He reminded me of James Caviezel in The Thin Red Line.

Thank yuoooooo

Light prevails…. Breaks through the darkness

They're definitely worth giving a try. Even when I don't enjoy the film completely, I love what he's doing stylistically and with the craft.

Well said. Here is why, I think, Malick's work feels less constrictive: Malick does not so much base his films on a syntactical script form, analytically broken down into units from which to reassemble frames; he rather takes characters as a starting point and then places them in an environment and traces point of views around them which (both: environment & POV) mirror their internal journey harmonically. Being used to the syntactical approach and constantly looking for clues on that level, an audience in this mode of perception, can easily miss the more harmonic clues given by Malick and thus evaluate/misinterpret his films as lacking form or direction. Coming from a syntactically narrowed perspective they might appear random. But Malick does not use the medium film without intention or a sense of cinematic form to create his fiction. On the contrary, he uses what is very specific to cinema as an art form as opposed to stage acting or still photography or chapterised script or storyboard arrangement: movement AND imagery AND sound continuity AND time dilution - not so much serialized as a chronological array of units than all at once as a synchronized synaesthetic blend. Yes, his is a more naturalistic approach than most would take, but nevertheless it is also artistic; the craft is in the way light and pacing is used, not as spotlights or hard cuts, but to create visual moods within a flow of time, a very "liquid" style. He also does use camera angles and variations of distance a lot, to create perspective; yet again not as dominating single frames, but as a movement like in a symphony, long-form. Lots of recent movies, even though using real-life sets instead of setpieces, nevertheless use these like they would use a studio or stage: Confined frames for the action. Malick uses locations as a whole in a way; he could zoom in or out of what we actually do get on the screen and we would still see the same things more or less; with many other directors we would either lose important parts of the body language or props or backdrops immediately if they zoomed in just a little, or we would notice the lighting equipment, tape or whatever used to seal off the location, auxiliary cameras, gaffers and so on when zooming out just a little; Malick on the other hand seems to give more breathing space, blurred borders, extension of imagery beyond the frame, a sweeping panoramic air to his films. There's a lightfooted almost sleepwalking/dancing approach to how he uses perspectives and light, not a preset, cutout one. Thus in his movies all the effects appear to be immediate and intuitive rather than processed and filtered through rational thought. This does not mean it's not premeditated, though. Malick might put just as much if not more planning and thought into his arrangement than other directors. But Malick seems to be more interested in using what is already in a scene or a location to his advantage by the way he captures and portrays it than arranging a composition of things he adds or moves in a frame before filming. Malick puts the main focus of his works on other techniques than most: Whereas other contemporary directors tend to put the tools of their trade inside (and some around) the picture, Malick tends to put the techniques around (and some beyond) the picture. His POV seems to be behind the camera, somewhat removed and from afar oriented into the frame, using light for overall mood and angles for psychological effects (audience perceptive mode manipulation; triggering immediate emotional response; impressionistic direction); most other directors' POV rather seems to be inside the camera, oriented along lines of sight onto the frame, using light to specifically contrast and highlight and angles for perceptive effects (audience concrete focus manipulation; triggering abstract associative thought; expressionistic direction). For comparison, Malick in this respect is going even beyond the Tarkovski side of the spectrum, very ethereal, whereas the mainstream fashion has gone even beyond Kubrick in turning to single frame by frame arrangements. The average amount of cuts per minute has drastically increased in recent years, replacing harmonic flow with contrastive rhythm. The fashion is to go for compartmental train of thought, but Malick goes with emulsionised stream of consciousness.

He is under appreciated because most movie-goers (who pay the bucks at the box office) see films for a clearly-defined story-- beginning, middle, end, hero, heroine, etc. Not to sound elitist, but I think the general public simply doesn't understand how brilliant Malick's art really is.

@@jjtsmom You keep perpetuating this nonsense that ''''the general public doesn't understand'' because you cannot come to terms with the simple fact that tastes vary and many find your taste boring...

Zen, did you actually READ my comment? Or are you one of the “general public “ of which I speak? In any case, I recognize that Malick isn’t for everyone, especially those with no eye for cinematic artistry.

@@jjtsmom Yes, and you're still doing it... Again you cope with insults that they -[those who disagree with your opinion] have no eye for artistry... You need to stop... To each his own etc...

@@jjtsmomaccurately stated, I certainly agree, and I just discovered Mr flight's channel tonight. I've been binging for hours on his video essays, he, like the subjects he discusses, are brilliant.

No joke while I was editing this I experimented with overlaying the films on top of each other and watching them simultaneously and it was a pretty interesting experience. But yeah it would be interesting to see all these as one extended piece intercut for sure.

That's a huge insult to Magnolia

Lmao Magnolia has no theme? Are you an alien?