|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 2:31:44 GMT
Celluloid masturbation.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator 
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 8, 2008 3:41:57 GMT
You'll have to help me out with the "socialist overtones", though, wetdog. I just see it in the focus. Mills, fields, migrant workers, WW1, and a clear emphasis on class conflict, backgrounding the run-of-the-mill, tragic, "die for love" story. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 8, 2008 3:42:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 4:05:31 GMT
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 8, 2008 4:18:16 GMT
CUM ON ME MICHAEL
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 4:34:11 GMT
wetdog masturbates while he watches Malick films, in an attempt to match Terrence's output of wankery.
It's just a little game he plays.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Dec 8, 2008 22:28:25 GMT
wetdog masturbates while he watches Malick films, in an attempt to match Terrence's output of wankery. It's just a little game he plays. Got me thinking of this: Jizz In My PantsEspecially beginning at 54-53 seconds remaining and 42-41 seconds remaining. |
|
|
|
Post by theundergroundman on Jan 17, 2009 18:28:54 GMT
1. Badlands (1973) - 9/10
2. Days of Heaven (1978) - 9/10
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 24, 2009 22:59:29 GMT
I watched Badlands.
Why do you think Malick makes the guy so likeable? And why do the cops seem to like him at the end? Is it real admiration or are they just humoring him?
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 25, 2009 20:37:26 GMT
Selfish bump, due to the sudden surge of rating updates on other directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 25, 2009 22:33:53 GMT
You're a whore. Just like me!  I guess because the director kinda admires that character in some way? |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Sept 13, 2009 4:50:44 GMT
Badlands  Days of heaven I watched the latter just now. Beautiful images and music but everything else was flat. Acknowledging the fan following here, I'll give "The New World" a try before writing him off. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Sept 13, 2009 13:46:30 GMT
Before "writing him off"!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Sept 13, 2009 17:09:56 GMT
LOL @myself |
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Sept 14, 2009 2:17:27 GMT
Badlands Days of heaven I watched the latter just now. Beautiful images and music but everything else was flat. I have to agree, extraordinary images, but the film really doesn't have enough depth and the voice over's only serves a "fill the gaps in" purpose. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Sept 14, 2009 14:04:42 GMT
I guess going down that road would allow us to reduce any voice-over to "fill the gaps in" (expository?), no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Sept 15, 2009 2:12:21 GMT
Not at all, presumptions are always dangerous and there's you filling in the gaps and adding meaning to my post that wasn't there  I'm not a fan of voice overs myself, but they can be used in much more intelligent and artistic ways, to add contrast to what you are seeing (Godard), as another layer (India Song) or even to compliment what you are seeing by putting you in the head or soul of the characters (Malick does this better in his war film, although i still didn't like it). In DOH the voice over is there as the main source of narrative progress because Malick hadn't figured out how to create a film with so much beauty and nuance and space, without resorting to pushing the narrative along and essentially dumbing things down with the voice over....filling in the gaps because the film doesn't have much flow from scene to scene visually or through the characters, so needs the voice over to hold it together and give it that over-arching rhythm that the best films have without it, that's not great film-making in my opinion. I actually think it would've been a much greater and more successful film if it was twice as long and had no voice-over, i always felt it wasn't supposed to be there. The film has so much going for it too, such attention to detail, it's a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2009 16:52:35 GMT
Not at all, presumptions are always dangerous and there's you filling in the gaps and adding meaning to my post that wasn't there I'm not a fan of voice overs myself, but they can be used in much more intelligent and artistic ways, to add contrast to what you are seeing (Godard), as another layer (India Song) or even to compliment what you are seeing by putting you in the head or soul of the characters (Malick does this better in his war film, although i still didn't like it). In DOH the voice over is there as the main source of narrative progress because Malick hadn't figured out how to create a film with so much beauty and nuance and space, without resorting to pushing the narrative along and essentially dumbing things down with the voice over....filling in the gaps because the film doesn't have much flow from scene to scene visually or through the characters, so needs the voice over to hold it together and give it that over-arching rhythm that the best films have without it, that's not great film-making in my opinion. I actually think it would've been a much greater and more successful film if it was twice as long and had no voice-over, i always felt it wasn't supposed to be there. The film has so much going for it too, such attention to detail, it's a shame. I agree so much with this post. Days of Heaven is such a monumental waste of talent and potential. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Sept 16, 2009 0:36:07 GMT
Player haters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2009 1:49:27 GMT
Woah. Was expecting at least 12 paragraphs on Malick's use of voice-over.
|
|
