[ SECRET POST #3126 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3126 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #447.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Suprisingly Well Reviewed Movies?

[(Anonymous)]

I have no idea why Days of Heaven is considered a classic by every critic. It's one of the most boring movies I've ever seen in my life.

Re: Suprisingly Well Reviewed Movies?

[(Anonymous)]

I think the first thing to understand about Terrence Malick is that the movies that he makes are the movies that he wants to make. That is to say, they are absolutely the result of his vision and his decisions and his logic. I don't mean in an auteur theory kind of way, but in the sense that the basic aesthetic logic of his movies is something that he consciously chooses and then sticks to. He knows exactly what he is doing. Intentionality is present, is my point - it's not a question of his movies being good or bad; it is a question of whether the creative project of Terrence Malick is the kind of thing that art should try to do, or not. In the same way as Stanley Kubrick, for instance (I think it makes a lot of sense to think of Malick as the evolutionary successor of late-period Kubrick). So, I guess, if you find it boring, it is absolutely not because Malick wanted it to be exciting and fucked up.

Second, in regard to Malick's films themselves, I think they undeniably have many fine points. Visually, obviously, they're pretty stunning cinematic achievements. There's incredible shots and a deeply disciplined sense of pace and it all comes together with a real, coherent underlying logic. And that's rare. And in non-visual terms, his films are really pretty distinct. They're layered and verbal and multi-leveled and tricky. They're films, generally, where most of the things that happen are the example of some specific thought of Malick's - where everything serves the artistic purpose. And it does so in a way that is nuanced and thought-through and subtle, and rich in meaning. And you have, obviously, the underlying philosophical background as well.

So, is Days of Heaven a boring film? Yes, I think that's pretty incontrovertible. Why do critics like it? Or more broadly, why are they fascinated by it? Because it's beautiful in a way that films usually aren't, and it does things with the medium that films usually don't, and there's a ton of things that are interesting in it to talk about, and it has a sort of layered, rich quality underlying the surface that is very distinctive and very interesting. And I don't think, given all of that, it's crazy for critics to like it.

Now, at the same time, I fundamentally feel that Malick's vision of movies is wrong, that his whole aesthetic approach is basically misguided. He's wholly and totally wrong. But at the same time you sort of have to appreciate the scope of his achievement. Because it is pretty magnificent.