Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

For Tom Lowe

Thanks so much for posting this. I think TREE is going to rewrite many of the conventions of modern narrative filmmaking. I've always loved Terry's incongruous cuts, letting audio from previous (or even non-related) sequences bleed across cuts, for example. But I think TREE will advance his unique cinematic language in new ways entirely. He's been dreaming of and preparing for this picture for decades, since at least the late 1960s.

The ability to create new forms of cinematic language draws a huge amount of respect from me. It's one of the reasons I love Wong Kar Wai so much. Look what he did with "In the Mood for Love."

Terry isn't interested in dialogue. So they're talking, and we're shooting a reflection or we're shooting the wind or we're shooting the frame of the window, and then we finally pan to them when they finish the dialogue," Chivo recalled....

The idea, say those who worked on it, was not so much to tell a story but to create a feeling.
Click to expand...

As someone who is currently working in non-narrative filmmaking, I understand this completely. When people ask what the meaning of a film or a shot is, it's not easy to describe, nor should it be. I often think Terry has the entire filmmaking thing figured out. His refusal to speak about his films might, ultimately, be the correct path. He's likely the most intelligent person ever to work as a filmmaker, so I always pay attention to everything he does. Why re-invent the wheel if someone of his caliber has already spent decades thinking these issues through at such a deep level? But how many directors have his level of discipline to actually conduct themselves in such a manner, to let their art speak entirely for itself?

As Godfrey Reggio says, the idea in a film is to evoke a feeling, a reaction, and let the viewer fill in the rest. "The Thin Red Line" had just such an impact when I first saw it. The film is incredibly existential. By the time I walked out of the theater, I was almost in a daze, a dreamlike state. I wasn't quite sure what I had just witnessed. But Terry also manages to get across huge philosophical ideas. Above all, at his core, he's a philosopher. Rather than write philosophy books and put his ideas right in your face, he chooses to do it more subtly, and much more powerfully, using the ultimate artistic format of our day -- film. Think of how many more people can be exposed to his ideas through films staring Brad Pitt than would ever read an esoteric philosophy book? This is why, in my own life, I am convinced that there is nothing better I could be doing right now than filmmaking. Malick helped me to understand that.

As sort of a side note, I had an interesting conversation with Godfrey Reggio about Malick. Godfrey is disinterested in conventional narrative filmmaking. He doesn't really even see Hollywood films, but he has huge respect for Malick. Aside from Soderberg, who is a personal friend and supporter of Godfrey, I don't think Godfrey likes any modern, well-known narrative filmmakers. He mentioned specifically that he loved Malick's images of war in "The Thin Red Line," and the idea of getting this huge budget from a major studio and all these big-name actors, just to make a giant, beautiful, arthouse film with such a powerful anti-war message. Godfrey also spoke approvingly of how Malick conducts himself so humbly -- never getting drawn into the nonsense of Hollywood or fame, but nonetheless always managing to get his art financed.

See what happens when you get me get me started on this subject!... :laugh:
 
I watched the Blu-Ray release of Jacque Tati's classic "Play Time" this week. A beautiful example of purely visual comic satire where audio and dialogue serve only to add texture. The choreography of production design, lighting, and cinematography is as precise as a ballet and rises to the level of fine art.

I love this kind of film making as purely visual language.

Looking forward to seeing Tree of Life.
 
These are my favorite quotes:

"Once you think you got the formula, you realized there is no formula. It's like no set I ever worked on. Photography is not used to illustrate dialogue or a performance. We're using it to capture emotion so that the movie is very experiential. It's meant to trigger tons of memories, like a scent or a perfume, or like when you go into a house and it smells maybe like chocolate, and it takes you to your past."

And how did the performers react to all this unconventionality -- like, say, the fact that Malick wasn't always interested in what they had to say? "I think they thought we were insane," Chivo said. "Sean [Penn] is a director, and I'm sure he wondered 'Is this method something I want to learn or is it something I never want to repeat?' For Brad [Pitt] I think it took him a couple of days or a week to get into the spirit."

But ultimately, he said, that unorthodoxy will pay off for filmgoers. "The movie is like great music. It doesn't move you the way a normal movie does. It moves you from a very primordial place in your brain."
 
David Mullen ASC said:
When Kurosawa was once asked what the meaning of a movie he made was, he said "If I could put it into words, I wouldn't have needed to make it into a movie."
Click to expand...

Funny thing is David, that even so this is the first time I read this quote
this is what I always tell every one that asks me to describe the Movies I'm working on ;)

Off course Executives do need to know.. or no financing.
 
Terrence Terry Malick is one of rare successful American in a sense of Off-Hollywood filmmakers with a true meaning of that word.

He thinks about a film language on another way than the most of Hollywood directors/writers.

Call him a rare and real American film auteur.

And obviously that Terry has something different to say and to give us another idea in his movies than the most of other American filmmakers today.
 
I must point out that this type of moviemaking tends to take TIME because the very definition of experimentation is that you try things that don't always work, if you knew they'd work the first time out, it wouldn't be an experiment.

It can be a problem with scripted material unless you are under no obligation to actually shoot the script because in, let's say, a 25-day feature, you have to cover 4 pages of script a day if the script is 100 pages long. Just doing that, covering the 4 pages of script, doesn't leave a lot of room for improvisation and experimentation unless that is "designed" into the script and schedule.

But generally Malick's, Wong Kar Wai's, Kurosawa's, Kubrick's, etc. best movies all had long shooting schedules. When Wong Kar Wai was forced to work with a set schedule, as with "My Blueberry Nights", the final result seemed to only superficially resemble one of his movies, but without the depth and richness.
 
One of, if not the, most exciting artists working today.

Tom Lowe said:
When people ask what the meaning of a film or a shot is, it's not easy to describe, nor should it be.
Click to expand...

Well put. It's so refreshing to see work from filmmakers who eschew narrative (or, rather, employ the visual narrative) for the unsurpassed power of the audiovisual communication possible only in cinema. It's always surprised me why there are comparatively few filmmakers who really get this about cinema or even if they do, don't go as deep into the possibilities offered by the medium as Malick and others do.

I'm terribly excited about seeing the film. It must be a good feeling indeed to have contributed to this. Congratulations Tom!
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I must point out that this type of moviemaking tends to take TIME because the very definition of experimentation is that you try things that don't always work, if you knew they'd work the first time out, it wouldn't be an experiment.

It can be a problem with scripted material unless you are under no obligation to actually shoot the script because in, let's say, a 25-day feature, you have to cover 4 pages of script a day if the script is 100 pages long. Just doing that, covering the 4 pages of script, doesn't leave a lot of room for improvisation and experimentation unless that is "designed" into the script and schedule.

But generally Malick's, Wong Kar Wai's, Kurosawa's, Kubrick's, etc. best movies all had long shooting schedules. When Wong Kar Wai was forced to work with a set schedule, as with "My Blueberry Nights", the final result seemed to only superficially resemble one of his movies, but without the depth and richness.
Click to expand...

Apart from uniqueness of talent and an iconoclastic vision (the combination of which I think is rare but always around if you look hard enough), what David mentions above seems to be the equally important 3rd component. They way Tom feels about Malick is the way I have felt about Kubrick's work. I've always felt that no one transported a viewer into the subconscious of a character quite the way Kubrick could. He did it through a shot or a series of well placed edits. Furthermore his films alway possessed unique performances. As a young filmmaker I alway assumed that 90% of this occurred on the page. Researching Kubrick's work over the years the first thing one hears, and then hears repeatedly, is the fact that he had the time to try all sorts of different things and allow the "fabric" of the film to evolve as he was making the movie. I'm not one who has studied Malick's work at all... but it sounds like he has had the luxury of operating in a similar fashion.
 
I'm super excited about this film. I don't know how many times I've watched the trailer now.
Tom, it made me feel really good hearing about you getting the opportunity to work with Malick. I've always appreciated your input and, seeing your work, think this is well deserved.
 
Mathew Marchlewski said:
Tom, it made me feel really good hearing about you getting the opportunity to work with Malick. I've always appreciated your input and, seeing your work, think this is well deserved.
Click to expand...

Tom's opportunity was definitely earned, and I can say first hand that he did a fantastic job. Congratulations again, Tom.
 
Thank you Tom and all the others for your input. That´s one big reason I´m addicted to this forum. It´s a place where love, intelligence, knowledge and visions come together and are generously shared.
For me its always a big pleasure when young people- who asked me for a list which movies they should see- come back a couple of weeks later with a big smile, because they just discovered Fellini, Antonioni, Kurosawa, Pasolini, Malick, Coppola and many more. I think for many people history of modern movies starts after the year 2000.
I have to complain: Its very rare to find older movies on bluray. And this makes them easier to disappear.

Marc
 
It sounds much like Malick's previous films, but perhaps there's even more focus on the expressive visual for Tree. No doubt some critics will criticize it as "all visual, no substance", like they did The New World, without realizing that visual is substance. This is cinema, not literature! Plot and characters have become the standard form of cinema, a truly audiovisual medium, and it is truly refreshing to see a big budget Hollywood film abandon that formula and truly innovate with form - sound and visual.
 
terry's latest films are not big budget hollywood films, they are independently funded and then sold to a distributor. trust me when i tell you that his producers are very very frugal, not your typical spend anything to make it happen movie...very well planned and watching the pennies, nickels and dimes all along the way.

dino
 
Tom Lowe said:
Thanks so much for posting this. I think TREE is going to rewrite many of the conventions of modern narrative filmmaking. I've always loved Terry's incongruous cuts, letting audio from previous (or even non-related) sequences bleed across cuts, for example. But I think TREE will advance his unique cinematic language in new ways entirely. He's been dreaming of and preparing for this picture for decades, since at least the late 1960s.

The ability to create new forms of cinematic language draws a huge amount of respect from me. It's one of the reasons I love Wong Kar Wai so much. Look what he did with "In the Mood for Love."



As someone who is currently working in non-narrative filmmaking, I understand this completely. When people ask what the meaning of a film or a shot is, it's not easy to describe, nor should it be. I often think Terry has the entire filmmaking thing figured out. His refusal to speak about his films might, ultimately, be the correct path. He's likely the most intelligent person ever to work as a filmmaker, so I always pay attention to everything he does. Why re-invent the wheel if someone of his caliber has already spent decades thinking these issues through at such a deep level? But how many directors have his level of discipline to actually conduct themselves in such a manner, to let their art speak entirely for itself?

As Godfrey Reggio says, the idea in a film is to evoke a feeling, a reaction, and let the viewer fill in the rest. "The Thin Red Line" had just such an impact when I first saw it. The film is incredibly existential. By the time I walked out of the theater, I was almost in a daze, a dreamlike state. I wasn't quite sure what I had just witnessed. But Terry also manages to get across huge philosophical ideas. Above all, at his core, he's a philosopher. Rather than write philosophy books and put his ideas right in your face, he chooses to do it more subtly, and much more powerfully, using the ultimate artistic format of our day -- film. Think of how many more people can be exposed to his ideas through films staring Brad Pitt than would ever read an esoteric philosophy book? This is why, in my own life, I am convinced that there is nothing better I could be doing right now than filmmaking. Malick helped me to understand that.

As sort of a side note, I had an interesting conversation with Godfrey Reggio about Malick. Godfrey is disinterested in conventional narrative filmmaking. He doesn't really even see Hollywood films, but he has huge respect for Malick. Aside from Soderberg, who is a personal friend and supporter of Godfrey, I don't think Godfrey likes any modern, well-known narrative filmmakers. He mentioned specifically that he loved Malick's images of war in "The Thin Red Line," and the idea of getting this huge budget from a major studio and all these big-name actors, just to make a giant, beautiful, arthouse film with such a powerful anti-war message. Godfrey also spoke approvingly of how Malick conducts himself so humbly -- never getting drawn into the nonsense of Hollywood or fame, but nonetheless always managing to get his art financed.

See what happens when you get me get me started on this subject!... :laugh:
Click to expand...

Awesome rant, Tom! Agree 100%! :thumbup1:

The one filmmaker that broke new ground and forged a new cinematic language this past year was Gaspar Noe with ENTER THE VOID, an absolutely audacious and brilliant artistic and technical achievement. It's a mind-bending visual masterpiece unlike anything you've ever seen before. Noe was inspired by his virgin experience watching "2001: A Space Oydssey" on mushrooms...
 
David Rasberry said:
I watched the Blu-Ray release of Jacque Tati's classic "Play Time" this week. A beautiful example of purely visual comic satire where audio and dialogue serve only to add texture. The choreography of production design, lighting, and cinematography is as precise as a ballet and rises to the level of fine art.

I love this kind of film making as purely visual language.
Click to expand...

Tati is a master. M.Hulot's Holiday is just out on a restored blu-ray in the UK. I'm really looking forward to Sylvain Chomet's Illusionist, based on a screenplay of Tati's.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I must point out that this type of moviemaking tends to take TIME because the very definition of experimentation is that you try things that don't always work, if you knew they'd work the first time out, it wouldn't be an experiment.

It can be a problem with scripted material unless you are under no obligation to actually shoot the script because in, let's say, a 25-day feature, you have to cover 4 pages of script a day if the script is 100 pages long. Just doing that, covering the 4 pages of script, doesn't leave a lot of room for improvisation and experimentation unless that is "designed" into the script and schedule.

But generally Malick's, Wong Kar Wai's, Kurosawa's, Kubrick's, etc. best movies all had long shooting schedules. When Wong Kar Wai was forced to work with a set schedule, as with "My Blueberry Nights", the final result seemed to only superficially resemble one of his movies, but without the depth and richness.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Aronofsky lamented in a recent interview that directors these days (including himself) usually don't have the luxury of time to explore and experiment. He said that of all his films so far, he wished he had more time and money on Black Swan.

Black Swan was shot in 42 days

Enter the Void = 90 days

Inception = 5 months

Thin Red Line = 127 days

Apocalypse Now = 14 months

KUBRICK

Full Metal Jacket = 6 months

Barry Lyndon = 300 days

The Shining = 1 year

Eyes Wide Shut = 500 days

2001: A Space Odyssey = 21 months of principal, 21 months of post/VFX

KUROSAWA

Kagemusha = 9 months

Ran = 10 months

Seven Samurai = 1 year

WONG KAR WAI

In the Mood for Love = 15 months

Ashes of Time = 2 years (Chungking Express was filmed on a 3-month break)

2046 = 4 years! :eek6:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top