Seven Days of Malick Part Two

My project is really coming down to the wire now. I have two more Malick films, and less than twenty-four hours to complete them. Earlier today I checked The Thin Red Line off of my list, and I must say, Malick is really impressing me.


In order to fully understand his films, I think you need to know some of the background on Malick himself. In his early years, Malick worked on a farm until he was accepted into Harvard University to study Philosophy. After graduating from Harvard, he received a Rhodes scholarship to attend Oxford University, but eventually dropped out just shy of receiving his degree because of disputes with his Don over his thesis. He also studied film at the American Film Institute (the alma mater of fellow filmmakers Darren Aronofsky and David Lynch). Malick then went on to teach Philosophy to the students at MIT before taking on his first film, Badlands (1973). Five years later, he released Days of Heaven to critical acclaim, an Oscar for best cinematography (a staple of Malick's films), and an award for best director at Cannes. After he had reached heights that most filmmakers only dream of, Malick inextricably disappeared from filmmaking for a full twenty years. This was the first move towards anonymity for the filmmaker in a career marked with next to no interviews, no public appearances (even to his own premiers at festivals such as Cannes), and only one available publicity photo. It was later reported that he had moved to France in order to rediscover his first love: teaching philosophy. After avoiding the spotlight and teaching for two decades, Malick returned in full force with what is widely viewed as his best film: The Thin Red Line (1998).


So, imagine a brilliant professor of philosophy leading a discussion on mortality and eternity. Now, imagine a flawless filmmaker with a flair for beautiful, meticulously well composed images. Then put the two together and you will have a fairly good picture of the experience of watching a Terrence Malick film.


Before I watched The Thin Red Line, I had been told by several people that it (and other of his films) was intolerably slow and "boring." After seeing that the film runs almost three hours I have to say I was a bit nervous. However, even with the first shot I was enthralled with the film, and didn't look back until after the credits rolled. In addition to the excellent writing and directing, the cast is outstanding - and what an impressive cast list! The list of actors includes Nick Nolte, Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, John Cusack, Adrien Brody, John C. Reilly, Woody Harrelson, Miranda Otto, John Travolta and George Clooney. Now before you start adding up the usual acting fee for even one of those names (even in 1998), I should point out that this film really has no central character, and for most of the characters it might even be a stretch to call it a supporting role (with the exception of Nolte, Caviezel and Penn who carry the film with brilliant performances). Some would argue that this lack of a true central character, and lack of true story line, are a failing on the filmmaker's part, but I would like to argue that yet again Malick has made a tactical choice that is intended to (and I believe does) put the audience into the shoes of the characters of the piece. The film revolves around one conflict in World War II in which US troops battle Japanese troops for land at Guadalcanal. The reason for the ever changing cast of characters is revealed in a line from Sean Penn's character near the end of the film when he remarks, "They just keep coming, over and over. You're in a box. They want you dead, or on the line." In this line Penn's character sums up the monotony of war. He is referring not only to the never ending cycle of opposition, but the never ending line of troops on his own side. When one brother dies by you, another comes along to replace him, and the cycle begins again. This is exactly the feeling that Malick conveys through his clever story telling, and I think clever casting as well by casting actors who are very commanding on screen (and well known actors at that) to play these roles of the never ending line of soldiers on the front line.


As for the argument that the pace of the film is too slow, I will concede that there were certainly times while watching it when Malick (in true philosophical form) would ask a deep searching question through his story, and I would find myself thinking about the question more than the immediate story. However, he intentionally gives you time to ponder these questions (while giving you a beautiful image to look at). Also, they are never fully divorced from, but rather greatly informed by the story being told. Another loosely connected style choice I love that Malick employs is that he always has his poetic, soul searching lines delivered by ordinary people. In Days of Heaven, he gave his greatest lines to a 14 year old girl with a southern accent. In this film, all of the characters are clearly soldiers who have been trained with guns rather than books, and yet this gives their thoughts an honesty that wouldn't come across if spoken by a bespectacled man of letters.


At his heart, Malick is a man who is searching for meaning in his existence, and this passionate search shines through in each of his films. I have two more to watch before going downtown to see Tree of Life tomorrow night, but I am already sad that I soon will not have any more of his films to look forward to. Malick (68), it would seem, is beginning to feel the weight of his mortality. A filmmaker known for taking his time between releasing films is already in post production for his next film, and appears to be lining up a new project soon. While this sounds like good news in that we have more films to look forward to, I only hope he can stay true to his meticulous, patient style, and not rush anything. Though if his history tells us anything about him, we shouldn't have anything to worry about.


Films to go:


Badlands (1973)
The New World (2005)