lcbaseball22 wrote:

MeLVaNoaTe wrote:@Icbaseball22

Malick is well-known for the aesthetic quality of his films but that doesn't mean he's not a good director. It would be logically impossible.

I forgot to address this; when you employ DP's like Toll and Lubezki, no it's not impossible. His films are carried by his cinematographers, nothing more nothing less. Just like Gravity was splooged over cause of Lubezki and Birdman to a large extent too from what I hear. Lubezki may win back to back awards.

The main difference between Nolan and Malick is that Nolan's films are more like classics in that the visuals serve the story, performances, etc. Malick's films on the other hand are a slave to the visuals. No, it's not in the way that most modern day films and blockbuster films are with explosions, graphic material, spectacle, etc taking precedence, but a slave nonetheless. The actors are wasted especially; just ask Sean Penn!

Penn gripes about his role in Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, but he essentially gripes about the same stuff that plenty of non-Sean Penn individuals were griping about in regards to Tree of Life. First and foremost, just what exactly was Sean Penn doing in that movie? “Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m doing there!” the actor admits, while noting that even his director didn’t seem to know the answer to that: “Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.” Penn also notes that the film’s overall time-hopping, free-flowing tone left him cold: “A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and impact.”

This is far from the truth. To say Malick's films are carried by the visuals really just means you didn't understand the meanings of his films (even though his films carry multiple meanings and aren't spoonfed to the audience like with Nolan's films). There is a high level of ambition, scope, beauty, and emotion in Malick's films. It is just presented in a more visual way of storytelling than simply telling the audience its meaning via the characters. Malick uses his characters to communicate his grand, philosophical ideas rather than to flesh them out as real people. I don't really have an issue with that since his films never try to make his characters anything more than that unlike with Nolan who fails many times in his films to have strong characters despite showing a clear attempt to flesh them out.

Actually, my biggest complaint with Interstellar was how Nolan had to literally tell us the message of the film (not only once, but 2-3 times) that Love is the only force that transcends time and space. It was pretty lame to keep hearing that simply because it hurts the artistry of that film.

Nolan is obviously a miserable piece of shit. We need to just accept it. This half-assed attempt at expressing "feeling" towards his children is nothing but a steaming dog load. I feel bad for his family. What must it be like to live with such a cold monster, making fumbling attempts at warmth and human connection? I weep for the Nolans.

Apocalypse wrote: This is far from the truth. To say Malick's films are carried by the visuals really just means you didn't understand the meanings of his films (even though his films carry multiple meanings and aren't spoonfed to the audience like with Nolan's films). There is a high level of ambition, scope, beauty, and emotion in Malick's films. It is just presented in a more visual way of storytelling than simply telling the audience its meaning via the characters.

I'm all for visual storytelling; I'm a visual learner and I certainly don't need information spoon-fed to me, but that doesn't excuse Malick from being coherant in the presentation of whatever he's trying to say

lcbaseball22 wrote:

Apocalypse wrote: This is far from the truth. To say Malick's films are carried by the visuals really just means you didn't understand the meanings of his films (even though his films carry multiple meanings and aren't spoonfed to the audience like with Nolan's films). There is a high level of ambition, scope, beauty, and emotion in Malick's films. It is just presented in a more visual way of storytelling than simply telling the audience its meaning via the characters.

I'm all for visual storytelling; I'm a visual learner and I certainly don't need information spoon-fed to me, but that doesn't excuse Malick from being coherant in the presentation of his stories.

Malick just has a unique style of storytelling. Doesn't mean his stories aren't coherent. Really, his stories aren't even hard to understand. They just aren't traditionally executed.

Apocalypse wrote: Malick just has a unique style of storytelling. Doesn't mean his stories aren't coherent.

I beg to differ, but I will say I find it highly ironic and certainly suspect when people who bash Nolan's films because they don't understand them cream their pants over Malick. Then again they too have likely just become slaves to the visuals, similar to those who had orgasms watching Avatar and then later realized that there was a lack of substance. Some people just easily get lost in what's on screen without realizing that the film is a mess, terribly derivative, etc. Don't be slaves to the visuals people!

lcbaseball22 wrote:

Apocalypse wrote: Malick just has a unique style of storytelling. Doesn't mean his stories aren't coherent.

I beg to differ, but I will say I find it highly ironic and certainly suspect when people who bash Nolan's films because they don't understand them cream their pants over Malick. Then again they too have likely just become slaves to the visuals, similar to those who had orgasms watching Avatar and then later realized that there was a lack of substance.

There is really nothing hard to understand about a Nolan film simply because he tells you what is going on throughout it. At any time when you get confused about what is going on, a few minutes later, some miraculous thing happens in where the sole purpose of it is so the characters can tell the audience what is going on and what it means. Memento is really his only film where it is difficult to understand on first watch because it is his only film where the characters actually sound human and don't talk like an actor or director discussing the films meaning/plot details.

Malicks stories are easy to understand because the stories can be explained in a couple sentences. It is moreso the ideas of his films that are complex and lengthy to explain. Kind of the opposite of Nolan, I suppose. (who has very intricate/busy stories, but very minimal substance, but its repeated alot through the characters mouths so the public think his films are substantial). Inception is probably Nolan's most substantial film though even if there is a heavy over exposition in the dialogue.

I like Malick. I like Nolan. Oops.

thegreypilgrim wrote:I like Malick. I like Nolan. Oops.

me too. I just think Malick is a far superior director. But I do love that Nolan is able to command big budgets and tell a story that isn't generic popcorn entertainment while still providing the blockbuster visuals/epicness.

It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that if it weren't for Nolan being "The guy who directed Batman films," he'd be considered a Fincher/P.T. Anderson/Aronofsky type with the Academy. Nolan's a "Superhero/Comic Book" guy, so he's grouped with the likes of Jon Favreau and Joss Whedon.

To me, Nolan is the Kubrick of our time. Memento, The Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar are four masterpieces that ANY legitimate or serious film organization would recognize as exceptional material. It's because of him doing comic book films that he is held in lower regard.

The other problem is that the Internet culture of Comic Book fanboys has derailed Nolan from being in the "Legitimate Filmmaker" category. Instead, he's grouped into the nerd/kid/comic/superhero group where its fanbase is of the younger crowd and none of it should be taken seriously.

I think it comes down to this: Nolan was better off not making the TDK Trilogy, *if* he wanted to be considered "legitimate". At this point, it's pretty clear that Awards groups have it out for this man, so he might as well just go for broke and continue doing whatever the hell he wants with no goals for awards. That time has passed.

Murphy528 wrote:It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that if it weren't for Nolan being "The guy who directed Batman films," he'd be considered a Fincher/P.T. Anderson/Aronofsky type with the Academy. Nolan's a "Superhero/Comic Book" guy, so he's grouped with the likes of Jon Favreau and Joss Whedon.

To me, Nolan is the Kubrick of our time. Memento, The Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar are four masterpieces that ANY legitimate or serious film organization would recognize as exceptional material. It's because of him doing comic book films that he is held in lower regard.

Fincher, PTA, and Aronofsky don't get much love with the Academy regardless though. And Nolan is more like the Spielberg (70-80s Spielberg) of our time than the Kubrick.