Archive for Terrence Malick

The Monday Intertitle: Comin’ Thru the Rye

Posted in FILM, MUSIC with tags , , , , , , on October 21, 2013 by dcairns

Layout 2

From Pordenone Festival of Silent Film — RAGENS RIKE, or THE LAND OF RYE. This late-silent Swedish rural drama of love thwarted/fulfilled, begins with a figure standing, centre-frame, waist deep in a field of the titular food crop. A dissolve repositions him further in the distance, and another diminishes him to little more than a smudge.

And I am astonished to find this sequence of shots in 1929, since it will be repeated exactly in Kon Ichikawa’s AN ACTOR’S REVENGE (1963) and again in Terrence Malick’s THE NEW WORLD (2005). And yet it seems not that likely that Ichikawa saw Ivar Johanssen’s film, or that Malick saw either, though of course it is possible. Maybe wheatfields naturally evoke diminishing jump-dissolves in a film-maker’s mind, the way the centre aisle in a church always makes them want to do tracking shots?

vlcsnap-2013-10-20-12h51m59s106vlcsnap-2013-10-20-12h51m24s12

The film is beautiful. Two student competition winners provided the live piano score, without benefit of having seen the film first, and they did a fine, sensitive job. The movie contains a great drinking contest scene, with blurry impressionistic effects to simulate drunkenness, lots of romantic outdoorsy stuff that the Swedes seemingly loved, and a great intertitle, very late in the story, which I can’t show here as I don’t have a copy of the film. The village is in turmoil due to the results of a single romantic problem. “The prophet” — a kind of heretical preacher admired by the lower village, is asked for help. He cuts to the quick: “You’re so stupid! Let the boy marry the girl and everything will be fine!”

Of course, being a Swedish movie, it takes another twenty minutes or so for this to get sorted out.

Id Entity Crisis

Posted in FILM, Mythology with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 20, 2012 by dcairns

Made it to two press shows at EIFF yesterday, followed by Filmhouse’s screening of THE FRENCH CONNECTION, with a Q&A with William Friedkin afterwards, chaired by Chris Fujiwara, the festival director. More on that later. And that was followed by the Art College’s film show, which was followed by a couple pints of Guinness and a probably unwise glass of whisky. Today my mouth feels like it’s had British people holidaying in it.

My first press show was SUN DON’T SHINE, a rather fine lovers-on-the-run movie from writer-director Amy Seimetz. While the influence of BADLANDS hangs over it — poetic, floaty tone, achingly beautiful cinematography, dark underpinnings — the characters are somewhat different. While Malick’s ’50s runaways were psychopathically detached and ill-educated, Seimetz’s are just plain dumb. He (Kentucker Audley) thinks he has a plan to get them out of trouble, but from what I could grasp of the set-up, it wasn’t a very good one. So he’s Ollie — the dumb one who thinks he’s smart. She (Kate Lyn Sheil) is mentally and emotionally a baby: she knows she’s not smart, but she’s not capable of grasping how dumb she really is. So she’s Stan. She also has the best dumb-person line I’ve heard in years, delivered in warm and dreamy tones: “You’re good at planning. I’m not real good at planning, I’m better at being spontaneous.” Yeah, you have a real talent for doing the first thing that pops into your head. That’s a gift.

Although my easy response to stupidity is to laugh at it, but Seimetz also creates sympathy for her screwed-up leads (and her actors are thoroughly convincing), and her ending is really beautiful. And, while most movies go to far in trying to push things to the furthest possible extreme, this one hangs back nicely and keeps things credible. Really a little delight.

“If I stand behind this doorjamb does it freak you out? Have you seen AUDITION?”

Less successful, for me, was LOVELY MOLLY (not to be confused with Sidney Lumet’s LOVIN’ MOLLY), from Eduardo Sanchez of BLAIR WITCH fame. This mines the fertile, post-ROSEMARY’S BABY terrain of “is she crazy or is it supernatural?” and sustains it for maybe the first half, thanks to Gretchen Lodge’s thoroughly committed perf. But the balance is off — unlike BLAIR WITCH (which I haven’t seen since it came out, but liked just fine), this one is about serious stuff — drug addiction, mental illness and child abuse — so the more generic elements are a lot less scary and ultimately provide an excuse for the film not to frighten us. While the film keeps the rapist ghost and mental breakdown stuff in balance, things are good and disturbing, and as the madness explanation comes to the fore, there’s still at least the possibility of deep unease, but then the return of the paranormal craziness cuts the legs from under that. Maybe in the Bible Belt the thing will play differently, because to them, the Lord of Darkness is just as real as abusive fathers and heroine, but it didn’t convince me, and if we’re meant to take that side of it seriously then it’s a very reactionary vision.

The found-footage camcorder stuff is back in there, but it’s only a small part of the movie, thankfully. Strikingly unconvincing, though — the red dot and “REC” sign in the top corner? Really? Come one, Sanchez, you practically invented this shit, haven’t you noticed that camcorders don’t record that? Also, we see shots of the character’s camera, and its little screen doesn’t look anything like what you’re showing us.

There are some decent scares and some anxious moments, so diehard fans may get some kicks out of it, and the cast are very good indeed. But as the horrors mount up, the supporting characters’ failure to call in the shrinks becomes progressively more ridiculous — the ambition to create a proper character-led movie is hamstrung by the way people keep doing silly things for the sake of the plot. Which is where setting up any kind of division between plot and character will get you into trouble.

Stardust

Posted in FILM with tags , , , , on July 16, 2011 by dcairns

After seeing Terrence Malick’s TREE OF LIFE, I feel like I’ll be ready to write about it when I’ve spent as long thinking about it as Malick did making it. But I do note it as another entry in the remarkably consistent oeuvre of visual effects supremo Douglas Trumbull, dating all the way back to — what’s that you say? 1968′s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY? Well, possibly, but I was thinking of CANDY, from the same year (pictured).

Well, maybe I can be nudged into saying more in the comments section.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 362 other followers