"In this age of diminution and vulgarity at the movies, Malick conducts himself with the austerity of Chaplin and Kubrick – doing it his way, disdaining the press, but getting people to pay for it all. Never forget that a movie director is not just a master of imagery and drama, a conductor of actors, music and design. He is a guy who can persuade someone to put up millions on an airy conversation about life, plants, astronomy and philosophy." — David Thomson, The Gaurdian
Yes it must be a terrific thrill to boss people around like that, and be rude to the press, and stick conversations about life, plants, astronomy into a movie on someone else's dime just because one can, because one is a master filmmaker and all that, although I've never gotten the vicarious thrill from watching those things that some people do — films bent to the will of a master. If Kubrick and Malick ares masters, as no-one seems to tire of saying, what does that make us? Slaves? As I get older, the more easily bored I am of 'mastery', the more it seems a young man's dream — young men, film directors and film critics. The rest of us, as we plod through life, realise just how little we are actually master of, how little we resemble master film directors and more those poor, distracted cattle, the actors. That's my experience anyway. I don't get out of bed in the morning, bark "action" and see my day whip itself into shape. I stumble out of bed, trying to remember my lines, hit my marks as best I can, only to find, six months down the line, that half my performance was not used, or that I'm actually appearing in a comedy not a tragedy as I thought, or that the whole film is crap, through no fault of my own, or maybe it's just my fault, since everyone else knew they were in a comedy apparently, but me. I'm less like the master Malick, in other words, and more like that poor boob Brad Pitt.
Posts
It's unclear whether you are frustrated at not having the control a director has over his cast and crew, by virtue of simply being a director (master or not), or at not being a master at your own craft of actor.
ReplyDeleteIn either scenario, you are blurring, intentionally or otherwise, the context of how the word master is applied to Malick and Kubrick. They are regarded as masters of the craft they practice, using tools (actors and crew) who have the ability to be masters of the particular craft they practice. The masters you speak of have the same issues you apply to your own "slavehood" (as they to "stumble", "try" and do the "best they can").
Perhaps you'd be better served to stop looking up with disdain, and start looking out with possibility? I've found that is where being a master lies.
I'm not an actor. I meant it metaphorically to convey the feeling, perhaps a little too obliquely, that the older I get the less of an auterist I am. The elements of movie production that directors have most control over are the least valuable, or so it seems to me. I find Kubrick movies magnificent mausoleums — lifeless. I have more time for Malick because he allows his actors room to breath.
ReplyDeleteWell, be that as it may, Matt Zoller Seitz just pointed out on Facebook that David Thomson has dismissed all of Malick's previous films up to this one, which he now praises before having seen it. There's a worthy argument to be had about the merits of craftsmanship versus auteurism, but I'll wait until it evolves from a less dubious source than DT.
ReplyDelete'm guilty of a little lopsidedness with regards to Malick myself: I revere Badlands, as does Thomson, and for much the same reasons: that film seems barely touched by human hand. If it exhibits mastery, it is of entirely of the Joycean, self-vanishing sort. The other films, too often, feel smothered with Malick's thoughts, Malick's thumbprints, Malick's breath. The solipsism is stifling: I come out craving fresh air. That pattern — one initial masterpiece, never to be bettered — suggests that Malick may be Too Good For Cinema, which is of course why critics like Thomson love him.
ReplyDeleteNothing like some good old fashioned jealousy disguised as commentary. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteJeez, what a horrendous post. So because you don't like Kubrick and Malick, directors have too much control over movies? Are you kidding me?
ReplyDeleteThis is the most self-absorbed BS I've read in a while.
Not for nothing, but "master" is just a word. You may bridle at its less-than-savory connotations, but why you seem to take its usage as some kind of personal affront is, to put it mildly, strange. If it makes you feel better, consider the idea of a "master" filmmaker being little different than a "master" furniture maker. Two people who happen to have a great deal of skill and experience in their particular area of expertise - those who have worked long and hard and developed the necessary skills for the shaping of their inspiration into something tangible.
ReplyDeleteDon't misunderstand me - I think I get the drift of your post, even if the target of its prickliness seems arbitrarily chosen. When I feel ground down on Monday morning, I'm more inclined to get pissed off at, say, Monsanto than Terrence Malick - but that's just me. To me, its seems off-base and lame to call Malick's preference for privacy being "rude to the press" or directing "bossing people around" or acting as though making movies on "someone else's dime" just "because one can" was in some way exclusive to Malick and Kubrick. Last time I checked that was how about 90% of directors made their movies.