But with the Brave News of the World (sorry cheapshot) that wasn't what it was at all, there was no accepting his style and going along with it, he didn't even deliver on his own terms. It was a shitty pseudo artfilm that you could only defend by pretending it was in Malick's style when it actually wasn't. What it really was was a really bad take on (good choice) Dances With Wolves but by virtue of being by Malick it pretended it was something more when really it was much less. Sorry, I sound angry about this and it's because I'm drunk but there is always something annoying about someone hiding behind their reputation to pretend something is different from how it is. I've repeated myself too much - enough. I think I'll stand by that when I'm sober though.I won't deny that his films are usually hard to watch but that's true of many films that are great. late-period Kurosawa comes to mind (Ran feels like it's about 47 hours long when you're watching it) and so does pretty any much anything by Tarkovsky, a guy who could be compared to Malick in more than a couple ways. honestly I think it's one of those things where you just have to accept his style for what is is and go with it.
I've been catching up a bit on Malick due to Tree of Life. I really liked Thin Red Line. It was ridiculous, but war is ridiculous anyway. All the voiceover was just pseudophilosophical platitudes, but again, I thought it fit the theme with average American boys getting in way over their heads, not being able to actually say something profound about it. Probably wasn't supposed to though...
Pocahontas, though, didn't really do anything for me. Another annoying thing: Making a film in 2005 about 1607, and then choosing Wagner to soundtrack it. That is just giving up on being either historically correct or current. That's one thing Tarkovsky and Malick have in common: They both seem to regard European Romantic culture as almost universally true/good.
My point is that when you separate it from his reputation you're left with an empty, at times pretty, film. Separation is what I am doing and is the right thing to do, if you fail to manage that you might somehow end up thinking it's good or something. His reputation tricks people into thinking that there must be more to it than there is - on its merits it's just... nothing."that you can't separate a director's work from his reputation is your problem, not his. or mine. I can defend the New World, or anything else, on it's own merits + flaws. the irony is that you're the one imposing that tenuous grasp at some kind of sweeping larger meaning, rather than just taking it for what it is. anyway, it is a seriously flawed film. I like it anyway."
I dunno, I don't think they have much in common aesthetically. OK, they might both risk the pseudomystical thing but not at all in the same way. The points of similarity you're identifying are general enough that you could apply them to almost anyone who wasn't Michael Bay."as far saying it's nothing like Tarkovksy...sure, they have nothing in common. not aesthetically, not in grappling (successfully or not) with impossibly big metaphysical themes, not in most always waffling right on the edge of sinking right into pseudomystical bullshit...honestly the real difference is that Tarkovsky is a dead Russian guy + more obscure + hence cooler for film nerds."
well put oliver craner. i forgot about the judges and the pirahnas. wow.