The Cinematography of Terrence Malick

  I started this blog some years ago, always having wanted to write a movie review/criticism blog. I always liked movies, but became great fan of film since coming of age in the mid 1990's. This especially was the case after I took a screenwriting course. I used to frequent the blog of Barbara Nicolosi in the early 2000s. A catholic screenwriter who's blog was titled "Church of the Masses." With a subheading ""Theatres are the new Church of the Masses--where people sit huddled in the dark listening to people in the light tell them what it is to be human." Attributed to an unnamed "1930's theater critic". This idea was definitely true for a great many people in the United States and elsewhere. Film, and television had definitely replaced the printed word as the litera popli by the end of the 20th century. With adults my age more familiar with the Baz Luhrmann version of Romeo + Juliet than Shakespeare's. And in that vein, one of the films that I fell in love with, about the time I started this blog, was Terrence Malick's Tree of Life, because it was more literate. At least in my feeling.

The etheric wispy dreamlike poetic nature of that film, that is also prevalent in the rest of his post-hiatus work is what really held my attention. Even far after viewing it. And the same comment has been made, I think, by most people who came to favor his pieces. This YouTube critique of Malick's visual style by YouTuber Thomas Flight does a great job of explaining the visual and other aspects of this style. And within the video is revealed a dogma compiled by Malick and his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (aka Chivo) when they undertook making The New World:

• Shoot in available natural light
• Do not underexpose the negative
• Keep true blacks
• Preserve the latitude in the image
• Seek maximum resolution and fine grain
• Seek depth with deep focus and stop: "Compose in depth"
• Shoot in backlight for continuity and depth
• Use negative fill to avoid "light sandwiches"
• Shoot in crosslight only after dawn or before dusk
• Never front light
• Avoid lens flares
• Avoid white and primary colors in frame
• Shoot with short-focal-length, hard lense
• No filters except Polarizer
• Shoot with steady handheld or Steadicam "in the eye of the hurricane"
• Z-axis moves instead of pans or tilts
• No zooming
• Do some static tripod shots "in the midst of our haste"
• Accept the exception to the dogma ("Article E")

Source: ALL THINGS SHINING: AN ORAL HISTORY OF TERRENCE MALICK

And this I think is what movies are all about. While the films are amazing and nearly rapturous. It is still a film, an intricately constructed story. A preset narration set on a foundation of rules and guidelines. Malick's second round of films are quite amazing, though I've only seen one and parts of others. I believe this is particularly due to these above guidelines, as well as others apparent. The aforementioned Thomas Flight video does a far better job of describing this than I could here. And he also goes somewhat into the exceptions to the rules, how the rules were formed out of necessity due to shooting schedule, how the narrative and editing exchange priority with the visuals and incorporate improvisation and discontinuity as a means to seek out truth as apposed to story, at least in the standard sense as lead by Hollywood/US Studio cinema. And this style I believe is particularly emulated and reflected in much of the video artistry in the last couple of years. Especially by independent younger videographers (who are additionally less restricted than Malick physically by today's camera technology). The result is a more tonal and emotionally inquisitive approach as opposed to structured, composed narration.

And this brings me back to me.

In the last 5 years since the previous post on this blog, my life has taken a multitude of different turns and alterations. Some of my own desire and choosing, many more not so. And my morals, perspectives, motivations, and priorities have taken a near opposite turn. And I have found through experience and observation, that cinema, film, literature, etc. Is not real. It never was real. But I, and many others intended to make it real in our lives and perceptions because of fear or incapability of truly understanding of the "real world." Or perhaps, because of preference to live in a life of fantasy and illusion, for a gamut of reasons, one of the greatest, to implicate oneself with a sense of purpose and meaning that could not be found outside of the theater. Such a modality is commonplace in all of society ever since people told mythological tales by firelight in between arduous treks, hunts and harvests. Story is structured meaning that helps us as human beings organize and make sense of our thoughts and emotions; their causes and effects. And the ripples those emotions give and take from the lives of ourselves and those intimately and distantly related to us, and the environs we inhabit. Because the world in itself is a big gigantic infinite song. A poem. A story we are telling each other about who we are and what we are doing and what we mean when we speak, and say, and do, and drive, and die, and devour, and desire, and divine, and divulge, and demean, and delight, and destroy, and delude ourselves into thinking that we are alone with our thoughts and ourselves here in this place. And through these stories that we live out every day, we can reassess and reassign meaning in our lives and ultimately return to where we came from. And ultimately restore what we lost, or what we gave up out of hopelessness and despair or coercion. Repenting from the falsehoods and lies we have been carrying within our beings for so very much of our lives, all the way back through our ancestral train. Back to their stories, which all came from the same place of emotional sourcing that Malick so endeavored to relay to those who saw his visual representations, of this whole meaning of the tree of life and the stories which make up its branches and its thorns and its leaves.

But the movie, is just a representation, a cave within a cave. A further iteration of shadows backwards on the walls in the dark where the viewers sit huddled en masse thinking they are going to church when the church they seek is really all around them in each other and in the outside world from which they breathe life daily. And by looking at each other, truly seeing, they would realize that what is on the screen is not real, it is only a shadow. And the meaning coming from it is not a reflection, but only a narrated echo of truth. And I have to be honest in order to look people in the eye..

So I am going to delete this blog. Pretty soon I think. I haven't intentionally watched a full movie in two years that I can recall. Save an occasional rerun of something on TV. And many of the views on previous posts, I would disregard or disagree with now. But I am posting this here, because I wanted to "say it."

The end. 

Thanks for reading my blog.

I've Got a Bad Feeling About This

Why did Disney reformat the Star Wars canon? For newer more amazing stories with a more cohesive narrative, like Abrams and Kennedy and all those fools went around telling the press?

Fuck No! Think dollar signs. Star Wars is all about merchandising.

Lucas had basically let anybody and his Uncle Buck jump onboard the Star Wars franchise over the years with the Expanded Universe. Done at your average royalty negotiation rate, usually about 3-7%, going to Lucasfilm. All those authors, video game creators, and merchandise manufacturers were going to continue to make money off the now Disney owned intellectual property.

But they didn't know Disney was a subsidiary of the Third Reich. And Nazis don't do business that way.

So Disney creates a "Story Group" and what do they do with the tens of thousands of EU stories and characters? BURN IT. Down to the 6 feature films and two of the Clone Wars films.

Then Disney goes to work franchising new books, and comics, and video games, and merchandise and all the other crap you'd have found at Hastings were it still in existence... at DOUBLE the royalty rate. And what has happened to the Expanded Universe products now that they are no longer canon? Sales have plummeted. And all those content creators and artists' royalty cut is blown away as well. They are fucked. The books and comics and video games are largely worthless. Meanwhile Disney has already surpassed $30 Billion in profit off the franchise since 2012.

But why would Lucas allow this to happen? Doesn't he care about all the deals he made with people during his career? Isn't he an honorable man? ...You mean "Darth Petty" Lucas? FUCK HONOR! Especially when you can be the second largest non-corporate shareholder in Disney with a 2% stake.

That means that Lucas will still make money off of his previous (now dwindling) deals, and make even more off of Disney's new ones. And it has already more than paid off. After The Force Awakens was released, Disney saw its biggest quarterly profit report ever.

So Lucas and Disney essentially pulled a Michael Corleone on the Barzini family, only the ones getting shot up in this case were the hundreds of thousands of artists who contributed towards Lucas' "child" for 40 years.

Because fuck you that's why.

Geostorm Trailer #1 (2017)

First five seconds I called this as a Deviln/Emmerich movie... I was half wrong. Looks like it's a Dean Devlin solo project. With as far out there in hokey-town that Emmerich has been travelling the past decade, it's probably good that he took the helm himself.

So this can go one of two ways. A miraculously entertaining and well made movie by a first time director that is well established in Hollywood's big budget cinema world, resulting in a blockbuster windfall for WB. Or a complete failure that no one goes to see and loses WB hundreds of millions.

Based on Devlin's history with disaster films that are now dated. And the fact he's writing, producing and directing (a deadly zero oversight combo that only Orson Welles could pull off for decades). AND the fact that the trailer looks completely dysfunctional and hokey beyond an Emmerich level. I predict the latter.

The Death of River Phoenix

River Phoenix's death was a completely fucked up ordeal. He and Red Hot Chili Peppers' John Frusciante had basically been speedballing for 3 days straight with no sleep before they headed into Johnny Depp's club, The Viper Room. His brother Joaquin his sister Rain, and his girlfriend Samantha Mathis were there with him. Chili Peppers' Flea came in later. Cocaine got passed around and it wasn't long before River was on the floor and 9-1-1 got called.

Poor Joaquin held his brother in his arms while he died seizing in the ambulance. Mathis was unconsolable in the hospital. I think that's why she only made one film over the next year.

Depp found out through a phone call, uttered "Oh my God" and hung up. Then like the next morning, the very next morning, The Chili Peppers, Depp, the club management, and basically anyone else involved had skipped town.

Poor Keanu Reeves, his best friend, had to hear it second hand on the news.

There's also a conspiracy that DiCaprio was seen in the club at the time of River's OD, and that Depp had arranged for Leo to slip River some bad drugs so that he could take his role in The Basketball Diaries. But really kids just OD all the time.

Anthropomorphic Reservior Dogs

Has anyone ever done an anthropomorphic rendering in any media characterizing the Reservior Dogs based on their looks?

I would say they would fall under these types and breeds of dogs based on character and actor:

Joe - "Big Dog" - Bulldog
Nice Guy Eddie - "Good Dog" - Golden Retriever
Mr Blonde - "Bad Dog" - Rotweiller
Mr. Blue - "Old Dog" - Bloodhound
Mr. White - "Loyal Dog" - Boxer
Mr. Brown - "Happy Dog" - Labrador
Mr. Pink - "Street Dog" - Chihuaua
Mr. Orange - "K-9" - German Shepherd

Maybe I'll do this one day when I have the visual media skills needed.

Meeting shot from the crop duster scene in North By Northwest (1959)

This is a still from Alfred Hitchcock's North By Northwest (1959)

A car has just dropped off the Man on the right. Cary Grant's character Roger Thornhill has been waiting on the left side of the road to meet a secret agent named George Kaplan for the first time. Thornhill has been waiting on the road for some time, leaning with anticipation as previous vehicles came and went wondering if this car would be the one carrying his covert contact. The man on the right is looking at Thornhill after being dropped off. But will then look down the road most of the time, as if waiting for someone. Glancing back at Thornhill again as if he might or might not be the agent in question. Thornhill prepares to approach the man to determine if he is the man he has come to see.

There is no soundtrack throughout. Only ambient sounds.

Note the shot. The landscape is barren and clean, lightly colored in earth tones. The two men are dressed in dark suits, starkly contrasting with their surroundings. This forces the viewer to focus intently on the two figures.

The road is shot at an angled perspective, the lines drawing our eye towards Thornhill, our protagonist who is the primary focus of our film.

The road is a split with a median line, indicating a barrier between the two men that must be crossed for a secret conversation to occur.

The road is a broad, bare, open gulf that would be a long challenge to cross making Thornhill vulnerable and exposed.

The camera is on Thornhill's side of the barrier, because as the protagonist we the audience are on his side, wanting him to succeed.

The barbwire fence behind him and the telephone line down the road, visually prevent escape. Thornhill has nowhere to go but towards the Man.

The Man on the right is slightly closer to the camera causing him larger and more intimidating than Thornhill. This makes him a more menacing prospect to walk towards.

The man on the right is wearing a hat to shade his eyes from the late morning sun. Thornhill is not wearing a hat making him unprepared and even more vulnerable.

The man on the right stands alone in the open space with no fence around, his arms braced behind him all indicating a stronger more powerful presence than the slightly slouching Thornhill.

Thornhill is on the left side of the shot, wanting to move to the right. As an American film directed towards an audience that reads English from left to right, our eyes instinctively want to push Thornhill across the frame from left to right.

All of these items are subtle artistic cues that drive into our subconscious and cause us to side with Grant's character and anticipate his task at hand more intensely than we normally would otherwise. Forcing our attention, and bringing us suspensefully to the edge of our seat. This seemingly simple shot is only on screen for a couple of seconds. But a detail oriented master planner like Hitchock worked on it for far longer than that.

Here's the clip:

DeadCenter Film Festival Director's Panel

L to R: Ryan Bellgardt, Mickey Reece, Neil Berkeley, Bob Byington, Tava Sofsky

The 90's Movie Theater Experience

If you ever wanted to know what it was like watching a movie at the theater in the 90s, watch this trailer. The grainy flicker on the picture. But mostly the sound. I think it had something to do with early Dolby Digital, DTS, SDDS and other digital compression technologies being used. Or maybe it was the sound mix done by the studio itself. But there's this unmistakable, nearly inaudible dirty tonal echo or reverb that you could hear in theaters at the time. I remember Jurassic Park, Beethoven, Twister, Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Star Trek VI, and so many others all had this touch.

The closest I've come to recently was Tarantino's roadshow for The Hateful Eight a year ago. He sent out a 70mm film projector for that one. So the picture quality was similar. But the sound was not the same, as they used the existing modern digital speakers that were built into the Quail Springs theater.

RIP Jonathan Demme

You perfected breaking the rule of actors not looking into the camera. And your movies were stunning for it.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

Philadelphia (1993)

Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Braveheart's Speech

Felt like seeing a Braveheart clip this morning for some reason. Landed on the speech at the Battle of Stirling. And you know, it's a remarkably short speech, but it turns the mood of the scene and the whole movie around 180 degrees.

If you read the speech in your head, and try and do it without hearing any music or pauses, it seems like an extremely short, effectless 7 sentences.

---

Wallace: I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do with that freedom? Will you fight?

Veteran soldier: Fight? Against that? No, we will run; and we will live.

Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!!!

Wallace and Soldiers: Alba gu bra! (Scotland forever!)

---

So why does it work so well?

One, story buildup. Randall Wallace did a great job of making this speech a turning point by building up the scenes of scottish resistance to this point. If William can't turn the army around, then their cause will end there. So our minds give the speech gravity, because we know it's an important moment.

Two, direction. Gibson is many things including a master filmmaker. He knows just where to put beats in a scene to make it effective. Just how to cut it. And since he was doing the acting himself, he knew just how to play the scene.

Three, and this is the most important, music. Steven Spielberg has said that music is 50% of the movie. And it's true. And there has not been a contemporary film composer that could top James Horner for emotional impact. Glory, Avatar, Field of Dreams, Legends of the Fall, Titanic. The man was a master at enhancing the feelings of screen story. His passing is a great loss to cinema. But at least we can enjoy his masterworks such as this for years to come.

And these three aspects really encapsulate the essence of film craft.