Lyrically meditative storytelling has always been a questionable method of getting things done in the plotting department, and one that has resulted in the tediously distancing downfall into mediocrity, if not contempt, of many a pretentious film of this type, but Malick has enough of a grip on artistically experimental storytelling to craft films that are genuinely good, which isn't to say that he has a snowball's chance of obscuring the natural flaws in lyrical storytelling of this nature that always, to some degree, ruin the potential impact of a drama, such as this one, whose intensely direct meditations upon the thematic weight that should be more supplementary to storytelling, rather than the primary focus of "story"telling, results in subtlety issues that make such cheesy storytelling areas as moderate melodrama all the more glaring, while leaving the characters whose overly personal spirituality is more at the forefront than more superficial and relatable humanity to come off as not too much more than mere components to storytelling, rather than the story itself. ![]() Terrence Malick's heavily lyrical and steadily meditative, almost naturalist type of artistic storytelling is certainly distinct, to say the least, but there are times, particularly in this film, in which Malick actually shuts narration up and makes attempts at more traditionalist, less dull storytelling, which would be nice at all if Malick's dancing back and forth between storytelling styles wasn't so awkward, to where jarring shifts from focused, properly structured plotting into the ultimately more prevalent abstract, meandering plodding spark an inconsistency in storyteller that is mighty offputting, much like the most recurring form of storytelling style itself. Don't get me wrong, this film is about as compelling as it can be, seeing as how it is so deliberately bland, but dullness, believe it or not, is hardly this film's only problem. Shoot, this film is still a whole lot better than "Days of Heaven", so I guess he's on the right path, now all he needs to do is keep the pretty stuff coming, but actually cut out the boring lyricism stuff and actually tell a story, or at least keep what story there is from succumbing to focal unevenness. Hey, it only took Malick seven years after "The Thin Red Line" to get this film out, rather than twenty, so either his films are getting a little less coma-inducing, or I'm just searching for some kind of sign that shows that Malick may actually make a film that is awesome one day. Yeah, I reckon it's safe to say that if Malick is going to be the new Stanley Kubrick, then he might want to pick up the pace, for although Kubrick was known to also experiment with stylish, lyrical and glacially paced limpers with little actual plot structuring, the main reason why he waited years, upon years, upon years to get a film out was because he was just cool like that, not necessarily because it took a couple of decades for his fans to wake up after seeing his previous effort. That being said, I like this snoozefest, because Terrance Malick sure knows how to make a punishingly slow, dizzyingly dry film good, even though you'll find yourself wanting more when you walk away, not necessarily from a Malick film, but from the nap or coma you're bound to slip into somewhere during this film. ![]() "A whole new world, a new fantastic point of view, no one to tell us no or where to go, or say we're only dreaming!" Oh no, wait, that's "Aladdin", and this is supposed to be "Pocahontas", but either way, the point is that we're not actually talking about a Disney film, as if you couldn't tell from the fact that Disney generally does films that are short and, well, entertaining.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |