Impermanence and a Ghost Story

David Lowery’s A Ghost Story

As a lover of film in the present moment we are constantly drudging through the convenient subjectivity of categorization to try and make sense of the state of the film industry. Originality is the desire of any great filmmaker and yet the measure of critical success often relies on comparisons to the influences and inspirations of each artist. I will take the side of Jim Jarmusch any day when discussing originality but I still think it’s unnecessarily applied to many new filmmakers as they begin their careers.

When David Lowery first entered the scene with Ain’t Them Bodies Saints he was immediately compared with Terrence Malick because of his poetic narration and gorgeous cinematography. In my opinion it’s unfair to compare him with Malick simply because it doesn’t give him his due for the originality of that film, though I can of course see the influence of the great director. As we have chronicled previously he was one of the many indie directors who were shifted from their smaller budget successes with the opportunity of a studio level venture with Pete’s Dragon which was made for $65 million and is near $150 million in worldwide box office revenue. By today’s studio standards this almost seems like a modest success which is incredible to think about. He managed to do this while creating a classic children’s film that was a completely original offering and wasn’t bogged down by trying to recreate the antiquated original which is a fate that has found many of the reboots studios are attempting.

This brings us to his newest offering A Ghost Story which is the story of the experience of M (Rooney Mara) after her lover C (Casey Affleck) is killed suddenly in a car wreck. C proceeds to ‘haunt’ the living world dressed in a bed sheet just like a classic child’s Halloween costume which could have been an opportunity for this narrative to come off as comical but yet it works splendidly. The film is a sentimental journey where we are both experiencing the grief and pain of loss through M, and the pain of being disconnected from a world you can never return to through C. 

In the theater I was a witness to one of those most profound and affecting experiences in my life as a lover of film. There is a protracted scene after the death of C where M sits on the floor of the kitchen eating a pie brought by their realtor and crying with very visible crystalline tears suspended briefly from her cheek before falling to the floor. There has always been great debates about scenes that challenge you in their length and silence, challenging you to live in the scene and truly experience it from the point of view of a character. I’m reminded of the Tarkovsky penned scenes in Solaris with the car leaving the city and Nostalghia with the candle that mean so much to the core of the film but are certainly difficult in their very nature. This scene is importantly lengthy and tense because it needs to set the tone for the grief that we have to face when dealing with death and loss. Once you started to feel the tension build in the room after this extended period of near silence and nothing but the sight of Rooney Mara gorging on a pie while crying, I started to hear the creak and moan of these worn theater seats as people began to shift in the weight of the moment. Then I noticed that I was literally surrounded by people crying in the most heart wrenching and honest way possible because of the sheer power and beauty of the moment. It’s not necessarily impressive in the reaction of those around me but in the seemingly open space that everyone was given to experience the power of those experiences. 

The score was powerful but spare and managed to create a layer of tension that doesn’t culminate until later in the film but also respected the minimal but important tone of humor in parts of the story. The cinematography was absolutely stunning and the writing was similarly impressive. Will Oldham’s philosophical speech is one of the most well written and executed I’ve seen in a modern film in a while. For all of the praise that Everybody Wants Some received, this speech took Willougby’s speech and politely schooled it behind the gymnasium before inviting it to listen to some records. 

I conclude with a similar message as the speech itself. Art is what we can leave behind because ideas can be proven wrong but art will never be proven wrong. As Will Oldham states, art can potentially live forever. As long as someone is there to whistle the 9th symphony, Beethoven will always exist. Ideas and beliefs can potentially be proven wrong, or fall out of favor, or simply become unprofitable, which is a death sentence in itself these days. If you create a great piece of art you have that chance to live forever. However, you then realize that what you created can still be at the same physical mercies as an idea or belief. The heat of the sun will consume the earth and so that which we create here has a shelf life as long as we do. However the pursuit of something lasting such as a great work of art that comes from your soul is as admirable as any act on this earth.

Just before dawn

Over two years now since my last post on this website and it’s a bit of a shock to see. Of course when I first created this conduit for my expression I wasn’t far from moving across the Atlantic to France for a spell and then beginning the journey to moving to New York City and of course all that comes with the city that never sleeps. So much has happened and been experienced and changed and realized and it’s an honor and blessing to reflect back on it now while looking toward a beautiful future.

One of my occupations over the past year was a series of goals I set for myself before I turned 30 in September and some I was proud to accomplish but most, like New Year’s resolutions and diet plans, weren’t quite as successful. Among those goals was to focus my different mediums into a product of each, like a book of poetry or a short film. I’m proud to say I’ve written my first book of poetry and have begun the transcription process from my journals and notebooks and then sharing the end product. In the meantime and with much more to come to catch up, here is a reflection of the past few years:

“Brooklyn” - July 26th, 2018

Pillowy columns of bright pink fire,
burst from the tops of Browstones
and broken street lamps.

The source of the fire burns underneath
In a clear, ochre line that rests like a halo
on another fire, that breathes out of the greatest city.

Bellowing in scattered bursts
of sweat, and tears, and “hustle”
Feeding off the natural resource that bleeds
out of alleys, bodegas and empty concert halls.

So many are doomed to a self placed stamp of failure,
Emblazoned in bright red ink on a weary forehead.
Without ever realizing,
that the only way to fail,
in this ephemeral playground on earth,

is to not try at all."

Love,

Leaves

Reflecting on The Birdcage for the Day of Silence

Twenty years ago we saw the first flip phone, Deep Blue became the first computer to beat a Grand Master at Chess, and the ‘Macarena’ was finally ending it’s reign of terror on the Billboard Charts and children’s birthday parties. It was also a trying time for the LGBT community and arguably the last major gasp of conservative actions to stifle the community in it’s march towards progress. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was two years old, and the Defense of Marriage Act was in it’s infancy. As homosexuality was becoming less taboo culturally, we were seeing an institutional shift in another direction which was discouraging but not altogether surprising when we look at polling of ideological allegiances from the time. It was a time when hiding who you were was more than just a defense mechanism but a necessity in many circles. A time where the LGBT lifestyle was still as alive as ever, but as frowned upon in more reserved groups than ever. In 1996 a film arrived that, on the surface, was just a comedy with a less conventional setting, but had a deeper message about the things we do to fit in, while at the same time celebrating the importance of being true to yourself. 

    By the time The Birdcage hit theaters the director, Mike Nichols, was a veteran of the industry. Known for hits like The Graduate, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Catch-22 he was a darling among filmmakers and unique talent whose unconventional take on American life was respected and revered. At the same time Robin Williams was at his peak as an actor having already given awards worthy turns in dramatic roles like The Fisher King and Dead Poets Society, while also becoming a house-hold name in children’s comedy with Aladdin, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Jumanji. Nathan Lane had already made his name on Broadway with a Tony nominated turn in Guys and Dolls and his first break into Hollywood with his unforgettable voice-acting role as Timon in the Lion King. With a host of other talented actors and actresses they brought us a film that was memorable and warm and truly human in its portrayal of the times.

    The Birdcage is based on the 1970’s French play and film La Cage Aux Folles and features a nearly identical story line of a Gay couple that own a night club with a drag theme, who find out that their very young son is marrying a girl with extremely conservative parents. It’s a perfect 90’s version of a Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner situation and laughs are sure to ensue. However, it’s not all frivolity in the case of this remake in that the patriarch of the ultra-conservative family is a prominent Republican Senator named Kevin Keeley, played exceptionally by Gene Hackman, who is a leader of the Coalition for Moral Order which is sort of like a Godfather to the modern Tea Party. Add to the twist his co-founder of the Coalition was just found dead with an underage Black prostitute and you’ve got a politician in very hot water eager to keep his image clean. 

    With such high stakes Armand (Robin Williams) is convinced by his son (Dan Futterman) to pretend to be straight and find a way to keep Armand’s life partner Albert (Nathan Lane) out of the house just for a night so they can convince these bastions of family values that their union is sacred long enough to receive their blessing. The film intelligently walks through many different topical issues in the form of wonderfully written dialogue between the characters on both sides which makes it a very prescient film that allows it to stand the test of time. The dialogue is so witty and sharp that you have to wonder if Tarantino and Woody Allen wrote it together over coffee in Miami. It is also important to mention that the Director of Photography on this film was a young Emmanuel Lubeszki, who we all know is coming off his thirdOscar win in a row for Cinematography, a first for the awards. The Birdcage also had the highest grossing opening weekend of a film with an openly gay lead character up to that point. This incredibly important for our theme of the Day of Silence when you consider that one of the leads in the film is an openly gay actor who at the time had not come out yet. 

    Personally, I was 8 years old when this film first screened and I ate up every minute of it. Did I understand the political statements, or have a real experience in the LGBT community? Of course not, I was only 8 years old. Did I recognize the beautiful love between Armand and Albert, the fear in the children’s eyes that their love is seen as taboo as well, and the difficulty of choosing to fit in or be who you are? Absolutely. I was lucky enough that I grew up with many family friends in the LGBT community so that when I saw this film, I wasn’t watching something taboo, I was just watching a love story about two people. Often times bigotry is created out of isolation. If you’ve never known someone who isn’t like you, it’s incredibly easy to dislike someone or their values. Maybe if I had not grown up with LGBT, black, female, muslim friends or any number of group that we section off in society, then it might have been easier for me to see these differences, but fortunately I just saw people as they are.

The importance of the Day of the Silence is to foster a community where silence doesn’t need to be a defense to shield who you are. In the film we have characters who have to put on a performance just to fit in with a traditional narrative, all because they love their family and want them to be happy. In the end, we all have to recognize who we truly are and not just accept that, but to celebrate it. In closing, I think it’s said best by Robin Williams’ character when he explains why he can’t get on board with this initial idea to create a false family to appease the epitome of the nuclear family:

“Yes, I wear foundation. Yes, I live with a man. Yes, I'm a middle- aged fag. But I know who I am, Val. It took me twenty years to get here, and I'm not gonna let some idiot senator destroy that.”

If there is anything that we can learn from this film, it’s that silence should never have to be an option. We are lucky that 20 years later silence has become more taboo than being yourself when it comes to the LGBT community, but we still have a long way to go. Sometimes it takes a cultural moment like a film to push people along. I’m just lucky that I found this film as young as I did, so that I could see the beauty in avoiding silence and revering clamor when you know what is right is right.

A Tale of Two Directors: The 1984 Cannes Film Festival

Cannes in the Evening

    In less than two months the core of the artistic family of film will descend upon the Cote D’Azure to join in the most prestigious film festival in the world. The relaxed attitude and beautiful scenery combine for an event that reveres not just the brilliant past of film, but the incredibly exciting future of it as well. In order to celebrate the moment and incite anticipation for this event I've chosen to focus on a particular year that saw the emergence of one of indie film's most exciting auteurs, while solidifying the career of one of film's most important directors and the kindred association between the two. I believe that in film, there is a grand family made up of the creators and the viewers that never ceases to give us some of the finest stories and experiences.

Jim Jarmusch

The story begins with Nicholas Ray who many fanatics of film remember as a bastion of Film Noir who was responsible for Rebel Without a Cause. In his final years he gained a rather unique student named Jim Jarmusch, a student who knew from the moment he began his education in film that he could never stick to the style most expected from Hollywood. Ray didn’t particularly approve of Jarmusch’s uncanny and dreamlike approach to film and when he was provided the script of Jarmusch’s thesis film he said it was too abstract and lacked proper action. This only spurred Jim to go back and make it even more devoid of action, much to the chagrin of Ray who would eventually approve as it showed that the young director was truly sovereign in his ways. The administration at New York University, on the other hand, were so disapproving of the final product that they decided not to award Mr. Jarmusch with a degree and so to this day we will always know him as an official film school dropout. 

Stranger Than Paradise

However, Ray then chose Jarmusch to be his personal assistant and asked him to be his accompaniment as he was filmed for the documentary about Ray's final days Lightning Over Water. This documentary was a film by Wim Wenders, another director who considered Ray to be a tremendous influence. Through the experience on set he came to respect and admire the young Jarmusch whom he took on as a mentee. Offering to supply the leftover film stock from his 1982 film Der Stand der Dinge he enabled Jarmusch to create the short film that eventually became the first third of the feature length Stranger than Paradise; a film about a European traveling to the United States in earnest from Hungary to start a new life and begins by visiting her cousin in New York who emigrated a decade earlier and had quickly assumed the lifestyle of a typical American. It is a beautiful film that looks at the American Dream and the power of perception and desire. This brings us back to our original theme of the 1984 Cannes Film Festival where Wim Wenders, a prominent German director traveling to the United States himself, showcases his love for the American West and the journey a lost man takes to reform his life and restart the family that he has broken up in his own unfortunate rage of jealousy.

Paris, Texas

Paris, Texas is a story of love, loss, and redemption that features incredible performances from Harry Dean Stanton, Dean Stockwell and Natassja Kinski, daughter of Klaus Kinski who is no stranger himself to the Cannes Film Festival. It features many moments of heartfelt beauty that make it a cinematic experience you will remember for years to come. I mention these two films because the 1980’s are sometimes derided as the ‘sandwich year’ in film in that it is stuck between two of the most successful decades of Cinema in the 1970’s and 1990’s. However, I think this was actually a more pivotal time in film than we often allow. When most of the film industry was starting to consolidate into the pursuit of Box Office dollars we had two directors who were searching for something original and it led to films that, we realize now, started the conversation about where independent film was heading. When Roger Ebert described Wim Wender’s film he remarked “Paris, Texas is a movie with the kind of passion and willingness to experiment that was more common fifteen years ago than it is now. It has more links with films like Five Easy Pieces and Easy Rider and Midnight Cowboy, than with the slick arcade games that are the box-office winners of the 1980s. It is true, deep, and brilliant.” 

Jim and Wim

    The great critics were yearning for this type of originality. Looking back we had two of the finest directors in modern times erecting the footing for a rejuvenation of independent film. This laid the foundation for a style of film that audiences have come to respect and enjoy in the years succeeding. I certainly don't mean to make it seem as though I’m implying that the Box Office winners this year were bad for film, after all this was the year that could be described as the year of the cult classic. Just look at some of the titles that arrived in 1984: Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Footloose, Beverly Hills Cop, This is Spinal Tap, Gremlins, The NeverEnding Story, Sixteen Candles, The Terminator and even Prince’s Purple Rain.

Wim Wender's hands outside the Palais des Festivals et des Congrès.

You can argue that it was a great year for films that saw Box Office success, but was surely a pivotal point in Independent Film and showed that America was on the verge of it’s own New Wave resurgence. Returning to Roger Ebert, he said in his assessment of Stranger Than Paradise that it “Is like no other film you've seen, and yet you feel right at home in it.” He feels right at home because indeed the great generation of 70’s, and before, was not dead, it was just merely finding a new host. In 1984 Paris, Texas won the Palm D’Or at Cannes to signify the most impressive film of the entire festival and Stranger than Paradise took home the Camera D’Or celebrating the best first feature film of a new director. This was symbolic as not just the rewarding of two great directors, but a trumpets call to film lovers. Cinema was not hibernating for a decade, but instead building the bedrock for a generation of great filmmakers that would continue to revolutionize the exquisite and delightful art form of film for many years.

Top 10 of 2015

Oh what a beautiful time of year!

The Oscars are as much a time for the celebration of film and screen performance as they are for divisiveness and vitriol. This year is no different with many a controversy, and few a cogent discussion in the typical forums of Twitter and Facebook, but it makes it all the more exciting because people who might normally not talk about film do and that's what it is all about. We can gripe all we want to about who should and should not have won but at the end of the day there are so many moments that we will never forget and I plan to post as many YouTube clips as allowed by law on Sunday. With that in mind I wanted to share my Top 10 of 2015 as well as a few honorable mentions from this year that didn't quite make the list but were worth seeing nonetheless.

Top 10 of 2015

Carol

I wrestled with the 1 and 2 spots constantly, because at the end of the day the real question is: Do you make a Top 10 list based on the ‘Best’ movie of the year regarding all objective qualities and subjective qualities combined, or do you simply give your 10 favorite films of the year? At the end of the day I chose to write about my 10 favorite films which is why Carol is my favorite film of the year, and not the Revenant which I think hits across all points, both subjective and objective to make it the ‘Best’ film of the year. Carol is a film that I will not soon forget, nor soon forget to rewatch over and over. The direction by Todd Haynes, the acting by Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett, the Cinematography by Ed Lachman (with the impeccable choice to shoot with 16mm film to mimic the time period) and a great score by Carter Burwell made this film an absolute treat. However, it’s the passionate story of a forbidden love and a choice, to not be ugly, because ‘We’re not ugly people,’ to quote our lead, but allow love to be. If you focus on the eye contact between these two great actresses it is nearly impossible not to melt under the heat of the light they cast in their desire and reverence of each other. The film is succinct, and compact, and easy enough to show in any forum, and one I hope to suggest to many others in the future. 10/10

2. The Revenant

As I mentioned previously, I had to make the decision between the objective view of a film mixed with subjective regards, and choose between what I felt was my favorite film of the year, and the ‘best’ film of the year. The Revenant, for all intents and purposes, is the best film of the year. Most of the discussion around the film has, unfortunately, been created by its detractors around the supposed narrative created in the sensationalistic swamp of twitterdom that it has only received acclaim because of it’s production and because of the, perhaps inevitable, awarding of an Oscar to Leonardo DiCaprio purely because of his desert of such an award after many ‘snubs’. I think this is an unfair distraction from a truly remarkable film that manages to hit all marks on every aspect of the film itself including impeccable direction, acting, cinematography and score (even if the Academy has invalidated it). I was riveted, kept on my seat until the final minutes, and I genuinely felt the emotion that Iñaritu meant to convey with the film. He said going into it that Tarkovsky was one of his biggest influences in making The Revenant and when I finally viewed it I could see the admiration he feels towards this often forgotten genius of film. It seeks not to explain to the audience, but rather to allow the images to evoke emotion, and that creates the tension that exists throughout all 156 minutes. No matter who will win on Sunday, something has already been won in the hearts of those who hold dear the traditions of great filmmaking, and care for craft. 10/10

3. The Salt of the Earth

I’m a sucker for a fictional narrative, I have to admit, when choosing my favorites of the year but documentaries tend to possess an ability to convey a message that only can be created from the truth. In this film we have an almost bare bones structure consisting of Wim Wenders allowing Sebastiao Salgado to show his many photographs over the years, and comment on the experience of risking his life and limb to capture images of some of the most horrible moments in human history. He goes from showing the visions that we all too easily forget in Africa and South America to the ones that dominated our TV screens when I was in elementary school in the former Yugoslavia. It’s particularly haunting for me when he shows how these events are not just relegated to the third world that we only read about in newspapers, but modern first world societies who forget to ask the important questions of their leaders and pay the consequences. As is alluded to in the original definition of Photography that he ‘draws with light’ and the images that are drawn will never be forgotten by me. This will be a centerpiece of my life as long as I live. 10/10

4. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

Now that the heavy hitters are out of the way we reach the first film in my favorites that has any sort of perceivable flaw, but a film that hits so close to my heart. At it’s core it is about youth and the desire to be accepted, whilst coming to grips with your own inimitable differences. Most of the detractors of this film found that they just couldn’t like the main character and, really, that’s the point. He’s selfish, shortsighted and he doesn’t realize the value in his life until it is in it’s final throes. The reason why it’s so high up in my list is not just because of it’s story but also because the craft of the director in using great imagery and music to convey a relatable story that remarks on some of the most important aspects of life: discovery, loss and acceptance. 9/10

5. Inside Out

This is one of those films that I will set aside to show my children and should be required viewing of any youth as it speaks to the most important part of your youth which is to look within and ascend. We are all so imperfect when we are young, but also in many ways more perfect than our older selves because we can look at things with an open, impressionable eye. Even as an adult I found myself gleaning much from this story and in general it was hilarious, yet sad, and enjoyable from start to finish. 9/10

6. Spotlight

This is one of those films where after you see it in the theater you can barely move from your seat for many moments afterward. The direction and choice to focus on a realistic depiction of the victims and advocates in this story make it almost more of a documentary than a typical film that we might see in the race for Best Picture. There wasn’t a facetious performance in the bunch and if the Best Actor award was given solely on moments then I think Mark Ruffalo would have my vote for a speech that caused someone to start cutting onions in the theater (the staff never caught them, unfortunately). I should admit upfront that I am a sucker for any narrative that involves my birthplace of Boston and if this wins Best Picture over the Revenant, or the Big Short, I will be incredibly pleased. 8.5/10

7. Mistress America

This is for me the best Comedy of the year and featured another perfect Noah Baumbach and Greta Garwig script that speaks to the soul of my age group, and New York. There’s only so much to say without betraying what should be seen with your own eyes. It’s a fun movie that serves as an existential sequel to Frances Ha and can be recommended to anyone. 8/10

8. Slow West

I love a good Western. If you feel the same way, it is absolutely worth the time to see this film and I would take a big leap and say I think you would enjoy it greatly. This is a truly modern take on a Western and uses gorgeous cinematography and eccentric characters to give a compact, enjoyable, film that is easy to watch over and over. It features our first character in a Western with a Fozzy bear coat since McCabe & Mrs Miller as well, so there’s that. It is not light fare, despite what you may think from a first viewing of a trailer. It follows in a glorious tradition of those before it to show the roughest sides of the West in a cinematic fashion (the literal pouring of salt into one’s wounds? Whew). 8/10

9. Ex Machina

Great Science Fiction films ask questions, and the greatest try to answer them as best as they can without leaning too much on the unknown. Ex Machina was another wonderfully lensed film and easy enough to enjoy for even those who don’t care for Sci-Fi very much. My only criticism, if only to explain it’s place near the bottom of my list, is that it didn’t ask the questions that I was asking the whole time, only a few of them. At the end of the day, it’s a trivial matter because it was a great film and one that I think any Sci-Fi fan would enjoy and Oscar Isaac and Alicia Vikander give incredible performances. 7.5/10

10. Mad Max: Fury Road

This is a film that should never go to DVD and instead stay in theaters for a year or more. It really is meant for the big screen and as far as theater experiences it’s a true joy. It’s colorful, eccentric, exciting and inventive. It is meant more to be a visual treat and not rely on any sort of enlightening story about human nature, although any follower of the series is quick to mention the importance of discussing a world where petroleum and water are the only official currencies. It’s a movie I’d love to see again but I’m reticent to attempt to relive an experience on the screen of my laptop that should be enjoyed on a 60 foot screen. 7.5/10

My honorable mentions for the year:

-Meru 

-The End of the Tour

-The Hateful Eight

-Trumbo

-Star Wars: The Force Awakens

-The World of Tomorrow (best short film of the year!)

Nature and Grace - a Letter to a young Cinephile on Malick's "The Tree of Life"

John,

Easily one of the most divisive films in popular culture in the past decade, opinions of “The Tree of Life” range from the opinion that it is an absolute masterpiece, and others who simply found it inaccessible and even boring. I think that this is a difference you can also find among many of the main agents of artistic expression in film. There are those who want a formula that consists of a normal plot, beginning, middle and end, and no more than 2 hours. There is also the tradition of Godard, Malick, Bergman, Kurosawa and many others who seek to create a certain atmosphere in their films. I like a simple, straightforward narrative as much as anyone else, and I don’t think it diminishes a film in any way to follow this structure and indeed many of the films I hold so dear in my heart owe themselves to such a structure. However, what interests me most as filmmaker, and as a member of an audience, is the ability to create reality and truth using this fine medium we have in film.

In “The Tree Of Life” Jessica Chastain's character says that the nuns in her youth taught her that there are two ways through life. There is the way of nature and the way of Grace. The way I interpret that in the film is that the father character (played by Brad Pitt) is the representation of Nature and that the mother (played by Jessica Chastain) is Grace. The way that Malick presented it, in my opinion, is that we should choose Grace over nature because nature is inherently animalistic and flawed because it only seeks to serve itself. Grace on the other hand is a force of forgiveness, love, and peace. We first see this in the scene when the father leaves town for work and the children parade around the house mocking him directly and exhibiting pure freedom while the beautiful piano of 'Les Barricades Mistérieuses' plays and eventually even the mother joins in. Perhaps Malick is saying that nature oppresses the spirit inside us and our animal instincts are the only things keeping us from being a more pure being. One of my favorite quotations is "The only difference between God and Man is that God knows he is Divine.'

Arguably the only difference between human beings and every other living creature on earth is the capacity for rational thought. Perhaps this gift was given as a test? We first have the choice to focus on our own wellbeing for the point of survival. After all the goal of all living beings biologically is to survive long enough to reproduce. Or we have the choice to break that bond and try and lift up everyone around us? These are the questions that have plagued humanity since the dawn of thought and I think it's completely apt that these are the questions that Malick asks in all of his films. The reason why I love Malick so much is that he has found a way to speak directly to my soul, to all of the questions that I've asked since I was a boy.

When my first draft of this essay was posted for feedback, a commentator offered a very important view on this question. The father character, Mr. O’Brien, treats his children in this way because he sees this as the only way to ensure that his sons have a good and successful life. He has been on the losing end of a court case that sees his life’s work end up in the hands of another man and he worries that his sons could fall victim to a similar fate. So the commentator asks: Is he really so much a representation of bad or is it more of a situation of a different perspective with pure intentions?

I think that Duality is just as much a given in life as Death or Taxes in that we can never expect to have a world of pure good, or pure evil. If we didn’t live through strife, how could we appreciate prosperity? If we didn’t survive the bad days, would we relish the good as much? Surely we’ve all had the experience of a relationship where someone felt that the only way to teach you was to push you to your absolute limit and along the way unknowingly degrade you in some fashion. It’s easy to lash out, and I certainly have that initial response myself, but perhaps it’s worth taking a step back and respecting their intentions to make you better. This is where you find the paradox in the characters and their representations of nature and Grace, although I think it’s fair to say that even in respecting Duality there is one path that may speak more to each person, and for me it is the path of Grace.

Now to move on to your question about the aesthetics of his films. Many critics, casual filmgoers and lovers of film alike will still criticize Malick for what they feel is a lack of content. This is because in his films the dialogue may only take up a fraction of the film and instead he uses beautiful imagery to create an atmosphere to allow sights to speak directly to your own personal experiences. Although many people find similar themes in his films, almost everyone will inevitably see a different film because it's going to be related to your own personal experiences. In the screenplay for The Tree of Life there is a statement at the beginning:

“The “I” who speaks in this story is not the author. Rather, he hopes that you might see yourself in this “I” and understand this story as your own."

You are correct in that this is a very personal film, in that he grew up in a similar part of Texas with a similar family structure and his brother even broke his own hands under the pressure of learning classical guitar under Segovia and then eventually committed suicide which you can see in Jack's brother in the film. Some reports say that Malick is a Christian and the actors close to him have said he's more spiritual than anything and I think that part of the reason why he's so reclusive and doesn't give up that information easily is because he doesn't want to inform people, or even merely guide them, he just wants them to see the cinema in themselves. I mentioned Tarkovsky early on in this essay and I think he is the closest director to Malick in both their styles and substance. Tarkovsky seemingly tried so hard to avoid explaining things to his audience. He avoided the traditional narrative of a beginning, middle and end in that order because in life we often live within our own memories while wrestling with the present and hoping for a certain future in our dreams. With that in mind you may start your day with the future, reminisce in the past and then end your day finally living in the present. This is most evident in his spectacular film The Mirror which plays like an auto-biographical dream which jumps from his adolescence to adulthood seamlessly. He doesn’t want you to remember his story after finishing the film, but instead to illuminate your own story. You mentioned that in your early study you are looking for more examples of filmmakers like Malick and I think that Tarkovsky is a perfect segue into this type of filmmaking and art in general. With that I leave you with a quotation from the man himself that I think sums it up perfectly:

“Never try to convey your idea to the audience - it is a thankless and senseless task. Show them life, and they’ll find within themselves the means to assess and appreciate it.” 

Andrei Tarkovsky (4/4/32 - 12/29/86)

Sincerely,

Andrew Liebelt