Can't help being a pussy

(I wrote a lot of this before your latest post Brandon, but I have read it and I will say that this:

TREE OF LIFE Nutrition Facts:
Cinematography 55% of your suggested daily diet
Story 10%
Acting/Performances 50%

Transformers Nutrition Facts:
Fat 100%
Cholesterol 100%
Sodium 100%
Unnecessary Action 100%
Flashy Editing 100%

made me smile from ear to ear. Fucking awesome!)

Lisa, I’m glad there were no hard feelings. I really wasn’t trying to be bullish, just defending my cause. It seemed like I really pissed you off, so I am still sorry for that. John, as Brandon has aptly stated on more than one occasions, I am a pussy and will always apologize anytime I upset someone. I can’t help it.

John said everything I wanted to say in response to some of Lisa’s points, and he said it better than I ever could. I still really like some of the points he was going on and would like to elaborate on them for my own pleasure. Also, John, I think the beard has helped me write clearly and being out of school has helped too. It’s nice to actually have the time to sit down and write while carefully weighing my thoughts. As soon as school starts again, I’ll go back to my usual vapid self. Don’t you worry. I’m still right about Midnight in Paris though.

Lisa, I definitely don’t think that John or I were trying to kill all debate, to shut you up, or to say like the film or you’re an idiot. We were trying to engage in debate with you because you wrote some great things that were conducive for a debate. We like to debate about movies here-hence our very contentious (but also playful) debate on Midnight in Paris.

Lisa you are completely allowed to ask questions. I knew that’s what you were doing with your first post. John and I just gave you our answers to those questions. You asked the questions, did you really not expect us to respond to them? Your first post was terrific because it made arguments and raised questions. It allowed John and I to respond to both. For instance, I said the film was the most important of the year. Then you wrote back questioning this claim. I then proceeded to defend my claim in more depth. We were engaging in a debate, I thought. I wasn’t trying to kill the debate. I was hoping you’d come back with something to one up me!

Seriously, Lisa, we love you here. I know we are all thankful to get your unique perspective about things. You questioning things gives us the ability to write responses. So thank you.

Now I just want to write more about Malick because how often do I get the chance to?

First, I just want to write more about the importance of challenging or unusual art because I just think it’s something that’s worth defending. This isn’t directed at anyone personal. It’s just a general reflection on how I feel about Malick and art. I will use literary references just for the sake of my own clarity, not to be pedantic.

I tend to be defensive of challenging art when I think it actually has real depth to it. I constantly hear people criticize things they think are challenging just for the fact that they are challenging. That’s been my life.

I deal with this idea a lot as an English major. As soon as literary theory comes up, poststructural philosophy follows. Many of my peers question the writing styles of guys like Foucault or Deleuze and then call them terrible for being so hard to understand. Why can’t they just write simply? Why does it need to be so seemingly convoluted? I often ask myself these questions, especially afer a couple of hours of grappling with them and wanting to smash my head into a wall. I find them to be unbelievably challenging but also just as unbelievably rewarding. Once you get over the abstruseness, you start to see a method to the madness. I think Deleuze just might be the most important philosopher of the 20th century. Many people wouldn’t agree with that assessment and that’s fine. If any of you have ever read Deleuze (whether you hate or love him) you know that his writing is very difficult and oftentimes inaccessible. I thought it was gibberish at first. Then I started to realize that he was using his form to communicate his content. He was writing against common sense and every idea you ever had about how philosophy should be written or read. He was writing against everything you thought you knew as true or safe. I still don’t understand most of Deleuze, but I appreciate and love him for challenging me to not be so complacent or stable with my adherence to traditional structures.

The Tree of Life challenged my adherence to traditional structures of storytelling and I loved it for it because I thought it executed it’s own way of storytelling perfectly. To me, it was a beautiful symphony.

(Now I’m going to mention Faulkner and I don’t bring up his name to make any of you feel like you’re stupid if you don’t like him. If anyone here is a fan though, I’ll love you forever.) To me, there’s nothing greater in the world then sitting down and grappling with a Faulkner novel. They are incredibly beautiful but also as challenging as anything I’ve ever read. They just aren’t written the way other novels are. They have a way of communicating that is uniquely and entirely their own thing. Most people find them inaccessible, but that doesn’t make them pretentious hogwash to me. No one really gave a shit about Faulkner during his lifetime, at least not until he won the Nobel Prize. If Faulkner didn’t really have a big audience, am I upset by this? No because I realize that he wasn’t writing for other people. He wrote because he felt like he had to and he wrote in a way that he thought was honest. To me, he’s someone who was committed to Literature as a form of artistic expression. He cared more about the medium itself than making money or reaching the largest number of people. To me, that’s genuine.

Malick to me is like that. I don’t think he’s pretentious at all. Pretentious means you are actively trying to impress people by pretending there is more to something than there actually is. If Malick is more interested in telling something in a way that is dear to him, that he finds honest and true, than telling something that will be true for a million people, how is he pretentious? I think that’s someone who is sincere about their art.

There are some great directors who are pretentious as hell. I can totally see that criticism. I don’t think Malick is one of them. I’m not just glossing over him because I love him. There are directors that I really really adore that are often pretentious and I’ll admit that about them.

Malick’s way of telling a story in The Tree of Life is challenging and unusual. I don’t think it’s a fault though. I think its just a different way to tell a story, and I appreciate it’s vision and the fact that it makes me work or that it challenges me. I wouldn’t want to watch a hundred movies like the Tree of Life, but when something like it does come along, I’m ready to dig in.

But, I can still also completely appreciate something that is told plainly and told well.
I lot of older films are very clearly told. The first film that pops into my head is Double Indemnity. I think that film clearly and effective communicates itself while also leaving room open for interpretation. It’s lucidly structured so that one scene follows from the next and every shot propels the narrative forward. Great, effective, intelligible filmmaking. I can totally appreciate it for that.

I can also appreciate a movie that is just badass like Terminator 2 or something.

Now, Lisa and Brandon, you both mentioned a distaste for an excessive adherence to directors.
I agree that being unwavering in anything is not helpful, but can’t you adhere to directors just because you love them and not because you are an intransigent snob?

I’ll use a music reference here to make my point. I love the Beatles. I know that both you do too. I’ve seriously reached the point in my Beatles love that I adore every single song they ever wrote. I can listen to and enjoy them all because I think they all have something that is worth enjoying in them. That doesn’t mean I can’t hear a discussion on why certain Beatles’ songs suck. But I would still defend my love for their songs against this.

Terry Malick isn’t the Beatles of filmmaking, but he has made films that I all consider masterworks. I love all his films because he’s always working at the top of his game and there is always something of value in them. The Beatles seriously were this way with music.

I only bring this up because I would argue that adhering to Malick comes from a place of genuine appreciation for him as an artist And just like the Beatles, can’t I love him for the way his films sound, feel, look, and make me contemplate and feel? I don’t think I’m being delusional about him. He’s seriously been consistently great throughout his career.

(“If I love the author I am going to be able to find value in even the least of his/her efforts. It’s a curse dude.”–this is spot on to what I’m saying!)

I do have to ask this of you Lisa and it isn’t meant to be bullish or snobby. I’m really just defending myself here. I would ask this, how come when John and I defend Malick or the Tree of Life we are automatically assumed to be snobs stubbornly defending a director while simultaneously preventing any discussion on him and drawing a line in the sand saying, “you have to like this film or you are stupid”? But, if Brandon questions the film like you he is praised! Grrrr...haha. You are absolutely free to praise Brandon (he’s very lovable), but why did John and I get written off as fanboys unwilling to enter debate?

I just say this because I really really loved The Tree of Life. Can’t I love it without just being a bullheaded follower of Malick? (not directed at you Lisa but anyone who thinks I’m just sticking by my man Malick because his name is Malick) He made a great film that I couldn’t have asked more of. All of his films are like that. He just perfectly encapsulates everything I’d want in a film and he always does it masterfully. If he puts out a bad film that doesn’t connect with me the way his others do, I’ll be the first to call him out on it. Until that time, I’m just going to continue to defend him because I’m so amazed by his consistency as a filmmaker. Brandon, I know you think there’s point in a lot of his films where you can’t follow him fully. For me, he’s made very few missteps and even if they were missteps, I loved where they took me.

Also, Brandon, I disagree about the emotion in the film. You said. “I think he’s just telling his story without caring whether it resonates within us or not. This is cinematic venting.” I agree that it is cinematic venting, but the fact that it doesn’t supply you with emotions or cue in where to be emotional, it allows you to bring your own emotions. If you don’t want to bring them you don’t have to. If you want to, you will. I wanted to bring them to it and I did. Malick presents images like a field of sunflowers for you to look at or a human face in anguish. They aren’t telling you to be emotional. You feel something for both images if you want to. It’s the beauty of a simple image. It has absolutely no intrinsic meaning or value in itself but it is imbibed with meaning by humans. You bring the meaning/feeling you want to it.

Okay...I’ll write more soon. I gotta stop now.