quick responses

Chris, you already know all this because I’ve told you before, so I’ll just repeat for anyone else interested. I agree with everything on The Thin Red Line. Obviously an incredible film and a masterpiece. I wrote a ten page paper (like my SNY paper) on this one that I have unfortunately lost. I’d really like to read it again and see what 19 year old Jeff thought of the film. Blue and Red are two undeniable masterpieces. I’d say the greatest films of the 90s. They bookend one of the finest trilogies ever forged. White can’t compare to the dramatic density and haunting beauty of its counterparts, but it is still a terrific film and a great middle chapter to lighten things up in the overall arch of the trilogy. Still, I can’t blame you for thinking it can’t hold up to the other two.

Has anyone else seen The Three Colors Trilogy or The Decalogue? I think they are masterpieces of the highest order. Kieslowski was a complete master and genius. I rate him very highly.

Heavyweights is one of the movies from our childhood that we loved that still holds up well and cracks me up. Who cares what anyone says, it is and shall always be hilarious. The 90s may be fraught with a lot of shit, but it is still OUR decade and I love it for all its memories.

In response to Joel’s post,

“I think the film itself may be best example of the ways of grace and nature coming together to produce something meaningful and beautiful”

I totally agree, for what it’s worth. I think the examples of shots Joel gives for the productive coming together of nature and grace are very well pointed out. I’d have to see the film again before I could come up with more myself and feel comfortable about it but those are very fine examples. I definitely agree that nature and grace are two mingling currents flowing throughout the film and that Malick seems to be trying to reconcile the two. I don’t think he wants to come down definitively either way. And I think what is interesting is that if the film is about nature and grace shaping everything, the film opens with the immediacy of nature and we wonder where grace is. One of the O’Brien children is dead–a horrible act of nature, and then we are shown the development of a potentially graceless, indifferent natural universe. It is only at the conclusion of the film that we are reconciled to God’s grace. Until then, we wonder where this divine grace is.

I’ve said this before, but I stand by this– I think the film is depicting a world being shaped by nature and the grace that will someday save it. It's a pretty beautiful and loving sentiment. One I wish I could share with Malick. I'm still stuck in the first act wondering where the fuck this grace thing is.

Great thoughts Joel!

I really need to see TOL again.

John, I watched Intolerable Cruelty with my mom several years back. We both were laughing and having a great time with it. I’d have to watch it again, but from what I remember it was a deft throwback to classic screwball comedy. The Coens are great like that.

Can’t wait for your M. and Rules of the Game thoughts.

Brandon, thanks for your comments on the 30s post. They were fantastic to read and I’m with you entirely. I especially loved your comments on Renoir. I think you captured his finest qualities perfectly. If you watch Rules of the Game again, I’d certainly be down for interacting more with it.
I don’t understand the Lean detractors either. I love his films.

All right, I’m kinda tired of writing. I’ll post about Boonme and another little film called Certified Copy later tonight. I can finally interact with those post you made about both back in April, Brandon!