Showing posts with label Terrence Malick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrence Malick. Show all posts

Friday, July 13, 2012

DAYS OF HEAVEN: CHECKIN' OUT THE GROUND UNDERNEATH



As I mentioned some time ago, Terrence Malick's 1978 film Days of Heaven is pretty close to my favorite film of all-time.  For me, it's one of those films that never gets old, each subsequent viewing yielding new discoveries.  

The film begins a one-week engagement at the Laurelhurst Theater today.  It's really something that needs to be seen on the big screen at least once.  I've decided to share an essay that I wrote about Days of Heaven some seven years ago for a film class.  Looking it over again, it's very much, for better or worse, a snapshot of where I was as a writer back then.  

If you haven't seen the film, you probably shouldn't read the essay, since it's more analysis driven than review-based, so, yeah, there are SPOILERS.  Here we go:




Terrence Malick’s Days of Heaven is a testament to an acuity of vision rarely seen in modern cinema. The film is a period piece that transcends its time and setting to paint with broad strokes whose trajectories can be read and applied universally to any era.

After opening with a collage of vintage pictures intended to apply setting for the action, we meet Abby and Bill who are both working difficult jobs in what appear to be less than safe environs.  Bill, who is shoveling coal, has an argument with his foreman that ends in violence.  He flees the scene, his job undoubtedly terminated.  Linda, a girl first seen in a still image at the opening of the film, is revealed as our narrator and Bill’s younger sister.  Also made clear is the relationship between Abby and Bill.  They are lovers, though Linda tells us “they told everybody they were brother and sister”.




One of the themes with which Malick deals here is the plight of the unskilled worker in America.  The disparity of wealth between the farmhands and the farmer is so pronounced that the issue of abusive power gained through economic gluttony becomes obvious very early.  The film understands that applied capitalism requires an underclass to exist, one that does not reap rewards or benefit from the system.  The farmhands are mostly seen laboring in the fields.  Linda tells us, “come the time the sun went up ‘til it went down, they was workin’ all the time. You didn’t work, they’d ship you right outta there.  They don’t need ya.  They can always get somebody else”.

When Abby is docked pay and Bill is threatened with the loss of employment for questioning the decision, we see just how trapped the workers are by the class-based system their world presents.  The farmhands don’t just work in the fields; they live there too.  We see them cooking in the fields, huddling together for warmth.  The lone structure on the horizon is the farmer’s house.  A modern edifice equipped with electricity, it contains more rooms that the single farmer could possibly require for himself.  And yet, when it begins to snow, Abby and Bill have to cover themselves in straw to compensate for the lack of a roof over their head.  To further distance the farmer’s economic standing from that of his laborers, we’re given access to him lounging outdoors on a couch, vacantly admiring his hat, as the farm foreman crunches numbers revealing the harvest to be the most profitable ever.  All the while the sounds of work carry over from the fields.




The film’s structure is a unique synthesis resulting from the simultaneous adherence to and rejection of traditional narrative-based cinema.  The emphasis on the visual element of the film heightens our awareness that the story is being drawn from memory.  That our narrator is a young girl allows us to accept the abstractions and playfulness of youthful misunderstanding that naturally occur as she relays her story.  Whereas a grown narrator might have insight concerning the complexities of adult relationships, Linda’s worldview boils everything down to the sparest of details.  In her mind, life is hard but there’s always the possibility of overcoming it all, becoming a mud doctor and “checkin’ out the ground underneath".  The film does create a decipherable world with characters that make choices, have conflict and, as a result, are handed consequences for those actions.  It even draws from classic literature for its major story arc, but more on that later.

Abby and Bill, thrust into lean times and situations, are characters ripe for the exploration of moral imbalance.  While it’s easy to identify the types they embody, it’s the lines that are crossed that eventually define them.   Early on, Linda explains the reason for the brother/sister story.  She says, “My brother didn’t want anybody to know.  You know how people are…you tell them somethin’ they start talkin’”.  The lie, and the need to protect it, weighs heavily on both of them.  When another worker asks Bill if his sister keeps him warm at night, Bill reacts violently.  On several occasions, Abby tells Bill to conceal his affections because people are watching.




The couple’s moral fortitude is most notably challenged when the farmer develops an interest in Abby.  The harvest season near its end, the farmer asks her to stay on with him.  Bill, in the act of stealing medical supplies for a wound Abby sustained in the fields, overhears his employer being given a year to live by the physician.  Knowing this, Bill views the farmer’s advances as opportunity rather than competition.  In a plot development borrowed from Henry James’ “Wings of the Dove”, he encourages Abby to tell him she’ll stay.  Since Malick reversed the gender roles of James’ tale, Bill can be viewed as more than merely opportunistic—he’s become a sort of pimp.  In the same manner in which he justified lying about their relationship, Bill tries to rationalize his proposition.  Perhaps unable to fully embrace every aspect of the plan for himself, he implies that part of his motivation derives from the other farmhands looking at her ass like she’s a whore.  Despite his excuses, he’s aware that no justification will diminish the essential wrong of what he’s suggesting.





In the end, the film judges them all.  The farmer, his growing suspicion and jealousy represented by the feverishly churning weather vane atop his house, finally observes Abby and Bill in one too many affectionate moments.  Everything comes to a head when, in a sequence that smacks of divine retribution; locusts descend on the wheat fields.  While the workers try to smoke the insects out of the fields, the farmer attacks Bill.  He inadvertently lights a wagon on fire that sets the fields ablaze.  When the farmhands try to put it out, he screams, “let it burn!”  Consumed in fire, the field becomes hell on earth, confirming Linda’s earlier suspicion that “the devil was on the farm”.  It all catches up with them. Bill, in self-defense, fatally stabs the farmer.  The farm foreman and local law enforcement chase Bill down and kill him.  Abby has to endure the loss of both the men in her life.  And Linda? She’s forced to witness the judgment falling upon them.





With a look and emotional space all its own, Days of Heaven dances around the average testifying to the unique vision of its director.  Achieving clarity and identification within impressionistic borders, Malick has given us a gift not easily digested or forgotten.





Days of Heaven runs for one-week-only at the Laurelhurst Theater beginning Friday, July 13th.  More info available here.

Remember to find and "like" us on our Facebook page.
Subscribe to the blog's feed here.


Friday, June 22, 2012

IN THE FAMILY: THIS FILM BREATHES



If you see enough movies, you quickly become accustomed to the particular rhythms and stylistic flourishes associated with various genres and levels of production.  It gets to the point where, whether you're headed into a summer blockbuster, the latest indie hit or a made-for-export foreign flick, you can probably reasonably predict the form that the film will inhabit.  This isn't a criticism of what some might term cookie-cutter cinema; it's just an observation.  These conventions exist and are used widely because they're time-tested, work well and help filmmakers engage the audience in a story without having to reinvent the wheel with each new project.




All of which is a means of introducing the level to which Patrick Wang's In the Family upends one's expectations of how low-budget indie fare should operate.  Most indie films try to obscure their lack of means via quick, clever editing schemes that build excitement belying budgetary constraints.  In the Family goes almost the complete opposite route.  This is a shockingly, slowly-paced movie.

To be clear, the film isn't slow in the vein of a Tarkovsky or Malick, where transcendence is imparted to the audience via glacially measured beats matched with technical brilliance.  Instead, Wang fills every scene with the potential for reality to be reflected in the moment; basically, In the Family breathes more than any film I've seen in a very long time.




Those readers who have seen Steve McQueen's Hunger may recall the long sequence where Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender) and a prison priest (Rory Mullen) discuss the political and philosophical angles of Sands' hunger strike; it's an extended display of acting ability, one that seems to last forever without a cut.  In the Family feels like the three-hour version of that scene. It lives in the moment being presented, always.  And, as a result, it soars without relying on cheap tricks or diversionary tactics.  It's a film that leans hard on the writing and performances; there's really little else to the film, both of which are superbly focused and marvelous to behold.  Yes, it's a patiently-moving, long film but, make no mistake, every minute vibrates with a quiet, resonant beauty.





The story itself is simple:  a man's (Wang) life partner (Trevor St. John) passes away and, due to an outdated will, his custody of their son (Sebastian Banes) is called into question.  What's far more complex is the overall impression one gets while watching the film.  To view In the Family is to witness the birth of a new and authentic voice in American cinema.  Wang's work, both in front of and behind the camera, is impressively self-assured, especially given that it's his first time as a director and, as the lead, he's front and center for much of the three-hour running time.  This is an astoundingly great film, easily one of the ten best I've seen all year.







In the Family begins its run at Cinema 21 on Friday, June 22nd.  Director Patrick Wang will be in attendance for the 7pm screening on the 22nd and the 3:30pm and 7pm showings on the 23rd.  More info available here.


Remember to find and "like" us on our Facebook page.
Subscribe to the blog's feed here.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Best of 2011: The Top 5


#5 How to Die in Oregon (dir. Peter Richardson):

A brave, even-handed look at Oregon's Death with Dignity act.  Rather than dwell on the law itself, Richardson goes directly to those who are affected by its provisions.

Hit the link to read what I had to say about it back in February.




#4 The Tree of Life (dir. Terrence Malick):

Terrence Malick's newest vision split audiences wildly, some lapping it up while other viewers chose to turn their backs on it entirely. To be sure, this isn't your average, run of the mill entertainment, reduced to explainable phenomena and wrapped up with a tidy, little moralistic bow at its close; Malick is grappling with large philosophical issues, the answers to which are unreachable by any artistic medium.

Religion, science, special effects, personal mythology and the mysteries of connectivity are all employed but meaning is left to the viewer to discern. To some, this puzzle felt like homework. To others, a visually rich gift.





#3 Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (dir. Apichatpong Weerasethakul):

A farmer dying of kidney failure is visited by long departed family members and a series of memories/visions reaching back to before he was born. Weerasethakul breathes new life into the cinema with this trance-inducing, experiential work that defies literal explanations.

One of the few films I've seen in recent years that bears an excessive amount of repeated viewings. Just thinking about it now makes me want to watch it again.

Hit the link to see what I had to say about it in February.




#2 Le Quattro Volte (dir. Michelangelo Frammartino):

My favorite narrative film of the year was also the biggest surprise at the 2011 edition of the Portland International Film Festival, arriving with little to no advanced hype from other festivals.

Hit the link to read my thoughts about it in February (when it was billed locally as The Four Times).





#1 Nostalgia for the Light (dir. Patricio Guzman):

A documentary that blends parallel facts, concepts and viewpoints into a personal and historically-based meditation on time, memory and loss. Despite the dire truths being dealt with here, Guzmán infuses the film with a tactile sense of hope, refusing to give up on his native soil. A remarkable film that pushes boundaries without flash or pomp.

Hit the link to read what I wrote about it back in March.




Thanks for reading.  If you missed the previous "best of 2011" posts, they can be quickly reached here:

Best of 2011: #6-10 
Best of 2011: #11-15 
Best of 2011: #16-20
Best of 2011: The Runners Up

And remember, the press screenings for the 35th annual Portland International Film Festival begin tomorrow.  I'll be at those screenings and actively posting about them on the blog.  So keep an eye out for updates this week and throughout the festival!

Remember to find and "like" us on our Facebook page.
Subscribe to the blog's feed here.
submit to reddit