While not a proselytizer, I generally consider myself a devotee of Terrence Malick. Considering that nearly every cinephile is or has been some kind of advocate for the filmmaker, this isn’t a bold statement. But it is a reminder that the dedicated have congregated around the cult of Malick, his personal elusiveness and his artistic singularity for several decades. The legendary director behind “Badlands” and “Days Of Heaven” —who took a 20-year absence from cinema, only to triumphantly return in 1998 with the meditative war film “The Thin Red Line”— has had such a distinct impact on cinema that he’s practically created his own genre. Any contemplative, dreamy and poetic film with impressionist cues that revere and revel in natural beauty is often described as such, sometimes even reductively (see “The Revenant,” which is its own beast, but shares visual grandiloquence due to Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu and Malick now use the same DP, three-time Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki).
READ MORE: The 15 Best Performances In Terrence Malick Films
For about thirty years, Malick enjoyed near godhead status with cinephiles, which continued after his return to cinema and culminated in 2011 with “The Tree Of Life,” his long-gestating magnum opus about family, fatherhood, the meaning of life and the universe itself. The picture won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival that year, despite earning mixed reviews at the time —for our part, it’s undoubtedly deeply moving and beautiful, but it didn’t quite crack the top 10 in our Best Films Of The Decade list).
But devotion to Malick has been trending downward ever since. 2012’s “To The Wonder” radically deepened the critical schism that "The Tree of Life" had revealed, and divided critics to the point that many of the more censorious voices called the film a parody of his style (New York Magazine described his latest film, “Knight Of Cups” as exactly that last week; Rex Reed was typically scathing). Even “To The Wonder” star Ben Affleck, who described the movie as making “‘Tree Of Life’ look like ‘Transformers’” before it came out, seemed to be confused or disappointed with the final product and the overall experience. And longtime production designer Jack Fisk described the movie at the time as “Malick on steroids”; everyone involved was seemingly pushing the bigger/badder/better narrative. But a more experimental approach, while seemingly exciting at the outset, has not necessarily proven to be for the best.
Regardless, Malick doubled-down again on that same aesthetic for his latest film “Knight Of Cups,” which opened earlier this month and stars Christian Bale with featured appearances by Cate Blanchett and Natalie Portman, among others. The movie is about a screenwriter (Bale) in the throes of a incapacitating existential despair. While there’s no plot to speak of, it’s implied that Hollywood is the black hole that has vacuumed his soul and his artistic integrity, and has left him a vacant shell full of pain and regret, though family plays a crucial role too. Running over with a very specific form of male self-pity, the writer then moves from woman to woman, ostensibly as a band-aid remedy for his spiritual emptiness. He’s also gone through a divorce, though it seems to have hurt his wife more than him (One of the semi-amusing elements of Bale’s character is that he’s a comedy screenwriter —absolutely nothing in the movie suggests it or the character have a sense of humor; perhaps that’s Malick’s love for “Zoolander” shining through briefly?)
To be less glib: while I’m not personally ready to write off Malick just yet, it is understandable that stockholder faith has been shaken (which was arguably further evinced in the ho-hum opening weekend results of its limited theatrical release and its very low Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores). As detailed in our review from Berlin last year, it could be argued that “Knight of Cups” is an extended trailer for a movie that never arrives, or are the first-draft dailies of a film that still requires a singular vision. Malick’s film may be intended to be a drifting narrative about an aimless man in spiritual crisis wandering through the wreckage of his empty life (as told through searching-for-answers voiceovers), but the effect can leave the viewer similarly adrift.
In many ways, “Knight Of Cups” feels like a not-that-distant spiritual sequel to “The Tree Of Life” beyond its obvious aesthetic similarities. Both films center on father/son issues and family dynamics/fissures. And ‘Cups’ even begins in similar fashion, with a man wandering the desert, plus it features a sort of poor-man’s version of the celestial opening of ‘Tree’: this time, it’s just a quick few shots tracking the planet’s orbit and a luminous shot of Aurora Borealis from outer space.
Remember when Emmanuel Lubezki said there could be a "whole other movie” made about Sean Penn’s character in ‘Tree Of Life’? That could be “Knight Of Cups”: instead of following the troubled patriarch (Brad Pitt) in ‘Tree Of Life,’ one could see it as an inverse version following Penn’s character. And the father in ‘Cups’ (Brian Dennehy, who has a surprisingly big part in the film, relatively speaking) is still alive, so clearly they have a very broken relationship.
“Knight Of Cups” is obviously meant to be a movie about the emptiness found within a hollow, spiritually bankrupt Los Angeles. But the litany of cameos underscores its own superficiality —such cameos can be the chief danger of making a movie about shallowness. Even Bale’s Rick is barely a character in the film, so the game of spot-the-celebrity throughout the movie loses its power quickly, especially when none of the Tinseltown cut-outs who litter the film have much to say or do. The douchebaggery that alienates Bale’s character is only accentuated by these brief, fleeting appearances onscreen; a self-perpetuating cycle of vacuity without the power to convey any sense of the emotional devastation of being utterly lost.
Elsewhere, it’s remarkable to hear an actress like Isabel Lucas celebrate the knowledge that she made the film’s final cut, only to see the disheartening size and nature of her role; she’s another female wisp that dances around largely unclothed, her face barely shown. To that end, the depiction of women in the movie is similarly flimsy and shallow. If the waifs aren’t dancing, twirling or running around half- or just plain buck-naked, you can seldom see their faces —‘Cups’ has a bad habit of framing women so that their faces are obscured, excised or unclear (you literally need to freeze frame the movie to catch a still of Lucas’ face). The repetition of such presentation —bodies without faces, let alone identity— supports the continued suggestion that women are thin projections and objects of desire for Rick. And of the women who do receive screen time, Teresa Palmer’s stripper character is a straightforwardly vacuous carnal temptation for Rick (though luckily for her, he does hang out with her off-hours to play in a parking lot with a shopping cart, as lovers are wont to do).
Granted, there are a few women in key roles that Rick spends some degree of time with: namely, his ex-wife, played by Blanchett, a lover played by Portman, plus a fling of sorts played by Imogen Poots. Blanchett does anchor the movie remarkably if briefly, using incredibly limited screen time to lend it a credible air of soulfulness and melancholy; it’s a hint of the devastating pain that has lead Rick to his existential walkabout. But mostly, the women are only distractions who briefly enter his life and evaporate into memory as his lustful impulses compel him to chase after another girl. Sure, it’s a connection Rick is actually seeking —perhaps it’s a fuck-the-pain-away self-medication for his many psychological problems— but that doesn’t mean his endeavor is any less vacant. And of course, this is the point: Bale’s Rick is adrift and spiritually forfeit, so he fills his days with sex and drugs, women and purposelessness. But "Knight Of Cups" is so insubstantial that it threatens to dissolve to nothing: its weightlessness is unmoored to any kind of substance. Perhaps the father/son story is meant to be ballast, but the fragmented quality of the movie only allows for “I’ve got daddy issues” and little else.
There’s something to be said for a movie that manages to skirt story, character, plot and any other traditional building block of narrative, and instead embodies pure emotion and feeling. It can be done, and arguably Malick has achieved such a thing several times in his career. But Malick’s new hyper-emphasis on this technique undoes the fragile equilibrium that made his movies great, tipping his aesthetic too far into the ether. And the magniloquent voice-over presenting several points of view in the film makes it feel all the more diffuse. Films that can pull off fragmented poetry without much dialogue or plot can be the ne plus ultra of “pure cinema”; it can be moving picture art at its highest form. But “Knight Of Cups” establishes everything it’s going to say about a yearning spiritual bankruptcy masked by hedonism within the first 15 minutes, and yet runs for two hours. Looping through different women, different cards of the tarot and different phases of Rick’s life, it simply becomes a repetitive echo of dwindling impact and diminishing returns. For a stronger take on these themes, see Paolo Sorrentino’s “The Great Beauty,” which conveys that nexus of decadence and metaphysical emptiness with more power and resonance.
As far as we can surmise, Malick’s next film, “Weightless,” which was shot back to back with “Knight Of Cups” and features much of the same cast, employs the same style, mood and artistic application. Many filmmakers admit they tend make the same film over and over again thematically, but it’s usually rather better disguised than "Knight Of Cups" (see Michael Mann). Yet it feels like Malick has made the same tired concept record three times in a row now, and with a fourth waiting in the wings. And as for “Weightless,” which centers on two intersecting love triangles set against the music scene in Austin, Texas— are we going to receive anything different than a series of actors engaged in a similar sexual obsession, but then questioning the choices and betrayals they’re engaged in?
It’s a curious corner Malick seems to have painted himself into, and one has to wonder (and worry) if he’ll find a way out of it. There’s been much talk of the speed with which Malick makes movies now, but celebration that we don’t have to wait 20 years between pictures has given way to trepidation recently. Perhaps quantity is working against the quality that cemented his reputation as one of our most formidable living directors.
Because it’s hard to dispute that a "disposable" narrative has formed around his recent films, with many apostates beginning to suggest the Emperor has no clothes. Of course, the truth of the matter is that Terrence Malick owes me nothing, he owes you nothing, and he will march to the eccentric rhythm of his own drum, popularity be damned. But as the evocativeness of his former films becomes elusive and the heady thematic depths he achieved prior start to shallow out, feel overfamiliar and trite, one wonders if the filmmaker has gone back to the same well one too many times. The sad thing for me is that it’s becoming harder and harder to defend Malick against the very criticisms that unbelievers have always levied, and which previously, as a devotee, I could have swatted away.
Malick is not worth writing about with his history of underwhelming and tiring films. After Badlands, which had some good writing, everything went downhill. His reasons for hermetic avoidance of the media can only be seen as a fear of answering to the details of his process. Artists, should not shy away from their critics forever. It\’s suspicious.
Maybe this is just a trilogy of sorts covering similar themes done with a consistent aesthetic that\’s loose and free-wheeling much like Gus Van Sant did with "Gerry", "Elephant" and "Last Days". I hope that\’s the case. I\’ve actually only seen the first 1/3 of "To The Wonder" (as far as this new "trilogy" goes) and even as a big Malick fan I felt like it was going into his self-indulgent bread and butter. And I have a huge tolerance for what people call self-indulgent. Ben Affleck\’s character was a cardboard cut-out shadow of a person and I couldn\’t take it seriously. Malick just has to do a movie without a constant self pondering voice-over! At least try it maybe? But I used to think Wes Anderson needed to leave his detailed and bauble-filled world. Maybe these directors are only capable of taking little steps or making tiny tweaks to the spirit of their established style. I thought about giving up on Anderson after "Life Aquatic" but have been quite delighted by "Moonrise Kingdom" and "Grand Budapest" so who knows. I will see "Knight of Cups" I\’m sure, but I\’m tending to think I\’ll agree with this article afterwards.
I\’d be more concerned about quantity working against the \’quality that cemented his reputation as one of our most formidable living directors\’ if his latest three films weren\’t gigamiles beyond his first three, or if \’The Thin Red Line\’ the world had to wait two decades for was his worst film by a country mile.
Most people are assessing Malick\’s recent work from an entirely passive perspective. They just want to sit there and be entertained or wowed by artistry. Knight of Cups is an incredibly challenging film, but after seeing and discussing it at length with friends, I\’m convinced it\’s also a really sophisticated and groundbreaking one that warrants extra close scrutiny. But nobody wants to work for their rewards these days. They just want move on to the next thing. Memo to critics: we don\’t need you to passively watch a movie and tell us how satisfying or frustrating it is. We need you to STUDY IT CAREFULLY and make discoveries that go deeper than those of the casual filmgoer.
"see Paolo Sorrentino’s “The Great Beauty,” which conveys that nexus of decadence and metaphysical emptiness with more power and resonance." OH GOD NO
Knight of Cups was wonderful. I can\’t articulate better than Richard Brody, but defenders of Malick should maintain a defense that he has a right to explore. It takes balls to do what he\’s doing. It doesn\’t take balls to write an article that concedes to closed-mindedness.
"The legendary director behind “Badlands” and “Days Of Heaven” […] has had such a distinct impact on cinema that he’s practically created his own genre. Any contemplative, dreamy and poetic film with impressionist cues that revere and revel in natural beauty is often described as such". Oh well, I thought that any "any contemplative, dreamy and poetic film with impressionist cues that revere and revel in natural beauty" had to be associated to Andrey Tarkovsky, and that Terrence Malick was just a big English-speaking rip off of the Russian genius.
Knight of Cups isn\’t my favorite Malick film, by any means. But I did appreciate sections of it (and more specifically, scenes featuring Wes Bentley and Cate Blanchett).
Has the writer ever seen any films by jean-luc godard or michelangelo antonioni? similar methods are not new and should not, in my opinion, be considered weaken entries. filmmakers are allowed to experiment. whether you are able to go along for the ride or not is your choice as a viewer.
Malick DOES owe me something….2 hours of my life !
To The Wonder is quite a strong film, in retrospect. Yes, he\’s developed an minimalist style with regard to plot and character, but his direction of the actors and the general moods he creates are quite unique and strong. I think the thing most actively working against the appreciation of his latest films is the fact that we\’re living with them right now, piece by piece. I suspect that he has an end goal in mind for these modern Malick films, that will make more sense in retrospect. I hope.
Weightless might be different. Sarah Green, Malick\’s producer said it was "plot driven" in a recent Q&A.
Nobody cares about this overrated insular Hollywood drivel. We want superheroes and action. Not this naval gazing guff. Boring aimless tedium, self importance, self denial.
Article was p creditable before the suggestion that "The Great Beauty" was anything other than hackery by Sorrentino
Go watch some Weerasethakul, some Tsai Ming-Liang, some Claire Denis and some Carlos Reygadas. Go watch some Sokurov and some Bela Tarr. Go back and watch some Tarkovsky, Bergman and Kieslowski. Then come back and try to tell me this guy is a great filmmaker. Angsty male undergrad whisperings over big budget pretty pictures do not automatically qualify as great filmmaking.
I find it a little more than problematic that people year after year ask for something new in cinema, and then when Malick gives it, complain that it isn\’t there. I\’m not saying that Malick\’s latest films have been masterpieces, in the traditional sense, but perhaps if we disconnect ourselves from traditional narrative storytelling as much as Malick clearly has, we may see something in his recent work – aside from his problematic view of women, which seems to have hit a low point here.
I thought Knight of Cups was a step up from To The Wonder, the best film to come out this year so far in my opinion.
That last sentence summarizes exactly how I feel about Malick lately too. Actually it pretty much summarizes the majority of contemporary artists that I used to respect. I need to start playing it safe and just go back to admiring the work of the dead ones.
It\’s true, his last couple of films were received with mixed reviews. But the influence of his style and his themes became wider and deeper in the last 10 years. From Andrew Dominik to David Gordon Green and David Lowery, from Cary J.Fukunaga and Alex Garland, to Jeff Nichols. Even Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder or Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu paied their homages and evidently were inspired by the work of Malick and Lubezki… his legacy is really huge.
I may be reading into this, but I\’ve seen it as a filmmaker who knows he may not have a ton of time left to keep working and who wants as much freedom to make these films as possible. The star power (both in terms of leads and also cameos) can make that happen. I don\’t think it necessarily pays off at the box office, but I would think that it helps with packaging and financing.
This is just a guess but it feels like he was given the cash to go ahead with tree of life, which he wanted to make for a long time, with the agreement that he would crank out a handful of other films for the studio starring certain actors and within a certain time frame. how else can you explain malick casting ben affleck?
There is a great conversation (which I cannot post without reading as spam) between Adam Cook and Daniel Kasman at Mubi for those interested.
Ok- it sounds like your complaining the their wasn\’t a plot to speak of. And if he just had a plot- like days of heaven or badlands- he would be great again? Am i reading you right?
I found Knight of Cups to be quite beautiful and found a filmmaker hitting his stride. It felt like the more developed version of the adult storyline in Tree of Life and I could not watch the film without thinking about ways to cut the two together into a 3 hour whole (there are many moments and images that would cut nicely). At this point, it feels like Malick is attempting a semi-autobiographical opus about his childhood, his brother\’s suicide, the relationships he failed, and the philosophical perspective he gained by going through it all. I don\’t think the moment-to-moment stories are literal adaptions of his life, but the organic process seems intended to capture a shadow version that expresses the spiritual and emotional arc. I thought a lot about Kerouac\’s Duluouz Legend — the idea that all of his books were based on autobiographical moments and he intended to eventually change the names to match across them all. I watched the characters in Knight of Cups as if they were the same as those in Tree of Life and found the story heartbreaking from that perspective. I still need to see To the Wonder, but it appears that story is very similar to Malick\’s own marriages. This film seems to answer the nagging "Where was Malick for 30 years" question. Hey may not have been in the same specific situations, but may have been feeling lost and at odds with himself in similar ways. Yes, this is a lot to read into the film, but it seems like there could be some support in the facts. Regardless, isn\’ this sort of batshit formal exploration exciting on some level? Again, I often wish for more from indiewire — not that anyone needs to like this film (it\’s not for everyone and not without flaws), but it is interesting. I mean, there are articles for Star Wars and Indy on the front page — can\’t we celebrate a vision as bonkers as these without hoping that it conforms back to a structure that is more traditional? For me, the problematic issue of this film is the depiction of women and it hurt the viewing experience of some women in the audience when I attended. I can\’t defend that, though there MAY be some intent there in that this movie is about the male gaze run amok – the seduction but also the rotten core or lack of substance behind it. There is a moment toward the 2/3\’s mark where it breaks into a sermon after this constant stream of sensual/sexual images and then a kind of calm and a slower rhythm of edits comes in. I felt it at an emotional level as a break from what came before. Despite it\’s faults I am glad that someone is flexing their power to play with form, expectation, memory, and personal filmmaking. That\’s rare these days. I wonder if these films will be seen differently in 20 years. After Malick passes away and they are put into a boxed set with an essay on his life and personal struggles. So many filmmakers would have explained their work by now through interviews or given us some lens to look through. Malick\’s refusal to do so seems important because the answers to those questions may be in the work itself.
Could it be that there is too much attention paid to devotee/unbeliever status and not enough to the actual work in question?
Much easier to write a vague critique of someone\’s work in what it did or did not do for you than to give the same love and attention to each edit, shot, and scene that the creator has. How many times does a reviewer view a film before writing a review? This specific piece of writing is little more than a summation of the conformist groupthink that has been circulating about Malick\’s trajectory on various sites that are getting harder by the day to distinguish from advertising.
The conundrum with criticism is that it presupposes that the critic will have something more to offer than the critiqued. Yet, as is often the case with artists that have devoted their lives to something (Malick, for instance), this is simply not true.
I quite liked To the Wonder and Knight of Cups, btw, but they\’re clearly Malick\’s weakest films.
What separates To the Wonder, Knight of Cups and presumably Weightless from his previous films is their contemporary setting, which facilitates a new scriptless way of working, as no sets, costumes, etc, need to be prepared – Malick can just go out with Christian Bale and shoot hours and hours of footage of him wandering around different spots in LA, interacting with different people and things, and then find the film in the edit. He wouldn\’t be able to do that on, say, his proposed adaptation of Gawain and the Green Knight.
Wow man, did you, or anyone, proof read this? The unprofessionalism on display here is staggering.
will someone please put this article in front of terrence malick