LOVING (TIFF 2016)

The best thing about Loving - Jeff Nichols' biopic about "Loving vs the State Of Virginia" (the case that changed the Supreme Court's ruling on interracial marriage) - is that it didn't get all "Mississippi Burning" on the audience. The story is set in 1960's Virginia so there's obviously plenty of racial intolerance, sneers, tension & slurs directed at our protagonists, but Loving is more about the (realistic) relationship/romance between Richard & Mildred Loving and less about burning crosses and ignorant sweaty racist supporting characters. In fact, the bulk of the racism is controlled within one character for the most part (the racist town sheriff).

It's easy to get caught up in the racism & legal red tape concerning the marriage between Richard & Mildred Loving but seldom do we hear about their love for each other. Sure, they're one of the earliest (legal) symbols for interracial unions but they're also actual human beings who went through hell for each other and brought three children in to this world.
I know this sounds corny & cliche but this image (recreated in the film) really does speak volumes...

Loving succeeds in my eyes because of its subtlety. Jeff Nichols takes his time and isn't afraid of showing boring & banal moments like extended scenes of Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton) fixing random things around the house, Mildred Loving sitting on the couch looking at her children as they play, and plenty of light physical affection without any dialogue (that's key). Jeff Nichols didn't try to romanticize his protagonists either. Richard Loving, although brave and with conviction, is a typical father of that era - he's grumpy, frowns a lot and seems to work more than anything else. And even though Jeff Nichols is heavily influenced by Terrence Malick, he doesn't make Mildred, "the mother", out to be this unrealistic/paper thin angel like Malick does with a lot of his mother characters.

I have to admit that before I saw this film I always wondered if Richard & Mildred were happy together. Like...did they like each other's company? I guess they had to in order to go through what hey did in order to be together (Richard commuted from DC to Richmond Virginia every day in order to work because he and his family weren't allowed to live south of DC at the time). This film shows all of that for the most part.
Sure Loving has its share of sappy moments and the score does dictate how you're supposed to feel from time to time (something I hate) but do you really expect a movie like this to not have stuff like that? What's most important is that Loving isn't drowned in snappiness & melodrama.

Loving is a special movie for me not only because I'm in an interracial relationship with the women of my dreams (no seriously when I saw my fiancée for the first time I did a double take), but Jeff Nichols is a director that I've wanted to like so badly for so long but I just couldn't. I recognize his talent and I honestly can't even argue that he is one of the best American filmmakers working today (he's not on my personal list, but still...). But for me, on a personal level, his films have flaws, holes or other elements that force me to nitpick (besides Shotgun Stories I haven't been able to get in to his other movies like other people). Jeff Nichols is post-Malick in that he's obviously influenced by the films of Terrence Malick & borrows a few things in terms of style, but Nichols is still his own filmmaker and tells the kinds of stories that Terrence Malick wouldn't necessarily tell. Loving is the first movie of his where I've had little to no criticisms. Sure I would have liked for the movie to be even longer so we could get more in to the legality behind the ACLU's involvement in the case (and I already mentioned my annoyance with the heavily dictating score) but that's my own personal preference. No one besides me really wants to sit through scenes of boring court cases (Nick Kroll does a great job as Richard & Mildred's lawyer and leaves behind any & all remnants of the comedic persona he's known for). So any criticism I have about this movie can be easily shot down.

This is a (true) story concerning race that needed to be told on a major platform (for those that don't remember, there was a movie in the mid-90's with Timothy Hutton & Lela Rochon that Mildred Loving herself wanted nothing to do with).
And while Jeff Nichols & Michael Shannon (who does make a brief appearance) will probably always be synonymous with one another, I like the idea of he & Joel Edgerton becoming regular collaborators (Edgerton stood out the most to me in Nichols' Midnight Special).

It's easy to call Loving "Oscar bait" based off the trailer (and it will more than likely get some kind of major recognition/nomination from the Academy or the Golden Globes) but I assure you Loving has depth and is more than a movie made to win awards.

GEORGE WASHINGTON: THE SOUTH ACCORDING TO DAVID GORDON GREEN

Hopefully by now you all have read my thoughts on Prince Avalanche and know that I'm no longer upset with David Gordon Green (he made some poor directing choices in the past, but I've let it go). In fact, after seeing the trailer for his latest feature; Joe, I'm more excited about his work now than I've been since All The Real Girls (2003). I know Nicholas Cage's beard & mustache combo looks like the make-up person walked across the street and bought it from a 99 cent novelty shop, but beyond that, it looks quite good. Almost like a better version of Mud. Coincidentally, both; Mud & Joe co-star Tye Sheridan (Tree Of Life) who is becoming the new poster child/"it kid" for all Terrence Malick-related indie films set in the south...

Tye Sheridan, Nicholas Cage & Nicholas Cage's beard in Joe (2014)

But this write-up isn't about Joe. This is about George Washington and the impact I believe it has had on a particular group of films over the last 10-14 years that I like to call; "The New South". You know, films like; Mud, Take Shelter, New Jerusalem, Ballast, Beasts Of The Southern Wild, Ain't Them Bodies Saints, Undertow, As I Lay Dying, All The Real Girls, etc. You could even throw Upstream Color in to the mix given it's dreamy atmosphere along with director Shane Carruth's southern roots (South Carolina to be exact). Its like you can't read a review on any of these films, including my own, without Terrence Malick's name being dropped at least once. Actually, my girlfriend recently came home in the middle of me watching Upstream Color one day and she asked; "was this directed by that same Tree Of Life To The Wonder guy?"
While I only really like some of the aforementioned works (Ballast, All The Real Girls & Upstream Color) and find the rest to be "ok" (Shotgun Stories), Overrated (Mud), very problematic (Beasts Of The Southern Wild & Ain't Them Bodies Saints) or just plain bad (Take Shelter), they all still show a more complex & poetic side of the American south (I'm excluding recent stuff like Winter's Bone & The Paperboy because they don't share the same poetic style).

A lot of these films share connections with each other. Terrence Malick produced David Gordon Green's Undertow and he's also buddies with Jeff Nichols (which might explain why Malick's actors are appearing in his work a lot these days). Plus, actors like Michael Shannon, Shea Wigham & Tye Sheridan have been used in over half the aforementioned works to date.

I don't normally write about my personal favorite films (minus a few exceptions here & there) out of fear of wasting 2,000+ words to just over-praise something to the point where it becomes embarrassing. But after a recent week-long visit to the south (Augusta, GA & Spartanburg, SC) I felt the urge to do this write-up.
After a few personal conversations with various friends, I came to the realization that north of D.C., the south has a bad rep thanks in part to us Yankees up north. Over the years I've heard some pretty crazy generalizations about the south (mostly having to do with racism) by people who have spent none to very little time there outside of Miami which almost doesn't even count anyway. I'm not gonna sit here and try to say that the racism in the south isn't deeply rooted unlike any other place in this world. History clearly proves this (I mean shit, when something like The Klan was founded down there it's damn near impossible to try and downplay things). But at the same time, I spent five years living in Virginia (the home of the Confederacy's capital) and the most racist things that have ever happened to me (a large young uppity black male) personally in life so far have taken place in my ultra liberal P.C. hometown of Amherst Massachusetts, Milford Connecticut and New York City. I mean seriously, a lot of my friends question how things are in the south as if places like Boston or Howard Beach don't exist in the north.
Outside of the racism stuff, there's also the stereotype of southerners being dumb, unclean, overall wearing country bumpkins (one could actually argue that elements of some of the films I listed earlier as part of the new south genre perpetuate that stereotype, but whatever...). There's a slow simmering poetic ambiance to the American south unlike anywhere else that's finally being shown more on film these days.
Be honest, what cinematic world would you rather live in - the rude & busy world of NYC, the superficial world of L.A., or the relaxed slow moving world of the south? Its understandable if some of you rational thinkers still chose NYC or L.A., but for those of you who always complain about being broke, anxious and/or depressed due to city life - you might wanna consider embracing the beauty that is southern hospitality.

Top: Shotgun Stories (2005) & Ballast (2008)
Bottom: Mud (2012) & Ain't Them Bodies Saints (2013)

While Malick is definitely the indirect influence for all of this, I like to give direct credit to David Gordon Green and his debut feature George Washington. Green pretty much took the style that Malick reemerged with in 1998 (The Thin Red Line) and took in to another level. Clearly a young 26 year old director, like Green was at the time of GW's debut, wasn't the first to show a different side of the American south in the year 2000, but ever since the heavily Malick-influenced George Washington debuted, more & more films that were similar in tone & atmosphere began to emerge.
And unlike other filmmakers who deny or don't acknowledge being influenced by obvious sources, David Gordon Green is always open about his love for Terrence Malick. On the commentary track for the George Washington DVD, he drops Malick name numerous times.

Characteristics of the "new south" include: Dreamy voiceover narration (Beasts Of The Southern Wild & Ain't Them Bodies Saints, The Tree Of Life), a focus on youth & coming of age, droning scores (Mud & George Washington), sunsets, family rivalry & inner-turmoil (Undertow, Ballast & Shotgun Stories) and there has to be at least on scene of a wheat field at dawn. David Gordon Green invented NONE of these thing (especially in film) but I feel like George Washington opened the lid on this new poetic southern cinema we're seeing today.
If I may be so bold to say, I feel like the post-2005 Terrence Malick was influenced by his unofficial "pupil" (Green) post-George Washington. I know that by saying Malick was influenced by David Gordon Green really means that Malick was actually just influenced by himself, but ever since he produced Undertow, he got the courage to go even deeper in to his own style. From The New World to Tree Of Life to To The Wonder, Malick's work has become more daring & experimental.

George Washington does have a clear plot. The story focuses on a group of kids (George, Sonja, Buddy & Vernon) and the accidental death they cause one of their friends after carelessly rough-housing, like most kids do, and the decision they make to essentially cover it up. After that, we see how each of the kids deals with carrying the weight of (accidentally) killing someone.
But all of that comes secondary to the ambiance and overall atmosphere. The conflict in George Washington doesn't even come in to play until the middle of the film. Prior to that, it's pretty much a sprawling & (intentionally) unfocused story about a small southern town where everyone is connected to one another in some way, and all the residents, both; kids & adults, are on the same spiritual level with one another.

it is not about plot, but about memory and regret. It remembers a summer that was not a happy summer, but there will never again be a summer so intensely felt, so alive, so valuable - Roger Ebert

Years ago I watched George Washington with a non-cinephile friend and he was perplexed by a scene in which the characters; Buddy (an 11 year old boy) & Ricky (a 20-something year old adult) are talking about women and giving each other relationship advice. "Is this grown man seriously having a heart-to-heart with this little kid?" my friend asked. But that's part of what I love about this film so much. Green shows kids/youth on the same spiritual level as adults. Like I've said quite a few times already on this blog - it's rare that American filmmakers give children the respect they deserve like being presented as actual human beings with complex emotions. Between the voiceover narration and certain lines of dialogue delivered by the child actors in George Washington, there are quite a few moments that may sound forced & unnatural to the point where we're clearly watching lines written by an adult said by a child who doesn't fully understand the lines of dialogue they're delivering. But there are also other genuine moments where the child actors deliver heartfelt moments of maturity & insecurity.

George Washington has connections to cinema outside of just Terrence Malick. Some of its visual imagery comes directly out of Charles Burnett's Killer Of Sheep...

Killer Of Sheep / George Washington

It was also released one year after another Malick-influenced film in the form of Lynne Ramsay's Ratcatcher. Both Ratcatcher & GW are feature debut's that focus on poor communities, coming of age and a young protagonist keeping quiet about the accidental murderer of a friend (there's even a scene in Ramsay's film that uses some of the music from Badlands). It should be noted that both films are part of the criterion collection too.
I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up Gordon Park's The Learning Tree as a subconscious influence on George Washington as well.

Ratcatcher (1999)

Ratcatcher / Tree Of Life / To The Wonder

I'm sure my sentiment for George Washington has to do partially with where I was at mentally when I first saw it. I happened to catch it playing on the Sundance channel in 2004 which is right around the time Tyler Perry was starting to blow up and embarrassing movies like Soul Plane, The Cookout & White Girls were at an all time high. Furthermore, when filmmakers like Spike Lee tried to criticize the direction that black cinema was headed, he was simply labeled as "a hater" or jealous. Needless to say that "black cinema" wasn't looking too great.

After watching George Washington for the first time, I was surprised that only one other black person I knew had seen it. I felt like it served (and still does serve) as a pretty good alternative to all the modern black cinema that everyone (myself included) has issues with these days. Actually, I feel strange calling this a "black film". Not that its David Gordon Green's fault, but George Washington is another predominately black casted film, made by a white director that's embraced more by white cinephiles & white intellectuals.
However, George Washington could have easily been about race yet it wasn't. All the pieces were there - young white director, predominantly black cast, story set in the south etc. I really appreciate the fact that Green didn't go the predictable route.
On a side note, I will say that it does bum me out that every film mentioned in this write-up so far focuses on the south yet not one is directed, produced or written by a black person. Black folks are just as much a part of the fabric that is the American south as any other race. Its nice that quite a few films focus on black characters in front of the camera but it would also be good to have more southern stories told by black filmmakers as well.

As much as I love George Washington, I'll be the first person to understand if one were to call it pretentious. Its slow, intentionally plotless at times and the voiceover is enough to make you wanna roll your eyes depending on your tolerance for artsy stuff. But it's beauty is undeniable. If you like cinema in the vein of The Spirit Of The Beehive, The Thin Red Line or Walkabout, you'll probably enjoy George Washington.

You have to bring a lot of yourself to this film if you want it to give something back, but the rewards are considerable - Jonathan Rosenbaum

LEE DANIELS' THE PAPERBOY...

I'm not a fan of Lee Daniels. At all. The trailer for his latest film; The Butler, enraged me and made me laugh out loud at the same time. Forest Whitaker is one of my all time favorite actors so it saddens me to see him in a role that looks so beneath him (like almost everything else hes done in the last 7 years). Yes, I'm judging a film I haven't seen (and never will) but I know enough from that god awful trailer that I want no part of what The Butler is selling (sorry, but when you've seen as many movies as I have you earn the right to judge a book...err, movie, by its cover every once in a while just like every other human being does from time to time). Do we honestly need yet ANOTHER movie like this? Contrary to what mainstream cinema would have you believe, there's actually a lifetimes worth of original stories concerning black people that has yet to be explored on the big screen beyond stories of servitutde (no matter what kind of uplifting/drivin' miss daisy spin Lee Daniels tries to pull with The Butler).
But at the same time, the movie looks like such obvious Oscar bait that all you can do is laugh at it.
The emotions that Daniels' work brings out of me is mostly negative but at least he gets my blood pumping...or boiling I should say. That counts for something. There's filmmakers I LOVE that I couldn’t care less about these days or bring myself to write more than a few sentences on (Gus Van Sant, Steven Soderbergh, Spike Lee, etc) so Lee Daniels should really be humbled I'm taking the time to write about something that concerns him.

Criticizing & trashing a guy like Tyler Perry is pretty pointless nowadays. His films are awful but his core fans will remain his core fans for life so what’s the point of wasting time breaking down why I hate his work? The world of Tyler Perry is pretty separate from mine and I hope it stays that way. But Lee Daniels is a name that’s breaking in to my world/film scene and I'm not very comfortable with that. Like Tyler Perry, Daniels' films show a predictable/one-sided view of black people that I feel has been explored enough in cinema at this point. What’s worse is that people are just eating his stuff up and praising him. I remember back in 2009 at the NY Film Festival all anyone could talk about was Precious while works like The White Ribbon (probably one of Haneke's best) & White Material (a much better film concerning black people on a global scale) were getting less attention.

But The Paperboy (2012), the story of a journalist (Matthew McConaughey) and his brother (Zac Efron) trying to solve a murder that an innocent, although bad, man (John Cusack) has been wrongly convicted of, is Lee Daniels' ONE fascinating film that I cant stop thinking about. I'm man enough to admit that I feel stupid for passing this up at Toronto last year. I'm sure I would have had the same reaction that I did when I saw this for the first time a few months ago (anger, confusion & fascination) but it would have at least stimulated my mind unlike the large majority of disappointing stuff I saw at the festival last year. I certainly don’t love this film unconditionally but at the same time I cannot fully dismiss it. On one hand, this film is made up of elements that I'm either indifferent towards (John Cusack's presence) or downright don’t like (Nicole Kidman's post-op face & Macy Gray's voice). Then on the other hand, The Paperboy is also made up of things I DO like: the new "re-born" Matthew McConaughey (who owes a lot of his cinematic "rebirth" to this film), complex characters that you cant either root for or against and the kind of trashy noir-ish atmosphere found in a Jim Thompson novel (The Paperboy is definitely a distant cousin of The Killer Inside Me). Like his contemporary; Nicholas Winding Refn, Lee Daniels draws inspiration from various cinematic sources with this one. Imagine a young John Waters fresh off of making Pink Flamingos & Female Trouble setting out to make an Oscar contender under the control of a studio, influenced by William Friedken's Cruising and Carl Franklin's One False Move and you kinda got The Paperboy.

I don’t mean to make a comparison between Daniels & Waters just because they’re both gay, American, male, directors but at the same time there is a sense of style that modern gay male filmmakers have over a lot of modern straight filmmakers (with the exception Michael Mann who has style over just about everyone). I can’t put a word or phrase to it but if you're familiar with Todd Haynes, Tom Kalin, Pedro Almodovar, John Waters, early 90's era-Gus Van Sant, John-Cameron Mitchell, Greg Araki, Xavier Dolan and a few more openly gay modern directors, I think you all get that particular uncategorizeable cinematic style I'm talking about. Lee Daniels certainly isn’t on the same level as some of the aforementioned filmmakers but he has earned his spot among them with The Paperboy. Actually, The Paperboy has many connections with the cinema of some of the gay directors I just named. Besides the fact that Daniels deals with hidden/repressed homosexuality in The Paperboy like Todd Haynes did with Poison, Velvet Goldmine & Far From Heaven or Kalin did with Swoon or John Cameron Mitchell did with Hedwig & The Angry Inch, my issues with The Paperboy are very similar to my issues with Haynes' Far From Heaven (lets also not forget that Paperboy co-star Zac Efron starred in a John Waters re-make and Nicole Kidman's performance is very reminiscent of her performance in Gus Van Sant's To Die For)...

*SPOILER ALERT*

If you read my review on Far From Heaven you'll see that I was a little conflicted by Todd Haynes, who is openly gay, creating such a shitty, cowardly, GAY character in the form of Dennis Quaid. Yes, in a perfect world anyone should be able to create any type of character they want, but with such discrimination and misguided hatred towards gay people in society, I just felt that Quaid's character (a cheating, abusive husband) didn’t help the cause. But that’s my own personal point of view. I'm sure Haynes felt he knew what he was doing. Lets also not forget that Far From Heaven is the greatest acting Dennis Quaid has ever done in his life. With The Paperboy, by the end of the film Daniels makes every prominent black male character out to be some disturbed, dark, sadistic homosexual. Once again, Lee Daniels does NOT carry the weight of all black & gay people on his shoulders when he makes a film. He can make whatever he wants and craft any kind of character he wants. Don't get me wrong, just about every character in The Paperboy is messed up in some way but its on another level with the black male characters. In one scene, Matthew McConaughey, who has been keeping his homosexuality a secret up until this moment, gets tied-up, beaten & raped by a group of black men he tries to hook up with. A few minutes later, David Oyelowo, McConaughey's journalist "sidekick", reveals to Zack Efron that he's also gay (and also not British as we were lead to believe) in a very sinister way like its some dark dirty thing. Neither of these moments sat well with me and to this day they make me uncomfortable. I'm not uncomfortable with the homosexuality either. I'm uncomfortable that whenever something homosexual is revealed in the film it’s associated with violence, shadiness & aggression concerning black men. What’s even more strange is that all this came from the vision of a gay, black male (Daniels). To take this a step further, Matthew McConaughey's character is clearly a self-hating homosexual. He likes to be beaten, cut & abused while having sex and doesn't even tell his brother, whom hes very close too, about his sexual orientation. Actually, when McConaughey's character reaches his demise (he gets his throat slit by Cusack), he seems to find joy in the pain. Are there, or were there, strands of the same self-hatred in Lee Daniels? It’s so strange for someone (Daniels) that’s part of such a specific (often discriminated) demographic (gay black man) to paint characters that are part of that same specific demographic in such a sinister way. If anyone reading this has seen the film please let me know if I'm reading to deep in to something or if I'm WAY off in my analysis.

To call this film "trashy" is an understatement. But that’s not exactly an insult. Lee Daniels has to know this film is somewhat trashy. He seems to embrace it in the same way John Waters embraces the trashiness in his work. Not to say there aren’t some serious & complex issues in this film (repressed homosexuality, murder, rape & deep-seeded family drama) but at the same time, there's scenes involving Nicole Kidman peeing on Zac Efron, John Cusack jacking off while Nicole Kidman teases him from across the room and Efron is half naked or at least shirtless in half of the film in a way that makes you go "...hmmmm". Lets also not forget this film is set in the deep, swampy south so everyone is sweaty & greasy looking which adds to the overall trashiness.

With the exception of Nicole Kidman, who plays John Cusack's wife and Zac Efron's love interest, Daniels does a pretty good job of creating that retro/1970's feel. Yes, he falls in to that trap filmmakers sometimes fall in to by giving the male supporting characters sideburns (what other way could a filmmaker convey to the audience that the film is set in the 70's without sideburns?) but besides that, the music, wardrobe and atmosphere is pretty authentic.
McConaughey's performance was the BEST part of this film for me. I honestly didnt expect The Paperboy to take the dark and somewhat sad turn it did towards the end. I didnt even think much of his character until the last 30-40 minutes then I did a 180 (so did the film in a sense) and he became the most interesting person in the whole story. I dont know if this is his greatest performance but its definitely up there with the best work he's done in his career so far.
Ever since seeing Zac Efron in Linklater's Me & Orson Welles I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in any film geared towards adults over the age of 25. His overall performance in this isn't anything great (some moments are a little bad) but he plays angry very well in this and he certainly doesn't ruin the movie like I'm sure a lot people would have assumed.
What's interesting about John Cusack's performance is that I couldn't really see anyone else playing his part yet for some reason I didn't really get anything out the performance he gave. This was his opportunity to hit a homerun supporting performance (his character is in the entire film but only in a few scenes that are spread throughout) and it just felt a little flat.

Even though its kinda like the "black sheep" of the family, The Paperboy is part of this new un-even/problematic/overrated yet interesting group of films that explores the south in either a poetic/Malickian style (Aint Them Bodies Saints, Beasts Of The Southern Wild, Ballast, etc) or in a mysterious backwoods kind of way (Mud, Take Shelter, Shotgun Stories, etc). Personally, I'm only a fan of Ain't Them Bodies Saint & Ballast out of all those films, but they still make up a scene/movement that deserves to be mentioned.

The Paperboy makes me wanna see The Butler even less than I already wanted too which I didn’t think could be possible. Beyond the repressed homosexuality and murderer there's some race issues in The Paperboy too. There's one scene where Zac Efron loses his cool and calls David Oyelowo's character a nigger and throughout the film Daniels subtly shows the degrading & unglamorous side of being a maid (specifically through Macy Gray's character whose unique, one of a kind mannerisms are put to good use in this film). Instead of hacky & embarassing moments of racism there's some sly moments that show racism and the power dynamic between black people and white people in the south back in the day. It bothers me that Daniels is following up his exploration in to the shitty side of being a servant in The Paperboy with a film that appears to show the "up" side or respectable side of being a servant with The Butler. Once again, I haven’t seen The Butler (and I won’t) but you and I both know that the trailer for that film shows enough.

Clearly I have a lot of negative/conflicting stuff to say about the The Paperboy but I wouldn’t have taken the time to write so much about it if there weren't some redeemable qualities. If I had to rate this I'd give it a 2 outta 5 stars for the first half and a 4 outta 5 stars for the last half. I seriously recommend this to everyone (Lee Daniels fan or not) because I could really talk about this one for a while. So on some level this film IS kind of a success...

BORING MASTERPIECE #10: NEW JERUSALEM (EVANGELISM, PTS & MALE BONDING)

As I watched a beardless Will Oldham deliver an extremely original performance in New Jerusalem I was reminded of his earliest acting role in John Sayles' Matewan where he plays the young teen preacher hootin' & hollerin' at the congregation. In Rick Alverson's sophomore film Oldham plays an evangelical Christian ("Ike") trying to help/"save" his friend & coworker ("Sean") whose suffering from depression and/or some kind of post traumatic stress possibly brought on by his time spent on tour in Iraq while he was in the National Guard. Oldham seems to fit these characters perfectly. From what little I know about him I’m pretty sure he isn’t super religious but there's something about his folky/blue grass/country side that seems to allow him to tap in to these roles and play them masterfully. In an interview with pitchfork a few years ago he was quoted as saying; I think all religions have truth to them. I get the feeling a lot of the recent characters Oldham has played were either made specifically with him in mind or the stories were somewhat crafted around him. He doesn't strike me as the kind of actor who auditions for parts and there isn't one role he's played where I imagined someone else in his place. Acting isn't even his main gig! As a singer, his music is pretty lo-fi & incredibly soulful which are two characteristics one could use to describe just about any recent film he's appeared in.

New Jerusalem has an interesting vibe. Imagine a John Cassavetes film on anti-depressants - it has the same handheld documentary/cinema verite style as any classic Cassavetes film but at the same time it’s a lot more subdued and laidback without all the yelling and explosive outbursts. If the Cassavetes comparison doesn't do anything for you, imagine a natural & minimalist film from the same school as Kelly Reichardt's Old Joy & Wendy & Lucy (both films coincidentally co-star Will Oldham), Ballast, Shotgun Stories, Junebug (which features a cameo from Oldham as well), a student film directed by a young David Gordon Green or any other modern American indie film that shows the seldom seen hypnotic, droning and sometimes beautiful side of "Anywhere USA".
Did Kelly Reichardt pick up that ball that David Gordon Green intentionally dropped after he made Snow Angels? Is it fair to say she's now the leading figure in that genre of natural looking minimalist American independent cinema that's become so popular today? I know Reichardt had nothing to do with New Jerusalem but her influence is all over it. It’s like Rick Alverson plucked the Ike & Sean characters from the background of one of her films.

Ike & Sean work together at a tire shop somewhere in southeast Virginia (I assume southeast Virginia because the only two specific areas that are mentioned in the film are Richmond & Virginia Beach). Ike is fascinated by Sean and constantly asks him annoying questions almost like how a younger brother asks their older cooler brother a string of annoying questions. A lot of Ike's inquires have to do with Ireland (where Sean is originally from) as well as Sean's time in Iraq. It's clear from the start that Sean is a rough edged, brooding individual with a lot going on inside but we don't REALLY get it until he has a panic attack in the bathroom at work one day. After witnessing Sean's panic attack, Ike takes it upon himself to be the good Christian that he is and help Sean find Christ because he feels that’s the only thing that can save his friend.

Ike's devotion to the lord is subtle at first. In the beginning of the film we see him say a quick prayer before eating dinner or make a little bible reference but after about 20 minutes in it's clear that he's a soldier in God's army. Unlike other stereotypical Christian characters found in movies (...and in real life) Ike isn't a judgy, homophobic, "fire & brimstone" Christian. Perhaps my description of him as a "soldier" in God's army was a lil inaccurate as he seems to be pretty anti-war too. Ike focuses on the positive aspects of Christianity.

I can see you at this pivotal point. And you're gonna fall one way or the other - Ike

Are Sean's panic attacks brought on by PTS or something deeper? He sees a doctor who prescribes him medication to cope but Ike pretty much considers these pills (along with all other forms of medication) to be evil "wacky pills". Is this film also trying to make a comment on how over-medicated America has become? Alverson doesn't really dwell on this too much so I may be reaching. 

To some people New Jerusalem is nothing more than a boring low budget indie about two lonely guys debating about Christ while others may consider it to be a brilliant little gem. I personally go with the latter but I would never try very hard to convince someone of this film's greatness if they dislike it because New Jerusalem isn't for everyone. But if you have the patience and find certain matters interesting like; PTS, atheism vs. religion, loneliness, male bonding, depression and the after affects of the Iraq war told from the perspective of someone that isn't American or Iraqi, then maybe this is a film for you. But the one thing that can’t really be hated on in my opinion is Oldham's performance. Ike is a curious, awkward, strange, good intentioned, unique and sometimes pushy individual. It’s almost like he was made in a movie lab with the DNA of other quirky fictitious indie movie characters like; Eddie (Stranger Than Paradise), Dignan (Bottle Rocket), Joe (The Station Agent) & Morgan (Minnie & Moskowitz). If you genuinely like interesting characters I highly doubt Ike won’t get at least a few chuckles from you or moments where you find yourself totally intrigued or fascinated by him. Not to downplay Colm O'Leary's touching performance as Sean, but Oldham/Ike is the highlight of this film. He's so random and just "not all there" at times. In one scene Ike is trying to peer in to Sean's house to see if he's home but it looks like he's trying to break in. Sean's next door neighbor sees this and comes over to ask Ike what he’s doing but Ike doesn't even acknowledge him and keeps on trying to peek in to Sean's house.
Ike definitely marches to the beat of a different drummer...

Ike (L) & Sean (R)

Although Sean is cynical and blahzay about religion, for reasons we come to find out towards the end of the film (no, he wasn't molested by a priest as a child), he goes along begrudgingly and joins Ike at church and to Bible readings. New Jerusalem is unique in that it doesn't take sides. This isn't a pro or anti Christianit film. I know other reviews seem to think otherwise but that's not how I saw it. Sean is an atheist but not one of those self righteous arrogant atheists who comes off just as annoying as the religious fanatics they hate so much. There is a touch of smugness to him but it isn't that serious (when Sean accompanies Ike to church he has a curious/arrogant smirk on his face throughout the service). Sean isn't outspoken, keeps his opinion's to himself mostly and the only time we actually hear his opinions on religion are when Ike instigates a debate. One of the film's best lines is delivered by Sean in a scene where gives his general opinion on religion - I don't trust the man that comes with the message. 

Ike is pushy with his views. But at the same time he is a good person and he's going out of his way to do what he thinks will help his friend. On one hand Ike makes Jesus & Christianity seem beautiful. The way he speaks of the joy & happiness that the lord brings almost makes me wanna sign up for Bible school. But on the other hand his aggressiveness & pushiness are very off-putting.

Naturally things come to head in a friendship with these two different types of personalities. Towards the end Ike & Sean have a semi-heated argument but make amends a few days later and the film ends on an ambiguous note.

Personally I wouldn’t have had any problem at all with this being an extra 30-45 minutes. There are two subplots that I wish were expanded on – The first involves Sean taking care of his neighbor’s sick cat. At first Sean is hesitant but over time he falls in love with it. This part of the story showed Sean’s sensitive side and his ability to take care of another living thing. The second subplot is about the flirty relationship between Sean and the assistant pharmacist he gets his medication from. Just when things start to spark up between them the film ends. But those are just minor things that don’t make this film any less great. 

Given Alverson's most recent film The Comedy, I expected a more cynical tone to New Jerusalem in regards to religion but thankfully I was wrong. Much like The Comedy, the tone of New Jerusalem slowly creeps up on you. Most films that deal with religion are so black & white. They're either about the evils of religion and the corrupt men behind it or its some naive & simplistic story about someone being saved. There's a lot of grey area in religion and in this film. New Jerusalem isn't just part of Kelly Reichardt's new school of natural realism but it’s also part of a new group of recent films that offer an alternative look at religion and/or spirituality like; Mary, Battle In Heaven, Silent Light, Post Tenebras Lux, To The Wonder & The Tree Of Life.

Beneath the simple plot is a quietly dense and layered film with quite a few hypnotic moments that offers just as many questions as answers.

There's an interesting class of newly established filmmakers emerging in indie cinema over the last 5 years making their presence known with their 2nd or 3rd feature film (Rick Alverson, Sarah Polley, Xavier Dolan, Shane Carruth, Steve McQueen, etc). New Jerusalem is a testament (no pun intended) to the importance of digital media and digital devices in the world of low budget/indie cinema. Although this isn't up on Netflix yet you can see this courtesy of Amazon.com's instant watch. I still love video stores but times are changing. Had it not been for instant watch this would have been damn near impossible to see given there's no DVD release as of yet.

A MOVIE FOR VALENTINE'S DAY: ALL THE REAL GIRLS

All The Real Girls is David Gordon Green's sophomore feature about the world of young, awkward, funny, uncomfortable & sometimes painful love. This came out around the time when everything from Sundance was starting to look the same so it's somewhat understandable to forget its existence (especially now that just about everyone involved in this film has gone on to bigger projects). Now that a decade has passed maybe it's time to revisit this film which went on to influence recent stuff like Lars & The Real Girl (which features All The Real Girls co-star; Paul Schneider), Take Shelter, Shotgun Stories & Blue Valentine. All The Real Girls has its share of Malick-isms (sunsets, poetic ambiance, crisp & shinny cinematography, etc) but it's not OOZING with slow-motion shots and voiceover straight outta The Thin Red Line like we saw in Green's first film; George Washington (GW is one of my favorite movies but it wouldn't exist without Malick). Instead it features some of the energy & rawness of John Cassavetes had he made a film set in the deep south.

All The Real Girls is the love story of "Paul" (the local town womanizer) & "Noel" (a young naive 18 year old with no relationship experience). While Paul has a reputation for sleeping around with just about every woman in town (which doesn't seem to bother Noel at all) something about Noel makes Paul want to slow down, cut off all his ties with other women, not have sex right away and be in an actual relationship. Naturally problems arise - Noel happens to be Paul's best friend's little sister which brings up some obvious tension. Additionally, Noel is young, coming of age, learning about herself and is easily swayed by other guys. By the end of the film both Paul & Noel come out more mature even though they've both hurt each other. Although both Paul & Noel cheat, this film is one of the few sympathetic looks at characters that are unfaithful. In Paul's case; yes he's cheated on every woman he's been with but once it happens to him and he feels that same pain he's inflicted on so many other woman he somehow isn't that bad of a guy anymore...just young & dumb. In Noel's case, she's only 18, hasn't been with anyone else so its kinda understandable that she'd fall too temptation.

The most important thing about All The Real Girls is that it's a film about young love made by young people and not some cynical 40-something year old that's seen it all & done it all and is jaded towards romance or the thought of a relationship. Green and co-star Paul Schneider came up with the script in college and finally made the film when they were still in their 20's. Not that it's impossible for an older person to direct a film about young love but there's the possibility that it wouldn't be as authentic when told from the perspective of a biter middle-aged filmmaker instead of someone as young, mature & in touch with things like a 20-something year old David Gordon Green. Would you wanna watch a film about 40 year old parents or someone going through a mid-life crisis if it was directed & written by someone in their early twenties with limited life experience?

All The Real Girls is also an important film due to its representation of men. Yes it's true that still even in this day & age men can be a bit repressed & insecure about expressing their feelings (especially when it comes to love and/or sensitivity) but All The Real Girls breaks that notion. Say what you want but it takes guts for a guy to say a line like; I just want to make sure that a million years from now I can still see you up close and we'll still have amazing things to say and actually mean it.

Young love is awkward. It fills you up with that fun kind of anxiety that you hate & love at the same time. You can't fully be yourself and you say the most random things. There are some moments in All The Real Girls that seem a bit forced. Random lines like; I had a dream that you grew a garden on a trampoline, and I was so happy that I invented peanut butter or moments between Schneider & Deechannel where they stammer & stutter nervously in each other's presence but when you think about it we've all said random & embarrassing things or have been nervous & anxious around someone we're in love with or have feelings for. Bottom line, All The Real Girls may be awkward and a little "off" at times but it's one of the most genuine explorations of young love to come out in years.

Besides the romance angle, All The Real Girls features some touching scenes between friends (the scene where Paul & Tip make up is one of the most honest "BRO-moments" where two insecure guys let their guards down) and family (all the scenes between Paul and his mother, played by Patricia Clarkson, are great). Besides Schneider & Dechannel, the supporting cast makes this film great. Shea Whingham, Patricia Clarkson & Danny McBride (in his feature film debut) are all awesome in their performances. I remember watching this YEARS ago and thinking Danny McBride would end up being a big star one day and look at him now. And Shea Whingham delivers one of my favorite lines in a movie ever: we're not best friends anymore...you ain't even in my top 10! (for an adult to say that to another adult is just hilarious to me). Much like George Washington before and Undertow after, All The Real Girls has that same "timeless" feel to it that I described in my Badlands review. From the clothes to the setting, All The Real Girls has that unique vibe about it where the story could have taken place in 1970 or right now.

If you have plans with your significant other that involve staying and not doing much, I highly recommend this.

BALLAST: BORING MASTERPIECE

Insecurity, depression, dark thoughts & existentialism among black males dates all the way back to the 1930's with the films of Paul Robeson going all the way up til the 60's. But some time after films like; Nothing But A Man (1964), The Learning Tree (1969) & The Story Of A Three Day Pass (1968) came out, that genuine exploration in to the souls of black males took a back seat to the blaxploitation genre of the 70's (where black males were stoic, badass ghetto super heroes who didn't feel any kind of pain whatsoever) which ultimately set "black film" back so much that by the beginning of the 1980's there were virtually no "black films" (with the exception of The Education Of Sonny Carson or the films of Charles Burnett) until the emergence of Robert Townsend, Spike Lee, Mario Van Peeples and the rest of the gang in the mid-late 80’s. But even their early films (which were great) didn’t really get in to the groundbreaking subject matter that Gordon Parks & Melvin Van Peeples dealt with. Eventually things kinda changed by the early 90's when Wendell B. Harris & John Singleton gave us Chameleon Street & Boyz N' The Hood. I would have included the Hughes Brothers but according to them their artistic side comes from their Armenian side (yes, they said this) so I wouldn’t wanna include them in something like "black film" which is CLEARLY beneath them. Anyway, the Last decade also brought us other films like Ghost Dog (elements of that story do very much concern issues like racism & preconceived notions about black males), George Washington (specifically Eddie Rouss's character) and shit...even BABY BOY on some level, being the train wreck of a movie that it is, dealt with the kinda depression & insecurities that really only black males in America can really relate too. But in my opinion, Ballast (2008) might be the greatest film to date (or at least top 3) to deal with the subject of depression & sadness within black males (along with touching on the importance of family and the unspoken, spiritual bond between twins). In a role that could have easily been played a big, teddy-bearish actor like Forest Whitaker, first time/non-professional actor; Michael J. Smith Jr. took an incredibly challenging role and hit a home run with it (along with the rest of the cast). Director; Lance Hammer knew exactly what he was doing by casting the quiet, soft spoken, introverted, 6'3", 250-something pound framed Smith to play the lead role. Instead of casting someone like Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle or even Jeffrey Wright, he went with someone that most people may not think to empathize with due to their physical stature. Smith embodies a lot of the stereotypes that many (ignorant) people have towards someone with his features. You know - "The Big Scary Black Man". Besides his size (he looks more like a professional linebacker than he does an art house actor), at no point in the film does he really smile. For someone like myself who pretty much matches the physique of Smith, I applaud Hammer (or whoever did the casting for Ballast) for his casting choice. Black males, specifically large black males have a genuine sensitive side and sometimes it’s easy for people to not think about that. I imagine some of you are questioning why I didn’t bring up or include John Coffee from The Green Mile or the big mute stupid idiot from Batteries Not Included. Anyone with half a brain should know those aren’t realistic portrayals at all. The John Coffee character borders on not only being racist but downright idiotic. I mean, you really mean to tell me this person has magical powers to bring people back to life and cure the racist white people (who ultimately kill him) of diseases like cancer & the clap, yet he doesn’t have the power to just break out of his prison cell and walk right out? Smith's performance in Ballast is a response to bullshit like The Green Mile.
Ballast may not have dreamy voice-over (which is an easy route that Hammer coulda taken given the film's tone) but the use of natural sunlight and shots of the southern American landscapes are very reminiscent of Terrence Malick's early work...

When this film came out it was almost impossible for critics to not namedrop David Gordon Green's George Washington at least once in their reviews. The comparison is somewhat understandable at first glance as both films are natural, yet artistic looks at a predominantly black southern community through the eyes of a white male director using non-professional actors. But when you watch both films more than once you'll soon come to see that both films are totally different. Ballast centers on "Lawrence" (Michael J. Smith Jr.) - a former radio DJ and lonely store owner. His twin brother and only friend ("Darius") has just committed suicide. After an unsuccessful attempt at trying to commit suicide himself (he shoots himself but still lives), Lawrence sinks in to an understandable depression and tries to come to terms with the loss of his brother as well as mend the relationship with the family Darius left behind (a wife,"Marlee", and a crack addicted son, "James", that Lawrence isn’t exactly on speaking terms with at the moment for various reasons). Before Darius killed himself, he left both; Lawrence and his ex-wife some land and co-ownership of their father's gas station in what was probably an attempt to bring his family together in his absence. After a few fights and some personal issues are hashed out, Lawrence and Marlee slowly manage to work together and even end up living under the same roof. This becomes rough and disorienting for James as Lawrence, his uncle, looks exactly like his father (you know, being twin brothers and all) and he's having a tough time adjusting. Even Lawrence himself gets caught up in the fatherly role and has a hard time distinguishing himself from his deceased brother now that he's pretty much filled in for his position as a surrogate father & husband. It’s as if Darius came back to life in the form of his twin brother to look after everyone. Like many great films, Ballast plays off of that element of the unspoken. There isn’t a whole lot of dialogue and half of the dialogue that’s spoken is somewhat mumbled & unimportant while the important dialogue is spaced out quite a bit through the course of the film (without any kind of a score, minus the blowing of the wind, to keep the film together during all the quiet moments). In the end we get some insight as to why Darius killed himself and what separated his family. Some may find Ballast boring while others (like myself) consider it a sleeper masterpiece. If someone were to consider it just "ok" I really couldn’t argue with that. But for personal reasons that I already mentioned along with other reasons that are indescribable I can’t help but put Ballast on a mini pedestal as it represents something I haven’t really seen much on the big screen. And I haven’t seen too many films that touch on the real bond between twins in recent years (the opening of Ballast is very reminiscent of the final moments in Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers). My only issue with Ballast is that I don’t think it needed the whole subplot about James being hooked on drugs. I think we've seen enough of the drug angle in films concerning black people done enough since the early 90's. Maybe it’s time to give it a rest. It's possible to make a film centered around black characters without the presence of crack. But that’s just a minor element of the film and it doesn’t really take over the story.

The south during the winter time is another unique element of Ballast as those two things aren't really synonymous with each other. Besides the unique lead casting choice, Lannce Hammer intentionally took one of the most notoriously hot & "southern" places in America (the Mississippi delta) and took us there during the winter instead of mid-august like most films set in the south tend to do.

Not since Isaiah Washington's performance in Clockers has the "angry frustrated black male" been dissected

 and looked at in such a sympathetic way. Ballast features the beautiful natural imagery reminiscent of Andrea Arnold’s work (specifically Red Road & Wuthering Heights) as well as the films of Kelly Reichardt (specifically Old Joy). The opening shot and the scene with James lying on the floor with Lawrence’s dog (above) immediately come to mind. Somehow the camera used in this film makes the dark blue/grayish, drab environment seem beautiful. Along with 35 Shots Of Rum and The Wrestler (both released in the same year) Ballast is one of the best (recent) looks at the importance of having a father or some kind of a father figure. With the exception of one actor the entire cast is all black. Because of where we’re at as a society (or whatever) it’s almost impossible to not recognize this. However, race and/or racism isn’t the ISSUE of the film (thank god). For someone like myself who’s slowly starting to give up on films concerning race (people’s response to The Beast Of The Southern Wild, Tyler Perry, Precious and I honestly don’t understand why Spike Lee’s name is always mentioned in the same breath as Steve McQueen’s. Besides the color of their skin and both being filmmakers, they have nothing in common. Not even the same ethnic upbringing) Ballast is a breath of fresh air.

THE CINEMA OF TERRENCE MALICK PART TWO: A MISREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN?

The Thin Red Line (1998)

After watching To The Wonder back in September, John & Chris (The Pink Smoke) kinda planted the seeds that led to this write-up. In Malick's latest film we see quite a few scenes of actress Olga Kurylenko spinning & twirling around in tall fields of grass like a little kid to the point where it borders on being obnoxious and you start to think - "Wait a minute, this is a grown woman. Why is she acting like this?" Olga's performance didn't bother me at all initially (and I’m still a big fan of the film). I actually appreciated her performance. I honestly thought Malick was trying to show a free spirit character but now it’s kinda getting to me (along with other recent female performances in Malick's work). I mean, it’s ok to be a free spirit and let go but c'mon now. Even free spirits can act mature. It would be one thing if this was just an isolated incident in one film but I started to think about the representation of women in Malick's post-Days Of Heaven work and I’m honestly starting to question if Terrence Malick actually understands women. Is he capable of showing them as actual people instead of light, child like, almost unrealistic angelic creatures? They're almost always crying (or at least on the verge of tears), pouting or moody. I'm no expert on women but I still know enough to know that (grown) women don't necessarily act the way they do in a Terrence Malick movie. I know I flip-flop a lot with Malick (one week I love his work, the next week I question everything he does), but that’s what I love about him. It makes for non-stop thought and conversation.

The Tree Of Life (2010)

I know Terrence Malick is "old school" (born in the 40's, southern christian, etc.) so maybe some of those opinions he has towards woman may have permanently stuck with him but I don't even know if he can use that as an excuse. It’s not like his style of filmmaking is "old school" or even dated. Since the 90's he’s been pretty experimental and progressive compared to his earlier work. So why does his view of women still seem a bit dated and naive? Like in real life, does he just have his wife skip & prance around the house all day in a flimsy sun dress like the women in his films? Actually, his view of and representation of women seems to be moving backwards. In the 70's Malick had a knack for creating female characters with depth and complexity. Sure, Sissy Spacek was a naive and somewhat angelic-looking teenager in Badlands, but her voice-over narration throughout the film gave her character depth and showed us she had some insight and wasn’t an empty human being (pretty much the same can be said for Linda Manz' character in Days Of Heaven as well). Brooke Adams' character in Days Of Heaven was probably the most complex character (male or female) that Malick has ever created. She's a good person but at the same time goes along with a plan to scheme a dying man out of his money by pretending to fall in love with him (at the insistence of her aggressive husband). But ever since Malick re-emerged in the late 90's with The Thin Red Line, women kinda come off like unrealistic caricatures.

Tree Of Life

In The Thin Red Line the one prominent female role is portrayed by Miranda Otto (she plays one of the soldiers’ wives in a few flashback scenes). Now I understand The Thin Red Line is a world war two film so no one should expect a strong female presence, but besides one voiceover moment she has no lines in the film and her most memorable scene is a flashback of her playing on a swing. And speaking of no lines, what point did the actress who played Sean Penn's wife in The Tree Of Life serve exactly? She said nothing and just moaped around the house for the two minutes she was actually in the film. And Jessica Chastain's role was kinda the epitome of what this write-up is about highlighted by a moment where she literally floats in the air. What some people may perceive as emptiness in these female characters are also heightened because they're usually paired next to a male performance like Brad Pitt's portrayal of the tough American father (Tree Of Life), Ben Affleck’s broodiness (To The Wonder) or soldiers in the military (The Thin Red Line). When you take Miranda Otto playing care-free on a swing, Sean Penn's pouty wife, Jessica Chastain floating in the air and Olga Kurylenko frolicking around like a little kid it can paint an overall shallow picture. And I'm well aware Malick isn’t the one and only filmmaker guilty of this. But at the same time he's one of the most prominent and talked about directors in recent years. It’s tough to find a realistic portrayal in film of any demographic that isn’t a white male. With women on film it’s still either some docile delicate thing or an unrealistic, cunty, man hating power boss like Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada or Sigourney Weaver in Working Girl.

Thin Red Line

For reasons ranging from race & ethnicity to my own individual upbringing, I don’t really relate to the families or characters in Malick's work (although like I said in my Tree Of Life review, Brad Pitt's performance did kinda transcend race and the time period he came from and did remind me of certain characteristics of my own father). But I've been around enough women in my life outside of my own immediate family to know that "real women" aren’t really represented that much in Malick's work. And this wouldn’t be that big of a deal if the male characters in Malick's films were unrealistic as well. But Richard Gere (Days Of Heaven), Brad Pitt (The Tree Of Life), Ben Affleck (To The Wonder) and the all-star cast of The Thin Red Line all have what I feel are realistic male qualities for the most part - broodiness, trouble expressing personal feelings & emotions, aggressiveness, tough, arrogant, confidence, etc. Maybe if Malick showed tougher women or at least a little less delicate or always on the verge of tears things would be a bit more even.

The New World (2005)

Q'orianka Kilcher's performance in the New World is the one role that kinda challenges this theory of mine. Her portrayal of Pocahontas is caught somewhere in between the childishness of the female characters in Malick's more recent work (especially To The Wonder) and the hidden strength of the female characters in his earlier work. There's times when both Colin Ferrell & Christian Bale look at her and treat her like this exotic dark skinned creature instead of an actual person (and since most of the film is told from their point of view that's how the audience will look at her as well). And the fact that her character really doesn't have a whole lot of lines, yet is in a large majority of the 2-1/2 hour film, it makes her seem like this quiet female with nothing much to say. But on the other hand, there's times when she exudes strength and confidence that hasn't been seen in a Malick film since Linda Manz' character in Days Of Heaven. Malick's Pocahontas is a complicated one. She IS pretty much a child, so that kinda gives her the right to act childish and free. In the 2nd half of the film she's taken away from her home and plopped in to a strange world where she's kinda objectified so she has every right to act a little "off".

To The Wonder (2013)

Do you guys think I'm on to the something? I almost feel like this isn't my place and a woman should be writing this. I'd like some female movie buffs familiar with Malick's work to chime in on this.

BADLANDS

I tried to keep the 1950s to a bare minimum. Nostalgia is a powerful feeling; it can drown out anything. I wanted the picture to set up like a fairy tale, outside time, like Treasure Island. I hoped this would, among other things, take a little of the sharpness out of the violence, but still keep its dreamy quality - Terrence Malick

For the last two months I've been a writing machine churning out stuff for all three sites at the same time (PINNALAND, The Pink Smoke & Flud). Coincidentally half of the stuff I've written about has been Terrence Malick-related in some way (The Thin Red Line, Ratcatcher, Tree Of Life, The films of Jeff Nichols and the multiple references to George Washington). Anyone who's a fan of Lynne Ramsay, early David Gordon Green and Jeff Nichols should know that the quote above about nostalgia speaks volumes about Terrence Malick's influence.Whenever you read anything on Ratcatcher, George Washington, All The Real Girls or Shotgun Stories it's a safe bet that Malick's name will be dropped at least once along with the word; timeless. Besides the music, haunting voice-over narration (depending on the movie), characters frolicking in tall fields of grass and that overall dreaminess, what Ratcatcher, George Washington and other similar films set in the country or rural areas like Gummo, Undertow (also directed by Green), Ballast and Shotgun Stories have in common is their timeless feel. What I mean by timeless is the "look". These films almost look as if they could take place in the 1950's or today with the same exact settings, dialogue and wardrobe. The pickup trucks in Shotgun Stories and All The Real Girls look as if they came right out of Badlands. The simple white t-shirt & jeans worn by the actors in George Washington and Undertow (both films set in the present) look like they came right off of Martin Sheen's body in Badlands which is set in the 1950's. The characters in Ballast, Shotgun Stories and All The Real Girls have the same drawl and lingo as the characters in Badlands. Ratcatcher is the one unique film in the bunch in that it takes place in another country (Scotland) yet still has the same feel as an American film set in the south. Malick is kinda right in that nostalgia can distract the viewer. By keeping everything minimal, not constantly calling out what year it is and setting the story out in the country where you don't see modern architecture or new cars (still with the occasional, subtle nod to the period in time the story takes place) the audience won't feel the need to focus on unimportant details. I'm sure certain parts of the south still look as if it was untouched since the 1950's. 

Terrence Malick is one of the few directors around that still shows the laid back poetic side of the south and shies away from stereotypical shit like overalls, skipping rocks and other ignorant preconceived notions people may have about the south. 

Notice the similarity in the music used in this scene from Ratcatcher (1999) and the voice-over in George Washington...

Badlands is also known for its cinematography and use of the "magic hour" throughout the film...

Badlands, Terrence Malick's feature film debut, is based on the true story of fugitive lovers; Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate. In the film, "Kit" (played by Martin Sheen in a performance that rivals Apocalypse Now) and "Holly" (played by Sissy Spacek in a performance that's reminiscent of her role as Pinky in the first half of Altman's 3 Women) go on the run and have a mini killing spree (all the killing was done by Kit) after Kit murders Holly's father. Kit may be one of the most unique characters Terrence Malick has ever crafted as he's a somewhat detached, sociopathic child trapped in a grown man's body. For a film that's partially about murder, Badlands is pretty light and dreamlike. I guess the lightness and dreaminess of the film comes from the music and the beautiful cinematography. Badlands is told from the perspective of Holly (a somewhat naive teenager) through voice-over narration that would soon become a staple in Malick's films. But unlike everything Malick has done since the late 90's, the voiceover in Badlands, which is still airy & dreamy, actually has structure and chronicles their day to day lives instead of random poetic phrases and quotes like in The New World and The Tree Of Life. The sudden change in style of Malick's voice-over narration between his work from the 70's and 90's always intrigued me because there was no progression. After his first two films with their more narrative style he "disappeared' for two decades then resurfaced with a new found use of subconscious/existential voice-over that influenced stuff like George Washington. And speaking of influence, Badlands also had its share of somewhat random/odd moments that influenced future random/odd moments in films like All The Real Girls (the dancing clown scene is very similar to the scene where Sissy Spacek & Martin Sheen dance together) and the overall work of Harmony Korine (certain scenes in Gummo have the same randomness as the scene towards the end of Badlands where Martin Sheen is charming the police officers). Jamie Bell yelling and playing in the rain in Undertow is reminiscent of Martin Sheen playfully yelling and running through the woods with his riffle. I'd say Badlands is one of the more quietly influential influential films of the last 40+ years. 

Badlands also features a rare cameo by Mr. secrecy himself; Terrence Malick (that's right, not even the most private of directors can resist making a cameo in their own movie).