
At the Olive Garden, everyone’s family
If you’re not smart enough to understand why Terrence Malick’s films are so subtle and brilliant, one thing you’ve probably noticed is that he likes to film leaves and wheat stalks and grasses gently blowing in the breeze, with an approach that seems to say “Dialogue schmialogue, here’s a quiet meadow.” Ben Affleck recently starred in Malick’s To the Wonder, and the way Affleck describes Malick’s process basically confirms everything you always assumed about Terrence Malick’s process:
“The experience of it seemed half-crazy in that we didn’t really have dialogue, so I didn’t really know what was happening,” Affleck tells GQ in a new interview. “Then I realized that he was accumulating colors that he would use to paint with later in the editing room. My character doesn’t really do that much.”
Indeed, in THR‘s review of the film, Neil is called “a leading contender for biggest cypher of a leading man in modern cinema. With the barest shards of dialogue to speak, Neil holds his women tight when love is strong, approaches them with concerned sympathy when they turn unhappy and broods in corners or while driving a car once a rupture looks inevitable.”
Added Affleck, “It was kind of a wash for me in terms of learning something as an actor, because Terry uses actors in a different way—he’ll [have the camera] on you and then tilt up and go up to a tree, so you think, ‘Who’s more important in this—me or the tree?’ But you don’t ask him, because you don’t want to know the answer.” [THR]
Yup, sounds like Malick alright. I’ve heard that after sex, Terrence Malick spends 20 minutes spooning the lampshade.



That GQ Interview is also the one where he says was treated worse by the media than Scott Peterson. Classy comment.
Malick doesn’t tether himself to antiquated notions of storytelling like, um, having a story to tell, and that’s why he’s such a great storyteller.
Substitute “Bay” for “Malick” and “‘splosions” for “trees”, and you’d have a cool story… bro.
Who’s doing this? Who’s killing us?
Seriously, Malick, are you going to answer that? Am I supposed to? Should those even be typed with question marks? Or would they just make more sense with regular periods at the end? Goddamnit, Malick, stop blowing my mind!
*whispers*
I will not see this movie.
*leaf blows by*
Malick’s movies are boring as shit.
*close up of my chin with sunbeams in the background*
I have to fart.
Malick’s Kevin Malone impression is uncanny.
I’m going to raise you with Ben Bernanke.
Malick is obviously Peter Boyle’s illegitimate son.
Possibly Rob Reiner is his uncle.
He looks like a Rob Reiner Mii that can’t expand beyond the limitations of the template.
i’d watch Transformers 2 for 24 hours before i’d watch another Malick flick. smart enough to understand them my ass. boring is boring.
I’m hoping you picked up on the sarcasm.
i…
i’ll see myself out.
You could give Malick any topic, no matter how diverse (Pocahontas, WW2, the very meaning of life itself) and he will somehow turn it into the SAME FUCKING MOVIE EVERY TIME. The same montage of nature juxtaposed against actors with vacant expressions on their faces all with a cheesy philosophy 101 voice over.
I used to love him when I was in highschool and my early 20s, but he’s really one director that I grew out of. I just don’t have the patience anymore to sit through his same 3 tricks over and over and over. “Tree of Life,” especially, was just awful. It was like someone was doing a bad parody of a Malick movie.
Plus, I actually think his reputation has been hurt by the advancement in technology over the past decade. Now that anyone with 1,000 dollars can buy a high end digital camera and produce more or less the same lush nature photography that he does, it kind of makes his schtick less special.
Now that life insurance commercials and nature documentaries look, more or less, as good as Malick’s photography, I think it’s time for him to find a new gimmick.