A movie about Lincoln being shot in black and white seems heavyhanded to the point of farce, but for those who have seen this, was it necessary? Or was it artistic indulgence?
From the trailer I also wondered if the monochrome was meant to mask the obvious Malick mimicry.
All I can tell you is, it was beautiful.
(saw it at the Berinale in feb)
"In this world a man, himself, is nothing. And there ain't no world but this one."
The black and white was quite effective. It would have been not so good if in color.
shareI've seen the movie, and personally, I thought it was quite beautiful to look at. I can't quite imagine it being as good if it had been made in color.
shareSlow, detailed, artistic--none of these were invented by Malick and do not constitute mimicry of him. To condemn widescreen BW photography of the beauties of American nature as "heavyhanded" constitutes farce in itself. Sorry there were no CGI Sith lords to keep you entertained, but this movie has close ties to cinema's first century when the ability to get out of the way and let the viewers see a full scope of reality and let them devise their own understanding of theme and unified art were intended and appreciated. The choices in filmmaking are never a matter of "necessity", but are made as part of the artistic creation. In this case, BW works to indicate the restrictive life of pioneer settlers whose daily hard labor destroyed part of American nature to make a subsistence living. It reinforces the narrowness of choices available to the poor people who had abandoned more civilized life back East in an attempt to go it alone on the frontier. It helps emphasize the loneliness and isolation of frontier life. A deliberate choice, an artistic one and one which helped create a distinguished and meaningful film.
share