MovieChat Forums > The Better Angels (2014) Discussion > Very confused about filmmaker's intent

Very confused about filmmaker's intent


Ok so you have this young filmmaker who worked as an editor on a couple Malick movies. Great. So his boss influences him a little and helps him make this movie. That is great too and what a privilege for him.

My question is this. Why would a new director blatantly copy the style of someone else who marks HIS own work with his style so grandly? Would this not make it almost impossible to be yourself in your career? No one is going to see his name, only Malick's.

I think I'd be a little more than embarrassed to face my peers if I were this AJ guy.


I made him feel shame... my shame. ToL
Indies to watch:
Blue Ridge
Once
Shotgun Stories
Old Joy

reply

This is like asking why Darth Vader has a red lightsaber. Cormac McCarthy began his career with a great Faulkner impersonation. Bob Dylan was little more than a Woody Guthrie imitator. New artists wear their influence on their sleeve.

reply

Well thank you for the useless and elementary reply.

A director BLATANTLY copying another is pretty much unheard of and even more so when this person has a boss who is that other director. Actual well thought-out ideas or anyone that has heard this guy speak at a festival who can share insight into this is appreciated.

Films aren't music, BTW (you idiot)



I made him feel shame... my shame. ToL
Indies to watch:
Blue Ridge
Once
Shotgun Stories
Old Joy

reply

Guys, I don't get it, why's this director aping a filmmaker who likely taught him everything he knows and, what's more, is the producer of his movie, it doesn't make any sense.

Malick, for whatever reason, is an artist people seek to emulate, to such a degree that "Malickian" has entered the filmmaking lexicon. David Gordon Green with George Washington, whoever did that Ain't Them Bodies Saints movie last year, Beasts of the Southern Wild, The Assassination of Jesse James... Unheard of. Go play in your lettuce patch.

reply

His answer was perfectly suitable to your question, and your response was unnecessarily hostile. That you would dismiss examples from other artistic disciplines shows you have a pretty closed mind.

There are plenty of reasons for Edwards to ape Malick. I don't agree with it but it is understandable.

reply

"An entirely new way of making films" has been said increasingly about Malicks most recent work. In that context it's fair to consider whether he will ultimately be seen as a singular visionary or the nidus of an entire school of film. Which may offer a reassessment of "aping". 1John4:4

A thing of beauty is a thing forever. MLG/JK

reply

I doubt this is a case of a blatant copy. This is more like when Spielberg produced Poltergeist and Tobe Hooper directed it. Only Better Angels writing credit is all Edwards. Attacking the filmmaker and not the story is a bit ad hominem. Yes we all get jealous of others success when its deemed undeserved but...like I said, Edwards did put in the time to write it. And no writer -- no film. In fact if the story is written strong enough its Malick who should be thanking Edwards for flattering him by using Malicks style for such a great story.

reply

This is like asking why Darth Vader has a red lightsaber. Cormac McCarthy began his career with a great Faulkner impersonation. Bob Dylan was little more than a Woody Guthrie imitator. New artists wear their influence on their sleeve.


Yeah, but none of your examples were exact copies of the original. They both brought something new to the table. This film was a carbon copy of a Malick film. Exact shots and even character beats were lifted directly from Malick. The only differences were the lack of color and lack of insight.


"I have been thoroughly defeated in this debate...."
- Bolt

reply

I defer to "400 Blows" and Antoine Doinel's Balzac altar. Or, Statius to Virgil in The Divine Comedy.

reply

if a guy in effect does his post graduate work in a certain style and likes it, it can be pretty dangerous to try to break off too far away from his source teaching and likely end up directing something that he doesn't know how to do...

I'd think it would be a much worse outcome to end up with a hot mess rather than a strongly Malick influenced piece of work

also, this film does seem to have faster pacing, higher energy level, and more communicative dialogue than your average Malick film, so I"d argue it's significantly different.

reply

I don't think the filmmaker has anything to be embarrassed about. He wrote the film. Directed and edited using a style he's familiar with or just likes. Its a bit like Spielberg using Kurosawa's style as his own. This film does look like a Malick film but I don't think that bothers Malick fans. It would probably bother someone who isn't a fan of that style. Me I just want to see a story about the things that set young Lincoln's mind in motion. That its shot beautifully and like Malick would is just a bonus.

reply

Spot-on answer, jcobane. Almost all great artists cut their teeth in the aesthetic veins of masters whose sensibilities chime with their own. In filmmaking, one need look no further than Paul Thomas Anderson's early work echoing Altman's. Malick, it seems to me, has given birth to a new way of seeing the world and articulating experience -- and filmmakers like Edwards and Andrew Dominik are not imitators of Malick, but fellow travelers extending and honoring the legacy of a mentor. That so few film buffs and critics understand this is both disheartening and a little pathetic.

reply