MovieChat Forums > Days of Heaven (1978) Discussion > Pretentious, boring and a chore to watch

Pretentious, boring and a chore to watch

posted 14 years ago by MaelstromA
60 replies | jump to latest

I know I'm going to be told that I don't understand Terrence Malick's genius or some such, but I'll try to comment on what I didn't like about this film:

a) Choppy editing. One scene almost always fades into the other randomly, you never know when it's going to happen, but it does when you least expect it.

b) It seems like a whole bunch of clips glued together. As soon as a scene starts to look interesting, it suddenly just fades out and moves on to another one. I prime example of this would be when Bill is looking around the house, spots a pitcher of wine and a picture and the scene suddenly fades out as soon as your imagination kicks in.

c) 'Pretty' imagery which bloats up the film and gives it a sense of disjointedness. For example, a scene will be going on and it'll suddenly pan into ducks, horses, wheat or the sky. What drugs was the director on, really? At times I felt like I was watching a National Geographic montage than a film with a storyline.

d) Horrible sense of timing and pacing. The time line isn't evident at all, there's no indicator of when something happened or how much time went by. It just goes into the standard fade out and fade in transition into another scene.

e) Literally no character development. It's more like 'Meet Bill', hot tempered, caring. Next! I blame the pretty imagery for this. It spreads the film out way too much to grasp what each character is all about.

f) I'll add more comments when I finish the film, which will probably take me about a month because it puts me to sleep every ten minutes.

[–] reykjavik84 14 years ago

a) that's his unique style, "visual poetry" Don't bother with the New World, that movie gets enough hate already
b) "clips glued together"-that's a good def of cinema. When Bill is looking briefly inside the opulent house Malick is showing the dramatic contrast from Bill's former poverty to the wealth he sees before him. This is one of the few scenes where your imagination is not required to "kick in"
c) come on, I thought art was for everyone
d) Let your imagination "kick in"
e) Character development is not a law, most people never change. Malick's films are true to life. this is not a Lifetime movie
f) Go watch Transformers. that will keep u awake. cheers

[–] Tyrione 12 years ago

In short, he's a pretentious ass of a film maker before anyone else held the title and so he filled the gap. Presto! Genius!

Malick's dull and overrated, not to mention financial disasters.

[–] MaelstromA 14 years ago

No. I strongly dislike Aliens, I enjoyed Kick-Ass. That's a poor response to my post though.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManfredinStJohn 14 years ago

OP, first off, I'd like to hear your argument that this film is "pretentious". "Ostentatious" might be the term you're looking for, though I'd disagree just as wholeheartedly.

All of those points you mentioned do not hinder the film, in my opinion; they are what define this film as a masterpiece. It all boils down to the recollections of a teen-age girl, the film's narrator. It doesn't dwell on the dimensions of the characters, because that was just a chapter in Linda's life. The unconventional editing and use of sublime imagery lends the film the impression of melancholy and nostalgia. A feast for the senses.

It's important to note that Nature is possibly the most important character in the entire scheme of the film, essentially "out-acting" the actors. All of the shots of Nature mirror the character's interactions and emotions, i.e. the weather vane, the crops catching fire, the wine glass in the river, how the wind gently (or violently) blows the crops.

Days of Heaven does something I've never seen another film do: translate raw imagery and a simple story into an extraordinary, beautiful, haunting portrait with emotional relevance, without being sentimental or manipulative.

< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >
Philosophers ask why; I ask what.

[–] JackBluegrass 14 years ago

The sublime imagery you correctly describe is due to the work of the excellent cinematographer, Nestor Almendros. His images of nature and the brutality in human life have rarely been put on film with the emotional power of this film.

[–] osolis 14 years ago

Apparently, half of the shots in the final edited film were by the great Haskell Wexler, as Nestor Almendros had to leave the production. But Almendros did set the look.

Excellent point about the film being the POV of Linda. Seen in that light it gives the whole film a new read.

Days of Heaven, as is the case with Malick's films, isn't everyone's cup of tea. But I'm glad that they are made.

[–] JackBluegrass 14 years ago

Thank you, osolis, for that info.

I was not aware that Haskell Wexler did great work here, too. Seems like a trivia comment appears on IMDb that Almendros was going blind during filming of Days. I remember Wexler for his magnificent photography in Jack Nicholson's "Chinatown". Replacing a master with another master was the correct decision.

I too am glad that someone will make a beautiful downer like Days of Heaven.

[–] jimpemmas 13 years ago

I like Days of heaven a lot but i can see why others don't.

HOWEVER

Disliking Aliens...i will never understand it!

My Vote History: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5479050

[–] druss44121-1 14 years ago

Different strokes for different strokes. I couldn't really get into The Thin Red Line despite a tremendous score and some incredible "moments."

However, Days of Heaven is just effortless viewing for me. Right from the beginning with the use of that music and the photos, just enthralling. I have a soft spot for history going from about the turn of the century to the beginning of World War II, though, so I'm an easy win.

Also, cafais, thanks for giving a respectful response. Too many people on IMDB (and most talkbacks) think having an opinion is like answering a question, and there's only one right answer and all others are lesser humans if they don't agree with you. If someone can reason WHY they feel a way, well, that's the whole point.

"I think that, in order to be interesting, art needs to have an element of unpredicability.:

Absolutely agree. And sometimes it can be jarring at first, too. You gotta get yourself into the mood of the film. And sometimes you can't and then the film just isn't going to work, really.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] commonparlance 14 years ago

I'm actually not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, flutterby. It's funny because most of what you say you don't like about Days of Heaven is what I think makes this film great (in addition to the incredible cinematography, of course).

The "weirdness" of the characters is something I like, how they don't always seem comfortable or confident, the way they talk to, and over, each other, the at times banal content of the dialogue. These all strike me as realistic, and also fitting with the fact that the story is told from the little sister's subjective point of view.

The flying circus sequence I like for its absurdity, and it is also in a way a catalyst/symbol of the conflict that marks the end of that part of the movie.

And if you hated the voice over, well then yeah I guess I don't expect you to like the film, since her narration is a major part of it. Personally I think its great. It's jarring yet endearing, and the things she says are poignant, poetic. Of course it all comes down to a matter of taste, and this is the kind of movie that, more than most, either speaks to you or it doesn't.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cursive_iz_king 14 years ago

Nice way to review it before finishing it. That's what all of the best critics do.

Hardly ever missed, did I?

[–] enigmatic_man2 14 years ago

One way I've heard Terrence Malick described as is "Stanley Kubrick with a smile." Malick doesn't focus in on characters and the characters aren't necessarily the driving force of the film (not that they're irrelevant, just not the main push of the narrative). I don't feel the editing was choppy or that the film felt like "clips glued together." Malick isn't focusing on what many other filmmakers would focus on (intricate personal details, exposition concerning back story), but on bits and pieces that connote a general idea of the characters. We're being put at a bit of distance from these characters without sacrificing their warmth or humanity to focus on how everything fits together. To Malick, the main characters of a film are not the center of the world but just another part of it, and we're never allowed to forget that (through cutaways to workers and wildlife). There's also the connotations raised when we see those animals run in fear from the farming equipment and the burning of the fields at the film's climax, the whipping noise of blades chopping grass and the same noise from the small fan the farmer fiddles with throughout the film.

This isn't conventional Hollywood narrative (not that conventional Hollywood narrative is a bad thing). It's something uniquely Malick, a different take on the world.
--
¡No hay la banda!

[–] maddy52101 14 years ago

I have to agree with the original poster. I watched the movie and went on here to say pretty much the exact same thing. So I guess maybe I have non refined taste some might say, but I just couldn't get into this movie at all. I am trying to watch Mallicks movies and watched Badlands yesterday and I didn't like it much more than this. The acting and cinematography are top notch, but all the charcters are like cardboard boxes and I never no why some of the dialogue has any purpose at all, even with as little as there is. The plot for this is very undefined and by the time it was over I really didn't care. I want to feel the characters in a movie and not just seem them used to move something that resembles a plot along. Images are nice, but I'm not looking at a photobook here. Ill admit there prolly is deeper meaning to much of the move that I'm missing, but id prefer a movie with a more interesting story structure with meaning than this. But if it works for you there is no reason this movie can't be enjoyed by some, just not my cup of tea.

[–] MisterGumby 13 years ago

Regarding the "characters are like cardboard boxes" comment: If I were you I would revisit Badlands in particular. It's amazing how thorough, unique and well-thought out the characters are. Could you really define Kit and Holly in one word, or even one sentence? Kit is a fascinating character in his own right for how he is passively apologetic for his crimes, yet fights on living. He takes great pride in his image (because that's about all he has), yet is not a superficial person. What I'm writing now if woefully insufficient to describe the depth and roundness of him and Holly, who for me is one of cinema's best (if quite subtle) representations of a sociopath.

Regarding the dialogue: The dialogue is filled with subtle phrases and ideas that shape our interpretations of Malick's characters. Note in Badlands how Holly absent-mindedly wonders about her future husband; she knows she won't marry Kit, and yet she continues with him on his murderous rampage? It's a strange concept and leads us to ask many questions about her character.

I want to feel the characters in a movie and not just seem them used to move something that resembles a plot along. Images are nice, but I'm not looking at a photobook here.

What Malick does in Days of Heaven and Badlands (and indeed all of his films) is use characters for something other than moving a plot along. Most genre films and point-A-to-point-B sort of movies(those with the cookie-cutter structure and series of events) use their characters only with regards to the plot events. We never get a thorough understanding of them. Malick's story structures allow us to deeply understand his characters, or at least be exposed to more sides of them that enables us to ask questions.

Regarding your last comment about a "photobook", you seem to be mocking the quality that makes cinema great. The reason film is such a great art form is its ability to tell a story as it unfolds in time without words and conventional story structures. Your idea of what makes a "more interesting story structure" shackles film to the conventions of literature and theater, when films by Malick transcend such shackling. They are not mere transliterations of books or plays and have their own cinematic merits. They should be judged accordingly.

And for the record, Malick films are not simply an aimless amalgam of events. They do indeed tell a story as it unfolds in time, though not in a way that is rooted to a rigid structure.

www.imdb.com/list/TNxI-Raigt0/ My Top 150, suggestions & comments welcome.

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

I can't believe you put together your comments before it even finished!

Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lt_Starkilla 14 years ago

Wow....I've never seen this film, yet all of the OP's bullet points fit with Tree of Life.
Quit with the "Enjoy Transformers" bullcrap. It's just silly.

"This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]