MovieChat Forums > Knight of Cups (2016) Discussion > Knight of Cups: the mourning film of Emi...

Knight of Cups: the mourning film of Emile Malick, forgiven by his son


There is just so much things to write on Knight of Cups.

Its glorious, stunning, mesmerizing, unimaginable introduction.
Its style, To the Wonder-like (maybe with shorter shots), but -- that's the difference -- with an uninterrupted flow of voice over.
And at the same time, it is also similar to Jack's wandering in the desert, in a double way: Rick wanders in almost all the settings of his life, in almost all shots of the film, but also, during all the film, Rick is shown wandering in the desert.... almost in a perfect copy of the rock and salt settings around Jack,.

In fact, all the film is a journey in Rick's memory as he wanders in the desert as The Tree of Life was (and probably To The Wonder too).

The two most important thing for me are:
- that, even the shooting took place before Emile Malick death, the way the images and voice over are put together seem to imply that Malick/Rick knows, or has guessed, how much his father, that never said anything probably on the death of his son, has suffered. And this is a way probably of expressing forgiveness for this and forgiveness for the behaviour that lead his son to suicide.

"There is so much love inside of us that can not get out", we hear in the last 20 minutes of the film.
We see at this moment a very old man, Joseph, on his hands and his knees in front of a cross of the Christ, praying with suffering in his voice. Still in his secret mourning.

In fact, all allusions to Joseph/Emile seemed bringing tears to me..

Some minutes before, we had heard from Joseph:
"You think that when you'll get older, you will give meaning to all this. But older, you see it as low as you always have. That the puzzle is still exploded"

The word "blind" of the trailer, is for Joseph.
- the film expresses clearly with litteral words, what the previous film had already expressed for the ones that had accepted to hear and see, as if Malick wanted this time the message be known to anyone (even if most viewers did not probably notice it, and that I am sure, the message that is clearly here won't be heard by most of the reviewers)
This message is always the same, than it was in To the Wonder, The Tree of Life, The New World and The Thin Red Line: seeing the world. Seeing it again, as if it was the first time. Finding again this first sight (the sight of origin we could say in an Heidegerrian way). Seeing it as perfect, as complete. In order that this sight change your own life.
Yet, with Quintana's monologue at the end of To the Wonder, that prayed for us to "see", the message of almost all his works was almost expressed clearly. But probably it has never been expressed so litteraly, clearly than in Knight of Cups.

The film is divided in multiple chapters (almost all of them corresponds to a relationship with a woman):
- The Moon
- The Hanged Man (revelation of Billy's death, years ago)
- The Hermit
- Judgment
- The Tower
- The Sun (the only chapter where it is a card that falls in water, instead of a black panel)
- The High Prietress
- Death
- Paradise
The Knight of Cups card is also seen during the Tarot reading, but impossible to know if it must be interpreted as a chapter.

Interestingly, most of the shots of the trailer are from the first minutes.. they are rarer and rarer as we advance into the film.

This "report" is not a review. It is a very difficult film to review after just one screening. It is so dense, there is so much voice over that it needs time and a lot of screenings probably to write anything valuable.
But from the first second, with the incredible beginning, you know that the film will be higher than what you could have ever expected. It is astonishing. Purely astonishing, the work of a genius, of a visionary, in the true meaning of these overused words.

reply

[deleted]

Fascinating reading. Thanks U4. Seems like Malick can't escape the compulsion to structure these recent films around significant biographical elements, despite his scrupulous desire for privacy. As if they are vehicles for him trying to make sense of it all existentially, at least as much as we are, or should be. Or something like that.

reply

As I wrote elsewhere:
after the 3rd screening, I am now sure of something I would not have thought on Sunday: it's Terry Malick's greatest film.

Knight of Cups is a precious and universal tapestry of mythical and intimate wires.
Malick is here a weaver.
I think there is no other word for him.

Except numerous staggering scenes full of fulgurance, of vision, there is no immediate, spontaneous grace** flooding all the film. It can not be: we are in Los Angeles, this horrible city. So there Malick is a patient weaver of image and sound, of layers of intimacy and universality (mythology, religious mythology), that has build a unique tapestry , which as a whole work is extraordinary without ever during the film, reaching the immediate, spontaneous grace of nature and bodies we saw for exemple in The New World.

And this is this patience, this labor, the difficulty of reaching the universal with such a hard, uneasy material that makes the film probably its greatest work. Malick knows weaving is all, that even, the least noble wires can be weaved into something greatest than the sum of it.

Because as a whole, this is not only a remarquable work with often some dazzling, visionary moments, that could only come from him and Lubezki. But an extraordinary, unique work, a precious weaving of voices*, sufferings, love, and forgiveness, of the personal and the mythical.

By a patient, generous and genious weaver.

*: The most precious ones says as always, the same very thing: seeing again the World , seeing it as complete and perfect.
But we will never know which way of saying will have had the more effect on Rick (the one of the priest, the one of the wildlife adventurer... etc). Maybe it is better...
**: It is not fully true, LA under the eyes of Lubezki and Malick obviously reaches beauty. In every moment of the film. But it is a little different than grace..

reply

Before the film, I thought as Knight of Cups as the prodigual son, in the way of coming back to home, to one self, to its own lost paradise. And it is in this film again as in all Malick's film.

But here in fact it is also litterally the prodigual son: coming back to the father, forgiveness and concord with him...

"My son.
Remember.
The perl."

"My son. I know you. I know you have a soul."

reply

Thanks U4. It is good to see you write so feelingly about what you have seen. One wonders, does Malick write primarily for a male perspective? 1John4:4

reply

I find this whole thread fascinating. I saw the film last week and definitely vascillated between finding it life-affirming and rubbish all in the same realm.

I do think part of it is that I am female and Malick's persepective is indeed definitively male. Yes, there is gratuitous nudity with no seeming purpose of female bodies just randomly throughout -- definite male gaze there -- but there is also something quintessentially male in the search for purpose. I think women search for purpose, too, but there are different spheres in the way those things happen. Love itor hate it, it is undeniably thought-provoking. Ah, Malick! Ah, humanity.

reply

And of course male perspective doesn't equate with misogynistic. But several things come to mind when I think if Malick in this setting (IMDb). Most of the posters appear to be men; I don't know if that's a Malick thing or an internet thing. And I think the idea of sons forgiving fathers automatically tugs on the hearts of most males, but do females get that, or care, or relate to something analogous? Malick's filmic women seem to all live on a pedestal. Marina in To the Wonder seems to be the first faulted woman, but almost in a pitiable way. The near-nudity in To the Wonder was I thought purposeful and tasteful.

reply

I agree that male perspective is neither definitively misogynistic nor is it something that shouldn't be presented. I think your thoughts on the male lens on father/son relationships is probably spot-on for the last three films, but as a female, I saw the entirely male The Thin Red Line and related to it on such a deeply spiritual level. Badlands remains, probably, my favorite film of all time, but I do think that this one loses something that I cannot quite articulate, at least for me, and for the first time, I felt the women's roles were expoitative, if not entirely, at least in that they were objectified as tools for Rick to get to his spiritual peace. That in and of itself isn't bad, but Malick and Luzbeki focused the camera enough on actual female body parts that it felt expoitative. Just as I cannot see authentically through the male lens of the father/son relationship, men cannot see what it is like for women to always be relegated to body parts -- that's not to say women don't like to be viewed sexually. It's just that focusing in on just an ass feels objectifying rather than erotic.

I agree that To the Wonder had beautiful love scenes that were indeed purposeful and tasteful, and while I get that part of this film was to showcase Hollywood decadence, it didn't seem as artfully done. There were no artful, poetic sex scenes -- just naked and/or semi-naked chicks meandering around.

Just my take, though. Malick is always good for divergent interpretations.

reply

It's interesting because some women friends found Miranda Otto as the "faithless wife" in Thin Red Line to be an example of Malick's stereotypical portrayal of women. I thought that the character had much greater nuance than that. God I loved that film, and while I rate Badlands very highly, it wasn't, well, shattering the way some of the content in Thin Red Line was.

reply

at least in that they were objectified as tools for Rick to get to his spiritual peace


The way women are objectified in the film does not mean Malick or the film condone this view of women. But it is the world in which Rick is living, it is his view of the worlduntil he finds again his soul... It is also the Hollywood word as seen by Malick, and in this way a very harsh attack against a certain world of entertainment, spectacle.

reply

I have almost finished in French a long and thorought text.
I write it here to force me to translate it as I would have promised it to you ;)

reply

Looking forward to your analysis very much U4.

reply

As an advance. As a foretaste.

"My son.
Find the Light you knew in the East as a child.

The Light. The Moon. The Stars. They serve you.
They will guide your way."

reply

I am so late on this.. But, I really hope to translate it soon..

reply

pleeaaase U4. i thirst

reply

I am sorry blessmathis !

The good news is, I have to complete the writing very very quickly in order it joins a compendium of essays.
So the French unfinished version will be finished very soon, and then I will post it !

To give you water two music videos and their accompanying post (the second one really tries to share the ambiance):

The mesmerizing, recurring main theme of KNIGHT OF CUPS.

The road stretches out. Always.
To the Pearl. To the East.


https://youtu.be/nJmxzE72KQk
https://www.facebook.com/OneBigSoul.TheTerrenceMalickCommunity/posts/640809972686096


An evocation of the Prince's journey in KNIGHT OF CUPS:
https://youtu.be/JD4gcXV_Z8c
https://www.facebook.com/OneBigSoul.TheTerrenceMalickCommunity/posts/641142832652810

reply

I felt the women's roles were exploitative, if not entirely, at least in that they were objectified as tools for Rick to get to his spiritual peace.


I think that this is a quality observation and imho has the ring of truth for the real world, not just LA and not just the world of film. I don't know if Malick meant it that way or if it just happened. I haven't seen the film yet, and probably won't know after I do see it.

Thanks also to the OP.

reply

I think it depends heavily on with what sort of eyes you view the film. Everyone sees it differently from other points of view.

I am going to try to explain this but I dunno it might sound a bit weird lol. My apologies if it does!

Yes there was female nudity but from the eyes of Rick you have to understand that there is nothing dirty or whatever about it. Also nothing misogynistic or woman-depreciating about it neither! On the contrary: for he loves women, the woman; he worships the goddess in all her beauty and glory. To him the vision of a beautiful young woman makes him feel alive. So much that he needs it in his life, constantly. Like his brother he wants to feel stuff, feel more stuff. But because of his fixation and maybe even egotistical behavior his life becomes unbalanced and the thing he adores actually brings him quite a bit of misery. This is a result of worshiping false idols in an unbalanced way. To be inspired is one thing.. but take it to extremes and you can suspect trouble ahead.

Too much of a good thing can become a bad thing if you don't mind where your attention is going. It's all about keeping the balance in your life.

There is nothing wrong with the woman in this film. If that is what you think after viewing it, that means you have put yourself in that point of view because I don't think there was anything disrespectful about it. No really, I would say the way in which woman was portrayed in this film is actually empowering! I felt that the women in this film were very strong and wise and free in whichever way they wanted to express their selves. Woman plays a key role in Rick's life.. it plays a very important part. It's like the priest said: what if you regard your suffering as gifts to elevate your self to a higher level; to know something higher?

Also: I want to point out that Rick is responsible for his own misery, not woman as we might foolishly think. He left his first wife (who was basically a near perfect human being). Then he got together with this other girl but it didn't take her long to realize that he was an empty shell begging for someone to open him. Then another girl but she was on to him as well. So then he got together with a married woman so thereby he unconsciously set himself up for even more tears.. and all the while he's slowly learning...

Most of the film is basically Rick reflecting/wondering through these memories.. revisiting concepts in his mind that make up his past by which he tries to navigate the future; figure out the puzzle. It is by these concepts that he tries to see the puzzle of life for what it is. And at times he's there and he can see it and other times he's lost it again. Like the tides of the waves. But he remembers the pearl.. and he doesn't want to forget.

In the end it seems he started something new with yet another girl but in the end I think it is implied that this time, he is aware of his prison, his matrix. Perhaps he has finally learned his lesson.. and forgave his father.


Because what image do you think is the strongest in a man who was hurt by the strength and severity of his father? That's right; a beautiful woman, a goddess.. both elements father/big bad patriarch and a glorious, beautiful woman are probably inter-linked with each other. They are each other's opposite or compliment. It's just how you look at it.

reply

Thank you for this, it makes my spine tingle with induced awe and anticipation.
Keep watching the masterpieces....

reply

[deleted]