Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

Like the first line says, he is probably the least known famous director. That is, he is not an activist and not flashy, doesn't make a lot of movies, and the general public simply doesn't know about him. But all the other movie directors and famous actors know him and kind of idolize him.

When Thin Red Line came out in 1998 he hadn't done a movie since 1978 (Days of Heaven) and yet he snagged all the famous actors to play in it: Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel (though he wasn't as famous then), George Clooney, Jared Leto, Nick Nolte, John Travolta and others. It's like they were tripping over themselves to be in his film.

But I can't fault the general public for not knowing him either. His movies are more "artsy" so he is like like an American version of Andrey Tarkovsky -- you have to really be in the mood for his movies, like watching Stalker or Mirror by Tarkovsky.

View on HN

If you haven't seen it, A Hidden Life has the most Tarkovsky feel to it for me. It felt very inspired by Mirror, specifically. I say that as a person who loves both films, too.

I can't believe the author of the article so blithely dismissed To The Wonder, Knight of Cups, and The New World. The New World is probably my favorite of all Malick's films so far.

Kind of like a "musician's musician"—ones whose names come up often in interviews with famous musicians, and often have covers of their songs by more-famous artists become very popular, but are largely out of the limelight, at least relative to their fame and influence in certain circles.

IIRC Travolta was a furious that his role was brutally cut to almost nothing after shooting a decent amount of footage, and at least a couple of well known actors were fully out of the final cut.

They were indeed tripping to be in the film, that's one thing I remember clearly, rumours of some actors begging to be in the movie for free.

They were falling over themselves to make *a* movie with him. Not so much *another* movie with him. I just happened to watch a video about that this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqoQoN-Pb5I

> They were falling over themselves to make a movie with him. Not so much another movie with him. I just happened to watch a video about that this morning

I think one of the main points of the movie is there is no "lead actor". In that regard it's realistic as far as wars go -- there is no "Tom Hanks" character going to rescue a "Private Ryan" with magic plot armor surrounding him. As an aside, that movie was released the same year, so it makes for a great contrast.

Jim Caviezel's character (Witt) sort of became like a main character in the end but he still dies, surrounded and shot. Granted he sacrificed himself, which is notable, as well.

There have been other war films with uncannily twinkly star studded cast lists.

The Longest Day (1962) claims Sean Conery, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda, and Robert Mitchum amongst it's cast members.

A Bridge Too Far (1977) Includes Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, Sean Connery, James Caan, Gene Hackman, Ryan O'Neil and Lawrence Olivier amongst it's ensemble.

A Thin Red Line is notable for the number of high profile actors whose parts got whittled down to almost nothing in the editing room.

His movies may be "artsy" but he had a big influence on cinema. I watched Badlands for the first time a couple of years ago and I kept having to remind myself that it was made in 1973, not 1993 or 2003. It just seems like a film that's out of place in time, but that seems to be because it influenced later films.

> His movies may be "artsy" but he had a big influence on cinema

Of course, that's why all the movie directors and actors and people who are into film like him. But take a person off the street and put in front of a Malick movie and don't be surprised if they walk out. Someone in the sibling threads said that much.

But yeah, I watched The Thin Red Line in the cinema twice when it came out, but also acknowledge that I am probably in the minority.

The taste of the general public is not a good meter for the quality of literally anything. The ability of a artwork to grip a person is important, but what many people do not realize is that it can be at times nearly arbitrary who is impacted by a piece of art and who isn't.

Artsy films like that may not get the populus into the cinemas and entertain them in a bread and games way, but them not trying to do that is exactly the reason they have the ability to hit deeper (if you let them).

In his memoires the soviet director Andrey Tarkovsky describes and quotes from letters regular people wrote about his films, many of which have been deeply moved. Films that make Terrence Malick look like mainstream and can be a tough watch if you go into them with the wrong energy.

Yet I remember his film Stalker striking a chord within me I didn't even know existed and you can't say this of many films.

I saw it in the theatre and “what sort of animal is man?” has been one of my stock phrases ever since.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com