Knight of Cups - Lives up to my expectations. Genius.

Knight of Cups

2015

Terrence Malick

In the very start of cinema, you had the rotoscope.  It was the illusion of images flashing by through little slots in a circular metal container, and your eye did not see the little slots at the right speed, but they blurred together, allowing the glimpses of the images on the opposite side of the hollow container to be "glanced" at through them, and since the images were in sequence, that gave the illusion of motion.  It's still the same today, at 24 frames per second, or 30, or 60, depending on the camera.

The very early cinema was a desire to create the illusion of motion.  The material used for the motion images varied from horses to people walking, or throwing a ball.  But from then on, structure began to form, and cinema evolved into storytelling.  The novelty of the simple image quickly grew into an art form not just of the image, but of the meaningful interaction between image and observer.  The most artful became master of the image so that it told the most effective story.  

Malick lived up to my expectation, as noted in my prediction in my Facebook post which I almost never write, in that his masterful use of the image as primary in creating his stories has come to full fruition in Knight of Cups.  He has finally transcended cinema's modern constraints for good, and I don't see him looking back.  

As much as entertainment fans may cringe at the thought, this is what truly great cinema should be.  His work is as close to the dreamlike experience of existential thought as the dream itself.  There is no doubt there is a great deal of direction, manipulation (as difficult as it is to sense that word as positive, it is), and content.  In fact, there is so much more content here packed into it's 2 hours that it could take weeks to unpack it.  

This is such a totally different approach to storytelling that it draws largely bifurcated reactions, packed firmly into 2 camps, one being the "love it" camp all of whom may not be able to explain why they do, but they do, and the bewildered or "hate it" camp, which will no doubt admire the energy and visual beauty of Cups, but will likely eschew the depth of it on the grounds of what appears to be the absence of plot and dialogue.

After just seeing it tonight, I have to say I will need to see it again.  It deserves a second viewing, or repeated viewings.   Those who would downplay the film as possibly pandering to lower visual tastes and appealing to salivating predators needing eye-candy fixes either have not really viewed the film, or are perhaps in that class of moviegoers themselves and not paying attention.  The great juxtapositions that Terrence is making here are a teeter-totter of the conscience, the ocean tides giving a perfect metaphor for the ebb and flow of an embattled soul-searching male in the onslaught of post-modernity, and also the very fact of being a vulnerable male, subject to what every man is subjected to in some degree, sooner or later, without exceptions.  

There is one line in the traditionally Malick hushy-whispery monologues that slip by us often quickly and without seeming connection (although on examination you'll find that they are solidly connected and filled with multiple meanings), and I had to actually get my phone out and note it down before I forgot it exactly as quoted.  It is a line of monologue floating above the scenes of Bale's character Rick interacting with the strip club girl played by Isabel Lucas I believe.  It is the girl's voice:

"We're not living the lives we're meant for......We're meant for something else."

THAT is a load of content that we could talk about all night, and deliciously delivered by the most blatantly audacious of the girls Rick is drawn in by.  That would be Malick's great gift of irony subtly yet also boldly swashed across the screen for our minds to wrap around.  Malick is very much like the court jester here, a goofy character seemingly out of place, but absolutely treasured by the King because the biting wit of a great jester holds great value and substance.

To end the film with the word "Begin" is also just such a play for us.  We are given the many facets of a jewel, and then it's laid before us on the table and the question is asked of us, "What will you do with it"?  The open road speeds towards us as the last image.

To be continued.....

Knight of Cups - 2015 - Movie Pre-Review

Knight of Cups: 2015 Terrence Malick

Initial Pre-Review

This is my Facebook post of Mar. 9th:

I believe that A.A. Doud of the A.V. Club's analysis is very observant and right on in many ways.

https://film.avclub.com/los-angeles-gets-the-terrence-malick-treatment-in-knigh-1798186822

An extensive analysis is exactly the antithesis, however, of what a film like Malick's is really about. The reason he has so broken with stereotype and worked his against-the-odds filmmaking style, and repetitively, is for 2 main reasons (and I'm sure there are more if we look further, but 2 main reasons in any case). 1) Like a great master painter, and I just viewed Pollack a few weeks ago, and that fits this perfectly, to repeat a formula that works and to refine it would be the goal and 2)the style perfectly breaks the expectations we have, yes, and if one allows oneself to be "taken" by the film's direction, which is indeed meditative and dreamlike, then you'll find that the "narrative" is held within that structure - in other words, like a great painting, there is a reason for it being great that is not necessarily borne out of expectation, but a naturalism that makes it great, and it has to be taken as a WHOLE and not pieces, which is why narrative structure indeed cannot be applied here. Like that sentence for instance. Technically it still works, even though there is no stopping place.

Pollack's later works were great precisely because he found a freedom from the restraints of the edge of the canvas, and the edge of the "known" and began to allow his free association to combine with his full acknowledgement of his craft.  As it applies to Malick, in The New World for instance, there is a definite progression of plot, as we know the story to have it's own plot in any case, but with Malick the PLOT is not the objective, it is the TELLING that makes it come alive, a story we're already familiar with. Just one example from that film: the great English gardens in the end with their flawless landscaping, and there is Pocahontas dressed to the nines in her tight fitting shoes, corset, hair done up in a bun, etc. The visual alone is all that needs to be said, especially when Malick places the Native American escort over and against that landscape in his near-native getup, as anachronous and disturbing almost as an elephant defecating at a ladies tea.

I'm supposing that you'll have to put me in the "faithful" lot, because I'm seeing into that structure, possibly a bit easier than the average moviegoer, not out of a sense of "film snobbery" or superiority, but because I've spent over 30 years of consistent film study and analysis, starting with my revelatory film school experience in the late '80s. I drop very easily into the Malick spell, and without reservation am a fan. And I haven't even SEEN this film yet. I'm only responding to this review. I'm very likely to write a follow up to this after I've been able to catch it near my culturally and geographically estranged location. The nearest even this Friday, after a week of it being out, is still a 3 hour drive.

Los Angeles gets the Terrence Malick treatment in Knight Of Cups

Malick has provided, with his gorgeous meander of a seventh feature, plenty of ammunition for the faithful and the not.

AVCLUB.COM