Movies by Terrence Malick and other filmmakers that place equal importance on the look of their pictures have led me to two conclusions. The first is one I say all the time but is especially relevant to Malick: an image is an idea. To all the talk there tends to be around movies that are visually incredible but purportedly offer little more, I say “hogwash.” That point presupposes that cinematography is less vital to a film’s effectiveness than writing or story. I would maintain that both are crucial to an excellent work of filmmaking, but each have merit on their own as well. Taking an image and making it stick in our brains is as valuable as explaining an idea that we’ll remember for years to come. Images don’t get as much respect because they can act on us non-verbally, but as indicated in point number one, that’s precisely why they deserve far more respect as ideas unto themselves.
The second conclusion the photography of Malick and co-conspirator Emmanuel Lubezki has led me to is that beauty sometimes is thought of far too specifically. I would argue that coolness is, if not synonymous with beauty, then a subsection of it. Something that looks cool ought to be treated with the same amount of reverence as something that looks beautiful. It’s just that calling something beautiful sounds much more self-important. Saying it looks cool or sounds cool keeps it kind of funny. But if we think of these terms as somewhat interchangeable, just the act of looking at some of Malick’s gorgeous glimpses of humans and nature could be appreciated on the same level as anything else that looks cool. And again, this is valuable in its own right, and also just super cool and enjoyable.
Continue reading on the next page…
