409 Days of Heaven

Message

patrick · #26 Post by **patrick** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:30 pm

It's nice to see that he's warming up to DVD a little, at least - although I'm sure we'll never get an actual commentary with him. I will shower Criterion with praise if they can at least squeeze out an interview with him, even if it's brief.

eez28 · #27 Post by **eez28** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:06 pm

Hell would freeze over he if granted an interview. I would shower criterion with praise if they could get their hands on a recent photograph. Heck maybe someone here has one but I have only seen really old photos of the guy.

The Elegant Dandy Fop · Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:22 pm

eez28 wrote:Hell would freeze over he if granted an interview. I would shower criterion with praise if they could get their hands on a recent photograph. Heck maybe someone here has one but I have only seen really old photos of the guy.

Maybe Criterion could do what news reporters do, and present Malick, all black, over a colored background, and the alter his voice.

All kidding aside, we should be pretty fuckin' grateful he's even participating!

#29 Post by **Jeff** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:55 pm

eez28 wrote:Hell would freeze over he if granted an interview. I would shower criterion with praise if they could get their hands on a recent photograph. Heck maybe someone here has one but I have only seen really old photos of the guy.

I think that this picture, taken on the set of The Thin Red Line, is the most recent one. Jim Caviezel describes Malick's voice as a cross between Texas drawl and Kermit the Frog. Maybe that's why he's so shy.

patrick wrote:I guess Malick must have asked for the 5.1 track then? I hope that it's not the only option available.

According to Criterion, the original audio elements are 4.1 (perhaps taken from the 70mm release). Certainly, Malick approves either way or they wouldn't be doing it.

kaujot · #30 Post by **kaujot** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:51 am

I swear I've seen him a few times around UT's campus.

#31 Post by **Jeff** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:25 am

It's a shame that Rosy-Fingered Dawn wasn't included. I suppose they couldn't get the rights, or perhaps Malcik nixed it. I'll cross my fingers that they're still negotiating rights, and it is the "More!" that was alluded to.

It is nice that Malick is allowing his long-time friends and collaborators record an audio commentary, though I suppose they will only be discussing their own contributions.

the dancing kid · #32 Post by **the dancing kid** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:36 am

kaujot wrote:I swear I've seen him a few times around UT's campus.

He occasionally teaches philosophy at the undergraduate level, so it wouldn't surprise me. His graduate work was on Martin Heidegger's 'Being and Time', although I can't remember if he has a PhD or not (I know he was a Rhodes scholar, but I think that only leads to an MA). I actually think Malick's academic writing would make for an interesting extra feature on the DVD, although I imagine it would be practically impossible to get access to. Still, I think it would open up some interesting possibilities for analyzing his films.

kaujot · #33 Post by **kaujot** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:41 am

the dancing kid wrote:
kaujot wrote:I swear I've seen him a few times around UT's campus.
He occasionally teaches philosophy at the undergraduate level, so it wouldn't surprise me. His graduate work was on Martin Heidegger's 'Being and Time', although I can't remember if he has a PhD or not (I know he was a Rhodes scholar, but I think that only leads to an MA). I actually think Malick's academic writing would make for an interesting extra feature on the DVD, although I imagine it would be practically impossible to get access to. Still, I think it would open up some interesting possibilities for analyzing his films.

Will definitely be checking the course catalog for his name from now until I graduate. Probably obsessively. Thanks.

malcolm1980 · #34 Post by **malcolm1980** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:39 am

I wonder how much the price will skyrocket if they actually got Terrence Malick to do a commentarty.

#35 Post by **Jeff** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:53 am

malcolm1980 wrote:I wonder how much the price will skyrocket if they actually got Terrence Malick to do a commentarty.

They'd be more likely to get J.D. Salinger.

The Elegant Dandy Fop · Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:56 am

Jeff wrote:
eez28 wrote:Hell would freeze over he if granted an interview. I would shower criterion with praise if they could get their hands on a recent photograph. Heck maybe someone here has one but I have only seen really old photos of the guy.
I think that this picture, taken on the set of The Thin Red Line, is the most recent one. Jim Caviezel describes Malick's voice as a cross between Texas drawl and Kermit the Frog. Maybe that's why he's so shy.

Well, he comes out in Badlands for a bit, as some guy who knocks at the door of the rich man's house Martin Sheen takes over.

He doesn't sound like Kermit to me.

malcolm1980 · #37 Post by **malcolm1980** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:11 am

How recent is this photo I found on-line?

He looks like Rob Reiner. I think it was taken at some film festival. One of his very rare public appearances.

QUESTION: Is Malick's reclusiveness and unwillingness to do interviews due to the fact that he's really shy or is it an artistic principle thing?

Macintosh · #38 Post by **Macintosh** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:33 am

malcolm1980 wrote:How recent is this photo I found on-line?

Is Malick's reclusiveness and unwillingness to do interviews due to the fact that he's really shy or is it an artistic principle thing?

that is from a preview screening of The New World so its about a few years old. I think some artists are really self conscious and that may be the reason that he doesn't do interviews, just the thought of someone seeing him on a screen or talking scares him.

Mental Mike · #39 Post by **Mental Mike** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:12 am

Guys, maybe we should cut out the speculation on Malick's personal characteristics...it may only confirm why he is (or was) so reclusive...

....But all this prying into the life of a great man-James Joyce, Ulysses (listener to Stephen's discourse on Shakespeare)

MichaelB · #40 Post by **MichaelB** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:26 am

patrick wrote:I guess Malick must have asked for the 5.1 track then? I hope that it's not the only option available.

I imagine it's the closest they could get to the original 70mm six-track mix - which is presumably the closest to Malick's intentions.

you gotta be kidding me · Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:47 am

Jeff wrote:It's a shame that Rosy-Fingered Dawn wasn't included. I suppose they couldn't get the rights, or perhaps Malcik nixed it. I'll cross my fingers that they're still negotiating rights, and it is the "More!" that was alluded to.

Wasn't that about The Thin Red Line? Do Criterion have the rights to that title (dear God I'll wet myself if they do) and are they maybe saving it for that?

#42 Post by **Jeff** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:56 am

you gotta be kidding me wrote:
Jeff wrote:It's a shame that Rosy-Fingered Dawn wasn't included. I suppose they couldn't get the rights, or perhaps Malcik nixed it. I'll cross my fingers that they're still negotiating rights, and it is the "More!" that was alluded to.
Wasn't that about The Thin Red Line? Do Criterion have the rights to that title (dear God I'll wet myself if they do) and are they maybe saving it for that?

It was a documentary overview of Malick's career and covered his first three films. I believe that Badlands actually received the lion's share of screen time.

There hasn't been any indication of Criterion working on The Thin Red Line, but they have worked with Fox in the past, so I suppose it's not entirely out of the question.

jbeall · #43 Post by **jbeall** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:31 pm

blindside8zao wrote:no offense, but I wouldn't take a class on Heidegger from anyone who didn't have a PhD, except maybe Marlene Dietrich.

Well, he lives in Texas, so he has to take what he can get.

dadaistnun · #44 Post by **dadaistnun** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:13 pm

I was just reading Ebert's "Great Movies" piece on the film and was struck by this passage:

Days of Heaven's great photography has also generated a mystery. The credit for cinematography goes to the Cuban Nestor Almendros, who won an Oscar for the film; ``Days of Heaven'' established him in America, where he went on to great success. Then there is a small credit at the end: ``Additional photography by Haskell Wexler.'' Wexler, too, is one of the greatest of all cinematographers. That credit has always rankled him, and he once sent me a letter in which he described sitting in a theater with a stopwatch to prove that more than half of the footage was shot by him. The reason he didn't get top billing is a story of personal and studio politics, but the fact remains that between them these two great cinematographers created a film whose look remains unmistakably in the memory.

I'd never heard about that before. The Wexler interview should prove interesting.

mteller · #45 Post by **mteller** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:37 pm

Jeff wrote:
malcolm1980 wrote:I wonder how much the price will skyrocket if they actually got Terrence Malick to do a commentarty.
They'd be more likely to get J.D. Salinger.

I'd love to hear Salinger do commentary on The Royal Tenenbaums, actually.

Person · #46 Post by **Person** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:10 pm

Wexler talks about working on Days of Heaven in the cinematography documentary, Visions of Light. He used heavy fog-filters for the scenes that he shot to the chagrin of Alemendros, who was the natural light DP par excellence and hated filters. Similar conflicting styles show up in Polanski's, Tess, when Ghislain Cloquet stepped in after the master of the fog-filter, Geoffrey Unsworth died and Cloquet shot everything clean.

I am not a big fan of Days of Heaven - I have also lost interest in Badlands - but both films have gorgeous lighting. Dozens of films have tried to emulate the visuals of Days of Heaven to the point where that style has become a cliche. But the original is still amazing.

Michael · #47 Post by **Michael** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:23 pm

I am not a big fan of Days of Heaven - I have also lost interest in Badlands - but both films have gorgeous lighting. Dozens of films have tried to emulate the visuals of Days of Heaven to the point where that style has become a cliche. But the original is still amazing.

I agree with every word. I used to be a fan of Days of Heaven and Badlands, especially the latter. But revisiting them recently was a blah experience - now to me a chore to sit through; their magic dissolved over the years I guess.

On the other hand, The New World is a holy-shit masterpiece and I hope its magic will live eternally.

soma · #48 Post by **soma** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:11 pm

As much as I love Malick this is my least favourite of his works, I'll probably skip buying this truth be told. But if Criterion ever released The Thin Red Line or The New World I'd cling to them ceaselessly, watch them tirelessly, praise Criterion endlessly.

atcolomb · #49 Post by **atcolomb** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:51 pm

I did read somewhere that in the 1990's Paramount was to throw out the 70mm negative of the Tom Cruse film "Days of Thunder" but instead they threw out the negative to "Days of Heaven" by mistake. I hope the source to this is wrong but would not suprise me at all since the studios did not take care of their films in storage!!

solaris72 · #50 Post by **solaris72** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:55 pm

atcolomb wrote:I did read somewhere that in the 1990's Paramount was to throw out the 70mm negative of the Tom Cruse film "Days of Thunder" but instead they threw out the negative to "Days of Heaven" by mistake. I hope the source to this is wrong but would not suprise me at all since the studios did not take care of their films in storage!!

It was a 70mm blowup they threw out- the Days of Heaven negative is 35mm.

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

409 Days of Heaven