Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [terrencemalick] ttrl: is it maudlin and inexcusable?

Expand Messages
  • Christina Lui
    ... Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Whalen, Craig. So would you agree with Whalen that TTRL is a sentimental film? What connection is there between your
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Craig Carey wrote:

      > So I guess what I am trying to say is this: Whalen is very well correct on
      > numerous issues. But I think he misses why Malick might have changed style
      > for such a film as TRL. Malick is one to find the film while filming it,
      > and with a multiple character study such as TRL, it is much more effective
      > to take a more Jungian approach. It is also suits the material that much
      > better.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Whalen, Craig. So would you agree with
      Whalen that TTRL is a sentimental film? What connection is there between
      your notion that TTRL is a Jungian film and Whalen's thesis that it's a
      sentimental film? Does taking a Jungian approach mean taking an approach
      that can be (mis)construed as sentimental?

      Have a great day,
      CL
    • Craig Carey
      ...
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >>>Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Whalen, Craig. So would you agree
        >>>with Whalen that TTRL is a sentimental film? What connection is there
        >>>between your notion that TTRL is a Jungian film and Whalen's thesis that
        >>>it's a sentimental film? Does taking a Jungian approach mean taking an
        >>>approach that can be (mis)construed as sentimental?>>
        <<


        I guess that depends upon your definition of sentimental. I really despise
        that word because it has acquired such negative connotations. Sentimental,
        as commonly understood, has been completely overused that I really don't
        even know what it means. My point about TRL taking a more Jungian approach
        is that its meaning is more likely to be found within the manifest content
        of the film. The latent meaning of TRL is far less than Badlands and DOH,
        and therefore one is inclined to call TRL sentimental. However, I don't
        necessarily see that as a bad thing. So long as the director doesn't
        manipulate the audience (ala Spielberg), sometimes the content itself will
        have the nature of being sentimental, at least as it is commonly understood
        today. For example, take the scene where Witt quietly observes the company
        and a small tear comes to his eye. One might call that scene sentimental; I
        call it honest. It expresses the truth of what Witt is feeling without
        trying to protect itself from critics such as Whalen.

        I hope that clears things up.

        Craig

        >Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Whalen, Craig. So would you agree with
        >Whalen that TTRL is a sentimental film? What connection is there between
        >your notion that TTRL is a Jungian film and Whalen's thesis that it's a
        >sentimental film? Does taking a Jungian approach mean taking an approach
        >that can be (mis)construed as sentimental?
        >
        >Have a great day,
        >CL
        >
        >
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.