Sports mécaniques online
Modérateurs: Garion, Silverwitch
de Hugues le 06 Sep 2016, 15:33
de Cyril le 08 Sep 2016, 22:16
Les Inrocks a écrit:
Pas de personnages, pas de scénario: Terrence Malick invente le film qui ne sert à rien
Alors que Terrence Malick semble perdu dans un délire mégalomane et mystique sans prise sur le réel, le modeste mais réussi “Jackie” de Pablo Larrain offre à Nathalie Portman une de ses plus belles performances.
Malgré l’échec de son précédent film, Knight of Cups, Terence Malick a toujours une rayonnante aura qui pouvait se mesurer à la file d’attente de la première projo de presse de Voyage of Time : A Life Journey, la plus longue de cette Mostra. Présenté en compétition, ce documentaire se propose de raconter l’histoire de l’univers et de notre planète, depuis le Big Bang, et cela en 90 minutes. Presque aussi fort que la visite du Louvre par Godard en 5 minutes, ou le commentaire politique en 140 signes. Mais chez Godard, la visite éclair du musée était un trait d’humour, alors que Malick est d’un sérieux papal. En fait, c’est assez simple de décrire Voyage of Time : c’est Tree of life sans les personnages et la fiction. Ou encore, le prologue et le trip final de 2001, parsemés de quelques images documentaires de populations souffrantes en divers endroits de la planète aujourd’hui.
Défilent donc à l’écran nos amis les gaz, les nébuleuses, les trous noirs, les galaxies, les planètes, le feu, l’eau, les météorites, puis les algues, les paramécies, les dinosaures, les grands singes, puis nous, “ceux qui marchent debout” comme on disait dans la BD Rahan. C’est évidemment assez beau, mais Malick aligne les belles images comme un trip à l’acide, sans jamais rien imprimer de prégnant (c’est particulièrement vrai des miséreux, brièvement survolés de très loin ou de très haut).
Au son, de la musique grandiloquente, des explosions, des coups de tonnerre, des grondements telluriques divers, et la voix de Cate Blanchett qui dit le texte de Malick. Est-ce une prière ? Une élégie ? Une homélie ? Une méditation ? Terence Blanchett invoque la Mère (la Terre nourricière, on suppose), sa générosité, sa lumière, sa flamme, son silence, ses enfants abandonnés ou ingrats… C’est peut-être poétique (enfin, à mes oreilles, c’est surtout creux et répétitif), mais scientifiquement et philosophiquement, c’est nul. Et métaphysiquement, ça n’arrive pas à la cheville du grand singe de 2001.
Plus Malick invoque l’humanité en paroles, plus ses images s’en éloignent, campant dans une très haute tour d’ivoire, peut-être en compagnie de Dieu, l’invité principal de cette Mostra. Pourtant, Voyage of Time a été très applaudi. Alors que je faisais une moue dubitative, un célèbre critique français plus tout jeune et groupie de Malick me hurlait “mais enfin, relis Walt Whitman et tu comprendras !”. Mouais : le panthéisme, c’est quand même autre chose que la métaphysique pour les nuls.
Longtemps, je pensais que Malick rimait avec Kubrick, mais depuis Le Nouveau monde, il n’en finit pas de me décevoir. Ses films sont désormais de la même eau bénite que les grandes messes de Yann Arthus-Bertrand ou Jacques Perrin (qui co-produit ce film, ce qui n’est finalement pas un hasard).
(...)
Ouais_supère a écrit:Ce forum est dans un état...
de Ouais_supère le 08 Sep 2016, 23:04
de Stéphane le 09 Sep 2016, 08:39
Ouais_supère a écrit:Stef, t'es chiant
de Aym le 09 Sep 2016, 08:52
de Stéphane le 09 Sep 2016, 08:58
Ouais_supère a écrit:Stef, t'es chiant
de Cyril le 09 Sep 2016, 08:59
Ouais_supère a écrit:Ce forum est dans un état...
de Stéphane le 09 Sep 2016, 09:01
Ouais_supère a écrit:Stef, t'es chiant
de Aym le 09 Sep 2016, 09:02
de Cyril le 09 Sep 2016, 09:07
Ouais_supère a écrit:Ce forum est dans un état...
de Feyd le 09 Sep 2016, 09:20
de Rainier le 09 Sep 2016, 10:25
Aym a écrit:Moi, les films de Jacques Perrin, j'aime beaucoup. Pas de scenario, pas de dialogue, juste des images, des belles images.
de sheon le 09 Sep 2016, 15:40
Cyril a écrit:Les Inrocks a écrit:Longtemps, je pensais que Malick rimait avec Kubrick, mais depuis Le Nouveau monde, il n’en finit pas de me décevoir.
de Ouais_supère le 09 Sep 2016, 18:58
sheon a écrit:Cyril a écrit:Les Inrocks a écrit:Longtemps, je pensais que Malick rimait avec Kubrick, mais depuis Le Nouveau monde, il n’en finit pas de me décevoir.
C'est marrant, les mecs qui essaient vainement de faire croire à leur objectivité : pour lui, "longtemps", ça veut dire qu'il a aimé La Ligne Rouge, et qu'il a comparé Malick à Kubrick pendant les 7 ans qui ont suivi avant la sortie du film suivant, Nouveau Monde.
de Feyd le 09 Sep 2016, 19:08
de Cortese le 09 Sep 2016, 20:06
de sccc le 10 Sep 2016, 18:47
sheon a écrit:Cyril a écrit:Les Inrocks a écrit:Longtemps, je pensais que Malick rimait avec Kubrick, mais depuis Le Nouveau monde, il n’en finit pas de me décevoir.
C'est marrant, les mecs qui essaient vainement de faire croire à leur objectivité : pour lui, "longtemps", ça veut dire qu'il a aimé La Ligne Rouge, et qu'il a comparé Malick à Kubrick pendant les 7 ans qui ont suivi avant la sortie du film suivant, Nouveau Monde.
On a affaire à un expert. Et puis, c'est vrai que les films sans dialogues et tout c'est chiant, on s'endort, on veut de la castagne !
de von Rauffenstein le 10 Sep 2016, 19:00
Cortese a écrit:C'est tout le cinéma américain qui est devenu larmoyant depuis que Reagan a ressorti la hache de guerre (contre les nains). Revoyez les flms d'avant les années 80, ça n'existait pas les pleurnicheries à Hollywood. A croire qu'inclure des bouts de scénario de "La Petite Maison dans la Prairie" est imposé pour chaque film par la CIA.
de Stéphane le 11 Sep 2016, 09:27
Ouais_supère a écrit:Stef, t'es chiant
de Hugues le 11 Sep 2016, 10:13
de Hugues le 11 Sep 2016, 10:18
de Hugues le 11 Sep 2016, 10:21
Feyd a écrit:J'ai trouvé par moment La Ligne Rouge d'un chiantissime...
Mélanger scène de guerre puis du larmoyant sentimental ça me gave.
de Hugues le 11 Sep 2016, 11:14
[/quote]Terrence Malick Offers Two Completely Different Versions of Masterful ‘Voyage of Time’
Toronto 2016: The director premiered a gloriously elusive reverie on the history of the universe, and a shorter IMAX version that is surprisingly explanatory
Steve Pond | September 10, 2016 @ 11:09 PM
Terrence Malick‘s documentary “Voyage of Time,” which had its North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on Saturday in two dramatically different versions, is an astounding, gorgeously poetic piece of filmmaking. It’s also a work so idiosyncratic that it will likely appeal to only a minority of moviegoers.
Oh, and it’s kind of a kids’ movie, too.
Such are the contradictions and confusions in Terrence Malick‘s cinematic universe, which finds some glorious new territory in “Voyage of Time: Life’s Journey,” a 90-minute film narrated by Cate Blanchett, and in “Voyage of Time: The IMAX Experience,” a 45-minute version narrated by Brad Pitt.
First, a caveat: To embrace “Voyage of Time,” particularly in the “Life’s Journey” version, you probably need to be a fan of Malick, and particularly a fan of “The Tree of Life,” the meditative 2011 film that some see as a high water mark for the director who also did “Badlands,” “Days of Heaven” and “The Thin Red Line.”
And most of all, you need to be a fan of the wordless 15-minute sequence early in “Tree of Life” in which Malick detoured from a family story to depict the birth of the universe and the dawn of life on earth.
If you like the idea of using that “Tree of Life” sequence as a blueprint of sorts for an entire movie, then “Voyage of Time” is an absolute must-see, and a smart way out of a cinematic dead end.
“The Tree of Life,” a deserving Best Picture nominee, was followed by the morose “To the Wonder” and the baffling “Knight of Cups,” and it seemed as if Malick had disappeared down a rabbit hole of his own design. Where “Tree of Life” was mesmerizing, the later films were frustrating, trotting out all the increasingly familiar Malick-isms — scenes that made up of the barest snatches of dialogue, endless shots of people wandering, portentous voiceovers in place of any real narrative — without any attempt to connect to an audience.
“Voyage of Time: Life’s Journey” doesn’t dispense with this approach: It’s slow and philosophical, relying on voiceovers in which Blanchett ponders life itself.
“I touch you.” Pause. “You burn with fire.” Pause. “I tremble.” Pause. “Quake in wonder.”
What does it mean? Well, this is Malick’s take on the birth and history of the universe, an idea he’s reportedly been working on for decades. And it turns out that a philosophical doc is far better suited to Malick’s strengths than another narrative film without a narrative; when you take away all those people mumbling and wandering through his last couple of films, his meditative style once again turns mesmerizing.
The film starts in blackness, with the sound of an orchestra tuning up and Blanchett, in her most dulcet Galadriel tones, addressing an unseen “mother” and talking about being “alone in the stillness where nothing was.”
And then the images come: galactic visions like the ones in “The Tree of Life,” forbidding landscapes, sea creatures who might as well be aliens, occasionally interrupted by folks on a particularly seedy stretch of Hollywood Blvd. Dinosaurs eventually make an appearance, as do some early humans who are the most expendable part of the film.
“Voyage of Time: Life’s Journey” is a prayer to the eternal mother, be that God or nature or something else. It’s a simple, profound celebration of creation and love, and it’s far more complicated than that. Above all, it’s a rapturous reverie, and an utterly beautiful piece of cinema.
And without linear narrative, without anything but a parade of astonishing images and a few words, Malick has created something both distinctly his own and wholly singular.
That version had its official premiere on Saturday afternoon at the Princess of Wales Theatre; seven and a half hours later, the IMAX version premiered at the Scotiabank multiplex a few blocks away.
“Voyage of Time: The IMAX Experience” is, believe it or not, Terry Explains it All for You. Using mostly the same footage, but rearranged and dramatically shortened, it’s linear Malick, a new Malick who tells you exactly what you’re seeing instead of letting you guess.
Where the voiceover in the Blanchett version is addressed to Mother, Brad Pitt‘s lines are delivered to “my child.” And Malick in an expository mood throughout, beginning with an opening title card that reads, “Dear Child, Today you’re going to watch a movie that shows the history of the universe.”
Images that were elusive and suggestive in “Life’s Journey” are spelled out in “The IMAX Version”: here is the birth of stars, these are the first organisms on our planet, this is the asteroid that killed all the dinosaurs…
Literal Malick, it turns out, isn’t as much fun as elusive Malick, and the shorter film’s story of creation doesn’t soar the way the original’s song of creation does. But it’s fascinating nonetheless, and the images are astonishing on the huge screen.
Either way, “Voyage of Time” is a film to treasure.
de Marlaga le 11 Sep 2016, 11:31
de Cyril le 11 Sep 2016, 16:48
Hugues a écrit:(D'ailleurs sur ce qui a été reproduit par Cyril [quelle idée!] (...)
Ouais_supère a écrit:Ce forum est dans un état...
de Hugues le 12 Sep 2016, 22:22
Richard Brody, The New Yorker a écrit:Terrence Malick’s Metaphysical Journey Into Nature
By Richard Brody , September 8, 2016
Terrence Malick’s new film, “Voyage of Time,” exists in two versions: “Voyage of Time: The IMAX Experience,” a forty-five-minute version that will be released next month, and “Voyage of Time: Life’s Journey,” a ninety-minute version that premièred at the Venice Film Festival this week, which I’ve seen. It’s an experience that I haven’t been able to shake, like a waking dream.
It’s a sort of vast and visually overwhelming nature documentary, albeit with brief acted sequences, and, as such, it’s an easy film to parody and to mock—say, as the Terrence Malick Science-Wonder Visual Encyclopedia, or “The Tree of Life” with the funny bits cut out. But that’s true of any intensely serious work of art. “Voyage of Time” inhabits a rarefied plane of thought, detached from the practicalities of daily life, that leave it open to a facile and utterly unjustified dismissal, given the breathtaking intensity of its stylistic unity and the immediate, firsthand force of its philosophical reflections.
“Voyage of Time” is, as its title suggests, a sort of cinematic cosmogony, a lyrical collage that looks at a broad spectrum of natural phenomena artistically and imaginatively. In “The Tree of Life,” macroscopic and telescopic images as well as C.G.I. reconstructions of prehistoric times recapture the wonder of a childhood contemplation of science, as inspired by the popular-science books of Malick’s own youth. “Voyage of Time,” working with similar images, recomposes them to an altogether different, yet crucially related, purpose: it seeks the very source of that wonder not in the child’s imagination but in the essence of nature, in the fundamental building blocks of the universe itself.
Malick’s rapturous images of what could be primordial biological events or celestial spectacles—extruded energies that come alive with touches of orange flame or a solar outburst of carnal tactility, the exotic undulations of deep-sea fish or the enveloping eddies of vast expanses of rock and sand—are endowed with a primal beauty that seems to owe nothing to human perception or creation (even though, of course, he created the images and offers them for viewing). For that matter, it’s often thrillingly difficult, even impossible, to tell what’s intergalactic and what’s intracellular, what’s infinitesimal and what’s immense, what’s biological and what’s astronomical.
The movie’s voice-over—intermittent, lofty, contemplative, remote—is by Cate Blanchett. It starts with the word “mother,” and there’s something essentially and metaphysically maternal about Malick’s mighty purview. His film considers the notion of a God-the-Mother that isn’t a traditional Gaia-like Earth-mother but a guiding principle of creation that’s intimate and nurturing—a concept rendered human but not flesh.
The beauty of “Voyage of Time” reaches toward a detached universality and subordinates human experience, and human activity, to the forms of nature. Here, Malick seeks a beauty beyond style, outside the realm of artistic creation; he tries to turn images into vessels for that beauty—but vessels that nonetheless take the form of the beauties that he’s trying to grasp. It’s a film of hypnotic, ecstatic textures—but textures present to the mind, and the eye, not to the hand. What Malick films is present but can’t be touched—it’s too hot, too cold, too big, too small, too distant, or too dangerous; he isn’t eluding or avoiding the physical world but mentalizing it, abstracting it.
Along with images of cosmic flames or nodal points of firing nerves, Arctic geysers, lava erupting with a red beyond the grasp of painters, scuttling scorpions, primitive people gathering and fighting in prehistoric times—and gleaming modernity, a laboratory-like building in a clearing, a child on a swing—he shows documentary sequences of people in trouble. These sequences, involving homeless people, poor people, and refugees, come off not as cinematic poverty tourism but as a question: What does the transcendent beauty of the natural realm have to do with human suffering? Is it absurd to contemplate that beauty given the woes of the world?
The voice-over, in the assertion that a person is “a riddle to himself,” points toward Malick’s overarching idea. The very subject of the film is the effort to encompass social life and, for that matter, human consciousness itself, in the natural realm. The god-like Mother of the film’s second-person narration evokes the inclination to humanize nature, to treat nature itself as a conscious being. For Malick, this vision of a universal consciousness, the reflection of something like the mind in all existence, is the very basis for science—including social science—as well as of art. The core of “Voyage of Time” is the search for a beginning, for the emotional and aesthetic energy that gives rise to the scientific and artistic impulses, the urge for discovery and creation. In effect, that energy, if it exists, would be a kind of love—a generalized precursor to divine love that owes nothing to organized religion but suggests passionate affinities, rather than oppressive constraints, grand connections that aren’t empathetic but aesthetic. The drive to comprehend the world, to explore it, to depict it, and to improve it are presented here as inseparable. (Whether his vision is an accurate depiction of the natural world or an aspirational one is another story altogether.)
Lacking narrative, lacking drama, lacking characters, “Voyage of Time” can be easily assimilated to the realm of experimental film. But Malick, a figure of Hollywood and off-Hollywood, reaches for the contemplative realms with a sense of power. As an experiment, the film is an expensive one; it has more in common with the science of the laboratory that Malick shows than it does with the tinkering of the lonely inventor or the esotericism of the isolated artist. Its philosophical contemplation embodies the majesty and the complexity of the work at hand; its matériel matches the mighty social forces he considers. It’s not a movie like Malick’s other films, but it’s as furiously personal as the others.
de Cyril le 12 Sep 2016, 22:23
Hugues a écrit:Je taquinais, je t'asticotais, Cyril ..
N'empêche, "un autre": mais y en avait pas d'autres dans le sujet, c'était le premier qui était posté
Ouais_supère a écrit:Ce forum est dans un état...
de Hugues le 12 Sep 2016, 23:52
Marlaga a écrit:En fait, t'es attaché de presse de Malick ?
de Hugues le 16 Sep 2016, 20:53
de Hugues le 26 Sep 2016, 23:46
de Hugues le 28 Sep 2016, 17:11
From the beginning, cooperation plays as great a part as competition in the unfolding of life. 
Mrs. O'Brien: [voice over] The nuns taught us there are two ways through life, the way of Nature and the way of Grace. You have to choose which one you'll follow. Jack: Father. Mother. Always you wrestle inside of me. Always you will. Light. Dark. Things opposite. Bound together. Jack: [voice over] Where were You? You let a boy die. You let anything happen. Why should I be good ? When You aren't.* de Hugues le 28 Sep 2016, 17:22
The end. One with the beginning. de Rainier le 28 Sep 2016, 22:24
de sheon le 29 Sep 2016, 15:32
de Rainier le 29 Sep 2016, 16:38
de sheon le 29 Sep 2016, 16:43
de horatio le 30 Sep 2016, 12:03
Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] et 5 invités
