As to how Malick represents nature, generally it is not as vengeful or aggressive, but almost the opposite--uninterested, though perhaps watchful. It just exists. He portrays nature as an extremely vital and specific community that is going on at all times regardless of what humans are up to. He is known for his visual attention to detail in nature, sometimes just watching, not trying to evoke beauty so much as register it. In his attention to detail in nature, he indicates that humans are not separate from nature, but rather inter-dependent. The visual space in his films is one that is occupied powerfully by both nature and humans. The plots of his movies often demonstrate a rupture in the nature-human balance that is largely uncommented on. I wouldn't say that Malick portrays nature as a nemesis, although this is how it is sometimes perceived by humans. The more accurate description might be nature as seeing everything, watchful in a kind of disconnected sense. This is demonstrated for example, in Days of Heaven, in the important scene where Bill steals from the farmer and snoops on his conversation with the doctor. Here, Bill hides behind a cart and overhears that the farmer will die in 6 months. On thing that is interesting about this shot is the way that, although Bill is hidden from all humans, he is circled by a flock of geese, just pecking around him. I don't know exactly what Malick is up to with moments like this, but it is a frequent image--nature looking on, or simply being present, at the sight of human deception or cruelty.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Malick's view of nature
When Wit asks in the Thin Red Line "Is there an avenging impulse in nature?" he is speaking in the context of a horrific battle that has just taken place on the hills of Gaudelupe Canal, in WWII. The vengeance that has been leveled has purely been by humans destroying the land--with bombs, beatings, overall cruelty. Wit links human cruelty to humanity's attitude towards nature. This is typical of Malick. I believe he sees a direct link between the two. His attitude towards nature is complex, but it is clear there is a distinction between the way his characters often perceive nature and the commentary about nature that the film makes on the whole (or that "malick makes"). For Wit, his question comes out of a deep respect for nature that is developed throughout the film. He sees the wonder all around him and struggles to reconcile this with the damage that humans have inflicted on the land and each other. How can this be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment