Malick seems like Austin's kind of director. Making film into art.
Malick's latest, Tree of Life,tells the generational story of a stern father with failed dreams, a mother at peace with her surroundings and their three young sons in 1950's Texas, through flashbacks and non linear imagery of nature, cosmos, and the beginning of life on Earth. And through it asking the question of where is man's existence.
Malick presents questions all of mankind has pondered: What is it to be born? What is life? Where is my place? What is it to die?
The film offers up no answers but asks of the audience to answer them for themselves. It's part religious and part art experience, part meditation, part poetry and dreaming. It challenges conventions of storytelling and filmmaking. While some critics say there is little intellectual challenge to it other say it is more about soothing the soul and psyche than challenging the mind.
It's a movie you either love or hate. It's seems this is the kind of movie Austin would love. Not understood by everyone but profound to those who do.
No doubt Tree of Life will take up pages in the cinephile's journal.The movie won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, amidst a divided reception from the both the audience of critics.The reclusive director didn't attend the ceremony.
Malick has only made 5 (including Tree of Life) full length films during in the past 38 years, The New World, The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven, Badlands. He is one to prove the point of quality over quantity - art over the din of Hollywood.
This talk about Malick (and especially the mention of Thin Red Line) shows that it seems Austin had input in the character of Julian in terms of the character as a director. That he built Director Julian in from whom he seems himself.
Now the other side of Julian is up for debate? Just comic relief?
Or little instances of real Austin woven in?
