WASHINGTON 鈥� There’s a fine line between profound and pretentious, and for聽much of his career, Terrence聽Malick has straddled it, creating transcendent work that defies plot conventions to聽explore mankind’s most existential themes.
(1973) was a gritty breakthrough, turning the Starkweather Homicides into a “Bonnie and Clyde” tale of young fugitive lovers that introduced聽the world to Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek.
(1978) was a moody masterpiece that launched聽Richard Gere in the glow of聽“magic hour” natural light,聽Biblical themes and Ennio Morricone’s haunting take on聽
(1998) marked a powerful return by the enigmatic filmmaker after 20 years in recluse, adapting聽James Jones’ autobiography about the Guadalcanal conflict during World War II.
And (2011) won Cannes’ Palme d’Or by ambitiously juxtaposing intimate moments of 1950s suburbia with the entirety of evolution, from plasma formations to the birth of dinosaurs.
But while I’ve long been one of his聽most , I fear Malick has lost his way with聽聽giving into his worst impulses to create a聽work聽so聽indulgent that it borders on self-parody. Like its protagonist, the film聽wanders from place to place, image to image, without saying a thing.
The story (using that term loosely)聽follows a depressed Hollywood screenwriter (I think) named Rick (Christian Bale), who聽drifts between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, enjoying the聽neon pleasures of Caesars Palace,聽the palm trees聽of Venice Beach and the surf of the聽Pacific Ocean.聽Along the way, he recalls failed romances聽with six different women:聽Della (Imogen Poots), Isabel (Isabel Lucas),聽Nancy (Cate Blanchett), Helen (Freida Pinto), Karen (Teresa Palmer)聽and聽Elizabeth (Natalie Portman).
We won’t go any further into their characters because the script doesn’t bother either, parading the women聽on screen聽in flowing garb and as much聽discernible聽dialogue as random聽cameo appearances by the likes of聽Antonio Banderas, Ryan O’Neal and Jason Clarke during swanky Hollywood parties.
Throughout this drifter’s journey, we get a stunning sensory collection of fish-eye lenses, whispered voice-over narration and聽jarring close-ups,聽which worked beautifully as intimate memories of fireflies and baby steps in “The Tree of Life.” Once again, there’s聽ethereal music by Hanan Townshend and gorgeous cinematography by three-time Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki (“Gravity,” “Birdman,” “The Revenant”), who offers mesmerizing compositions聽of both the natural and man-made worlds.
But that’s where the film’s praises must stop, as Malick slips into that old Shakespeare trap of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” We see glimpses of what聽might have聽made a fascinating character study, as Bale is haunted by his brother’s聽death 鈥� just like聽Sean Penn in “The聽Tree of Life” — clashing with his brother (Wes Bentley) and father (Brian Dennehy), who washes blood off his hands. Frustratingly, Bale remains impenetrable, roaming around virtually silent and revealing little about聽his demons.
Perhaps it was important for Malick to choose “The Dark Knight” as his “Knight of Cups,” just as Alejandro G. Inarritu cast Michael Keaton as “Birdman” to mock聽Hollywood’s superhero excesses.
Like Fellini’s warning聽in “La Dolce Vita” (1960),聽Malick’s overarching theme appears to be a critique of the聽hedonistic lifestyle, depicting the “emptiness” of Hollywood with vacant studio lots becoming deserted ghost towns. As Bale makes a handprint in the California sand, you’ll recall the cement handprints along Hollywood’s Walk of Fame, only for a wave to wash it all away, suggesting the impermanence of fame, as a narrator聽whispers about the clash of聽“light and dark,” tide in, tide out.
Many of these voice-over ramblings quote the Christian allegory “The Pilgrim’s Progress”聽(1678) and the “Hymn of the Pearl” from the “Acts of Thomas.”聽We’re told the聽fable of a聽young prince whose father sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl, but when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.
This “Knight聽of Cups” is visually represented by a tarot card, which coincides with various chapter titles聽throughout the film:聽The Moon, The Hanged Man, The Hermit, The Tower, The High Priestess, Judgment, Death. But unlike Quentin Tarantino’s “The Bonnie Situation” in “Pulp Fiction” (1994) or “Minnie’s Haberdashery” in “The Hateful Eight” (2015), Malick’s chapter titles聽lack narrative juice.
When聽Agnes Varda used tarot cards in her French New Wave gem “Cleo from 5 to 7”聽(1962), she at least gave Cleo a ticking-clock concern of awaiting the results of a medical test to see if she has cancer.聽More recently, when Matthew Weiner used them in “The Mountain King” episode in Season 2 of “Mad Men” (2007-2015), Anna Draper gave Don a to chart聽his character growth.
At first, Don dismissed the reading: “It’s an ink blot. You see what you want to see.” Anna pressed on:聽“You are part of the world. Air, water, every living thing is connected to you,” to which Don said,聽“It’s a nice thought. …聽What does it mean?” Anna replied, “It means the only thing keeping you from being happy is the belief that you are alone.” “What if that’s true?” “Then you can change.”
Despite countless womanizing relapses, Don Draper聽did聽in fact change by the series’聽end. Bale’s character in “Knight of Cups” does not change聽at all. He drifts and drifts, as we viewers聽scratch our heads at his goal.聽At least in Fellini’s “8 1/2” (1963), we knew that Marcello Mastroianni’s filmmaker was trying to direct a movie masterpiece. Bale’s Rick could just as easily be a surfer as he is a screenwriter. That’s the ultimate irony 鈥� Malick appears to have聽lost all聽respect for screenwriting.
There was some semblance of a forward-moving聽plot聽in “Badlands,” but decades later in “Knight of Cups,” Malick聽has adopted a mindset that聽sheer imagery can replace the art of聽telling a story.聽He thinks theme can outweigh plot, not realizing that great movies require the proper balance of both.
If you want a commentary on the corrupt lifestyle of Los Angeles, give me a movie like “Chinatown” (1974), combining the artful directorial vision of Roman Polanski with the masterful script of Robert Towne. Even an L.A. period piece like Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood” (2007) matched its gorgeous directorial concepts with a driving narrative arc for its anti-hero Daniel Plainview.
The two talents 鈥� writing and directing 鈥� should work in tandem, complementing each other to create something that neither could on its own.聽Look no further than Alfred Hitchcock or John Ford to see how cinema聽works wonders when the page and the camera both have something to offer.
Don’t get me wrong. I聽absolutely agree with Malick that too many mainstream movies are聽overly plotted without symbolic direction. But unlike Malick, I also firmly believe that the inverse extreme is just a dangerous, leaving us with arthouse films that avoid plot all together at their storytelling peril.
This review isn’t some treatise against the “artsy.” On the contrary; that ignorant聽tag is given by lazy聽viewers who shy away from anything that pushes the limits.聽We should want聽our movies to be “artsy,” to push the envelope, to think聽outside the box.聽We should聽crave a good auteur challenge, actively engaging with the material and constantly scanning the images for symbolic meaning and聽social commentary parallels. But, you’ve got to give us some sort of story skeleton to hang it upon.聽
Just as critics must call聽out a poorly-made commercial聽blockbuster if it doesn’t add anything artistically to the medium, we must also call out an art-house film that lacks any semblance of story.
That’s why, at the height of his “Godfather” and “Apocalypse Now” filmmaking prowess, Francis Ford Coppola brilliantly聽: “Nothing is so terrible as a pretentious movie, a movie that aspires for something really terrific and doesn鈥檛 pull it off is sh*t, it鈥檚 scum, and everyone will walk on it as such.”
It’s time to walk on it as such. You could rearrange the scenes in聽“Knight of Cups,” walk in halfway through, or walk out halfway through, and you’d still leave with the same level of understanding.
In fact, at the preview screening, many of the seats became increasingly empty as critics bailed early. You’ll be tempted to do the same. When the end credits聽arrive — “Written and Directed by Terrence Malick” —聽you’ll cheer,聽not because of聽your聽affection, but because the聽experience is聽mercifully聽over.
Then, as聽you stagger down the street away from the movie theater, you’ll ponder the meaning of the titular聽tarot card. Facing up, it聽signifies someone who is a dreamer, a bringer of ideas, constantly bored and craving artistic stimulation. In many of his past films, Malick has used this approach to his advantage. But when the tarot card is reversed, it represents recklessness, fraud and false promises.
Behold,聽“Knight of Cups.” Its cup聽does not runneth over. It is聽not half full, nor is it half empty. It is entirely bare.聽As a different Knight told Indiana Jones’ doomed rival, “You have chosen, poorly.”
