409 Days of Heaven

[mteller]

I only have two gripes. The first being the narration. I found it utterly inconsequential. It offered absolutely nothing that couldn't have been gleaned simply from the images and dialogue. I read through this thread to look for other thoughts, but remain unconvinced. Further, I guess part of my annoyance with the narration was with how low it was compared with the rest of the soundtrack. Or at least some of the louder moments that nearly made my ears bleed. I found myself having to constantly adjust the volume. Plus, I found the girl doing the narration unconvincing..."or sumthin'."

Gah. Days of Heaven has the most amazing narration I've ever heard.

[skuhn8]

I never really felt that the narration was to reveal anything not readily apparent without it, but rather to remind the viewer that this all was real experience. And I think the dialect was spot on for indicating geography and social background. There's so much in that voice, and I love Malick for giving us perhaps the only VO that functions merely as another dimension of the stunning scenery, moreover stark counterpoint--heavenly scenery interrupted or grounded by a downtrodden, somewhat naive, young girl's take on it all.

[miless]

the VO in Malick's films always give me a very intimate feeling, as if either someone is telling a personal story or I am hearing their inner thoughts. I normally find VO work incredibly boring/unnecessary/poorly written, but Malick has a way of taking simple (if not overused) conventions and transforming them into art of the highest order... he does the same thing with cut-away shots, too (to the point where they even dictate the style).

[right_for_the_moment]

Wow. I can't relate to that response at all. I just recently rewatched this myself and would be happy to discuss it but really the best, most comprehensive reading of the film that I've seen is readily available.

"Detestable" is a strong word, my friend.

I'd love to read the article you link to here, but it's dead. Any chance there's another link out there or someone can help me out with the title? thx

[Thomas J.]

Just saw this for the first time and was tremendously disappointed. Even the most frequently noted best aspect of it, the cinematography -- actually, an aspect of the cinematography, namely the artistic decision and method by which magic hour is captured on celluloid -- I feel has been bettered since. For example, I think Heaven's Gate captures magic hour more beautifully. At the same time, maybe if I had been alive back when DoH was first released and were to have experienced the film's look before being overexposed to its imitators in the years henceforth, I would have a much finer appreciation of the cinematography. And the less said about the other aspects of the film, the better, imo. There's no need for me to go into it, but, for example, I feel Malick leaves nearly all of the scenes too short in length. Oh well, I guess maybe I'll actually "get it" when I finally see Badlands (?) More likely Malick just isn't my cup of tea.

[kaujot]

I had the exact same experience.

Wait six months or a year and try again. It made all the difference for me.

[mikkelmark]

I kinda had the same disappointment when I saw Days of Heaven. What I liked most, was the scenes without any actors in it, just shooting fields and sunrise/sunset "stuff". Guess I will have to take it for a second spin, and hope it improves.

You can only wait too long to see Badlands, terrific movie

[Dr. Snaut]

Watch it with the commentary. I watched the film twice, and then a third time with the commentary. It definitely helps you enjoy the film more.

[Jun-Dai]

While I wouldn't presume to know what Thomas J.'s relationship with the film will turn into later, I will say that Badlands is a very different film that doesn't lean quite so heavily on its cinematography for its effectiveness. I imagine it would be fairly easy for someone to like Badlands but not really like the rest of Malick's films (I wonder if the reverse is true).

That said, I loved Days of Heaven the first time I saw it (haven't seen Heavens Gate, btw), and though I've seen it two or three times, I still can never really remember what happens in Days of Heaven or what it's about. I think Days of Heaven, more than any other film, gives me a sense of what I imagine life was like in the American countryside when electricity was unusual, and labor and life were cheap. It manages to be a period American film without being a genre film.

Despite much difference, the film reminds me of Light in August. Something about the restlessness of the characters and the way they get swallowed up in the world around them. The cinematography is a big part of that—the film manages to be beautiful without being too aestheticized or idealized, and it manages to be wistful without being too sentimental. Though I like The Thin Red Line and The New World, they were too over the top in ways that Days of Heaven wasn't. Probably in part because they were much more ambitious films, seeking to raise questions about fundamental aspects of civilization, of nature, and of being human.

[domino harvey]

I imagine it would be fairly easy for someone to like Badlands but not really like the rest of Malick's films.

Indeed. See: me

[John Cope]

I'd love to read the article you link to here, but it's dead. Any chance there's another link out there or someone can help me out with the title? thx

Sorry I didn't get around to this till now. Here's the Zucker piece. Also, as long as I'm doing that, I thought I'd suggest some other great writing on this film (I'm not sure whether some of these haven't been pointed to already but it won't hurt to reassert their value). There are always the Ebert and Schager essays, which are excellent. Beyond that, there's a superb chapter on Days of Heaven in The Films of Terrence Malick by James Morrison and Thomas Schur. Hannah Patterson's book of collected essays is also first rate. I haven't read the new Lloyd Michaels but it looks promising as well.

Oh, and I almost forgot Hubert Cohen's The Genesis of Days of Heaven in Cinema Journal. That's really good, too.

[right_for_the_moment]

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. This looks like a fantastic read. I've already checked out Schager and Ebert (good stuff btw), but I'll look into the other essays as well.

[bdsweeney]

any idea on when this is going to get a Blu-ray release?

i agree with Jun-Dai's wonderful comments, and he says already mostly what i wanted to say.
i have watched this many times, and still don't really know what is happening. i always forget the character names as well, and don't need to know or remember them. i also find i' m alone in loving this film when showing it to others.
its not overwhelmingly drenched in nostalgia nor highly stylized-aesthetically, which is what Malick talked about for a Badlands article.

if someone/s has any of the articles mentioned, please post them/the links here for us to read. thanks

Look two posts above you.

[whaleallright]

The sadly slept-on book The Films of Terrence Malick by James Morrison and Thomas Schur (slept on, I believe, because it's only been released in a prohibitively expensive hardcover edition by a not-particularly-well-regarded press) has a truly excellent chapter on Days of Heaven. I'd recommend it to any fans of the film.

[flyonthewall2983]

Saw this today, and Badlands this past weekend. For both films, I was particularly taken with the pure cinematic visual style (especially Badlands which was shot for only a couple hundred thousand dollars which meant that Terry made the absolute best of what he had when he made it). But in terms of story, I give Badlands an absolute solid 10 whereas I'd give this at best a 7. But I might just get the Criterion Days Of Heaven anyway, to see how better it looks compared to the Paramount disc for myself.

As an aside, I've noticed talk here before of the documentary on Malick, Rosy-Fingered Dawn. Just as sort of a heads-up to anyone who's interested in it like me, you can purchase the film here. In that link is a 5-minute trailer for the movie, featuring interviews with Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, and Jim Caviezel.

[kaujot]

It is miles ahead of the Paramount disc.

[flyonthewall2983]

I assumed as much. Sadly, it's all Netflix has.

[Matt]

Announced for Blu-ray.

[Highway 61]

While I'm thrilled to have this on Blu, I'm even happier if this is a sign that the major studios won't be screwing Criterion over on Blu-ray licensing à la Studio Canal.

[Finch]

I'm anxious to see how pronounced the differences between the DVD and Blu will be. The upscaled DVD looks marvellous but I'm hoping that Criterion can do something special with the Blu once more.

[Jeff]

While I'm thrilled to have this on Blu, I'm even happier if this is a sign that the major studios won't be screwing Criterion over on Blu-ray licensing à la Studio Canal.

Exactly. It was only a couple of months ago that when someone asked about this on Facebook, they said "we have to convince the studio first." Obviously that happened, which opens the door for future Paramount Blus. Bigger Than Life will also mark the second Fox Blu after Kagemusha.

[Cash Flagg]

Beaver

[Finch]

Going by the screenshots the improvements appear to be more subtle but they should be more evident in motion - unless I have to put aside some money for the remortgaging, I may well buy the Oppo a few weeks sooner than originally planned.

[perkizitore]

=D>