Terrence Malick, Days of Heaven (1978)

Looking back, when Terrence Malick’s Days of Heaven was released in 1978, following the success of his film Badlands in 1974, one might have concluded at the time that Malick was on his way to Hollywood stardom. In fact, the result was the exact opposite: critics such as the New York Times’ Harold C. Schonberg panned it as “intolerably artsy” and “artificial” and Malick abandoned film directing for 20 years (perhaps due to exhaustion from dealing with Richard Gere’s ego mania for an extended period of time).

In thinking of a modern-day film to compare with Days, I was quite pleased at myself for recognizing the similarities with PT Anderson’s There Will Be Blood (2007). Of course, when I started scouring the Internet to find still photos which show the similarities in style, I stumbled upon several articles comparing the two films, including one from this blogger. Oh well, I prefer to think of this coincidence as a justification of Malcolm Gladwell’s recent article in the New Yorker , the thesis for which is that similar innovation often happens at relatively the same time in different places.

But I digress… I don’t know whether PT Anderson was influenced by Malick, but both Days and Blood share a slow-paced style of storytelling in which the plot unfolds through long shots of characters’ actions often without the use dialogue. Both films also frame the conflict between the characters in the larger context of the natural world around them. The "natural" disasters which occur in both Days and Blood are almost visually overwhelming and serve to symbolize and heighten the human tension between the characters. Both films are also filled with Biblical references; there is literally a lot of fire and brimstone imagery on the screen (Days photos are above, Blood photo is below).

Like Badlands, Days of Heaven also employs the voice-over of a young girl (13-year old Linda Manz). This serves to add an interesting child-like perspective to the events of the plot which will often differ from what the audience knows to be true. This mismatch of interpretations gives the film depth and helps to keep the audience engaged. In the end, its easy to understand why this film was exhausting to make. While the real reason may never be known for why Malick left film directing for 20 years after Days, one thing is certain: that audiences certainly missed Malick's unique style during those two decades.