Comment by rdtsc

> And I think most people who love his films appreciate them in a snobbish way; they really try to convince themselves that it is great cinema.

Absolutely he is very much a snobbery magnet. Same as Tarkovsky.

The reasons I like him: I like the visual style, the poetic narrative structure, and the cinematographic techniques: camera work, lighting, etc. The second part I think is what trips up most people. Not many people like poetry nowadays. I can only think of two people in my circle of acquaintances and both were English majors, one is an English teacher. So it's a bit like that with films -- to some people it looks like disjointed random scenes that don't make sense, to someone else it looks like visual poetry.

> But most of us, and not because we are simpletons, don't go to movies to see actors doing chores. It might be for others, but not for me.

That's a perfectly fine view of cinema. I think most of it should be that way. If people pay their hard earned money to see something, it should be something they'd enjoy and not random disjoined scenes that don't make sense. That's why folks like Malick are a director's director. It's someone who film makers look up to, but not someone the majority of filmgoers would recognize or appreciate much, and for good reasons either way.