> ha! you're just saying that because TM has only made 3 films
> during his fairly lengthy career.is maverick just a euphemism
> for troubled,do you think? if so can i be labelled likwise,it
> sounds so much more erm dignified.

Ha ha ! No, I use maverick because it sounds much better (and it can
make a nice rhyme with Malick !) :p

More seriously , I can't really answer your question. I would say
that you might be right. BUT your version would be the pessimistic
(realistic ?) one, while mine is a bit more... well... optimistic
(naive ?).

About Malick : leaving the little sick world of Hollywood at the end
of the 70's (what Malick did) was the smartest move a director could
make. A few years later Michael Cimino would make his ultimate
masterpiece "Heaven's gate" and the american movies would never be
the same : nobody in Hollywood would procuce maverick / troubled
directors anymore. Spielberg and Lucas could become the kings. The
real american genious would grow in the underground (Abel Ferrara,
Vincent Gallo).

After "Days of Heaven", Malick wanted to make something called "Q"
about...hum... the origin of life. It was a crazy project. Who would
have produced it ? Nobody.
In my opinion, Malick left because of that. The movies had changed
and he felt he didn't have his place anymore. So yes I guess you can
say the once maverick director was now a troubled one - for your
pleasure Cinder !

Anyway, I don't compare Malick to Cindytalk because of the '3 films
in 30 years' thing. Ha ha I certainly don't.
Nah, it's more a matter of colours again.
Oh and that childish voice-over in "Days of heaven" is pretty ...
erm... how should I say now ? Oh well... Cindy-like ! ;-)

Erzule, about TVS : I didn't express myself pretty well. I guess I
should have said gender ambiguity instead of gender issue. Still
confused ? let me know.

Take care everyone
BL