Terrence Malick and A-List Actors

I was asked if I could explain why a friend had difficulty maintaining his focus while watching Terrence Malick's A HIDDEN LIFE (2019). 

Two short videos about the pervasive irony in A HIDDEN LIFE can be found HERE.

Pam and I screened the Blu-ray of it tonight and I will proffer an answer, by first commenting about the movie in general, it's structure, and its moral premise.

• As with other Malick directed pictures, A HIDDEN LIFE (AHL) is driven by powerful visuals that if they don't directly and overwhelmingly evoke human emotion, they metaphor it with the purest example cinematic images of nature.  Movies, like all good stories, should command attention to the human condition through emotional portrayals. AHL succeeds in this endeavor where most other films fail. 
• Ironically, while AHL succeeds in a film's most important category (emotional connection with the audience) it fails at being commercial. Consequently, it will not be seen by nearly as many as a commercial picture that fails to connect emotionally. I cannot imagine thousands flocking to movie theaters to screen AHL, but every minute kept me riveted by his wide-angle portrayal of the fragile human condition.
• Why is it not commercial? (1) The straight ahead, non-clever, obvious from the start plot is revealed in slow motion. It goes exactly where you expect it to go. There are no surprises; no reveals that enlighten. It is exactly like the many shots of the strongly flowing river—there is no escape from its historic pull to destiny. (2) The protagonist (Franz) is a hero character with incredible inner strength and no weakness, as a protagonist character would exhibit. Successful movies, however, even with a strong hero will still arc a little. Franz is not even tempted. (3) Its nearly 3 hour length seems every bit that long, and even for Malick there are sequences that are much longer than they should be. It seems obsessive and repetitive.
• What is right with the movie: (1) The cinematography is masterful. (2) The structure follows mostly classical lines. (3) AHL shows and rarely does it tell. (4) The moral premise is true and consistent: Executing injustice and brutality leads to enslavement; but hidden goodness while quietly suffering injustice leads to freedom. [Of course "enlsavement" and "freedom" here are spiritual, not physical, which may be another reason the movie is not commercial. Commercial films metaphor the spiritual or psychological by first being physical.] (5) The movie well examples the closing moral theme on a George Eliot title card:

“..for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

For any movie goer used to a fast-paced plot and surprises, reverses, and reveals on every page, AHL will put you to sleep and it will be hard to focus. AHL is a very spiritual and contemplative movie. While the photography is captivating and at times stunning, the story is very much internal, and requires a lot more thinking than the typically Hollywood fare.  The characters spend a great deal of time in prayer and self-examination. Such on-screen actions, however, fall far from the cheap, cringe-worthy, virtue signaling we would see in a cheesy Christian faith film. Why? Because in AHL their prayers and self-reflection is not answered in a blaze of glory or narrative reversal.  In fact, although AHL is very explicitly Christian and Catholic in many ways, it breaks the mold of a "faith film" in numerous, refreshing ways. One in particular is that in a Christian faith film when the main character consults with his pastor the pastor is always the good guy who pontificates a cheesy, sanctified, Bible perfect truism. In AHL the pastor sides with the Nazis. 

Why all the A-List Actors in a Non-Commercial Film?

AHL has no A-List Hollywood actors, but the acting is amazing to watch and reveals Terrence Malick's masterful touch at directing. Upon scanning through Malick's nine directed narrative features on IMDB that he had completed as of this posting -- and I know that IMDB is often derelict in being up to date -- it appears that everyone of the pictures failed to produce any significant earnings for the investors, and most bombed, at least in their theatrical outings, and I'm including THIN RED LINE in that claim. 

Why is it then that Terrence Malick can attach a host of A-list actors, when they have a pretty good idea that there will be no backend points coming their way? 

I have a theory, but it's an infant one since I am not a Terrence Malick aficionado. Perhaps I should be. I suspect it's because a Terrence Malick directed movie will be cinematically beautiful if not stunning, and A-listers want to be associated with anything that is beautiful if not stunning....the story and its structure being less important.

[If you don't know, the only real requirement to attaching money to a project is attaching known names. So if Malick can attract a few names, the money will come.]

I also wonder if Malick the director is motivated more by poetic beauty and intrigued by philosophical contradictions and moral dilemmas evident in AHL (Malick taught philosophy for a while before launching his film career) and thus neglects the essentials of narrative that create a successful story structure and a catharsis necessary to produce word of mouth praise and provoke ticket sales. Some of his movies with huge stars attached have not even broken $1M at the domestic B.O.  (according to IMDB.)

Does anyone have a good answer to this question? Please comment.