Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (2011)

[Ezee E]

The New World opened up at my megaplex in 2004.
Same here. I remember it being relatively full.

But that must've been it. Made only $12 mill. Seems like there's been numerous DVD releases.

[Raiders]

The New World opened up at my megaplex in 2004.

Must have been an awfully rough cut. My multiplex didn't get it until January 2006. It was the "artier" multiplex in Annapolis. It seemed an easier commercial sell than this film seems though. Unless I am simply over-emphasizing the "greater scope" elements in my mind and the film is actually 90% small personal drama. I'm sure more commercial trailers can be cut and attract an audience, but I still suspect this will get a slow rollout and peak at a few hundred theaters, maybe 800 screens or so (seems to be the floor of "wide release").

Nonetheless, there will be no question of my seeing it as soon as it opens within driving distance.

[Boner M]

I think Wats means 2005.

[Raiders]

I think Wats means 2005.

Yes, I know.

[eternity]

Someone just told me this leaked.

Dammit. Dammit. Dammit. Is it too much to ask to just let this debut at Cannes?

[B-side]

Someone just told me this leaked.

Dammit. Dammit. Dammit. Is it too much to ask to just let this debut at Cannes?

Where?

[B-side]

Where?

Never mind, it's fake.

[elixir]

So do we think this will be in the DC area by the 27th? I don't know how these things go really...if it'll be just NY and LA or more...guesses/predictions/knowledge on this subject?

[dmk]

The French Blu-ray is now coming out 12 octobre, which is excellent news.

[Boner M]

A friend of mine saw this a month ago, has been annoyingly tight-lipped each time I've run into him.

[Dukefrukem]

I'd recommend just reading the URL

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/review-terrence-malicks-tree-of-life-reaches-for-greatness-falls-short

[megladon8]

Jessica Chastain is astoundingly gorgeous.

[Boner M]

Jessica Chastain is astoundingly gorgeous.
She really is. It's all I could think about while watching The Debt recently, so distracting.

[elixir]

Theater dates for many US areas: http://content.foxsearchlight.com/inside/node/4851

I'm leaving two days before it comes to Bethesda...damn.

[Henry Gale]

Apparently Fox Searchlight isn't even distributing it in Canada, so E1 has it instead. Someone was nice enough to point out in the comments there that it opens in Toronto on June 10th. Yay!

That still seems too close after years of waiting for this.

[Ivan Drago]

June 24th in Nashville. I'll be there.

EDIT: Holy shit, Hobo With A Shotgun and Uncle Boonmee are playing there when I move down there too. Uh, YES.

[Stay Puft]

Apparently Fox Searchlight isn't even distributing it in Canada, so E1 has it instead. Someone was nice enough to point out in the comments there that it opens in Toronto on June 10th. Yay!

Yeah, it's playing at the Lightbox. And go to the webpage, check the Cinematheque Ontario programs. They'll actually be screening every one of Malick's films that month.

I flipped out when I saw that. Gotta remember to go downtown and get tickets soon. Every one of Malick's films, on the big screen. Best summer ever.

[Barty]

Dammit, my theatre is not on the list.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It says at the bottom that it opens nationally July 8th, so hopefully that means it'll be playing closer than 2 hours away from me.

[B-side]

It says at the bottom that it opens nationally July 8th, so hopefully that means it'll be playing closer than 2 hours away from me.

July 1st in Grand Rapids. Meet me there!:D

[Kurosawa Fan]

July 1st in Grand Rapids. Meet me there!:D

Tree of Life is not worth the near 2 1/2 hour drive, especially at $4/gallon. Some day I'll get over that way, and I'll let you know before I do.

[B-side]

Tree of Life is not worth the near 2 1/2 hour drive, especially at $4/gallon. Some day I'll get over that way, and I'll let you know before I do.

Heh. I'm pretty pissed I have to wait until July 1st. But yeah, I wouldn't mind meeting up with you sometime when you're in the area.:)

[ledfloyd]

i can drive two hours to cleveland to see it on the 10th or just wait and see it in pittsburgh on the 24th. $4 gas will probably necessitate the ladder. though i do wonder if it will be opening even closer on the 8th.

[B-side]

$4 gas will probably necessitate the ladder.

http://vedicnumerology.files.wordpres s.com/2010/11/ladder.jpg

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, it's playing at the Lightbox. And go to the webpage, check the Cinematheque Ontario programs. They'll actually be screening every one of Malick's films that month.

I flipped out when I saw that. Gotta remember to go downtown and get tickets soon. Every one of Malick's films, on the big screen. Best summer ever.

Oh very nice. I've yet to actually see anything at the Lightbox, though I have a friend who's gone to things like when Cronenberg was actually there for the Videodrome screening, and he basically confirmed that it was an amazing theatre.

Tree of Life would definitely be a great first thing to see there, and seeing any other Malick on the big screen before then sounds pretty appetizing as well.

[Sxottlan]

June 17th for me here. Just in time for my birthday!

[Ivan Drago]

Holy shit. Not only is this opening on June 24th in Nashville...but each film Malick's done will be screening every Tuesday beforehand at the Belcourt Theater all throughout June. I won't be there to see Badlands on the 7th, but my internship starts on the 13th and from that week onward, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, AND The New World will be screened in 35mm. Depending on ticket prices, consider me broke by July.

[Ezee E]

I've watched the apple.com clip of this movie 5-6 times. Love it.

[Derek]

Seeing this Saturday night. Been at least a couple years since I've been this excited to see something.

[Russ]

I haven't really been keeping up with this, but...is there just one cut being distributed? (ie, hope they didn't trim the Cannes showing, ala The New World)

[Spaceman Spiff]

Seeing this Saturday night. Been at least a couple years since I've been this excited to see something.

My girlfriend's brother who is a Malick fan and already saw it in France said it was maybe his worst.

Just trying to lower your expectations a tad. I'm still quite excited though.

[Boner M]

Yeah, I already know of a few Malick fans who've been underwhelmed by it.

[Boner M]

However another friend who's only a casual fan just said this was one of the best films he's ever seen, so I dunno.

[Qrazy]

However another friend who's only a casual fan just said this was one of the best films he's ever seen, so I dunno.

Casual fans of anything have a new favorite film every year.

[number8]

I dig. This is Malick meets Jarmusch meets Gaspar Noe.

[Idioteque Stalker]

This is Malick meets Jarmusch meets Gaspar Noe.

Sounds amazing and pretty much impossible.

[Pop Trash]

I dig. This is Malick meets Jarmusch meets Gaspar Noe.

Yuck. I hope not.

[number8]

:lol:

It definitely looks like a Malick film, but the structure, movement and pacing are reminiscent of Limits of Control and Enter the Void.

[eternity]

:lol:

It definitely looks like a Malick film, but the structure, movement and pacing are reminiscent of Limits of Control and Enter the Void.

So it's Malick's version of a clusterfuck, then. Fine by me.

[Philosophe_rouge]

:lol:

It definitely looks like a Malick film, but the structure, movement and pacing are reminiscent of Limits of Control and Enter the Void.

I HATE both Limits of Control and Enter the Void. I ADORE Tree of Life. In a very vague way I see how they are similar, all three are movies.

[Boner M]

Hey Derek, how similar is this to Mekas' As I Was Moving Ahead...?

[Derek]

Hey Derek, how similar is this to Mekas' As I Was Moving Ahead...?

:lol:

There'll be plenty of "nothing happens"/I didn't care about the characters/where was the plot? type complaints. I can assure you of that.

[Ezee E]

I HATE both Limits of Control and Enter the Void. I ADORE Tree of Life. In a very vague way I see how they are similar, all three are movies.
:lol:

[number8]

Well, more specifically, all three are one of the best movies of their years.

[number8]

Terrence Malick has excellent film taste.


When Jessica Chastain, the up-and-coming actress who stars opposite Brad Pitt in "The Tree of Life," had a meeting with Ben Stiller a few years ago, the actor caught her off guard with an unexpected request: "Tell Terry I said hi," Stiller told her, referring to "Tree" director Terrence Malick.

Chastain assumed that Stiller was kidding. How on Earth would the star of comedies like "Dodgeball" and "Meet the Fockers" be on such casual terms with a reclusive, enigmatic auteur like Malick?

But he wasn't joking. It turns out Malick is a huge fan of "Zoolander," Stiller's 2001 send-up of fashion fabulousness — so much so that for Malick's birthday one year, Stiller dressed up as the character Derek Zoolander, made a personalized video card and sent it to the director. "I think 'Zoolander' is one of Terry's favorite movies ever," said Jack Fisk, Malick's longtime production designer, who has known him for nearly 40 years. "He watches it all the time, and he likes quoting it."

[Sven]

"He watches it all the time, and he likes quoting it."

Hilarious.

[megladon8]

If I ever meet Malick, I will tell him that I think his films are pretty Hansel.

[Boner M]

Malick movies would be even better if the voiceovers consisted of whispered Zoolander quotes.

[Derek]

Malick movies would be even better if the voiceovers consisted of whispered Zoolander quotes.

Not to give anything major away, but there actually is one:

"Father, Mother. Always you wrestle inside me. Always you will. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking. And I plan on finding out what that is."

[Henry Gale]

Despite (or because of) all of his reclusiveness, Malick now just went up a thousand points on the hypothetical Awesome Scale.

[Boner M]

I'm kinda not surprised he's such a fan of the film. The fashion world must seem particularly alien to a such a hardcore nature boy.

[Yxklyx]

OK, what's with the voiceover? Generally, when a film has a voiceover it's either not mentioned in retrospect or it is mentioned because it was awful. I've now seen mention of it here and at the avclub. Is it an incredible voiceover or are people trying to defend it? I generally hate the idea of voiceover - I've only seen it work in a handful of films.

[Raiders]

OK, what's with the voiceover? Generally, when a film has a voiceover it's either not mentioned in retrospect or it is mentioned because it was awful. I've now seen mention of it here and at the avclub. Is it an incredible voiceover or are people trying to defend it? I generally hate the idea of voiceover - I've only seen it work in a handful of films.

I haven't seen this film, but all of Malick's films work pretty much through the voiceover matched with the imagery. Most love the style, some hate it, but there being a voiceover, and it being integral, was a given. As was people's love/defense of it.

[number8]

I hate voiceovers when it's in the style of the characters speaking normally. When it's purple prose (like in pulp noir) or sounding like oblique excerpts from a poem (like here), I like 'em.

[Ezee E]

I hate voiceovers when it's in the style of the characters speaking normally. When it's purple prose (like in pulp noir) or sounding like oblique excerpts from a poem (like here), I like 'em.
How about Scorsese movies?

[Watashi]

Holy Shit.

[Morris Schæffer]

Holy Shit.

I'm really hoping this is going to be my reaction!

[Spinal]

The only other film I've seen with this boldness of vision is Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," and it lacked Malick's fierce evocation of human feeling.

Link (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110602/REVIEWS/110609998)

If Ebert was a match cutter, this would mean a red font in his signature and also a captial M in parentheses. There would also be reference to ejaculate.

[number8]

If Ebert was a match cutter, this would mean a red font in his signature and also a captial M in parentheses. There would also be reference to ejaculate.

So basically, his twitter feed.

[Derek]

Link (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110602/REVIEWS/110609998)

If Ebert was a match cutter, this would mean a red font in his signature and also a captial M in parentheses. There would also be reference to ejaculate.

It is an undeniably bold and daring film. If there were even a glimpse of Jessica Chastain's ass, I'd say it's a shoe-in for **** from you.

Actually, I don't think you'll like it that much.

[Robby P]

Who will be the first detractor? We should start a pool. I've got dibs on Qrazy.

[Watashi]

God, Jessica Chastain is so gorgeous in this movie.

[Derek]

Who will be the first detractor? We should start a pool. I've got dibs on Qrazy.

It's not a very accessible film, even by Malick standards, so I actually expect a number of dissenters here. I'm not so sure Qrazy will dislike it however. More than any other film mentioned here, this reminded me most of Tarkovsky's The Mirror only less autobiographical and more cosmically spritual.

[Spinal]

Actually, I don't think you'll like it that much.

I've liked every Malick film I've seen. Even the one with Richard Gere in it.

[elixir]

I've liked every Malick film I've seen. Even the one with Richard Gere in it.

That's the best one.

Okay, I'm not reading this thread again until I see it. Hopefully this weekend.

[Spinal]

Doesn't show up here until the 10th.

[Derek]

I've liked every Malick film I've seen. Even the one with Richard Gere in it.

I realize that and didn't mean it as a slight. While this does feel like a Malick film, it's different enough from his previous films that it can even distance previous fans of his work. Like I said, it reminds me of Tarkovsky to a degree and it's focus on the ethereal and cosmic spirituality along with doesn't strike me as something up your alley. Then again, it's such a challenging and original film that you may end up loving it. It's hard to guess anyone's reaction to this one I guess.

[BuffaloWilder]

Question, Derek -

I'm taking a girl out tomorrow to see a movie, and then off for coffee and whatever else I might think of. Simple thing, really. My quandary to you is this: which would be the more enjoyable experience, from either this or X-Men First Class?

She's a very spiritually involved Muslim girl from Ethiopia on transfer, and I think she'd be into this given the high praise it's receiving from all quarters for its focused on all of that sort of thing. I want to go with my gut on this one, but - I dunno, what's your take?

[Derek]

Question, Derek -

I'm taking a girl out tomorrow to see a movie, and then off for coffee and whatever else I might think of. Simple thing, really. My quandary to you is this: which would be the more enjoyable experience, from either this or X-Men First Class?

She's a very spiritually involved Muslim girl from Ethiopia on transfer, and I think she'd be into this given the high praise it's receiving from all quarters for its focused on all of that sort of thing. I want to go with my gut on this one, but - I dunno, what's your take?

That's a tough call. If she's someone who would normally see movies like X-Men First Class, I'd stick with that, but if she seems to have more adventurous taste and she's seen and liked the trailer, take the leap. Just beware that this hardly qualifies as a narrative film despite the trailer, great as it is, trying to convince you otherwise. It could be rough on anyone expecting that, particularly in its first half, so you may wanna give her a warning of what she's in for.

[megladon8]

Just one question -

Were the dinosaurs awesome? Was there an epic dinosaur brawl worthy of Wrestlemania 10,000,000 B.C. status?

[Derek]

Just one question -

Were the dinosaurs awesome? Was there an epic dinosaur brawl worthy of Wrestlemania 10,000,000 B.C. status?

There was a moment in the dinosaur scene that is one of my favorite in the film. Maybe not quite what you're looking for though. :)

[Spinal]

There was a moment in the dinosaur scene that is one of my favorite in the film. Maybe not quite what you're looking for though. :)

I really hope we hear the dinosaur's existential crisis in voiceover.

[megladon8]

There was a moment in the dinosaur scene that is one of my favorite in the film. Maybe not quite what you're looking for though. :)


...

So...Magnetosaurus doesn't rip the adamantium out of Wolverosaur's body?

[Derek]

I really hope we hear the dinosaur's existential crisis in voiceover.

Nah, it's more subtle, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT0cOBI9yD0).

[Spinal]

Nah, it's more subtle, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT0cOBI9yD0).

Spoiler tags!!! :frustrated:

[Ezee E]

Spoiler tags!!! :frustrated:
MOVIE RUINED.

[Spinal]

Actual quotes from my son watching that link:

"Is this a joke?"

"That was dumb. That was so dumb. That was beyond idiotic."

[Ezee E]

Actual quotes from my son watching that link:

"Is this a joke?"

"That was dumb. That was so dumb. That was beyond idiotic."

Actual quotes from my friends/roommates who overheard me watching this and had to see it themselves:

"That was actually a show? Is it a joke?"

"That looks sooooo dumb. No way that was a show."

"I must see that show."

[Watashi]

So awesome.

[Sven]

I love Dinosaucers.

[Watashi]

Actual quotes from my son watching that link:

"Is this a joke?"

"That was dumb. That was so dumb. That was beyond idiotic."

Kids these days have no idea what good cartoons are.

[Raiders]

Tree of Life is never coming to Boston. :( At least from the schedules I've seen.

Again Duke, I will help you out by using Google for you. This is straight from Fox Searchlight's online lips.

6/3/11
BOSTON, MA
Kendall Square Cinema, Cambridge, MA

6/10/11
BOSTON, MA
Boston Common & IMAX, Boston, MA
Coolidge Corner, Brookline, MA

6/17/11
BOSTON, MA
West Newton Cinema, W Newton, MA
Hollywood Hits Premiere, Danvers, MA
Dedham Community Theatre, Dedham, MA

6/24/11
BOSTON, MA
Cape Cinema, Dennis, MA

And on July 8th, it goes wide nationally (likely a wide platform release of like, 800 theatres).

[Dukefrukem]

I swear I've done that............. Looks like I will see it this weekend then.

And see, they don't even list it at the theater... (http://www.coolidge.org/showtimes/date/2011-06-10) What am i supposed to do? Check the site everyday until they finally list the showing? I need to plan ahead with my schedule.

[Raiders]

I swear I've done that............. Looks like I will see it this weekend then.

And see, they don't even list it at the theater... (http://www.coolidge.org/showtimes/date/2011-06-10) What am i supposed to do? Check the site everyday until they finally list the showing? I need to plan ahead with my schedule.

Yes, that's what most people do. My theaters don't update full weekend schedules until Wednesday usually.

Also, here (www.coolidge.org/content/tree-life).

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, that's what most people do. My theaters don't update full weekend schedules until Wednesday usually.

Also, here (www.coolidge.org/content/tree-life).

Yes it says: "There are no showings currently scheduled"

But I did not know about that Weds time frame. Thanks.

[D_Davis]

I love Dinosaucers.

Hell yeah. That show was sweet.

[origami_mustache]

I like the part where they whisper.

In all seriousness though, this is on par with The Mirror for me. Hopefully I will get a chance to see it in the theater again.

[NickGlass]

I thought it was beautiful.

Ok, so it's a little ponderous at times, but I'm perfectly fine with that considering the scope. I was a bit worried for the first 15 minutes or so, though. Not that I didn't relish the modernist, stream-of-consciousness editing, or the dinosaurs--and I appreciate how Malick is so careful about the construction of every aspect of filmmaking "craft" (art direction, cinematography, costume design)--but everything seemed calculated in a laborious way. But then, miraculously, everything starts to flow together and I found it to be a really mesmerizing, fluid film. Its presentation of the development of one life (or, rather, "soul"--eep!), our natural surroundings, and the broad (key word: broad) philosophical and spiritual implications was really engrossing. The delicacy struck between capturing and creating memories and insights into these characters and the wider concept of all life struck a chord. It's totally bombastic, but eloquent, and I loved it for that.

[B-side]

In all seriousness though, this is on par with The Mirror for me.

High praise. I don't expect it to be that good, but I hope to love it.

[Mysterious Dude]

So why is Sean Penn so focused on one short period of his life? For a movie that shows the creation of the earth and all those moments from his birth and early life, it suddenly becomes very limited (like a more normal movie).

And when the entire cast reunites on the beach at the end, it is the 9-year-old brother who Sean Penn sees, not the 19-year-old he was when he died.

Some people could hardly wait to get out of the theater at the end. It's one of those movies that I liked, but probably wouldn't recommend to other people.

[origami_mustache]

So why is Sean Penn so focused on one short period of his life? For a movie that shows the creation of the earth and all those moments from his birth and early life, it suddenly becomes very limited (like a more normal movie).

And when the entire cast reunites on the beach at the end, it is the 9-year-old brother who Sean Penn sees, not the 19-year-old he was when he died.

Some people could hardly wait to get out of the theater at the end. It's one of those movies that I liked, but probably wouldn't recommend to other people.

I can't say this goes for everyone else, but most of my fondest and most vivid memories are from my childhood and are similar in a lot of ways to the moments of joy, sadness, and regret shown in Malick's film and as I age I romanticize and exaggerate those memories more and more. I'm sure not everyone looks back to their childhood like this, but for this particular character and most likely Malick himself this seems to be the most influential time period of his life that shaped what he has become as an adult and
when the family moves away, this seemingly marks a turning point of a slow gradual degradation of the protagonist's life and his relations with his family.

[Spinal]

I have nothing but superlatives. So brace yourself.

First of all, it feels like the film that Malick was born to make. As if his whole career had led up to this moment. It is a beautiful crystalization of his own unique cinematic language.

I absolutely adore how this film communicates. It feels like a throwback to a time when films dared to be large and important. And yet, it also feels progressive. It makes the use of narrative we see in most contemporary films seem hopelessly outmoded.

It skillfully replicates the way we recall our own lives: in a hazy assemblage of untidy memories. There are the moments of deep pain and sorrow that have seared themselves into our mind. There are the scarce moments of sheer joy that we desperately try to hold close. And then, forever lingering beneath it all are our doubts, our regrets, the questions that will never be answered satisfactorily.

All truly great films permanently alter the way we can perceive and process the world around us. They create a new lens through which we can understand our own lives. This, I believe, is such a film.

Time will tell how the film is remembered by film lovers. But watching it for the first time, I had the suspicion that what I was watching might turn out to be something of a landmark.

[Spinal]

God, Jessica Chastain is so gorgeous in this movie.

She reminded me of a young Liv Ullmann.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Man, the wait for this film is absolutely agonizing.

[Spinal]

There was a moment in the dinosaur scene that is one of my favorite in the film.

It would have been cooler if ...

The dinosaur stepped on the other one's head and said "Chaos Reigns."

:D

[Winston*]

Man, the wait for this film is absolutely agonizing.
Yeah, more excited about this movie than any I can remember. Doesn't seem like a release date's been anounced for my country. Sucks.

[Spinal]

Man, the wait for this film is absolutely agonizing.

Lest I contribute too much to excessive hype, I feel obligated to restore at least a little bit of balance.

As Derek says, it will most certainly not work for everyone.

Though my reaction was quite strong and the film is quite ambitious, it's pleasures are mostly subtle. It was not a film that had me from square one. I found that it took me some time to sync up with it. It was the toddler section that clicked for me and after that I was on board.

Even if you're a Malick fan, the film, with its whispery, poetic voiceovers can dance dangerously close to self-parody. It requires a small amount of faith placed in Malick. I found it to be well worth it. Others may be less charitable.

And the much-discussed dinosaurs are not going to make anyone forget Jurassic Park. It's a neat little scene, but also pretty short.

[Pop Trash]

Man, the wait for this film is absolutely agonizing.

Word. Also, am I the only one here that thinks The New World is his best film? So great.

[Derek]

Word. Also, am I the only one here that thinks The New World is his best film? So great.

I did, until I saw this a second time. I really need to get around to seeing the 170-minute cut, which most of the big NW supports on the web agree is the best of the 3.

[Pop Trash]

I did, until I saw this a second time. I really need to get around to seeing the 170-minute cut, which most of the big NW supports on the web agree is the best of the 3.

Well yeah...I haven't seen this so I really meant of his first four films. I used to think Days of Heaven was his best until 2009 when I rewatched The New World twice in one week and was completely taken by it. Wagner montage FTW!

[Spinal]

I've been slow to see The New World. I missed it on the big screen and I keep hoping to catch it in a revival someday.

[Ezee E]

One hour!

[Ezee E]

I probably had too high of expectations. I was more wowed by the trailer then I was with the movie.

That said, is there even a point in having a Match Cut 2011 Awards? ha.

I'll read what you all said and chime in later.

[Ezee E]

I can't really type out many thoughts about this movie except that it's already been said. I just didn't love it like you all did. I had the same reaction as Spinal did as far as not really getting into the movie until the birth scene.

The dinosaur scene happened shortly after, and remains one of the highlights to me. What's interesting there is there's as much emotion in that scene as there is in the family scenes. That's not to take away from the family by any means, just shows what Malick is about to do with his short time with the dinosaurs. I almost feel there's a similar scene later on in the movie with the B.B. gun.

I feel that Penn's scenes are the weakness of the movie. The architecture around him is interesting, I guess, but it didn't have the melancholy feel that the rest of the movie did. In fact, it almost seemed forced. Perhaps it's because he's alone, and it's only reflecting on what had happened?

[Watashi]

I wanted to see more of Penn's wife (daughter?).

[Spinal]

I feel that Penn's scenes are the weakness of the movie. The architecture around him is interesting, I guess, but it didn't have the melancholy feel that the rest of the movie did. In fact, it almost seemed forced. Perhaps it's because he's alone, and it's only reflecting on what had happened?

I think it might have helped if it wasn't Sean Penn. I think because it's him we expect it to be more than it actually is.

[Pop Trash]

I think it might have helped if it wasn't Sean Penn. I think because it's him we expect it to be more than it actually is.

This was my problem with some of the casting in Red Line actually. I've always had this theory in films that it takes the viewer 5-10 minutes to let the "oh hey there's so-and-so" feeling to pass so we view the character and not the celebrity (if the person cast is something of a celebrity).

[Spinal]

At least it wasn't Travolta.

[Mysterious Dude]

Were Sean Penn's scenes supposed to be set in the 90's? He's literally not old enough to have even been alive in the 50's.

[Derek]

Were Sean Penn's scenes supposed to be set in the 90's? He's literally not old enough to have even been alive in the 50's.

:lol: You're a funny person.

I don't think there was any attempt to make the Sean Penn scenes set at any time in particular, aside from many decades later away from the idyllic countryside of his youth.

[elixir]

I have nothing but superlatives. So brace yourself.


This is a fantastic post that sums of much of how I feel about this film.


That's the best one. [re: Days of Heaven]

No, you dimwit, this is his best movie.

I loved this movie beyond all belief. I think it's an incredible movie; it's bold and original, moving and questioning, beautiful in both visuals and content. It captures the exuberant joy and uncontrollably anger that characterizes much of youth, but furthermore, it shows how our memory works--in fragmented ways, in non-chronological order...ahh, this has all been said.

I see how people could dislike or even hate it (as my parents did). I don't think one can deny its broad scope or its fiercely personal and passionate vision. It really feels like Malick bares his soul here...he puts it all out there, and I mean that in the best way possible. Most movies don't really linger with you. Sure, I talk about them and love discussing them become I love movies...but they don't stay with me in a deeper sense (bear with me here). This movie is one that will remain with me, in a way a very few movies--my favorites--do. And I don't see it going away anytime soon. It's a film that makes me want to make grand pronouncements such that it "goes beyond cinema!!!" but what it really does for me is become part of my reality, part of my surroundings and I still can't shake it. I still have chills, and thinking about it, I ache...I ache along with the movie, for the movie. I found it quite devastating really, but also life-affirming all the same. To be honest, I cried more times than I'd like to admit, and I'm saying this so you guys get just how much this film did for me.

I hope I'm known around here by now that this won't be taken as rabid fanboy hyperbole, but this one's gonna stay with me. This film means something special to me.

I'm thinking of composing some "first impressions" pseudo-analysis, so I'll post that if it pans out.

[dreamdead]

I thought the first hour pretty damn perfect. Some of the ocean-heaven sequences seemed a bit laborious (though memorably timed to the score), and the specificity of the childhood moments pushed on a little too long. Still, definitely gonna watch it again once it goes wide. I too wanted more from Penn's wife and perspective thereof.

The first ten minutes had already made me tear up, and they came again during the first birth scene, where Pitt touches the leg. I agree with Spinal on basically all fronts.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Malick may make better films, but I don't think he'll ever make one as singular and defining as this. What a cinematic thrill it was to witness a great filmmaker make his claim to being one of the very best with such an era-defining work that I'm certain will be discussed and loved and hated much longer after I die. Brilliant stuff.

Also, a big lol to the audience whose haters were vocal. I knew they had picked the wrong "sunday afternoon flick" when 3/4 of them were munching popcorn during the opening few seconds.

[Ezee E]

Maybe other cities have bigger theaters, but in Denver, it only opened at one, so you have to go out of your way to see this movie. Doing so, you most likely know what you're getting into. Heck, this theater painted a "tree of life" on the windows out front.

My theater only had one group walk out, and it was a set of old people, that vocalized that they liked the movie, but were hungry, knew how it'd end ("this is one of those that's just going to cut and be done with") and were fine. I saw them sitting at a restaurant patio afterwards loving their wine and bread.

Everyone else seemed to be pretty interested.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Ugh, and they also laughed at Cameron Diaz's pratfalls in Bad Teacher. People are terrible.

[Spinal]

"this is one of those that's just going to cut and be done with"

:lol:

[Ezee E]

:lol:
I laughed too.

There were two or three of those in this movie that I thought the movie was over in fact.

[Winston*]

Don't get to see this until the end of August.:sad:

[Boner M]

Don't get to see this til the end of tomorrow. :sad:

[Spinal]

Oh, that was cold.

[Derek]

Oh, that was cold.

Boner hates Kiwis. It's in his blood.

I do want to make a quick comment about the Sean Penn scenes too. The first time I saw this, I was surprised at how little of the film they took up and wished there was a bit more to tie those scenes into the rest of the film, but the second time through, I really felt they worked perfectly. At first, I missed that those scenes all took place on the anniversary of his brother's death, which certainly made it more emotionally resonant. I also think that despite their brevity, they give a clear picture of the type of man he's become simply through his behavior at work and the coldness of both the relationship with his wife and of the empty modernity of his home, so extending them would merely detract from what is the narrative meat of the film.

[Spinal]

Another thing that's cool about this movie ... the way Malick gives no clues as to whether there will be pain or joy around the next corner. There's no ominous looks or foreshadowing or tension-building music. Things just happen, sometimes seemingly out of nowhere. Just as in life, we hope for the best moment to moment, but have no idea when something will happen to change the course of our lives irrevocably.

[Ezee E]

Another thing that's cool about this movie ... the way Malick gives no clues as to whether there will be pain or joy around the next corner. There's no ominous looks or foreshadowing or tension-building music. Things just happen, sometimes seemingly out of nowhere. Just as in life, we hope for the best moment to moment, but have no idea when something will happen to change the course of our lives irrevocably.
True. The only time I think there was any foreshadowing was

with the B.B. gun. Because nothing good comes out of kids with b.b. guns

[elixir]

Boner hates Kiwis. It's in his blood.

I do want to make a quick comment about the Sean Penn scenes too. The first time I saw this, I was surprised at how little of the film they took up and wished there was a bit more to tie those scenes into the rest of the film, but the second time through, I really felt they worked perfectly. At first, I missed that those scenes all took place on the anniversary of his brother's death, which certainly made it more emotionally resonant. I also think that despite their brevity, they give a clear picture of the type of man he's become simply through his behavior at work and the coldness of both the relationship with his wife and of the empty modernity of his home, so extending them would merely detract from what is the narrative meat of the film.

Agreed, minus seeing the film a second time (though I need to!). I actually thought the editing job in the workplace was really fantastic and conveyed much of what you need to know about adult Jack in a short period of time (i.e. it was concise).

[elixir]

Also want to give some kudos to the casting director (or other people) who found the kids and the kids themselves (and Malick's direction of them, too) because I thought they were very good...and obviously they needed to be considering how central they were to the film.

[elixir]

This movie won't stop replaying in my mind.

Some of my favorite moments--spoilers of course--and add yours...
-R.L. joining in on guitar while his dad plays piano.
-the BB gun incident, especially the two comforting each other in the grass
-the first long montage sequence of Jack growing up, set to the music from the trailer
-uh...the whole space/nature thing lol, but especially the long section of it...i like the oozing emulsions or whatever they were, the waves, gah all of it really
-the mysterious light (God? as suggested by A.O. Scott's review)


There's many more, but I can't remember them all at the moment.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think Brad Pitt deserves some credit for his performance. For a man who used to be such a heartthrob, he made a very believable 50's dad. There's something I really like about an early scene:

"Pass the butter please."
"Pass the butter please, SIR."

It makes you wonder, is that bad parenting or just typical 50's parenting?

[elixir]

I think Brad Pitt deserves some credit for his performance. For a man who used to be such a heartthrob, he made a very believable 50's dad. There's something I really like about an early scene:

"Pass the butter please."
"Pass the butter please, SIR."

It makes you wonder, is that bad parenting or just typical 50's parenting?

Yeah, agreed. I was actually thinking he looked pretty everyman, and I mean that in a good way. I also liked the scene where he tells his son to not talk unless he has anything important to say, and the kid goes "be quiet" (or something like that).

I'm not sure if it's typical 50s parenting, but I think the film is clearly playing off of America's image of this time period...the tough, breadwinner dad, the housewife, the kids throwing footballs and playing baseball, etc.

[Ezee E]

Also, where did the comparisons to Gaspar Noe come from? Silly.

[NickGlass]

Also, where did the comparisons to Gaspar Noe come from? Silly.

I didn't make the comparison, and I wouldn't say it's completely accurate, but it makes a bit of sense. Malick and Noe both employ cinematic techniques that can be either alienating or completely immersive.

[number8]

I did, sort of. I liked both Tree of Life and Enter the Void's use of aurally abstract images to lure the audience into ease and their disarming camerawork, but not wholly since EtV is a bit more aggressive, which is why I combined that comparison with Limits of Control's scattered, unhurried patience.

Mostly, though, I just find this movie to be more pained and emotionally violent than Malick's previous films.

[Spinal]

Some of my favorite moments--spoilers of course--and add yours...


* Mom floating in the air.
* Mom in the glass coffin.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm seeing this perhaps on friday. Very curious to see especially on the big screen, but not sure what to expect. There's a chance I'll shrug when it's all over and move on, giving it nary a thought. Though I hope not.

2001: A Space Odyssey was rather great on a 40 inch TV and I always had a soft spot for Jurassic Park so there's that.

[Ezee E]

Forget the Jurassic Park feeling, unless you're seeing Super 8.

If you've seen Malick movies, you know what you're getting. With a little 2001, I guess. I'd say more like the IMAX Museum movies.

[Spinal]

Yeah, the dinosaurs are not there for action or thrills.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, the dinosaurs are not there for action or thrills.
But still one of the more affecting moments of the movie...

For what it's worth, Malick used CGI extremely well in this movie. I'm sure there's more then the dinosaurs, and I can't say that I noticed it.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah, the dinosaurs are not there for action or thrills.

Oh I know. I know. :D

[eternity]

I know it's probably just me, but did it seem like the the first and last scenes of the movie had absolutely NOTHING to do with the core of the movie? They felt thoroughly tacked on, but I have absolutely no confidence in that actually being true.

[Milky Joe]

I know it's probably just me, but did it seem like the the first and last scenes of the movie had absolutely NOTHING to do with the core of the movie? They felt thoroughly tacked on, but I have absolutely no confidence in that actually being true.

Heh, considering that I came into this movie shortly after it started and left shortly before it ended, I really hope you're right.

[Derek]

I know it's probably just me, but did it seem like the the first and last scenes of the movie had absolutely NOTHING to do with the core of the movie? They felt thoroughly tacked on, but I have absolutely no confidence in that actually being true.

Depends on what you consider the "core" of the movie. The film depicts the beginning of sentient life (the whole first movement essentially springing from the big bang) and the sun hitting supernova stage, thus killing it off, so yeah, I'd say it plays a pretty big part. Although, by the last scene, are you talking about the whole heaven/reunion sequence?

[Boner M]

At times I thought this was too much of a good thing, regarding the repetition of certain images, but the cumulative effect justifies everything. Someone had to go to this extreme of ambition & reflection; glad it was Malick. More thoughts later, maybe. Tweeted some inadequate first impressions (link in sig).

[elixir]

At times I thought this was too much of a good thing, regarding the repetition of certain images, but the cumulative effect justifies everything. Someone had to go to this extreme of ambition & reflection; glad it was Malick. More thoughts later, maybe. Tweeted some inadequate first impressions (link in sig).

LOL at your picture (samurai cop!). What you said here: "my first thought was 'for all its flaws, I wanna relive some of those moments RIGHT NOW'" EXACTLY! Gosh, I really need to see it again, though part of me is scared the experience won't live up to my first watch of it.

[elixir]

I'm not sure if there is any deeper meaning to be ascribed here, but I remember noticing that the modern/adult Jack scenes had lots of see-through buildings and glass structures and stuff was just visible...whereas the 50s had a lot of shadows of the kids all playing, people's silhouettes coming from behind curtains/laundry...

[eternity]

Depends on what you consider the "core" of the movie. The film depicts the beginning of sentient life (the whole first movement essentially springing from the big bang) and the sun hitting supernova stage, thus killing it off, so yeah, I'd say it plays a pretty big part. Although, by the last scene, are you talking about the whole heaven/reunion sequence?
The core of the movie being from when the first baby is born until the heaven/reunion sequence...or whatever that might have been.

I am still trying to grapple with what this has to do with the first scenes of the movie.

[Derek]

The core of the movie being from when the first baby is born until the heaven/reunion sequence...or whatever that might have been.

I am still trying to grapple with what this has to do with the first scenes of the movie.

Obviously there's more to it than this, but I think the central theme is summed up in the mother's first line: "There are two ways through life: the way of nature, and the way of grace." Nature is violent, ever-evolving and concerned only with it's own survival, where grace is sacrificing, loving and peaceful. The scenes of the "birth" of the world are depict the transformation of the cosmic and ethereal into the concrete and cognizant, yet Malick does not present the two as mutually exclusive (ie, pre- and post-sentient), but rather places them on a continuum where the struggles between nature and grace, self-sufficiency and sacrifice, beauty and destruction are an eternal struggle that started long before humans existed and will continue long after we're gone.

[Boner M]

I'm not sure if there is any deeper meaning to be ascribed here, but I remember noticing that the modern/adult Jack scenes had lots of see-through buildings and glass structures and stuff was just visible...whereas the 50s had a lot of shadows of the kids all playing, people's silhouettes coming from behind curtains/laundry...
Yeah, there's definitely a strong opacity/transparency motif for the young/old Jack scenes, respectively. There's one especially lingering shot from the former timeframe that's just a dolly into a wall until the wallpaper envelops the screen. One of the most powerful images the film returns to for me was the tracking shot of young Jack just strolling down the middle of the street. It's something I often found myself doing as a kid; naively feeling as if I was taking a step closer to the great, mysterious unknown. Contrast that with the Sean Penn scenes, where everything is visible, concealing nothing, containing no mystery whatsoever. It's part of the reason modernist architecture is so alienating, and a great emblematic image of that loss of innocence and wonder that the film depicts.

[Watashi]

Nolan and Fincher gush over Malick.

UVUXDn6hCY4&

[Boner M]

I wonder when those interviews were recorded.

[elixir]

Characters in Malick films often seem to be pondering the larger question ("This great evil. Where's it come from?" - The Thin Red Line) and strive to reach some sort of understanding with the world ("Mother, now I know where you live" - The New World). The Tree of Life is certainly grappling with grand questions as well, often the big existential "whys" -- why do we exist? why is life so transient? why can't I figure out my purpose?. But I don't think the film necessarily wants to answer these questions, or at least not with a single thesis, and rather chooses to explore what the search for meaning reveals about us. I'm quite happy the film didn't end with some big obvious message, for something like "you have to forgive yourself to love others!" would have been a letdown after the bold filmmaking on display. Rather, the film's beauty lies in the confusion of it all, I think, often represented by Jack's struggles, such as when he sees the drunk man stumbling down the street and laughs, but then witnesses a physically handicapped man doing the same--you can see his face awash with puzzlement. The film looks at the cosmic and the human, the epic and the intimate, and more importantly the intertwining between the big and small things that makeup the grander fabric of life...it feels like there are endless connection to make in this quite dense work.

[elixir]

* Mom floating in the air.
* Mom in the glass coffin.

Spinal! I meant to show you this! (Don't read if you haven't seen it.)

Jessica Chastain has the same favorite part as you! http://collider.com/jessica-chastain-interview-tree-of-life/93397/

"I suppose the complete opposite of crutches is, there’s a scene in the film where you’re weightless in a dream sequence around a tree. Can you talk about that because it was fascinating to see.

Chastain: Yeah. You know it’s funny. That’s probably my favorite part of the film because it really describes what it’s like to be on a Terrance Malick set. It was the day when they had all of the harnesses and machines for the boys, they were having the boys climb up the trees. And then I heard, “Okay, Jessica. We want you to hang around because we want a shot of your feet walking along the ground and then lifting off the ground and then just walking back.” And so I say, “Okay.” And the other stuff took so long and they’re like, “We only have a couple minutes to get it!” So I was in the harness and I’m there and we kind of start shooting and it just didn’t look right. It just looked like my feet were just swinging, which is not the thing that they wanted. And I was just so happy to be in the harness – and I used to be a ballerina when I was a little girl – that I just start swinging back and forth. And I kind of start doing little pirouettes in the air and immediately Terry was like, “That’s it!” you know? “Do that! Do that! Dance!” And they have the camera and I’m just pushing myself off the tree to get momentum and I was just laughing a lot and it was just so much fun to film. And now when I see it, I actually, I just feel like it’s great and we didn’t try to create that moment, it just happened."

[Sxottlan]

I was all set to see this Friday, but now it looks like the one theater where it was supposed to play has pushed it back a week. :sad:

At least Cave of Forgotten Dreams is opening in its place instead.

[Russ]

At times I thought this was too much of a good thing


The first cut was 8 hours long. Terry is working on/preparing a 6 hours long version of the movie. What I've seen (of this) is absolutely incredible, it's wonderful. The longer version will have to/will likely, for the most part, relate to the children part. There were outstanding things, we've shot many, many things about Jack's childhood : his friends, his evolution, his changes, his awereness of the loss of his childhood... I don't know if I'm supposed to say all of this !


:eek:

[Pop Trash]

I've only skimmed through this, so forgive me if what I say has been covered already.

This is a narrative film (in the sense it has a beginning, middle, and end as all of Malick's films do) but not in the traditional sense most movie goers have. So to judge it, you have to go by a pure sense of visuals and sounds.

Most of the imagery is fantastic (as to be expected), with possible exception of the heaven/reunion sequence where everyone is in white on the beach and hugging each other and such. I get what Malick is going for, but it all got a little hokey for me (that is if you don't think Malick's style in general is hokey, which I don't).

Music wise, I think I preferred the Wagner of The New World to the choral sounds here, but I understand why Malick chose that. Speaking of which, this is one of the most spiritually/theologically faithful movies made in the past few decades. It'll be interesting to see how it plays with the more typically jaded/athiest/cynical younger crowds.

Nitpicking aside, it's a riveting film. The only time I felt it drag was heading towards the end of the Waco house scenes. At times it got repetitive, but initially I felt that way about the Christian Bale scenes in The New World, and repeated viewings whittled that away.

Beyond the oft mentioned 2001 comparisons, it reminded me quite a bit of the musical/visual harmony, and not to mention dinosaurs, of Disney's masterpiece Fantasia.

[Russ]

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7315/treelife.jpg

[D_Davis]

Wow.

Warning - you may be too stupid.

Man, we are devolving.

[number8]

That's just sad.

The Sunshine in NYC had a screening of this accompanied by a panel of religious experts plus David Silverman last night. I wish I was there.

[D_Davis]

That's just sad.

The Sunshine in NYC had a screening of this accompanied by a panel of religious experts plus David Silverman last night. I wish I was there.

I bet would have been sweet.

Does Malick have any religious background?

[Russ]

What I find funny is their use of the word "auteur" in that poster. I would venture to guess that a large percentage of the patrons for whom this "warning" was created probably don't know what an auteur is. And the ones who do probably won't have issues with the film.

[number8]

I dunno, though. That sign was on an arthouse theater. It's not like their patrons are people who wandered into Tree of Life because they sold out Super 8 or something.

[Ivan Drago]

Huh. . .that might have been for my arthouse theater back home. If that's the case, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

[Russ]

I dunno, though. That sign was on an arthouse theater. It's not like their patrons are people who wandered into Tree of Life because they sold out Super 8 or something.
You may be right, but I'd bet that the lure of dinosaurs and Brad Pitt has probably convinced an awful lot of the multiplex regulars to make a first-time trek to this particular theater.

[Boner M]

Best incarnation:

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/blog/assets_c/2011/05/Code%20Blue-thumb-550x372-41531.jpg

[Boner M]

I'm wondering; what was the audience response to 2001 back in its day? Similar division between mass walkouts & a dedicated cult following?

[Ezee E]

I'm wondering; what was the audience response to 2001 back in its day? Similar division between mass walkouts & a dedicated cult following?
Yes. I think Ebert has talked about it in his review.

[Boner M]

I don't think I've read a full Ebert review in the last several years.

[Ezee E]

I don't think I've read a full Ebert review in the last several years.
Well the review has been around for forty.

[Boner M]

Well the review has been around for forty.
Oh, I thought you meant he brought up the comparison in his ToL review.

[elixir]

Oh, I thought you meant he brought up the comparison in his ToL review.

That's what I thought he meant too. I went to his old 2001 review, but I think perhaps this section in the Great Movies essay of it is what E is referring to.


I attended the Los Angeles premiere of the film, in 1968, at the Pantages Theater. It is impossible to describe the anticipation in the audience adequately. ..To describe that first screening as a disaster would be wrong, for many of those who remained until the end knew they had seen one of the greatest films ever made. But not everyone remained. Rock Hudson stalked down the aisle, complaining, “Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?'' There were many other walkouts, and some restlessness at the film's slow pace

[elixir]

Also, wasn't it very obvious which son Sean Penn played? Apparently some people are confused, and I fear it made me come across as condescending to someone.

[endingcredits]

Also, wasn't it very obvious which son Sean Penn played? Apparently some people are confused, and I fear it made me come across as condescending to someone.

I think missing that constitutes not paying any attention at all.

[number8]

Maybe it is condescending, but I don't get that confusion at all. How is it in any way ambiguous?

[elixir]

Maybe it is condescending, but I don't get that confusion at all. How is it in any way ambiguous?

Well, I don't think I was. Hopefully I wasn't.

I guess because they never explicitly mention it? Sean Penn's character isn't ever addressed by name, I think.

I also know people confused about which son died, which again seems obvious to me.

[Spinal]

I don't think this is a hard film to follow. I find that with stuff like this people want to imagine that more is going on than really is. They get so caught up in worrying that there are hidden layers of meaning that everyone else is getting and they aren't. So they miss what is essentially a very basic narrative.

[elixir]

I don't think this is a hard film to follow. I find that with stuff like this people want to imagine that more is going on than really is. They get so caught up in worrying that there are hidden layers of meaning that everyone else is getting and they aren't. So they miss what is essentially a very basic narrative.

Yeah, on my second viewing, I was actually kind of struck by a feeling that the film is really quite accessible...while I understand the polarized reactions certainly, I don't think it's because of (for lack of a better word) inaccessibility, if that makes sense. The cosmos/origins-of-life section is actually quite short in comparison to the rest of the movie (though I still heard a few groans during it at both viewings of the film).

[Spinal]

(though I still heard a few groans during it at both viewings of the film).

Ugh. Nitwits. Just leave already. No one cares about your Philistine whining.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think people were more bored than confused. When the screen went black after the beach scene, I overheard a woman saying, "Let's go," but then there was another shot of those swirly colors and she's like, "oh, I thought it was over, but still, let's go, let's wait by the door, come on..."

[Pop Trash]

My audience was surprisingly attentive. I would say a good 75% stayed in their seats a few minutes while the end credits started to roll rather than bolt for the doors. Maybe since I saw it the first day or two it opened the people there were really anticipating it?

During the universe/life origins montage you could hear a pin drop.

[Boner M]

Regarding the evolution sequence, I brought up - too stubbornly, perhaps - in my brief alt-weekly review that it's unambiguously rooted in the psychology of its characters; balming their grief/alienation by acknowledging themselves as mere blips in eternity, and thus making their emotions diminutive on a universal scale. I'll need to see the film again see how concrete this reading is allowed to be, but any thoughts?

[Spinal]

Regarding the evolution sequence, I brought up - too stubbornly, perhaps - in my brief alt-weekly review that it's unambiguously rooted in the psychology of its characters; balming their grief/alienation by acknowledging themselves as mere blips in eternity, and thus making their emotions diminutive on a universal scale. I'll need to see the film again see how concrete this reading is allowed to be, but any thoughts?

Yeah, I thought that was fairly obvious. Is there an alternate theory?

EDIT: And by 'obvious', I just mean that I agree that this was clearly stated. Not intending to make light of your keen observation.

[Boner M]

Yeah, it's just that I've read a lot of baffled comments - even from the film's admirers - that insist that sequence is just a mere signifier of messy ambition or a vague stab at epic-ness and little else.

[Pop Trash]

Regarding the evolution sequence, I brought up - too stubbornly, perhaps - in my brief alt-weekly review that it's unambiguously rooted in the psychology of its characters; balming their grief/alienation by acknowledging themselves as mere blips in eternity, and thus making their emotions diminutive on a universal scale. I'll need to see the film again see how concrete this reading is allowed to be, but any thoughts?

I viewed it more as a continuation of Malick's "everything is everything" worldview (er...universeview?). Time/space separate but connected, all of that. I've long thought his voiceovers took place in another dimension (whether that be heaven/the future looking back on memories/or merely thoughts of the mind).

[Melville]

I'm quite happy the film didn't end with some big obvious message, for something like "you have to forgive yourself to love others!" would have been a letdown after the bold filmmaking on display.
It ended with a vision of paradise and the mother saying "I give you my son" (or something along those lines), accepting the death of her son as part of God's plan/the cosmic immensity of life. And then Sean Penn walks out of his modern office building appearing to be at peace with things. And the place where God lives is reflected in the glass of the modern building. Unless I'm missing something, that seems like a fairly big, obvious message.

Overall, I was disappointed with the movie for that reason: it seemed extremely schematic, with most everything transparently built around obvious points, from individual scenes or sequences of scenes (here's nature versus grace even in the world of cgi dinosaurs, here's the father humbled by losing his job, here's the son seeing himself and learning good and evil, etc.) to the characters (the parents seemed too confined to the simplistic nature and grace roles) to the overall structure (human tragedy placed within the immensity of existence—with the book of Job prefacing everything and mentioned again later to make this clear—,the dueling ways of dealing with that, and childhood developing into a self-awareness that must grapple with it in itself). There was a lot of beautiful technique to convey these things—the elliptical editing heavy on jump cuts (and more heavy on montage than Malick usually is, I think), the music and almost constant upward-looking shots that emphasize the immensity of the world—but the schematism was at odds with the human experience it was trying to explore. It seemed to want to evoke the richness of that experience, the richness of each moment and of their accumulation, and I gather it succeeded for most people (on here, at least), but the transparency with which it built those moments undermined that for me.

Maybe I'll like the 6-hour cut more.

[number8]

Yeah, it's just that I've read a lot of baffled comments - even from the film's admirers - that insist that sequence is just a mere signifier of messy ambition or a vague stab at epic-ness and little else.

That's nuts. It's not like the placement of that sequence is arbitrary in the narrative timeline.

[elixir]

Sweet! I was hoping for a strong dissenter (by which I mean not that you hate it, but that you have well thought-out criticisms, even if I disagree with them) because they always help me elucidate my reasons for loving something.

I'll get to your first point last.




Overall, I was disappointed with the movie for that reason: it seemed extremely schematic, with most everything transparently built around obvious points, from individual scenes or sequences of scenes (here's nature versus grace even in the world of cgi dinosaurs,

Yes, perhaps that was a bit blunt, though I'm not sure why it's "even." It's more that the two forces have always been there and will continue to...I've even seem some reviewers suggest that perhaps that river ("look, I found a dinosaur bone!") is the same one where Jack gets rid of the dress...that's probably a huge stretch, but still an entertaining notion nonetheless.


here's the father humbled by losing his job,

Don't think that is the point of the sequence. Indeed he is--and I don't think that's unnatural for his character--but the focus is on the kids having to move away from home (i.e. from their already idealized version of childhood). And I think that works wonderfully and I can expand on that if wanted.


here's the son seeing himself and learning good and evil, etc.)

Uh?? That idea is around for a whole lot of the movie, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. I think it goes way beyond most coming-of-age/lost innocent films though.


to the characters (the parents seemed too confined to the simplistic nature and grace roles)

First, a question. Do you have a problem with the saintly characterization of Pocahontas in The New World? (I say this as someone who quite likes the film).

Anyhow, I do think those qualities are emphasized. I think, however, that much of this is due to Jack's subjective memories of his past. For example, think about the scenes where his mom "flies" or when she's in the glass coffin. Those obviously aren't "realistic." But I think it goes to show how he has idealized his mother as this figure embodying grace and the spiritual world--how he sees her as this pure figure (perhaps that further emphasizes his guilt in regards to the aforementioned dress) in opposition to his father. I would argue that even within this subjective framework that this simplistic interpretation of her character can be complicated. There are a few instances that do this--the beginning of the film which shows her (Mrs. O'Brien/Jessica Chastain) as a child, the story of her flying the plane, and perhaps even her minor fight with her husband. Her "fight" with the husbands shows a minor crack in her graceful demeanor, but it is my former two examples that show my point more strongly, I think. The beginning of the film also shows how she, like Jack, was so ponderous and even confused as a child, and I think those parallels can color our views of her as his mother (I wish I remembered her voice-over better during this part). But perhaps the most striking instance is her memory of her flying the plane. The kids request that she "tells a story from before [they] can remember." So she conjures her memory of a time when she was alone, without attachment, the great unknown ahead...something I associate more with the nature side, with Brad Pitt's character. Gah, I didn't explain that well. My first point about subjectivity is probably the more relevant one.

Mr. O'Brien I think is probably more nuanced than his wife. I do also think he is a product of Jack's subjectivity as well. But I think it's clear that he isn't just someone Jack simply hates even though it may seem that way ("God, kill him")...I think Jack does realize his love and perhaps even that he needs him--when he was away and they were alone with the more laissez-faire mother, that's when they got in trouble and when he (Jack) started experimenting with violence more.


to the overall structure (human tragedy placed within the immensity of existence—with the book of Job prefacing everything and mentioned again later to make this clear

The film isn't always subtle, but I think it has depth.


the dueling ways of dealing with that, and childhood developing into a self-awareness that must grapple with it in itself).

Not seeing a problem with the rendering of this.


There was a lot of beautiful technique to convey these things—the elliptical editing heavy on jump cuts (and more heavy on montage than Malick usually is, I think), the music and almost constant upward-looking shots that emphasize the immensity of the world

Absolute agree here...


—but the schematism was at odds with the human experience it was trying to explore. It seemed to want to evoke the richness of that experience, the richness of each moment and of their accumulation, and I gather it succeeded for most people (on here, at least), but the transparency with which it built those moments undermined that for me.

Maybe I'll like the 6-hour cut more.

But can't agree here. Except for maybe the 6-hour part.

I guess I just have a bit of hard time sympathizing with all these claims of "schematism" because I was hit on such a visceral level by the immediacy of the images. Few films seem to have such a sense of "now-ness" to them and rather than presenting a progression of "here's this and here's that," it felt like fragments of subjective memory that formed a whole not through sequential steps but through a more holistic approach. I always have a problem responding to a criticism like this since I do believe all the scenes resonate in certain ways, but not in a super schematic way...and I'm not sure how to "prove" that in any manner. I don't know. I'll just say that the scenes always felt like an organic, natural progression to me and never like checking off the boxes of certain themes.


It ended with a vision of paradise and the mother saying "I give you my son" (or something along those lines), accepting the death of her son as part of God's plan/the cosmic immensity of life. And then Sean Penn walks out of his modern office building appearing to be at peace with things. And the place where God lives is reflected in the glass of the modern building. Unless I'm missing something, that seems like a fairly big, obvious message.

So, I know I'm an idiot for asking, but can you clarify what you think the message is then? (Accept the mystery? Let go? Accept that you will die? Believe in God/an afterlife?) I do have a response thought out, but I don't want to post a reply to the wrong thing.

Also, maybe I'm the only one who sees the cosmos vs. family section going beyond the people being mere specks in the universe...I also see many parallels and connections, and the two intertwining in the characters' search to figure out the unknown...I don't think it's just them feeling small at the immensity of it all.

Ugh, I feel I did not articulate my position eloquently/clearly, but whatever, I spent too much time on this not to post it. BLAH.

[Melville]

I guess I just have a bit of hard time sympathizing with all these claims of "schematism" because I was hit on such a visceral level by the immediacy of the images. Few films seem to have such a sense of "now-ness" to them and rather than presenting a progression of "here's this and here's that," it felt like fragments of subjective memory that formed a whole not through sequential steps but through a more holistic approach.
That sounds like my kind of movie. :P


Yes, perhaps that was a bit blunt, though I'm not sure why it's "even." It's more that the two forces have always been there and will continue to.
Yes, the point is that these two forces or modes of living are always present in life. That's made clear by showing it's present 'even' in something as far flung from us as dinosaurs.


Don't think that is the point of the sequence. Indeed he is--and I don't think that's unnatural for his character--but the focus is on the kids having to move away from home (i.e. from their already idealized version of childhood).
It becomes about that, but when it first shows the father, it's centered on him being humbled. There's some ambiguity in delineating scenes from sequences here, I guess.


Uh?? That idea is around for a whole lot of the movie, so I'm not sure what you are saying here.
It deals with the idea bluntly: the father goes away, so the kids run wild; the one kid trusts his brother, then the trust is betrayed. The individual scenes seemed too clearly structured around the idea. I also generally dislike and disagree with the whole idea of childhood as Eden and growth out of it as a fall into knowledge of good and evil, though this movie did deal with it in a better and more complex way than most such stories.


First, a question. Do you have a problem with the saintly characterization of Pocahontas in The New World? (I say this as someone who quite likes the film).
No, but I thought she was used in a much more interesting way. My thoughts on The New World can be found here (http://melvillian.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/the-new-world-terrence-malick-2005/). Part of the issue might just be my interests: I don't care about childhood, while stories about love easily win me over. Though I do think The New World explored its themes with a great deal more nuance and subtlety.


Anyhow, I do think those qualities are emphasized. I think, however, that much of this is due to Jack's subjective memories of his past...he has idealized his mother as this figure embodying grace and the spiritual world.
If anything, that seems more problematic to me, because it would represent a simplistic psychology for him. If he has idealized his mother to such an extent, the movie should explore his psychology more to make that idealization a psychologically richer reflection on him.


I would argue that even within this subjective framework that this simplistic interpretation of her character can be complicated. There are a few instances that do this--the beginning of the film which shows her (Mrs. O'Brien/Jessica Chastain) as a child, the story of her flying the plane, and perhaps even her minor fight with her husband...But perhaps the most striking instance is her memory of her flying the plane. The kids request that she "tells a story from before [they] can remember." So she conjures her memory of a time when she was alone, without attachment, the great unknown ahead...something I associate more with the nature side, with Brad Pitt's character.
I don't think they're completely defined by their way-of-nature-versus-way-of-grace roles—just that they're very limited by them. Interesting thoughts on the flight. I'm not sure I even noted that scene when it happened.


Mr. O'Brien I think is probably more nuanced than his wife. I do also think he is a product of Jack's subjectivity as well. But I think it's clear that he isn't just someone Jack simply hates even though it may seem that way ("God, kill him")...I think Jack does realize his love and perhaps even that he needs him--when he was away and they were alone with the more laissez-faire mother, that's when they got in trouble and when he (Jack) started experimenting with violence more.
I agree this is clear, but I thought the way it was demonstrated lacked nuance.


Not seeing a problem with the rendering of this.
My problem was only in that the movie so overtly (and in my mind, too simplistically) presents itself as being about that.


So, I know I'm an idiot for asking, but can you clarify what you think the message is then? (Accept the mystery? Let go? Accept that you will die? Believe in God/an afterlife?)
I thought the message was essentially 'accept that tragedies are part of this immense existence'.


Also, maybe I'm the only one who sees the cosmos vs. family section going beyond the people being mere specks in the universe...I also see many parallels and connections, and the two intertwining in the characters' search to figure out the unknown...I don't think it's just them feeling small at the immensity of it all.
I definitely didn't think it was a specks-in-the-universe thing. The immensity doesn't dwarf them and their tragedies; it takes them up as a part of it and a reflection or microcosm of it, but one in which the reflection is aware (i.e., it is a reflection in both the sense of thinking and in the sense of mirroring), where the awareness itself is another reflection.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, I can scantly recall the last time I exited the auditorium and felt so attuned to my surroundings, or to be more precise, so jarred by them. Folks walking back and forth carrying popcorn, talking to each other. It made no sense. Where are the trees? Where's the sky? I must go outside and suck up busloads of breezy, purifying air. Starting my car, my cd player was annoying me. I had to mute that crap and, as I was gathering up speed and taking a corner, could hear the wind rustling by the window. Those little things were so omnipresent all of a sudden, remarkable. True, that particular sensation didn't last past the half hour mark, but it's testament to the visual splendour of this movie, the meticulous nature of its filmmaking that one can feel that way. I do think Malick overreaches. If the filmmaker intended to focus on man as a small speck in this grand, vast universe of ours, than I don't think that dinosaurs were really needed - it wasn't a bad scene though - and that first national geographic sequence went on a bit too long.

I wonder how moved some of you really were? One of the most moving scenes for me was when they're driving away from the house they had lived in for so long.

A unique, worthwhile experience. Not sure how to rate it though.

[elixir]

Well, I'm just going to use some of what you said Melville as well as use your quotes as jumping off points for some thoughts, so they may or may not be direct responses to you.



It deals with the idea bluntly: the father goes away, so the kids run wild; the one kid trusts his brother, then the trust is betrayed. The individual scenes seemed too clearly structured around the idea.

I guess...I mean, it's a problem for two scenes to be linked thematically at all? I know that's not what you are saying and at the same time, I'm a bit confused...yes, indeed, there is a scene where R.L. (the middle brother) says he trusts Jack and then Jack does betray it. I don't see any (inherent) problem with that. I don't know. Maybe I'm just a softie, but when he pathetically declares that he trusts him, I found it quite sad (especially on second viewing knowing how that trust was betrayed). And the scene afterward where Jack is like, "you can hit me if you want" rang especially true. I've been in that situation before (though not with my brother).


No, but I thought she was used in a much more interesting way. My thoughts on The New World can be found here (http://melvillian.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/the-new-world-terrence-malick-2005/). Part of the issue might just be my interests: I don't care about childhood, while stories about love easily win me over. Though I do think The New World explored its themes with a great deal more nuance and subtlety.

I didn't have a problem with her character either. Just asking. I don't mind the use of archetypes either (though where the line is drawn between one-dimensional and archetypal can be shady, I suppose).

And BOO! to the bolded. Nah, but childhood is probably my favorite subject for film/literature/etc. to tackle...I am absolutely fascinated by it and feel a certain affiliation for works that do it right. I have an inordinate amount (compared to most people, I assume) of favorite films that deal with childhood/adolescence. It's probably a bit weird considering I'm not even that far out from what may be considered my childhood.


I also generally dislike and disagree with the whole idea of childhood as Eden and growth out of it as a fall into knowledge of good and evil, though this movie did deal with it in a better and more complex way than most such stories.

While I also don't agree with this theory entirely--though I have no inherent problem with works that use this idea as a framework--I do think there is something to be said about growing up out of naivete, gaining more knowledge, and growing a stronger conscience.

I guess what I find so sad about the image of the two brothers crying and comforting each other in the field upon learning they have to go home is that, while on a basic level they may just be crying because they are leaving the only place they really know, for me it's that they are weeping for their own Eden--but it was never there really. Or if it was there, it was only out of ignorance (i.e. as a very young child) or in fleeting, transcendent moments. So they are crying for a place that only exists as an ideal, but not really as the truth (as presented by the preceding narrative). I find it quite devastating myself, though perhaps that's just me.


I thought the message was essentially 'accept that tragedies are part of this immense existence'.

While I do think that is part of it, to accept that there are tragedies, yes, I don't think that's necessarily the overarching message or even the idea presented at the end. At least for me, I find the ending inspiring and hopeful in spite of my lack of belief in God/afterlife (if one sees the vision as such) because I see it more as a glimpse of this understanding the characters were striving to attain the whole time...and for that moment, after all the soul-searching, Jack has caught a glimpse of it...so I don't think Malick is simple saying to accept things as they are, but to try to search for some answers, and that out of the search one can find some understanding perhaps. Even if it's only a glimpse. There's the bridge at the end that allows you to connect your understanding of the past to your present now. Or something hokey like that, at least. :)


I definitely didn't think it was a specks-in-the-universe thing. The immensity doesn't dwarf them and their tragedies; it takes them up as a part of it and a reflection or microcosm of it, but one in which the reflection is aware (i.e., it is a reflection in both the sense of thinking and in the sense of mirroring), where the awareness itself is another reflection.

Glad to see someone else on my side here.

Also, the film is not totally humorless! The funniest moment for me is when Jack does a horrible imiation of his father: Don't slam the screen door!!

[elixir]

Well, I can scantly recall the last time I exited the auditorium and felt so attuned to my surroundings, or to be more precise, so jarred by them...

Dude, I literally (yes, literally--I mean it) walked around in a daze for an hour afterward, both times I saw it. I don't...I can't really describe the feeling I had. It's ineffable!


I wonder how moved some of you really were? One of the most moving scenes for me was when they're driving away from the house they had lived in for so long.

I think anyone who has seen my incoherent ramblings in this thread knows I have been tremendously moved by it.

[Spun Lepton]

Theaters posting signs to tell patrons there will be no refunds if they don't understand the movie, eh? Consider my interest piqued.

[Spinal]

Theaters posting signs to tell patrons there will be no refunds if they don't understand the movie, eh? Consider my interest piqued.

I seem to remember them doing something similar for Memento. So that patrons didn't worry that the film was being projected out of order or something.

[Boner M]

It ended with a vision of paradise and the mother saying "I give you my son" (or something along those lines), accepting the death of her son as part of God's plan/the cosmic immensity of life. And then Sean Penn walks out of his modern office building appearing to be at peace with things. And the place where God lives is reflected in the glass of the modern building. Unless I'm missing something, that seems like a fairly big, obvious message.
To me, that vision of paradise was acknowledged by Malick as little more than a vision, and even a somewhat hokey one compared to the actual memories, which felt more heavenly in their tactility. That final sequence feels simultaneously too idealised as well as too rooted in material and concrete images to be any sort of salvation for present-day Jack. And I didn't see him being at peace with things after his reverie - to me he looked just as dazed and confused and Sean Penn-ish as before; reverting back to the Houston cityscape felt like a cold slap of reality. The film does end with a pretty obviously metaphorical image - a bridge - but it only serves to make us question if any realms have been truly bridged or reconciled.

[Watashi]

Hee hee. Our theater got this movie today and as expected, we got a quite a few walkouts. Mostly from people who just didn't understand what was going on.

We gave them a full refund of course. :|

[B-side]

Not a single walkout in my theater that I saw. And no inappropriate laughing until the near the end when one guy chuckled when a scene cut to black. Best crowd I've had in a while.

[elixir]

Hee hee. Our theater got this movie today and as expected, we got a quite a few walkouts. Mostly from people who just didn't understand what was going on.

We gave them a full refund of course. :|

I don't understand how you can give them a refund??? Like, not you specifically, but why should anyone get their money back for disliking the movie they chose to see?

[number8]

I don't understand how you can give them a refund??? Like, not you specifically, but why should anyone get their money back for disliking the movie they chose to see?

Most multiplex will do that if you walk out within the first 30 minutes or so.

[transmogrifier]

Most multiplex will do that if you walk out within the first 30 minutes or so.

I think it's a good policy - it would encourage a little more daring on the part of the consumer in terms of movie selection.

[Ivan Drago]

Finally saw this today and thinking about it is keeping me awake. The birth of the universe sequence is ingrained in my head. One of many amazing sequences in such an unforgettable film.

[ledfloyd]

http://cinema-scope.com/wordpress/web-archive-2/issue-47/features-we-need-to-talk-about-terry-a-roundtable-on-the-tree-of-life/

an interesting array of, mostly negative, opinions.

i feel like i can't really say anything about this until i see it a second time, save that the filmmaking in the 50's segments is some of the most captivating and awe-inspiring i've ever seen. some of the complaints voiced in that link verbalize the few qualms i had while watching the movie, but yeah, i really just need to see it again.

[Boner M]

http://cinema-scope.com/wordpress/web-archive-2/issue-47/features-we-need-to-talk-about-terry-a-roundtable-on-the-tree-of-life/

an interesting array of, mostly negative, opinions.
Eh? Only a few of these are negative. Most are positive with reservations.

[Pop Trash]

Anybody, like me, seeing this again this long weekend instead of the smashy robot movie?

[TGM]

Wow, whoever called this movie pretentious nonsense wasn't lying. My god this movie was obnoxious. Brad Pitt's scenes were occasionally mildly interesting, but other than that, this movie had nothing going for it. It was dull, boring, tedious, and so full of itself that I stormed out of the theater wanting nothing more than to punch the director in the face. Seriously, fuck this movie.

[Watashi]

Wow, whoever called this movie pretentious nonsense wasn't lying. My god this movie was obnoxious. Brad Pitt's scenes were occasionally mildly interesting, but other than that, this movie had nothing going for it. It was dull, boring, tedious, and so full of itself that I stormed out of the theater wanting nothing more than to punch the director in the face. Seriously, fuck this movie.
I don't think this is the right forum for you.

[TGM]

I don't think this is the right forum for you.

That's not really fair, I actually enjoy it here more than most movie forums. This thread specifically, however, probably isn't right for me.

[transmogrifier]

I don't think this is the right forum for you.

Yeah, who needs differing opinions, huh?

[Boner M]

It should be known that TGM has yay'd Battle: LA, Season of the Witch, Green Lantern, Priest and I Am Number Four. Usually I don't agree with the practice of bringing up one's yay/nay history to devalue their opinion, but I feel this is a special case.

[elixir]

It should be known that TGM has yay'd Battle: LA, Season of the Witch, Green Lantern, Priest and I Am Number Four. Usually I don't agree with the practice of bringing up one's yay/nay history to devalue their opinion, but I feel this is a special case.

Don't do that, man. :)

Differing opinions are good. They often help me further understand why I love/hate something. I'd be open to hear more on why TGM thinks this movie sucks.

[Boner M]

I also distrust the uniformity of opinion, especially for such a naturally divisive film. I would also enjoy more from the negative camp to resemble Melville's typically insightful takedown, and less 'I wanted to punch the director in the face'.

[elixir]

I also distrust the uniformity of opinion, especially for such a naturally divisive film. I would also enjoy more from the negative camp to resemble Melville's typically insightful takedown, and less 'I wanted to punch the director in the face'.

Yeah, that bit didn't really add much to the discussion...plus, he'd have to find the man first.

[Raiders]

TGM's mistake clearly was in believing he could trash the forum's sacred cow. We sure showed him, eh?

[Spinal]

TGM's mistake clearly was in believing he could trash the forum's sacred cow.

Nobody disses Brad Pitt on my watch!!!

[Ezee E]

No movie gets 100% rating on Match Cut. No movie.

[Pop Trash]

I'm curious about TGM's age.

[Melville]

The renewed posting in this thread reminded me to post this belated response...


I guess...I mean, it's a problem for two scenes to be linked thematically at all? I know that's not what you are saying and at the same time, I'm a bit confused...yes, indeed, there is a scene where R.L. (the middle brother) says he trusts Jack and then Jack does betray it. I don't see any (inherent) problem with that.
I'm just repeating myself, but my problem is simply that it's so transparent in its construction and in its placement in the childhood eating of the apple of etc. The fact that I can so easily place it in a scheme as I watch it, and see so easily what it's 'about', is a bad thing in my eyes, both in general and specifically because it works against the feeling of immensity in existence that the film tries to build. I didn't feel any involvement in the scene or sympathy for the characters, and it didn't feel like lived reality to me, because I could see all the strings. It felt artless and lacked the opacity and density of the lived moment, the uncountable infinitude of meaning and emotion.


While I also don't agree with this theory entirely--though I have no inherent problem with works that use this idea as a framework--I do think there is something to be said about growing up out of naivete, gaining more knowledge, and growing a stronger conscience.
I share the view of James Mason in Bigger than Life: "Childhood is a congenital disease—and the purpose of education is to cure it."

j/kDamn weiner kids.

I guess what I find so sad about the image of the two brothers crying and comforting each other in the field upon learning they have to go home is that, while on a basic level they may just be crying because they are leaving the only place they really know, for me it's that they are weeping for their own Eden--but it was never there really. Or if it was there, it was only out of ignorance (i.e. as a very young child) or in fleeting, transcendent moments. So they are crying for a place that only exists as an ideal, but not really as the truth (as presented by the preceding narrative).
I somewhat agree with this. And I'm all for the notion of Eden as a trace rather than as an origin, something immanent in the present with the significance of a beginning, something lost or hoped to return to, rather than being a literal beginning, because it can only have that significance after it has been left, after knowledge and self-awareness is obtained. But then it almost feels like the early moments, just after the birth of the universe stuff, with the birth of the child and the bubble bath, should have lasted longer or been suffused through the following portion of the movie, to make the trace more keenly felt. I realize that seems to contradict my dislike of the film's obviousness, but for me, having that lost ecstasy (in the philosophical, phenomenological sense) run through the film, perhaps via editing of the sort used by Watkins in Edvard Munch, would add to the immensity and poignancy rather than schematizing it. I also think more of the birth of the universe stuff should have been interspersed throughout the film rather just leading up to the birth of the kid.

I wrote this post a week ago and then thought I would later get around to saying something more concrete here, but that was a dumb thought. In any case, I have to admit that much of my uninvolment probably stemmed less from anything the movie did and more from me having lost the ability to sink into the mood of a movie. My mind is always elsewhere, so I tend to watch movies very disinterestedly.


While I do think that is part of it, to accept that there are tragedies, yes, I don't think that's necessarily the overarching message or even the idea presented at the end. At least for me, I find the ending inspiring and hopeful in spite of my lack of belief in God/afterlife (if one sees the vision as such) because I see it more as a glimpse of this understanding the characters were striving to attain the whole time...and for that moment, after all the soul-searching, Jack has caught a glimpse of it...so I don't think Malick is simple saying to accept things as they are, but to try to search for some answers, and that out of the search one can find some understanding perhaps. Even if it's only a glimpse.
I don't think we're disagreeing. I didn't mean 'accept' in the sense of resignation, but in the sense of 'to receive willingly', to see the truth of, to take in: see the immensity and say 'I give you my son' to that immensity, not as a sacrifice for the sake of some unknowable divine plan but as part of the embraced whole.


To me, that vision of paradise was acknowledged by Malick as little more than a vision, and even a somewhat hokey one compared to the actual memories, which felt more heavenly in their tactility. That final sequence feels simultaneously too idealised as well as too rooted in material and concrete images to be any sort of salvation for present-day Jack. And I didn't see him being at peace with things after his reverie - to me he looked just as dazed and confused and Sean Penn-ish as before; reverting back to the Houston cityscape felt like a cold slap of reality. The film does end with a pretty obviously metaphorical image - a bridge - but it only serves to make us question if any realms have been truly bridged or reconciled.
I agree that it felt somewhat hokey and thinned out, lacking the viscosity of reality. However, I don't think there's any reason to think that hokeyness was intentional. It seemed like the kind of hokeyness that would naturally result from taking some of Malick's whispered voice-overs and making them the whole rather than just a piece floating under the images. And I think the rootedness in material and concrete images makes sense for Malick, since he's always probing the transcendence in the material and concrete. (If anything, I'd say the emphasis on metaphorical, rather than material, imagery suggests that it's not Malick's own vision of paradise. Or maybe that's what you meant: concrete metaphors rather than amorphous ones.) However, I'll have to see it again to judge the before and after states of Sean Pennery...and to judge whether interpreting the vision purely as Penn's ideal makes it feel less blunt and simplistic. I don't feel like it conveys enough about him to make for an interesting vision of his own ideal.

[TGM]

Oh boy, I honestly didn't intend to stir up this much crap. I'll respond to what I can before I have to go in to work...


It should be known that TGM has yay'd Battle: LA, Season of the Witch, Green Lantern, Priest and I Am Number Four. Usually I don't agree with the practice of bringing up one's yay/nay history to devalue their opinion, but I feel this is a special case.

I'm well aware that my movie tastes typically differ from a lot of people, especially on boards like these filled with actual movie buffs. And by now I'm also pretty used to getting flak for my tastes, annoying as it can get. But just as I enjoy a lot of "bad" movies, I also have a tendency to enjoy the "good" ones as well, and I'm willing to give any movie its proper chance. I take movies for what they are, and as you even mentioned in your following post, I don't allow the popular opinion to have any effect on my own personal enjoyment (or lack thereof) of a given movie.

And as for the "punch in the face" remark, sure, that may have been a bit out of hand, but I tend to exagerate my opinions when I feel strongly enough about them, whether good or bad. (in this case, obviously bad! :P )


Nobody disses Brad Pitt on my watch!!!

I actually liked Brad Pitt, he was the only thing I think I even praised in my post! :D


I'm curious about TGM's age.

24, for whatever it counts.


Yeah, who needs differing opinions, huh?


Don't do that, man. :)

Differing opinions are good. They often help me further understand why I love/hate something. I'd be open to hear more on why TGM thinks this movie sucks.

Thank you!

It's why I continue to browse forums like this, even though my own opinions oftentimes differ from everyone else's. I like to hear what everyone thinks, either good or bad, about movies that interest me. It gets me thinking about them in ways I may have otherwise overlooked. But in the end, for me at least, it always comes down to the film itself, and never the individual reviewing them, which is why it's a little disheartening to see everyone jump on my back about this. Whether you love a movie or you hate it, keep that love or hatred focused on the movie itself, rather than focusing on taking it personally.

Anyways, I think I covered everything. And perhaps after I've put some time between me and the film, I'll be willing to work on a calmer write-up expressing what I did and didn't like about the movie. :)

[Boner M]

Alright, you're excused. I'm just being a cranky asshole.

[elixir]

For anyone interested, I thought this (http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2011/06/the-conversations-terrence-malick-part-2-the-tree-of-life/) was a fantastic conversation between two critics, and the comments posted by random users were often insightful as well. More than anything, it just makes me want to see it again, but it also helped me further realize how I feel about the film.

[Pop Trash]

Second viewing thoughts and observations:

-the controversial beach/heaven scene didn't bother me as much this time around, though it's certainly the most cloying scene of the movie. Also, the reading of it being merely a vision or dream Penn's character has was more evident to me. After it's over, it cuts directly to Penn outside of the skyscraper, twirling around and looking dazed and confused, as if he woke from sleep walking.

-another thing I noticed is that there are scenes in the beginning with an adult Penn in the same frame as his childhood self,mother, and home, which further continues the reading that the beach/heaven scene is subjectively hatched from Penn's mind and isn't meant to be "literal" within the world of the movie.

-at one point Pitt's character explains to his son the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, saying that subjectivity comes only from "your mind." This seems to be a clever way of Malick directly telling the audience how to view the film in total. One reading could be that the entire movie, and hence: the universe/life origins montage (which really is that good) comes from Penn's character's imagination, dreams, and literal memories.

-the final shot isn't of a bridge, the bridge is the second to final shot. The final shot is of the mysterious oval shaped abstract flame(?) which could certainly be read (and has been read) as God.

[Boner M]

After it's over, it cuts directly to Penn outside of the skyscraper, twirling around and looking dazed and confused, as if he woke from sleep walking.
Glad this wasn't my imagination.

[Melville]

-the final shot isn't of a bridge, the bridge is the second to final shot. The final shot is of the mysterious oval shaped abstract flame(?) which could certainly be read (and has been read) as God.
Seems to me the film's version of God is of the pantheistic type. I thought the abstract flame thing was intended to look like something that could actually be seen in the cosmos, such that it can be equivalently read as 'God' or as creation/nature itself.


Glad this wasn't my imagination.
Hm. I took him to be dazed as in seeing the world anew after the glory of the vision of paradise, not dazed as in snapping back into cold, non-hokey modern reality. I definitely need to see it again.

[ledfloyd]

-the controversial beach/heaven scene didn't bother me as much this time around, though it's certainly the most cloying scene of the movie. Also, the reading of it being merely a vision or dream Penn's character has was more evident to me. After it's over, it cuts directly to Penn outside of the skyscraper, twirling around and looking dazed and confused, as if he woke from sleep walking.
i remembered it as: shot of him going up the elevator, beach scene, shot of him going down the elevator, dazed and confused scene. which encourages the heaven reading.

but i just read a piece by matt zoller seitz and he suggests perhaps it's jack coming to terms with the fact that his mother, his father, his memories of things, etc, are all extensions of him. which is a reading i like. the other predominant readings i've come across are it's an apocalypse or a deconstruction of linear time. i like the time and the transcendentalist "everything is an extension of myself" readings best.

[Chac Mool]

Finally saw this a few days ago -- it's obviously a major, major film, both in terms of its ambition and its achievements.

Some loosely organized thoughts:

- I can't remember another major film so formally ambitious, and rarely is the word "visionary" so apt to describe a director. Malick is working in his own language, diverging from the usual linearity of film composition and converging to the way our memories "feel". The entire construction of the film -- the fluidity, the emphasis on individual scenes, images, textures, "icons" (omnipresent trees, windows draperies, empty attics, kitchen tables), the associative way past and present connect -- is astonishing, and to sustain it for 2+ hours even moreso.

- The kid actors are uniformly good (I particularly liked the angelic guitar-playing son) but so are Pitt and Chastain, who give lived-in performances under the additional weight of shedding their celebrity status.

- The film's saving grace and biggest strength is that despite its high-concept premise and formal innovation, it is strongly --powerfully-- grounded in human feeling. The pain of losing a child, the joy of being young, the love for one's mother, the regret of things lost -- they are suffused within the film, giving it depth and raising it far beyond the status of philosophical exercise.

- Some of my favorite images: the centerpiece shot of the Milky Way; the pleiosaur on the beach; the sparklers; the DDT clouds and, perhaps most poignantly, the split-second image of a elderly hand touching Sean Penn's during the beach scene.

- That beach scene: I took it to mean, simply, that in extremis (at the end of time, at the end of our life, in any afterlife we choose to envision) what we find/want to find/yearn for is those we love. Whether one takes it literally, pseudo-scientifically or otherwise matters little.

- One of the other interesting idea the film touches on is that of a connected biomass -- we are living things, surrounded by other living things that all come to the same source. To what extent are we individuals as a species and separate from nature? To what extent are we superior to nature, or simply cogs in a larger evolving system? Scale is important, and Malick's scale is universal, and one of his arguments seems to be that because we started in the same unknown source, began as the same dispersing atoms, diverged only slightly from the microscopic colonies, water-dwelling jellyfish and dinosaurs of yore, we are basically part of the same global living mass.

- Is the film anti-science/technology/modernity? Or is there simply a yearning for childhood, defined by nature?

- Is the final shot of Jessica Chastain (surrounded by two unknown women, bathed in white light, intoning "I give you my son") too overtly religious?

- What do we make of that final shot? I took it to mean that everything that happened (from the beginning of the universe to the rapturous scenes on the beach) are enclosed within the present, with each of us -- if we choose to live according to love, paradise can be Earth. Some quick pointers in that direction: bride-beach; the gull flying in both settings, and the fact that bridges are, by necessity, crossing the border between land and water.

EDIT: Two more...

- Penn's character was raised Christian. Whether he continuous to be religious or has become an atheist, his conception of any possible afterlife will be based on Christian ideals -- hence, a literal afterlife where those lost are suddenly found again.

- It strikes me that my absolute favorite portion of the movie is the early childhood -- the sense of discovery, the innocence, the rapturous games in the front yard, dinners with parents, the lack of any danger... Intentional? Perhaps.

[Pop Trash]

Seems to me the film's version of God is of the pantheistic type. I thought the abstract flame thing was intended to look like something that could actually be seen in the cosmos, such that it can be equivalently read as 'God' or as creation/nature itself.

Right, exactly. Your interpretation of what that image is/means is as abstract as the image itself. Your interpretation also probably says as much about your personal beliefs as Malick's.


i remembered it as: shot of him going up the elevator, beach scene, shot of him going down the elevator, dazed and confused scene. which encourages the heaven reading.

This being a Malick film there may have been some "pillow shots" in between (as Ebert calls those external cut-ins in Ozu's films), but I'm positive the first image of a character after the beach/heaven sequence is of Penn in the city looking rather out-to-lunch.

[elixir]

Okay, but in addition to being dazed and confused (is there a synonymous phrase for this? befuddled? idk), didn't he also smile? And not just a dazed-and-confused type of smile? As in, I took it to mean, there is the bridge--he has the means by which to make progress in his life, but what he saw was just a glimpse of some sort of understanding--and i quite like the extention of himself bit. So he saw a glimpse of it feeling right, but that's all it was--just a vision, just a moment...he's not instantly improved or anything, but see how he can be. And this is not reliant on God/religion, which is why I find it hopeful...and while the article I linked to think the image of the kids loooking out the car at their old house is a powerful image to end on, I think ultimately the film would lose much of its potency, thematically, emotionally, if it didn't end in this - I believe - proper manner. It is a bit awkard and i see why ppl find it hokey, but I find it quite moving and hopeful...I typed this really fast so it's probably incoherent.

[elixir]

Finally saw this a few days ago -- it's obviously a major, major film, both in terms of its ambition and its achievements.


- The film's saving grace and biggest strength is that despite its high-concept premise and formal innovation, it is strongly --powerfully-- grounded in human feeling. The pain of losing a child, the joy of being young, the love for one's mother, the regret of things lost -- they are suffused within the film, giving it depth and raising it far beyond the status of philosophical exercise.

I agree strongly with your first two points (though Chastain ain't really a star yet), but I think I agree with this the most.


- Is the film anti-science/technology/modernity? Or is there simply a yearning for childhood, defined by nature?

Eh, I think the film might be wary/skeptical of that, but not really anti-...I think the second thing is more relevant...though there are no tvs/radios despite being the 50s, it's still rooted in the time in other ways...but yeah, I think the second is more relevant, and I myself, even grown up in a more technological time, have a connection between childhood and nature in some ways...still, I think it's the yearning/nostalgia/idealization that is important here.


Is the final shot of Jessica Chastain (surrounded by two unknown women, bathed in white light, intoning "I give you my son") too overtly religious?

Maybe??? I'm not religious, but I'm not really bothered by it...I mean, before she was surrounded by friends consoling her and she wasn't really taking it well, all the talk about how this is the way it (i.e. God) is...so maybe now in a vision of paradise/heaven/Something, she is comforted by others even if the pain--and the acceptance--is her own. I don't know.



- Penn's character was raised Christian. Whether he continuous to be religious or has become an atheist, his conception of any possible afterlife will be based on Christian ideals -- hence, a literal afterlife where those lost are suddenly found again.

Good point, especially if one considers the film taking place in his mind.


It strikes me that my absolute favorite portion of the movie is the early childhood -- the sense of discovery, the innocence, the rapturous games in the front yard, dinners with parents, the lack of any danger... Intentional? Perhaps.

That montage recording young Jack growing up is like the greatest thing ever...but yeah, I think it definitely got that youthful exuberance and joy and carefree attitude down so well...just incredible the beauty Malick finds in the simple activities of these kids...I realize that sounds cheesy, but I think it's true...not sure if it's simply the visuals or editing, but I've never seen what you mentioned captured so well.

[elixir]

but i just read a piece by matt zoller seitz and he suggests perhaps it's jack coming to terms with the fact that his mother, his father, his memories of things, etc, are all extensions of him. which is a reading i like. the other predominant readings i've come across are it's an apocalypse or a deconstruction of linear time. i like the time and the transcendentalist "everything is an extension of myself" readings best.

Don't get the apocalypse reading on first blush but hard to judge without reading about it...I think the subjectivity of the story is really big with the extensions of him idea...whether it's fully it or not, I do think it's definitely Jack trying to come to grips with his place with everything he's connected to--his family, the universe, his past, etc.

[Pop Trash]

This is the MZS piece in Salon in case anyone missed it:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/the_tree_of_life/index.html?story=/ent/movies/film_salon/2011/07/02/watching_tree_of_life

[number8]

An Italian cinema showed the film for a week with the first two reels switched. Even though the film starts with production logos, no one in the theater noticed and thought it was all part of Terrence Malick's "crazy editing style".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/trivia?tr=tr1512317

[Kurosawa Fan]

Guess what didn't come to any theater within 50 miles of me? :|

Fuck this state.

[number8]

Guess what didn't come to any theater within 50 miles of me? :|

Fuck this state.

Now now, your state provides this country with a lot of jobs in the auto ind—oh wait.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Now now, your state provides this country with a lot of jobs in the auto ind—oh wait.

My state will provide fresh water to the highest bidder as the climate continues to change. That's when the rebound will happen, to the detriment of those who have loyally stuck with it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Guess what didn't come to any theater within 50 miles of me? :| Same. :cry: July 8 wide release my butt.

[Raiders]

Guess what didn't come to any theater within 50 miles of me? :|

Fuck this state.

78 miles to Landmark in Royal Oak. You could make that in less than an hour. Not like you can't speed, I'm sure the cops are all busy with the murders, rapes and burglaries happening around your home.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Not with traffic in Detroit. I'd be better off seeing it at The Michigan in Ann Arbor. About 90 minutes on a weekday. Still, it's not happening. I'll hold out hope that one of the theaters around here will get it in a few weeks. Happened with Jane Eyre and Midnight in Paris this year already.

[ledfloyd]

yeah, the two closest theaters playing the film before the wide release (in pittsburgh and cleveland) are still the two closest theaters. did this get pushed back or something?

[Pop Trash]

I don't think this is doing as well as Fox Searchlight hoped. It's made about 8 million so far on a 30 million budget. That may be part of the slow down. Hate to say it, but they might not release it any wider, for fear of losses.

[Raiders]

Yeah, the "wide" thing appears to have been either false advertising, changed, or the smallest "wide" opening ever (I think technically it applies only to geography, not total screens).

According to Box Office Mojo, it is only expanding 9 theaters this weekend to a total of 237 nationwide.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

K-Fan, I saw this at the Michigan when it came there a couple of weeks ago. If you can make the drive I'd say it's worth it - they had it in the main auditorium, which if you've been before is pretty awesome. You even get an organist intro.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, definitely not faring as planned.

[Derek]

Yeah, definitely not faring as planned.

I'm sure Terry's devastated.

[Kurosawa Fan]

K-Fan, I saw this at the Michigan when it came there a couple of weeks ago. If you can make the drive I'd say it's worth it - they had it in the main auditorium, which if you've been before is pretty awesome. You even get an organist intro.

Yeah, my wife and I saw Before Sunset there when we went to the Ann Arbor Art Festival. It's a gorgeous theater, but with gas prices and now two kids who both have movies they want to see, it isn't happening unless it makes its way a lot closer.

[Raiders]

I'm sure Terry's devastated.

Well, truthfully, I can't say it has made any less than I anticipated. Giving the man $30 million is asking for trouble.

[D_Davis]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/trivia?tr=tr1512317

I often wonder about this. I mean, if Inland Empire was shown totally jumbled up, would people even notice? Would it make any less sense? Would people remark about how experimental it was? What does this say about these kinds of films?

I remember seeing Pleasantville in the cinema, and it was assembled all wrong. It kept switching between B&W and color at the wrong times. No one noticed but me. I went out and talked to the manager. He said the it was assembled wrong and it must have been showing like that all day. No one ever said a thing except for me.

What does this say about people and the way most of us watch or consume things?

[Derek]

Giving the man $30 million is asking for trouble.

It's giving money to a great artist without expecting a return on your investment. I think Brad Pitt even had a producer credit, so I'm sure they wrangled up the $30 million from people who wanted to help Malick get his film made over making a profit. Personally, I think it's kind of silly talking about this as a "box office bomb", since it's clearly not a film that appeals to any sort of mass audience.

[Derek]

I often wonder about this. I mean, if Inland Empire was shown totally jumbled up, would people even notice? Would it make any less sense? Would people remark about how experimental it was? What does this say about these kinds of films?

I remember seeing Pleasantville in the cinema, and it was assembled all wrong. It kept switching between B&W and color at the wrong times. No one noticed but me. I went out and talked to the manager. He said the it was assembled wrong and it must have been showing like that all day. No one ever said a thing except for me.

What does this say about people and the way most of us watch or consume things?

I think it shows that audiences often don't pay much attention to what they're consuming and they place too much trust in projectionists/theater managers to do their jobs (ie, even if they suspect something is wrong, most people probably won't say anything since that big of a fuck-up is not to be expected).

[Qrazy]

I would think that after worldwide release and DVD it would at least break even.

[Raiders]

It's giving money to a great artist without expecting a return on your investment.

I respect your faith in people's willingness to lose money, but I really doubt this is true.

[Derek]

I respect your faith in people's willingness to lose money, but I really doubt this is true.

If they were expecting a film with that synopsis would net well over $30 million, then those people are very lousy investors and should look for a new line of work.

[Spinal]

If they were expecting a film with that synopsis would net well over $30 million, then those people are very lousy investors and should look for a new line of work.

But they had Brad Pitt! ;)

[Derek]

But they had Brad Pitt! ;)

And Academy Award Winner, Sean Penn!

[Ezee E]

Well, to be fair, Tree of Life did have funding problems for a while. It took four years for funding to come through, and it originally had Mel Gibson in Sean Penn's role, and Heath Ledger in Brad Pitt's.....

On top of that, once it was completed, it had distribution issues too. Remember, it was suppose to come out last year.

And by all means, Malick should be kind of worried. No wonder he started up another project right away. If he has another $30 million project lined up, it'll be pretty tough to get it funded I imagine. It is a business.