Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (2011)

[elixir]

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.

ewwwww

[Derek]

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.

The New World had a $30 million budget and grossed $12.7 million and he still managed to get a film like Tree of Life made 6 years later. If he really has that much trouble getting another film made, he has Zoolander 2 sitting in his back pocket.

[Rowland]

it originally had Mel Gibson in Sean Penn's roleOohh. I like the sound of that.

[Kurosawa Fan]

If he really has that much trouble getting another film made, he has Zoolander 2 sitting in his back pocket.

I want this to happen sooooooo much.

[TGM]

and it originally had Mel Gibson in Sean Penn's role, and Heath Ledger in Brad Pitt's.....

Huh, that woulda been interesting, coming off of The Patriot where Mel Gibson played Heath Ledger's father...

[Ezee E]

The New World had a $30 million budget and grossed $12.7 million and he still managed to get a film like Tree of Life made 6 years later. If he really has that much trouble getting another film made, he has Zoolander 2 sitting in his back pocket.
Factor in worldwide and it made all of it's money back, and the devotees followed through on the DVDs considering there's a Director's Cut. Fact is, he was lucky to get Tree of Life made. Took the power of Pitt, Penn, and a rich dude from India that didn't care where his money went, so long as it had Malick's name on it. I still think that's why he rushed into another project shortly after. Just in case...

I still don't think he'll have any problem getting $10-$30 million for any movies though, just because all of his movies are "Malick." Only a handful of people can do that.

[Watashi]

You could plug any actor in Sean Penn's role. It wasn't a real demanding role to begin with.

Gibson in a Malick film would have been awesome though.

[Pop Trash]

Gibson in a Malick film would have been awesome though.

Ugh. No please. Bad enough Affleck is in the next one.

[Ezee E]

You could plug any actor in Sean Penn's role. It wasn't a real demanding role to begin with.
.

Tracy Morgan?

[ThePlashyBubbler]

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.

Understandable. I'd say to let me know if you ever make it that way to see it, but I just moved to Los Angeles last week after living in Ann Arbor most of my life. Hope to make it back for a football Saturday or two at some point. Although ideally they could just make the Rose Bowl and I could see them here...

[Rowland]

I think I'll see this again in the theater before it leaves, can't imagine it having quite the same effect at home.

[lovejuice]

Love it.

The movie curiously convey the feeling of both smallness and enormity at the same time. Take the camera. The most prevalent shots are the zoom-in on characters' faces, and yet the second most seems to be the open sky itself. The story takes a single family as a microcosm of life, universe, and everything. In fact the conflict within one small boy represents the whole array of forces at play in the universe.

Initially I have some problems with the coda-like ending that doesn't yield the credit so easily. The beach-paradise appears forced. Yet it somewhat loosens the tight structure of the middle section, adding much needed playfulness. This -- together with the opening scene -- feels like mambo-jambo, but it's precisely the hopscotching element I so admire in Malick's film.

[Pop Trash]

I found this AV Club article interesting. It may also explain why ToL hasn't opened wider:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/buyer-beware-should-you-be-able-to-ask-for-a-refun,58755/

[Qrazy]

: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'd say more reminiscent of Zulawski and Tarkovsky. I definitely got On the Silver Globe vibes a few times.

[Qrazy]

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

Nope, I liked it.

[Qrazy]

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.

It is typical of my father's childhood at least.

[Qrazy]

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.

I completely disagree with that reading.

"thus making their emotions diminutive on a universal scale"

In fact I think the point is precisely the opposite. The heaven sequence and the lengthy section of the film so keenly focused on the characters childhood journey in my opinion serves to drive the point home that all of these moments, these emotions, this reality is full of meaning. Every moment is essential to the creation of a life. The universality of it all serves to illustrate the significance of everything not to undermine that significance.

[Qrazy]

I would also say that the film is intentionally ambiguous in certain regards about which son Sean Penn is. I agree it makes it clear which one he is however... Ambiguous in the sense that in the beginning after the death of the son Brad Pitt expresses how hard he was on him and his piano page turning and such. In the film there is only one sequence with a character doing this and it is the eldest son. I believe the purpose here as in much of the film is to demonstrate a sense of relativity and the transferability of all of this. For instance Jack looks in on another family and sees fighting going on there as well. It could just as easily have been Jack that died.

One thing I'm curious about though is how the brother died. I thought there was a line somewhere that hinted it was suicide but I'm not sure.

[Pop Trash]

I would also say that the film is intentionally ambiguous in certain regards about which son Sean Penn is. I agree it makes it clear which one he is however... Ambiguous in the sense that in the beginning after the death of the son Brad Pitt expresses how hard he was on him and his piano page turning and such. In the film there is only one sequence with a character doing this and it is the eldest son. I believe the purpose here as in much of the film is to demonstrate a sense of relativity and the transferability of all of this. For instance Jack looks in on another family and sees fighting going on there as well. It could just as easily have been Jack that died.

One thing I'm curious about though is how the brother died. I thought there was a line somewhere that hinted it was suicide but I'm not sure.

Coincidentally, I just had a convo with my fellow movie nerd coworker and he was confused as to which son Penn was (it seemed fairly obvious to me). We also talked about how the son died and I thought suicide as well, but he mentioned it could have been Vietnam, which I found to be an interesting thought.

[Derek]

but he mentioned it could have been Vietnam, which I found to be an interestingly thought.

That's what I assumed as well given the time period of their youth and his age (19), plus they show the mother opening a letter in the mail and bursting into tears, which I figured was the notice that her son was killed.

[Pop Trash]

That's what I assumed as well given the time period of their youth and his age (19), plus they show the mother opening a letter in the mail and bursting into tears, which I figured was the notice that her son was killed.

Right. I still like the ambiguity of it though.

[Derek]

Right. I still like the ambiguity of it though.

I completely agree it's ambiguous, just saying that's how I saw it.

[elixir]

Regarding the brother's death, I think suicide is a strong possibility. It's been reported that Malick's brother committed suicide (at 19, I think) and he was a musician--a guitar player--as well. In the film, Mr. O'Brien says that he was hard on him (the middle brother--R.L.), that he "hit him for no reason. I made him feel ashamed" (paraphrasing) and it's clear he feels guilty about how he raised him. I don't think it's necessarily that, but that reading is not one I balk at and it's certainly interesting to consider. Vietnam makes sense I suppose due to time period and it being a telegram...maybe the 6 hr cut reveals it!

[elixir]

I completely disagree with that reading.

"thus making their emotions diminutive on a universal scale"

In fact I think the point is precisely the opposite. The heaven sequence and the lengthy section of the film so keenly focused on the characters childhood journey in my opinion serves to drive the point home that all of these moments, these emotions, this reality is full of meaning. Every moment is essential to the creation of a life. The universality of it all serves to illustrate the significance of everything not to undermine that significance.

I definitely agree with you here.

[Chac Mool]

"thus making their emotions diminutive on a universal scale"

In fact I think the point is precisely the opposite. The heaven sequence and the lengthy section of the film so keenly focused on the characters childhood journey in my opinion serves to drive the point home that all of these moments, these emotions, this reality is full of meaning. Every moment is essential to the creation of a life. The universality of it all serves to illustrate the significance of everything not to undermine that significance.

I also agree, and I'll add that is has a physical meaning as well -- as corny as it sounds, we're all star-children. The "Big Bang", the balls of burning hydrogen, the nebular clouds, the forming planets, the condensing water and volcanoes spewing out gas -- those are the elements, the very physical building blocks, from which our bodies are made. Malick is not just going back to the source metaphorically -- he's going back to the beginning of our physical being. That is where our "life" started.

[transmogrifier]

Seeing this today.

[Pop Trash]

Kent Jones' writing on this for Film Comment is the bee's knees.

[Boner M]

Seeing this today.
I predict 58.

[Boner M]

I completely disagree with that reading.

"thus making their emotions diminutive on a universal scale"

In fact I think the point is precisely the opposite. The heaven sequence and the lengthy section of the film so keenly focused on the characters childhood journey in my opinion serves to drive the point home that all of these moments, these emotions, this reality is full of meaning. Every moment is essential to the creation of a life. The universality of it all serves to illustrate the significance of everything not to undermine that significance.
I agree that's what the extended childhood flashback and heaven sequences outline - I'm mainly talking about the significance of the big-bang/evolution sequence directly after the early parents'-grieving/Penn-mooning-about-cityscape scenes. The fact that the film goes cosmic-scale at that specific point links to the tendency to undermine unwanted emotions with that kind of contemplation.

[Qrazy]

I agree that's what the extended childhood flashback and heaven sequences outline - I'm mainly talking about the significance of the big-bang/evolution sequence directly after the early parents'-grieving/Penn-mooning-about-cityscape scenes. The fact that the film goes cosmic-scale at that specific point links to the tendency to undermine unwanted emotions with that kind of contemplation.

...

Right, I don't agree. I don't think the creation of the cosmos segment is meant to undermine the grief. It serves to put that grief into some perspective, sure perhaps to some extent, but more so I feel it is there to do what I described in my initial post. That is to say to demonstrate that every stage of life was beautiful and meaningful and full of both pain and joy (the single celled organisms, the dinosaurs, etc). The cosmos sequence is about universality and micro/macrocosmic associations, but not about distance from these characters emotions in my opinion. The use of music and voiceover suggests to me Malick's interest in filtering the cosmos segment through the human consciousness because in the end it's just a creation myth... the most accurate one we have at this point, and of a different variety than most such myths, but still.

I was not saying I feel the childhood sequences and the heaven sequences are there to drive the point home that these moments are full of meaning. I meant I felt the big bang sequence is there for that point when viewed in relation to these two other sequences.

[Boner M]

I'll have to see the film again 'til I can argue further.

[Qrazy]

I'll have to see the film again 'til I can argue further.

Yeah I kind of want to see it again as well, it's been a long time since I've felt that way about a film.

[transmogrifier]

I predict 58.

Lower.

While I don't agree with Malick's philosophical stance - to me, the disjunct between nature and grace is a complete human fabrication designed to provide the illusion of self-control - that's not the reason I nay this movie, and nay it without reservation.

There are wonderful sequences - such as the birth to childhood montage - that deserve a better home, but in the end the entire film is rather poorly structured and the melody just ain't there. The cosmos sequence on its own is rather cobbled together (but rescued by a grandiose soundtrack that provides the illusion of cohesion - see a pattern here?) but seems poorly placed where it is, especially if it is supposed to reduce the sting of grief by showing where we truly stand in the great scheme of things. A valid idea - but the very nature of the opening, the abstract reveal of the death, the distancing in the way Malick has shot and edited the opening 10 minutes (Brad Pitt finding out by phone and we don't hear a word, for example) has already DONE the job of contextualizing the grief and minimizing it...by making it a heavily art directed tone poem.

So already, the cosmos segment is inherently redundant to the film as a whole, another way of making a point that has already been made. Fourty minutes in, and the film is repeating itself, and is pretty obvious about it. And that's the problem - all the "grace" in the film is visual, pretty pictures that keep you engaged on the surface, but there is no evolution of ideas, no build and ebb and flow and dance. It is the same drum beat over and over, for a very long time.

Personally, I think it should have been either more abstract OR taken on more of a narrative. But as it stands, it is an ambitious failure, neither here nor there.

[Boner M]

I disagree!

[Boner M]

A valid idea - but the very nature of the opening, the abstract reveal of the death, the distancing in the way Malick has shot and edited the opening 10 minutes (Brad Pitt finding out by phone and we don't hear a word, for example) has already DONE the job of contextualizing the grief and minimizing it...by making it a heavily art directed tone poem.
I thought the elliptical treatment was supposed to convey the complete opposite. By making it a tone poem, Malick has de-contextualised the emotions from their source, all while rendering them more palpable (or at least conveyed how trauma resonates in the memory), since we're free to project our own experiences onto what we see. Or at least that's how I felt.


The cosmos sequence on its own is rather cobbled together (but rescued by a grandiose soundtrack that provides the illusion of cohesion - see a pattern here?)
I don't get this. The cohesion comes from the marriage of image and sound - I don't believe such thing as 'the illusion of cohesion' exists in film; things either cohere or they don't.

[transmogrifier]

I disagree!

:)

Perhaps if I was on-board with Malick's philosophy of life, I would be more receptive to the film and be able to overlook the flaws of construction.

I guess I was most disappointed at how conventional the cinematic craft on show was (note: NOT narrative or thematic craft, which of course is beyond what most films strive to achieve). The mise-en-scene and editing is very, very conventional, a string of Steadicam magazine shots and disassociative vaseline-coated editing. So isolated images stand out, as you'd expect individual photos in a magazine stand out, but there is not much else going on in terms of how the images fit together.

Plus, to me, the interesting part of the human experience is the moments before and after an action, where you deliberate first and then contemplate after. The childhood sequence is all action, all events, and not particularly insightful as a result, because it eliminates the crucial processing that goes along with it.

[Boner M]

The... editing is very, very conventional I'll agree that quite a large portion of it is conventionally picturesque, but this statement makes me wonder if you saw an entirely different cut of the film.

[transmogrifier]

I thought the elliptical treatment was supposed to convey the complete opposite. By making it a tone poem, Malick has de-contextualised the emotions from their source, all while rendering them more palpable (or at least conveyed how trauma resonates in the memory), since we're free to project our own experiences onto what we see. Or at least that's how I felt.

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I certainly did not feel any emotion during the segment. And that was because of the way it was shot - obliquely and self-conciously artful, a series of disconnected responses with crucial contextual information removed. It makes it impossible to "grieve" with the characters, but instead makes you sit back and intellectually consider their grief, thus rendering it automatically less of a "gut" reaction and more of a realization that personal loss is both personal (in the details) and universal (in that everyone experiences it). The cosmos sequence thus doesn't really sit well right next to it, because it already seems obvious that we are a small component of a much larger system.



I don't get this. The cohesion comes from the marriage of image and sound - I don't believe such thing as 'the illusion of cohesion' exists in film; things either cohere or they don't.

Well, it doesn't cohere - the individual scenes seem ill-matched with each other, with no clear progression (a volcano, cells, jellyfish, um now seaweed, and now a tree and some sea creature beached....etc) and so I spent most of the time trying to figure out why Malick picked THOSE particular things. It's like a sweet melody - you accept it and enjoy it. But something atonal, you pick apart to try and find the pattern underneath. But he coats a bombastic song over the top, which provides a unifying element that the images by themselves just don't have. IMO.

[transmogrifier]

I'll agree that quite a large portion of it is conventionally picturesque, but this statement makes me wonder if you saw an entirely different cut of the film.

I don't mean in terms of shot-reverse shot editing, but in the juxtapositioning of isolated events together into a montage. The montage of childhood events is very mix of easy contrasts (lamp and BB gun for example) and woozy ellipticalness (the section with the crush on the classmate). Pretty standard and conventional.

[Boner M]

Well, I'll just agree to disagree then. [/conventional]

[transmogrifier]

Well, I'll just agree to disagree then. [/conventional]

Don't worry, I'm not much for (a) New Age spiritualism or (b) narrative-free cinema, so The Tree of Life was always on a hiding to nothing for me. It's like Armond White liking a Spielberg film. Inconsequential.

Feel free to watch Breaking Bad and trash that to get back at me. :)

[Boner M]

Feel free to watch Breaking Bad and trash that to get back at me. :)
Unless S4 goes to shit (haven't seen E1 yet), no such luck.

[Qrazy]

There is nothing conventional about the editing in Tree of Life. The way the images are cut together on the road while their grieving is a perfect example of how unconventional it is.

[Qrazy]

I don't mean in terms of shot-reverse shot editing, but in the juxtapositioning of isolated events together into a montage. The montage of childhood events is very mix of easy contrasts (lamp and BB gun for example) and woozy ellipticalness (the section with the crush on the classmate). Pretty standard and conventional.

It seems like you're saying childhood crushes, the lamp bit and the BB gun section are cliche moments. That says nothing about the editing.

[Bosco B Thug]

Finally came within 30 miles of me. I prefer all other Malick films, with their sturdier narratives and bolder technique less dependent on graphical saturation (nothing quite like Thin Red Line's battle scenes, or The New World's action set-pieces, here), so I do sympathize with trans on some of his points, but this is certainly a wonderful thing, the film.

Kinda wish the cosmos stuff was used more throughout the film, it was really stunning imagery, though I really only started loving the film when it reached its most uninterrupted dramatic segment, the boys' preteen stage, and the close psychology given to young Sean Penn (like Spinal, I think, I really wasn't feeling the film in the beginning).

Talk about recapturing childhood textures. It's the film's biggest boon, how closely it recounts all the feelings of childhood.

[Boner M]

Talk about recapturing childhood textures. It's the film's biggest boon, how closely it recounts all the feelings of childhood.
Not to mention the extratextual poignance of the childhood-recall coming from a man in his late 60's. I have to admit, I wonder if the childhood scenes would be as moving knowing that, say, David Gordon Green was behind the film.

[Qrazy]

Not to mention the extratextual poignance of the childhood-recall coming from a man in his late 60's. I have to admit, I wonder if the childhood scenes would be as moving knowing that, say, David Gordon Green was behind the film.

If it was the exact same film then, yes?

[Boner M]

If it was the exact same film then, yes?
I'd like to think so, but I have no idea how I'd respond with different preconceptions.

[Pop Trash]

I hope this inspires DGG to get his ass back in gear. And this is coming from someone who liked Pineapple Express.

[Boner M]

I hope this inspires DGG to get his ass back in gear.
I'd like to think that the critical reception and BO gross of Your Highness would be enough.

[Pop Trash]

I'd like to think that the critical reception and BO gross of Your Highness would be enough.

Still haven't seen it. Maybe it's secretly awesome?

[Raiders]

Still haven't seen it. Maybe it's secretly awesome?

Pretty sure his next film, The Sitter with Jonah Hill, will be his nadir. Hopefully with that his stoner comedy binge will be complete. His two current potential projects are unfortunately both remakes (Suspiria and Ice Station Zebra), but I must admit I very much want to see his version of Argento's film.

[Pop Trash]

Pretty sure his next film, The Sitter with Jonah Hill, will be his nadir. Hopefully with that his stoner comedy binge will be complete. His two current potential projects are unfortunately both remakes (Suspiria and Ice Station Zebra), but I must admit I very much want to see his version of Argento's film.

Slightly off topic, but I never understood why people want to remake good films. Why don't they take the basic skeleton of a plot from an old crap film and make it better? Hudson Hawk? Cobra? Wes Craven's Shocker? He could David Gordon Green-ize a remake of Drive Me Crazy (1999).

[Pop Trash]

Pretty sure his next film, The Sitter with Jonah Hill, will be his nadir.

Fuck. Has Green just been in Hollywood too long? He needs to go back to N. Carolina, buy a cabin and spend his days reading and meditating.

[Qrazy]

Starting to get the inevitable facebook backlash on this.

'Terrence Malick you owe me 2 1/2 hours of my life back!'

All I could think was...

'Hans Moleman: You took four minutes of my life and I want them back! Oh, I'd only waste them anyway.'

[transmogrifier]

Starting to get the inevitable facebook backlash on this.

'Terrence Malick you owe me 2 1/2 hours of my life back!'

All I could think was...

'Hans Moleman: You took four minutes of my life and I want them back! Oh, I'd only waste them anyway.'

Unlike the noble art of going on a messageboard and complaining that people don't like the same things you do.

[Qrazy]

Unlike the noble art of going on a messageboard and complaining that people don't like the same things you do.

Ah my bad, didn't realize I wasn't supposed to respond to your ineffectual criticisms with thoughtful comments. Next time I'll just say 'Yes Transmogrifier, you are always right Transmogrifier, your opinions are fact'.

Melville has decent criticisms of this film, a film which personally I have my own criticisms of. You on the other hand echo that facebook poster's comments... 'The images were pretty but...' 'There's not much of a narrative here I'm bored...'

[Qrazy]

For instance I think Zabriskie Point is a thoughtless piece of drivel but I don't say... Antonioni you owe me (runtime of the film)! That's fucking stupid. I'm glad I watched the film and I knew the type of film I was getting into, I just wish it had been a better film.

[transmogrifier]

Ah my bad, didn't realize I wasn't supposed to respond to your ineffectual criticisms with thoughtful comments. Next time I'll just say 'Yes Transmogrifier, you are always right Transmogrifier, your opinions are fact'.

Melville has decent criticisms of this film, a film which personally I have my own criticisms of. You on the other hand echo that facebook poster's comments... 'The images were pretty but...' 'There's not much of a narrative here I'm bored...'

Or, more accurately, that is what you have characterized my comments as, so go nuts attacking that straw man. Fire is effective, I've heard.

EDIT: Oh, and go back and read what Melville actually wrote - it's similar to my own criticisms, so please stop trying to make this a "transmogrifier is too stupid to understand" argument. It makes you petty and whiny.




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.

[Qrazy]

Or, more accurately, that is what you have characterized my comments as, so go nuts attacking that straw man. Fire is effective, I've heard.

EDIT: Oh, and go back and read what Melville actually wrote - it's similar to my own criticisms, so please stop trying to make this a "transmogrifier is too stupid to understand" argument. It makes you petty and whiny.

Nah, this:

"Unlike the noble art of going on a messageboard and complaining that people don't like the same things you do."

Makes you petty and whiny. I'm merely responding in kind.

[Russ]

N64sd7k4M8E&feature=related

[transmogrifier]

Nah, this:

"Unlike the noble art of going on a messageboard and complaining that people don't like the same things you do."

Makes you petty and whiny. I'm merely responding in kind.

This is what I love about discussing film, it's the togetherness it inspires.

[Ezee E]

This is what I love about discussing film, it's the togetherness it inspires.
I google imaged "Only on Match Cut"

And this seems apt:
http://blogs.poz.com/shawn/upload/zeus.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

I was more wowed by the trailer then I was with the movie. I know where you're coming here. Seeing snippets of the trailer again today, I can say there is definitely a "wow factor" that goes with the trailer that really doesn't carry over into the movie, even in regard to individual shots. That's the nature of trailers, and it's nothing to judge the film against, of course, but man, the trailer is still jaw-dropping.

Random comment about movie:

- it's been mentioned: the first shot of a dinosaur, the shot of the marine one on the beach - sooo unbelievably cool.

[DavidSeven]

As personal as the film feels, it also seems so deeply entrenched in artifice that I feel it comes short of its philosophical potential. It's become a running motif demonstrated in all of Malick's previous films, but none of those have quite blown me away either. This came closest. You can feel the achievement on the screen, and the film is often hypnotizing on a purely sensory level. There are also scenes that shed light on the film's central thesis while maintaining their intellectual honesty -- the dinosaur scene immediately springs to mind -- but much of the film's design could be described as either too artificial or too personal to be completely effective. The mother is perpetually deified while the father is kind of, sort of a hard-ass, I guess. The portrayal of these characters needed to either be contrasted so starkly as to signal the artifice or reigned in to feel like something genuine. What Malick presents is murky. It's too artificial to relay a truly human experience, yet too human to work abstractly. It's a beautiful film and perhaps the legit magnum opus for what it is that Malick does, but still not quite enough to convert me from distant admirer to full-fledged fan.

[Pop Trash]

Pretty sure his next film, The Sitter with Jonah Hill, will be his nadir.

So, I actually saw the trailer for this in front of the Apes movie, and despite just looking like a mash-up of Uncle Buck and Adventures in Babysitting, I laughed. A lot. Good looking cinematography too, as to be expected. Might have to see this one.

[StanleyK]

I've been waiting for this movie for like 3 years, and now, in less than 12 hours, I'll have watched it. I can hardly believe it. My expectations are at the 'best-movie-ever' level. If it isn't, the disappointment will be too crushing and I will kill myself. If it is, then I'll know I just watched the pinnacle of human artistic achievement; life can't go but downhill from there, so I'll just go ahead and kill myself. I guess what I'm saying is, goodbye Match-Cut, it was nice knowing you guys.

[StanleyK]

I loved this movie so much. It's incredible how Malick's films feel so similar even when they're startlingly different from each other. The Tree of Life's distorted close-ups and fragmented editing are a world away from the wide vistas dwarfing the people in Days of Heaven, but somehow both manage to be at the same time intimate and epic, shots of supernovas and meteors hitting the Earth carrying the same resonance as a butterfly landing on a mother's hand, or a boy looking intrigued at his newborn brother. This may be first viewing hyperbole, but I feel like this is one of the most ambitious and accomplished movies, thematically and narratively, that I've seen in a long time, and certainly that I've ever seen in theaters (the only one that gives it a run for its money in that regard is There Will be Blood). For pretty much every director it would be an unquestionable best; for Malick, it's par for the course. Dude just straight up rules.

[chrisnu]

She reminded me of a young Liv Ullmann.
I immediately made the same connection.

I'm going to need to see this again. I really like MZS' theory regarding the entire film being projections from Jack's mind-space during a particular day. I'll try to see how I feel that applies next time.

He also mentioned Terence Davies. I'll need to remedy only seeing his House of Mirth.

[Boner M]

Chastain's even more gorgeous in The Debt; I almost gave the film a passing grade for her sheer luminescence.

Gonna give ToL a belated 2nd viewing this week, during which the theaters should be mostly empty.

[transmogrifier]

Apparently Sean Penn sides with me (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2011/08/aftermath_4.php)

:)

[Boner M]

Mike Mills hated on it big time when I interviewed him recently; te article goes to print tomorrow, I'll post the link here and then hope it makes a billion movie blogs within seconds.

[Boner M]

Sean Penn: "ME. ME ME ME ME. ME ME? ME, ME ME!"

[DavidSeven]

I saw this a second time. My appreciation has grown. Still have reservations, but the whole thing sits better with me now than it did on the initial viewing.

[Dukefrukem]

Finally saw this. Paid $17 to see it at my hotel. Wasn't impressed. Will sleep on it

[elixir]

Finally saw this. Paid $17 to see it at my hotel. Wasn't impressed. Will sleep on it

Why was it $17? Hotels have theaters? I'm confused.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Why was it $17? Hotels have theaters? I'm confused.

PPV. Used to be called Spectravision when I was younger. Late in a theatrical run, hotels get films on demand for a hefty price.

[Dukefrukem]

Why was it $17? Hotels have theaters? I'm confused.

On demand. Bought limitless too. $16.

[Ezee E]

I just want to know why one would pay that on a TV.

[Dukefrukem]

I just want to know why one would pay that on a TV.

Huh? Convenience obviously. Got in late from my flight and got comfortable in bed.

[transmogrifier]

I couldn't think of a worse way to see that particular film (comfortable in your bed after a late flight). I would have been asleep within five minutes.

[Dukefrukem]

I couldn't think of a worse way to see that particular film (comfortable in your bed after a late flight). I would have been asleep within five minutes.

Well i am still up and ready for movie number three.

[transmogrifier]

Surely you could have spent that $50 on something nice for yourself? :)

[Dukefrukem]

Luckily the older movies are only $4.99

[Qrazy]

I couldn't think of a worse way to see that particular film (comfortable in your bed after a late flight). I would have been asleep within five minutes.

Other people in this world have a larger attention span.

[Dukefrukem]

Ok, let me start with this of the 6 movies I watched over the weekend. (Which might be a record for me)

This was painfully slow. The story is not all that interesting but the narrative is broken up into chunks where the structure can be recognized after the conclusion.
We start off with short MTV-music video cuts where almost every shot is on a steady cam either panning forward or backward into one of the dozen breathtaking shots. Someone, whether it be Pitt, Penn or Jessica is voice narrating confusing one-liners that won’t make sense until the finale. Then we are interrupted by the birth of the universe. OK. That was neat. Then we have somewhat of a continuous storyline with the birth of Jack into childhood. Then we are left with more MTV-music video cuts with more voice narrating and ending with the same image the movie begins.

Now I am a Terrence Malick noob (having only saw the Thing Red Line which I also disliked), so could someone please point me in a post (that I’m sure already exists in this thread) on why is this a great movie? I don’t see anything that resembles greatness in the story, direction or even acting. The only thing that I enjoyed was the beauty of almost every scene filmed. Some of the shots you can tell were improvised on the spot, the sun setting over the horizon with Jessica Chastain's head in place of the setting sun, giving a halo like effect surrounding her. No way that was in the script. Same with one of the finale scenes where she’s walking barefoot on the beach and she’s walking heal to toe. To me, that seems like an overly pretentious scene put in the movie to stuff down the audience’s throat where Malick is saying: “See… I am artsy”. What’s the point?

[StanleyK]

To me, that seems like an overly pretentious scene put in the movie to stuff down the audience’s throat where Malick is saying: “See… I am artsy”. What’s the point?

Malick is sincere, and sincerity is the opposite of pretension. He shows these kind of sequences, I imagine, because he feels they're the best way to capture the spontaneous beauty of the world, which goes frequently unseen but when noticed can be rapturous. I can understand if one doesn't share his aesthetic sense of beauty, but 'pretentious' I don't understand.

[Derek]

Malick is sincere, and sincerity is the opposite of pretension. He shows these kind of sequences, I imagine, because he feels they're the best way to capture the spontaneous beauty of the world, which goes frequently unseen but when noticed can be rapturous. I can understand if one doesn't share his aesthetic sense of beauty, but 'pretentious' I don't understand.

Unfortunately many people equate slow and artful with pretentious.

[Qrazy]

Jump Cut ≠ MTV

[Dukefrukem]

Malick is sincere, and sincerity is the opposite of pretension. He shows these kind of sequences, I imagine, because he feels they're the best way to capture the spontaneous beauty of the world, which goes frequently unseen but when noticed can be rapturous. I can understand if one doesn't share his aesthetic sense of beauty, but 'pretentious' I don't understand.

What the MC consensus on The New World?

[Dukefrukem]

Unfortunately many people equate slow and artful with pretentious.

So having 2001 as my 3rd favorite movie of all time would suggest this isn't me right? I mean, there's a big difference here.

edit: fuck even Uncle Boonmee is my highest rated movie of the year! You would think Malick's shots (having change every 1.5 seconds) would be more interesting than shots that over-stay their welcome!

I pulled out an exact scene that I thought didn't make sense (and it still doesn't) and it is put on screen for what reason?

[Dukefrukem]

Jump Cut ≠ MTV

Pretty close. Prettttttty damn close.

[StanleyK]

Pretty close. Prettttttty damn close.

I've never watched MTV, but I think when people disparage a movie as having MTV-style editing, the idea is that the ASL is very short because the filmmakers don't have the confidence or don't trust the audience to be able to focus for more than a few seconds at a time. Are you saying Malick does this? There are several instances in the movie where he holds a shot for a comparatively long time (when Jack regards his younger brother, the dinosaur sequence, Jack's shameful walk home, to name a few), which suggests to me that he does trust his audience and knows very well which shots are more effective when held longer.


What the MC consensus on The New World?

That it's really, really good, like everything Malick's done.

[Qrazy]

Pretty close. Prettttttty damn close.

Not at all really. Welcome to 1960 and Jean-Luc Godard.

---

You won't like The New World. I'm only mildly positive on it myself.

Your best bet is Badlands and if you like that then Days of Heaven.

[Qrazy]

So having 2001 as my 3rd favorite movie of all time would suggest this isn't me right? I mean, there's a big difference here.

edit: fuck even Uncle Boonmee is my highest rated movie of the year! You would think Malick's shots (having change every 1.5 seconds) would be more interesting than shots that over-stay their welcome!

I pulled out an exact scene that I thought didn't make sense (and it still doesn't) and it is put on screen for what reason?

What are you talking about, the beach sequence? We've all discussed this heavily before. Just read the thread.

[Bosco B Thug]

What the MC consensus on The New World? You'll probably like it about as much you liked The Thin Red Line. As in it's all Malicky, but it has an actual story with action, and romance, and big set-pieces, which is why I prefer the both of them to ToL.

[transmogrifier]

What the MC consensus on The New World?

Bewilderingly rapturous. It's a choppy mess, with good sequences scattered throughout.

[Mysterious Dude]

What the MC consensus on The New World?
This. (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=99579#post995 79)

[Ezee E]

2005 was quite the indie year.

[B-side]

Rapid editing is not the bane of cinema, and MTV didn't invent it. I'd be happy if people stopped referring to any film with a short ASL as being akin to something MTV would produce.

[Dukefrukem]

This. (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=99579#post995 79)

Thank you Issac.

[Dukefrukem]

Rapid editing is not the bane of cinema, and MTV didn't invent it. I'd be happy if people stopped referring to any film with a short ASL as being akin to something MTV would produce.

Who invented it? Spike Jones?

[Dukefrukem]

What are you talking about, the beach sequence? We've all discussed this heavily before. Just read the thread.

Avoiding my point are we?

[Mysterious Dude]

Who invented it? Spike Jones?
Sergei Eisenstein, maybe?

[Dukefrukem]

Sergei Eisenstein, maybe?

So Sergei Eisenstein: Jump-Cuts as Wachowski Brothers : Slow-mo

[Boner M]

So Sergei Eisenstein: Jump-Cuts as Wachowski Brothers : Slow-mo
http://qag.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0006/39876/varieties/Thumbnail.jpg

[Qrazy]

Avoiding my point are we?

I have no idea what your point is. Please state it explicitly so I can address it.

[DavidSeven]

Who invented it? Spike Jones?


So Sergei Eisenstein: Jump-Cuts as Wachowski Brothers : Slow-mo

So, movies have been around for over a century, and you seriously thought jump cuts and slow motion were invented in the late 1990s?

[number8]

To be fair, Spike Jones was active in the 40's-50's, not the 90's.

[Dukefrukem]

So, movies have been around for over a century, and you seriously thought jump cuts and slow motion were invented in the late 1990s?

I'd actually argue that John Woo was the guy who invented “action-slow-mo” (not slow-mo) but the Wachowski Bros are directly responsible for Zach Snyder's Career.


I have no idea what your point is. Please state it explicitly so I can address it.

Sorry I didn't mean to respond to that question to you. I just read the entire thread and have decided to give this movie a second chance. There's just so much I missed and parallels I failed to grasp. Obvious ones at that... It appears no matter the level of diversity I bring to my movie viewing routine, my post-viewing analysis is not evolving and I do not know how to fix this…I am open to suggestions :-/

[Melville]

Did Eisenstein use a lot of jump cuts? His editing was rapid, but I don't remember jump cuts. If he did use them, why does Godard get the credit?


I'd actually argue that John Woo was the guy who invented “action-slow-mo” (not slow-mo) but the Wachowski Bros are directly responsible for Zach Snyder's carrier.
What constitutes "action-slow-mo"? If it's just slow motion used in an action scene, this comes to mind as a much earlier iconic use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKg2PE-hpSk

[Winston*]

What constitutes "action-slow-mo"? If it's just slow motion used in an action scene, this comes to mind as a much earlier iconic use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKg2PE-hpSk

Kurosawa even earlier, too.

PuqwtFwJ7V4

[Mysterious Dude]

Did Eisenstein use a lot of jump cuts? His editing was rapid, but I don't remember jump cuts. If he did use them, why does Godard get the credit?
I thought we were talking about rapid editing, not jump cuts. Looking back at the conversation, I believe Duke started it with "MTV-music video cuts," but I don't believe he has defined what that means.

[Dukefrukem]

I thought we were talking about rapid editing, not jump cuts. Looking back at the conversation, I believe Duke started it with "MTV-music video cuts," but I don't believe he has defined what that means.

Yeh I was referring to rapid editing but it was Qrazy defining it as a "jump cut". Sorry I didn't go to film school so you could have called it a "potato cut" and that's what I'd refer to it as.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, will definitely agree that Woo's slow-motion action editing did more influence to today's action movies then Wild Bunch did, even though that came first.

[Derek]

you could have called it a "potato cut" and that's what I'd refer to it as.

No, that originated in the Irish New Wave.

[Kurosawa Fan]

No, that originated in the Irish New Wave.

Too soon.

[B-side]

Who invented it? Spike Jones?

I don't know who that is, unless you're referring to Spike Jonze, who doesn't use rapid editing as far as I can remember. He has a very traditional ASL. Rapid editing was likely truly started when Eisenstein introduced the concept of Soviet Montage, which uses rapid editing techniques to get at a more primal reaction to cinema. The "Cinema of Attractions" of early film aimed to directly engage the viewer with exhibitionist material. It seeks a raw, unfiltered response. Eisenstein and his Soviet kin almost exclusively made highly political films that made use of the new medium of cinema as a recruitment tool of sorts for the greater Communist cause. The editing patterns used associative imagery that utilized aggressive and raw photography and put them together in such a fashion that was most conducive to eliciting the proper galvanizing emotions. Rapid editing in and of itself isn't any sort of lone form, it's just how I chose to describe editing that happens to be quicker than we're used to. Tony Scott edits quickly. It's often a form of contention among cinephiles like we have here. I don't see it as inherently problematic. How's this for fast editing?

KuG7WZr_n8A

[Ivan Drago]

Unfortunately many people equate slow and artful with pretentious.

Yeah one time I was talking to a guy who hadn't seen a Malick film before, and he said that Tree of Life was pretentious and had no meaning, and I was telling him that it was all a part of his filmmaking style, and he responded with "If I made a film like that, I'd be considered a genius." :rolleyes:

Being ignorant and closed-minded while portraying it as intelligence like that just irks the hell out of me. Whatever, the more and more I think about this film, the more and more I love it. October 11th can't come soon enough.

[StanleyK]

Saw it again, loved the hell out of it again. My brief, uneducated thoughts on its most talked-about sequences:

-The 'beginning of the world' montage isn't about placing the mother's grief in context as a blip in the vast universe; quite the opposite, it's expressing her pain as so immense that even encompassing the entire story of life it can't be understood. I can see where the first interpretation comes from ("Lord, why? Where were you?" "Yeah, I was kinda busy creating the universe"), but that implies the literal presence of the divine in the film. For me, like all great movies about God, The Tree of Life isn't about God but our perception and relationship with God. I see this scene as an expression of the mother's extremely self-absorbed, but also relatable, anger at God for taking away her child, and Malick totally sells it with her anguished voice-over set to the breathtaking shots of space and music. It's one of the most affecting representations of emotional pain I've seen on film. [/hyperbole]

-The ending at the beach is awesome. Again, I disagree with the (I think) general interpretation that it's supposed to be Heaven. I felt that it was entirely Jack's fantasy, his own way (again self-absorbed) of dealing with a lifetime of guilt over his strained relationships with his family. He imagines himself and everybody he knows (and one thing I really like about this sequence is the sense of scale. There's a lot of people at the beach, not just his family and not just other people we see in the movie. We get the feeling he's really reevaluating his whole life) getting along and kissing and holding hands for the sake of his own catharsis. In the end, the mother isn't finally accepting and giving his son to God; Jack is making her do it in his mind. This scene was heavily criticized as being too sentimental or manipulative, but like the other sequence, I think it strikes just the right balance between being fully committed to showing the character's emotional state, and slightly distanced and critical of them.

-On a general note, I thought there was actually quite a bit of humor in here, particularly in the interactions between Jack and Mr. O'Brien. Nothing laugh-out-loud funny, of course, but sometimes I worry that Malick is a tad too humorless for my taste and it's nice to be reminded that he isn't.

[elixir]

Yeah, I've seen it four times now and it only gets better each time.

I don't find the film humorless or dour or whatever...lots of moments that at least make me smile and a few that make me laugh. I'm not sure I really understand the criticism in general though, so whatevs.

I find it interesting the degree to which people consider whether Malick is being critical or not of his characters (in not just this film, in all of them)...I've seen many different interpretations. I mean, Jack is so self-absorbed (that's why I like him, duh) and in many ways the film is a depiction of Jack's solipsism--though the film itself ain't solipsistic. Also, Jack O'Brian = JOB omg!

[elixir]

-The 'beginning of the world' montage isn't about placing the mother's grief in context as a blip in the vast universe; quite the opposite, it's expressing her pain as so immense that even encompassing the entire story of life it can't be understood...

Yeah, agree with this for the most part. While Malick is certainly always reminding us that we are one of many and not the center of the universe, that doesn't mean the moments of these characters' lives become unimportant or diminished.


the ending at the beach is awesome.

Yeah, I really like it too, especially the nighttime scenes of it. It's still a bit awkward, but in the best way.


Again, I disagree with the (I think) general interpretation that it's supposed to be Heaven.

Do people think this? I don't know, I think people (that I've read, at least) have ruled against that simplistic interpretation.


In the end, the mother isn't finally accepting and giving his son to God; Jack is making her do it in his mind. This scene was heavily criticized as being too sentimental or manipulative, but like the other sequence, I think it strikes just the right balance between being fully committed to showing the character's emotional state, and slightly distanced and critical of them.

I'm not sure I buy this though. Malick seems quite sincere and while it still is in Jack's head, I don't really doubt the emotion concerning his mother...it's a sentiment I even often find somewhat annoying even if I ultimately agree with (and I do think it works here, surprise surprise). I see why people would be manipulated, but I think the film gives you room to see it how you want to...I don't really understood the notion that we as an audience are forced to feel a certain way--I didn't feel forced myself.

[Boner M]

Adrian Martin finally weighs in (http://fipresci.org/awards/texts/gp11_malick_amartin.htm), hooray.

[Henry Gale]

Again, I disagree with the (I think) general interpretation that it's supposed to be Heaven.

Do people think this? I don't know, I think people (that I've read, at least) have ruled against that simplistic interpretation.

I can't say I've read too much of other people's reactions having only finally seen the film a few days ago, but I don't think the ending is so much meant to be that (heaven, general afterlife) as much as it's simply visualizing an emotional place of Penn's character holding onto the existence and subsequent loss of his family before being able to let them (and himself) move on to whatever should come next. Or, more fittingly and poetically, it can be summed up by the object that's the main focus of the final shot.

I'm surprised I don't have more to say about it having just seen it. Maybe it's just that Malick is so assured and matter of fact about the wide array of things he presents here that even if it feels like the sort of film that you can only take away as much as you bring towards it as a viewer, it's still so expansive and rich with ideas and images that I almost feel like I can read anything into it and get something out of it because of how broad the themes and subject matter that it contextualizes them with are. Which is fine, because this is a more or less a film that's trying to illustrate the vastness of existence of all things for all time. It's not a movie that's overly concerned with dialogue and the smaller developments of the characters it showcases or because it would arguably make those details too specific to the experiences of these characters at that time in those places instead of just presenting an inherently human experience for anyone to see themselves in, allowing them to decide what they connect with.

I just think I'll need more time and more viewings to more fully absorb it. Luckily I'm happy to do since it's still one of my favourite films of this or any recent year. Dare I say it, this young Malick fella is one to watch out for!

[Grouchy]

I'm sorry but I'm kind of a dissenter of this film.

I appreciate what it's trying to do and it certainly has some of the most beautiful images of the last few years. 2001 is a good comparison. I realize it's ambitious, I realize it's incredibly artistic, there are some things that just didn't sit well with me.

For example, Sean Penn's character. Maybe, as someone else suggested on this thread, that I expected his character to have some sort of development is a consequence of Sean Penn playing the part. But, what if it is? I mean, here we have an actor known for his dramatic depth and complex characterizations. Is it wrong to complain if he's given a character that's all surface, no depth at all? I had absolutely no connection with the scenes where he's sitting inside a glass building staring into the air. It seemed incredibly lazy to me not to develop the conflicts on his head at all.

This feelings also translated to the beach scene. I was compelled by the film until that point and this scene stood out like a bad joke for me. This bizarre cast reunion on the shore told me nothing about the characters and really, I read very little into it. Memories? Cool. But to make this elaborate portrayal of the formative years of a man and then crown it with such a crass and obvious metaphor seemed underwhelming. I mean, look at a film like 8 1/2. There are many metaphors in that film that could be called obvious. But its points about memories are much more poignant and complex.

I dunno. I realize it's a film that probably demands a second viewing. But right now, despite knowing much of the camera work and special effects are amazing and like nothing seen before, I can't help but be underwhelmed by what I perceive as a total lack of depth. Like Malick undertook a hugely ambitious compromise and then skipped out on his audience by not taking it as far as it could be. Maybe I'm missing something. Ok. So be it. I'll watch it again.

I also give the film a lot of points because I think it's one of the few where only one scene is about dinosaurs. Most films with dinosaurs think it's on their best interest to be all about dinosaurs. Not this one.

[Spinal]

It seemed incredibly lazy to me not to develop the conflicts on his head at all.

Isn't that what the entire rest of the film is?

[Grouchy]

Isn't that what the entire rest of the film is?
Ok, but the conflicts of his childhood and the repercusions in his adult life are two different things. That's not what the film is about? Fine. But by using Sean Penn, anticipating the memory of his dead brother and showing us a vague phone call with his father, Malick is setting the audience up for some kind of emotional pay-off with that character.

[elixir]

Ok, but the conflicts of his childhood and the repercusions in his adult life are two different things. That's not what the film is about? Fine. But by using Sean Penn, anticipating the memory of his dead brother and showing us a vague phone call with his father, Malick is setting the audience up for some kind of emotional pay-off with that character.

You are getting too caught up on this Penn thing.

He does have an emotional pay-off.

[Qrazy]

Ok, but the conflicts of his childhood and the repercusions in his adult life are two different things. That's not what the film is about? Fine. But by using Sean Penn, anticipating the memory of his dead brother and showing us a vague phone call with his father, Malick is setting the audience up for some kind of emotional pay-off with that character.

I believe a lot of the Penn stuff was cut.

[kopello]

Any small qualms I may have had with this (like the whole beginning segment) are gone after my rewatch on blu-ray yesterday. The film flows so perfectly on a second viewing. This is something I can see myself cherishing for a long time to come, and it's possibly my favorite Malick.

[baby doll]

Any small qualms I may have had with this (like the whole beginning segment) are gone after my rewatch on blu-ray yesterday. The film flows so perfectly on a second viewing. This is something I can see myself cherishing for a long time to come, and it's possibly my favorite Malick.For me, the opening segment with the mother aging from a little girl to a woman in a matter of cuts is one of the strongest sequences in the whole film, up there with the origins of the universe montage. For me it's the second hour when the film devolves into a string of pearls without a string.

[Lucky]

Since I'm late to the game in seeing this and don't wish to reiterate the discussions that have already happened, I plan on focusing on my negative opinions of the film even though my overall opinion is positive.

Attempting to make a grand philosophical statement told mostly through strings of mundane, quick-cutting sequences does little to establish the personal resonance required to walk away affected by this film. Watching this is analagous to watching a stranger's home videos (an everyday family or God himself) - surely one can find beauty in everyday life, but ultimately, who cares? Now the images here are inarguably more striking and handsomely photographed than any other home movies you'll find out there, the film's greatest asset, but these moments never seem to emotionally coalesce with the overlying picture.

If the film chose to focus instead on Jack, the sole character allowed true emotional depth, this could have been a successful bildungsroman, but the timeless scope floods out any feeling the film builds on its unstable foundation. It works best when it arouses feelings of nostalgia and its ethereal time passage works well as a portrait of the life of an American boy. Small snapshots like roughhousing in a field, throwing a ball over the house, and causing mischief with a BB gun ring honest and near-voyeuristic. Also, the distance with the parental characters allows the viewer to see them through the same lens as their children. We see their exteriors as the ideas they represent, but don't actually learn much about them as people or even their names.

There is an exsquisite movie here, I can see glimpses of it trying to breathe under the squashing weight of grand ambition. Still, there is enough to appreciate in its pieces to warrant it a strong positive rating.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Have not seen a Malick film before.

Just watched.

Commendably ambitious, undeniably lovely, with a narrative that ever-so-slowly accumulates from incidents and moments into an interesting tale of fractured family. Like others in this thread, I found the opening twenty minutes or so difficult to endure, but the creation/evolution sequence was as beautiful as anything I've ever seen in a film. Of course, I'm a sucker for such sequences. The circumstance with the family is interesting as, in addition to being a self-contained story, it actually functions as a continuation of the evolution motif. We watch as one generation inherits the strong and poor traits of the previous one. The ending is similar to the opening in its unevenness, as I fully expected the movie to end about three or four times before it actually did (and each renewal of the ending felt a bit more tedious).

Sidenote: I did have a bit of trouble with the overabundant use of low-angle handheld shots that rush up to things just about to happen. I couldn't help imagining a little person with a camera taped to his hands being pushed around on skates. I assume the low angles are to maximize the amount of gold-tinged God sky we see in the film.

Sidenote II: can we get a Tree of Life sequel that's just about dinosaurs? I want a dinosaur movie that's this reverent and careful and attentive to behavior.

I dunno, B+, A-? That fair?

[MadMan]

I did see this about a month or two months ago, and thought it was one of the year's best movies. I'll admit I need a second viewing to clear certain issues up, but the acting, the cinematography (the visuals were beyond amazing), and the soundtrack were all excellent.

To a certain extent I get that it was covering the main character (why was there even a need for Sean Penn to appear in this movie?) dealing with his parental issues. Followed by his using the past to look to his future, a world where he manages to break free from his own burdens and personal demons and reach a deeper understanding. Or something. I'm with DaMU: those dinosaurs sure were cool.

Regardless this lived up to the hype, and is currently my #2 of the year behind Drive.

[Dukefrukem]

In case anyone on MC hasn't seen this yet, although I doubt it, you can rent it on Amazon for $1.

[Mara]

I finally sat down and watched this, and I'm both fascinated and frustrated. It is extremely, ridiculously beautiful. I'm surprised, though, considering that the script (or "script") is perfectly fine, the dialogue is actually pretty weak, and some of the accents are distractingly bad. (Pitt, for one, and Fiona Shaw, whom I have always loved and am now embarrassed to be criticizing.) Pitt may have been miscast, over all. His tough-masculine-guy expression was just silly. Chastain, however, despite being too young for the role, was extraordinary.

I almost wonder if the film would have been better with no dialogue at all, just the visuals and fantastic score. It would have made just as much sense, and avoided the weak narration, which was most to blame for occasionally pushing the film from masterpiece to feeling uncomfortably like a Very Important film student piece.

I did like it, but I wanted to absolutely love it. It was pretty, pretty, pretty.

[Thirdmango]

Just now watched it, the visuals and the music were great. I looked at Ebert's review and he compared it and I think rightly so to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Thing is, I didn't like 2001, and I didn't really like this film either. I get what it's doing and I get why other people like it but it's simply not enjoyable for me. It in a way feels like an art museum, where many if not most people can spend hours in front of one painting, and take a long time stopping at each painting taking up the whole day. And yet I have always felt uncomfortable in those settings simply because I can't go at a slow pace.

I did connect well with the main kid simply because I understood his frustration at his own circumstance. Going back to the art gallery allusion, my parents are both avid art buffs and so I frequently went to art galleries as a child and now I simply can not because it was agonizing having to wait while my parents stared at a painting. I have the same problem with classical music in that my mother is a classical violinist and any time I wanted to be outside playing and couldn't I would seethe as my mom played her violin. Now it's incredibly hard for me to listen to classical music.

So much like art galleries, much like classical music, I understand the beauty of the film but I did not enjoy myself as it was happening. I largely felt uncomfortable and annoyed. I have not seen a Malick film before nor did I know anything about the film before I watched it besides the fact that match cut as a whole liked it. Had I known, I probably wouldn't have watched it in the first place and I probably will skip the rest of his movies unless I am specifically in the mood for something like that, which happens very very rarely.

[Qrazy]

Had I known, I probably wouldn't have watched it in the first place and I probably will skip the rest of his movies unless I am specifically in the mood for something like that, which happens very very rarely.

His first two are quite different. Watch Badlands, you will probably like it.

[Thirdmango]

His first two are quite different. Watch Badlands, you will probably like it.

I shall do so.

[EyesWideOpen]

Yeah, definitely give some of his other work a shot. I loved The New World but didn't care for The Tree of Life.

[ledfloyd]

yeah, the tree of life is significantly different from his other work. it's like he took the flighty/poetic moments from his previous films and made an entire film out of them. which i love, but i can see it not being someone's bag, and i wouldn't let the tree of life dissuade you from his earlier films. if not the new world, than definitely the other three.

i rewatched this on new year's eve before heading out and the few quibbles i had the first time i saw it, mostly involving the creation sequence and the new age-y ending, more or less melted away as i turned the sound up and let the film wash over me. i'm even more enamored with it now than i was then.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't know why I posted this here.

[elixir]

In class;

Was looking through the top 10 list thread and it still baffles me how many have this as their #1. I don't get it. As far as I'm concerned it's pure fanboyism.

Shut up.

[Dead & Messed Up]

As far as I'm concerned it's pure fanboyism.

How's that sub-forum-worthy battle of horror movie monsters going for you?

[Spinal]

I was a moderate admirer of Malick before Tree of Life, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as blind devotion. I mean, I still haven't even seen The New World.

[Winston*]

Hey Duke, your opinions about the films you watch are disingenuous.

[Dukefrukem]

Probably, I retract my post and apologize. I'm overtired and just took a midterm that I din't think I did well on.

[Boner M]

I was a moderate admirer of dinosaurs before Tree of Life, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as blind devotion. I mean, I still haven't even seen Theodore Rex.
Fixed to address the real source of Duke's indignation.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Probably, I retract my post and apologize. I'm overtired and just took a midterm that I din't think I did well on.

Sorry about the mid-term. One cool thing about I find about this forum is that most "consensus" opinions of a movie's quality vary significantly on what people take away from the movie. And even if there's fanboyism in this forum, which there often is, people justify their biases pretty darn well.

[Dukefrukem]

Nah i don't know why I came in here to start a fight. I really don't.

School
Patriots
Broads
The fact that Tree of Life is going to win in the top 10 thread...

Nothing is going well right now...

So I deserved all those posts and I'll quietly see myself out of here.

[Spinal]

Fixed to address the real source of Duke's indignation.

That's true too. In my defense, I lent my copy to Madman and he said he'd give it back as soon as he got around to watching it.

[Boner M]

The fact that Tree of Life is going to win in the top 10 thread...
A think A Separation could be an upset, provided enough people see it in time.

[EyesWideOpen]

A think A Separation could be an upset, provided enough people see it in time.

I hope so.

[Ezee E]

Just wait till you guys see the nominations.

[Ivan Drago]

Just wait till you guys see the nominations.

There's no way this would get snubbed at MC.



Is there?

[Ezee E]

There's no way this would get snubbed at MC.



Is there?
Maybe for Best Animated Feature.

Maybe...

[Ivan Drago]

Maybe for Best Animated Feature.

Maybe...

At least one nominee in every category. Calling it right now.

[Chac Mool]

I was a moderate admirer of Malick before Tree of Life, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as blind devotion. I mean, I still haven't even seen The New World.

This beg the question ... why not!?

[Spinal]

This beg the question ... why not!?

Because I prefer to watch Malick movies on the big screen. I'm holding out hope that Portland's NW Film Center will revive it at some point.

[Chac Mool]

Because I prefer to watch Malick movies on the big screen. I'm holding out hope that Portland's NW Film Center will revive it at some point.

That's actually a pretty good reason.

[MadMan]

I forgot to mention that my review for this can be found here on my blog: Tree of Life (http://madman731.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-takes-fierce-will-to-get-ahead-in.html)

Currently this movie is my #3 of the year, and I feel that its spot is fully justified. Also I'm reminded that I have only viewed this film and The New World from Malick, which makes me a little ashamed to admit. I don't think I can get my hands on Badlands but I'm pretty sure my local library has both The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven.

[Dukefrukem]

Probably, I retract my post and apologize. I'm overtired and just took a midterm that I din't think I did well on.

Yup. Didn't do well. :sad:

[Morris Schæffer]

Yup. Didn't do well. :sad:

You'll bounce back. Cheer up!

[Skitch]

Haven't read the thread (to avoid potential spoilers, still haven't seen this), but today I heard there is a six hour cut of this film coming.

[Kurosawa Fan]

So, I've been wanting to see this for close to, if not more than, a year now. I finally rent the Blu-ray, shut off all the lights, get ready to just lose myself in Malick's vision. About twenty minutes in, the audio cuts out. Never comes back. It's now too late to go get a replacement copy and watch it, and the next three evenings are consumed with school.

I cannot express how pissed off I am right now.

[Sven]

Seems the trend these days for Malick-related pissiness. On the plus side, you can get to work on those papers a night early, right?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Seems the trend these days for Malick-related pissiness. On the plus side, you can get to work on those papers a night early, right?

No papers, just a TON of reading.

[Yxklyx]

So, I've been wanting to see this for close to, if not more than, a year now. I finally rent the Blu-ray, shut off all the lights, get ready to just lose myself in Malick's vision. About twenty minutes in, the audio cuts out. Never comes back. It's now too late to go get a replacement copy and watch it, and the next three evenings are consumed with school.

I cannot express how pissed off I am right now.

Easy fix for this. Go here (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=3913) and jot down the voiceovers then just voice them aloud at random times while watching. Audio is not needed.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Easy fix for this. Go here (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=3913) and jot down the voiceovers then just voice them aloud at random times while watching. Audio is not needed.

:lol:

But where would I be without the roaring of that waterfall???

[Ivan Drago]

So, I've been wanting to see this for close to, if not more than, a year now. I finally rent the Blu-ray, shut off all the lights, get ready to just lose myself in Malick's vision. About twenty minutes in, the audio cuts out. Never comes back. It's now too late to go get a replacement copy and watch it, and the next three evenings are consumed with school.

I cannot express how pissed off I am right now.

Yeah I have to watch my copy of the blu-ray in freakin' MONO because I don't have the surround sound required to watch it in stereo. :frustrated:

[transmogrifier]

Although I found both The Tree of Life and The New World mostly pretty tiresome, Malick's next has these three women and thus I can't wait for it:

http://www.pestaola.gr/images/rachel_mcadams_blonde004.jpg


http://www.boomtron.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Rachel-Weisz.jpg

http://cdn.maxim.com/36001-36500/36049_Olga_Kurylenko_22.jpg

[Sxottlan]

New video from Explosions from the Sky for 'Postcards from 1952.'

Feels like a Terrence Malick short film. Turns out the actual co-director is a Peter Simonite, who worked on Tree of Life and I guess is working on Malick's next film.

iFwOmxP56-g

[NickGlass]

Short videos similar in sensibility to The Tree of Life? Fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNVPalNZD_I

[Watashi]

New video from Explosions from the Sky for 'Postcards from 1952.'

Feels like a Terrence Malick short film. Turns out the actual co-director is a Peter Simonite, who worked on Tree of Life and I guess is working on Malick's next film.

iFwOmxP56-g
Yep. It's awesome.

[MadMan]

Haven't read the thread (to avoid potential spoilers, still haven't seen this), but today I heard there is a six hour cut of this film coming.Yeah, hell no to that. The film was long enough...

And I bet the film is gorgeous on Blu Ray, so to those who's viewings were cut short that really sucks.

Oh and trans I'm sure that Malick's next film with the beautiful women will find a way to work in whispering voice over narration and lush visual shots of the earth and sky that last for 10-20 minutes, at least :P

[StanleyK]

Shit still owns. Just a reminder, you know, in case anyone forgot.

I'll say though that some lines would have been better in a regular voice rather than whispers.

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIIee6aThJY

[transmogrifier]

Although I found both The Tree of Life and The New World mostly pretty tiresome, Malick's next has these three women and thus I can't wait for it:



Ha, I never did watch To the Wonder.

[Skitch]

I've had the Tree of Life blu sitting on my shelf for over a year. I wonder when I'll watch it.

[Watashi]

Rereading this thread is awesome. All it did was made me want to rewatch The Tree of Life. Also made me miss a lot of the great people of yesteryear who don't post anymore.

[Watashi]

Ha, I never did watch To the Wonder.

You'd hate it. It's the first Malick film I found agreeing with the self-parody criticism. I never saw Knight of Cups.