The Tree of Life (winner of the Palme d'Or)

duckworth

duckworth wrote: »

Oh come on, how many films with a narrative like this are given wide releases every year? It's highly unusual. In fact, of the past 5 years or so the only other one I can think of was The New World.

It's not getting much if a wide release, it's only playing a select few cinemas with no real screenings outside Dublin.

duckworth

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not getting much if a wide release, it's only playing a select few cinemas with no real screenings outside Dublin.

Fair enough. I suppose what I mean is it's high profile rather than it's actual release.

johnny_ultimate

It is in more cinemas then you'd get for your usual arthouse release.

One cannot underestimate how many will attend on the basis of Mr. Pitt alone. Alas, I'd imagine the more popular the cinema the more confused walkouts there will be!

OutlawPete

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I must argue against it being disjointed - i think its structured very carefully. its clearly Malik trying to visualize his memories. look at your own childhood - do you recall it in vivid detail? The core of the film is an adult trying to understand a tragedy by putting it in the context of everything else. and rarely has there been such a vivid look at memory and nostalgia.

Yes, but just because we can see what Malick was trying to say, doesn't mean he accomplished it to any great degree. As I said earlier, it feels like a great idea for a film, just one poorly executed. The characters are far to one dimensional for him to even get close to what he so clearly was trying to. The screenplay just felt so amateurish but that wasn't even the main problem for me. The main problem is that it's impossible to get lost in this film unless perhaps you're stoned. Otherwise though, scenes are just so out of place that you have to be conscious of the fact that you are watching a film, there is no choice and great films should never be that way. You should never have to work and put such effort into a movie in an effort to try and decipher just what it is a director is attempting to say, or make you feel, or think about - it should just happen. Even the 'family scenes don't flow and again they it's almost impossible to get lost in them. Watching them feels as like watching a trailer in the main. This I feel was a massive mistake and the main reason I feel the movie to be disjointed overall.

As for the dinosaur scene, it's just is not pertinent to the film. I see what he was trying to say (more-or-less) but it just takes away so much from the film for me. It doesn't sit within the movie, instead the scene just sticks out like a sore thumb. It's just an opinion of his als, not just a snapshot of what we know was the nature of dinosaurs and so included so we could make our own mind up. The final beach scene was the same, it's an opinion opinion piece - clearly indicative that Malick believes in an afterlife and that all will be well one day (forgiveness being bestowed upon us, from those we've wronged).

Which is all well and good if it those scenes fitted together and complimented one another, but they don't. They simply have not been well thought out. They are half hearted, wishy washy, then clumped together and presented as some sort of cinematic poem; to be deconstructed and analysed for evermore no doubt.

Renn wrote: »

You've seen some of his other stuff? Well then, absolutely none of this should be of surprise to you - and I'd be surprised if there were many fans of his other work that were not fans of this as it pretty much as all the elements of the older stuff, only this is far more ambitious.

Surprised/unsurprised, a film should stand up on its own. Nothing wrong with ambition, I applaud it (and him for trying to put forth his message and his beliefs, there should be more of it) but for me, he failed to do what he was trying to. Far too much peacockery and not enough substance. I am the poster boy for the target audience of this film, as: I believe in the afterlife and his message, I adore this types of films (hate Hollywood tripe such as Transformers, X-men etc) but yet he didn't even engage me, let alone satisfy me. It should be my all time favourite movie based on the ingredients, but I hated the finished movie.

Renn wrote: »

Well you mentioned something about Malick and LCD (obviously meant as a negative comment) but in the same sentence praised the acting and cinematography.

The cinematographer and the actors did their jobs perfectly well and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them win some awards for their efforts. However, the film was quite simply: a waste of that talent. He suffocated his own movie. He had the bones of a classic, but he just over egged his own pudding, one which was undoubtedly was a very refreshing and honest one. Executed .. it would have been a masterpiece. It will still be seen by any as being just that however, and to me, that's a shame. It will be said that it's a deep and philosophical film (which it is) but at the end of the day, you still have to make a film, just being deep and philosophical does not mean we should all just applaud it and ignore it's ginormous flaws, as ultimately (first and foremost) Tree of Life has to be judged as a film in it's entirety.

The screenplay was half arsed, it's shallow and whiney. It has no soul and those that take that view, will no doubt be told that they are just not astute enough to understand the subtle nuisances of Malick's art. Comparisons with Kubrick's 2001 will undoubtedly be made, but almost all of what Kubrick put on screen was pertinent to the overall film. Eventually there will be a a common consensus of what each scenes means and I just hope Malick is somewhere pissing himself, as he truly should be, as this is without question, the greatest example on film to date, of the emperor's new clothes.

Renn

Just a quick reply to all that, but you've now said that every frame was beautiful, that it was a deep and philosophical film, but it's one of the worst you've ever seen? Sorry, but something doesn't quite add up there imo.

And almost all of what Malick puts up on screen is pertinent to the overall film If anything there's too much left out so I'm hoping for an extended cut sometime soon.

OutlawPete

Renn wrote: »

Just a quick reply to all that, but you've now said that every frame was beautiful, that it was a deep and philosophical film, but it's one of the worst you've ever seen? Sorry, but something doesn't quite add up there imo.

I can understand you not agreeing with me (that's the beauty of film, we all have differing opinions) but I can't see how you are not getting what I am saying. I have made it clear why I feel someone can think cinematography, score, acting, production etc, were all sublime .. but yet still hate this film. In fact, these things make hate it more if anything, as they destroy, spoil and take away the good elements of the movie and that's a sin.

Let me put it another way:

The Tree of Life is the Amanda Brunker of the film world; all style and zero substance. Great boobs, great face, great ass, great drive, tenacity, optimism, admirable get up and go etc etc; but yet she ultimately fails as great human. As when she speaks, writes or 'sings' - we get nothing but mediocrity. All her good points that are initially appreciated, suddenly become annoying as hell, as they are not based on anything of merit. She is, for want of a better expression: writing cheques her ass can't cash and as too is this film. Great shell and concept, but untimaely, that's all it is unfortunately.

Renn wrote: »

And almost all of what Malick puts up on screen is pertinent to the overall film If anything there's too much left out so I'm hoping for an extended cut sometime soon.

Pertinent to what it should have been, not to the film I saw. I will concede though, it is salvageable. Maybe a five hour directors cut will remove all that I hate about the film.

If there is footage that has Sean Penn doing more than walking around in circles looking out windows, or the family engaging in ways unlike it's a trailer and also that can make the final scene look less like a 90's Take That video, then yes, maybe that will make this film something closer to what it pretends to be.

duckworth

Actually, the last high-profile film to be as non-conventional as this was Synecdoche, New York, and maybe Somwhere by Sophia Coppola.

I think Tree of Life was light years ahead of those two though.

johnny_ultimate

I definitely think there are parallels with synecdoche (a film i adore). Id say the Tree Of life is technically sounder but Kaufmans themes and ideas hide more depth (a stronger writer for sure) Both are triumphs of originality in different ways, and both try and succeed in capturing the essence of an entire lifetime.

tunguska

I saw The tree of life on saturday and I thought it was magnificiant. Mallick makes films that communicate with you on a level that you're not even consciously aware of. I dont pretend to understand all that was going on in the film but for me it doesnt matter. Its like my soul was nurtured for 2hrs and 20s minutes.

foxyboxer

Saw it last night in the IFI.
I enjoyed it very much. Great performance from the eldest child.

What I got from it was an unreliable narrator, god if you will, telling the story of life, microbes/dinosaurs/mankind, think quantum jumps/god playing dice etc i.e. nothing is predictable and 100% knowable hence the unstructured narration.

Good score too and excellent visuals. Definitely a big screen experience. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea but having seen Transformers 3 last week it was a refreshing change.

Turkana

Am I the only person here who thinks this looks shite?

Sad Professor

Just back from it and thought it was fantastic. Completely lived up to my expectations. Difficult to really gather my thoughts at the moment though. I might have to see it again.

I wish the soundtrack included the classical pieces. I loved the one at the start. I think it was Tavener.

Renn

Was indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s6JY6jgJfo

Sad Professor

That's the one. I love the bit in the middle that was used in the film.

Renn

Yeah, pure goosebump moment whenever I hear it. Was used a few times throughout the film, so good.

Renn

I saw an unofficial soundtrack posted on IMDB the other week, this was the track listing if you're interested:

01. Academy Of Ancient Music & Paul Goodwin - Tavener: Funeral Canticle (Excerpt)
02. Zbigniew Preisner - Requiem - Lacrimosa
03. Chanticleer - Tavener: Resurrection in Hades
04. Berliner Philharmoniker & Herbert von Karajan - Respighi: Suite III: Siciliana. Andantino
05. Willcocks, RPO, Royal College Chamber Choir - Holst: Hymn to Dionysus
06. St. Petersburg RTV Symphony Orchestra & Stanislav Gorkovenko - Smetana: Má Vlast: Vltava (The Moldau River)
07. David Zinman, Dawn Upshaw & London Sinfonietta - Górecki: Symphony No.3: Il Lento E Largo
08. Angela Hewitt - Couperin: 6e Ordre No. 5 - Les Baricades Mistérieuses
09. Ainsley - Dutoit - Montreal Symphony Orchestra & Choir - Berlioz_Agnus Dei
10. Patrick Cassidy - Funeral March
11. Roman Rewakowicz - Preisner: Life Lacrimosa - Day Of Tears

OutlawPete

Friend was going to see this tonight (after we both saw Badlands) and so I decided to go along with them and see it again

The second viewing felt far different to the first, that's for sure. In short, what I liked about it the first time, I now love and what I hated about it, I am even more bemused over. While I felt that the whole creation of the universe stuff destroyed and ruined what could have easily been a masterpiece, on second viewing it didn''t have anywhere near the same negative impact on me that it did on first viewing. I would liken it to going on a scenic drive and seeing a car accident as soon as you get there. It saturates the experience and spoils the rest of the day, as it's now tainted with what has just occurred.

However, should you be forewarned that there is the aftermath of an accident around an upcoming bend as you set off on your scenic drive, it wouldn't be anywhere near as spoiled and tainted and that's how watching Tree of Life felt for me tonight. I was prepared for the nonsense and peacockery and so could just enjoy the film without the same negative impact of the national geographic yawn fest spoiling it. This time I smiled those scenes (as opposed to being frustrated and irritated by them, as was the case the first time) and so the family scenes were far more enjoyable this time round and without question I felt I could engage and relate in ways that I simply could not the first time.

I still feel it odd that Malick gives the viewer free reign to make his own mind up on so many matters, doesn't hold their hand and leaves much unsaid (such as how the son died, what happened in those next ten years or so leading up to his death etc etc) but yet still felt the need to lecture the audience in other areas, such as telling them that a life without love will fly by and that we must forgive and of course the biggie, there is an afterlife. Not spoonfeeding the viewer is only really admirable if it isn't done at all.

The beach scene at the end was seriously over egged and if ever the expression 'less is more' was apt, it was here. It's just too airy fairy feels out of place with what went before. Penn having some visions in his life that showed his realisation that there was an afterlife, or that he needs to reconnect with his inner-child, forgive his father, not repeat his mistakes, enjoy the now, drop the mask (or whatever you happen to get from that scene) just I feel would have worked far better. It's borderline soapboxing to be so matter of fact about things. Of course, maybe Penn was just hallucinating and the director's cut will reveal all.

So, I love it and I hate it, maybe a third viewing will settle it one way or the other.

Is it just me, or does anyone else thing that the opening apartment scene and the phonecall between Penn and his father is pointing to the fact that his mother had just died and all this was happening the day after the funeral? For instance, his girlfriend was wearing black and Penn lights a candle. Just a thought.

e_e

Would Cineworld be an alright place to see this again? Whenever I'm there I tend to get annoyed by patrons walking in and out for the ENTIRE screening (especially in "artier" movies). :pac:

Might just opt for the Screen, and maybe the IFI again for a third time.

johnny_ultimate

TBH unless you have an Unlimited card Cineworld is worth avoiding most of the time. Overpriced and unpredictable audience! Would definitely pick the Screen or IFI over it.

duckworth

OutlawPete wrote: »

Penn having some visions in his life that showed his realisation that there was an afterlife, or that he needs to reconnect with his inner-child, forgive his father, not repeat his mistakes, enjoy the now, drop the mask (or whatever you happen to get from that scene) just I feel would have worked far better. It's borderline soapboxing to be so matter of fact about things. Of course, maybe Penn was just hallucinating and the director's cut will reveal all.

This is all your interpretation - I don't think it's as clear cut on the screen as you make out.

One could easily interpret (as I did) the last beach scene as a visual representation of Senn Penn simply coming to terms with his past and his life. For example, at no point did I take from it that he had to 'connect with his inner child'.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else thing that the opening apartment scene and the phonecall between Penn and his father is pointing to the fact that his mother had just died and all this was happening the day after the funeral? For instance, his girlfriend was wearing black and Penn lights a candle. Just a thought.

It's pretty ambiguous, but I assumed it was

the anniversary of the brother's death

- hence Penn thinking back on his childhood and his constant asking God why did it happen.


Also - is it necessary to spoiler the above?? It's not exactly giving away major twists - it all happens in the first 5 minutes...

johnny_ultimate

So yeah, there's some what may count as spoilers below, but not really:

Yeah personally I never interpreted anything as particularly pro-afterlife. There's little doubt this is a very heavily Christian film, but like duckworth I interpreted the final abstract scenes as Jack coming to terms with his grief through his thoughts and subconscious as opposed to an afterlife sequence. Sure, that interpretation is there - it's combined with images of the end of time, after all - but I definitely didn't come out of it thinking there was anything that heavily suggested a life after death. In fact, the way I looked at it was that a human life is merely one part of a much wider universe we're all a part of, but to us that's something that we should embrace. As a very non-religious person, I'd very much embrace that message too.

OutlawPete

duckworth wrote: »

This is all your interpretation - I don't think it's as clear cut on the screen as you make out.

What?

Of course it's about interpretation. Did you miss:

OutlawPete wrote: »

(or whatever you happen to get from that scene)

duckworth

Hehe, I completely misread that paragraph - sorry bout that!

My point still stands though - you say he is soapboxing - but I think it's more open-ended than that.

You said -

but yet still felt the need to lecture the audience in other areas, such as telling them that a life without love will fly by and that we must forgive and of course the biggie, there is an afterlife.

I don't think the points you interpreted above were made by the director, especially about the afterlife.

OutlawPete

duckworth wrote: »

Hehe, I completely misread that paragraph - sorry bout that!

My point still stands though - you say he is soapboxing - but I think it's more open-ended than that.

You said -

I don't think the points you interpreted above were made by the director, especially about the afterlife.

Well, my comments regarding 'life without love' comes from the line:

"Unless you love, your life will flash by."

As for the afterlife, I feel it clear cut that the beach scene was suggestive of that:

There are crowds of people, not just him and his family for a start, so it's not just a personal thing, it's suggestive of this being what awaits us all. Pitt picks up his dead son and holds him up and everyone is smiling, there is no sense of 'letting go' or coming to terms with loss. It's about relief at this stage, as he has his son back. When Penn looks at the sky at the end and smirks/smiles (for the first time in the film, after we witness the beach scene) it is clearly also telling us that he now believes, that what we have just seen, will one day come true. Okay, you could argue that this Malick is not 'telling' is what is going to happen, more showing us what Penn's charater 'thinks' is going to happen, but I think that is somewhat pendantic, as to all intents and purposes, Malick is Penn.

Dermighty

One of the worst films I have ever seen. So grandiose and inexplicably stupid that I wanted to leave within 30 minutes.

hidinginthebush

Just saw this there after waiting weeks to do so. I walked out after an hour, while I found it to be visually beautiful, I thought it was a big steaming pile of pretensious rubbish. Very disappointed

Renn

Anyone know if it's the 35mm print or digital cinema version showing in Cineworld?

hidinginthebush

I saw it in cineworld tonight, not sure which it was. Would there be a way to tell? It didn't fill the whole screen (the screen was wider than the projected picture, empty screen space on either side of the picture, if that makes sense?), if that helps.

e_e

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Just saw this there after waiting weeks to do so. I walked out after an hour, while I found it to be visually beautiful, I thought it was a big steaming pile of pretensious rubbish. Very disappointed

People always jump to make the "pretentious" critique, it's such a lazy way of putting down the film. It can be said about anything with the slightest of ambitions.

Find some new adjectives people! :pac:

e_e

I think everybody who walked out of The Tree of Life should be subjected to Film Socialisme as punishment. Then they'll really understand what a self indulgent, confused, empty, overlong mess of a movie really is. They'll then be thankful that Malick's cinema exists.