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

Warper

Sad Professor wrote: »

What did you think of Malick's other films, Warper?

Badlands was brilliant, wasnt impressed by anything else

e_e

Well if I hated the other Malick films I'd know to stay away from something as uncompromising as The Tree of Life.

Galvasean

I think we are losing sight of the most important thing.... are the dinosaurs scientifically accurate?

Sad Professor

Well, they didn't have feathers.

johnny_ultimate

They're the Dino equivalent of the 2001 apes. But without the weird monolith thing.

Galvasean

Sad Professor wrote: »

Well, they didn't have feathers.

Laserface

Je. Sus. Christ.

Ye flippin lunatics.

How on earth can any of you not love this? Its an excellent film.

Finally saw it today.

I'm an old fart now but i pity the attention span of todays cinema texters. This film is an epic explosion of cinematic experimentation, laced to the teeth with plot!

Its not a story that can be summed up like "Nicholas Cage Drives around with a gorgeous little thing, frowning, with all Hell at his heels "

I was only thinking recently, "there's never been a film about it all.. God & astronomy vs. dinosaurs & redheads"

The film is phenomenal and has restored my faith in malick.
The New World (2005) was terrible and i feared this would be the same. But it's better than all his other films.

Laserface

Sad Professor wrote: »

Brian Cox's Secrets of the Universe/Solar System series.

i love that too..
have you ever seen Brian Cox's audio commentary on Danny Boyle's Sunshine film?
its on the dvd
highly recommend it if you're into this sort of craic

would love to see him do one for tree of life

Sad Professor

Laserface wrote: »

The New World (2005) was terrible and i feared this would be the same. But it's better than all his other films.

You should give it another chance. I wasn't mad about it myself when I first saw it, but I loved the director's cut on the Blu-ray. It's a much more complete version of the film.

Laserface wrote: »

i love that too..
have you ever seen Brian Cox's audio commentary on Danny Boyle's Sunshine film?
its on the dvd
highly recommend it if you're into this sort of craig

would love to see him do one for tree of life

Yeah, his Sunshine commentary is really good. I don't think he'd have much to say about Tree of Life though. But maybe if this Voyage of Time documentary happens.

fisgon

This is a visually stunning film, but god I was bored for at least half of the two hours. It is absolutely self-indulgent, this doens't have to be a bad thing, but here it is. Though I can't understand people walking out in the middle, why go and see the thing in the first place?

Sad Professor

Slightly off-topic, but here's some cool footage of Malick and Christian Bale shooting at a music festival in Austin for an unknown project. This is the first really good look we've had at Malick who shuns any and all publicity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY__M_5WWjA

johnny_ultimate

Malick must love that hat! One of the widely published photos of him sees him donning the same or similar one!

Mickeroo

Just watched it.

Visually stunning, music was great, emotionally powerful and a pretty profound peice of cinema all around. It's not for everyone though and I totally understand all the criticisms leveled at it, don't agree with any of them personally though.

I'm not sure if I'd rate it as highly as the thin red line, personally I think that film found a perfect balance between the more ponderous poetic parts and characterisation and plot that this didn't, having said that it's obvious Malick wasn't going for that with this and made what can only be described as the closest thing I've ever seen to cinematic poetry.

jcf

TWADDLE

e_e

jcf wrote: »

TWADDLE

You kinda instinctively know a film must be good when the criticisms are so crass and shallow.

jcf

Thank you !!

Rabidlamb

Stuck it on last night at 11pm.
Between topping up wine & going out the back for smokes I didn't go to bed until 2:30am.

The first hour of this film is epic, some have compared it to 2001 but it's far more abstract than that, more like The Fountain.
The organics of creation set against the minimalist form of the architects life was astounding.
It's when it comes a more linear narrative about the boys teenage life that it bogs down a bit.

In the end I wasn't even sure which brother had died as it's referenced but you never see it happening, I assume boy number 2.

Pitts authoritarian ways outweighed his endearing scenes & lost him a lot of sympathy.
If they trimmed the fat in the 2nd half this film could have been an all time classic.
As it stands it's a solid 8/10 but the rating is in the eye of the beholder.

Sad Professor

It was the bonde haired son who died. The one who looks just like Brad Pitt. The other son doesn't really focus that much.

youcancallmeal

Sean Penn sums it up for me:

In August 2011, Sean Penn gave an interview to the French publication "Le Figaro" in which he was very critical of the movie and Terrence Malick's direction. Penn said "I didn't at all find on the screen the emotion of the script, which is the most magnificent one that I've ever read. A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What's more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly."

Mickeroo

youcancallmeal wrote: »

Sean Penn sums it up for me:

Would be interested in reading the script after reading that.

Sad Professor

Penn's comments were taken out of context by the media. He also said this:

But it’s a film I recommend, as long as you go in without any preconceived ideas. It’s up to each person to find their own personal, emotional or spiritual connection to it. Those that do generally emerge very moved.

http://www.incontention.com/2011/08/22/penn-on-malick-part-deux/

In other words, the film didn't match his preconceived ideas based on the script. There's nothing unusual about this and actors regularly express such sentiments, but usually not while on the publicity trail. It's particularly common with Malick because he treats the script as a rough draft and does a great deal of on-set improvisation, a lot of which ends up on the cutting room floor. Adrian Brody wasn't too happy with Malick after he reduced his role in The Thin Red Line to a few scenes.

thebullkf

Watched it tonight, ..... Powerful-thought provoking, .. Stunning.

I didn't think it was disjointed at all, i thought it was cyclical tbh. the Architecture that is Penn, based on structure-also didn't he become a little like his father when he was away?...the window/rocket/finger over the rifle scene...

Pitt and Chastain are amazing,and Hunter mcCracken(?)..is fantastic such emotions in his face.!

Couple of (only a couple:P) things stick out for me that i kinda missed though will probably come to me, if anyone has any ideas i'd like to hear them...

The amount of Water in this film.. symbolising life?...cleansing?..sustenance?

The dinosaur...showing mercy

The kid missing the hair...was it from the house fire?..

.the fact the kids don't mock the cripple, only the drunk guy.....

The Tall man in the attic??...it was kinda Alice in wonderland-ish for me?

The grave stone inscription Gracy (Grace ?)

Mrs O'Brien cupping her hands and releasing them at the end...releasing her soul?...son?.. to.... heaven?...whoever?

The reverence shown to elders and in particular the matriarch (in respect to malicks own mother?)... "Sir"...the fact they're called Mrs and Mr o'brien?....


The bit about self loathing,self harm and possible Oedipal complex ?....ie Mr O'brien talking about the son punching himself in the face at the piano?

in real life Malicks own brother went to study guitar in the 60's...his real brother broke both his hands in frustration.. Malick refused to go despite his fathers insistence to help him....Malicks father went....and returned with his body

which brings me to the scene with the two bodies wrapped in sheeting...does one represent his real brother?....and the other the onscreen one?

Thoroughly thought provoking and deeply personal and controversial. i loved it but a little confused:o

Mickeroo

thebullkf wrote: »

The dinosaur...showing mercy

I thought it was more a case of indifference rather than mercy?

thebullkf

Mickeroo wrote: »

I thought it was more a case of indifference rather than mercy?

thought it was a show of power ie "i can squash you if i want..."
.but chosses not to

Mickeroo

thebullkf wrote: »

thought it was a show of power ie "i can squash you if i want..."
.but chosses not to

I guess it's open to interpretation

I didn't think Malick wanted to anthropomorphise them, thought it was more like "Whats going on there?"
*Poke*
"Weirdo. I better be off".
*Runs away*

Sad Professor

No, it was mercy. Sparing the other dinosaur went against all of its natural instincts, but, in an act of free will, it did so anyway. This ties into the film's theme of nature vs grace. Nature is cruel, while grace is loving.

I'm not sure I really care for this tbh. Compassion for other living things can be viewed as a natural instinct as well, but the film doesn't seem to agree. I always thought of Malick as being a pantheist (someone who identifies God and nature as being one and the same). However, if he is suggesting that "grace" is separate from nature then that would make this a theistic film.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

No, it was mercy. Sparing the other dinosaur went against all of its natural instincts, but, in an act of free will, it did so anyway. This ties into the film's theme of nature vs grace. Nature is cruel, while grace is loving.

I'm not sure I really care for this tbh. Compassion for other living things can be viewed as a natural instinct as well, but the film doesn't seem to agree. I always thought of Malick as being a pantheist (someone who identifies God and nature as being one and the same). However, if he is suggesting that "grace" is separate from nature then that would make this a theistic film.

Right I see. Don't really care for that either I have to say. I didn't interpret this as a theistic film at all.

thebullkf

thats the dino's sorted then:D

any thoughts on the other scenes i mentioned above:):confused:

bennygood

Oh my god, I'm so sorry but I hated the crap out of this film. I think I might have enjoyed it if I had just swallowed a heap of magic mushrooms and just wanted to watch something that require much concentration. It was almost as bad as Rachel Getting Married.

johnny_ultimate

bennygood wrote: »

just wanted to watch something that require much concentration.

Is having to concentrate should never be considered a criticism when it comes to cinema!

It was almost as bad as Rachel Getting Married.

But Rachel Gets Married is great. So, therefore, you... like it? That's how I'm interpreting that sentence.