Terrence Malick's 'The Tree of Life'

Y

YoLaDu

Guest
The Link

Wow, that is a beautiful trailer.

Shot in Smithville and Houston. It is going to show at Cannes this month and then released limitedly here in the US soon, hopefully.

The "mosquito truck" brings back some intense, vivid memories for me.
 
I lived for one to two years in Franklin, Louisiana as a kid. It is my earliest childhood memory. I was about 5 when we moved there. Once a week, or perhaps more often, a fogging truck would come down our street (Franklin was right on a bayou, and mosquitoes were EVERYWHERE). All the kids on the block and I would run behind the truck (it moved pretty slowly) and play in the fog (and of course, suck it up into our lungs like a pack-a-day smoker inhaling a cigarette). I guess that stuff was DDT? Anyway, couldn't have been good for us. I often wonder if some weird malignancy is going to show up in my lungs (or elsewhere) someday thanks to that weekly frolicking.

Intriguing trailer. But maybe I don't have any culture...I always end up thinking "Wow!" when a see a trailer for a Malick flick, but end up "meh" when I see the full film later.
 
I haven't seen a Malick film yet but I intend to put Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line in my Netflix queue. I've read a little about him and that he's an auteur and possibly a genius, so I'm intrigued and eager to see some of his work. Thanks for posting about this, it got me interested and I always love checking out films and directors that could be great.
 
Thin red Line seems to be one that people either love or hate.
I am really liked it, but it is very different from any WWII film you have probably ever seen.
 
I watched The Thin Red Line yesterday and it was a big ‘so what’ for me. Well done and beautifully shot, solid acting. I do give it extra points for not showing much gore, instead leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination.

Maybe I'm just a bit numb to the genre after having seen Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, etc. I didn't see anything exceptional about this film.
 
i think with most Malick films plot and narrative are secondary; way secondary. There was an interesting article in the LA Times where Chivo Lubezki, who is an excellent cinematographer, is quoted about the upcoming movie.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
His movies have always been more of a visual treat than anything else. I recall the rave reviews when Badlands came out and I thought it was going to be a sort of Bonnie and Clyde for the fifties. Instead, it was Sissy Spacek and Martin
Sheen, very young, as a couple of totally lost, ignorant self destructive kids roaming around a midwest that was beautifu in its flatness and skies. I thought I was missing something, because I am a dialogue lover insofar as movies are concerned, and went to see it again. I just forgot about the dialogue and watched the pictures go by and loved the movie.

The film he made of the panhandle was the same way----visually stunning and very evocative of a style of living but not so much storywise.

This one looks like he wants you to dream the story he is telling. Waco in the fifties as a movie subject. Now there is a guy with a huge ego, thinking he can make a great film from that. Hope it works.
 
OK... I just saw this movie... I really can't tell you what it was about... what WASNT it about... seriously, all over the place, extremely long.
 
I read the other day that some viewers are walking out. Maybe Mr Malick has gotten a little full of himself, I don't know.
 
The first 1/3 of the movie is just a montage of nature scenes mixed with lights patterns I'm not sure were actually "natural". I mean everything in nature from galaxy to a 3 minute scene with 2 dinosaurs doing nothing in particular. So very random! Anyway, it made me think, ok he's trying to say life "has been, is, and always will be" or something along those lines.

BUT THEN... the last 2/3 is about a family with an ******* for a father... but it's not like a normal movie. Again it's a montage of scenes from their life... so...?
 
I thought it was remarkable. It had much more of a narrative thread than I was led to expect. I just let the movie wash over me and found it very moving.

So much visual information, that it's hard for me to sort through all of it. I can't imagine how he puts something like this together in his head let alone on the page.

Maybe oddly, I'm not sure, I kept thinking Tree of Life would be a great companion piece to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both movies do a pretty damn fine job of spreading their net around the mystery of the universe.

I got the feeling the crowd at the Arbor liked it, too. I'm sure some won't, but that's just the way the mop flops.
 
I saw the movie at the Alamo on South Congress, and it is an ambitious film. It asks questions that cannot be answered, so you are going to have you mind tested by the experience.
The question is what is the meaning of life, is there a God, why are we here, does faith overcome heedless acts of nature? Not easy questions to ponder, and the viewer must rely on his/her own experience to provide the answers.
The first part of the film illustrates the creation of the universe, the earth, and life upon it. The comparisons to 2001 a Space Odyssey are inevitable, and I found Tree of Life good, but it is hard to top 2001's opening scenes, they are so remarkable.
Then the film settles into the life of one random family in the mid-fifties, depicting it well, but a bit too lengthily in my opinion.
The father is stern, ambitious, and flawed, and the mother shows constant love to her three boys. These characters are iconic and very real.
"Tree of Life" is mentioned in Genesis and in Revelations, I believe. The filmmaker views life from a Christian perspective, and the viewer will have to see if he hits the mark. Nature versus free will? Afterlife? The end result of evolution? The purpose of humans? Faith? Tough subjects to get a handle on.
One line stands out...basically, all we need is love. Is this the answer?
I was left wondering if the Malick succeeded with this film. This isn't Indiana Jones, and he doesn't provide all the answers. I suppose his goal was to make the viewer think about weighty issues, and he does do that.
There are a lot of good links to reviews on the Alamo South Lamar website, first click on Tree of Life. Some feel the film succeeds, some that it fails, and some are in the middle.
Malick didn't aim small with this movie, and maybe it is too much to expect neatly packaged answers to the meaning of life. If you want lighter fare, there are many other choices out there.
 
Accurate, I haven't see it yet though I will, but those are good observations. Thanks. I like ambitious art, even if I don't always get it.
 
So I read up on the tree of life in the Bible, and in most interpretations this tree is separate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were supposed to eat only from the tree of life, and would be pure and live forever. However, the sneaky snake entered the picture and tempted Eve (subsequently Adam), who ate the fruit from the other tree, causing the pair to be cast out east of Eden due to this original sin. They went on to suffer great pain, living short lives, and created descendants some of which settled in Oklahoma.
The tree of life is mentioned in other verses, including Revelations. The tree was guarded by cherabims, a strange and fantastical being with two or more faces, very symbolic. It was guarded so Adam and Eve could not re-enter the garden and eat from the tree of life. So suffering, pain and death followed the original sin.
This should all be considered in viewing the Malick movie.
Maybe one of our more Biblically-learned posters will comment on what I read about the Bible's tree of life.
Has FastFred seen this movie, and what is his take?
 
I posted this on another board:

Wife and I saw it last night - we both loved it. To me, the movie is like a poem or abstract painting - each person will have their own interpretation or draw different points of inspiration. Others will see the movie and get nothing from it. If you're someone who expects a Hollywood plot spoon-fed to you and wrapped up in a bow by the end, you're prob part of the latter group. The dinosaur and final beach scenes were questionable, but overall it worked for me.

I thought the non-linear storyline and cinematography were excellent. I saw the movie as differing approaches to life: nature vs. grace. Said in another way, conquer vs. forgiveness. "Nature/Conquer" can be thought of as survival of the fittest with influences from science, where as "grace/forgiveness" is more rooted in faith.

Pitt (conquer) and Chastain (forgiveness) embodied these approaches through their parenting styles - from getting the kids out of bed to teaching them life’s lessons. Pitt micro-managed the house through intimidation – but, around their mother, the kids could jump on the couches and were comfortable to confess their wrongdoings. Pitt viewed the world as a tough, hard place, when in reality it’s a gift. Pitt’s strong-handed style complemented his narrow approach to life (“people will love you for your accomplishments”), but alienated his family, resulting in loads of regret.

Penn struggled with nature/grace (“father, mother, always you wrestle inside me”) and seemed lost in the busy metroplex, detached from his wife, and, like his father, struggling with memories of innocence & regret.

I'm still thinking on it, but, for me, I left the movie thinking how special our existence is and how short/small our time and place are. We are so insignificant compared to the power of nature and of our higher power. What the Lord giveth, he taketh away (conquer/asteroid) – but for now we are blessed with the forgiveness of our savior. I naturally (excuse the pun) lean more towards “Pitt’s style” – As a newlywed hoping to raise a family, it hit home. So you can't plan for everything or try and control your life too much, only focusing on your career as Pitt did - just focus on loving your family and keeping the faith, all is well.

One final thought - Jessica Chastain is hawt.
 
Good thoughts, but I liked the dinosaurs-the natural result of the evolution shown up to that point, then contrasted with the asteroid colliding with the earth, and causing their extinction. The beach scene was after entering the portal out in the desert, an abstraction of entering the afterlife. I liked that too, although it certainly didn't try to illustrate exactly what it might be like. It affirmed there is an afterlife in the mind of the filmmaker (my interpretation).
Everyone should read Roger Ebet's review of this movie. He is dieing of cancer, I believe, and this movie really provided an emotional, cathartic experience for him. He loved the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top