The Tree of Life

[socketlevel]

***SPOILER***

I don't know guys, I don't think I like this film. Which is really unfortunate, because I went into it ready for anything and everything.

I think Malick's style works best with a solid backdrop. The juxtaposing nature of The Thin Red Line's harsh subject matter versus the soft lyrical approach makes that film transcendant. The New World, being the Pocahontas story, also had a throughline that made the subject matter resonant in unique ways.

Tree of Life suffers from not enough to reflect on. I'm not requiring it to have elaborate plotlines, but it seems like the point was made early and the film just kept pushing it.  I kept expecting something else. Maybe they should have waited on revealing the fact the brother dies until later into the film.

I think the strongest moment in the film is with the air gun, and when he breaks into that ladies house and takes her nightgown. It shows life in a beautiful simple way. It reminded me of when i grew up, and the relationship that i had with my brother who is 3 years older than I. Maybe it showed what i wanted from that relationship rather than the one i actually had.

The acting was strong, however it suffered from the jump cuts. It seemed the only way malick could show two emotions in the same moment with a character was to jump cut from one to the other. With a bit more planning he could have directed it to show the evolution and changing emotions. I get that those two emotions usually showed the mother/father dichotomy in the boy, but i would have rather like to see both emotions in one shot then always relying on jump cuts. It's kind of lazy, and like i said, lacks forethought.

I would have liked this movie in the end if it wasn't for the last 10%. The part on the beach was so bad. Film school bad. People walking on the beach, as characters fall to their knees and lift their arms in the air is so uninspired. Isolated doorframes in which characters walk through is cliched symbolic journey. When i entered film school there were so many films like this, it's totally played out. It's the easy way to make something look arty. I was very disappointed. I know it is affective, but i was honestly looking for something unique.

"The first man to compare the flabby cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

That about sums up the ending for me. This did not deserve palm d'or.

[modage]

Yesssssss........



Come, Xixaxers. We know it was beautiful and awe inspiring and all of that but let's dig into what didn't work about the film. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

[RegularKarate]

Come, Xixaxers. We know it was beautiful and awe inspiring and all of that but let's dig into what didn't work about the film. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

It was a little long.  And you're a lot wrong.

[The Perineum Falcon]

***SPOILER***

I think Malick's style works best with a solid backdrop. The juxtaposing nature of The Thin Red Line's harsh subject matter versus the soft lyrical approach makes that film transcendant. The New World, being the Pocahontas story, also had a throughline that made the subject matter resonant in unique ways.

Tree of Life suffers from not enough to reflect on. I'm not requiring it to have elaborate plotlines, but it seems like the point was made early and the film just kept pushing it.  I kept expecting something else. Maybe they should have waited on revealing the fact the brother dies until later into the film.

What point do you think was made early on that was persistently and needlessly pushed? And what do you mean by "reveal"? This obviously wasn't meant to be a secret, as all that followed came from this development. It's seems to me you are reducing that event to a plot twist, but if this information had been withheld from the audience, then the movie's emphasis on ideas of Nature, Grace and the Universe (the being and ending of) would have seemed pointless and meandering.

And could you elaborate on what you meant by a "solid backdrop"? Do you mean placing things in an historical context?

[wilder]

And could you elaborate on what you meant by a "solid backdrop"?

I think he means an external story that is there and moving forward even when the main character's internal monologue isn't being addressed. In The Thin Red Line you had war, in The New World the colonization of the new land, etc. Juxtaposing the character's personal story against an indifferent or conflicting external story the way Malick has done in the past has made the conflicts his characters have seem more grounded, I think -- more clearly defined, more literally visible. I agree with socketlevel in some ways. The Tree of Life is fairly simple, but also extremely amorphous, even compared to Malick's past films. In ToL, we're literally moving back and forth from the deep caverns of Jack's mind, to outer space, to a humanless planet, back into the catacombs of Jack's mind...there's no break from the dissociated mindset like there was in his other movies...it's all reflection, all memory. This leaves us with only reflection to reflect on and memory to remember, whereas Malick's other movies put you in the mood to reflect, and give you sequences that are (in relation to the internal story of the main character) more objective and not colored by the bias of his main character to experience as well.

[modage]

Not to mention that present day Jack is not a character. Just Sean Penn ambling out of bed and to work.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

Juxtaposing the character's personal story against an indifferent or conflicting external story the way Malick has done in the past has made the conflicts his characters have seem more grounded, I think -- more clearly defined, more literally visible. I agree with socketlevel in some ways. The Tree of Life is fairly simple, but also extremely amorphous, even compared to Malick's past films.

I think it's grounded against the concepts of grace (the mother) and nature (the father).  Jack's story itself is a juxtaposition of these concepts.  These concepts are not simple ones, nor are they simplified or reduced for the sake of dramatic form.  This is one of the loveliest things about the movie I think.

Not to mention that present day Jack is not a character. Just Sean Penn ambling out of bed and to work.

Jack's adult self is a great symbol for the way philosophy can form tangible shapes, represented by a person we know so little of in one sense, because Penn says and does very little (he only speaks in the beginning), but yet we can understand so much about from what we know about his childhood.  It actually amazes me that Malick did this.  I think he nailed it too.  One of the film's chilliest moments, for me, is when Mr. O'Brien (Pitt) talks about how he wanted to be a great man, in a v.o. while walking through his work place, and then moments later we see Penn, without v.o., and he's simply walking through his own work place.  Why would he even have to say anything?  You can feel it.

[modage]

I don't think anyone doubts that Malick is a smart guy but intent and execution are two different things. Some of it works and some of it does not work. It's bothering me that people here seem to think Malick IS above criticism.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

Pardon me but I was attempting to address specific criticisms.  I was speaking of both intent and execution, and even personalizing by framing these things within my experience and their successes with me.

[wilder]

I think it's grounded against the concepts of grace (the mother) and nature (the father).  Jack's story itself is a juxtaposition of these concepts.  

His mother and father being symbols for greater concepts immediately negates the possibility of the movie being "grounded" in my mind. I'm not saying that's bad, but the thing definitely ain't fucking grounded, that's for sure.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

Another semantic misunderstanding (perhaps there will be many in this thread).

symbol (n)
something  used  for  or  regarded  as  representing  something  else; a  material  object  representing  something,  often  something  immaterial;  emblem,  token,  or  sign.

What I mean is the parents embody philosophical concepts.  They are the lightning rods which attract the electricity of Malick's concepts.  I believe the movie is far from your description "definitely ain't fucking grounded."  Why is not grounded?  It's clear what matters are being discussed, and it's even clear how they are being discussed.

[wilder]

The story is completely internal -- even the tangible version of the conflict between his mother and father (fighting, etc) is shown through the lens of memory in a fragmented, recalled way that prevents any of the scenes from having a solidity or definition that would make it grounded. Malick's past movies were more grounded to me because the characters were apart from a solid foundation. In Tree of Life, there is no definite, solid foundation to the world and Jack is attempting to define one, attempting to choose between or synthesize the possible foundations represented by his mother and father.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

The story is completely internal -- even the tangible version of the conflict between his mother and father (fighting, etc) is shown through the lens of memory in a fragmented, recalled way that prevents any of the scenes from having a solidity or definition that would make it grounded. Malick's past movies were more grounded to me because the characters were apart from a solid foundation. In Tree of Life, Jack there is no definite, solid foundation to the world and Jack is attempting to define it, attempting to choose or synthesize the possible foundations represented by his mother and father.

How is the lens of memory different from the lens of narrative?  I guess I don't understand why one is acceptable and the other isn't.  This is how Malick chose to tell his story and it's no more or less valid than other storytelling techniques with stricter guideposts.  As even you say, Jack "[attempts] to choose or synthesize the possible foundations represented by his mother and father."  Yes, exactly.  That connects with what I said earlier about a sense of adult Jack formed by his childhood experiences.

[wilder]

I'm not saying it's unacceptable, I'm just saying that everything is observed as memory, which is different than the way Malick has told his stories in the past, and definitely changes the nature of the movie, which, I'm arguing, is not "grounded" - nothing is for certain, there were certainties in his past movies that aren't present here.

[Jeremy Blackman]

The story is completely internal -- even the tangible version of the conflict between his mother and father (fighting, etc) is shown through the lens of memory in a fragmented, recalled way that prevents any of the scenes from having a solidity or definition that would make it grounded. Malick's past movies were more grounded to me because the characters were apart from a solid foundation. In Tree of Life, there is no definite, solid foundation to the world and Jack is attempting to define one, attempting to choose between or synthesize the possible foundations represented by his mother and father.

How is the movie not grounded? At its center is a fairly conventional family story. Do you just object to the way it's told? I also think you (and others) are vastly exaggerating the "fragmented" nature of the film. It's even mostly linear. There may be unconventional camera movements and strange editing, but I can't think of any actual fragments. Everything is pretty obviously connected.