The Tree of Life

[wilder]

Re: Jeremy Blackman - just posted above, don't know if this answers your question.

Edit - I liked the movie. I liked the movie a lot. I don't mean fragmented in terms of "disconnected", but that the way that it's shot implies that the events are shown as memory, not from the point of view of an objective observer. In Terrence Malick's other movies, scenes were presented that were from a point of view that many characters could share...they were presented as scenes playing objectively...i.e. Elias Koteas on the phone w/Nick Nolte defying his orders. These scenes were not presented through the eyes of any specific character.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I'm just saying that everything is observed as memory

I actually think that's wrong.

It may be memory-esque in some sense, but it is definitely not told as memory. It certainly encompasses more than Jack's perspective; there are plenty of scenes, even in Texas, where he is absent. Just because we see present-day Jack doesn't mean the other content is his flashback. Jessica Chastain narrates large sections of the film.

[wilder]

Okay, I need to see it again in that case. However, if that's the way it is, I do think that the adult Jack sequences needlessly confuse the point of view of the scenes taking place in the 50s.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I do think his point of view is the jumping-off-point... it just gets complicated.

[JG]

Okay, I need to see it again in that case. However, if that's the way it is, I do think that the adult Jack sequences needlessly confuse the point of view of the scenes taking place in the 50s.

But isn't the camera work in the adult Jack sequences just as restless and roaming as the 50s stuff? Surely, you don't think the adult Jack stuff is also a "memory?" I think the camera embodies a voice that is not bound by any character, in both the 50s stuff and present day, a voice that is not Jack's or Mom's, but a distant narrator. Not 3rd person omniscient if that's what you meant by the lack of "objective" scenes, but a curious and clever narrator searching for, and imposing, his own meaning on the events in the film, by drawing from sources as disparate as the beginning of time. If anything its closer to a free indirect discourse, at certain moments the camera is experiential and subjective, while at other moments its drawn in by nature and the world around the characters... Its a conversation.

[wilder]

But isn't the camera work in the adult Jack sequences just as restless and roaming as the 50s stuff? Surely, you don't think the adult Jack stuff is also a "memory?"

This is a good point...I don't know what I think now. Initially I was under the impression that the story was told from inside Jack...but the Jessica Chastain stuff contradicts that. To me this seems a weakness of the movie, a contradiction of itself, because it feels like the movie is too heavily skewed in favor of Jack to be a distant narrator viewing all of the character's stories equally, but the postings above seem sure that it isn't subjective either. If it's deliberately a combination of both...I guess I understand that. I don't know that I like that, though.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

But isn't the camera work in the adult Jack sequences just as restless and roaming as the 50s stuff? Surely, you don't think the adult Jack stuff is also a "memory?"

This is a good point...I don't know what I think now. Initially I was under the impression that the story was told from inside Jack...but the Jessica Chastain stuff contradicts that. To me this seems a weakness of the movie, a contradiction of itself, because it feels like the movie is too heavily skewed in favor of Jack to be a distant narrator viewing all of the character's stories equally, but the postings above seem sure that it isn't subjective either. If it's deliberately a combination of both...I guess I understand that. I don't know that I like that, though.

The perspectives dance with the themes.  I don't think they should be separated.  The movie's form evokes the sensation of engaging with an "inner world", a dialogue of self and radical wonder, amazement, curiosity, fear, and sensations of all sorts.  This why the film feels fragmented.  The storm is the emotions.  What's actually happening is usually very clear (unless chairs are suddenly moving seemingly by themselves or people are floating - these moments have more poetic meanings).  By suggesting the instability of perceived truth, Malick supports his case for the tangling of grace of nature.

[wilder]

The perspectives dance with the themes.  By suggesting the instability of perceived truth, Malick supports his case for the tangling of grace of nature.

Well put.

[socketlevel]

***SPOILERS***

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.

Yes exactly. Thank you. War and colonial issues are often seen as black and white, depending which side you're on. By making the film breathe and letting it get internal, you can now depict these things as not historical but actually very immediate. The audience feels their fear, love, hate and joy in the moments they are doing things that do not come easy.

See what made malick unique to me is that he's essentially got a directing style that i find pretentious. and 99.99% of directors that have this style would make tree of life (so many eastern european women from my film class are coming to mind right now). but he was like fuck it, i'mma use that style in a war film... and wow, now we got something. So in the end, TOL seems like someone making a malick movie rather than a malick movie.

Also, something i didn't add before, we don't really see Sean Penn's conflict at a later age. It's like he's "letting go" without establishing him as a man in limbo; other than looking pensive and sad. I could have acted his role haha. Maybe they did film a lot more with Penn to show this, and maybe they should have kept it. who knows.

***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.

My point about the reveal was me pondering it, and almost posing it as a question to you guys. I'm not so stuck with that thought that you couldn't convince me otherwise, which you have partially. I'll concede that point. The only thing i will say is that you can have a death happen in a movie and it doesn't have to look like a plot twist; it can be organic.

They establish; this is how your father affected you, and this is how your mother affected you. cut to 1.1 hour later and not much else was going on.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

There was a rather extended conversation beyond the posts you quoted, dealing with the posts you quoted.  So I imagine that conversation didn't speak to you?  If you skipped over it, however, some of this has been recently discussed.

Yes exactly. Thank you. War and colonial issues are often seen as black and white, depending which side you're on. By making the film breathe and letting it get internal, you can now depict these things as not historical but actually very immediate. The audience feels their fear, love, hate and joy in the moments they are doing things that do not come easy.

Growing up, establishing a sense of self, and investigating personal core ideals are not easy things to do.  Most of us spend our entire lives in this journey; during war, while colonizing, whenever, we encounter our interior selves as we encounter the exterior world.  I think Malick tries to deconstruct childhood in a way that's fresh and exciting.  For example, most people aren't even calling it a narrative.

Was Tree of Life not an emotional experience for you? I felt plenty of fear, hate and joy throughout the film.  A lot of fear and hate because of the father, because Jack is his father's son and his conflict and confusion become my confusion, and also some joy from the father, some fear with my brothers while encountering the world (you mentioned the air gun and underwear scenes), joy with the brothers, sadness and fear and joy with the mother.  I felt so many emotions, but I don't know what you felt unless you tell me.

See what made malick unique to me is that he's essentially got a directing style that i find pretentious. and 99.99% of directors that have this style would make tree of life (so many eastern european women from my film class are coming to mind right now).

What previous film do you think is most like this one?  Who are these Eastern European women, they sound exciting and I'd like to watch their films.

but he was like fuck it, i'mma use that style in a war film... and wow, now we got something. So in the end, TOL seems like someone making a malick movie rather than a malick movie.

There's a through line from Badlands all the way to ToL.  I'm not sure why you think war and colonization define Malick as they were dramatic backdrops for two of his films and he's now made five films, so why is that his essential feature?  He's said that ToL is his most personal film to date.

Also, something i didn't add before, we don't really see Sean Penn's conflict at a later age. It's like he's "letting go" without establishing him as a man in limbo; other than looking pensive and sad. I could have acted his role haha. Maybe they did film a lot more with Penn to show this, and maybe they should have kept it. who knows.

I think perhaps neither you nor modage are buying what I'm saying about Penn's adult character and I don't know how better to say it, so I hope another poster takes up the fight.  To repeat what I said:  "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."

They establish; this is how your father affected you, and this is how your mother affected you. cut to 1.1 hour later and not much else was going on.

Well, I think Malick establishes who the mother and father are, but he doesn't tell you how they affected Jack, he spends the film showing you.

[socketlevel]

MINOR SPOILS

1. It was an emotional experience; in fleeting moments. I think the jump cutting kind of took away from it though as the form was everpresent. I did mention some moments in my previous post that really resonated as coming of age enlightenment that even provided insight into my own life. I really appreciated this element. If the film was entirely this, i would have liked it more. My main gripe with with the ending and the loose connections.

2. Dude, enroll in a film school (maybe it has to be Canadian, as that's my reference). You'll meet these women. I just think it's easy and cliched to do a beach sequence like the one the film has. This kind of film making is searching for something to say without actually drawing on anything substantial. It's like if i did a scene in heaven and i end up shooting it on a soundstage dressed to look like a big ol' puffy cloud.  this is the art film equivalent. I've rolled my eyes over it so many times.

3. sorry i just brought up the last two Malick films. I love days of heaven and Badlands; they too have more beneath the soft lyrical surface to create a more dynamic setting; which makes a unique juxtaposing contrast between the film's form and subject matter. Moot point, but I'd argue this style of film making started with Days of heaven. Badlands is his film most on the fringe from his own style. I love Malick, I have for years. I'm just sad because i think he's gone too far in his style that it's estranging me as an audience member.

4. I agree with your comments on Penn's character, I just think it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. Your insight is apparent in the film, I'm not refuting that. I just think it's weak.

5. He spent the time showing me, and then he showed me, and then he showed me. I'm not saying something really dramatic had to happen each time he showed the dichotomy, but it didn't seem like it was going anywhere. It's like give me something new, or a slightly different way to interpret this contrast. I got a little bored.

[wilder]

2. I just think it's easy and cliched to do a beach sequence like the one the film has. This kind of film making is searching for something to say without actually drawing on anything substantial. It's like if i did a scene in heaven and i end up shooting it on a soundstage dressed to look like a big ol' puffy cloud.  this is the art film equivalent.

4. I agree with your comments on Penn's character, I just think it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. Your insight is apparent in the film, I'm not refuting that. I just think it's weak.

I completely agree with these two points.

There's a through line from Badlands all the way to ToL.  I'm not sure why you think war and colonization define Malick as they were dramatic backdrops for two of his films and he's now made five films, so why is that his essential feature?  

It's not necessarily an "essential feature", but war and colonization were the most tangible expressions of Malick's repeating theme - man living beyond nature's intention of him and this creating chaos. This theme wasn't as readily apparent in ToL, it felt like a new direction he's started going in, an expression of themes he's been thinking on for decades but hadn't so directly addressed as in this movie. I don't think ToL is perfect by any stretch (which doesn't mean parts of it aren't beautiful), but because Malick is going in a new direction, musing on a more focused, personal story, I think the end result is a bit more of a trial-and-error effort than his previous movies, which I think more directly build on each other and echo one another in more ways.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

2. Dude, enroll in a film school (maybe it has to be Canadian, as that's my reference). You'll meet these women.

Oh, haha, I genuinely didn't realize you were talking about women in your class, I thought you meant women you learned about in your class.  If they're making ToL caliber films (the women in your class) you should perhaps network with them and build important collaborative relationships.  I think they'd be kind of flattered that you brought them up in this conversation, and you could consider somehow incorporating the observation into a pickup line, if you want, if you are single. But of course I don't know them.  The Eastern European women I know are badasses who do fashion photography, techno music videos, wear leather jackets, dye their hair all the time, and work their asses off.  See, that's entirely different.  Be cool if you used an established director as a reference point for what you mean.

This kind of film making is searching for something to say without actually drawing on anything substantial. It's like if i did a scene in heaven and i end up shooting it on a soundstage dressed to look like a big ol' puffy cloud.  this is the art film equivalent. I've rolled my eyes over it so many times.

A great movie with a heaven soundstage is A Matter of Life and Death.  I believe Heaven Can Wait also had a great heaven sequence, although most of the film takes place in hell. I didn't roll my eyes in those films.  I think it takes a certain amount of courage and sincerity to pull a scene like this off (Powell and Lubitsch also known for courage and sincerity). Another scene that's difficult to do is a person playing with a butterfly, which also occurs in ToL. Or playing with bubbles, which also occurs. You can choose only to see how it might be stupid, or you can consider what Malick means by them. I think he's saying these moments, however overused in dramatic circles, have a real meaning in real life, they are actually beautiful and universal moments. It's difficult because we're programmed to be dismissive of simplistic beauty, to an extent, because so many simple beauties we encounter in the same forms over and over. I don't think I'm just giving Malick a pass, I think he includes the key to these scenes within his narrative. For example,

the beach sequence isn't searching for something to say without actually drawing on anything substantial - it's drawing on the emotional energy of the preceding moments.  It plucks the characters from their tumultuous real circumstances and presents them in a timeless living moment so that they may engage in a way otherwise impossible in the context of how they live their lives.  They can meet here as they cannot meet elsewhere, and Malick can demonstrate a quality of their essential nature which he did not demonstrate elsewhere.  I think it's a beautiful scene, and it works for me because of what I'm saying, but also because I don't really worry about how this moment is used by women in your class, I worry about how Malick uses it in his film. That's not intended as a cheap shot at what you're saying, I'm referring back to the previous paragraph. I think you're right to say we've seen this before (but where have you seen it exactly like this first of all, because I never have, but I can see how it could feel familiar), but sometimes to discover an artist's meaning we have to strip off our clothes of experience and encounter things again in a new way.

4. I agree with your comments on Penn's character, I just think it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. Your insight is apparent in the film, I'm not refuting that. I just think it's weak.

5. He spent the time showing me, and then he showed me, and then he showed me. I'm not saying something really dramatic had to happen each time he showed the dichotomy, but it didn't seem like it was going anywhere. It's like give me something new, or a slightly different way to interpret this contrast. I got a little bored.

When you talk about what it's showing or where it's going you're only talking about the film's physical surface.  The truth is that although there is much surface activity and beauty, much of the film takes place on a subsurface level.  I don't know that you and wilderesque are wrong and I don't know I'm right, but I do know that to realize the film's strengths and weaknesses is going to require some real contemplation and evaluation because Malick's film is philosophically compact and excitingly new.  How this relates to the above quote, and the previous quote and really all the conversations, is that I don't think there's a single isolated moment in the film that's unconnected to the rest of the film. It's a densely woven quilt. So a problem you have with one moment has an intimate connection to the previous moments.

Again this is why I don't think the narrative should be discussed independent of the themes. If you could tell me what you thought was repetitious we could discuss how those moments may relate to the film's larger points. It's not just about the family. It's not just thematic. It's both. Suggested in this physical and general sense, as in your quote above, the criticism is purely a matter of taste. In that sense your point is irrefutable, because there is no debating matters of taste.

There's a through line from Badlands all the way to ToL.  I'm not sure why you think war and colonization define Malick as they were dramatic backdrops for two of his films and he's now made five films, so why is that his essential feature?  

It's not necessarily an "essential feature", but war and colonization were the most tangible expressions of Malick's repeating theme - man living beyond nature's intention of him and this creating chaos. This theme wasn't as readily apparent in ToL

Again Malick has been distilled, by another person, to a proposed essence and then accused of betraying that essence.

it felt like a new direction he's started going in, an expression of themes he's been thinking on for decades but hadn't so directly addressed as in this movie.

But then this, which I agree with. Yes, now let's think on these themes all together and see what we come up with.

I don't think ToL is perfect by any stretch (which doesn't mean parts of it aren't beautiful), but because Malick is going in a new direction, musing on a more focused, personal story, I think the end result is a bit more of a trial-and-error effort than his previous movies, which I think more directly build on each other and echo one another in more ways.

I'm trying very hard to avoid making the conversation a matter of this is what I think vs. this is what you think, but rather a matter of interpreting and dissecting the material to discover the blueprints to the film, which I fully believe Malick has included in the film. So if you think there was trial-and-error, which of course there was, please bring up those points and we'll discuss them. My point is I don't think we should stand back from the film and make accusations about it, we should open it up, tear it apart, and see what's really going on.

[wilder]

They can meet here as they cannot meet elsewhere, and Malick can demonstrate a quality of their essential nature which he did not demonstrate elsewhere.

I have no idea what you mean by this. What was their essential nature, and how was it revealed in this scene?

I'm trying very hard to avoid making the conversation a matter of this is what I think vs. this is what you think, but rather a matter of interpreting and dissecting the material to discover the blueprints to the film, which I fully believe Malick has included in the film.

It's pretty well-known that Malick has ideas he's hoping to communicate, but doesn't have a clear plan of attack in how he's going to go about getting the images to communicate them. From what I've gathered he's the kind of director that knows generally what he wants to accomplish, but doesn't know specifically what he's going to capture and juxtapose to accomplish it, which is why his editing process takes so damn long. Because of this, I don't think it's fair to assume that there is a definite "blueprint" in the film at all. If anything I think it's the opposite -- in the search for "truth" Malick does away with clear blueprints and tries to assemble something that transcends one.

And I am interested in what you think it is, what I think it is, what Jeremy Blackman thinks it is, and how are viewpoints differ. Trying to pin down the movie as definitely being or meaning something is futile and uninteresting. Maybe the repeating theme I pointed out is something you don't see or don't agree with, and that's fine. I see no reason to try to come to a committee agreement about it.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

If you haven't seen the movie you shouldn't be reading any of this, but there are references to large spoilers in this post.

They can meet here as they cannot meet elsewhere, and Malick can demonstrate a quality of their essential nature which he did not demonstrate elsewhere.

I have no idea what you mean by this. What was their essential nature, and how was it revealed in this scene?

I've been reticent to disclose my interpretation of the scene because I'm not sure it has a fixed meaning, but of course you're right to ask for more explanation about my interpretation, and as that's what I'm asking from everyone else it'd be hypocritical of me not to respond.

What I mean is, it's one thing to say there are tiny moments wherein Jack and Mr. O'Brien connect on an emotional level, where the differences between them are bridged and they see themselves in each other.  Malick has those moments, a lot of dramas do. But then, on this larger, poetic stage, Malick emphasizes the underlying connectedness of the human experience. He's done a dramatic representation of this already, and now he does a poetic one. Here on the beach they lose the fixedness of their interpersonal drama and wander, drifting in perpetuity, but encountering each other, and, now, stripped of their family drama, encounter each other in a vacuum. And what is revealed?  The essential quality Malick brings to the foreground, the one I mean, is that, denuded of temporal agenda, they're simply happy to see each other and be near each other, kiss the hands of each other, save each other from time and pain. The dead brother is alive again. Mr. O'Brien isn't angry, or fearful, or deflecting personal insecurity. Malick suggests that the pain we inflict on each other is a confused and human attempt to save others and ourselves from pain, and if that wasn't there, well, the world would be like his beach scene.

It's pretty well-known that Malick has ideas he's hoping to communicate, but doesn't have a clear plan of attack in how he's going to go about getting the images to communicate them. From what I've gathered he's the kind of director that knows generally what he wants to accomplish, but doesn't know specifically what he's going to capture and juxtapose to accomplish it, which is why his editing process takes so damn long. Because of this, I don't think it's fair to assume that there is a definite "blueprint" in the film at all. If anything I think it's the opposite -- in the search for "truth" Malick does away with clear blueprints and tries to assemble something that transcends one.

I chose the word blueprint because it's what a building is built from but not the actual building, but I guess blueprints are followed very closely in architecture so it was a bad choice. That's valid, and I think you're nearer what Malick himself would say than I was. But you're not saying anything about what he transcends or how he transcends it.

And I am interested in what you think it is, what I think it is, what Jeremy Blackman thinks it is, and how are viewpoints differ. Trying to pin down the movie as definitely being or meaning something is futile and uninteresting. Maybe the repeating theme I pointed out is something you don't see or don't agree with, and that's fine. I see no reason to try to come to a committee agreement about it.

Agreements are so boring. That's not at all what I want. The repeating theme you mentioned and then accused ToL of lacking just seemed irrelevant to me because it's apparently lacking in ToL. I disagreed not with your theme but it's application. I don't want to attempt to pin down the movie into meaning one thing, I'm actually really curious about all the many things it does mean. It's about becoming more specific than "well it's boring and not grounded."  Which is what we're doing.  Sooo what are you saying here?  You must be accusing me of taking the wrong tone, which I apologize for.  Also sometimes words get in the way, and sometimes I used words in the wrong way.