XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => The Vault => Topic started by: modage on January 28, 2009, 06:54:07 PM

Title: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on January 28, 2009, 06:54:07 PM
http://www.summit-ent.com/production.php?subj=4&sel_page=172
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: hedwig on January 28, 2009, 11:36:34 PM
this is my current There Will Be Blood/The New World/The Fountain/INLAND EMPIRE/WALL·E/Synecdoche, NY -- the one movie I WANT SO BADLY that it makes me not care about anything else. :|
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: New Feeling on January 29, 2009, 12:34:41 AM
Our picture is a cosmic epic, a hymn to life.

We trace the evolution of an eleven-year-old boy in the Midwest, Jack, one of three brothers. At first all seems marvelous to the child. He sees as his mother does, with the eyes of his soul. She represents the way of love and mercy, where the father tries to teach his son the world's way, of putting oneself first. Each parent contends for his allegiance, and Jack must reconcile their claims. The picture darkens as he has his first glimpses of sickness, suffering and death. The world, once a thing of glory, becomes a labyrinth.

Framing this story is that of adult Jack, a lost soul in a modern world, seeking to discover amid the changing scenes of time that which does not change: the eternal scheme of which we are a part. When he sees all that has gone into our world's preparation, each thing appears a miracle — precious, incomparable. Jack, with his new understanding, is able to forgive his father and take his first steps on the path of life.

The story ends in hope, acknowledging the beauty and joy in all things, in the everyday and above all in the family -- our first school -- the only place that most of us learn the truth about the world and ourselves, or discover life's single most important lesson, of unselfish love.

indeed
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: private witt on January 29, 2009, 12:58:22 AM
I hope Malick makes another masterpiece with all natural light again. 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on January 30, 2009, 11:37:12 AM
yep, this is my most anticipated film this year.

damn brad pitt is on a fucking roll in his last 4 choices:

coens
fincher
malick
tarantino


Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Bethie on January 31, 2009, 02:33:47 AM
my son's name is gong to be terrence malick, eff the fathers say
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Xx on January 31, 2009, 03:52:43 AM
...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on March 01, 2009, 08:10:46 PM
SPOILERS!

"We're just starting work on a project for Terrence Malick, animating dinosaurs, the film is The Tree of Life, starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. It'll be showing in IMAX -- so the dinosaurs will actually be life size -- and the shots of the creatures will be long and lingering." -- from an Empire magazine interview with VFX artist Mike Fink that some sources claim to have read but which can't be located by the mag's search engine.

I over-wrote a very long piece about Malick in '91 that was called Malick Aforethought. I described an ambitious film that Malick wanted to film in the wake of the 1978 release of Days of Heaven, called Q. (A title later appropriated by Larry Cohen when he made Q, The Winged Serpent .) There was a passage about a dinosaur sleeping and dreaming in a sea of magma -- I remember that much. The story spanned millenia. We all know there's a present day portion in which Pitt (I think) plays Penn's dad in flashbacks. I realize this sounds a little vague.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/03/pitt_penn_dinos.php
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on March 01, 2009, 08:47:25 PM
whoa.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 01, 2009, 08:56:24 PM
Whoa is right. After reading that, this trumps my anticipation for everything else coming out this year. Just, wow, man. Wow.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: john on March 01, 2009, 09:27:07 PM
Yeah, no shit.

Before this, I hadn't read anything about this film other than it was by Malick and Penn was in it. That was, and is, more than enough for me. This, however, just gave my anticipation for this film a good, hard kick in the ass. Can't wait.


Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on March 02, 2009, 08:34:08 PM
AICN Exclusive: You Now Have 2001 More Reasons To Be Excited For Malick's THE TREE OF LIFE!
Source: AICN

SOME SPOILERS!

Ever since running that TREE OF LIFE story last night (most of which was essentially purloined from Jeffrey Wells's Hollywood Elsewhere), I've been receiving emails from people who've "heard things" about what Terrence Malick is up to in Austin, Texas. I'm still trying to clarify/verify some of these tips, but the scoop that hit my inbox a few minutes ago is so big, it deserves its own story.

Visual f/x legend Douglas Trumbull is working on THE TREE OF LIFE.

In what capacity? Is he assisting Mike Fink on the dinosaur footage? I don't know just yet. But he has been seen knocking around Austin with Malick's crew, and I can confirm that he has been shooting footage of some sort fairly recently. Personally, I hope he's involved with the NASA-shot sequences that will allegedly be included in the IMAX movie.

And when I say "IMAX movie", I mean a whole second movie. That's right, we'll be getting two new Malick movies in the next year or so: the first is THE TREE OF LIFE (which one source tells me is "massive"); the other will be an "IMAX-only" feature depicting the birth and death of the universe. It's important to note that these films are not narratively connected; to the best of my knowledge, they're thematically complementary pieces. Hopefully, I'll be able to elaborate on this by the end of the week (though I'd kinda like to stay a little vague on the details if only to preserve the air of mystery that's surrounding this production).

But Douglas Trumbull, the visual f/x pioneer who collaborated with Stanley Kubrick on 2001 and Steven Spielberg on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, will be receiving his first feature credit since Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER. On a Terrence Malick film. It don't get any cooler than that.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on March 02, 2009, 10:19:09 PM
haha, it's like a fucking dream, man.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 02, 2009, 11:19:26 PM
MMM MMMM FUCKING GOOD!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on March 03, 2009, 09:02:45 AM
haha, it's like a fucking dream, man.

No shit, im already deep into it, and Malick on IMAX :infinite-drool:

this'll be beyond brilliant. i'm beginning to think that mallick was just waiting for kubrick to die so he could take over being The One. there just couldn't be two.

Malick will rule this decade century...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Bethie on March 04, 2009, 12:54:03 AM
This film is the only thing I have in my life to look forward to
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 04, 2009, 12:57:30 AM
Bethie, what about the love of your life? Have you found him or her yet? And any aspirations, dreams? What about any upcoming DVD's? What do I (or us) have to do to cheer you up gorgeous?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on March 04, 2009, 01:33:01 AM
This film is the only thing I have in my life to look forward to

And the 2009 Xixax Awards!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: hedwig on March 04, 2009, 01:56:21 AM
siliasruby gives wet, sloppy kisses. is it true? don't tell me.

bethie, that's a terrible attitude to have.. seriously: a new pearl jam album was just announced. you have at least that and The Tree of Life to keep you from committing suicide. once the year's over, you're on your own. sorry.

all "jokes" aside, 2009 belongs to the Malick. i'm not gonna overhype it for myself but basically i'm anticipating the cinematic equivalent of the titular tree.

(i know you'll want to edit this post, hedwig, but we're not gonna do it, you FUCK.
Y'KNOW WHY? OF COURSE YOU DO BECAUSE I DO I AM YOUARE ME HEDWHAHA!!!)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on March 23, 2009, 10:15:50 AM
Is The Second Terrence Malick 'Tree Of Life' Film Called, 'Voyage Of Time'?
Source: The Playlist

By now we've all obviously heard that Terrence Malick's "Tree Of Life," has grown into two films. One will be a drama starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain (pictured) and the second will be an a panoramic and extensive natural history segment/ IMAX movie that features dinosaurs and depicts, "the birth and death of the universe."

But apparently the second film is now called, "The Voyage of Time." Google searches bring up many references (with photos too) and an Awards Daily commenter from Austin that says "I can confirm that Malick is working on a parallel project entitled 'Voyage of Time.' "

This certainly rings true as we also talked to a source in Austin -- where Malick has a home -- working on the project during SXSW who told us similar information, adding that reshoots were currently taking place on 'Life' that week (whether they were with the principal actors was unknown) and that the film would likely not appear at Cannes -- as was rumored -- because the picture is about a year away from completion and maybe a year and half away total. Our sources also told us they had not heard of any third film.

More proof, managing creative director of Wildscreen Festival Nigel Ashcroft's bio used to say, "Currently Nigel is working on 2 major projects with legendary film director, Terrence Malick. As well as producing an extensive natural history segment for Malick’s latest feature film, The Tree of Life starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, they are making an Imax film entitled The Voyage of Time. Both are due to release at the end of 2009." But now all references to 'Voyage' have been removed.

However, due at the end of 2009? We wonder how old that info is. The source we spoke to was just a week ago. Meanwhile, Malick has also reportedly chosen to shoot parts of his new film on 65mm negatives (the IMAX footage is obvioulsy shot in 70mm).

If you've read this old 1995 article (http://www.eskimo.com/%7Etoates/malick/art5.html) about a Malick project called, "Q," it's quite evident that "Tree Of Life" and "Voyage of Time," are the same project, but heavily evolved and mutated over the years.

http://awood.cl/esp/filmar4.php
http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4534&start=75
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ©brad on March 23, 2009, 10:42:00 AM
I worked with an editor recently who assisted another editor on the New World, and he said Terrence (or Terry as he called him) doesn't watch serious movies, ever. The reason why I got was a tad vague, but apparently he's afraid watching other serious works would disrupt his process or influence his own choices in a negative way. He prefers to watch silly, bubble-gum stuff (hence his love for Zoolander).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on March 23, 2009, 02:42:12 PM
wasn't herzog the one who loved zoolander? or is it both?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: hedwig on March 24, 2009, 02:13:32 AM
i don't know about the herzog, but malick definitely loves zoolander. if i recall, seth rogen found out from david gordon green during the filming of pineapple express.

oh and about this tree of life/voyage of time stuff. JESUS. i can't believe this is happening now and i'm alive for it. this is the type of shit i'm supposed to read about and think "wow, it must have been amazing to be alive when that happened." HOW IS THIS HAPPENING?  :shock: :shock: :shock:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: private witt on March 24, 2009, 02:55:56 AM
If somebody told me in 2005 that Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio would go Blue and help America elect a black man named Hussein Obama I would have said, "Yeah, right...and Terrance Malick's gonna release two films back to back about dinosaurs."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on March 24, 2009, 10:57:42 AM
oh and about this tree of life/voyage of time stuff. JESUS. i can't believe this is happening now and i'm alive for it. this is the type of shit i'm supposed to read about and think "wow, it must have been amazing to be alive when that happened." HOW IS THIS HAPPENING?  :shock: :shock: :shock:

yeah, it's pretty much a fucking dream, the too good to be true stuff everyone wishes to happen, like that rumor back in the late 90's when Kubrick was making ews and AI back to back, this could be the 2001 of our times.

my only fear is that voyage won't be ready in time for release this year but, if it is...2009 will for sure be the best year in movies since 99...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: private witt on March 26, 2009, 03:55:58 AM
Found this from some kids blog dated 2007, made me laugh:

 Brad Pitt may end up in a Terrence Malick movie, and I may get a jump on things and just start snoring right now. Malick’s movies are good for a nap, but not much else. The New World was about as exciting as being forced to watch Sean Penn talk politics.

Keep at it, slugger.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on March 27, 2009, 06:05:05 AM
I like Malick's style a lot and I own and love 3 of his movies but, correct me if I'm wrong, I read all this talk about : ''this is Malick's decade/century'' and ''I wanna name my son Terrence Malick'' and it seems over-the-top.

Is New World the best movie of the 00s ? Of it's year ? no.
Was the Thin Red Line the best of the nineties? of it's year ? no.
Days of Heaven, tough call but I prefer the Deer Hunter.
I can give him Badlands for 63, but whatever really.

Also barely any of his films are constantly mentioned in people's ''top x ever'' here. Don't give me counterexamples I'm sure some of you did.

So yeah I like Malick a lot and I am excited as fuck about this Tree of Life thing. But I just wanted to point out how it's more fun to love Malick and what he wanted to do than what he's done, no ?

Also ; yes to the person who said this looks like it could be the 2001 of your time. I immediately thought of that too, that very movie. Must be the dinosaurs that reminds us of 2001 and it's apeman.

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on March 28, 2009, 12:15:55 PM
whatever it is - people love his films enough to say those things, so whether or not if you think they're "the best" of whatever category you wanna put it in is not important. 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on March 28, 2009, 02:14:31 PM
New World won Best Film at the Xaxies.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on March 28, 2009, 04:04:42 PM
yes I know pete, and if someone wants to say he's the best at whatever category or time period I'm really fine with it. But make a case for it because it's not obvious that he's better than Kubrick, Orson Welles whatever etc...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on March 28, 2009, 06:12:40 PM
well, nobody said he was.  you cited someone saying she wants to name her kid Malick - that has nothing to do with Kubrick or Orson Welles, that's just someone liking Malick.  then someone said it's the decade/ century of Malick - that has nothing to do with the two you mentioned either, since they're both dead.  So I don't understand this jealousy you have for someone you obviously love as well.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: private witt on March 29, 2009, 06:22:29 AM
Sometimes folks embellish a tad when they say things like, "I'm gonna name my kid Malick", or, "Malick cums pure cinema". 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on March 29, 2009, 09:42:14 AM
So I don't understand this jealousy you have for someone you obviously love as well.

haha good point.

back on topic though, Trumbull was mentioned earlier but in a more recent article I read Mike Fink doing the FX... is Trumbull out? Are they both in ? Are they even doing the same job ?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: rustinglass on March 30, 2009, 03:32:33 PM
probably stupid question:

I never seen an IMAX projection so I don't really get what it is. but will this play on regular theaters?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on March 30, 2009, 07:36:52 PM
yes.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 23, 2009, 03:00:31 PM
Quote
Pell James talks about Terrence Malick’s THE TREE OF LIFE
by Sheila Roberts    Posted:June 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

At today’s press junket for Jennifer Lynch’s new movie “Surveillance”, I was able to ask Pell James some questions about another of her upcoming projects, Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life”. While most directors and movie studios are happy to tell you about an upcoming film, anything involving Terrence Malick is always a mystery, until you see the finished project.

According to Wikipedia, the film stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn and it’s a boy’s journey from the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as a lost soul in the modern world.

Of course, who really knows what it’s about, as there has been talk of dinosaurs in the film. Here’s what special effects guru Mike Fink told Empire a few months back:

“We’re animating dinosaurs, but it’s not Jurassic Park. The attempt is to treat it as if somehow a camera wound up in the middle of these periods when dinosaurs roamed the earth and creatures first started to emerge from the sea onto the land. The first mammals appearing. We’re doing a number of creatures all seriously scientifically based. I think when it’s finished it’ll be something that’s referred to for years.”

While this sounds like it could get pretty crazy, I’m sure Mr. Malick has a plan. Anyhow, while Pell James didn’t reveal too much, if you’re a fan of Mr. Malick’s, I’m sure you’d like to read what she said. It’s after the jump:

Question: Can you talk about The Tree of Life, the new Terrence Malick film?

Pell James: I shot Tree of Life with Terrence Malick which is such a dream. I have no idea when it’s going to come out, but I know I’m in it because he called me and said he didn’t cut me which is really nice because there’s this notorious story that Adrien Brody was going to be the big star and that he was in The Thin Red Line and he had a huge part in it and it was a big coup that he got it and then he got cut… I don’t even know if he had a speaking part in it at the end of the day the way they edited it — not because he wasn’t great but it just didn’t work for what Terrence had in mind and then he did The Pianist so he was fine. So you never know with him. He’s like such a notorious cutter.

How was it working with Terrence and also, can you talk a little bit about your character?

Pell James: I don’t think I can. I have no idea if I can. I meant to call him and ask him but I just didn’t get around to it. He’s pretty amazing to work with. I mean, it was such a dream. He’s one of those people that you have this dream list of people that you want to work with and you never really think that you’re going to end up working with him because God knows if he’s going to do another movie. He’s really doing them back to back now though. The crew was really great. It was in Texas and I had shot a movie in Texas a couple of years ago so it was like, “Hi pal!” Again, it was another kind of family like situation.

I hear rumors there are dinosaurs in The Tree of Life. Is that true?

Pell James: I’ve heard that too. I was not in a scene with a dinosaur. I will confirm that. I Google it like anyone else would because I wouldn’t ever dare ask him. I read the script and there’s very long descriptions of things and this and that. We weren’t exactly sure if the script was what was actually being shot. So, I don’t know but I’m excited.

So you don’t know when Tree of Life is coming out?

Pell James: I Google it all the time to get information. I don’t know. Hopefully soon.

http://www.collider.com/2009/06/15/pell-james-talks-about-terrence-malicks-the-tree-of-life/

LOL. This poor girl sounds TERRIFIED of Terrence Malick.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on August 06, 2009, 07:54:12 PM
'Tree of Life' will get Apparition off the ground
Bob Berney, Bill Pohlad unveil plans for distrib'n venture
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- River Road Entertainment's Bill Pohlad and distribution guru Bob Berney announced their new distribution venture Thursday, saying that the company would be named Apparition and that it would release Terrence Malick's anticipated opus "The Tree of Life."

The company also said it had pacted with Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group for all domestic ancillary rights; the Peter Schlessel division will handle home video and other platforms.

"Life," which River Road is producing, adds to Apparition's previously announced title, the Jane Campion period drama "Bright Star," which premiered at the Festival de Cannes. Apparition said Thursday that Campion's film, which examines the romance between John Keats and Fanny Brawne in the 19th century, would open on Sept. 18, shortly after its North American premiere at the Toronto international Film Festival.

Malick's fifth film and first since 2005's colonial drama "The New World," "Life" has been the subject of much speculation in filmmaker and fan circles. Some believe the movie, which stars Sean Penn and Brad Pitt, to be a coming-of-age tale set in the Midwest, where Malick comes from. Apparition did not announce a date for the pic, which Malick has been editing for some time.

Several of the execs and staff members who will be working at Apparition were announced on Thursday, including Picturehouse acquisitions veteran Sara Rose, as well as Dan Lange, Bill Thompson and John Lange in the distribution department and Jeanne R. Berney, Kirk Iwanowski and Molly Albright in marketing.

Pohlad and Berney created the new theatrical releasing company to be what a statement described as a "fiercely independent, artist friendly distributor."

Pohlad, a financier and producer whose River Road is behind movies such as "Into the Wild" and upcoming Joan Jett pic "The Runaways," said that the pair were building a company that has "a sensitivity and passion for the work as well as an ability to bring it to the marketplace with ingenuity and creativity."

Berney has a reputation for taking filmmaker-driven fare and connecting it to diverse audiences. In previous guises he helped turn structurally complex mystery "Memento," Mel Gibson historical drama "The Passion of the Christ" and ethnic-flavored comedy "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" into breakout hits.

At Picturehouse, the company he founded in 2005 as a joint venture between HBO Films and New Line, he scored with movies such as Guillermo del Toro's historical fantasy "Pan's Labyrinth" and Edith Piaf biopic "La Vie En Rose." Time Warner disbanded Picturehouse in the spring of 2008,

Berney said Apparition's goal would be discernment on the acquisitions front and careful strategic thinking on the distribution side.

"Bill and I are creating a company where the art of filmmaking is truly a priority," he said. ""The birth of a new company that works in concert with artists while employing creative marketing strategies is a winning combination and is the essence of Apparition."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on August 16, 2009, 09:42:59 AM
according to the new EW this will be released Dec 25.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Kal on August 16, 2009, 06:34:48 PM
according to the new EW this will be released Dec 25.

Yes that is accurate.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on August 16, 2009, 06:56:53 PM
according to the new EW this will be released Dec 25.

Yes that is accurate.
i will also confirm mod's post.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on August 16, 2009, 07:07:53 PM
Yeah, thank god we've got kal here to keep everything in order.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Kal on August 16, 2009, 08:44:48 PM
Yeah, thank god we've got kal here to keep everything in order.

I would never leave you boys alone.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on August 17, 2009, 04:20:21 PM
¡¡¡¡:multi:!!!!


hope we can see a trailer soon..
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on October 15, 2009, 10:49:41 AM
'Tree Of Life' Officially NOT Coming Out In 2009; Oscar Field Diminshes By One More
Source: The Playlist

"But Pa, Christmas just won't be the same this year without Mr. Malick's tree!"

Guess those "unsubstantiated" rumors were correct. And yes, you'll scream, "gee shocker," but it's finally been confirmed as we kind of assumed. Terrence Malick's "Tree Of Life" is officially incomplete and will not be coming in 2009.

The originally scheduled December 25 date was evidently wishful thinking and Apparition — the studio who is putting out the film — hasn't even seen the movie yet. “It’s definitely not going to come out this year,” Apparition head Bob Bearney told Anne Thompson today. Malick has always taken his time making movies and has apparently been futzing around in the editing room for more than a year (this thing was shot more than two years ago, at least).

Oscar prognosticators take note as this changes the game though at this point, not many of them (including us) have been banking on it.

The last rumors we heard said the filmmakers would try and aim for the 2010 Cannes Film Festival in May and that seems to be the basic plan, but even Bearney isn't sure when it will be finished. “I can’t tell you when it will come out,” he said.

"The Tree Of Life" stars Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain. For more on the semi-mysterious plot details, see many, many of our back stories, but it's essentially a life-spanning father-son drama that seems to revolved around daddy issues, forgiveness and grieving. And seemingly grief over the death of a parent the character has contentiously mixed feelings for (if we've got this right, Penn plays the father and Brad Pitt plays the son grown up many years later). A second film to accompany it will also likely hit in 2010 and it's more of a mystical and panoramic wildlife documentary (or something) called, "Voyage of Time" that will be presented in IMAX and chronicles the "the birth and death of the universe." Yes, it sounds bizarre and that's because it is.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on October 15, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/fbv/claydavis.jpg)

shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit


well, at least they also mentioned voyage of time, i started to think it was a dream.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on October 15, 2009, 01:33:58 PM
thought i was gonna get trailer of life.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on October 15, 2009, 01:57:29 PM
I know the wait is always worth it, but come on.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on March 02, 2010, 11:04:10 PM
Terrence Malick's 'Tree of Life' Confirmed For A November Release Date

A few rumors have been making the rounds of late regarding Terrence Malick's long-gestating "The Tree of Life" starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn.

One, the film will come out in November and two, the film, might not be ready for Cannes 2010 and might instead hit the fall film festival.

Well, apparently those rumors are on the money or at least half right. Anne Thompson spoke to Apparition's Bob Bearney today, and confirms that indeed, the picture will hit the U.S. in November and, “that doesn’t mean it won’t be ready for Cannes,” Bearney says as has been speculated by many.

Are we reading into that comment too much? To us and what we've heard and been told, as of right now, it seems up in the air whether 'Tree of Life' will be ready in the sense that nothing, not even Cannes, can rush Terrence Malick. It probably won't become clearer until closer to the festival itself and surely, they'd leave a last minute spot available for Malick should a last minute delivery be the case.

Meanwhile, another recent rumor is that the film will have a release date of May 12 in France, but if it's officially coming out in the U.S. in November as confirmed by the guy who runs the distribution company, we highly, highly doubt they'd release it in other parts of the world that far in advance. In fact, we'd bet all the money in the world against it.

Lastly, Christian Bale (who had a role in Malick's 2005 film, "The New World"), Javier Bardem, Rachel McAdams, and Olga Kurylenko are all on board for an untitled romantic drama that Malick will evidently begin filming this fall. If that actually happens (and don't necessarily bet on it) it would probably be the fastest back-to-back projects Malick has ever done. God, we hope it does happen, that cast under Malick sounds tremendous.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on April 14, 2010, 10:24:12 AM
sorry, still no trailer.

Brad Pitt Talks Tree Of Life
Exclusive news on Terrence Malick's next


Terrence Malick's Tree Of Life is rumoured to be featured in the Cannes Film Festival line-up for this year that's set to be announced tomorrow - but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who knows much about the film. That's why we are thrilled to be able to share a few tidbits that Brad Pitt let slip about the film he calls "a bit ambitious", which may enlighten you a little further.

When we asked him if this was a science fiction film (yes, even that is in doubt), Pitt replied, "Well, in a way. It's this little tiny story of a kid growing up in the 50s with a mother who's grace incarnate and a father who's oppressive in nature. So he is negotiating his way through it, defining who he's gonna be when he grows up. And that is juxtaposed with a little, tiny micro-story of the cosmos, from the beginning of the cosmos to the death of the cosmos. So that's where the sci-fi – or the sci-fact – comes in."

Pitt also confirmed that Heath Ledger was originally set for a role in the film. "He was gonna do it at one point, and then he was puling out for one reason or another, and we were involved ["we" meaning Pitt's production company Plan B], so I just stepped in."

And what could he tell us about the famously secretive Malick? "That's he's famously secretive!"



so that would mean there's no 2nd film (voyage of time)? it's incorporated into the movie, either way I cant fucking wait.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on April 14, 2010, 10:37:59 AM
wowoww i love hearing anything about this film.

Pitt's description made me laugh cos it didn't clear up jack shit! well actually it did clear something up for me. i think malick is a fan of annie hall (not a big call cos that's like top 5 movies of all time right), but the plot of Tree Of Life sounds exactly like the kind of movie that a young alvy singer would love.. actually it sounds like a movie made out of that one scene in the doctor's office only it's not a comedy.

i'm talking about the scene where a young alvy (growing up in the 40s, so it's close there too) stops doing his homework because the universe is expanding and eventually the universe will end. and his mum is like "you're here in brooklyn. brooklyn is not expanding!" hahaha, Tree of Life is that kids life story told with occasional glimpses of the one pesky fact that never leaves his mind.

but seriously, this film will cause mass enlightenment.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on April 19, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
wowoww i love hearing anything about this film.

me too.

this is from some random guy in a forum that claims there was a secret screening in austin, seems to be real and doesn't spoil a thing.

Quote
[Malick] screened it to an audience of about thirty, and it's literally 97% done. Our boss was able to see it, and called it the best film of his since “Badlands.” Emmanuel Lubezki was in attendance, as was some vfx gurus (one of which was my boss).

It will not make Cannes. The visual effects aren't done, but the footage that we've worked on is near complete. The reason for the delay in post is because of the amount of detail IMAX 70 MM requires. I can assure you that the results are worth the wait.

Our house is referring to [the 70MM IMAX footage] as “Voyage of Time.” I don't know if it will be a separate documentary. Terrence has made sure that we work on footage without knowing too much of the plot or reason behind it. It's always about a feeling or an emotion. He is definitely the most interesting director we've had the pleasure of working with, and probably the only who's interacted with the digital artists themselves. He has never settled for results less than immaculate, but is humble and patient about it.

found here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44711


can any of our xixaustinites confirm there was indeed a screening???
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on April 19, 2010, 02:03:03 PM
If there was I'm hurt that I wasn't invited.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on April 26, 2010, 08:07:10 AM
TCM Festival: Hollywood Visionary Douglas Trumbull Working on Terrence Malick Movie
Source: Vanity Fair

The "Star Gate" sequence from Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, designed by Douglas Trumbull.

Hollywood is littered with the bodies of creative people who had a great idea about 10 minutes too early. Douglas Trumbull is one of those people, only he has had about a dozen brilliant ideas that were premature by decades.

The visual effects pioneer who helped Stanley Kubrick realize his ambitious vision for 2001: A Space Odyssey, Trumbull made a rare appearance at the Turner Classic Movies Film Festival in Hollywood in conjunction with a screening of a 70mm print of the science-fiction epic. In a frank, reflective, two-hour discussion, Trumbull confirmed that he worked on a new Terrence Malick film, his first feature credit in 27 years. Trumbull also shared his views on Avatar and showed fascinating clips from a making-of documentary called 2001: Beyond the Infinite.

"I'm tired of talking about 2001," Trumbull confessed to a crowd of about 75 people at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel who had gathered to hear him do just that. While working for Kubrick at age 23, Trumbull was sent on errands into London in the director's Bentley to retrieve objects needed for the ground-breaking effects. His most significant contribution to the film was the psychedelic tunnel of colored light called the Star Gate sequence. After 2001's release in 1968, Trumbull worked on Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner and Star Trek: The Movie, and directed two sci-fi films of his own, 1972's Silent Running and 1983's Brainstorm.

Kubrick wanted 2001 to be a first-person experience about being in space, Trumbull said, and the director designed the film for a 90-foot screen. As a result of his experience on the movie, Trumbull became enthralled by the possibilities of giant screens just as grand movie palaces were giving way to multiplexes. "The palettes for immersive experiences went away right after I got entranced by the whole thing," he said. Nevertheless Trumbull was a hot young commodity in Hollywood after 2001, and he directed the eco-sci fi film Silent Running, starring a young Bruce Dern and a robot that was a clear inspiration for R2-D2. George Lucas tried to hire Trumbull to helm the effects on Star Wars, but Trumbull turned him down. "That would have changed the direction of my life," he said. But I had my own career path. Trumbull went on to create various prescient moviemaking technologies with names like Magicam and Showscan. He worked constantly on immersive, dynamic entertainment experiencesa predecessor to IMAX, 3-D video games, Universal Studios' Back to the Future ride.

It was after directing Brainstorm, a film that was meant to be a debut for the Showscan technique, that Trumbull abruptly left Hollywood. In 1981, with photography nearly finished, star Natalie Wood died before shooting a crucial scene. The picture hung in limbo for two years until Trumbull completed it using body doubles, and without Showscan, which the studio wasnt ready to take a chance on after all. That experience drove me out of this industry, he said. The lawyers, the insurance companies, the creeps. Trumbull moved to Massachusetts, where he has lived for the last 27 years.

The Malick project will be Trumbull's first feature credit since Brainstorm. Malick is working on two films, a long-awaited cosmic family drama starring Brad Pitt called Tree of Life, and an accompanying IMAX movie. Like most who work with the notoriously secretive director, Trumbull was reluctant to discuss the project. But he hinted at a retro style of visual effects: "Terry is a friend," Trumbull said. "He said to me, 'I don't like CG.' I said, 'Why not do it the old way? The way we did it in 2001?'" Trumbull said he also has two modestly priced sci-fi fantasy movies of his own in stages of development. And there is the 2001 documentary, made in partnership with author David Larson, who has spent years digging through the Kubrick Archive in London, unearthing artwork, photographs, and memos. The clips of the documentary Trumbull showed bring back the computer HAL as a character that takes viewers through the artifacts. But Trumbull, for reasons he declined to discuss, is pessimistic about the documentary ever making it to audiences.

Trumbull's tone in the talk varied from awe over the potential of movies as a technological art form to dismay over the reality of Hollywood as a smotherer of innovation and creativity. "I spent my life on the fringes trying to be a normal director," he said. "You do that at your peril. Studios don't want to know that you're a geek." But Trumbull was moved by the recent work of another geek auteur—he called Avatar "a technology-enabled out-of-body experience." Trumbull's work in 2001 heavily influenced James Cameron: the tunnel of light humans pass through to inhabit their avatar bodies owes an obvious debt to the Star Gate sequence. And what Cameron has done with Avatar—create an immersive cinematic experience—is what Douglas Trumbull has been doing his entire career. He was just a few decades early.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 26, 2010, 09:22:29 AM
production still

(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/2009/tol2008.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on May 26, 2010, 09:36:38 AM
interesting.

but i always find production stills pretty useless, they're usually taken from a totally different position and frame than the final footage. so what you get is a nice view of the set decoration and not much else. from this shot i can surmise that i have no idea who those two ppl are. the guy might be spazzing out, and she's saying "just sit down here Billy.. there's this chair and there's that chair.. this chair and that chair... this chair and that chair.." as her hand clutches and releases each chair in turn.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: KJ on June 12, 2010, 05:56:50 AM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/more/2009/brad_pitt-terrence-malick.jpg)

Is that Brad Pitt? And Terrence Malick? With matching outfits? INSANE  :shock:

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: squints on June 12, 2010, 01:51:48 PM
This is the absolute best of your sixty-nine posts. Ha.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on June 12, 2010, 02:02:28 PM
wow.. suddenly the number of malick pictures has DOUBLED. and his head seems to be genuinely bigger than normal heads. i don't think i've ever seen him without a hat.

(http://photo.wenn.com/get_preview.php?id=5550374)
(http://photo.wenn.com/get_preview.php?id=5550346)
(http://photo.wenn.com/get_preview.php?id=5550339)

he can't even fit it behind a folder!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: KJ on June 12, 2010, 02:23:44 PM
Well, I'm not surprised really. Of course he has a enormous head. And it just grows and grows and grows and grows grows and grows.....
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on June 15, 2010, 12:21:37 PM
Looks really good and it makes me have a small crush on Sofia Terry. Brad Pwho?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on July 01, 2010, 12:17:23 PM
Apparition Undergoes Restructuring; Will 'The Tree Of Life' Get A Late 2010 Release?

We were worried when just before Cannes, Apparition co-founder Bob Berney resigned, leaving the indie house in a state of flux. Our fears featured a slight uptick when last week, it was revealed that Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group moved the film "Welcome To The Rileys," starring Kristen Stewart and James Gandolfini, to Samuel Goldwyn. Apparition had initially been set to distribute the film after striking a deal at Sundance and with all this moving and shaking, we began to wonder what the fate of Terrence Malick's "The Tree Of Life" might be. Well, the good news is that the film is still at Apparition, who are now restructuring; the bad news is that when we might get to see the film is still up in the air.

The first steps of Apparition's restructuring are difficult. They have laid off 60% of their staff and will be relocating their offices from New York to Los Angeles. Additionally, Bill Pohlad has enlisted ex-Lionsgate president Tom Ortenberg, once rumored as a replacement for Berney, to help with the transition and more importantly, assist in planning the release for "The Tree Of Life." But when that will happen seems to be anybody's guess.

While Deadline say the film is being prepped for a late 2010 Oscar contending release, Anne Thompson is less optimistic. She reiterates previous reports that the film is not guaranteed to be ready to for the Venice Film Festival, and more dishearteningly says that "Apparition has no firm release plan" though a late 2010 release is their target.

But there are signs of hope. Back in April, it was reported the film was 97% done and just a couple of weeks ago, Malick and Brad Pitt were seen palling around in Los Angeles where, apparently, he was overlooking FX work and cutting a trailer for the film. But Malick is a perfectionist and it won't be done until he's ready. So until then, we wait......

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/06/apparition-undergoes-restructuring-will.html
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on July 07, 2010, 08:54:17 AM
Malick's 'Tree of Life' gets rated... with a bit of a twist
Source: Rope of Sillicon

Today's MPAA ratings deliver one of the most interesting updates to date and not because of the rating but because Terrence Malick's long delayed The Tree of Life has an MPAA rating and instead of listing Apparition as the distributor it lists Cottonwood Pictures, Inc., which is actually the production company.

I put a phone call into the MPAA and they were able to confirm this is Malick's picture, it is finished in terms of music, effects, etc. and it was screened for the Ratings Board within the last of couple of weeks. I wasn't able to get information on a running time and they also have no additional information in terms of how the film will be handled, but in light of recent reports Apparition was being restructured and Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group moving the Kristen Stewart and James Gandolfini feature Welcome To The Rileys from Apparition to Samuel Goldwyn there is no telling what this means for Tree of Life.

Rated PG-13 For some thematic material.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on July 23, 2010, 06:24:49 PM
Tree Of Life Synopsis
Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Light Spoilers

A friend has read an early draft of Terrence Malick's Tree of Life  script "and here's what I can tell you, other than that it's wonderful," he writes. "Of course, there is a very good chance that the finished film will look nothing like this, given Malick's track record. But it really does appear to have borrowed not just a page, but several whole chapters from 2001: A Space Odyssey's book.

Probably More Major Spoilers

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/07/tree_of_life_sy.php

 :shock: :shock: :shock:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ono on July 24, 2010, 01:00:21 PM
That seems much more grand than even 2001, and calls to mind a bit of Adaptation. as well.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on July 26, 2010, 12:38:11 PM
http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/07/we-read-it-details-on-terrence-malicks.html
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 03, 2010, 04:57:39 PM
Malick's "Tree of Life" Still Not Ready


By Garth Franklin
Source: Dark Horizons
Monday August 2nd 2010 05:47AM



Filmmaker Terrence Malick does not like being rushed, so much so the directors of both the Venice Film Festival and Toronto Film Festival aren't holding their breath that his latest film, "The Tree of Life", will make it to their fests.

“None of us really expects that to happen at this point… It would be a lovely surprise, but we’re not holding our breath. We know he’s definitely still working on the film, and he’s tired of being pushed by people. We’ve backed off and Venice has backed off" TIFF co-director Cameron Bailey told The Toronto Star (via The Playlist).

'Tree' scored a PG-13 rating last month and was said to be near completion a while back, then again Malick is famous for working on and editing his films right up until the last minute.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on August 05, 2010, 02:14:37 PM
"Tree of Life" Not Ready Now, Either

By Garth Franklin
Source: Dark Horizons
Monday August 2nd 2010 05:48AM


Just checked. Not ready.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pwaybloe on August 05, 2010, 03:42:36 PM
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSp7kPaeCYvMFSyahzHPKM-OEc8hqkPxv_0nINJ6gUcbHAyWNo&t=1&usg=__qKnl2fAbibSF2yjeLUZyOUyz9sg=)

Still not ready.  3:52 left.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on August 05, 2010, 03:52:02 PM
When I was really young and didn't fully understand what different units of time meant, whenever I would get fussy on car trips, my parents would say "We'll be there in half an hour," no matter how far away we were, and I would somehow be placated by that.

Tree of Life will be ready in half an hour.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on August 05, 2010, 04:39:37 PM
"Tree of Life" Trailer to debut soon on the nets.

By Garth Franklin
Source: Dark Horizons
Monday August 2nd 2010 06:18AM


Expect it real soon, like half hour soon.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: 72teeth on August 06, 2010, 04:52:02 AM
bullSHIT
t
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on August 06, 2010, 01:23:01 PM
Can't they just release what they have now and finish the rest for the unrated director's cut DVD?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on August 20, 2010, 08:51:22 AM
(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/August%202010/tolpenn2.jpg) (http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb52/The_Playlist/August%202010/tolpenn1.jpg)

'The Tree Of Life' Should Open By End Of Year, "Will Change The Language Of Cinema," New Set Photos Surface
Source: ThePlaylist

Terrence Malick's long-awaited "The Tree of Life" had been expected by many to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival this year. But Cannes came and went with no sign of the film, so most shifted their expectations a little, suggesting the film would make its debut at Venice, Toronto, Telluride or New York. Some have even predicted a Rome Film Festival premiere, after Malick appeared there in 2007 for a rare Q&A. Guessing when Malick's film would appear has become a parlour game among film fans to rank alongside "What does the end of 'Inception' mean?' and 'How much worse can M. Night Shyamalan get?'

Todd McCarthy of Indiewire, who's on the selection panel for the New York Film Festival this year, reported a couple of days ago that he believed that the film wouldn't even open this year, and would most likely premiere at Cannes in 2011, leaving most of us a little deflated. But now, his Indiewire colleague Anne Thompson has seemingly talked to some sources within the film's distributor Apparition, and the news is a little better.

Following the departure of his Apparition colleague Bob Berney a few months ago, the distributor's owner Bill Pohlad owner hired a consultant, Tom Ortenberg, a veteran of Lionsgate and the Weinstein Company, to aid in the release (and presumably the Oscar campaign) which means that the company's staff are more or less on hold until "The Tree of Life" is released. With that in mind, holding the release until next year is a bit like putting money in a bin and setting it on fire, so Thompson believes that it will hit before December 31st.

However, even with that in mind, it doesn't seem like a dead cert. Thompson's source claims that Malick's still trying to cut the film down, from three hours to two and a half (including letting students at the University of Texas at Austin try their hand at editing; if that's not a film school recommendation, we don't know what is), and Apparition boss Pohlad, who's apparently "indecisive... cautious and slow," is seemingly loathe to rush him.

The best news, however, from a source who's seen the film, is that it seems to be pretty extraordinary -- Thompson passes on that "It's a mystical exploration of the meaning of life, a journey in which a microcosm of a family mirrors the world; the differences between man and woman, husband and wife, are mirrored against nature and grace. It will change the language of movies. It's a real event. People will say 'what the fuck is this?'" Furthermore, the performances of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are both said to be awards worthy.

This all seems to suggest that it's delivered on the promise we saw when we took a look at the script not so long ago. We're pretty convinced that the film will arrive, at least in limited release, before the end of the year. For one thing, it has scheduled release dates in some parts of the world. Mel Gibson's company, Icon, is handling it in Australia and the UK, and it's scheduled for December 26th in Australia, and for January 28th in the UK; these could well move, but there'll be a lot of pressure from international partners for the film to be completed before then.

Furthermore, Malick's meant to be shooting his untitled romantic drama with Ben Affleck and Rachel Weisz (and potentially Javier Bardem, Rachel McAdams and Olga Kurylenko too) in Oklahoma at the beginning of October, so he has to wrap it up by then, surely? It is worth remembering, however, that, even after "The New World" hit theaters, Malick continued to tinker with the film, releasing a new cut a few weeks later. We're sure another update will inevitably follow soon, so, as ever, we'll keep you posted...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on August 20, 2010, 10:02:16 AM
Malick's still trying to cut the film down, from three hours to two and a half (including letting students at the University of Texas at Austin try their hand at editing; if that's not a film school recommendation, we don't know what is).

That's really cool!  What an amazing opportunity!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on September 03, 2010, 11:59:22 AM
SPOILS Y'ALL

Elements Of 'Tree Of Life' Compared To '2001: A Space Odyssey' In Early Screening; Picture Could Still Be 3 Hours
Source: ThePlaylist

Are you sick of hearing about Terrence Malick's long-gestating "Tree Of Life" in that you just want to stop reading about it and you just want to see the damn thing already?

Join the crowd. But everytime we swear up and down that we're not going to write about the picture anymore, something pops up that piques our interest once more. But we'll keep it brief. An early screening of the film recently took place... somwhere, we assume Austin since that's where Malick lays his hat and one of the people in attendance has posted on the HomeTheater web forum. Don't worry there's not too many spoilers if you're a die-hard and have been reading every little thing about this film, however, if you're not one of those people, buyer beware. The key take aways: the "creation" section of the film (remember it's partly about the creation of the universe and briefly features dinosaurs) reminds this viewer of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey" (the thought of this gives us a huge cinema boner), it's 3 hours long (at least in this version, though that could change) and this guy thinks the film will come out in October. We're guessing last minute December ala, "The New World" which was released down to the wire so it would at least qualify for Oscar (and of course, Malick kept tooling with it afterwards and shaved down the running time for the wide January theatrical release). Will Brad Pitt garner an Oscar for his work in the film? Read more below.

   Saw TREE OF LIFE the other night at work and it really is amazing. Hypnotic, more like. I won't give anything about it away here, but yes it is long and there has already been talk in the news about Malick releasing it, then re-cutting it, then re-releasing it, etc.

    The main bulk of the film is about his childhood growing up in Texas (reels 3-7 out of 9!). The "creation" footage is outstanding, absolutely jawdropping, and does indeed feel like 2001 - a lot of the effects are practical and your eyes can see that, which makes it really fascinating to watch. I don't have a problem with the creation footage being connected to his boyhood, after all, most boys love dinosaurs, so that's how I looked at it.

    The story is framed around the death of his middle brother (in Korea?? We never know) and is a reflection on the circle of life, the evolution of life out of the mess of the Big Bang, but also about life itself (the strained relationship with his severe father, a stunning performance by Brad Pitt, just stunning), and the end of the Universe. I still haven't given anything away that hasn't already been said in the press. The film just has to be seen to be believed! One feels like a child again, seeing the world through young wide eyes.

    Yes, it is finished! I believe it releases in October but it may be a limited release. And yes again it's about 3 hours! There is talk of a cut down version, which Malick did for New World as well, but nothing confirmed.


The film also stars Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Joanna Going and Fiona Shaw. Malick is evidently gearing up his next picture which is either shooting now in secret or is in full-on pre-production, so that definitely is a good sign that 'TOL' is complete.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on September 09, 2010, 11:25:54 AM
Fox Searchlight Acquires Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life
Source: Fox Searchlight Pictures

Fox Searchlight Pictures Presidents Stephen Gilula and Nancy Utley announced today that the company has acquired U.S. rights from River Road Entertainment to the epic drama The Tree of Life. Written and directed by Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life stars Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain. The film was produced by Bill Pohlad, Sarah Green, Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, and Grant Hill. Fox Searchlight Pictures will release the film in 2011.

"Terrence Malick has crafted a deeply moving, keenly observed and magisterial film," said Utley and Gilula. "Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and the entire cast's performances are simply amazing. This is a signature film by a signature filmmaker and we are proud to be releasing it."

"Terry Malick has given us another masterpiece that is both profoundly moving and stunningly beautiful," said Pohlad. "And there is no better partner than Fox Searchlight to bring this film to audiences. Their ability to distribute and market independent films with a passion and creativity is incredibly rare in our industry."

From the acclaimed director of such classic films as Badlands, The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven, The Tree of Life is the impressionistic story of a Midwestern family in the 1950's chronicling the journey of the eldest son, Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn), through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years - trying to reconcile the complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: I Love a Magician on September 09, 2010, 11:44:11 AM
how many people just DYING to see this movie will actually die before it comes out
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on September 09, 2010, 05:00:55 PM
Fox Searchlight Pictures will release the film in 2011.

that truly sucks, and if fox wants to do a damn oscar push, it's a wait of more than a year til we see it. fuck!

how many people just DYING to see this movie will actually die before it comes out

haha, i've thought about that, I hope im not among them.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on September 09, 2010, 09:37:25 PM
how many people just DYING to see this movie will actually die before it comes out

As long as it plays at a local beach or camping site, I don't think we'll miss it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on September 10, 2010, 01:59:45 AM
^LOL
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Tictacbk on September 10, 2010, 02:40:52 AM
a friend of a friend actually just saw a screening of this and took this still of it with his cell:


(http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/loch_ness_monster_580x.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on September 10, 2010, 02:44:17 AM
HAHAHAH

I knew it had dinosaurs!

Let's all agree that picture isn't real and is just one of Terry's old Texas college football buddies in a suit.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on October 04, 2010, 02:38:55 PM
New/Old 'The Tree Of Life' France Release Date Rumor Circulates, Film To Premiere At Berlin Fest?
Source: The Playlist

A new/old rumor is beginning to circulate around the web that Terrence Malick's highly anticipated "The Tree Of Life" is scheduled to hit theaters in France on February 23, 2011. We're not sure why this particular rumor is building steam now; EuropaCorp president Pierre-Ange Le Pogam made the comment regarding the release date last month shortly after Fox Searchlight acquired the film. While the date has been given fresh life thanks to a tweet by Cédric Succivalli aka OnTheCroisette who speculates that if it does hit theaters in late February, a Berlin Film Festival bow is most likely for the premiere, whether that's correct remains to be seen. International dates for the film have been floated since last summer (previously scheduled dates for Australia and the UK can still be found if you dig) but they have pretty much been placeholders as everyone has waited for Malick to finish the film. It also should be noted that on the Europacorp website, "The Tree Of Life" remains listed simply as "Coming Soon." It's more probable that Fox Searchlight and the producers are working with international territories on a rollout that will, most likely, involve the likes of Brad Pitt and Sean Penn stumping for the film. And frankly, while the film may be highly anticipated to Malick fans, enticing a more mainstream audience to a cerebral film about "nature vs. grace" will need its stars talking it up. Particularly in a film where Brad Pitt plays against type. That said, while release dates are still to be ironed out, a Berlin Film Festival premiere is not without precedent. "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World" both premiered at the festival, however, will Fox Searchlight choose to unveil the high profile, star powered film by one of the world's most celebrated directors there, when more prestigious festivals like Cannes are aching for it? As Anne Thompson noted last month, Cannes, Berlin and Sundance are all vying to land the film. So we'll end this story with the one fact we do know: "The Tree Of Life" will hit theaters sometime in 2011.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on October 22, 2010, 12:38:02 PM
‘The Tree Of Life’ Gets May 27, 2011 Release Date
Cannes Film Festival Premiere Now Likely
Source: ThePlaylist

Ok, mark your calendars, tell your friends you’ll be busy that day and prepare. Terrence Malick‘s long-awaited and highly anticipated “The Tree Of Life” has officially been scheduled with a May 27, 2011 release date.

We were honestly expecting to wait until next fall for this one, but the late spring limited release is an interesting move. Last we heard Berlin, Sundance and Cannes were all battling to land the premiere of the film, but if we had to guess, we think the May release date makes it a no-brainer for a Cannes premiere. Malick doesn’t do a lot of press and a Cannes premiere will allow him and the cast to do world press all in one shot, and then have the film hit theaters five days after the festival closes on May 22nd.

Of course, this means that any Oscar considerations are a bit more difficult. The Academy has brutally short memories for films released before September, but if the film is truly a stunner, it shouldn’t be too much of an issue. And really, Malick’s name alone isn’t one that will slip easily from the minds of voters if the film is the cinematic game changer early buzz has built it up to be.

Just as a refresher, “The Tree Of Life” stars Sean Penn, Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain and is a decades-spanning tale about a father/son relationship and also the mysteries of the universes. It also might have dinosaurs (!?). We love you Terry. Can’t wait.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on October 22, 2010, 12:58:51 PM
great news even if it's a limited release, hmm summer release...well almost by a month, last time a film like this had a similar slot was EWS.

tree would be against films like:
Hangover 2, kung fu panda 2, and the comic movies of the summer, green lantern, cap'n america, etc.


I hope we get a trailer by the end of 2010.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on November 01, 2010, 11:07:26 AM
Interview with Jessica Chastain from Movieline (http://www.movieline.com/2010/11/jessica-chastain-on-jolene-tree-of-life-and-breaking-through-with-terrence-malick.php?page=2)...

Tree of Life puts you in a very estimable — and rare — class of talent that’s worked with Terrence Malick. Considering you’re a researcher, how did you prepare for that experience?
When I heard I had the audition, I watched every single one of Terrence Malick’s films in chronological order the day before I went in. He definitely has a style that’s all his own, and it definitely put in me in that world. Then I went in to audition, and that was the beginning of this long journey to get the part. He wasn’t there, but then afterward — after he saw the tape — I went to Texas to meet him. It was a lot about watching his other films; he loves this very subtle kind of acting that doesn’t really feel like acting. It’s just being. And for my character… [Pauses] Oh, gosh. I’m trying to figure out how to answer this question without upsetting anyone. I play a very spiritual character, so I spent a lot of time trying to cultivate that aspect of myself. I went to a spiritual retreat and meditated every day for a week. I read a lot. I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and looked at a lot of paintings of the Madonna. I watched a lot of old Lauren Bacall films to find a slower way of speaking.

Wow.
Yeah, there’s so much.

Yet many actors who’ve worked with Malick have spoken about no matter how much they prepare, a lot of times it doesn’t matter — sometimes to his credit, sometimes not. They could be cut, their characters could be changed… they just don’t know what performance will actually make it to the screen. Did you sense a similar ambiguity, especially once shooting began?
I did not get that sense. I’d been auditioning so much, and when Terry called me and offered me the role, only then was I allowed to read the script. He never even gave me scenes before that. So when I read the script, I realized that the character was an important figure. In a way, as soon as I was cast, I began rehearsing with Terrence Malick, which is phenomenal. I’d have weekly phone calls with him; I went to Austin a couple times before we shot. He was the one who suggested looking at painting of the Madonna at the Metropolitan. I went to Kansas; I went to a farm and saw what that life was like. I worked a voice coach. He was involved every step of the way. Even when we were filming, I was there every day throughout the shoot. So I always felt the presence of who this woman is. It’s important in the film.

But the one thing that you really don’t know is what will make it in the film. You shoot all day when you work with Terry. The only time the camera is not shooting is when they are changing the film — when they’re loading the camera. You get two minutes. You shoot four minutes, and then you get two minutes off while they load. And you shoot again. And it just goes like that all day. It’s not like you do a scene and there’s a “Cut” and then you pick up again. You just go until the film runs out. So you never know what will be in the film. You just try to live your life while you make the film. That’s just the way he makes movies; he doesn’t stop is life while he makes the movie. He continues. And we all become a family on the set. But also, I think our film is different than films like The Thin Red Line because the cast is much smaller. So… I… [Pauses] Gosh, I’m so sorry. I don’t mean to be stuttering so much. I just get nervous when I talk about him! I’m not really supposed to.

I totally understand — he’s Terrence Malick! That said, what would happen? Would he call you? Would he e-mail you? We all know him as this reclusive, private figure; is Malick someone who’d just call you up and say, “Jesus, Jessica…”
He’s not reclusive. He’s an incredibly warm person who’s only reclusive to the press. But every person he meets… I mean, when I met Terry, I felt like I met someone who was going to be my friend. And most people I talked to on the set seemed to feel that way.

What about when you met Brad Pitt?

You know, I was actually more intimidated before I met Brad, just because of what Brad Pitt… [Laughs] means. I mean, you think “Brad Pitt,” and you think, “He’s the biggest movie star alive.” So that was more intimidating. But the first day I met him, he showed up on a motorcycle. He didn’t have anyone around him. He was by himself. He’s incredibly funny and really intelligent. And of course he’s very good looking. But I wouldn’t have known he was a movie star if I lived in some faraway country and just met him. I would think, “Oh, he’s an attractive, funny, intelligent man.” He really presents himself like a regular guy. And he really is.

Is that something you emulate as a young, developing actor yourself? That personality and that disposition on the set?
Yeah. For me, it’s so important when I’m working to have a real connection with people. I don’t understand how it is to be an actor and not have that. Maybe I’m just not good enough, but I can’t fake it that way. I can’t pretend we’re all down-to-earth if I’m working with someone who’s crazy. Thank God I’ve never worked with someone who’s crazy; I wouldn’t know how to do that. To me, it’s so important because this business is so generous with the attention it gives you and the opportunities you get. It’s really important for me to be around people who don’t take the attention seriously. For me it’s not about the attention; it’s about the work. Which is probably why, of those nine films I’ve done, most of them are very small movies with very small budgets but with actors or writers or directors that I really wanted to work with. For me, that’s what it’s about at the end of the day.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on November 03, 2010, 04:26:30 PM
teaser poster:
http://www.collider.com/2010/11/03/the-tree-of-life-movie-poster-synopsis-terrence-malick/
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on November 03, 2010, 04:56:48 PM
FINALLY SOMETHING!!!

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/fbv/The-Tree-Of-Lifeposter.jpg)

at that link mod posted there's also a synopsis of the film, which has some spoilers.

From the Desk of Terrence Malick….

We trace the evolution of an eleven-year-old boy in the Midwest, JACK, one of three brothers.  At first all seems marvelous to the child.  He sees as his mother does with the eyes of his soul.  She represents the way of love and mercy, where the father tries to teach his son the world’s way of putting oneself first.  Each parent contends for his allegiance, and Jack must reconcile their claims.  The picture darkens as he has his first glimpses of sickness, suffering and death.  The world, once a thing of glory, becomes a labyrinth.

From this story is that of adult Jack, a lost soul in a modern world, seeking to discover amid the changing scenes of time that which does not change: the eternal scheme of which we are a part.  When he sees all that has gone into our world’s preparation, each thing appears a miracle—precious, incomparable.  Jack, with his new understanding, is able to forgive his father and take his first steps on the path of life.

The story ends in hope, acknowledging the beauty and joy in all things, in the everyday and above all in the family—our first school—the only place that most of us learn the truth about the world and ourselves, or discover life’s single most important lesson, of unselfish love.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on November 04, 2010, 12:13:29 AM
first of all poster is Spielbergy

secondly since there's

FINALLY SOMETHING!!!

and something else not long behind (aka (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=11291.0)) , whatcha say we FINALLY get Malick his own director's chair, hmmmm?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on November 04, 2010, 02:35:31 AM
I would like a Malick forum. It may not be busy, but it's warranted based on status alone. Maybe a Kubrick/Malick forum?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on November 04, 2010, 05:09:26 AM
FINALLY SOMETHING!!!

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/fbv/The-Tree-Of-Lifeposter.jpg)

at that link mod posted there's also a synopsis of the film, which has some spoilers.

From the Desk of Terrence Malick….

We trace the evolution of an eleven-year-old boy in the Midwest, JACK, one of three brothers.  At first all seems marvelous to the child.  He sees as his mother does with the eyes of his soul.  She represents the way of love and mercy, where the father tries to teach his son the world’s way of putting oneself first.  Each parent contends for his allegiance, and Jack must reconcile their claims.  The picture darkens as he has his first glimpses of sickness, suffering and death.  The world, once a thing of glory, becomes a labyrinth.

From this story is that of adult Jack, a lost soul in a modern world, seeking to discover amid the changing scenes of time that which does not change: the eternal scheme of which we are a part.  When he sees all that has gone into our world’s preparation, each thing appears a miracle—precious, incomparable.  Jack, with his new understanding, is able to forgive his father and take his first steps on the path of life.

The story ends in hope, acknowledging the beauty and joy in all things, in the everyday and above all in the family—our first school—the only place that most of us learn the truth about the world and ourselves, or discover life’s single most important lesson, of unselfish love.

first of all poster is Spielbergy

secondly since there's

FINALLY SOMETHING!!!

and something else not long behind (aka (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=11291.0)) , whatcha say we FINALLY get Malick his own director's chair, hmmmm?
I would like a Malick forum. It may not be busy, but it's warranted based on status alone. Maybe a Kubrick/Malick forum?

thanks for the great ideas fellas, we've actually talked about the same thing for a while now and a bit of an upgrade has been planned for ages but we've been slack.

this teaser poster and the incredibly spoilerful (yet still not incapable of ruining the experience of watching the movie) explanatory note from Malick has definitely made this a top priority again.

new forums coming soon!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on November 04, 2010, 10:08:36 AM
Kubrick shares room with no one!

but agreed on giving him a forum, that would be the tits.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on November 04, 2010, 12:56:45 PM
new forums coming soon!

yabbse-thumbup  : ! :

Kubrick shares room with no one!

however, if you were to mesh the icks the caption could read: Still the one. Plus two.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on November 04, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
^^ or...Still the ones.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on November 07, 2010, 12:42:22 AM
I've said before that I think Pitt is a terrible actor and a complete dumbass/idiot pothead dolt but I think he picks interesting films and filmmakers to work with and always gets through the cracks of the movies he's in.

This is pretty much the ultimate test.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on December 01, 2010, 01:58:36 PM
Supposedly the trailer for this will be attached to all prints of Black Swan this weekend.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on December 01, 2010, 03:42:20 PM
OMG, another reason to hate everyone who will see black swan before I do.

edit:

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/fbv/badtwitnews.jpg)

if true, that's bull shit.

any xixaxer that sees black swan should comment about it, pozer im looking at you.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: I Love a Magician on December 03, 2010, 11:26:08 PM
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7980/6n5.mp4
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on December 04, 2010, 12:27:31 AM
This is bullshit. I watched the cell phone recording of the trailer and wished I didn't.

NOT WORTH IT. JUST WAIT!

What the fuck is Fox Searchlight thinking not putting it up in quicktime and letting it have sex with our eyes and ears?? BIG TIME PHAIL.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on December 04, 2010, 10:11:21 AM
^^ that bad??

in that case I'll sit this one out til there's a decent version, thanks.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on December 04, 2010, 02:40:03 PM
any xixaxer that sees black swan should comment about it, pozer im looking at you.

aw, buddy will do my best. tryin to get some real life people to head out to Hollywood to watch it today. real life missus wants nothing to do with it. i havnt wanted to see a trailer attached to a movie more than the actual movie since like Punch-Drunk Love or something.

also Arclight theater screen is a better candidate for cell phone capture  :o  
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ghostboy on December 04, 2010, 03:09:16 PM
It's pretty cosmic.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: samsong on December 05, 2010, 05:44:19 AM
plans to see black swan fell through and i couldn't deal with the trailer existing and not seeing it, so i caved and watched the cell phone bootleg.  yes it's shitty but i was still pretty much blown the fuck away, making it all the more exciting that, even in that condition, the footage is awe-inspiring and the film's potential for greatness exceeds even the lofty expectations of a malick devotee like myself. 

it will be the greatest film ever made. 

my friend called me after seeing black swan and went apeshit about the trailer, adding only as an afterthought at the end that black swan was, "very good, but whatever."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on December 05, 2010, 10:28:30 AM
i wasn't even going to see black swan until i heard this teaser would play before it, and so there i was at midnight, even though i had to be up in a few hours. black swan was very good but it was basically the movie that played after the tree of life trailer.

malick seems to be shooting childhood with the same sense of awe and wonder that made that opening sequence of the new world so great. looks like it could be a special film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on December 05, 2010, 10:35:10 AM
I finally know what all the hype is about. This movie's gonna kick ass
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Alexandro on December 05, 2010, 02:25:06 PM
beautiful.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gloria on December 05, 2010, 07:03:14 PM
I watched the cell-phone video footage of the trailer (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi8o329-CwY) and, not gonna lie, it looks beautiful -- but it could fall into pretentiousness really easy (a kind of masturbatory, self-indulgent ominousness -- the "all knowing" movie/filmmaker).  But I'm optimistic.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on December 05, 2010, 07:18:29 PM
All Malicks movies are masturbatory and self-indulgent tho. That's what's so great about them. This one doesn't seem any different. If I knew nothing about this and saw that trailer I would peg it as a Malick film. Some of the images and cuts gave me chills even with the awful quality. I can't wait for a better version.

Is that music from the original score or something else?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gloria on December 05, 2010, 07:36:26 PM
I'm hoping it's a good movie, not just a good Malick movie.  Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of his movies -- but there's a lot of potential I can see in this trailer.

Just for you Stefen, I did a quick search and the music is Smetana's "The Moldau" (or "Hatikvah," the Israeli national anthem derived from it) (source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/12/tree-of-life-trailer-terrence-malick-brad-pitt-video-images.html)   :yabbse-grin:  It seemed to fit the trailer nicely.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on December 05, 2010, 07:43:18 PM
Thank you, Gloria.  :) Downloading now.

That review from LA Times was pretty epic. It took longer to read that review of the trailer than it did to actually watch the trailer. Major nerd alarm.  :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on December 05, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
*for those who watched the bootleg*

looks like this will redefine everything he's done so far/bring it all together. 'nature vs. grace'.. boy/man struggling between those worlds as represented by mah/pah... faaaaaahhh. the underwater teddy... the juxtaposition of tap water and waterfalls... a flashlight and the sun.. is that a meteor near the start? FAHHH too excited. he's got a real thing for alligators as well.

EXISTENCE: THE MOVIE
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on December 05, 2010, 11:32:42 PM
I love the contrast between the graceful mother and the hard as nails father. Polar opposites.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on December 06, 2010, 03:28:29 AM
It's a trailer, but considering it's going to get me to drive four hours to see the film on a big screen, it's a pretty god damn good trailer. I just hope when the proper trailer is released in full and more images and info comes out, no one will do any anointing here. Could waste good forum breath on what may be a discussion provoking film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Bethie on December 09, 2010, 01:00:43 AM
a cell phone quality trailer just made my entire year.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on December 11, 2010, 08:21:57 PM
Desplat works hard for the money
Composer raises the bar in the industry
By STEVE CHAGOLLAN

With more than 20 credits over the last three years, composer Alexandre Desplat is borrowing a page from the James Brown handbook and threatening to become perhaps the hardest working man in showbiz.
A lunchtime chat with Variety at the Sunset Marquis was one of a series of interviews he participated in last week in Los Angeles; later that evening he would field questions following screenings of "The Ghost Writer" and "The King's Speech" (he also scored "Tamara Drewe" and the latest "Harry Potter").

At the Ghent Film Festival in October, where he won the top two honors at the World Soundtrack Awards for the second year running, he showed up just in time to collect his laurels before having to jet back to his native Paris for work.

When does he realize how much is too much?

"Last week," answers Desplat without a beat. "I was really tired, and decided to take a break for the first time in a year. After 'Harry Potter' I still had three films to go: Another film by Chris Weitz called 'The Gardener,' which will be released next year, as well as two French films."

That break will last only a few weeks before Desplat rolls up he sleeves on "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2."

The pace doesn't seem to bother him; by Desplat's own admission, he lives like a monk: "I wake up early, go to bed late at night, but I have a good five, six hours of sleep; and I'm very focused."

Adds his manager, Robert Urband: "Would I have him continue on the same trajectory as far as number of movies? Probably not. I think it's hard to maintain that and sustain the momentum continually."

Desplat -- tall, slender and raven-haired at 49 -- is doing what he's dreamed of ever since age 6 when he saw "Spartacus," with its classic score by Alex North, on the bigscreen. His calling card is his diversity and his ability to bring a fresh approach to the most time-worn genres.

"If you dream of one day working with Polanski or Terrence Malick or Stephen Frears, what do you do? 'Oh no, I'm a bit tired?' You just do it."

The Malick project, "The Tree of Life," is one of the most anticipated films of 2011, and Desplat began work on it as far back as 2007. As usual in Malick films, the score shares space with classical cues, in this case Ligeti and Berlioz, among others. Desplat also had to work largely without the benefit of images. He describes his contribution as orchestral, meditative and trance-like.

"(Malick) always told me that the music should be like a river flowing through the film," says Desplat, "and that's what I tried to achieve -- something that flows and never stops, very alive and fluid. He just wants you to create something that maybe he hasn't thought about."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on December 15, 2010, 11:23:17 AM
(http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thetreeoflife/images/poster-xlarge.jpg)

From Terrence Malick, the acclaimed director of such classic films as Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life is the impressionistic story of a Midwestern family in the 1950's. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith. Through Malick's signature imagery, we see how both brute nature and spiritual grace shape not only our lives as individuals and families, but all life.


(http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/home/promos/images/treeoflife_promo_460x228.jpg)

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thetreeoflife/
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on December 15, 2010, 11:59:04 AM
the apple link doesn't work for me, probably too crowded.

this one does:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/watch_the_tree_of_life_trailer_finally_arrives_online_will_blow_your_mind_m/

 :notworthy:

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on December 15, 2010, 12:32:50 PM
Trailer of the decade. It's beautiful.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on December 15, 2010, 01:12:14 PM
Trailer of the decade. It's beautiful.

:yabbse-thumbup: Poz likes this.

so glad i held out for this.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: squints on December 15, 2010, 04:04:07 PM
seriously, you guys.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on December 15, 2010, 05:05:27 PM
Fuck yessss!!! I waited to see this with proper quality and wow. Just... WOW! I may even jerk off at the sight of Sean Penn now.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pwaybloe on December 15, 2010, 06:37:32 PM
Good grief.  Yes, the trailer looks really good, but all of your reactions are hilariously over the top.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on December 16, 2010, 11:37:34 AM
I almost wish this just stayed a trailer forever.  It's so perfect.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: B.C. Long on December 17, 2010, 11:24:25 PM
This almost looks as good as Cowboys and Aliens.


In all seriousness, this looks like the movie to end all movies.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on December 18, 2010, 02:11:50 AM
I guess if we're going to start projecting expectations, what makes me most excited by what I see in the trailer is the clear breath of editing elements available to Malick's use.

From Badlands and Days of Heaven to The New World, he has been happy with his paint brush method of sweeping camera shots and elegant composition sight lines. Of course I short change his accomplishments by restricting my identification to those two peaks, but what he has accomplished in the 1970s was only marginally extended upon in his later films. Of course, the main addition in the Thin Red Line is the play on memory and how he wraps the structure around the organic idea of memory. His use is fine, but other filmmakers used first person camera angles and mixed it with distinct look back at earlier events. It's an old trick. The major addition is that Malick is utilizing his style to do it. Makes the film a little more provoking, but still, I felt more could have been done.

In the New World, at the end of the film, when Pocahontas dies, the film wraps up with a wonderful editing soliloquy on her life. An Indian appears in the back of an elegant English room and the film compartmentalizes a lot of different images together (from her life and surrounding) to be a final breath on her life. It was Malick's most inspired moments of filmmaking for me. I want a film that has that level of ambition throughout. With the way he's going to mix mystical elements of death and past, I feel Tree of Life may be ambitious enough for him to challenge the very core of his directing vision.

He's an exhilarating director in that every inch of his films draws me in to care on some level, but I have been a disenchanted viewer because I always wanted him to challenge the lines of his brush strokes more.  The Thin Red Line has a focused development with creating memory. The New World has an inspired finale. I can see him ready to combine his effects for an entire film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on December 20, 2010, 06:33:07 AM
Fuck yessss!!! I waited to see this with proper quality and wow. Just... WOW! I may even jerk off at the sight of Sean Penn now.

oh yeah you think you liked the trailer the most? Since I saw it I jack off at the sight of 50s-dressed kids!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on December 20, 2010, 10:29:26 AM
I moved house and i won't have internet for another 10 days.

I miss you freaks but more than anything I miss having a place to pontificate on bullshit no one else cares about.

Haven't seen this trailer yet but it will be the first thing I do when I reconnect with the world.

In the meantime.. I called it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on December 20, 2010, 01:47:39 PM
Fuck yessss!!! I waited to see this with proper quality and wow. Just... WOW! I may even jerk off at the sight of Sean Penn now.

oh yeah you think you liked the trailer the most? Since I saw it I jack off at the sight of 50s-dressed kids!

I never thought of Malick as a fluid liberation method until I saw this trailer. But you won this round, sir.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on December 20, 2010, 07:28:40 PM
Fuck yessss!!! I waited to see this with proper quality and wow. Just... WOW! I may even jerk off at the sight of Sean Penn now.

oh yeah you think you liked the trailer the most? Since I saw it I jack off at the sight of 50s-dressed kids!

I never thought of Malick as a fluid liberation method until I saw this trailer. But you won this round, sir.

Haha no but seriously, that trailer is so awesome it doesn't even make sense.

The scene when the kids dance around while being sprayed with DDT will surely but pretty sweet
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on December 22, 2010, 10:41:04 AM
is there anywhere i can download the trailer in HD for later viewing?

.mov file should be 161MB according to apple trailer site..

i wanna watch it for the first time on a big ass tv on my birthday (in 2 days).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on December 22, 2010, 11:26:00 AM
You can download it at Apple
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pwaybloe on December 22, 2010, 12:08:34 PM
You can shoot yourself and see it in heaven (HD).  Or in hell (SD).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ordet on December 22, 2010, 03:54:38 PM
this is amazing! so inspiring, i've watched it like ten times now and it still makes me choke. i feel like i'm in love.  he's gonna be using his old tricks but he does it like no one else. in a sense he's like the american tarkovsky or if kubrick and tarkovsky had a child it would be malick. the ultimate poet from texas. it also seems like his "end of times" film by which case von trier is also working on his apocalyptic drama. there are images which also remind me of carlos reygadas' silent light. anyway this is wonderful.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on December 22, 2010, 03:56:37 PM
this is amazing! so inspiring, i've watched it like ten times now and it still makes me choke. i feel like i'm in love.  he's gonna be using his old tricks but he does it like no one else. in a sense he's like the american tarkovsky or if kubrick and tarkovsky had a child it would be malick. the ultimate poet from texas. it also seems like his "end of times" film by which case von trier is also working on his apocalyptic drama. there are images which also remind me of carlos reygadas' silent light. anyway this is wonderful.

If Tree of Life is Malick's version of Tarkovsky's Mirror and a poetic deconstructon of his style, I will award him a lot more consideration.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on December 25, 2010, 01:08:25 AM
I saw this link posted, but heard at my theater we were running it before Black Swan.  Black Swan was cool but it was totally overshadowed by this trailer.  I tried to keep from knowing anything about this movie till the trailer and it was an incredible trailer at that.

Oh, cinema... you've done it again.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on January 01, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
this film will cause mass enlightenment.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on January 14, 2011, 10:27:34 AM
'Tree of Life' cinematographer: 'It was like no set I ever worked on'
Source: LA Times

It's not many film productions that consult with NASA as they're shooting. But then, not many film productions have Terrence Malick for a director.

As cinematographer Emanuel "Chivo" Lubezki tells it, the shoot for Malick's coming-of-age epic "The Tree of Life," starring Sean Penn and Brad Pitt, pretty much made up its own rules as it went along. Then it broke those too. "Once you think you got the formula, you realized there is no formula," Chivo told 24 Frames in an interview. "It's like no set I ever worked on."

There are plenty of reasons why that's true. Besides the NASA factor -- Malick consulted with the space agency for footage of the cosmos and other grand imagery he used in the film -- there was the fact that he didn't shoot actors in a conventional way. Or, sometimes, at all.

Though most movies use what's known as "coverage" -- cameras stationed in different places, with the idea of conveying a scene as you might experience it in real life -- "Tree of Life" eschewed those conventions.

"So the actors are performing the dialogue, but Terry isn't interested in dialogue. So they're talking, and we're shooting a reflection or we're shooting the wind or we're shooting the frame of the window, and then we finally pan to them when they finish the dialogue," Chivo recalled.

The movie, which comes out in May, aims to tell of a spiritual journey using a sense of place, a long span of time and a set of striking elemental images -- and, oh yes, also is partly based on Malick's own life. The idea, say those who worked on it, was not so much to tell a story but to create a feeling.

"Photography is not used to illustrate dialogue or a performance," Chivo said." "We're using it to capture emotion so that the movie is very experiential. It's meant to trigger tons of memories, like a scent or a perfume." (More from the cinematographer in Sunday's Movie Preview issue.)

And how did the performers react to all this unconventionality -- like, say, the fact that Malick wasn't always interested in what they had to say? "I think they thought we were insane," Chivo said. "Sean is a director, and I'm sure he wondered 'Is this method something I want to learn or is it something I never want to repeat?' For Brad I think it took him a couple of days or a week to get into the spirit."

Dede Gardner, Pitt's producing partner and a producer on the film, said a sense of elastic possibility is essential in making a movie like this as well as watching it. "One of the things you learn when you work with Terry is there isn't one interpretation," she said. "Life's experience is individualized, so why shouldn't a film be?"
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on January 27, 2011, 10:34:07 AM
(http://www.filmjunk.com/images/weblog/2011/01/treeoflife.jpg)


Quote
Local baby's foot featured on 'Tree of Life' poster
Stetson Mouser turns 3 on Feb. 23, which gives a good idea of how long Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life," starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, has been in post-production. Stetson was a mere 4 days old when he pulled an eight-hour shift on the film, which opens in May. That's his foot on the film's advance poster.

"The movie is one of my ‘likes' on Facebook," said mother Heather Mouser, "so you can imagine how excited I was when they showed the poster and I saw my son's foot." It's not yet known if the current poster will be the official one when the movie opens May 27.

Stetson got the gig, which paid $75 for the day, when Mouser answered a casting call in Smithville for pregnant women. "The movie people asked me to give them a call when the baby was born," said Mouser, a stay-at-home mom whose husband is an electrician supervisor for JMEG. The couple also has an 8-year-old daughter, Chesney.

Mouser met Brad Pitt on the set during the filming and recalled she wasn't starstruck in the least. "He was just a nice, normal guy," she said. "I was just so enamored with my new son, I didn't really focus on anyone else."

"The Tree of Life" centers on the lives of three brothers, their father (Pitt) and mother (Jessica Chastain). Stetson Mouser portrays one of the brothers, perhaps Sean Penn's character, as a newborn baby.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cronopio 2 on February 03, 2011, 11:56:54 PM
is that an onion article? i don't know anymore.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on February 04, 2011, 03:47:35 PM
is that an onion article? i don't know anymore.

No, it's real... I thought it was funny though, that's why I posted it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on March 08, 2011, 11:37:01 AM
http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/blog/the-tree-of-life-vision-quest-14358

The Tree Of Life: Vision Quest
The visual effects team behind Terrence Malick's long-awaited cinematic return talk exclusively to LWLies about the making of the film.
Trevor Hogg
Tuesday, March 08 2011 11:46 GMT

Considered by many to be an enigma because of his reclusive nature and the long gaps between his films, American director Terrence Malick returns to the big screen this year with The Tree of Life.

Partly autobiographical, the story revolves around a boy growing up in the 1950s American Midwest whose relationship with his strict father and nurturing mother haunts him into adulthood. Starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Joanna Going, Jackson Hurst, Fiona Shaw, Crystal Mantecon, and Tamara Jolaine, the drama ignited worldwide curiosity when word came out that it included footage involving the formation of the universe. Could this be the resurrection of the mysterious Project Q that was supposed to explore the origins of life on earth?

Given the responsibility of creating the nonexistent imagery was visual effects supervisor Dan Glass, who has worked with the likes of Christopher Nolan on Batman Begins and The Wachowski Brothers on The Matrix Reloaded, and who spoke to LWLies about his involvement in the film.

“My first discussions with Terrence began about four-and-a-half years ago and they were very vague and rather roundabout,” recalls Glass. “I remember one of the things that we talked about was trying to find a common language and approach. I asked, ‘Can you list the music that you imagine behind these sequences? Can we approach it from that angle?’ And he sent me a CD with a tonne of music that was the type of stuff that he could imagine emotionally playing across these works.”

Even though Glass points out that each movie production has its own unique set of creative challenges, he readily admits that Terrence Malick, “was like no one else I’ve ever worked with or imagine I will work with again.” The London native explains, “If I sat down to write out what I thought would be ideal for a director of a visual effects film, especially a lot of complex visual effects, he would probably not tick any of the boxes. Whilst you can say that was the challenge it was also very much the best and the most exciting thing about the project.”

One of the big differences on The Tree of Life was the source material, as Glass explains. “The script, if you can call it that, was really more like a set of notes that he has written and built up over some 35 years. He has been working on this project since the ’70s. And we actually have negatives that he shot in the 1970s that we incorporated into the movie. So it really becomes a lifting of notes and ideas.

“The first person we brought on was a very versatile digital FX supervisor by the name of Brad Friedman,” Glass continues. “Brad helped build a small team in Austin to work closely with the director, editorial and myself to interpret, previs and ultimately complete many shots for the production. This team was critical as an experiment lab right next to Terry at all times to evaluate, to try things out. Production also set up a Research department gathering tons of imagery and scientific data for reference, and included a garage workshop where they would shoot chemical experiments and various things from Petri dishes to fluids in tanks; that was in conjunction with the stuff we did on a bigger scale with Doug Trumbull.”

Of major importance for the VFX supervisor was the selection of the visual effects companies. “The way we had to approach the film was really very piecemeal,” reveals Glass. “Aside from bringing in many people I have worked with over the years, that I trusted greatly to be able to interpret what was needed, we also brought in some very fine artistic sensibilities from several companies from around the world that approach things in a particular non digital fashion.”

From here a plan was implemented to delegate the visual effects workload. “The material was divided into four broad categories we termed Realms: Double Negative in London handled the majority of the Astrophysical Realm led by supervisor Paul Riddle, journalist Michael Benson consulted and provided extraordinary source imagery from actual probes and telescopes. He and a colleague initially selected and stitched the images together, cleaned them up, and created huge resolution images of 30,000 pixels which we then broke into layers and dimensionalised over very slow exploratory camera moves. For the Microbial Realm we hired a small London boutique company called One of Us headed by Tom Debenham and Dominic Parker that do beautiful work; they have their own little studio where they shoot practical pieces and elements and combine them with very photographic looking CG.

“We also commissioned work from Peter and Chris Parks [at Image Quest 3-D] who are a father and son duo in England. They do these richly detailed visual flows of colour which are very hard to describe and can imply things at any scale. We then had a couple of things that arose later in the schedule that really needed a very fresh approach.”

Regarding the topic which has garnered a lot of internet attention, Glass answers, “I can confirm that there are dinosaurs.” Given the responsibility of bringing the prehistoric animals back to life in the Natural [History] Realm was Frantic Films under the guidance of Mike Fink, which took on a new name after commencing work on the project. “I came onto it after it was already underway at Prime Focus,” states Bryan Hirota, who served as a visual effects supervisor at the VFX facility. “The company worked on it for maybe eight months.”

Hirota goes on to say, “Terrence Malick is notoriously secretive… I don’t know much about this movie. I don’t really know how the work fits in.” This comes as no surprise to Glass. “I would sometimes deliberately misguide the intention,” he admits. “An animator would want to know, ‘What’s the purpose here? What’s my motivation?’ So I would deliberately misguide a little and push in one direction and say, ‘Now adjust it and do this,’ just to try to get that zone where you have a little bit more of an ambiguity and something that’s more animal than human in its characteristics.

“We used a tremendous amount of practical and scientific work,” reveals Glass. “Terrence would insist that every frame be attached to some amount of live action or practical content. It’s fantastic. I love that as an approach. Doug Trumbull, who is a good friend of Terry’s, came on board to help and consult in setting up a series of practical shoots that we did. We did three in all that we called the skunkworks and which were done over long weekends in Austin, some of the techniques dating back to 2001. Techniques that Doug had used but then incorporating many of the things he has developed or worked with over his career, we would capture this terrific library of abstract, strange forms, and shapes. Those contributed to elements or in some cases the majority of an image within the movie; we would augment it with additional detail… mixing it up so it was never really clear what scale, or what was the origin of the material.  Where it wasn’t possible we would include aspects of the ‘real.’”

An important part of the production for The Tree of Life was the effort devoted to portraying science realistically.  “We were always very respectful,” emphasises Glass. “For example, to do some of the cosmological simulations of very early space there’s obviously little that we could have shot practically for that. But we paired up with some of the leading scientists in their respective fields, like Volker Bromm who specialises in Population III stars, the first to theoretically form in the Universe. So there’s this very deep, rich science behind the imagery. We also had the help of Donna Cox and Robert Patterson of the NCSA [National Center for Supercomputing Applications], who would take a base simulation, and start to create visualisations which were then fed to Double Negative, guided visually by contributions from a concept artist called George Hull. We would craft the thing into picturesque imagery based on literal science.”

Questioned on how a unified look was achieved, Glass remarks that was not something that Malick initially desired. “He preferred the idea of a patchwork quilt. He might shoot something on a Super 8 camera, then an IMAX camera, then on a digital camera, but in space you might have something based on magnetic resonance imaging or infrared photography from the Hubble. Each would have its own character, and that in his mind would lend to authenticity because you weren’t trying to smooth it, shape it and make it conform.”

Known for his stunning cinematography, Malick wanted to make the most of the imagery featured on the screen.  ”We had one shot we were working on for the longest time that was nearly two minutes long,” says Glass. “It is there to give you time to take in what you’re looking at. Part of his focus is always rich, detailed images, generally keeping as much depth of field as possible so it gives your eyes plenty to wander around and take in.” After spending many months finessing a shot, Malick, Glass and his visual effects team would view the end result in one of the theatres in Austin. “We’d reach a stage where we were happy with it,” he says. “Then sometimes weeks later he’d ask, ‘Can we put that back up again?  Let’s think about this again.’ And he’d consider trying to experiment on another track. There was always this element of the piece continually evolving and developing, which was very different to what you normally have a chance to do in a lot of the bigger visual effects pictures where it can all too often be a case of ‘That’ll do. That’ll do. Move on. Move on.’”

Bryan Hirota observes, “Malick, it seems to me, needs to see stuff, and then brings his film to life in the editorial process; it’s not necessarily clear to him exactly where his film is going to take him. It’s like a process of discovery for him.” Informed of Hirota’s comment, Glass responded, “With Terrence… his vision is strong. He knows where he’s going but because his goal is much more esoteric, it’s less tied down to any literal representation. That’s why the editorial process is critical to him, even with his live action; he shoots a lot of footage that can play in many different contexts, and some of his favourite moments are things where they’ve yelled, ‘Cut!’ and the actors almost break character. Those are the pieces he’ll love. Similarly, in the visual effects…you’re working for days, weeks, sometimes months trying to make something so precise. And yet for Terry that could work against the very organic nature of the material so we had to spend more time to free it from itself.

“Each shot is unique and crafted as such; they’re really approached from every angle as an individual piece,” Glass continues. “At one point we were approaching 60 minutes of footage that we were completing, of which somewhere between 12 to 15 minutes was ultimately used.” The IMAX format was chosen because they wanted to retain an incredible level of detail. “All of the work in Tree of Life is done to 5 1/2 K resolution… There’s a genuineness to that; it’s really trying to more closely represent the photography of the real thing. And the music and sound I would say are tremendous. The sound design I was really bowled over by, in terms of how it helps emotionally taking you through the piece.” Summarising the final cinematic experience, Glass states, “It’s a very powerful movie about memories, emotions, and our place in the world.”

As to what he thought The Tree of Life was going to look like, he confesses, “I don’t know in some ways what I was expecting it to be… I think the thing that was constant throughout the experience of working with Terry was that you know not to expect anything. There’s always something mysterious to be found.”
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on March 14, 2011, 02:25:12 PM
Fifteen more stunning images (http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2011/03/14/tree_of_life_fifteen_more_stunning_images/)

I don't know if they're stunning, but I'll be damned if they're not images.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on March 23, 2011, 08:20:06 PM
Terrence Malick's 'Tree Of Life' Will Finally Get Planted At Cannes
BY THE DEADLINE TEAM

As widely expected and to no one's surprise, it has been confirmed that Terrence Malick's The Tree Of Life will screen at this year's Cannes Film Festival, most likely in an out-of-competition slot in the official selection. The bigger mystery now is whether distributor Fox Searchlight will have screenings stateside before shipping the period drama overseas, given that the film's release date in France (May 18) comes during the festival (May 11-22). Will Searchlight want to give Cannes a true world premiere, or will it want to provide the media with the more standard lead times that screenings in the U.S. would provide? The latter was the path taken by last year's Cannes opener, Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. There has been speculation for a year now about just when and where Tree Of Life, starring Sean Penn and Brad Pitt, might get its premiere. In reality, the French Riviera always has seemed the place for it: The project wasn't ready in time for a Cannes bow last year (though Cannes general delegate Thierry Fremaux saw a cut of the film and agreed to include it in last year's edition, even if the notoriously elusive Malick didn't attend the fest) and since then the usual spots at Telluride, Toronto, Sundance and even South By Southwest (Malick is Texas-based) have come and gone. Tribeca obvioulsy wasn't a big enough springboard, so what really was left for a studio seeking a global platform for an auteur film? Cannes will unveil its official selection next month. Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris already has been slated as the opening-night film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on March 28, 2011, 01:58:48 PM
U.K. Auds To See Terrence Malick’s ‘The Tree Of Life’ Before Everybody, May 4th Release Date Set
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/u.k._auds_to_see_terrence_malicks_the_tree_of_life_before_everybody_may_4th/

Wow, this is unexpected. With Terrence Malick‘s “The Tree Of Life” pretty much confirmed for the Cannes Film Festival, we figured that it would serve as the global launchpad for the film, however, it turns out that’s not the case.

Empire reports that Brit audiences will be the first to get mindfucked by Malick, with “The Tree Of Life” now scheduled for a Wednesday, May 4th release. That’s one week before Cannes kicks off and three and a half weeks before it lands on our shores. We can feel Cannes honcho Thierry Frémaux slightly fuming that his big ticket festival centerpiece will now get a bow elsewhere first.

So what does this mean for Cannes and Malick? Well, it almost certainly guarantees that the film will not play in competition (though we never figured it would anyway). However, it does still mean Frémaux will still get the glitzy red carpet with Brad Pitt (likely with Angelina Jolie in tow), Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain and hopefully, the reclusive Malick himself. While it does take some shine off the premiere, there will be a lot to keep the photogs happy and frankly, most of the world press will still be eagerly awaiting to see the movie for the first time.

Another unexpected development from a film and director continuing to throw us curveballs. For those of us stateside, “The Tree Of Life” lands on May 27th.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on March 28, 2011, 03:11:35 PM
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/fbv/tree-of-life-poster2.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on March 28, 2011, 03:12:55 PM
It's like the iPad of spoilertars.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on March 28, 2011, 03:55:55 PM
First thing I thought of was "they stole my avatar."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on March 28, 2011, 05:09:05 PM
First thing I thought of was "they stole my avatar."

Ha!  First thing I thought was "at least Mod won't have to work very hard for his avatar this time".  Then I looked down and he's way ahead of me.

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on March 28, 2011, 05:55:57 PM
Love the avatar.

I can't tell if I think Jessica Chastain is pretty or not. My brain says no, but my ya know what says yes.

She's like the penis whisperer or something. Her and Kirstie Alley :shock:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on March 28, 2011, 11:15:30 PM
you always make me smile stefen  :)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on March 29, 2011, 07:16:29 AM
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/fbv/tree-of-life-poster2.jpg)

this is a brilliant poster.

the movie has already begun.. the first poster plays perfectly against this one. it's like.. here's a baby foot, what of it? yeah.. the places it'll go, the world it is born into, the journey of life being constantly renewed/reset/reborn.. and then now BAM.. this is the whole movie, what of it? yeah, there's so many amazing images we couldn't even choose one.. the entire journey captured in moments that give you a sense of the things you'll see..

and it makes sense. within the poster there are various visuals motifs.. one of them is this low angle infinite horizon shot. the walk into the sunset (or is it sunrise?) under the title is probably the most iconic example and it recurs in the shots which have been highlighted in the trailer as purposely reminiscent.. those shot from the back looking towards the distance.. but it also recurs in these shots taken from below the actors, eg. the frames containing the names Sean and Jessica.. and two spots above Sean.. (and more.. like row 11 column 2)..  this angle is reversed in a few other shots such as the two window views (fifth row, 4th and 5th from the bottom, under "malick")..

i guess it's more interesting to think about the few shots that DONT display this effect.. a few close ups and medium shots.. but no i think they are examples of the effect being obscured momentarily. i think the result of this constant perspective is to give the impression that there is no up or down, beginning or end, that in this story physical orientation itself is an illusion.. above and below are all playing out on the same plane.. just as penn's character is consumed with thoughts from the past in the present.. various events in time are also playing out on top of each other.. the shots in space must therefore play within this motif.. they automatically fall into infinite perspective since they are on the grandest scale possible.. the mere vision of a star or a planet is beyond a horizon..  its limit lies in the far distance of the universe where time and space disappear completely (or are constantly being born?).

malick wants us to become familiar with these images. they should flicker in and out of our memories.. they should be internalised and then experienced again externally.. there's more to say about this poster (and not to mention stefen's kirstie alley confession  :shock: ) but i'll leave it here for now.. i can't wait to watch the rest of this movie.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on March 30, 2011, 07:50:25 PM
^ :yabbse-smiley::yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ghostboy on March 30, 2011, 08:27:58 PM
Also, there's a dinosaur in there.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on March 30, 2011, 08:40:47 PM
Where? Thought I saw a Triceratops in there, but it turned out to be Jessica Chastains big ole sweet ass.

EDIT: THERE! I SEE IT! IN THE MIDDLE!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on March 30, 2011, 10:12:57 PM
(http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20110328_treeoflife_190x190.jpg)

^ :shock::yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on March 31, 2011, 10:32:22 AM
Fuck yeah  :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: 72teeth on April 08, 2011, 06:11:31 PM
http://www.twowaysthroughlife.com/
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on April 08, 2011, 09:55:11 PM
This is the greatest thing I have ever seen. I'm going to watch every clip.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on April 09, 2011, 05:10:48 AM
Alright, watched them all on the moms side.

CAPSULES...

#1 - Dogs are fighting. This is cool to see. They're going at it. Straight throwing fists. Mark Wahlberg will see this then want to play a dog in his next movie.
#2 - There's water here. Kids, stuffed animals, water. Pleasure Island after a tsunami, obviously.
#3 - Brad Pitt showing his co-star why it was dumb for Soderbergh to snub him for the part of Liberace in favor of Mike Douglas.
#4 - Sean Penn gets to the end of the scavenger hunt that Robin Wright created for him so he can find his million dollar wedding ring.
#5 - I LIKE BIG BUTTS AND I CANNOT LIE.
#6 - Knock knock, who's there? Me, when I turned 10 then aged 15 years while Malick was editing my first movie. Get me a beer.
#7 - This may be the most amazing thing I have ever seen on film. Ever. Malick using actual special effects. This blew my mind.
#8 - Perfect introduction to the fathers side. Pitts gonna pull it off.
#9 - This was the worst. Skip it.
#10 - I remember this from the trailer, but it's longer. Only Malick could pull this off.

I'll try and do the Fathers side next.

So I take it there's going to be a Voyage of Time type thing at some point in this? Seeing Malick use visual effects on this is making me lose my mind. I don't think I could anticipate a film as much as I'm anticipating this one. Last movie I anticipated this much was Punch-Drunk Love.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on April 09, 2011, 10:46:31 AM

#1 - Dogs are fighting. This is cool to see. They're going at it. Straight throwing fists. Mark Wahlberg will see this then want to play a dog in his next movie.

lol, you overexagerrate so much, they're just playing!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: SeanMalloy on April 19, 2011, 02:10:23 PM
http://twowaysthroughlife.tumblr.com/

Official Tumblr for the film.  A link was up on Fox Searchlight.  This will probably kick in as the release date nears. 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on April 19, 2011, 04:56:17 PM
this movie really couldnt have come at a more perfect time in my life. ol Poz is having a lil Pozer boyzer come june of the 1st (psssh, no such thing as KIDXAX). it's as if He held out for me! judging by those capsules, i will be producing tears of life throughout this.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on April 19, 2011, 07:43:26 PM
I think I'm more stoked about Malick using visual effects than anything else. Some of the shots in those short clips reminded me of 2001. Just so calculated, slow-moving and breathtakingly beautiful.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on April 22, 2011, 03:41:36 AM
(http://cdn2.screenjunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tree-of-life-dino1.jpg)

Remember years ago when we were all giddy about the possibility of dinosaurs happening in this? Well, it's been confirmed for awhile. It's happening for sure.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: KJ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:43 AM
(http://cdn2.screenjunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tree-of-life-dino1.jpg)

can't wait to hear that dinosaurs voice over in this film
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on April 27, 2011, 02:59:37 PM
after the previous great poster, comes this new tv movie... :yabbse-undecided:

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/fbv/treeoflifeposterint.jpg)

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on April 27, 2011, 03:03:48 PM
Something's Gotta Give was a huge hit in Germany.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 27, 2011, 04:37:49 PM
I like that this new cover exists. I hope people get to know it and feel like it's safe to bring their family to the movie. The Gospel According to St. Matthew has a colorized DVD version which has a crap Hallmark-esque cover too. It is advertised to families so these people review it on Amazon and get pissed off about how unfamily the movie is. If Tree of Life can inspire similar revulsion, all the better.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on April 27, 2011, 05:11:44 PM
I think it's the international version so they have to be like

"Hey Foreigners, BRAD PITT is in this movie!"
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on April 27, 2011, 05:14:29 PM
At least it looks like the father and sons below are throwing rocks at the oversized heads billboard at the top.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on April 27, 2011, 05:21:15 PM
I think it's the international version so they have to be like

"Hey Foreigners, BRAD PITT is in this movie!"

wouldn't that be for domestic reasons?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on April 27, 2011, 08:01:00 PM
I like that this new cover exists. I hope people get to know it and feel like it's safe to bring their family to the movie. The Gospel According to St. Matthew has a colorized DVD version which has a crap Hallmark-esque cover too. It is advertised to families so these people review it on Amazon and get pissed off about how unfamily the movie is. If Tree of Life can inspire similar revulsion, all the better.

That's dumb. Why would you want that?

The film will be hated by idiots already without the need for further encouragement or hope for it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 27, 2011, 08:13:28 PM
I like that this new cover exists. I hope people get to know it and feel like it's safe to bring their family to the movie. The Gospel According to St. Matthew has a colorized DVD version which has a crap Hallmark-esque cover too. It is advertised to families so these people review it on Amazon and get pissed off about how unfamily the movie is. If Tree of Life can inspire similar revulsion, all the better.

That's dumb. Why would you want that?

The film will be hated by idiots already without the need for further encouragement or hope for it.

Desperate marketing can be amusing. I don't care what any demographic thinks about a movie.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on April 27, 2011, 10:33:20 PM
Who wants to pen Sean Penn's V.O. for that cover's version of The Tree of Life?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Just Withnail on April 28, 2011, 02:33:37 AM
Who wants to pen Sean Penn's V.O. for that cover's version of The Tree of Life?

You mean Morgan Freeman's V.O.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on April 28, 2011, 06:40:39 AM
I like that this new cover exists. I hope people get to know it and feel like it's safe to bring their family to the movie. The Gospel According to St. Matthew has a colorized DVD version which has a crap Hallmark-esque cover too. It is advertised to families so these people review it on Amazon and get pissed off about how unfamily the movie is. If Tree of Life can inspire similar revulsion, all the better.

That's dumb. Why would you want that?

The film will be hated by idiots already without the need for further encouragement or hope for it.

there's sill the odd chance of enlightenment. Someone who goes into the movie thinking this is actually a good poster and comes out altered. Maybe.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on April 28, 2011, 06:47:03 AM
I like that this new cover exists. I hope people get to know it and feel like it's safe to bring their family to the movie. The Gospel According to St. Matthew has a colorized DVD version which has a crap Hallmark-esque cover too. It is advertised to families so these people review it on Amazon and get pissed off about how unfamily the movie is. If Tree of Life can inspire similar revulsion, all the better.

That's dumb. Why would you want that?

The film will be hated by idiots already without the need for further encouragement or hope for it.

there's sill the odd chance of enlightenment. Someone who goes into the movie thinking this is actually a good poster and comes out altered. Maybe.

yeah but that's not what GT was hoping for.

he wants the wrong audience to foolishly go into this movie and actively HATE malick afterwards.

what the fuck does that achieve? from his defence i gather he thinks it would be some kind of... amusing troll job? that's a smug position to take. in reality what it achieves is it encourages the dumbest loudest idiots to popularise this movie as the worst movie of the century. AT BEST.

i mean, whatever, of course,  it's GT. he trolls. that's to be expected but his short sighted wish is just about the dumbest, most smug, useless and downright idiotic thing i've heard someone say about a movie in a long time.. it really sheds light on what kind of moviegoer he is.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on April 28, 2011, 11:01:33 AM
but what do you really think?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 28, 2011, 12:23:21 PM
Is it wrong to suggest that Xixax is possibly maybe overhyping this movie? I mean, it looks really really good, but... when you start talking about expecting the movie to cause enlightenment, I think caution should be advised...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on April 28, 2011, 12:45:36 PM
word, nothing causes enlightenment...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 28, 2011, 03:26:11 PM
I like that this new cover exists. I hope people get to know it and feel like it's safe to bring their family to the movie. The Gospel According to St. Matthew has a colorized DVD version which has a crap Hallmark-esque cover too. It is advertised to families so these people review it on Amazon and get pissed off about how unfamily the movie is. If Tree of Life can inspire similar revulsion, all the better.

That's dumb. Why would you want that?

The film will be hated by idiots already without the need for further encouragement or hope for it.

there's sill the odd chance of enlightenment. Someone who goes into the movie thinking this is actually a good poster and comes out altered. Maybe.

yeah but that's not what GT was hoping for.

he wants the wrong audience to foolishly go into this movie and actively HATE malick afterwards.

what the fuck does that achieve? from his defence i gather he thinks it would be some kind of... amusing troll job? that's a smug position to take. in reality what it achieves is it encourages the dumbest loudest idiots to popularise this movie as the worst movie of the century. AT BEST.

i mean, whatever, of course,  it's GT. he trolls. that's to be expected but his short sighted wish is just about the dumbest, most smug, useless and downright idiotic thing i've heard someone say about a movie in a long time.. it really sheds light on what kind of moviegoer he is.

Wait, Pubes is berating someone with hyperbole and overblown insults over a small matter? Haha, who would have thought it. Talk to someone who is actually impressed with your dumb ass. For the rest of the people who can hear an explanation, I don't make serious hedge over people liking or hating a Tree of Life. It happened with The Gospel According to St. Matthew and the responses on Amazon were funny. The poster here reminded me of that bad studio ploy so I jumped three steps and imagined Tree of Life being advertised to a specific group of people and it getting similar responses. If you want to read more into it, amuse yourself. I don't care.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on April 28, 2011, 04:00:49 PM
word, nothing causes enlightenment...

Unless you are talking about the specific choice of word here (wheter it is the word ''cause'' or ''enlightenment'' that is the problem, I don't know), I disagree that nothing can cause/bring/whatever you want to call it ''enlightenment'' (or whatever you want to call it)

What I mean is that this could very well be a Magnolia-type movie that people, especially teens, who see it become aware of a whole new world. The world of good cinema.

I hate it when someones thinks a movie is above a certain crowd. I mean, it's only cinema, not the most complicated form of art there is. My favorite, yes, but is watching really ''hard'' movies THAT hard? I think not. Reading a hard book is 1000x more challenging.

So how un-mainstream can a movie starring Brad Pitt and taking place in 50s america be? My guess is : not much.  Tree of Life will appeal to a large crowd and will be awesome. It will won tons of awards. You can place money on a dual Penn-Pitt nomination for best actor in the Oscars. The best movie is in the bag already (it is KINDA oscar-baitish after all).

It will be inspiring and great and everyone's gonna love it. DEFINITELY not a ''Gospel to St. Matthew'' type of deal.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 28, 2011, 04:19:16 PM
So how un-mainstream can a movie starring Brad Pitt and taking place in 50s america be? My guess is : not much.

That's kind of what I'm getting at...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on April 28, 2011, 05:02:42 PM
So how un-mainstream can a movie starring Brad Pitt and taking place in 50s america be? My guess is : not much.

That's kind of what I'm getting at...

You bring a good debate point: Can anything mainstream be revolutionary? Does everything great have to be revolutionary?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on April 28, 2011, 05:13:32 PM
Is it wrong to suggest that Xixax is possibly maybe overhyping this movie? I mean, it looks really really good, but... when you start talking about expecting the movie to cause enlightenment, I think caution should be advised...

Anyone who says Tree of Life will cause enlightenment (was it me? it was me wasn't it?) is just using hyperbole to get their point across that this movie has the chance to be something special. And it does. Malick has never steered us wrong before, and I don't see how he would start now. Everything that we've seen about this has been awe inspiring. Am I the only one who watched all the clips on the two ways through life site? The visual effects alone are something to be excited about.

It's been awhile since I have been this excited about a movie. It used to happen ALL THE TIME when I was younger (who here can't relate to this?), but the last 5 years or so it doesn't happen very often. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie on the first showing available. It's been years, but I'll probably do it for this.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on April 28, 2011, 05:16:11 PM
Good post. It was me btw!

At this point I can't wonder if it will be great, I just wonder if it will better than CMBB or not.

My gf told me 10 minutes ago: it looks like a really smart Forrest Gump.........  :shock:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 28, 2011, 05:28:54 PM
I should be more specific. All the evidence does point to this being a great film. Malick knows what he's doing and has obviously put a lot of work into this. However, the movie could be 5-10% of the wonderful abstract stuff, and people seem to be expecting 75%. Maybe someone who's read the script or whatever knows better.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on April 28, 2011, 05:33:05 PM
Anyone who says Tree of Life will cause enlightenment (was it me? it was me wasn't it?)...

nope

Good post. It was me btw!

liar!

this film will cause mass enlightenment.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on April 28, 2011, 05:56:41 PM
My gf told me 10 minutes ago: it looks like a really smart Forrest Gump.........  :shock:

 :yabbse-angry:

She should be hanged from the TREE OF DEATH!

That was mean, I'm sorry. I just really wanted to make a Tree of Death joke. Why couldn't it have been some Joe Shmoe at the urinal next to you who said that instead of your significant other?  :yabbse-cry:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on April 28, 2011, 07:19:32 PM
^^ lol
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on April 29, 2011, 12:56:54 PM
Hahaha!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on April 29, 2011, 01:20:00 PM
I think this movie might open up a third way through life that heretofore didn't exist.

Not to over-hype it or anything.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on April 29, 2011, 03:19:43 PM
I've heard this movie is SO good that Jesus is coming back early just to see it first!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: abuck1220 on May 03, 2011, 11:04:06 PM
ugh, limited release only early on for this. local theater said they probably wouldn't get it until july.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 04, 2011, 02:27:41 PM
I was at Hooters this weekend watching UFC 129 and I was talking to someone about this movie and as soon as I mentioned the title, I swear this happened, some giant juicehead with a goatee smacked me upside the head and told me "Terrence Malick sucks, fag!" then smashed a beer can on his forehead and jumped out a window.

What the? :ponder: :ponder: :ponder:

Anyways, here's a clip...

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/04/tree-life-brad-pitt-clip/#more-36380
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on May 05, 2011, 02:06:33 AM
I was at Hooters this weekend watching UFC 129 and I was talking to someone about this movie and as soon as I mentioned the title, I swear this happened, some giant juicehead with a goatee smacked me upside the head and told me "Terrence Malick sucks, fag!" then smashed a beer can on his forehead and jumped out a window.

"You didn't care for Days of Heaven? What are you, some sort of faggot?"
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: md on May 05, 2011, 06:02:24 PM
I was at Hooters this weekend watching UFC 129 and I was talking to someone about this movie and as soon as I mentioned the title, I swear this happened, some giant juicehead with a goatee smacked me upside the head and told me "Terrence Malick sucks, fag!" then smashed a beer can on his forehead and jumped out a window.

What the? :ponder: :ponder: :ponder:

Anyways, here's a clip...

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/04/tree-life-brad-pitt-clip/#more-36380

Sounds like a Norm Macdonald anecdote.  Especially the "What the?!"

I fucking love Norm.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on May 10, 2011, 01:35:24 PM
This movie won't not cause everyone in the world to have multiple mindgasms. Even people who don't see it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on May 11, 2011, 05:17:43 PM
http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Publications/In_Camera/Web_Exclusives/index.htm

InCamera Web Exclusives
Tree of Life Premieres at Cannes Film Festival
Film is an Important Aspect of Malick’s Cinematic Vision

Tree of Life is described as the journey from the innocence of childhood to a disillusioned adulthood, and the quest to regain meaning in life. The film, which premieres at Cannes, stars Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain. It is the latest collaboration between Terrence Malick and Emmanuel Lubezki, AMC. Their previous film together, The New World, earned Lubezki an Academy Award® nomination for best cinematography, and was the first studio feature film in nine years to use the 65 mm film format for anything other than visual effects plates.

Malick is a master whose credits also include Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. Lubezki caught the cinema world’s attention with Like Water for Chocolate, and his credits since then include Y Tu Mama Tambien, A Little Princess, Ali, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, Burn After Reading, and Children of Men, which earned a fourth Oscar® nomination and an ASC Award for the cinematographer.

For Tree of Life, Lubezki once again used a mix of 35 mm film and regular 65 mm, as well as the huge IMAX™ format. He says the large formats deliver an enhanced “jolt” to viewers, and that Malick’s emphasis on expressing himself through images makes for a unique and sometimes impressionistic cinematic experience.

In the following conversation, Lubezki explains his collaborative with Malick and the thought processes that led to their decisions.

How does working with Terrence Malick differ from other shoots?
Lubezki: It differs completely, and in every possible way. Terry does not impose himself on the situation the way a conventional Hollywood movie director might. With those films, the most important thing is to finish the day. You put up a big silk so you can control the situation and eliminate surprises. On Tree of Life, it was the opposite. We used real light, and the sun, wind and rain and other elements that came our way became part of the story. A very important theme in the movie is the constant passing of things, the changes and flow that are part of life. By not imposing yourself on nature, you are able to catch these very fleeting, ephemeral moments. That theme had a parallel in our approach to the filmmaking.

Does shooting film help you make that approach work?
Yes! Film has been an important aspect of our method, especially the new negative films that Kodak produces. As we prepped this film a few years ago, we saw nothing in the digital world that resembled or came close to the latitude of film. The cameras and lenses we have now are the best we’ve ever had. Also, there are some scenes in the film like an eclipse that Terry filmed 25 years ago, that show film’s beauty and longevity. Terry has been thinking about this project for a long time.

Why did you choose 65 mm for some scenes?
We chose it because of the high resolution. One of the rules Terry and I follow is to achieve maximum resolution whenever possible. We would have preferred to shoot the entire movie on IMAX. When these scenes appear in the movie, they give you a jolt. It’s a feeling of enhancement and majesty. It’s almost as if someone cleaned off the window you were looking through.

Which film stocks did you use?
We used KODAK VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 and KODAK VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 5217. We used ARRI LT and 235 cameras for the 35 mm scenes. The 65 mm camera was a Panavision. We used mostly ARRI Master Prime lenses. I operated most of the handheld scenes. Handheld camera plays an important part in Terry’s movies. The post was handled at LaserPacific and at EFilm in Los Angeles. We have a 2K version going to Cannes, but we are in the process of doing a 4K DI as well.

You mentioned that you used very little lighting on the film. Why?
It’s interesting. Once you start shooting without film lights, and you go twenty days without using an HMI, if you then put up film lights, they look really bad. It just doesn’t make sense. If you really look carefully at natural light, you realize how complex it is, and how it’s constantly shifting. When you put up an HMI and diffusion or bounce, it’s very monochromatic and has a different feeling. So we burned our bridges, and sent all the lights back to the rental house. You can do this with Terry because he really understands lighting and camera very well. If we are inside a house and it’s not working, instead of bringing in lights, he would rewrite the scene and reassemble it outside. Or we’d shoot something else, and come back the next day when it was sunnier. The production was very agile in that sense. Also, the production designer, Jack Fisk, made the entire film possible. In the house that was one of our main locations, he added some windows in key places that became the main sources of light.

Terrence Malick is known as a very visual filmmaker. How does that affect your work?
Films have inherited a lot from other arts, like theater and literature. Since I first met him many years ago, I have felt that Terry is trying to make films, and to express himself, without using the part of film’s DNA that comes from these other arts. The images in his films are very, very important to him. Sometimes he says to me, “Dialog is not what I’m trying to capture. I’m trying to capture an emotion, and I want to do that visually.” I think he has succeeded, and that’s why his films are so strong.

How does that translate into filmmaking techniques?
It’s incredibly difficult. We joke that we are like fishermen. We are trying to get little bits from a river that is constantly flowing. Sometimes you catch one or two, and sometimes you don’t. It’s very nerve-wracking. Sometimes it seems like he is almost trying to create a mistake, to take the actors and the camera to a place where they are going to crash. And it’s those little accidents and moments which are in the film and look naturalistic. Those are the truly visually expressive moments.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 12, 2011, 01:54:15 PM
New clip.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/tree-of-life-clip-brad-pitt-video-clip_n_861118.html
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on May 14, 2011, 01:55:07 PM
Cannes 2011: Finally, the end of secrets on Terrence Malick's 'The Tree of Life'
Source: Los Angeles Times

For years, Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” has hovered over the film world like a ghost, staying just out of reach. An intriguing, mysterious project starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, there were hints over the years that the movie tackled themes of faith, family and the reason for existence. And oh yes, there seemed to be a dinosaur involved too.

Last year, the movie almost came to the Cannes Film Festival —plans were in motion with organizers —before the enigmatic Malick and the producers pulled back as the festival drew near.

Not long after, the question began to percolate: Perhaps “The Tree of Life” would never come out? After all, Malick had taken an unusually long time to get a movie out before, waiting 20 years after his sophomore effort, “Days of Heaven,” to release his third film, the 1998 war drama “The Thin Red Line,” which was nominated for the best picture Oscar. The new film’s effects —including what looked like a computer-generated dinosaur, revealed in a leaked photo —were indeed taking years to assemble in postproduction. The process dragged out to such an extent that the film ended up with about a half-dozen editors; no one could afford to stay on long enough to complete the job.

All the whispers will finally come to an end Monday as “The Tree of Life” premieres in Cannes before arriving in U.S. theaters on May 27. In interviews, people who worked on “The Tree of Life” described a process filled with almost as much mystery as the themes the movie explores.

About five years ago, Malick had just finished the Colin Farrell colonial tale “The New World” and began talking with his team in earnest about making a film that dealt with his own childhood, the creation of the universe and the meaning of all things.

He had discussed it before —financier-producer Bill Pohlad recalls sitting down with Malick about a decade ago and hearing the pitch for a script well over 200 pages. “I told him good luck and moved on,” said Pohlad, who couldn’t imagine such an ambitious project ever getting made.

But Malick, who eschews photos and interviews, had been working on it much earlier. Jack Fisk, the director’s longtime production designer and collaborator, says the ideas have been dancing in the back of the director’s mind since he began making films.

“Terry had been collecting footage for decades, since ‘Badlands,’” Fisk said, referring to the director’s acclaimed 1973 debut starring Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. “Things like eclipses and other natural wonders, just for this film.”

It would be more than 30 years before Malick was ready to make his spiritual opus, combining scenes from a midcentury Texas childhood, inspired by Malick’s, with cosmic and astral images pertaining to the origins of the world. With a new script that interwove those two sections more tightly than before, Pohlad came on to finance and produce it.

Pitt, Penn and Jessica Chastain would star. Pitt, originally a producer on the film, decided to commit to the role of the midcentury father after several other actors fell out. Chastain was already cast as the wife, and Penn would play one of their sons as a grown-up.

The budget for the live-action portion was about $6 million, according to one person close to the production who asked not to be named because the person was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. It was shot about three years ago in Smithville, Texas, a town that Fisk describes as “more like 1950s America than any place in the country today.”

The budget for the effects portion —which according to some who worked on the film is split into “realms” such as “the microbial” and “the natural” and includes simulations of the creation of the galaxy’s first stars —is harder to gauge. Those scenes were put together with an unusual set of partners that included NASA experts.

“I’ve worked on a lot of movies where scientists were consultants,” said visual effects coordinator Dan Glass, who described the use of Hubble Telescope imagery and the process of re-creating the stars, known as Population 3 stars. “But these were not advisors that contributed an image or two —they were a team of people meant to ensure this was scientifically accurate.”

In Texas, the movie shot in three houses all made to look like the same one, so Malick could shift easily between them depending on the light at a given moment, with the production often packing up in one house and running to the next in the middle of the day. Malick used no artificial lighting and often pointed the camera away from the actors’ performances, toward the wind and the sky. Cinematographer Emmanuel “Chivo” Lubezki said “Tree” was “like no set I’ve ever worked on.”

Malick changed dialogue and action as he went. “‘Oh Jessica, no one pays attention to the script,’” Chastain recalled Malick saying when she sought to recall her lines as written.

Because he didn’t know what he wanted until he saw it, the director would often keep everyone else guessing too.

“It was about waking up early in the morning and wondering how your day would change based on what you thought Terry might feel,” said Jacqueline West, a costume designer and another member of the Malick coterie. “A lot of working on this movie was about being clairvoyant."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 14, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
Okay, I'm sold.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 15, 2011, 11:37:12 PM
TODAY.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 15, 2011, 11:40:33 PM
I'm glad that I wasn't the only one excited about that fact. I can't wait to skim those reviews tomorrow!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 15, 2011, 11:51:20 PM
don't read the reviews you guys, it'll ruin it for ye
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 12:08:57 AM
I won't be able to not look at them at all, so I'm going to try and skim and get a general sense of the reception without getting too much detail. We'll see though.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on May 16, 2011, 12:26:46 AM
like you I never read but always skim.

something that has worked for me is that I read the first and last paragraph of it, most of the times those doesn't have any spoilers and they show praise, deception or whatever the case might be.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 16, 2011, 12:33:10 AM
like you I never read but always skim.

something that has worked for me is that I read the first and last paragraph of it, most of the times those doesn't have any spoilers and they show praise, deception or whatever the case might be.

LOL. Same here. Only the first and last paragraphs.

Fuck. The secret is out. How long until some jerk journalist starts spoiling everything first and last? We're going to have to start only reading the middle!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 01:36:31 AM
Yeah, we're gonna have to stop reading any words and just look at the grade/stars/thumbs/rotten tomatoes rating.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on May 16, 2011, 01:51:59 AM
I'm only going to listen to the Lights, Camera, Jackson (http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/08/11-year-old-movie-critic-lights-camera-jackson) review.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: squints on May 16, 2011, 04:17:21 AM
Tweets are already starting to pour in (its 4am central time here),
follow @thedailyMUBI (http://twitter.com/#!/thedailyMUBI (http://twitter.com/#!/thedailyMUBI)) for more,

some choice ones:

RT @davecalhoun And so it came to pass that Tree of Life was a pretty, heartfelt but preachy folly of universal proportions. #Cannes

RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

RT @ZeitchikLAT Tree of Life: Many will find it metaphysical & poetic, tho some may think it fragmented & showy.

RT @KarstenM The Tree of Life: Do NOT think a tweet can express this film... I'll keep it with me and return to it my whole life.

Interesting look at his career and things leading up to TOL:
http://nymag.com/movies/features/terrence-malick-2011-5/ (http://nymag.com/movies/features/terrence-malick-2011-5/)

EDIT:

RT @eug TREE OF LIFE. A movie I'd love to sit down & watch again right now. It's beautiful, dense. Love the music so much. Some idiot booed.

RT @OnTheCroisette This is my favorite Malick film. Period.

LOL! i'll stop.

I will now ignore everything said about this movie til it comes out.
Gonna go watch The Thin Red Line now....
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: children with angels on May 16, 2011, 06:09:40 AM
Xan Brooks of The Guardian: "Loud booing at end of Malick's Tree of Life but I loved it. Book of Revelations by way of Main St. Almost ridiculous, always sublime."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 16, 2011, 06:12:06 AM
Michael Phillips of Chicago Tribue: "The Tree of Life pretentious, sometimes exasperating--& quite a marvel, w a tough, astute father-son rel. at its poetic core. More later."

Time Out review (3 stars out of 5): http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88572/the-tree-of-life.html
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pwaybloe on May 16, 2011, 07:55:34 AM
Time Out review (3 stars out of 5): http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88572/the-tree-of-life.html

Good grief, SPOILER ALERT!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 16, 2011, 08:04:16 AM
Michael Phillips of Chicago Tribue: "The Tree of Life pretentious, sometimes exasperating--& quite a marvel, w a tough, astute father-son rel. at its poetic core. More later."

 I fuckin' hate Michael Phillips, he's such a douche. Never has anything good to say.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 08:51:09 AM
I've seen people on Twitter call it too pentecostalist and shit like that. Never seen anyone call a movie too muslim though. Christians get all the shit.

I'm not surprised that it would not be universal praise, but I'm surprised by 3 stars review. I thought it would 5s and 1-2s.

The only valid reviews for this will come from here I guess. Will it really be too obvious, too preachy? I for one never once in my life thought a movie was too preachy. Crash was awful not because it preached too much, it was awful because what it preached was fucking stupid.

Maybe lines like in the trailer: ''if you don't love, your life will flash you by'' are really omnipresent in the film. Some think these are platitudes. I don't know, I kinda like that shit.

I fear not. No, a bit. I would've loved CMBB-type praise. But the stuff people hate about it so far are really things that do no matter at all to me. Not enough dialogue and stuff like that. I mean, go watch TV for god's sake if you want to hear people talk so much.

Let's talk about it all day guys
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on May 16, 2011, 09:00:39 AM
yes let's talk about it and never stop.

i love that article where they said he built 3 houses exactly the same so he could choose based on the light on a given day. this is NOT a film that can be reviewed in the usual sense. i think there's some movies, not just malicks, where the conventional system of consumption and instant regurgitation that goes with film criticism just doesn't apply. you see it with kubrick movies, all the initial reviews are always wrong.. there's no way you can stomach a LIFETIME OF FEASTS in one sitting.

this movie will be very much like its namsake.. in order to get at its full meaning you will need to sit under it like a yogi for years on end.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 09:13:55 AM
Yes.

Also, some critics complained that it's simplistic and filled with platitudes.

People tend to believe that more complicated means deeper. Everything important seems simple yet reveal more as you dig into it. How would simple folk manage otherwise? Take chess for exemple: 10 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master. That is the nature of really deep things.

Tree of life might confound pseudo-intellectuals.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 16, 2011, 09:39:17 AM
Lets wait until we see it. It might suck, it might not. I've enjoyed/loved all his films but you never know this could be his bonfire of the vanities.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 09:56:17 AM
Lets wait until we see it. It might suck, it might not. I've enjoyed/loved all his films but you never know this could be his bonfire of the vanities.

Are you stupid? I'm sorry that was harsh. We are not talking about Brian de fucking Palma here. Read this article and comprehend the genius at work:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/classic/features/runaway-genius-199812

Edit: damn that article is long, just click the link!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 10:06:23 AM
hahaha yeah classic case of tl;dr... I edited it out and put a link.

might be bonfire of the vanities...  :nono:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 16, 2011, 10:15:15 AM
It's not harsh. I just think without having seen it, you're kind of thinking stupid (though my post wasn't directed at you, but since you're singling yourself out it might appear that way now). The amount of gushing on this thread, touting it a masterpiece and how it will be seen/remembered is kind of stupid. I haven't read anything either, and while i like some critics and their reviews, I've never agreed with any person on every film.

The only annoying thing that will come out of this is when it's a great film or even masterful someone says "see socketlevel, you stupid idiot, it was great..." when all I'm saying is cool your breeches budzo, if anything you'll just set yourself up for disappointment.

I'll be the first to admit it's amazing, and i hope it is. I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't do that. I care less and less about "calling it" these days.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 16, 2011, 10:19:16 AM
Oh and the bonfire of the vanities thing is an analogy, don't read it directly. I could have said heaven's gate or something of the like for other directors. bonfire and heaven's gate both represent a directors big epic that drastically fell on it's face because the scope got out of control and the film got away from them. I would have assumed you'd pick up on that.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on May 16, 2011, 10:26:24 AM
this goes back to me saying this will cause mass enlightenment.

obviously i'm joking!

i don't know about anyone else but when i start hyperbolizing about movies i haven't seen i'm just doing it cos it's fun and easy to go off on an a tangent about the (im)possible heights a film may achieve. and it can only be done before the movie is seen because it allows plausible denial of the realities and imperfections that every film (except for dr strangelove, 2001, barry lyndon, the shining, full metal jacket, eyes wide shut, boogie nights, magnolia, punch drunk love, chere mill be blood, badlands, days of heaven, the thin red line, the new world and the tree of life) inevitably carries with it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 10:50:30 AM
About the gushing etc. Lack of enthusiasm is a character trait that annoys me. The anticipation is often as good as the experience.

Anyway.... you can always count on the french to get it. Great french review:

http://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18604172.html

I'll translate-summarize an interesting spoiler-free bit:

Continuité et évolution. Terrence Malick poursuit son œuvre, et prend de plus en plus de risques : quand on choisit ainsi le parti de la beauté, de l’amour et cette forme sublime de naïveté (au sens ancien et noble), on s’expose forcément à la moquerie des cyniques, sachant que la confrérie des critiques assemblés à Cannes en compte un joli nombre – bien ingénus parfois dans leur cynisme. C’était le cas pour Le Nouveau monde, taxé par certains de mièvrerie, et cela le sera plus encore pour ce Tree of Life d’un lyrisme et d’une ambition folles.

---

Terrence Malick continue his canon and takes more risk: when you choose to bet on beauty, love and a sublime and ancient form of ''naiveté'', you expose yourself to the mockery of cynics. Knowing the brotherhood of Cannes critics have a good number of them, it is not surprising they accused New World of soppyness and they will do so even more with Tree of Life, a crazily ambitious lyrical piece.

This movie will cause mass enlightenment. (that part may or may not be added by me)

Seriously though, it is what I suspected. Cynical pseudo-intellectuals hate it. Should be great.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on May 16, 2011, 10:55:43 AM
this goes back to me saying this will cause mass enlightenment.

obviously i'm joking!


months ago I was with some friends who like movies and he asked me which movie was the best I've seen, and said eyes wide shut and the tree of life. obvsly they asked what the hell was TOL, I said ''oh, it hasn't come out yet''. and they went ballistic on me saying all kinds of insults. I laughed.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 16, 2011, 11:06:13 AM
I am very enthusiastic. It's the #1 film i want to see this year.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 11:13:43 AM
this goes back to me saying this will cause mass enlightenment.

obviously i'm joking!


months ago I was with some friends who like movies and he asked me which movie was the best I've seen, and said eyes wide shut and the tree of life. obvsly they asked what the hell was TOL, I said ''oh, it hasn't come out yet''. and they went ballistic on me saying all kinds of insults. I laughed.

HAHA! good one.

Reminds me of fools who blast me because I hate some movies I've never seen: ''HOW CAN YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?!''

No amount of ''have you ever tasted horse shit?'' arguments can convince them.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 16, 2011, 11:27:44 AM
The divisiveness of this film doesn't surprise me one bit. This is what happens when all his films first first come out. A couple weeks after it's release, The New World was sitting at under 60% at Rotten Tomatoes if I recall correctly. Now it is considered a masterpiece. I don't remember when The Thin Red Line came out but it probably wasn't universally praised right off the bat. I'm sure Saving Private Ryan was the choice war movie that year, but 13 years later and we all know The Thin Red Line is the better film.

I don't think Malick's films work very well watching in a large theater with an audience. They're personal and deep films. Ideal setting for viewing is by yourself. You don't get them right away after a viewing. They come to you later because you can't get them out of your head. You replay certain parts in your brain and when you eventually go back and revisit his films, you finally come around to how good they are.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 16, 2011, 11:33:37 AM
Crash was awful not because it preached too much, it was awful because what it preached was fucking stupid.

Amen (so to speak).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 16, 2011, 11:50:39 AM
from my memory they were praised about the same in the press. saving private ryan mainly for the first 20 minutes.

I always hated saving private ryan, it's just an action movie with cliched plot elements. The second world war is the backdrop of a holywood action movie. It's a laughable concept.

Most of my friends liked SPR more, and i think they still do.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 12:32:19 PM
Hey, does anyone know where this is opening on May 27th? All the info I can find just says "limited release." I hope it's not just 2 theaters in NY/LA or some crap like that.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 12:50:30 PM
I know that it's not before mid-june in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal :(
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 12:52:59 PM
Ah, shoot. It was difficult to find, but eventually I found two blogs that both said it'd be opening June 3rd in Austin. I think May 27th is just for NY/LA.

Shoulda opened in Austin first! It was shot here!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on May 16, 2011, 01:12:06 PM
june 3rd? you lucky son of a gum. we here in México are MONTHS away from its release (hope im wrong).


from indieWIRE.

The “Tree of Life” Press Conference and The Man Who Wasn’t There

Outside the Palais Monday morning, the love for Terrence Malick was on the verge of turning into frenzy. Members of the press leapt over railings and used mosh-pit tactics in order to break through the crowd and run up the Palais steps. Scores of fans held handmade signs begging passersby for a ticket.

But inside, the scene was contentious, even prickly. When the credits rolled, the famously vocal Cannes audience reacted with a smattering of polite applause as well as hissing boos. And at the press conference, when the cast and producers took their seats sans Malick (who is said to be in town), there were only a few claps of approval. The message was clear: Malick’s not here and we're pissed.

It was a theme that moderator Henri Behar was quick to identify. Why, he asked, was Malick not here for his own press conference?

“Mr. Malick is very shy and I believe his work speaks for itself,” said “Tree of Life” producer Dede Gardner.

“That’s not good enough,” Behar replied.

Gardner shot back, “Turn the volume up.”

The lines were drawn. The press felt that they were owed Malick, or at least a good explanation for his absence; Malick’s collaborators drew ranks around their auteur.

Next up, a reporter asked a question about Malick’s impressionistic shooting style, tartly suggesting that it seemed he might “rather be birdwatching than filmmaking.”

Brad Pitt agreed that it was an unusual approach, and one that wasn’t easy. “It’s like he’s waiting with a butterfly net to catch what was going by that day.” he said. “It’s exhausting.”

Added Jessica Chastain, “It’s all about capturing an accident,” she said. “He would be shooting and Brad would be wonderful and then there’d be a woodpecker nearby and he’d turn to that. You can’t plan any moment.”

Behar didn’t seem to be satisfied with the secondhand description of Malick’s process. “What kind of person is he?” he asked. “Does he laugh? Does he eat? Does he like food?”

“He’s laughing most of the day,” Pitt replied. “He finds pleasure in the day.”

Another reporter suggested that Malick was the sort of filmmaker who needed “a tough friend with a big stick” in order to finish his work.

Producer Sarah Green rejected the idea. “He’s the most disciplined director I’ve ever worked with, ” she said. “He never stops.”

Pohlad allowed, “There were a lot of hard conversations back and forth.” (Later, he added: “There was discussion about the dinosaurs.”)

Finally, Chaz Ebert laid it out: As Cannes is the most auteur-driven film festival, Malick “should perhaps be here.” And as his ambassadors, did he provide any direction in what to say, or not?

Once again, the “Tree of Life” team neatly deflected the question, with producer Grant Hill saying that “The idea he would want to exert influence… is a long way from Terry as a person.”

Added Pitt, “He sees himself as building a house. He doesn’t want to focus on the selling of the real estate.”

While Malick may be the most elusive example, he’s not alone in the desire to shrug off the notion of wearing a Century 21 blazer. Mel Gibson is expected to be in Cannes for “The Beaver,” but is not expected to give interviews. Ditto for “The Tree of Life” star Sean Penn. (A conference no-show, he’s on his way from Haiti and is expected to be here for tonight’s premiere.) Johnny Depp made his appearance on the red carpet for the fourth installment of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, but the film held its junket in Los Angeles.

However, such is the power of the Cannes Film Festival: Certain celebrities can promote their films merely by being within city limits.

_____________________________

reading this article about that Malick-less q&a made me realize that:

a. reporters there dont know shit about Malick because they thought he was going to be there.

b. they're idiots to think Malick owes them to attend.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on May 16, 2011, 01:52:36 PM
this film will cause mass enlightenment temperament.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 01:56:35 PM
Film journalists are the worst people on earth. I truly despise them.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on May 16, 2011, 02:24:53 PM
The Tree Of Life: Cannes Review
Brad Pitt gives one of his finest performances in Terrence Malick's drama about the beginnings of life on Earth and the travails of a 1950s Texas family, writes Todd McCarthy.
Source: THR

The Bottom Line A unique film that will split opinions every which way, which Fox Searchlight can only hope will oblige people to see it for themselves.

CANNES --Brandishing an ambition it’s likely no film, including this one, could entirely fulfill, The Tree of Life is nonetheless a singular work, an impressionistic metaphysical inquiry into mankind’s place in the grand scheme of things that releases waves of insights amid its narrative imprecisions. This fifth feature in Terrence Malick’s eccentric four-decade career is a beauteous creation that ponders the imponderables, asks the questions that religious and thoughtful people have posed for millennia and provokes expansive philosophical musings along with intense personal introspection. As such, it is hardly a movie for the masses and will polarize even buffs, some of whom might fail to grasp the connection between the depiction of the beginnings of life on Earth and the travails of a 1950s Texas family. But there are great, heady things here, both obvious and evanescent, more than enough to qualify this as an exceptional and major film. Critical passions, pro and con, along with Brad Pitt in one of his finest performances will stir specialized audiences to attention, but Fox Searchlight will have its work cut out for it in luring a wider public. Shot three years ago and molded and tinkered with ever since by Malick and no fewer than five editors, Life is shaped in an unconventional way, not as a narrative with normal character arcs and dramatic tension but more like a symphony with several movements --each expressive of its own natural phenomena and moods. Arguably, music plays a much more important role here than do words (there is some voice-over but scarcely any dialogue at all for nearly an hour) whereas the soaring, sometimes grandiose soundtrack --comprising 35 mostly classical excerpts drawn from Bach, Brahms, Berlioz, Mahler, Holst, Respighi, Gorecki and others in addition to the contributions of Alexandre Desplat --dominates in the way it often did in Stanley Kubrick’s work. Indeed, this comparison is inevitable, as Life is destined to be endlessly likened to 2001: A Space Odyssey because to the spacy imagery of undefinable celestial lights and formations as well as because of its presentation of key hypothetical moments in the evolution of life on this planet. There are also equivalent long stretches of silence and semi-boredom designed, perhaps, to provide some time to muse about matters rarely raised in conventional narrative films. That Malick intends to think large is indicated by an opening quotation from the Book of Job, in which God intimidates the humble man by demanding, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.” Job is not cited again but is more or less paraphrased when, in moments of great personal distress, a small-town mother cries out, “Lord, why? Where are you?” and “What are we to you?” Life doesn’t answer these questions but fashions a relationship between its big-picture perspective and its intimate story that crucially serves the film’s philosophical purposes. Much of the early going is devoted to spectacular footage of massive natural phenomena, both in space and on Earth: gaseous masses, light and matter in motion, volcanic explosions, fire and water, the creation and growth of cells and organisms, eventually the evolution of jellyfish and even dinosaurs, represented briefly by stunningly realistic creatures, one of which oddly appears to express compassion for another. Juxtaposed with this are the lamentations of a mother (Jessica Chastain) for a son who has just died in unexplained circumstances and for a time it seems that placing the everyday doings of the O’Brien family of a quiet Texas town in the shadow of the seismic convulsions pertaining to the planet’s creation represents an inordinately elaborate way of expressing what Bogart said in Casablanca, that “the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” But while that might be true, it is also the case that those very problems --and everything else that people experience --are all that matter at the time one is experiencing them and are therefore of surpassing importance. Whatever else can --and will --be said about it, Life gets the balance of its extraordinary dual perspective between the cosmic and the momentary remarkably right, which holds it together even during its occasional uncertain stretches. Least effective is the contemporary framing material centered on the oldest O’Brien kid, Jack, portrayed as a middle-aged man by Sean Penn. A successful architect, Jack looks troubled and preoccupied as he moves through a world defined by giant Houston office towers and atriums shot so as to resemble secular cathedrals. While the connection to Jack’s childhood years is clear, the dramatic contributions of these largely wordless scenes are weak, even at the end, when a sense of reconciliation and closure is sought by the sight of flowers and disparate souls gathering on a beach in a way that uncomfortably resembles hippie-dippy reveries of the late 1960s. But the climactic shortfall only marginally saps the impact of the central story of family life. Occupying a pleasant but not lavish home on a wide dirt street in a town that matches one’s idealized vision of a perfect 1950s community (it’s actually Smithville, population 3,900, just southeast of Austin and previously seen in Hope Floats), the family is dominated by a military veteran father (Pitt) who lays down the law to his three boys seemingly more by rote than because of any necessity. He’s compulsively physical with them, playfully, affectionately and violently, and yet rigidly holds something back.

Within Malick’s scheme of things, Dad represents nature, while Mom (Chastain) stands for grace. Great pals among themselves, Jack (Hunter McCracken), R.L. (Pitt look-alike Laramie Eppler) and Steve (Tye Sheridan) range all over town and would seem to enjoy near-ideal circumstances in which to indulge their youth. But working in a manner diametrically opposed to that of theater dramatists inclined to spell everything out, Malick opens cracks and wounds by inflection, indirection and implication. Using fleet camerawork and jump-cutting that combine to intoxicating effect, the picture builds to unanticipated levels of disappointment and tragedy, much of it expressed with a minimum of dialogue in the final stages of Pitt’s terrific performance. Embodying the American ideal with his clean-cut good looks, open face, look-you-in-the-eyes directness and strong build, Pitt’s Mr. O’Brien embodies the optimism and can-do attitude one associates with the postwar period. But this man had other, unfulfilled dreams --he became “sidetracked,” as he says --and as his pubescent oldest son begins to display a troublesome rebelliousness, fractures begins to show in his own character as well, heartbreakingly so. Voice-over snippets suggestive of states of mind register more importantly than dialogue, and both are trumped by the diverse musical elements and the rumblings and murmurs of nature, which have all been blended in a masterful sound mix. Emmanuel Lubezki outdoes himself with cinematography of almost unimaginable crispness and luminosity. As in The New World, the camera is constantly on the move, forever reframing in search of the moment, which defines the film’s impressionistic manner. Production designer Jack Fisk and costume designer Jacqueline West make indispensable contributions to creating the film’s world. That not a single image here seems fake or artificial can only be the ultimate praise for the work of senior visual effects supervisor Dan Glass and his team, while the presence of Douglas Trumbull as visual effects consultant further cements the film’s connection to 2001.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on May 16, 2011, 02:35:37 PM
'Tree of Life' Sets Off Mixed Frenzy of Boos, Applause, Glowing Reviews
Director Terrence Malick did not attend the screening; producer Sarah Green calls him “very shy.”

CANNES --Ending a prolonged waiting game, Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life finally made its way to the Cannes Film Festival, where it was met Monday with scattered boos, an initial round of applause and then a growing chorus of appreciative reviews. The Palais' Lumiere Theatre was packed full of press, who pushed and shoved to secure a seat for the 8:30 a.m. screening that marked the official bow of the movie, which the festival had originally hoped to screen last year only to be told at the time that it was not ready.

And even before the final credits rolled on the elusive director’s 138-minute meditation on the meaning of life, the rush to judgment began. With the film’s final, ambiguous image still lingering on the screen, a number of vociferous boos rained down from the balcony, while scattered applause broke out on the floor of the festival’s main theater.

Life, which Malick has been nurturing for years, defies easy categorization: At its center is the evocative tale of a family in Texas in the '50s: The disappointed, disciplinarian dad is played by Brad Pitt, while Jessica Chastain floats through the movie as the comforting and consoling mom. Sean Penn is seen, relatively briefly, in framing sections as one of their sons, grown up, troubled, and wandering through high rises in Houston. And then there is also a magisterial detour into a section that recreates the origins of the universe and the creation of planet earth, with a stop along the way for a fleeting glimpse of some dinosaurs. First reactions came in a rat-a-tat volley of tweets. “Tree of Life just ended, and it’s a very sad and beautiful...wank? The ultimate refutation of narrative? An interminable tone poem?,” tweeted Hollywood Elsewhere columnist Jeffrey Wells. Proclaimed Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir, “If the cosmic astronaut god-baby at the end of 2001 could come back to Earth and make a movie? It would pretty much be Tree of Life.” Amid a cluster of British journalists, one cracked that during the creation scenes, he kept expecting David Attenborough, the face of the BBC’s nature docs, to pop up.

As if to provide context about Cannes’ often over-headed instant reactions, Awards Daily’s Sasha Stone reached back and found a New York Times account of the Cannes debut of Malick’s 1978 Days of Heaven, which sounded eerily prescient: “Its visual power and its photography were generally praised, but absence of a coherent, fully developed story was lamented.” As more substantive reviews began to issue forth, the tone turned more positive. Calling the movie “mad and magnificent,” the Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw wrote,”This film is not for everyone....But this is visionary cinema on an unashamedly huge scale.” The Hollywood Reporter’s Todd McCarthy noted that it is an “exceptional and major film” but is “hardly a movie for the masses and will polarize.” While Cannes tradition demands the auteur-of-the-day show up at an official press conference, Malick opted out of making an appearance at the presser --and although Malick is in Cannes, there were conflicting reports whether he would walk the red carpet when the film formally screens Monday evening. In his place, Pitt, Chastain and producers Sarah Green, Bill Pohlad (whose River Road backed the film), Dede Gardner (Pitt’s producing partner) and Grant Hill (who oversaw visuals) stepped forward to explain the film --or at least to fend off definitive explanations. (Penn, who is on his way to the festival, had not yet arrived in town.) “Mr. Malick is very shy,” Green said by way of explaining the director’s absence. Pressed to explicate the meanings of the movie, Pohlad suggested, “One of the reasons that Terry maybe shies away from a forum like this [is that] he wants the work to stand on its own. He doesn’t want to say what it’s about.” Pitt assured the inquisitors, though, that Malick isn’t some mysterious misanthrope. “He’s quite jovial, he’s incredibly sweet, he’s laughing most of the day, he finds pleasure in the day,” Pitt explained. The actor testified that for him Malick’s particular way of working has had a lasting effect. “He’s like a guy standing there with a butterfly net, waiting for that moment to go by,” Pitt said, explaining that the director would show up every morning with fresh notes about a scene, would rarely shoot more than two takes and relied primarily on natural light. Sometimes, after Pitt and Chastain finished a take, Malick would tell the actor playing their youngest son to jump into the scene just to mix it up --they nicknamed the kid “the Torpedo” and called it “torpedo-ing a scene.”

Chastain pointed to one moment when a butterfly lands on her hand. It wasn’t scripted or created by CG graphics --it was just a moment that occurred that Malick managed to capture.

“It’s changed everything I’ve done since,” Pitt said of the lingering effects of working on the movie that was shot three years ago and will finally be released in the United States by Fox Searchlight on May 27.

Although five editors worked on the film, Green said that the movie had an unusually long post-production period by design so that Malick could refine it. In the end, though, Pohlad said the final shape of the movie, which the filmmakers decided not to take to Cannes last year because it was not yet finished, “didn’t take a dramatic turn.”
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 16, 2011, 02:40:37 PM
Thanks Mac.

The bad reviews for this remind me of a french monthy-python-type sketch:

A young man decides to become interested in culture. He takes a Dostoievsky book and starts reading: ''Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova  opens the door and enters Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigaïlov room...'' he suddenly throws the book on the well and screams : ''GET TO THE POINT ALREADY!!!''
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 02:49:47 PM
Life, which Malick has been nurturing for years

Heh.

it’s a very sad and beautiful...wank?

Is there any other kind?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 16, 2011, 06:33:44 PM
RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

GTFO. Eff this dude. The Fountain? The Fountain was terrible.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 06:43:21 PM
RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

GTFO. Eff this dude. The Fountain? The Fountain was terrible.

I was just about to post this exact thing, pretty much word for word.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 06:46:44 PM
Oh shit y'all I just got an e-mail saying that there's going to be a special screening of this in Austin on May 31st with Jessica Chastain there.

$75 though.

I'm thinkin' about it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: children with angels on May 16, 2011, 06:46:47 PM
RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

The Fountain? The Fountain was terrible.

I imagine that was probably his point.

EDIT: Okay, nope - it wasn't: just scanned his review (http://www.movingpicturesnetwork.com/27914/tree-life-review/)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 16, 2011, 06:49:04 PM
Oh shit y'all I just got an e-mail saying that there's going to be a special screening of this in Austin on May 31st with Jessica Chastain there.

$75 though.

I'm thinkin' about it.

(2.5 minutes later)

Aaaand I've thought about it. What else is money for? I'll be there.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on May 16, 2011, 06:51:58 PM
RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

The Fountain? The Fountain was terrible.

I imagine that was probably his point.

why would that be his point? you don't have to read his review to know ">" means "greater than"... have you never come across that symbol before?

pretty strange for a dude with a PhD to not know that.. :ponder:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 16, 2011, 06:53:34 PM
with Jessica Chastain there.

(http://thefinalcastle.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/73b71_190735-dat.jpg)

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: children with angels on May 16, 2011, 07:10:16 PM
RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

The Fountain? The Fountain was terrible.

I imagine that was probably his point.

why would that be his point? you don't have to read his review to know ">" means "greater than"... have you never come across that symbol before?

pretty strange for a dude with a PhD to not know that.. :ponder:

Um, yes - I'm familiar with the symbol! I interpreted his meaning to be: "Although I'm a Malick fan, I must say that The Tree of Life is less good even than this other famously self-indulgent film about the tree of life." But as I soon discovered, dude seems to actually LIKE Aronofsky's worst hour.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: john on May 16, 2011, 07:20:59 PM
RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

GTFO. Eff this dude. The Fountain? The Fountain was terrible.

Plus, everyone knows that people who use the phrase "I love me some..." are automatically invalidated. Any time. Every time.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 16, 2011, 08:00:37 PM
Oh shit y'all I just got an e-mail saying that there's going to be a special screening of this in Austin on May 31st with Jessica Chastain there.

$75 though.

I'm thinkin' about it.

(2.5 minutes later)

Aaaand I've thought about it. What else is money for? I'll be there.

sweet deal. Fuckin' Austin, man. Fuckin' every city, state, and country except mine.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 16, 2011, 10:25:42 PM
RT @cobblehillis I love me some Malick, but THE FOUNTAIN > TREE OF LIFE. #Cannes

GTFO. Eff this dude. The Fountain? The Fountain was terrible.

I was just about to post this exact thing, pretty much word for word.

I loved the fountain. but then again a more contemplative version of the fountain could be great as well. we'll see.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 17, 2011, 01:29:03 PM
Here's a list of when and where Tree of Life will be showing.

http://content.foxsearchlight.com/inside/node/4851

Albuquerque GETS IT June 17th. And it's going to GET IT. Because I'm going to give it to it! HARD.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on May 17, 2011, 01:36:00 PM
Here's a list of when and where Tree of Life will be showing.

http://content.foxsearchlight.com/inside/node/4851

Can't wait to see it next year! Thanks Fox Searchlight!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 17, 2011, 02:05:06 PM
Whens the widespread American release, next month I'm guessing?

I remember before I knew what this was about I thought it was an adaptation of "The giving tree" in the vein of WTWTA, and I was like " How are they gonna make that into a movie, and why the fuck are ppl so excited about it? " I guess it still could be a cool movie though, if they pulled the other one off.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 17, 2011, 02:07:58 PM
Wow, that's a really sucky release. A slow roll out to around 100 screens over a month in like 20 states? I thought Fox Searchlight was going to be more aggressive.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 17, 2011, 02:18:05 PM
After reading that thin red line article, I'd love to see the other script he wrote at the same time. The one the producer compared to the exorcist malick style.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 17, 2011, 02:19:08 PM
so I guess it's not coming out as soon as I thought  :(  

yet its expected to sweep the Oscars next year? Oh well, I guess The Hurt Locker didn't make it to the mulitplexes either.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on May 17, 2011, 02:44:22 PM
So the 1st screenings in nyc are not on imax?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 17, 2011, 02:48:07 PM
Nice, I'm in the 6/3 bracket. But it definitely won't be IMAX.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 17, 2011, 02:58:58 PM
I'll probably have to wait until this shit gets nominated for oscars until I get to see it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 17, 2011, 03:03:47 PM
I can't wait to never see it!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 17, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
I can't wait to never see it!

REPORTED.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on May 17, 2011, 03:56:45 PM
yet its expected to sweep the Oscars next year?

according to who? I only expect it will sweep here, but not anywhere else.

if this gets nominated at all it'll be for best DP, and probably wont win. although with 10 best movies who knows, but seeing all those negative reviews I can see the oscar ppl not caring abour it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 17, 2011, 04:03:36 PM
yet its expected to sweep the Oscars next year?

according to who? I only expect it will sweep here, but not anywhere else.

if this gets nominated at all it'll be for best DP, and probably wont win. although with 10 best movies who knows, but seeing all those negative reviews I can see the oscar ppl not caring abour it.

Yeah. Malick's stuff is not Oscar material at all. It'll get a Cinematography nod but not win, and a token Best Picture nomination just because they have to find 10 things to nominate.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 17, 2011, 04:21:00 PM
Ok, I guess you guys are right. you see what the hype on this board is doing? I'm actually convinced there will be no contenders with this come Oscar time. Which in my mind, there won't be. What else do you think can really fuck with this, that you know about? IDk, fuck the oscars, but if it helps me get this seen, me likey.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on May 17, 2011, 04:32:21 PM
I can't wait to find out what this year's The King's Speech is going to be.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 17, 2011, 04:46:43 PM
Ok, I guess you guys are right. you see what the hype on this board is doing? I'm actually convinced there will be no contenders with this come Oscar time. Which in my mind, there won't be. What else do you think can really fuck with this, that you know about? IDk, fuck the oscars, but if it helps me get this seen, me likey.

it has nothing to do with contenders, it has everything to do with matching tastes. I'm guessing there will be very little contenders in my mind. Also, I'm not saying it won't be nominated for an Oscar, because the thin red line was. But really, if XIXAX hype is worthy of litmus test status to the tastes of the Academy, then yes it will be nominated... highly doubtful; you gotta separate this site from Hollywood. I don't say that with pretentious pride, it's just a fact.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 17, 2011, 05:01:04 PM
Damnit Reelist. You're acting like a gotdamn Oscaria Subtitlus.

No way this wins any oscars. Probably won't even get nominated. And that's a good thing. The oscars are always a sign of overrated movies. Only awards that matter are the xixax awards.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 17, 2011, 05:06:21 PM
It's like, you come to know this little guy during the gestation period, and all you want is to see him grow up and get into a good school and be valedictorian. Then after he wins all the accolades you really think he's a douche and you wish he just spent his time skipping class to smoke weed and fuck chicks.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 17, 2011, 05:10:18 PM
Seeing this Monday I think. Downgrading my excitement to "probably not going to like it."  :yabbse-undecided:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on May 17, 2011, 05:36:25 PM
you dont deserve it, Debbie Downer.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 17, 2011, 05:43:46 PM
Hoping for pleasant surprise?

But let's get real...

Badlands > Days of Heaven > The Thin Red Line > The New World > ...

..so where did we really expect TOL to fall on that scale?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 17, 2011, 05:49:37 PM
Stefen! I just meant this is not even scheduled to come out EVER in my province! I am actually going in Montreal on May 27th (5 hour drive) because I booked a room on that day a couple weeks ago JUST to go watch Tree of Life. AND IT DOESN'T EVEN COME OUT. Like the kids say: FMFL (fuck my fucking life)

CMBB>TOL is the only valid question at this point
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 17, 2011, 06:05:11 PM
Stefen! I just meant this is not even scheduled to come out EVER in my province! I am actually going in Montreal on May 27th (5 hour drive) because I booked a room on that day a couple weeks ago JUST to go watch Tree of Life. AND IT DOESN'T EVEN COME OUT. Like the kids say: FMFL (fuck my fucking life)

CMBB>TOL is the only valid question at this point

Oh, my bad.

Can the moderator who I reported Pas's post to please disregard said reportage?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 17, 2011, 06:08:05 PM
Pas, I already dug your style. But damn, very nice. I'm in Toronto so I have the luxury. I wish I still had that kind of dedication for cinema. That's love brother.

I did notice that about Montreal. For what is considered the strongest cultural city in Canada, Rep cinemas suck. A good film school friend of mine is from Montreal and he says Toronto is far better.  Even the big theatres have the occasional art film over here.  I'm sure there will be at least 1 IMAX screen with TOL.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 17, 2011, 06:34:33 PM
There Will be Blood should not have been so Oscar friendly. If the field is weak, I can see Oscar voters campaigning around a lifetime consideration for Terrance Malick and overhyping this film. It's a coin toss field for some films. And because it is, it should be a shrug for everyone.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 17, 2011, 06:36:35 PM
Pas, I already dug your style. But damn, very nice. I'm in Toronto so I have the luxury. I wish I still had that kind of dedication for cinema. That's love brother.

I did notice that about Montreal. For what is considered the strongest cultural city in Canada, Rep cinemas suck. A good film school friend of mine is from Montreal and he says Toronto is far better.  Even the big theatres have the occasional art film over here.  I'm sure there will be at least 1 IMAX screen with TOL.

It's the first time it happens to me! You can now understand with the amount of $ I invested in that fucking movie that I better be enthusiastic about it haha
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 17, 2011, 07:09:09 PM
There Will be Blood should not have been so Oscar friendly. If the field is weak, I can see Oscar voters campaigning around a lifetime consideration for Terrance Malick and overhyping this film. It's a coin toss field for some films. And because it is, it should be a shrug for everyone.

yes but there should be some mention to the fact that There Will Be Blood also follows a classic narrative arch. Even though the pacing, subject matter, and style might differ from the norm it did have a linear structure. If TOL has a structure similar to the thin red line then it's in trouble. The thin red line had a war premise going for it, and Malick's return.  if TOL is the fountain-meets-the-thin red line, it's fucked for Oscar nods IMO.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 17, 2011, 07:12:06 PM
Regarding the IMAX thing, I can't see how that's going to happen. There were rumors about it last year (or maybe two years ago), because I think maybe one of the VFX guys said that was the plan. And even then, I think it was regarding "the second movie" that I don't think exists (as far as I can tell, some people working on it thought all the dinosaur stuff was part of a companion IMAX piece? Maybe this was the plan at some point but I haven't heard anything about it recently and it seems like all that stuff was really just for this one movie).

As nice as it would be, I don't see any indication that it'd make any financial sense to put this movie in IMAX theaters, especially not during the summer when all the Harry Potters and Transformers will be taking over the IMAX screens.

The fact that The Tree of Life was partially shot on 60mm (I think?) doesn't matter, since I'm pretty sure The New World also had some 60mm stuff going on.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but I can't see it happening.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 17, 2011, 07:19:05 PM
this is my current There Will Be Blood/The New World/The Fountain/INLAND EMPIRE/WALL·E/Synecdoche, NY -- the one movie I WANT SO BADLY that it makes me not care about anything else. :|

OBVIOUSLY NOT THAT BAD.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 17, 2011, 07:49:38 PM
There Will be Blood should not have been so Oscar friendly. If the field is weak, I can see Oscar voters campaigning around a lifetime consideration for Terrance Malick and overhyping this film. It's a coin toss field for some films. And because it is, it should be a shrug for everyone.

yes but there should be some mention to the fact that There Will Be Blood also follows a classic narrative arch. Even though the pacing, subject matter, and style might differ from the norm it did have a linear structure. If TOL has a structure similar to the thin red line then it's in trouble. The thin red line had a war premise going for it, and Malick's return.  if TOL is the fountain-meets-the-thin red line, it's fucked for Oscar nods IMO.

Oscar antagonism toward certain kind of films certainly rest on more things than linear structure. There Will be Blood is as much as a bill footer for the classic anti Oscar film as anything done by Malick.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on May 18, 2011, 01:21:34 AM
press conference (watching right now. don't know how spoilerful.)

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/11317.html
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on May 18, 2011, 01:35:44 AM
press conference (watching right now. don't know how spoilerful.)

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/11317.html

Not very if the summary on the previous page is to be believed, everyone just spent the whole time defending terry not being there. Didn't seem like they talked about the movie at all. Dumb jerks.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 18, 2011, 01:57:58 AM
Hoping for pleasant surprise?

But let's get real...

Badlands > Days of Heaven > The Thin Red Line > The New World > ...

..so where did we really expect TOL to fall on that scale?

Well, your scale sucks.  That's all.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 18, 2011, 11:24:41 PM
Way to refute it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 19, 2011, 12:52:21 AM
What substance is there to refute?  You used greater than symbols.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: children with angels on May 19, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
I haven't seen it, but one of the lucky writers for my website has, and came back with this very positive review: http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/?2011%2C5%2C294
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 19, 2011, 09:37:00 AM
What substance is there to refute?  You used greater than symbols.

It's my preference. If you have one, you can share it. Let's just issue a little newbie law: don't go around saying something sucks unless you can back up why. (That privilege is reserved for older members.  :wink:) I guess you're new so you are not picking up on the same shorthand as everyone else.

And I never said any of Malick's movie's were bad. I just issued an order of preference. For all you know they could all be A+'s by slight degrees.

When I said "the real story here is the movie kinda sucks" it was obviously overstating the mostly average mixed reviews (with my own preference of Von Trier being a one-trick-pony) to steer away from the controversy and onto the actual movie, which (for the most part seems like it's) not even very good. But Karina Longworth did like it and, though I don't usually agree with her, I do respect her taste.

So calm down. It's really not fun having to explain every post to you.

Are we done now?  We're done.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 19, 2011, 11:38:14 AM
Let's just issue a little newbie law: don't go around saying something sucks unless you can back up why. (That privilege is reserved for older members.  :wink:)
the actual movie, which (for the most part seems like it's) not even very good.

Just saying, this is bizarre logic. And when did we start reviewing movies without having seen them?

It's my preference. If you have one, you can share it.

You ask him to refute your ranking, then issue a blanket "hey, that's my preference" defense? What is he supposed to do?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 19, 2011, 11:49:52 AM
I didn't review the movie, I just posted a link to one of many middling reviews and facetiously said that the movie (probably) "kinda sucked."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 19, 2011, 12:34:01 PM
It sounds like you say whatever you want without thinking about it and then get pissy when someone asks you about it.  Yes we are done.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 19, 2011, 01:31:45 PM
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfxjrte6zB1qb84lwo1_400.gif)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 19, 2011, 02:09:41 PM
We already reconciled backstage.  He's coming over for a pool party and then we're riding dirtbikes in the desert.  It should be a lot of fun.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 19, 2011, 02:27:21 PM
The important prospect about Tree of Life is that Malick may be fully compounding his style for the first time. Similar to how Tarkovsky transformed for Mirror, Malick may be taking a honed structure and style and adding a lot of different tones and objectives. Before Tree of Life, his most adventurous and challenging moment of filmmaking (for me) came in the final scenes of New World. The editing in Pocahontas's final moments are poetic and lucid. It feels like a different film. The trailer for Tree of Life suggests a lot of new invention within recognizable filmmaking traits. I hope he delivers and I hope the results are provoking enough.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: children with angels on May 19, 2011, 03:03:01 PM
GT - Yeah, my man's review suggests that this is the case, and it's very exciting:

"the first hour dispenses with the theatrical convention of the scene. What we are left with is almost pure cinema: a series of disjointed, chronologically displaced, and often stunningly beautiful shots. With very little spoken dialogue except for snatches of voiceover, we glimpse jigsaw pieces of lives, guess at relationships, and then embark on a cosmic journey that changes scale from the microscopic to the astronomical."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 22, 2011, 01:08:33 PM
Palme d'Or winner.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 22, 2011, 01:15:27 PM
Ooh, didn't expect that. I was thinking that it was the first American film to win since Pulp Fiction but I forgot that Fahrenheit 9/11 and Elephant also won.

But this is neat. Can't wait to see it!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on May 22, 2011, 01:51:57 PM
 :shock:  :doh: :bravo:

and modge just threw his movie (for the most part seems like it's) not even very good / (probably) "kinda sucked"/ weird logic scale out his modern age window.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on May 22, 2011, 02:30:15 PM
Will the real Terrence Malick please stand up?
His friends and collaborators paint a portrait of the reclusive 'Tree of Life' filmmaker as a complicated and contradictory man.
By Steven Zeitchik, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Cannes, France —When Jessica Chastain, the up-and-coming actress who stars opposite Brad Pitt in "The Tree of Life," had a meeting with Ben Stiller a few years ago, the actor caught her off guard with an unexpected request: "Tell Terry I said hi," Stiller told her, referring to "Tree" director Terrence Malick.

Chastain assumed that Stiller was kidding. How on Earth would the star of comedies like "Dodgeball" and "Meet the Fockers" be on such casual terms with a reclusive, enigmatic auteur like Malick?

But he wasn't joking. It turns out Malick is a huge fan of "Zoolander," Stiller's 2001 send-up of fashion fabulousness —so much so that for Malick's birthday one year, Stiller dressed up as the character Derek Zoolander, made a personalized video card and sent it to the director. "I think 'Zoolander' is one of Terry's favorite movies ever," said Jack Fisk, Malick's longtime production designer, who has known him for nearly 40 years. "He watches it all the time, and he likes quoting it."

Love for a goofy comedy is one of many paradoxes about Malick, the film world's version of J.D. Salinger. The director dislikes being photographed, avoids public appearances —he skipped the premiere of his highly anticipated, long-delayed "Tree" last week here at the Cannes Film Festival —and turns down all interview requests (including this one), creating an impression of a cranky, precious artist.

But conversations with nearly a dozen friends and collaborators reveal a different portrait of the 67-year-old director who has made only five movies in nearly four decades: "Badlands," "Days of Heaven," "The Thin Red Line," "The New World" and now "Tree." They paint a picture of a complicated and contradictory man: painfully shy in public but jovial on his sets, gentle but fiercely driven. While he believes in the mystical, he nonetheless has a strong belief in science. Though he can be rigorous to the point of obsessive, he also has a childlike sense of wonder, the kind that might cause him to gaze at a nearby woodpecker or butterfly in the middle of shooting a scene.

And while his films are concerned with big ideas like the meaning of life and the nature of identity, his conversation is filled with talk about dogs and "downhome-y things," Pitt said in an interview. The perception of Malick as a lofty thinker, he added, is "at odds with who he is in daily life."

"When I first met Terry, I thought we'd be talking about film," Chastain said in an interview. "He's more interested in you and where you come from than spouting his ideas." Fisk added that the director can talk to anyone about anything, from the origin of asphalt to breeds of birds to life in North Africa. "He knows so much but he always makes you feel like he knows less than you do," he said.

Malick has been hailed as a genius by some and derided as pretentious by others for his first four directing efforts, which favor slow pacing, sweeping visuals and a contemplative tone to tease out human and natural moments, whether in a small-town church or a cross-country killing spree. So perhaps it was no surprise that "Tree" divided audiences when it screened in Cannes. Clearly, though, the film is Malick's most personal.

The director's opus, which comes out Friday in Los Angeles, follows a trio of brothers growing up in the small town of Waco, Texas, in the middle of the 20th century with a stern father (Pitt) and generous mother (Chastain), a circumstance that paralleled Malick's upbringing. We see their lives unfold not in conventional scenes but in morsels and snatches.

Based on a script that Malick worked on for at least a decade, "Tree" contains an unusual visual montage that suggests the creation of the world; it's an effects-driven piece de resistance that lasts about 20 minutes and features exploding stars, underwater microbes and even an interaction between two dinosaurs. With many philosophical queries posed in whispered voice-overs, the film not only has life cycles and family on its mind but religion and morality too.

At Cannes Malick continued to perpetuate the aura of mystery that surrounds him. He flew into the city and went to dinner with Pitt and Angelina Jolie and the film's producers several times. He was even joined once by Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox Searchlight is distributing his movie.

But Malick refused to walk the red carpet at the premiere, attend a news conference as directors here typically do or even sit for the screening. When the movie ended after 2 hours and 17 minutes, the closed-circuit projection on the theater screen cut not to the usual Cannes shot of the director standing to acknowledge applause but to an empty chair that was to have been Malick's. (A Fox Searchlight spokesman later said that Malick entered the theater at the end of the screening but did so covertly.)

At dinner in Cannes one night, Malick was recognized by several fans, according to a person who witnessed the incident. But when they asked for autographs, the filmmaker declined, saying he would prefer just to shake their hands. In Austin, where Malick is based, he is almost never recognized, said one associate, perhaps because few photos of him are in circulation. (The one that seems to be published most often was taken during production of "Thin Red Line," for which he was nominated for writing and directing Oscars.)

Malick surrounds himself with a small circle of confidants whom he has worked with for years, using them as a sounding board and conduit to the outside world. Few are more inside than Sarah Green, who produced "The New World" and was Malick's right hand on "Tree" as well. Green clearly doesn't like speaking for Malick but often winds up doing so anyway, describing how much he laughs and how everyone on set can feel comfortable talking to him; he is not trying to seem enigmatic, she says, but just wants to live a private life. (Which of course makes him seem more enigmatic.)

Certain elements of his personality are undeniable. Even Malick's close friends acknowledge that he can get worked up, and admit he has an obsessive side. He began collecting images for "Tree" nearly 40 years ago. He would write and rewrite pages of the script nearly every day on set, and rented multiple houses and had them outfitted identically so he could shoot the same scene at different times of the day.

Malick finished shooting "Tree" three years ago and then basically continued to edit it until early 2011. Five different editors rotated in and out, and Malick still kept working. "I've seen this film when it was 4 hours and then 31/2 hours and then down to 21/2 and then back to 31/2 and down to its present incarnation of 21/4 hours," Pitt said, his voice trailing off.

Last year, the film seemed to be headed for Cannes, but Malick wanted more time to work on it. He might have kept going, but Bill Pohlad, a producer who helped finance the film, and other friends urged him to wrap it up so the movie could be released.

Jacqueline West, who designed costumes for "The New World" and "Tree," says that part of the reason it takes Malick so long to finish is that no detail is too small for his attention. When they shot 2005's "New World," she and Malick had an hourlong discussion about whether Pocahontas should wear a blue dress in one scene. She also said that because Malick is so often thinking up new ideas on set, working with him requires being something of a "clairvoyant."

Others described similar experiences. "I would be in Paris, jogging in the park, and Terry would call and say 'I'm thinking of this music,'" recalled composer Alexandre Desplat, who worked on "Tree." "But he wouldn't say what he wanted; he would just say it's lovely but it should go more like Mozart and have more light. So I'd stop my jogging and go back to the studio to find more light," his voice suggesting that he wasn't always so sure what that meant.

Born in 1943 in Illinois, Malick split most of his childhood between Texas and Oklahoma before heading off to Harvard, where he majored in philosophy. He began his film career as a screenwriter before evolving into something of a wunderkind director. In his 30s, between 1973 and 1978, he helmed two acclaimed movies, "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven," the former helping to put Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen on the map and presaging both "Natural Born Killers" and the modern road movie.

Malick then disappeared from the film scene for an astonishing 20 years, writing unproduced scripts and living in Paris, among other things; even those close to him don't like talking about the reasons for his absence. He finally resurfaced in 1998 with the war film "The Thin Red Line." Along the way he divorced. He's been married to Ecky Wallace for about 13 years.

The 20-year absence, Pitt said, prompted Malick's media blackout. The director is not used to the modern way of promoting films, Pitt said. "He came back and he made the movies he always made, but now things had changed and he had to go out and sell it." This caused Malick to retreat further.

The director can indeed seem like a man from another time —every one of his five films so far is set in period (an upcoming untitled project with Ben Affleck that's currently in postproduction will be the first contemporary piece), and this movie in particular has a midcentury pacing, with many languorous evenings of boys playing outside until Mom calls them in for dinner. Malick resists the quicksilver pace of modern life, and at Cannes, Green said that the instant crowd reaction at a festival was the kind of thing that drives a meditative man like Malick crazy. His world view seems to have been forged in a time before the 24-hour news cycle, and certainly before irony pervaded popular culture.

"It's very childlike; there's a sense of wonder, and nothing sarcastic or dry about his sense of humor," Chastain said, perhaps also explaining the appeal of the straightforward slapstick of "Zoolander." "Even if a dog is funny he'll say, 'That dog is like a clown' and just start laughing so hard the camera will shake." In this sense, Malick may be somewhat like David Lynch, who in person gives off a Midwestern dorkiness that belies the complex themes of his films.

It's not, however, as though Malick doesn't try more radical techniques. The special effects in "Tree of Life" cost tens of millions of dollars, according to one person familiar with the production. And he can do deliberately disruptive things, like send a child actor into a scene he is not slated to appear in just to "torpedo" the situation, both Pitt and Chastain said. Malick even shoved a cameraman just as a scene was beginning to get him to mix up the angle, Chastain said.

While Malick's filmmaking methods can be aggressive —and indeed, his personality might have once had flashes of that too —Fisk said there is a mellowness now to the director. "I think Terry has gotten more relaxed. On 'Badlands' he described shooting a film as combat. But he's found a calmness inside. There was an anger and now that's gone."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 22, 2011, 03:12:02 PM
:shock:  :doh: :bravo:

and modge just threw his movie (for the most part seems like it's) not even very good / (probably) "kinda sucked"/ weird logic scale out his modern age window.

Definitely did not see this coming. (And I'm not sure that I trust the Cannes jury) but we'll see tomorrow how it goes...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on May 22, 2011, 08:44:59 PM
"Even if a dog is funny he'll say, 'That dog is like a clown' and just start laughing so hard the camera will shake."

 :rofl:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 22, 2011, 09:30:28 PM
Yea, one can't take the Palme d'Or victory too serious. Many previous winners that this board/people have ignored after their victory. The Dardennes are my favorite filmmakers going right now and darlings of Cannes in ways that no filmmaker has been before and I still don't trust the festival.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: squints on May 23, 2011, 01:21:52 AM
5500, wow GT.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 23, 2011, 04:16:20 PM
This is the international jury as listed at Wikipedia:

Quote
    * Robert De Niro, American actor (President)
    * Jude Law, English actor
    * Uma Thurman, American actress
    * Martina Gusmán, Argentine actress and producer
    * Nansun Shi, Hong Kong producer
    * Linn Ullmann, Norwegian critic and writer
    * Olivier Assayas, French director
    * Mahamat-Saleh Haroun, Chadian director
    * Johnnie To, Hong Kong director and producer

Am I right to say that these nine people are the only ones who decide on the Palme d'Or winner?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 23, 2011, 04:27:34 PM
That's my impression. I know that they have deliberation periods and can't talk to anybody about any of the movies, which nobody else has to deal with. And there are occasionally movies that win "unanimously," which really only seems possible with a small jury.

I have no idea what power the president has that the others don't.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 23, 2011, 05:21:10 PM
I have no idea what power the president has that the others don't.

Just consider the President the spokesperson. When Tarantino headed up a Cannes Jury, he wanted Old Boy to win Palme d'Or but he had to bow to the pressure of members who wanted to honor Fahrenheit 9/11. And since these juries are always actor/director heavy and they love their peers, they also love to spread the awards around.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 23, 2011, 09:26:11 PM
Modage I for one am waiting to hear about your experience (which I hope you write about more than what your expectations were, what the critical response has been, little chunks of Malick biographical information and context, etc. things gleaned from having read about the movie so much before seeing it).  Fire away!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 23, 2011, 09:50:17 PM
Good news: I'm sure anyone who tries hard enough will find a way to love it.  :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 23, 2011, 09:53:06 PM
Pretty much what I expected.  Thank you, sir.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 23, 2011, 11:13:54 PM
I thought about a lot of things during “Tree of Life.” Because there is so much to look at but so little to draw you in narratively your mind is free to wander for the first hour or so of the film. It takes about that long for writer/director Terrence Malick to actually give you a scene where dialogue is spoken onscreen that starts at A and ends at B. The hour previous is filled with endless snapshots of life, starting with the O’Brien family (Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain & sons) growing up in 1950s Texas. All words here are spoken with a whisper, overtop of the film as it skips from one scene to the next you keep waiting for it to touch down long enough to give you a chance to hold onto something. But instead of landing there the film skips back to the creation of the universe.

On first viewing, “Tree of Life” is a frustrating experience as you wrestle with your own disappointment. For all the breathtaking shots included in the film, how many of them actually meant something? So many scenes in the film seem to be included only because they’re pretty to look at and not because they have any impact on the story, it’s characters or how it might affect the overall narrative. If Malick wants to make a nature documentary, he should go ahead and do it so he can get it out of his system. The film wallows in beautiful images to the detriment of feeling. I wondered what the crew who worked on the film must have thought watching it for the first time, “All that footage we got and this is the the best you could do?”

Because the film is filled with such beautiful imagery and like very few films, manages to capture moments of true beauty, fans of the director will find plenty to like. The films gaps will be filled in by the viewer who wants this to be a great film. For most people though it will be an impossible slog, a shapeless mess with almost nothing tying the two threads together. I find myself somewhere in the middle. During the first act of the film I found myself hopelessly checked out (save a few gorgeous wordless moments that brought up the music) and then the film settles in for a while, maybe 45 minutes or so and shows you it’s not so impossible after all. It focuses on the O’Briens, particularly their son Jack who grows angry and resentful at his hard-ass father. For me, this is the section that works best.

Then comes the resolution, puzzlingly reaching for profundity when the elements haven’t even begun to cohere. Sean Penn appears in a few minutes of the film as grown Jack, he wakes up, he goes to work and he shows up in the finale. Any insight into his character is completely projected by the audience because his role has been stripped bare. Its hard to hate a film this ambitious (and I don’t) but it’s frustrating to see so much talent go to waste on a project like this. Having only seen each of Malick’s films once (and having liked them in descending order “Badlands” best and this least), I realize it may take another viewing of each to see if there is more to be found. Is it beautiful to look at? Absolutely, it’s probably one of the most stunningly shot films I’ve ever seen. But is it engaging emotionally? Only intermittently. And it’s hard to give a pass to a film that’s such a passive experience.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 24, 2011, 12:18:35 AM
Glad your response wasn't actually just that single line.  Feared you wouldn't find a personal connection with the movie but was somehow still hoping you would, so bummed that you didn't.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 24, 2011, 08:10:04 AM
Glad your response wasn't actually just that single line.  Feared you wouldn't find a personal connection with the movie but was somehow still hoping you would, so bummed that you didn't.

My initial thoughts (during the film, particularly the first hour and last fifteen minutes) were much harsher. But afterwards I was talking with someone I respect who had the exact same feelings the first viewing (it was his second) and most of his issues went away on second viewing. He had also really disliked "The New World" on first viewing and had not liked "The Thin Red Line" either until he rewatched them and now thinks they're near-masterpieces. So I thought I prob ought to give his entire filmography a second viewing before coming down too hard. I'll prob have more to say when people start seeing it.

Also: this movie will be poison to most (regular) moviegoers. There will be walkouts.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 24, 2011, 09:03:18 AM
Yeah from what you've said and what I've read elsewhere it's pretty clear there will not be any mass enlightenment.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 24, 2011, 09:08:00 AM
I still think it's likely going to sweep the Xixax Awards next year. I'd be surprised to see many others admit their disappointment, but who knows.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on May 24, 2011, 09:51:06 AM
Sorry guys the mass enlightenment was a miscalculation, it will now be happening in October.

Or whenever modage or the average moviegoer sees fit.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 24, 2011, 09:58:41 AM
Got my tickets for the midnight show at The Sunshine. I'm getting too old for this shit, but it should be a fun time. Very excited.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 24, 2011, 10:28:14 AM
Sorry guys the mass enlightenment was a miscalculation, it will now be happening in October.

It's okay. We all needed something to believe in for a while.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on May 24, 2011, 10:46:53 AM
On first viewing, “Tree of Life” is a frustrating experience as you wrestle with your own disappointment. For all the breathtaking shots included in the film, how many of them actually meant something? So many scenes in the film seem to be included only because they’re pretty to look at and not because they have any impact on the story, it’s characters or how it might affect the overall narrative.

It's Terrence Malick! He's not your traditional Hollywood filmmaker. None of his films are particularly concerned with telling a story through a traditional straightforward narrative. Visuals, elliptic VO and the feeling that they create are what gives dominance. On some level, it is storytelling, but not what audiences are accustomed too. Certainly not from a Brad Pitt movie. There Will Be Walkouts.

You should go back and rewatch each of his films, I do think you'll come away with a greater appreciation on each reviewing. I used to be really frustrated by TRL but it grows better each time I watch it.

While you might say the film doesn't conform to your expectations of cinema, that's kinda the point.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 24, 2011, 10:58:05 AM
From mod's other criticisms about Malick films, I just thought Malick was not his taste.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on May 24, 2011, 11:21:42 AM
^^ yeah, mod's reaction was expected, at least by me. now if sambong hates it, then ill be concerned.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 24, 2011, 12:14:17 PM
I never like his movies immediately after the first viewing. It isn't until much later and subsequent viewings that I realize how near perfection they are.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 24, 2011, 12:18:14 PM
I never like his movies immediately after the first viewing. It isn't until much later and subsequent viewings that I realize how near perfection they are.

That only happened with days of heaven for me. I saw it when i was 19 and only loved it later. Every other film he's made after that I've seen in the theatre. I always walk in with the frame of mind that I shouldn't be looking for things, just let them happen, and that's usually worked out well.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on May 24, 2011, 01:11:40 PM
it's so comical how all these peoples are all of a sudden baffled by Malick with this film. reactions are so out of the blue. "How could he not show his face to the press conference???" "Why am I watching birds and sun-dappled trees and swaying stalk and shit set to droning poem talk in lieu of a movie?????"

i guess because the thing has been baking for so long peeps were expecting it to be not so Malick and more of this huge entertainment beast. must have been exactly the same thing with Kubes.

and this ones got Pitt, yes but it's not much different from The New World. the subject matter of New World was more enticing to mass folks than this thing will be i suspect. my brother for example was highly disappointed with NW for he thought he was going to get Braveheart.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 24, 2011, 01:56:28 PM
I didn't think any of these things but it just seems to me he's wandered further and further out into the wilderness with each film and in this one in particular he's tipped the scales. I think Malick is his own worst enemy at this point. His collaborators (Lubezki, Trumbull, Fisk, Desplat, Pitt, Chastain) are bringing incredible work to the table and he just can't pull it all together.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 24, 2011, 02:55:53 PM
Considering a starch defender of Ivan's Childhood may have been dismayed by the change Tarkovsky had when he made Mirror, I'm quite hopeful of Malick being his own worst enemy.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 24, 2011, 11:39:58 PM
Good news! Armond White hated it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 25, 2011, 09:13:56 AM
SPOILER on the image of Terrence Malick

http://www.filmdetail.com/2011/05/25/terrence-malick-in-cannes-photo-brad-pitt/ (http://www.filmdetail.com/2011/05/25/terrence-malick-in-cannes-photo-brad-pitt/)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on May 25, 2011, 12:25:03 PM
oooookay, Maliiiiick. at this point might as well pop in to take your award as well. say a few words, show some humor, show that Zoolander side of you. it's not so bad, shy guy. really though, guy gets all dolled up to hang out with the stagehands for the whole ceremony?? gotta go full noshow or the whole mysterious thing is a bust!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 25, 2011, 05:52:55 PM
^pretty much.  :yabbse-angry:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reinhold on May 26, 2011, 02:01:03 PM
tickets are available online for monday's 6:30 show at sunshine (nyc). i'm going with some friends and if any of y'all want to join me/us to discuss the film afterward let me know.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 26, 2011, 02:04:51 PM
I'm prob not going to see it again but since it's like 5 blocks from my apt. I will meet you outside afterwards to ruin your buzz.

JK. Have fun.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on May 26, 2011, 02:45:23 PM
instead of "SOME JERK" it should read: "CAPTAIN FUNKILL SAW THE TREE OF LIFE!"
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 26, 2011, 09:34:33 PM
I didn't actually do the quiz so I could be posting a columnist's lame idea of a joke, but here is Slate backing up one of mod's criticisms by having a quiz, asking people to guess whether a clip is from a nature documentary or a Malick cutaway shot.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/05/26/name-that-thistle-terrence-malick-cutaway-or-nature-documentary.aspx
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 27, 2011, 08:30:29 AM
Got my tickets for the midnight show at The Sunshine. I'm getting too old for this shit, but it should be a fun time. Very excited.

And...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 27, 2011, 09:03:29 AM
Got my tickets for the midnight show at The Sunshine. I'm getting too old for this shit, but it should be a fun time. Very excited.

And...

I went back and read your review and found that there aren't many things you said that I disagree with, but my feelings on the film are decidedly more positive than yours. Midnight was not the best time to see this, so I actually found the second hour to be the slog, but was totally enraptured for the first. It seems like a
solid ending for this movie should have been easy to pull off, but it looked like the only time Malick was unsure of himself. It was definitely a little on the cheesy side (the ending, that is.) It will sweep the Xixax awards this year and while I might not have loved it quite as much as I wanted to, it still makes me happy to know he's out there doing his thing and that he can sell out two screens for a midnight show of this most experimental film, even if there was only stunned silence after it was over.

I'm still tired and will write more as I think about it.

* I can not wait for the IMAX project, because I could have easily watched 90 minutes of evolution.
** If Malick is going to go entirely non-narrative, he should probably keep it to around 90 minutes.
***The score is fucking amazing.
****I could have almost done without the kid as an adult (Sean Penn.) I loved seeing the way Malick shot modern architecture, but other than that I think only showing the past and the stuff with the universe would have been perfect. The Penn stuff never gels and apparently there's was tons more of him in the 5 hour first cut, so either it would have been stronger if it were more fleshed out, or it never worked and probably should have been cut entirely. The Penn stuff not working is most of the reason why the ending has problems. It's not particularly emotional, it just is.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on May 27, 2011, 11:15:03 AM
* I can not wait for the IMAX project, because I could have easily watched 90 minutes of evolution.
** If Malick is going to go entirely non-narrative, he should probably keep it to around 90 minutes.
***The score is fucking amazing.
****I could have almost done without the kid as an adult (Sean Penn.) I loved seeing the way Malick shot modern architecture, but other than that I think only showing the past and the stuff with the universe would have been perfect. The Penn stuff never gels and apparently there's was tons more of him in the 5 hour first cut, so either it would have been stronger if it were more fleshed out, or it never worked and probably should have been cut entirely. The Penn stuff not working is most of the reason why the ending has problems. It's not particularly emotional, it just is.

I agree with all of this. I'll continue to be very curious how this is received at Xixax.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on May 27, 2011, 05:07:58 PM
12 Things You Need To Know About The Making Of

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/10_things_weve_learned_about_tree_of_life/
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on May 27, 2011, 11:18:26 PM
so I'll also be in NYC to see this on monday.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on May 28, 2011, 08:16:20 AM
* I can not wait for the IMAX project, because I could have easily watched 90 minutes of evolution.
** If Malick is going to go entirely non-narrative, he should probably keep it to around 90 120 minutes.
***The score is fucking amazing.
****I could have almost done without the kid as an adult (Sean Penn.) I loved seeing the way Malick shot modern architecture, but other than that I think only showing the past and the stuff with the universe would have been perfect. The Penn stuff never gels and apparently there's was tons more of him in the 5 hour first cut, so either it would have been stronger if it were more fleshed out, or it never worked and probably should have been cut entirely. The Penn stuff not working is most of the reason why the ending has problems. It's not particularly emotional, it just is.

Just got back and pretty much agree with what was mentioned above. I liked it overall but it wasn't without problems. The opening 20 minutes were incredible.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on May 29, 2011, 09:30:17 PM
(http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3357/motivator6148f980d5fe13.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 29, 2011, 09:39:26 PM
Agree or disagree* that's funny, plain funny.

*with the sleeping/yawning/bored people
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on May 30, 2011, 12:36:44 AM
who can enjoy a movie sitting in a room with a bunch of strangers? I can't, even with one other person it skeeves me out sometimes.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 30, 2011, 12:07:16 PM
For the record, I don't categorize my review as "lukewarm." It's not a perfect movie, but I haven't stopped thinking about it since I saw it and can't wait to see it again. I think time will be extremely kind to it and our kids (if they are as cool as us) will look book and wonder what it must have been like when Tree Of Life first came out. I do wonder if the total lack of a narrative is how he felt was the best way to tell THIS story, or if that's the way all future work will be. Is this just the way his brain works now?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: samsong on May 30, 2011, 06:29:49 PM
what is going on here?

that this is the most poetic and experimental film in the history of the studio system since 2001 isn't an arbitrary reason to love the tree of life so much as cause to celebrate it.  THIS is the unhinged and unprecedented spiritual movie experience that some of you somehow got from enduring enter the void.  

at least there's somewhat of a consensus about how extraordinary the evolution sequence is amongst those of us who didn't struggle too much wrestling with our own disappointment.  has there been a more existentially charged, impressionistic portrayal of childhood than this?  how incredible are the performances?  nothing needs to be said about the sights and sounds in this film as they are of unparalleled quality.  i found the minimal, even patchy frame story of the older incarnation of jack to be substantial and necessary.  a perennial malick theme is the loss of eden and seeing him wandering in search of a way back to it imbues the movie with a considerable amount of poignancy.  watching this movie is to witness malick grappling with his own (and all of humanity's) existence.  this makes it prone to moments of alienating navel gazing, and while normally considered a misgiving i can't help but delight in the disorder in this enormous film and revel in it.  

quick tangent: this is probably the most sound-reliant he's been.  the sean penn scenes play like antonioni with sound design by david lynch.

admittedly my love of malick probably has a lot to do with my feelings about this movie but i'd like to think that had the name following "written and directed by" were someone else's i would be just as enamored, but no one but malick could have made this film in the same way no one else could have made, say, fanny and alexander.  

as far as i'm concerned, malick's five for five.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on May 30, 2011, 10:44:57 PM
 :bravo:

astronomical expectations reinstated.  :yabbse-smiley:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 30, 2011, 11:28:17 PM
THIS is the unhinged and unprecedented spiritual movie experience that some of you somehow got from enduring enter the void.  

I tuned out after this line.  Just goes to show your experience is between you and the screen.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: P Heat on May 31, 2011, 01:58:26 AM
who can enjoy a movie sitting in a room with a bunch of strangers? I can't, even with one other person it skeeves me out sometimes.

this.

Also why the more i keep hearing about this film the more it sounds like a 2001esqe type?? almost like its this era's version 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: samsong on May 31, 2011, 02:31:03 AM
THIS is the unhinged and unprecedented spiritual movie experience that some of you somehow got from enduring enter the void.  

I tuned out after this line.  Just goes to show your experience is between you and the screen.

versus...?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on May 31, 2011, 02:45:41 AM
ya i was thinking, that's all samsong is saying himself. I happen to agree with him regarding enter the void, and it's good to hear he gives TOL that vote of approval. Still hasn't come out in Toronto yet :(
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 31, 2011, 03:12:08 AM
It's weird to say but the Enter the Void crack reminded me that everyone tries to sell movies to other people a certain way, good or bad.  But you can't dispute matters of taste, and I simply need to see the movie for myself.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 31, 2011, 06:06:14 AM
Hah, Enter the Void gets another easy slight in passing. I'm still waiting for serious contention against the film. As far as Tree of Life goes, I have always been sure it had more limbs for discussion than what a few first time viewing experiences we're going to say. Doesn't matter whether those initial reviews were positive or negative.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 31, 2011, 08:57:54 AM
I can't wait for this thread to light up once everyone has seen it. That's going to be a thing of beauty.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on May 31, 2011, 10:24:12 AM
Seeing it this weekend in Atl; anybody else planning on going Saturday? Tis my birthday weekend, and I couldn't ask for a better present. :bravo:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on May 31, 2011, 10:34:45 AM
I'm going to see it tonight at a special screening. I don't expect that I'll say much about it until the weekend, though, just because it always takes me a while to figure out what I think.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reinhold on May 31, 2011, 01:36:49 PM
i'm right there with you, samsong. i think you put together a really great description of the film. Tree Of Life is also far and away my favorite film by Malick. I just found it to be stunning and beautiful and big. Each scene's tone was also masterfully manipulated-- so much just felt like memories feel to me. I love films about the workings of people's minds and this was a great one. What I enjoyed the most was that despite its thematic scale there was no pretense of omniscience. i felt that the whole thing probably started as the best campfire story ever... with those asides and pauses and inflection preserved in the film.

It reminded me a lot more of The Mirror by Tarkovsky but with the wandering camera i definitely see why enter the void could enter the conversation. I left that film (etv) feeling like i'd love to see something visually similar to it but made by an intellectual or by someone who is more concerned with thematic beauty than "making the audience feel stoned."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on May 31, 2011, 05:33:49 PM
lol@mod and pubrick beefing in the news headlines.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on May 31, 2011, 11:48:51 PM
I saw it
it was quiet awe inspiring
I paid too much attention to the direction of the light
he made a story out of very vivid memories. I think if Mr. Rogers were to make a film for adults, it'd be something like this - turning drama out of things children go through, and really getting in there, in a way only old souls can. this is where the likes of spike lee and dave eggers have failed. this is miyazaki style storytelling and observation, except miyazaki's not interested in exploring devastating flaws within humanity that scar for ages. this film finds drama and storytelling in childhood memories, honing in on the fuzzy parts. for example, it vividly recalls what it's like the first time to steal from someone - the suspense, the guilty, and the queasiness that would shape someone's childhood, and places something that seems nostalgic and fancy free in a larger context, against family put under duress, against a generation of grudges, against the backdrop of our humanity. it's a family drama without the melodrama. I like what the film has to say, and by taking his memories so seriously and dignified, humanizing problems of a suburban white family in the context of the world's creation does not seem too overstated.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on May 31, 2011, 11:51:39 PM
That's the review I've been waiting for.  Thanks, Pete.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Bethie on June 01, 2011, 12:17:54 AM
Saw it boys.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on June 01, 2011, 12:37:54 AM
that's the review i've been waiting for. thanks, Bethie.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 01, 2011, 01:42:58 AM
TONIGHT:

1. I shook the hand of Terrence Malick.
2. A lot of the cast and crew were there, including Jessica Chastain and all the kids. It felt like the best home movie screening ever. There was applause throughout the whole credits for specific people. That was really nice.
3. They showed us the Palme D'Or.

I loved the movie a lot. I expected that I'd have to think about it for a while, and re-watch it to even approach a basic idea of how I felt about it, but I actually think it's remarkably accessible. Excepting a handful of abstract sequences, the movie is very grounded and immediately understandable. It's just that its style is so impressionistic, and it's about one time, one place, and the memories of that, while also keeping in mind the context of the whole of existence. As long as you can get over the fact that it's not a story that involves a character who has to solve a problem, deal with traditional conflict, and learn lessons along the way, then you will be able to find a way to relate your life to the lives shown on screen. But there IS a lot of conflict and a lot of emotion. Rather than being too abstract and distancing, it's a film that will draw you in emotionally and hold you close, if you let it.

It could have gone for another hour. It didn't feel long to me at all, with nothing dragging. It went by so fast and was so easy to lose yourself in.

All I can say right now is that the film is gripping in a moment to moment way, and not as baffling as I expected. It feels like a search for the meaning of love, hate, anger, and grace within the framework of everything up until now, and the question of where God was for all of this. Everything about the style, camerawork, and editing made me swoon. If you're okay with an impressionistic, non-traditional narrative, there's so much here to draw you in. It's such a full film. There's fullness in almost every moment.

This is all just my immediate reaction, late at night after a few drinks and much excitement. After we've all seen it a couple of times and have had some time to think on it, there will be much to say and read about it. I look forward to that.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 01, 2011, 01:53:22 AM
TONIGHT:

1. I shook the hand of Terrence Malick.

Stopped reading there.

GO ON.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 01, 2011, 02:00:02 AM
WHICH HAND??
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 01, 2011, 02:10:46 AM
Our respective right hands.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on June 01, 2011, 02:17:04 AM
wow, you're really lucky. I'd definitely shell out $75 to see the latest by one of the greats and get to meet him! Was there some sort of Q&A after or was it just like a reunion type thing, cuz I guess he's shy.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 01, 2011, 02:21:36 AM
No Q&A, not that I would ever expect one. He wasn't at the screening, as far as I know.

After the screening there was a benefit reception, as the all the money from the event went to the Texas Film Production Fund and Smithville Community Project (Smithville is the town just out of Austin where they shot the film). That was very laid back and lots of friends of his and the cast and crew were there so he was just hanging out and talking to people all night. I didn't expect to see him at all, so it was a nice surprise. No pictures, obviously, as he doesn't like to be photographed.

I didn't get to talk to him. I was just one of hundreds of people who went up to him and shook his hand and said that they loved the movie.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on June 01, 2011, 02:27:17 AM
damn dude, tonight I just laid on the fucking couch
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 01, 2011, 08:56:21 AM
TONIGHT:

1. I shook the hand of Terrence Malick.

 :finger: Very jealous, but very happy for you.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 01, 2011, 10:58:48 AM
TONIGHT:

1. I shook the hand of Terrence Malick.

are you going to wash it?  :yabbse-wink:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 01, 2011, 11:05:20 AM
Malick's hand? The guy doesn't even like to have his picture taken, I'm not sure he'd be cool with Matt35mm offering to lather/rinse him.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 01, 2011, 12:04:22 PM
lol. ok, fell right into that one.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on June 01, 2011, 12:07:27 PM
TONIGHT:

1. I shook the hand of Terrence Malick.

you are the man35mm.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 01, 2011, 12:12:06 PM
are you going to wash it?  :yabbse-wink:

Well, considering that I had to pick up a dead rat from my front door this morning, yeah.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on June 01, 2011, 12:18:40 PM
Miraculously, the second-hand contact with Malick made the rat come back to life.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 01, 2011, 12:46:34 PM
The rat now spreads Enlightenment wherever it goes.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on June 01, 2011, 01:56:30 PM
(http://rookery9.aviary.com.s3.amazonaws.com/8338500/8338566_ba5c_625x625.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 01, 2011, 02:01:26 PM
That rat has no use for a traditional narrative.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 01, 2011, 02:02:59 PM
The rat is beyond narrative.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 01, 2011, 02:14:11 PM
The Dead Rat of Life
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on June 01, 2011, 02:44:35 PM
Oh man I'll die this is too funny
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: samsong on June 01, 2011, 04:15:14 PM
this is the discussion/digression i was waiting for.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 01, 2011, 05:02:30 PM
That rat is a huge Zoolander fan.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on June 01, 2011, 05:05:30 PM
Did you already have The Burial for that dead rat?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on June 01, 2011, 05:45:36 PM
Has anyone had the displeasure of having to see a blu-ray of this movie at their screening? I was fortunate enough to see a film print, but a friend went today and it was a blu-ray! SHIT AIN'T RIGHT. He asked for his money back.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 01, 2011, 05:50:57 PM
Has anyone had the displeasure of having to see a blu-ray of this movie at their screening? I was fortunate enough to see a film print, but a friend went today and it was a blue-ray! SHIT AIN'T RIGHT. He asked for his money back.

The Sunshine is showing a digital print, which is sadly what most of America is watching their movies off of now, but it's a HD and not a disc. Better quality than Blu-Ray but after seeing a print of Badlands a few weeks ago, my heart did kind of sink when I realized the Fox Searchlight logo was digital.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on June 01, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
I am under the impression that they have both a digital print and a film print and alternate depending on the screening. I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT I SAW A FILM PRINT.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 01, 2011, 05:57:14 PM
They do have it on two screens, so I'm guessing one screen has a print and one has a digital print (hate that term.)
*I take it back, 4 screens.*


Fuck, people love that rat.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 01, 2011, 06:09:57 PM
!!!!!  That it's being distributed in digital format is horrible news, especially because when this comes to my city it'll be at a Regal and they don't give a fuck.  They'll project the movie upside down and not care etc.  But at least I now know to ask.  Supreme sadness if it only plays in digital format.  Maybe each theater within the limited release receives a film print and digital option for additional screens?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 01, 2011, 06:13:40 PM
!!!!!  That it's being distributed in digital format is horrible news, especially because when this comes to my city it'll be at a Regal and they don't give a fuck.  They'll project the movie upside down and not care etc.  But at least I now know to ask.  Supreme sadness if it only plays in digital format.  Maybe each theater within the limited release receives a film print and digital option for additional screens?

If The Sunshine really does have a film print, that pisses me off because I was at the midnight show and they added a 12:05 after that one sold out, and that would mean those procrastinator's got the print! At smaller theater's like that though, sometimes the house the movie is in dictates if it's digital or not. At The Magnolia in Dallas our digital prints had to go in one specific theater.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reinhold on June 01, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
i'm pretty sure the print i saw at the sunshine was film. there was a little bit of dust/scratch lines in really bright shots of the sky. if that was malick then i dunno what to make of it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on June 01, 2011, 06:59:24 PM
I know people who went to the midnight showing, and their tickets distinctly said "digital," whereas MINE DID NOT.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 02, 2011, 01:01:50 AM
This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

Cinemanarchissed, do you know if the Magnolia is showing it in 4K? I know you guys have a Sony 4K projector, but a while back someone who worked there told me that they didn't have some piece of hardware that would allow it to show 4K.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on June 02, 2011, 01:22:55 AM
my old roommate edited a sequence which, along with about a dozen or so scenes, didn't make it to the final cut. as a result he wasn't credited. he worked for free but dropped out when he couldn't pay rent. malick was getting a lot of free work done via UT professors hooking him up with local talents.
my friend worked on a Tornado sequence.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 02, 2011, 01:50:43 AM
This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

I could be experiencing sub-par digital projection but I'm always quite bothered by how frozen the picture feels.  Does frozen express what I want it to?  I like the grain and texture of film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 02, 2011, 02:52:06 AM
This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

I could be experiencing sub-par digital projection but I'm always quite bothered by how frozen the picture feels.  Does frozen express what I want it to?  I like the grain and texture of film.

I think I know what you're talking about, but I only notice that super frozen quality on films that were shot digitally and projected digitally. Usually films that are shot on film will still retain grain from the negative even when projected digitally, though perhaps less grain because it's not printed again on film. Another difference is the slight wobble you get from a film projection. You can really notice it during the trailer bands or when any text is shown--it's either super stable like you're looking at a computer screen or it'll wobble and flicker slightly.

I know that I saw a film print last night but I'll likely be seeing a 4K digital print when I see it again.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 02, 2011, 08:47:06 AM
This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

Cinemanarchissed, do you know if the Magnolia is showing it in 4K? I know you guys have a Sony 4K projector, but a while back someone who worked there told me that they didn't have some piece of hardware that would allow it to show 4K.

I'm not at The Mag anymore, but when I was there nobody was putting out 4K content anyways, it's just something theaters were using to excite people...DIGITAL 4K (but everything is presented in 2K.) The flick is opening at The Angelika in Dallas and I don't believe they have 4K projection there and my guess is that it will be a print.

Digital Projection is crisper than film, but it feels inorganic. It's essentially the CD vs. Vinyl arguement. Film feels lived in and to me digital just feels like you're looking through an artificial window, or at worst, at a really huge HD TV. You are correct that most films with a decent budget have a digital intermediate because people aren't editing on film anymore, but that's still no reason to not have film prints.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 02, 2011, 10:27:15 AM
You are correct that most films with a decent budget have a digital intermediate because people aren't editing on film anymore, but that's still no reason to not have film prints.

Unless it was graded optically on film (like Christopher Nolan's films), I don't see an absolute need to see a modern film on a print. I do agree that digital projection can have an inorganic feel, but like Matt said, if the movie was shot on film, the DI will retain a lot of that film look, even though the projection itself does give a different feel to the image. Digital projection still has some issues to work out, though.

If you get to see a 4K digital projection you're seeing something very close to what the people in the DI suite saw if the projection is good. You're essentially seeing a scan directly off the camera negatives. A 35mm print from a DI still goes through the internegative/interpositive process, so its kind of the worst of both worlds. If its a 2K scan, a lot of the detail is thrown out in the DI itself, THEN it goes through the generations of making a film print, which loses some more information. Prints aren't made directly off the DI.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on June 02, 2011, 12:29:06 PM
It's essentially the CD vs. Vinyl arguement.

Not at all. 
Even the vinyl enthusiasts who knew what they were talking about admitted that digital recording has advanced beyond Vinyl's capabilities.  CD is just not that format.  4K vs film is far from vinyl vs CD.

When I watch a properly projected movie, especially on a 4K projector (The Drafthouse takes care of their shit and doesn't cut back on the lamp), it's unquestionably better than a film print.  It's a crisp, clean version of whatever the filmmakers shot.  If there are intentional imperfections, they come out the way they were intended.

Hearing the pops and seeing the picture jump is a nostalgia thing, it's silly. 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 02, 2011, 12:46:21 PM
Well, I don't think nostalgia is silly and I don't think silliness is a valid point in the conversation.  If cinemanarkissed likes the feel of bearskin on his ass while he watches movies it's legitimate - it's the way he prefers to watch movies.  You sound like a real goddamn capitalist when you say one thing is the best and there's no reason anyone would want anything but the best.

Though all I want is the best personally.  There are some particulars to this issue that I'm not knowledgeable in, but from the conversation and my experiences it's clear there are a variety of factors contributing to my viewing experience.  How common are 4K projectors now, and does my theater care as much about the lamp levels as yours?  Does my Regal projectionist even know what the movie should look like?  It's great to hear that some of you are experiencing high-end digital projection and reporting back on its superior quality, but I bet a lot of us aren't as fortunate.  I equate digital projection with disappointment because I've experienced many image quality disappointments from digital projection.  

So of course as the technology develops and a standard is reached I'd prefer to see the film prints.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 02, 2011, 12:56:20 PM
I really like being able to see both. I go to a lot of movies, and some are digitally projected and some are on film. That's perfect. I don't feel that one is better than the other in all cases. They have different qualities, and as far as my experience of the film is concerned, it becomes a part of it. The flicker, the grain, the little jump when it cuts to the next reel, that's all part of the movie when I'm watching a film print. The crispness, brightness, the stability, that's all part of the digital experience. My way of thinking about cinema is so subjective anyway that I'm more interested in my experience than whatever's objectively better.

I'd like to say that I don't think my enjoyment of seeing a film print has anything to do with nostalgia, though. I just like the quality of it, but it has nothing to do with notions of the past or history of cinema for me. But I love watching good digital projections, too.

Bad digital projections are the worst, though. I'd rather watch a dim, misframed film print than a bad digital projection. Weird compression issues or a low resolution ends up making the image look harsh in a really unattractive way that bothers me.

But really my ideal is to be able to see both film and digital projections, so I'm pretty much living my ideal right now. When it gets to a point where everything except for old movies are screened digitally, I'll be a little sad, just because I want to experience both on a regular basis.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 02, 2011, 01:00:43 PM
It is nostalgia, but much of going to the movies is about nostaligia. I also like the thought a film physically aging with time.

I have a Kindle and an iPad, but nothing is ever going to replace a first edition, a shitty copy of The Hardy Boys you found at a garage sale or an original 70mm print of 2001. It makes me feel like an old man (I'm only 30) but the thought that most of our art and culture is going to be stored on hard drives from now on kind of bums me the fuck out. That's just me though. Lollipops in my mouth...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on June 02, 2011, 01:23:47 PM
film is not vinyl
film stock is continuously improving itself, both in projection and in capturing
and even now
it's got ever a slight edge over digital things
in both projection and capturing, to this day

all the resolution talk, that makes no sense. digital image does not win by a landslide - it does certain things better than others, some more noticeable, but digital still has to prove itself in areas

so fuck your nostalgia argument dude.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 02, 2011, 01:25:01 PM
Here's a few more clips and quick making-of.

http://content.foxsearchlight.com/inside/node/4857
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: adolfwolfli on June 02, 2011, 01:31:36 PM
I recently saw the 4K digital restoration / projection of Taxi Driver at our favorite local AMC, a particular theater that is a favorite because the quality of image and sound is usually great.  I have to say, it didn't feel "digital" at all to me.  I thought to myself, "this is what this film looked like during the first showing of a brand new print back in 1976, but better."  Really, it was bright, clear, no reel-change color and value shifts – and all the grain was present.  It felt very liquid and cinematic and I was quite impressed. 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 02, 2011, 01:50:20 PM
so fuck your nostalgia argument dude.

I said "lollipops in my mouth," geez! My arguement doesn't have to be yours. Digital will one day (probably pretty damn soon) surpass film in all areas, but I'll still prefer film because that's what the medium started on, that's what I grew up watching and projecting and that's what looks best to my eyes. Tree Of Life looked flawless in the digital format that I saw it in, but it still looked digital and that's not what does it for me. Seeing Che digitally projected was the movie that came the closest to fooling my eyes, but nothing has really come close since.

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 02, 2011, 02:54:14 PM
This seems like a good place to tell this story. I may have told it before.

When I saw Magnolia theatrically for the 8th and final time, toward the end of the credits the film started melting and started on fire. (I wasn't exactly sure what I was seeing at first.) We told someone at the concessions area, and without missing a beat they bolted through that little swinging door and sprinted for the booth. Apparently the projectionist was not projecting.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 02, 2011, 03:03:23 PM
For all-digital projects (CG animated movies or movies shot digitally), digital projection is a safe bet. For movies shot on film, if they went through a DI, it doesn't make sense to go film capture-> digital intermediate -> film output. Not that digital projection doesn't have issues, but that's one less filter between you and the image.

I think all or most of the AMCs are outfitted with 4K projectors. How much 4K content they show, I don't know. But now you have the issue of some theaters leaving the 3D polarizing filters on their projectors even for 2D films, making them dimmer.

the thought that most of our art and culture is going to be stored on hard drives from now on kind of bums me the fuck out.

This is a serious concern. With film, as long as its well preserved, you can always shine a light through it and project or scan it. Hard drives can crash or lock up if they sit unused for a while. LTO tape is physically more durable, but the tape might not be readable down the road. Digital files have to be migrated from time to time to whatever the next format is. There's no guarantee that the files we create today will be readable in 20-30 years. For movies shot on film we'll have the camera negatives, though most of them are finished digitally these days. Anyone know if the studios print 35mm yellow-cyan-magenta separations for their digitally-finished films?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 02, 2011, 03:16:31 PM
This seems like a good place to tell this story. I may have told it before.

When I saw Magnolia theatrically for the 8th and final time, toward the end of the credits the film started melting and started on fire. (I wasn't exactly sure what I was seeing at first.) We told someone at the concessions area, and without missing a beat they bolted through that little swinging door and sprinted for the booth. Apparently the projectionist was not projecting.

At the Magnolia we had one digital projector, which accounted for 95% of our projection problems. Granted, Landmark Theatres, at least at that time, was not nearly as invested in digital as the major chains, so I'm guessing it stands to reason.

This is a serious concern. With film, as long as its well preserved, you can always shine a light through it and project or scan it. Hard drives can crash or lock up if they sit unused for a while. LTO tape is physically more durable, but the tape might not be readable down the road. Digital files have to be migrated from time to time to whatever the next format is. There's no guarantee that the files we create today will be readable in 20-30 years. For movies shot on film we'll have the camera negatives, though most of them are finished digitally these days. Anyone know if the studios print 35mm yellow-cyan-magenta separations for their digitally-finished films?

Not sure the answer to your question but the possibility terrifies me. Hopefully the film companies have thought all this through, but they were also in charge of the countless films that have been lost over time, so I wouldn't totally count on them.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on June 02, 2011, 04:38:19 PM
film is not vinyl
film stock is continuously improving itself, both in projection and in capturing
and even now
it's got ever a slight edge over digital things
in both projection and capturing, to this day

all the resolution talk, that makes no sense. digital image does not win by a landslide - it does certain things better than others, some more noticeable, but digital still has to prove itself in areas

so fuck your nostalgia argument dude.


Let me clear some things up here.

1. I know that film is not vinyl.  That just backs up my claim that "this is like Vinyl vs CD" is an invalid argument.
2. I still like the look of movies shot on film way more than movies shot digitally (obviously, there are exceptions)
3. My point is just what Ravi is saying.  The film is being converted digitally either way, so why put something in the way of getting the most accurate representation of the image? 
4. I realize there are pros and cons to both, my main argument is against the "Fuck digital, it's no good" knee-jerk reaction that some people seem to have.

From what I understand, I'll be seeing Tree of Life tomorrow as a film projection and again next week with digital 4K.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on June 02, 2011, 04:50:31 PM
I just want to see the movie. I don't care how it's projected, as long as it's right-side up.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 02, 2011, 04:54:15 PM
I would actually love to watch this movie upside down.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: john on June 02, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
I would actually love to watch this movie upside down.

How about high?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/fox-searchlight-suggests-you-see-the-tree-of-life,56639/

Proving there are far more reductive ways to see this film than just digitally.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 02, 2011, 05:58:08 PM
I would actually love to watch this movie upside down.

How about high?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/fox-searchlight-suggests-you-see-the-tree-of-life,56639/

Proving there are far more reductive ways to see this film than just digitally.

Yeah I remember reading that. I don't think this would be a very good movie to watch high actually, except for maybe 15 minutes of the movie.

But upside down would be fantastic.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on June 02, 2011, 06:22:19 PM
LOVE this clip (http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2958859545/). it's like penn can't hear himself think.. the camera is just as disoriented/lost in space. buildings as vast, dark boxes/coffins, and penn has nothing to do but build more.. as though malick's dystopia is present day. at least that's what i'm getting from these seconds.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on June 02, 2011, 07:26:51 PM
Fucking excellent interpretation picolas.

Finally someone is talking about the movie in a way other than technical bullshit which doesn't mean anything.

I think you also just explained The Burial.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on June 02, 2011, 07:45:35 PM
No, I want to hear more about projectors.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cinemanarchist on June 02, 2011, 07:59:04 PM
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/big-screen/2011/jun/02/the-projectionst-has-final-cut-ask-terrence-m/ (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/big-screen/2011/jun/02/the-projectionst-has-final-cut-ask-terrence-m/)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on June 02, 2011, 11:55:54 PM

3. My point is just what Ravi is saying.  The film is being converted digitally either way, so why put something in the way of getting the most accurate representation of the image? 

From what I understand, I'll be seeing Tree of Life tomorrow as a film projection and again next week with digital 4K.

lets clear this up right now - just because film went through some form of digital process doesn't mean it's MEANT to be projected digitally, or a digital projection is somehow more "accurate" - whatever that means. by the same logic - are none of the digital projections "Accurate" if they came from a celluloid or chemical source at a certain point?

my point is, there is no "right" format in displaying most (not all - I'll give you that) features; you can't simply declare every film that's ever been through DI superior via digital projection. it depends on how the output is handled, and depending on the technician, the amount of shit the studio gives, the time alotted, and the intentions of the colorist/DP - each film is different.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 03, 2011, 01:32:51 AM
lets clear this up right now - just because film went through some form of digital process doesn't mean it's MEANT to be projected digitally, or a digital projection is somehow more "accurate" - whatever that means. by the same logic - are none of the digital projections "Accurate" if they came from a celluloid or chemical source at a certain point?

my point is, there is no "right" format in displaying most (not all - I'll give you that) features; you can't simply declare every film that's ever been through DI superior via digital projection. it depends on how the output is handled, and depending on the technician, the amount of shit the studio gives, the time alotted, and the intentions of the colorist/DP - each film is different.

Not quite following you on the bolded part. Most films you see today are shot on film and go through a DI. The colorists and filmmakers work on the look of the film in the digital domain. So going back to film doesn't necessarily add anything.

Digital projection does have some issues. Black levels aren't as good as film, aliasing can be a problem (probably less so on 4K projections). But with film prints, the image still goes through a few optical generations to get to a theater print. Prints aren't struck directly off the DI. They make an interneg off the DI, and make prints off that. Both film and digital can be screwed up by a jackass projectionist, but the process of making a film print inherently has more room for error than compressing the DI down to another digital file for digital projection.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on June 03, 2011, 11:43:39 PM
No longer surprised by Xixax.  First, some people are disappointed by this movie.  Then it quickly goes into a whinefest about digital vs. film.  I saw it on film, it's probably just as good on digital.  It's an incredible work of art, let's discuss the content.

I'm not of the opinion that Terence Malick is beyond reproach.  However, he's clearly demonstrated he knows how to make a strongly reverberating work of cinema.  If Tree of Life somehow fell short of your expectations, then I have absolutely no idea what you wanted from this movie.  The trailer is no way misled you from the type of film it turned out to be, and his previous work should have at least prepared you for this.  There is a narrative that is broken up much like memories and it convulses with natural imagery that moves very gracefully.  Also, the film has made an incredible comparison of grace and nature, so to go into that would be beating a dead horse.

The fact that this movie opened on four screens (out of seven) at my theater is both invigorating and harrowing.  Clearly it's been on the tip of everyone's tongue not because of the name Malick but because of Penn and Pitt.  The New World, an incredible film, was not the most encouraging work for people because it didn't have much star power, or at least on the level of Tree of Life (or Thin Red Line for that matter).  Even the reviews are giving it high marks out of necessity, I imagine, wanting to not look puerile.  But even in the reviews the critics admit the film is hard to follow and isn't for everyone, it is more meditation than traditional narrative.  

In lieu of any real connection, Your Highness had a similar difficulty.  It had stars in it, it was directed by David Gordon Green, but where people sought a comedy, they found only adventure.  Preferring to laugh at stoner jokes and perhaps much less latent homosexual jokes (that don't mock gays but embrace a bond among men that suggests gay but leaves it open to heterosexual brotherly love), it seems audiences get very upset when they don't get what they want.  Hell, even look at Bridesmaids.  The constant review I hear is: "Actually not bad.  Looks like a chick flick, but it's totally for guys, too.  It's just actually really funny."  It's not uncommon to overhear in the theater "Fine, I'll go to this movie with you, but then we have to go to a girly one" and the boyfriend will oblige.  An audience should know what they're getting into, but is female comedy impossible of appealing to males?  Should it be a shock that it's not torture to the boyfriends?  Should single men or groups of buddies avoid movies that aren't aimed at them?  Is a comedy a failure if you don't laugh as much as you thought you might or at least in the way you wanted to?  

You don't even have to force yourself to like Tree of Life to like it.  It's visually stunning, the family's interaction is the most visceral and honest portrayal of the dynamics of love, even when it feels like the love is somehow absent because the love is not received in a way one expects.  So it is internalized through misinterpretation, but that's the beauty of it all, isn't it?  You might not get it now, because you were hoping for something else, but looking at a film objectively and not through the scope of "I was kind of hoping for more plot and less rumination," Tree of Life will later be even more appreciated than it is now.  It's just difficult presently to absorb the full size of it.  But this movie was being worked on for a very long time, and even as Malick has demonstrated, he doesn't just churn out thoughtless blockbusters.  

Now, I have no idea what may sway everyone here, but I have a feeling Tree of Life will be grossly overlooked come awards time (Xixax, not that any other awards even matters anyway).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 04, 2011, 07:15:29 PM
let's discuss the content.
Amused by this introduction...

In lieu of any real connection, Your Highness had a similar difficulty.  It had stars in it, it was directed by David Gordon Green, but where people sought a comedy, they found only adventure.  Preferring to laugh at stoner jokes and perhaps much less latent homosexual jokes (that don't mock gays but embrace a bond among men that suggests gay but leaves it open to heterosexual brotherly love), it seems audiences get very upset when they don't get what they want.  Hell, even look at Bridesmaids.  The constant review I hear is: "Actually not bad.  Looks like a chick flick, but it's totally for guys, too.  It's just actually really funny."  It's not uncommon to overhear in the theater "Fine, I'll go to this movie with you, but then we have to go to a girly one" and the boyfriend will oblige.  An audience should know what they're getting into, but is female comedy impossible of appealing to males?  Should it be a shock that it's not torture to the boyfriends?  Should single men or groups of buddies avoid movies that aren't aimed at them?  Is a comedy a failure if you don't laugh as much as you thought you might or at least in the way you wanted to?
...considering this aside.

I'm not of the opinion that Terence Malick is beyond reproach.
I think that most people here feel this way, yourself included. If it's not true, I'd like to hear your criticisms of this/any Malick film.

If Tree of Life somehow fell short of your expectations, then I have absolutely no idea what you wanted from this movie.  
Can't speak for everyone but I wanted a movie that involved me emotionally from beginning to end. I don't have some rule about the % of plot vs. rumination that a film is allowed but I'm either captivated or I'm not. And beautiful scenery without emotional involvement is as empty as action spectacle without characters you care about. I prefer a movie that hits like a punch in the gut in most cases over one that's a whispery slice of New Age'y nonsense. What did this movie mean to you?  What was it about?

his previous work should have at least prepared you for this.
This part is true. But it had been 6 years since "The New World" and I'm a little older so I thought maybe I'd have a greater appreciation for his work now. Additionally, I thought the premise sounded great and had a ton of potential.

The fact that this movie opened on four screens (out of seven) at my theater is both invigorating and harrowing
Harrowing?

Now, I have no idea what may sway everyone here, but I have a feeling Tree of Life will be grossly overlooked come awards time (Xixax, not that any other awards even matters anyway).
Oscars, yes. Xixaxies? You're out of your mind.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on June 05, 2011, 01:35:35 AM
let's discuss the content.
Amused by this introduction...

In lieu of any real connection, Your Highness had a similar difficulty.  It had stars in it, it was directed by David Gordon Green, but where people sought a comedy, they found only adventure.  Preferring to laugh at stoner jokes and perhaps much less latent homosexual jokes (that don't mock gays but embrace a bond among men that suggests gay but leaves it open to heterosexual brotherly love), it seems audiences get very upset when they don't get what they want.  Hell, even look at Bridesmaids.  The constant review I hear is: "Actually not bad.  Looks like a chick flick, but it's totally for guys, too.  It's just actually really funny."  It's not uncommon to overhear in the theater "Fine, I'll go to this movie with you, but then we have to go to a girly one" and the boyfriend will oblige.  An audience should know what they're getting into, but is female comedy impossible of appealing to males?  Should it be a shock that it's not torture to the boyfriends?  Should single men or groups of buddies avoid movies that aren't aimed at them?  Is a comedy a failure if you don't laugh as much as you thought you might or at least in the way you wanted to?
...considering this aside.


I guess it was an aside that helped establish my point of the material being about expectation, or at least planning to derive more from something than it possesses or of just a different variety.  Granted I didn't address much content about what the movie made me feel in that post, but I hope to rectify it in this response.

Quote
I'm not of the opinion that Terence Malick is beyond reproach.
I think that most people here feel this way, yourself included. If it's not true, I'd like to hear your criticisms of this/any Malick film.


I don't believe he's beyond reproach just by going into his movies.  I'll admit I haven't been let down by him, but I don't refuse to be let down by him.  To be fair, I am a very lenient critic, as the culmination of a film is an incredible undertaking, so I will admit that I basically praise experimental filmmakers when they really make things happen.  That's just going to happen for me, I guess.

Quote
If Tree of Life somehow fell short of your expectations, then I have absolutely no idea what you wanted from this movie.  
Can't speak for everyone but I wanted a movie that involved me emotionally from beginning to end. I don't have some rule about the % of plot vs. rumination that a film is allowed but I'm either captivated or I'm not. And beautiful scenery without emotional involvement is as empty as action spectacle without characters you care about. I prefer a movie that hits like a punch in the gut in most cases over one that's a whispery slice of New Age'y nonsense. What did this movie mean to you?  What was it about?

For me I think it's telling that you prefer movies that hit you like a punch in the gut, because punch in the gut Tree of Life is not.  Instead, Tree of Life is more of a sustained meditation.  It is a capturing of the swirling essences that create the tapestry of existence.  It is hard to describe what I really appreciated about Tree of Life without employing some New Age'y nonsense, but that is the fashion in which is reached me.  Far be it from me to reject an idea simply because it is not presented to me in a way I desired it would be.  

This sort of brings it back to the 'beyond reproach' bit, doesn't it?  How could a director fuck up a movie about the experience of internalization?  And hell, since Terence Malick made it, it really couldn't go wrong, right?  Does that mean it doesn't even have to have been made?  It's so perfectly aligned that it almost shouldn't even have been executed because it runs the risk of appearing redundant.

But I'm glad it was made, I had an incredible experience because both vaguely narratively, there is a strong current of a family story interwoven with the creation of the earth.  Very few characters are examined beyond the family, and even though the family is only half of the movie, we get to know them so intimately that it becomes shocking because we're seeing them juxtaposed with high concept natural imagery.  We grow so close to this family, they experience a tragedy that galvanizes them, we learn these details and we feel for them, but we don't know all that has transpired.  The more we are shown the history of the planet, we know these details but they exist beyond us.  They are incredibly long stretches of time, growth, evolution, death, from the cosmos to molecules.  And then on a personal level, the domestic psychologies presented counterbalance these grand ideas with people developing conflicts internally, trying to wrestle with the concept of two halves that merged to present a new part, or series of unique parts differently assembled from the union of the two.

Just talking about it makes me want to see it again pretty badly.

Quote
But it had been 6 years since "The New World" and I'm a little older so I thought maybe I'd have a greater appreciation for his work now. Additionally, I thought the premise sounded great and had a ton of potential.

This part is true.

Quote
The fact that this movie opened on four screens (out of seven) at my theater is both invigorating and harrowing
Harrowing?

Invigorating because experimental film opens up really widely and it could lead to that hypothetical mass enlightenment that was coined and then instantly decoined by a macro, even though ticket sales have thus far been really quite astounding for a movie of this sort.

Harrowing because honestly, I work in this theater.  It opened on four screens out of seven.  If word of mouth spreads about Tree of Life as being boring or hard to get, my hours at work will tank and that sucks and is not impossible.  If the movie was like (500) Days of Summer, I wouldn't be worried at all, we'd make all the money for sure.  So far, so good, though.  It's been selling well, but to be on four screens is a considerable risk.

Quote
Now, I have no idea what may sway everyone here, but I have a feeling Tree of Life will be grossly overlooked come awards time (Xixax, not that any other awards even matters anyway).
Oscars, yes. Xixaxies? You're out of your mind.

I guess now my feeling is that the Xixaxies are beyond my prediction.  I've been so surprised by who sweeps lately, especially by Social Network of recent memory.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ghostboy on June 05, 2011, 02:16:04 AM
SPOILS!

It made me cry twice, and almost three times (the door in the desert at the end was a little much and countered the emotion I was feeling). I haven't been able to shake it since.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on June 05, 2011, 03:37:41 AM
let's still post spoils when it comes to images near the end of the film, eh? it's not viewable in some countries yet.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 05, 2011, 03:54:44 AM
Is a Malick film even spoilable?  :ponder:

Doesn't open here 'til later this month.  :(
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 05, 2011, 06:30:59 AM
SPOILERS


Tree of Life is one of the only films I can remember seeing that captured what it feels like to recall one's past. The fragmented yet immediate nature of the memories as well as the overwhelming rush of feelings. Sometimes its almost too much to handle.

The film is intimate and yet the creation of the earth stuff presents the big picture (the biggest picture?) by showing that everything that happens is but a blip in the history of the universe. People are born, they have triumphs and sorrows, they die, and the earth marches on. The dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago are nothing today. Maybe a set of bones. That seems like a facile theme, but its presented here so movingly and artistically.

The relationship of Pitt and Jack hit close to home for me, because it reminded me of my sometimes contentious relationship with my own father. Pitt has certain regrets about his life (which may or may not include having a family), and he tries to shape his boys into good people the best way he knows how. He can be a disciplinarian, but his obvious love for his sons and his passion for music show his more sensitive side. As I get older I have increasingly noticed things about my dad I dislike, but I also see things in him that humanize him for me.

This film does a fantastic job of depicting a previous time period and making it feel real and lived in. Sometimes period pieces feel very production-designed or as if they're a depiction of an era as seen through that era's film and TV shows.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on June 05, 2011, 12:00:25 PM
I saw it last night. The experience is difficult to put into words, not only for my own limitations as a critic, but to do so would also take away the power of the images and the montage. This is a masterful film, and I am completely enamored with it. I feel like I grew up during the course of the film.

Malick is Beethoven in images; TOL is his Ode to Joy. There isn't an ending so much as an outro.

It's kind of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4VouG_EO60&feature=player_detailpage#t=172s

I would like to discuss it more, but I really need to see it again and again and again and again....
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reinhold on June 05, 2011, 12:14:14 PM
i saw it again last night. not much new to say except that my friend sebastian pointed out the similarities in the creation scene to the one in fantasia.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on June 06, 2011, 03:59:53 PM
I saw this Friday and I can only echo what most here have been saying.  I was washed away with it.  It picked me up and just carried me throughout the movie.

It got a little slow for me, but I think that "slowness" was just me coming down from the high that the rest of the movie had me on... and it didn't last long because it picked me back up pretty quickly.

I can't fight people who don't like the movie.  It's not that they "don't get" something, they just don't like it.  The film is so simple that it seems confusing... I got confused a couple times because I was trying to think too hard, which was a mistake.  Experience the movie then think later... most of the enjoyment of this movie is driven by immediate reactions.  Which, to me, means if you didn't like it, you didn't like it... but maybe give it some time and watch it again, it really is like music.

Not to dive back into the dumb Digital argument, but I saw this as a film print and I am seeing as a digital print next week, but I don't think the comparison will be fair because the projectionist at this theater was really bad.  The light in the booth was left on and the left a bright stain on the screen throughout the whole movie and the bulb was clearly old because the text was bleeding (this could also be bad belts).

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 06, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
Thinking about Tree of Life and The Master next year, I wonder if the XIXAX awards should start to rank the order of the voting results for topics (ala National Board of Review). Even though I believe both of these films will dominate their respective years, I'm more curious what films will duke it out for 2nd and 3rd place. There are just too many filmmakers this board can have the tendency to flock to if they make a "great" film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on June 07, 2011, 06:18:04 PM
Fox Searchlight To Take “The Tree of Life” To the U.K.
Source: indiewire

Fox Searchlight announced that it will distribute Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” in the U.K., finally giving a home to the film that was orphaned after a contract dispute with Icon Entertainment. Searchlight, which is handling the film in North America, plans to move quickly in order to benefit from the film’s worldwide buzz and Palme D’Or win. It will release “Tree” July 8. In March, Icon Entertainment announced that it planned to release the film on May 4, ahead of its Cannes premiere. This would have made the UK the first region in the world to see the film, and would have disqualified its inclusion at Cannes. Bill Pohlad’s River Road Entertainment, which financed the film, and foreign sales agent Summit Entertainment were nonplussed. They declared that Icon’s intent put the company in default on its distribution agreement and the distributor lost the right to distribute “The Tree of Life” in the UK. “Tree” has been doing quite well both in the U.S. and overseas. The former will see another expansion this weekend, followed by a national release July 1. From the release: “We knew this was an amazing film from the moment we saw it,” said Fox Searchlight Pictures presidents Nancy Utley and Stephen Gilula in a statement. “Based on the hugely successful opening in the United States, we couldn’t be more thrilled to be releasing this film in the United Kingdom.” “Fox Searchlight has been an extraordinary partner distributing our film in the United States,” added Pohlad. “So we’re thrilled to have them release ‘The Tree of Life’ in the United Kingdom, allowing international audiences to experience Terry’s beautiful and affecting masterpiece.”
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 09, 2011, 10:03:14 AM
Saw it, loved it. Spoiler-free review:

I don't understand why this is being called "impressionistic." That's completely misleading. This is the opposite of impressionism. The characters are deep, clear, and fully-realized. They are initially fleeting, but their elements sort of swirl together and fully crystallize with surprising skill.

Malick is coming at you from a different direction. It's like he's a surgeon who's calculated that, actually, if you make the incision here, you can reach the vein more directly. This makes more sense if you've seen the movie. It feels like he's specifically bypassing the conventions that can get in the way of a potent idea.

This is mostly done through the camera movements and the editing. I can't really think of a parallel for either in any film I've seen. It's crazy, insane editing, really. And so many of the camera movements and angles are totally odd but totally effective in a really unexpected way.

It's designed in a way that almost involuntarily provokes a close and careful viewing. Unless you're already completely cynical about the film, you want to figure things out. But yes, if you are skeptical enough, it may never work for you. It's very delicate in that way.

I haven't really decided what I think the origin stuff means, but I'm not sure that's something I need to do. It doesn't feel like a mystery that needs to be solved. It feels spiritual and personal, and surprisingly open to interpretation (in a way that few things actually are). While you may not be able to explain it in a sentence, it seems oddly self-explanatory.

It's not impressionistic, and it's not even abstract. If anything, it's symbolic. I don't understand why symbolism should be challenging or confrontational for anyone, since we've been dealing with it in art and culture for who knows how long. And even then, there's more free association in the film than symbolism. It's actually completely intuitive. And it definitely worked for me.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 09, 2011, 12:06:24 PM
Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain reveal Terrence Malick's methods in filming 'THE TREE OF LIFE' -

* be warned, it has some spoilers, I stopped watching it actually.

http://movies.yahoo.com/summer-movies/the-tree-of-life/1810022079#first
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: samsong on June 09, 2011, 04:06:31 PM
I don't understand why this is being called "impressionistic." That's completely misleading. This is the opposite of impressionism.

i hate to engage in petty discourse over semantics but i have to say i find this claim to be befuddling.  to me, malick's films are inherently impressionistic in style, none of them more so than the tree of life.  so either our understandings of the term are off or we had vastly different experiences with the film.

some spoilers, i guess

as for the meaning of the origin sequence, i don't think there's a clear-cut meaning to be drawn from it but its presence within the film is obviously integral.  the crux of malick's poetry (of late, anyway) lies in parallelism and the implications of considering the birth and ostensible end of the universe in the same breath as a story about childhood memories is astonishingly impacting.  ed gonzalez at slant magazine described the film as a "confession of human inconsequence", a notion that has no greater point of reference than the vastness of the universe.

personally i was really surprised that a film that utilized so many archetypes and familiar symbols/imagery could still be as moving as this was.  a constant criticism i hear is that the vision of heaven (if that's even what it is) is cliche -- people wandering a picturesque beach, reunited with loved ones, but i still found this finale to be wholly satisfying.  it doesn't quite reach the heights of the crescendo at the end of the new world but that was a different film.

ghostboy, out of curiosity, at what points in the film did you cry?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 09, 2011, 05:25:05 PM
I don't understand why this is being called "impressionistic." That's completely misleading. This is the opposite of impressionism.

i hate to engage in petty discourse over semantics but i have to say i find this claim to be befuddling.  to me, malick's films are inherently impressionistic in style, none of them more so than the tree of life.  so either our understandings of the term are off or we had vastly different experiences with the film.

Alright, let's unpack it...

the technique in art, literature, or music of conveying experience by capturing fleeting impressions of reality or of mood

ToL definitely contains impressionism, especially at the beginning, when we don't really know the family or understand what's going on...

The characters are deep, clear, and fully-realized. They are initially fleeting, but their elements sort of swirl together and fully crystallize with surprising skill.

Bolded the second part for emphasis.

Think about the family, how their story developed and how the characters became full, rich, and crystal-clear. This is the opposite of impressionism. If you only got an "impression" of them, you did see a different movie. To call the movie impressionistic is to ignore most of what happened in it. We can't pretend that the meat of their story (which even becomes comparatively conventional) never happened, and that all we got were wispy impressions of them. Not the case at all.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 09, 2011, 05:45:25 PM
MAJOR SPOILERS

[spoiler]I loved some of the shots of the empty river and the flowing seaweed, particularly because I didn't know whether a dinosaur or one of the kids was going to trample into the picture. I loved that tension. The connection there was really clear, too, but also subtle.

I also love how you know which kid died, without ever being shown or told. Amazing how he did that.

I want to see more movies like this.

as for the meaning of the origin sequence, i don't think there's a clear-cut meaning to be drawn from it but its presence within the film is obviously integral.  the crux of malick's poetry (of late, anyway) lies in parallelism and the implications of considering the birth and ostensible end of the universe in the same breath as a story about childhood memories is astonishingly impacting.  ed gonzalez at slant magazine described the film as a "confession of human inconsequence", a notion that has no greater point of reference than the vastness of the universe.

I like that, but I think the meaning I got from it was completely different. The message I got was actually one of human significance, in the way that we're connected to the earth and its history, and the universe. Especially thinking of the flowing seaweed... We saw the kids running through it, but we also saw it in an origins sequence.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 09, 2011, 06:15:13 PM
MAJOR SPOILERS CONTINUED
[spoiler]I also love how you know which kid died, without ever being shown or told. Amazing how he did that.[/spoiler]
Yeah that was incredible.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 09, 2011, 07:17:44 PM
Dammit, red spoiler and all, that was hard not to read.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 09, 2011, 07:24:40 PM
Dammit, red spoiler and all, that was hard not to read.

haha same here. I fucking read it. oh well.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 09, 2011, 07:25:04 PM
MAJOR SPOILERS CONTINUED
[spoiler]I also love how you know which kid died, without ever being shown or told. Amazing how he did that.[/spoiler]
Yeah that was incredible.

OHHHH, see, now why isn't this utilized more often?  :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 09, 2011, 07:59:42 PM
Does that work now? Last time I used that I was told that only admins can see the contents. I'll edit my post.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on June 09, 2011, 08:20:17 PM
Yeah, we tried to get that to work for the longest time.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 09, 2011, 08:26:53 PM
BEST. FEATURE. EVER.

Seriously, I have no will. I read spoilers all the time.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 09, 2011, 09:25:42 PM
utilized

Was this on purpose or an instance of cosmic synchronicity?  If you don't even know what I'm talking about it's the latter.

I looked at this thread before I logged in and discovered you can't read the text unless you're logged in.  So the feature's great for spoilers and secrets.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 09, 2011, 09:33:08 PM
hah, no, the fact that sambong and I both used the word was coincidence.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ghostboy on June 09, 2011, 10:30:13 PM
ghostboy, out of curiosity, at what points in the film did you cry?

When the second child is born and the first is upset; when the mother kisses all three boys good night; and almost at the ending, in spite of myself.

And then the whole ride home from the theater.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: samsong on June 09, 2011, 11:15:27 PM
you'll get no argument from me that the characters are more fully realized than what some might expect given what some of us have said about the film in an effort to remain spoiler-free, but i don't see how that negates the possibility of it being impressionistic or how that description is misleading.  sure there's a clear narrative thread for the majority of the film but it comes to us in episodes and in a manner that seems to be intended to give the impression of memories recalled as a way of portraying a character considering his past to make sense of his present.  the emphasis you put on elements swirling together doesn't make it any less abstract or useful in making your point.  it seems to me you think  "impressionistic" implies that something is completely fragmentary and lacking in cohesion, and that doesn't even begin to resemble my understanding of impressionism.  

a similar if more thorough definition of impressionism that also happens to suit my opinion on the matter: the depiction (as in literature) of scene, emotion, or character by details intended to achieve a vividness or effectiveness more by evoking subjective and sensory impressions than by recreating an objective reality.  

if you want to get really pedantic (and i don't, really), you describe elements of character in the tree of life being "initially fleeting" but eventually "swirling together" and "fully crystalizing", which taken in a different context can be somewhat analogous to the experience of standing up close to a painting done in the style of pointilism (an offshoot of impressionism) and slowly backing away from it to see the larger picture.  

i'm really only going this far because i don't see the validity in your invalidation of my claim.  not even a little.

ghostboy, i get where you're coming from as the most glaring misstep in the tree of life is the overt-ness of some of the imagery like the example you cited, but the emotions being conveyed were enough to sweep me up. [spoiler] seeing his brothers and mother again was too beautiful to be annoyed with that silly doorway. the ending played more powerfully for me on second viewing, especially the denoument that brings us back to the present with a new tone accompanying the shots of modernity, a softening in penn's countenance, and the final shots of the majesty of contemporary architecture.  that line that pitt delivers earlier about having disgraced the glory around him and wasting his life reverberated in my thoughts as this sequence started and i was moved to tears.  also that insane bit of the evolution sequence when the cosmos starts to expand with this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g34W5hW7lA) peaking got my pulse racing.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on June 09, 2011, 11:30:02 PM
I'm with Samsong on this.  The fact that you can tell it's a painting of a starry night doesn't make Starry Night any less impressionistic.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on June 09, 2011, 11:51:19 PM
Saw it. Intend to write more later but just wanted to say I was surprised how accessible the film was. Probably his most conventional movie since Badlans (it's been years side I watched it but I recall it as his most mainstream/straightforward film).

Wife really loved it. Was her first time seeing Malick. She was genuinely touched by it, and as a Christian she took away a vastly different experience than me.

I really liked it. More in a few days...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: SiliasRuby on June 10, 2011, 01:27:18 AM
Snapshots of memories portrayed so vividly. Gave me this emotional rush that I couldn't deny. My heart ached at the family dynamics and brought me to an emotional brink. Yes, there wasn't much of a structured story and there could have been more of the family in this film. I strived for it but it ultimately moved me and for a agnostic for myself it gave me a sense of spiritual wonder in myself.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 10, 2011, 01:36:40 AM
Re: Impressionism

Again, I'm using the definition I found earlier...

the technique in art, literature, or music of conveying experience by capturing fleeting impressions of reality or of mood

This is in the movie, as one sort of transitionary element, but it is not the movie. Does that make sense? That's why I object to people calling it "an impressionistic movie," because as a whole it's not, at all.

Seriously, look at that definition again. ToL does far more than "convey experience" or "capture fleeting impressions." It's a very solidly grounded, clear, vivid movie with impressionistic elements, and they are not its substance.

And Samsong, I can't think of anything in this movie that is actually "abstract." Symbolism is not abstract, nor are the editing techniques and odd camera movements. This is another problem... If you're going to try to use visual art terms to describe a movie, you're already jumping from one medium to a very different one, and even if your definitions are accurate, the vocabulary of visual art doesn't really translate to a multidisciplinary medium like film.

Really, if someone were to represent ToL in an actual painting, it might have impressionistic brushstrokes around the edges, but in the center you'd have bold images, crystal-clear and even realist representations of characters, ideas, and scenes.

Tagging a movie this complex with one label, especially one as limiting as "impressionistic," which is not even proportionally supported by its content, seems like a big stretch, and an unnecessary one.

I mostly object to calling this "an impressionistic movie" because it's not only inaccurate, it's misleading. When I watched the movie, I started thinking "oh, yeah, this really is an impressionistic movie." But of course that was very early in the film, and it transitions away from that impressionism very quickly and becomes something entirely different and more complex. When you call it "an impressionistic movie," you're giving people exactly the wrong impression (so to speak), unless you add "...that becomes something else."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 10, 2011, 01:49:21 AM
Another point about this before I forget...

Here's the biggest problem with seeing those fleeting images and concluding "this is an impressionistic movie." Those fleeting images eventually coalesce into something profoundly vivid. In other words, since they crystallized, they are not really "fleeting" at all.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 10, 2011, 03:20:46 AM
The two of you are being equally clear.  Samsong is referring to thematic revelation within a blossoming narrative.  Jeremy Blackman is referring purely to the themes and their concreteness.  Each acknowledges the basic points of the other.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: samsong on June 10, 2011, 07:33:07 AM
yea i'm done.  ))<>((.  at the end of the day i don't think i'm going to ruin the tree of life for anyone by having described it as "impressionistic" or "abstract" and the person disagreeing with the use of those terms afterwards.

 in other news, seeing this again today.  making an effort to see it as many times as i can as i did with the new world during its theatrical run.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 10, 2011, 11:36:21 AM
This conversation probably made very little sense to onlookers, but trust me, it will make a lot more sense once you've seen the movie.

at the end of the day i don't think i'm going to ruin the tree of life for anyone by having described it as "impressionistic" or "abstract" and the person disagreeing with the use of those terms afterwards.

Yeah, I guess it's a personal thing. I felt misled by that description (though not yours), which was annoying, but really only a minor annoyance, as I don't actually expect marketing and reviews to accurately prepare me for a movie.

))<>((

Forever.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 10, 2011, 12:40:54 PM
The conversation made sense to me.  I thought both of you did a really great job of explaining yourselves.

My day is:  Beginners @ 2:45, Midnight in Paris @ 4:35, and Tree of Life @ 6:50!!!!!!!!  FINALLY.  (Already made plans to see Tree of Life again tomorrow as well).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 10, 2011, 01:07:53 PM
Some more very spoilery observations:

[spoiler]Those prismatic swirls that seemed to serve as chapter breaks... Did that remind anyone of Punch-Drunk Love, which had almost exactly the same thing? A knowing homage, or a coincidence?

Also, I should amend my previous comment about ToL not being "abstract." That's too big a claim, because there are so many shades of abstraction, and abstract does not really mean non-representational. (Though people usually mean "non-representational" when they say "abstract.")

The prismatic swirls are probably as abstract as ToL gets, but I think they're actually less abstract than for example an abstracted painting of a person, because I found them so specifically symbolic and directly representational. I think it was pretty clear that they represented Life Force (or whatever you want to call it), and using them as chapter breaks not so subtly makes the point that this Life Force runs through everything, from the macro to the micro.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 10, 2011, 02:03:18 PM
I would say "elliptical" rather than "abstract." Perhaps the creation of the universe stuff is abstract, but the 1950s scenes are elliptical.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 10, 2011, 02:06:10 PM
That's a fantastic word for the 1950s scenes. "Elliptical" and "swirling" are better and more accurate words than "fleeting" (which I shouldn't have even used in my initial review). We could probably think of a dozen more words.

And I actually don't think the origins content itself is abstract at all. It has symbolic meaning, but the "footage" itself is completely representational; what we're seeing is exactly what it is.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 11, 2011, 03:22:50 AM
It made my heart do backflips.  Its rich textures and rhythms are, as this thread attests, difficult to put into words immediately.  There's so much to say.  The audience I saw the film with was in rapt attention, transfixed, a connectedness that could be felt by harmonious responses to onscreen moments.  You form a relationship with the movie; a wonderful, damn meaningful union with the characters.  Even now I see Mrs. O'Brien's eyes when I close mine.  And so much of me still wants to be in Waco.

I'm sorry, it just blew me away.  It makes me sound like I'm writing in a diary, which the movie would be totally okay with, as it treats with equal seriousness major and minor human emotions, such emotions, such a sense of being and experiencing and feeling.  Immersion.  My eyes were bloodshot when we left and I wondered if I hadn't been blinking much.  I'm seeing it again first showing tomorrow and my thoughts are sure to grow.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ghostboy on June 11, 2011, 08:23:11 AM
And so much of me still wants to be in Waco.

On its own, and reading it as a Texan, this statement is hilarious.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 11, 2011, 11:23:41 AM
And so much of me still wants to be in Waco.

On its own, and reading it as a Texan, this statement is hilarious.

You know Terrence Malick is a great filmmaker when he makes Waco look great.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 11, 2011, 11:32:53 AM
And so much of me still wants to be in Waco.

On its own, and reading it as a Texan, this statement is hilarious.

You know Terrence Malick is a great filmmaker when he makes Waco look great.

spoiler

Consider that we know it's Waco because the name is etched on the side of the truck spraying clouds of DDT (the children run and play in).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ghostboy on June 12, 2011, 01:52:58 AM

Consider that we know it's Waco because the name is etched on the side of the truck spraying clouds of DDT (the children run and play in).

It almost made me laugh in the movie, too.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 13, 2011, 09:46:41 AM
***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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 13, 2011, 10:02:31 AM
Yesssssss........

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LAuCCls0ox8/TRubvDuek_I/AAAAAAAAD6M/Ba7_naRfGW8/s1600/dark-side.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on June 13, 2011, 11:54:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on June 13, 2011, 04:21:45 PM
***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?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 04:38:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 13, 2011, 04:57:07 PM
Not to mention that present day Jack is not a character. Just Sean Penn ambling out of bed and to work.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 13, 2011, 05:10:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 13, 2011, 05:12:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 13, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 05:19:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 13, 2011, 05:29:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 13, 2011, 05:41:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 05:46:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 13, 2011, 05:47:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 05:50:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 13, 2011, 05:55:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 05:58:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 13, 2011, 06:18:31 PM
I do think his point of view is the jumping-off-point... it just gets complicated.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: JG on June 13, 2011, 06:19:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 06:26:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 13, 2011, 06:41:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 13, 2011, 06:46:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 14, 2011, 09:16:11 AM
***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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 14, 2011, 01:04:31 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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."

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 14, 2011, 01:52:24 PM
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.

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 14, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 14, 2011, 03:16:31 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 14, 2011, 03:30:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 14, 2011, 04:12:52 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: wilder on June 14, 2011, 04:24:54 PM
I'd also like to ask what your interpretation of the scene is, as I've seen your criticize it but not really explain the criticism.

[...]

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.

I know I personally respond to movies more when they engage me in an emotional way, rather than in a solely intellectual one. All I can say is that I felt nothing during that scene, and it didn't add anything to the movie for me that I didn't get elsewhere or extrapolate from the situations that were dramatized earlier. A friend I saw it with read the shot of Jessica Chastain with the two girls beside her as being representative of different possible paths or fragments herself (and also of the Holy Trinity), and I guess can see that...but it's just too symbolic for me to care about. If a movie engages me emotionally I become willing to analyze it further in an effort to figure out why I responded to it...I guess what you found "poetic" I found repetitious and stale. I don't disagree with your reading of it, but I felt the scene was too explanatory and the message it wanted to get across was taken care of more subtly elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 14, 2011, 04:28:04 PM
Oh funny, I actually edited out that first line. I don't think you have to put poetic in quotations, unless you think the beach scene is literal.

But anyway, yeah. It didn't work for you. Can't argue that.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 14, 2011, 06:43:29 PM
I'm jealous of this conversation. I want to see the movie now. Still, the young blood on this board is awesome!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on June 14, 2011, 07:52:20 PM
I'm jealous of this conversation. I want to see the movie now. Still, the young blood on this board is awesome!

hell yeah, sundown and wilder are the shit.

Hopefully this film will come out someday somewhere else than new york
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 14, 2011, 08:31:03 PM
I'm jealous of this conversation. I want to see the movie now. Still, the young blood on this board is awesome!

hell yeah, sundown and wilder are the shit.

Hopefully this film will come out someday somewhere else than new york

I may have to wait for DVD. If it plays against a barn somewhere, I stand a better chance.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on June 14, 2011, 09:01:59 PM
We'll be getting this the end of june apparently.

Hopefully modage will have buzzkilled himself out by then along with all the boring semantic conversations.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: polkablues on June 14, 2011, 09:24:03 PM
I'm just going to wait for it to come out on VHS. The way it was intended to be seen!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 14, 2011, 09:27:29 PM
We'll be getting this the end of june apparently.

Hopefully modage will have buzzkilled himself out by then along with all the boring semantic conversations.

I'm really hoping you can see this for what it is. You weren't blinded by Lynch for Inland. I'm holding out hope you won't need to make excuses for this either. I've given up on this lot though.  :yabbse-undecided:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 14, 2011, 10:13:03 PM
We'll be getting this the end of june apparently.

Hopefully modage will have buzzkilled himself out by then along with all the boring semantic conversations.

I'm really hoping you can see this for what it is. You weren't blinded by Lynch for Inland. I'm holding out hope you won't need to make excuses for this either. I've given up on this lot though.  :yabbse-undecided:
You may be right but no one would know because your arguments are shallow and you've resorted to glib jabs.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on June 15, 2011, 12:09:04 AM
as far as I can tell, the usually effervescent mod in this thread hasn't really made any conscious effort to actually listen to the arguments or really has any interest in what anyone else has to say!
come on mod.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on June 15, 2011, 01:26:22 AM
yeah the thing that bugs me about your nonpreciation is that you characterize the malaholicks as seeing stuff that isn't there or simply liking something because it's really good-looking.

in the context of every other piece of cinema, yes: the way malick does stuff is weird. he's actually asking the audience to draw their own creative conclusions from a series of moving images. it's off-putting to anyone who enjoys or has been brought up on 'conventional' narratives (which is probably 97% of people who watch movies). it's easy to look at an abstract poem and brush it off as a random string of words, because it may not be directly communicating ideas in the way we're used to, or through the same specific lens of [character] + [action] = [conclusion]. BUT in many cases, digging even a little deeper, you begin to notice how the words are meaningfully tied together in their own wonderful way. malick is a cinematic poet, using images instead of words. most directors use images to write sentences. (absolutely nothing wrong with that.) malick writes poems. this is NOT an "excuse" for badly communicated ideas. they're just communicated differently, in some cases more effectively than making statements. even accepting this, some people will brush off the idea of 'cinematic poetry' as breezy, flimsily-structured bullshit. this could not be less true. in a malick film, no image is random, or there just to be pretty etc.

for example a lot could be said about the alligator from the opening shot of Thin Red and how it relates to everything that's happening there. in very broad strokes, it's an embodiment of natural destructive forces. it's a cold, vicious machine from the same forces that might coalesce to form a beautiful bird (parrots being another motif). at the same time, its slow submersion into the swamp waters is undeniably graceful, even serene. so right there, in a few pretty economical seconds, you have the opening paragraphs of a rich philosophical statement about what it means to reconcile the violent and peaceful forces of the universe. and if you can communicate all that in a few seconds rather than having a scene where soldiers watch an alligator and talk about it, why not? that's cinema in its purest form. this video is a good introduction to just how fantastically detailed and well-realized all this malick stuff really is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb-jaM5YCSA&

i LOVED ToL because it spoke to me on a cosmic level, frame after frame. not just in a visually magnificent way, but in an active way that i was being asked to participate in. it is an experience, but it's certainly not intended to be a 'turn off your brain, forgive the simplicity of the ideas and let it happen, maaaaann' kind of experience. this is a real investigation of existence. it's what movies are for. it's what LIFE is for! even if you don't get it or don't want to try to figure it out (which doesn't take much effort beyond trying), i find it odd to actively hate on malick. i think maybe it stems from a misguided image of who malick is. it's easy to project ideas onto him because we don't know him in a 'conventional' interview-style sort of way, but his films reveal more about him personally than most directors, even some of the really good ones, would. moreover they reveal stuff about everyone. most people who like ToL see their own specific experiences in it. that's not a happy coincidence.

some random observations, SPOILS:
- the jellyfish blew my mind coming on the heels of the galactic formations. the resemblance is huge. they're all little floating universes unto themselves.
- the mother in the glass coffin in the forest was amazing… that's almost exactly the image i got when death became a new concept for me.
- i think people are taking the ending too literally. i don't even believe it's about an afterlife. penn experiences the beach and then returns to his everyday being. it's more a fantastical plane of existence penn is touching for a moment.
- i love the characterization of the meteor as graceful. i think rock is a good representation of the neutral ground between nature and grace. shaped by immense pressure, but docile.
- the giant old man face going "i'll see you in FIVE. YEARS." cracked me up.
- so glad lena from super mario bros. gets to be in an(other) important film.
- maybe more later..

i mostly came here to post this INSANELY DETAILED blog analysis of not only tree of life, but every other malick and how it relates to tree of life:
http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/

i've barely scratched the surface but so far so good.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on June 15, 2011, 02:16:16 AM
i mostly came here to post this INSANELY DETAILED blog analysis of not only tree of life, but every other malick and how it relates to tree of life:
http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/

Oh my god.

That guy is my newest and greatest kindred spirit, my soulmate, the blogger with whom I share a profound mystical understanding. He will sit at the right hand of malick for sure.

the justification for his malick obsession through allusion to kubrick or rather scorsese's realisation about kubrick, the overarching perspective that explains, justifies and redeems a filmmakers entire output, the unbridled faith in an artist's vision....  that is one of the best analyses of a filmmaker I've ever seen.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 15, 2011, 08:17:06 AM
We'll be getting this the end of june apparently.

Hopefully modage will have buzzkilled himself out by then along with all the boring semantic conversations.

I'm really hoping you can see this for what it is. You weren't blinded by Lynch for Inland. I'm holding out hope you won't need to make excuses for this either. I've given up on this lot though.  :yabbse-undecided:
You may be right but no one would know because your arguments are shallow and you've resorted to glib jabs.

 :sleeping:

(http://oi55.tinypic.com/33a8olx.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 15, 2011, 09:30:38 AM
***SPOILS***

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.

These are the same women I mention, just on a different day. When they make a movie for them, not the industry. Funny thing is I can't really point out an established director because the majority of them get through this phase long before they make a feature. lol, low blow i know but kinda truthful.


Regarding the rolling of my eyes. Maybe i wasn't clear. I've had that reaction to the beach thing so many times. but if i saw a film tomorrow that had the big ol' puffy cloud, it's true, eyes would roll.

The bubbles and butterfly while used before arn't examples of my issue. They are real moments, even if slightly overused in cinema. I recall similar moments of that in my childhood; as I'm sure everyone does. however, moments of release in my life are not on a beach. I've got my own issues like everyone and when i can put aside my pain to be a better person and love those that are around me by being a more nurturing person, i don't envision myself walking around an isolated beach with the dead souls of my past. But for some reason, time and time again that's what people use to show said transcendence in cinema. Why? Simple. It's easy and a cliched metaphor. This is Terrance fucking Malick man, he coulda done that shit in outer space or the back of a Volkswagen and it would have been better.

think about the ending of 2001, a clinical white hotel room that cuts to a planet sized super baby.  Shot unlike anything ever before, cutting from the protagonists POV, which becomes the new shot and he walks into frame older each time. That film was very much about evolution, release, rebirth and renewal too. Yet it was inspired from somewhere magical. TOL has a bunch of beach hugs. Characters dropping to their knees, holding up their hands to the heavens as they walk through empty doorframes... it's laughable.

With all that said, quite honestly I'm glad you got a lot out of it as i wish i was in your shoes.

I'm jealous of this conversation. I want to see the movie now. Still, the young blood on this board is awesome!

hell yeah, sundown and wilder are the shit.

Hopefully this film will come out someday somewhere else than new york

I may have to wait for DVD. If it plays against a barn somewhere, I stand a better chance.

In Toronto it's been selling out like crazy in the two theatres it's in; even matinees. If that's any indication of the demand for the film, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets more and more theatres.

We'll be getting this the end of june apparently.

Hopefully modage will have buzzkilled himself out by then along with all the boring semantic conversations.

I'm really hoping you can see this for what it is. You weren't blinded by Lynch for Inland. I'm holding out hope you won't need to make excuses for this either.

 :yabbse-thumbup:

For the record, I am one of the malaholicks and I didn't like this film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 15, 2011, 12:26:24 PM
Quote from: modage

 :sleeping:
(http://oi55.tinypic.com/33a8olx.jpg)
yes, those are glib jabs.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: adolfwolfli on June 15, 2011, 02:08:55 PM
First off I'll say that Malick is one of my favorite living filmmakers.  "Days of Heaven" is one of my favorite films of all time, and I think "The New World" is grossly underrated.  "The Thin Red Line" is incredible, just monumental.  My wife and I wouldn't be together if not for our shared love of Malick's films – we discussed him on our first date, and there was a still from "Days of Heaven" printed on our wedding program.  

[SPOILER ALERT]

Now that that's out of the way, I was disappointed with "Tree of Life".  I think there are long sections that contain some of the most haunting, beautiful work of Malick's career, but the New Age/Christian sappiness of the last quarter of the film really left a bad taste in my mouth.  Malick has always shown himself to be a spiritual filmmaker, interested in big ideas, man's place in the universe, etc., but, as an atheist, I understand now why the French booed this film at Cannes.  I'm not saying that a film can't have Christian or Catholic content, or undertones, in order for me to like it – I love "The Last Temptation of Christ", for instance – but "Tree" just becomes very corny with its depiction of an afterlife.  Even if this was not Malick's intent, I still think the film just falls apart toward the end.  The Sean Penn sequences aren't fleshed out enough, and mainly consist of a befuddled-looking Penn wandering around and staring at stuff.  It just felt awkward and it made me uncomfortable.

I think there is a masterpiece embedded within this film.  If Malick were to excise the evolutionary sequences and the last segment, he'd be left with an incredibly moving, wonderfully evocative depiction of a mid-century boyhood.  All of the scenes with the family were amazing.  I can't think of any film that so beautifully depicts the sensory impressions, moods, confusion, naivete and joy of childhood.  But then it soon derails into treacly sentimentality.  

That's my two cents, and I'm interested to hear what others think.    
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 15, 2011, 02:32:09 PM
**SPOILS***

I think there is a masterpiece embedded within this film.  If Malick were to excise the evolutionary sequences and the last segment, he'd be left with an incredibly moving, wonderfully evocative depiction of a mid-century boyhood.  All of the scenes with the family were amazing.  I can't think of any film that so beautifully depicts the sensory impressions, moods, confusion, naivete and joy of childhood.  But then it soon derails into treacly sentimentality.  

I think you're spot on, and to go on a bit with what you're saying if you don't mind. Maybe the evolutionary sequences could have been the last segment. To cut between the Grace and Nature in it's purest form. Then either leave the film with that, or cut back to Penn.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: KJ on June 15, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
I fucking suck at not reading spoiler when I don't want to read a spoiler on a movie that i haven't seen when i', drunk.

Anywhay, I can't wait to see this one., To baf that it dosn't show in the theaters where I live. I'm planing to go to stockholm and see tree of life and melancholia next weekend. Can't waiit!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: modage on June 15, 2011, 03:05:41 PM
**SPOILS***

I think there is a masterpiece embedded within this film.  If Malick were to excise the evolutionary sequences and the last segment, he'd be left with an incredibly moving, wonderfully evocative depiction of a mid-century boyhood.  All of the scenes with the family were amazing.  I can't think of any film that so beautifully depicts the sensory impressions, moods, confusion, naivete and joy of childhood.  But then it soon derails into treacly sentimentality.  

I think you're spot on, and to go on a bit with what you're saying if you don't mind. Maybe the evolutionary sequences could have been the last segment. To cut between the Grace and Nature in it's purest form. Then either leave the film with that, or cut back to Penn.

Can I agree with this too or is that a shallow argument?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on June 15, 2011, 03:06:52 PM
Perspective: A little splice of heaven
When filmmakers through the years have conjured up images of the hereafter, the results have all too often been hellishly clichéd, and 'The Tree of Life' is only the latest example.


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-movie-heaven-20110612,0,7537845.story

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 15, 2011, 03:34:23 PM
**SPOILS***

I think there is a masterpiece embedded within this film.  If Malick were to excise the evolutionary sequences and the last segment, he'd be left with an incredibly moving, wonderfully evocative depiction of a mid-century boyhood.  All of the scenes with the family were amazing.  I can't think of any film that so beautifully depicts the sensory impressions, moods, confusion, naivete and joy of childhood.  But then it soon derails into treacly sentimentality.  

I think you're spot on, and to go on a bit with what you're saying if you don't mind. Maybe the evolutionary sequences could have been the last segment. To cut between the Grace and Nature in it's purest form. Then either leave the film with that, or cut back to Penn.

Can I agree with this too or is that a shallow argument?

Of course you can, but once again YOU'RE BEING FUCKING GLIB.  It's like you think sheer pompous force is all it takes.

I apologize for trying to police the conversation.  I really do.  I want to step back from this not in a bigger-better man sort of way, because I can be vindictive too, but just because this wasn't even my intention.  I want to talk about the movie.  Simple.  That's all I've wanted.  It was wrong of me to imply that I know the proper way to talk about the movie and you don't, and it's wrong of me to criticize your opinions because you can't present them in a contagious or comprehensive manner.  I don't look forward to your reiteration of this fact (you not liking ToL) on every page, after a person attempts to explain how the film was meaningful for them, but you don't look forward to hearing more people praise a movie you don't like.  I'm not expressing the tolerance I feel is necessary for rational debate when I personalize attacks at you.  I no longer will.  And please stop ribbing me.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on June 15, 2011, 04:03:02 PM
Now that that's out of the way, I was disappointed with "Tree of Life".  I think there are long sections that contain some of the most haunting, beautiful work of Malick's career, but the New Age/Christian sappiness of the last quarter of the film really left a bad taste in my mouth.  Malick has always shown himself to be a spiritual filmmaker, interested in big ideas, man's place in the universe, etc., but, as an atheist, I understand now why the French booed this film at Cannes.  I'm not saying that a film can't have Christian or Catholic content, or undertones, in order for me to like it – I love "The Last Temptation of Christ", for instance – but "Tree" just becomes very corny with its depiction of an afterlife.  Even if this was not Malick's intent, I still think the film just falls apart toward the end.  The Sean Penn sequences aren't fleshed out enough, and mainly consist of a befuddled-looking Penn wandering around and staring at stuff.  It just felt awkward and it made me uncomfortable.  

I agree with this. I honestly didn't think much of the religious stuff personally, to me it just informed the characters. I took away something different from the film entirely. It only bothered me when my Christian wife fixated on that as we discussed the film afterwards (like you, I am an atheist too). But so what? Still a good film.

It's been a few days since I saw it now, and I sat down earlier to write a blog on it (I'll share the link once I post it). I had basically come to the same conclusion as you, that's it's those final moments which detract from what is otherwise an incredibly nuanced and touching film. It's that bloody door in the desert and the reunion on the beach which reminds me of the end of Tim Burton's Big Fish. But more than anything it's the sharp transition from a film focused on natural beauty and human emotions into a film concerned with symbolism and the abstract. Please don't take this as a cue to restart that impressionist debate.

adolfwolfli, you've had a few really good posts the past couple of days. More please.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 15, 2011, 04:43:08 PM
This isn't a case of right and wrong, it's a case of "worked for me" or "didn't work for me." Most movies are like that, but I think ToL is especially. It doesn't benefit at all from antagonistic discussion.

I said it in my initial review... If you don't like this, you are not wrong. It's just not for you.

Aside from talking amongst ourselves, no one has been trying to evangelize this or push it on the skeptics. That would be silly, and it wouldn't even work. Also, no one has said mod is wrong or unenlightened for disliking ToL. Because really, when someone says they don't like the wandering scene, or they think that some of the images are heavy-handed, I accept that. I reacted to it differently, and my experience is also valid. This is basic.

This has been a pretty nuanced discussion about the actual content and meaning of the film, and about how we interpret it. Being hostile (out of nowhere) to people who really liked this film is baffling.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 16, 2011, 12:01:31 AM
Quote
MOVIES may be the only art form whose core audience is widely believed to be actively hostile to ambition, difficulty or anything that seems to demand too much work on their part. In other words, there is, at every level of the culture — among studio executives, entertainment reporters, fans and quite a few critics — a lingering bias against the notion that movies should aspire to the highest levels of artistic accomplishment.

Some of this anti-art bias reflects the glorious fact that film has always been a popular art form, a great democratic amusement accessible to everyone and proud of its lack of aristocratic pedigree. But lately, I think, protests against the deep-dish and the highbrow — to use old-fashioned populist epithets of a kind you used to hear a lot in movies themselves — mask another agenda, which is a defense of the corporate status quo. For some reason it needs to be asserted, over and over again, that the primary purpose of movies is to provide entertainment, that the reason everyone goes to the movies is to have fun. Any suggestion to the contrary, and any film that dares, however modestly, to depart from the orthodoxies of escapist ideology, is met with dismissal and ridicule.

Even though, in the bottom-line, real-world scheme of things, the commercial prospects of a movie like “Meek’s Cutoff” are marginal — and even though the distributors of foreign-language films can only dream of such marginality — it is still somehow necessary, every so often, to drag “art movies” into the dock as examples of snobbery, pretense or a suspect form of aesthetic nutritionalism. Vegetables! Yuck! And the supposedly more sophisticated arenas of cultural discourse are hardly immune.

Last year there was a big kerfuffle at Cannes when the jury dared to give the top prize to “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives,” Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s dreamy and oblique spiritual head-trip through the jungles of his native Thailand. This year a different jury gave the Palme d’Or to “The Tree of Life,” Terrence Malick’s dreamy and oblique spiritual head trip through the bungalows of his native Texas. And while much love has been showered on that movie — including by me, once it opened here — it was also met with scattered boos at the press screening and corresponding sourness among some critics. Writing in TruthDig, the venerable Time critic Richard Schickel strikes out against Mr. Malick’s “twaddling pretenses,” seeing them as the latest example of what he calls “The ‘Hiroshima Mon Amour’ scam,” after Alain Resnais’s quintessential art film of 1959.

For Mr. Schickel the problem with “The Tree of Life” is not just that it isn’t a good movie (“inept” is his succinct appraisal of Mr. Malick’s skill), but also, more seriously, that it gets the medium wrong. Movies, Mr. Schickel writes, “are an essentially worldly medium, playful and romantic, particularly in America, where, on the whole our best directors have stated whatever serious intentions they may harbor as ignorable asides. There are other ways of making movies, naturally, and there’s always a small audience available for these noble strivings — and good for them, I guess.”

Yes, good for them. I will stipulate that Mr. Schickel has forgotten more film history than I will ever know, but in this instance his summary of that history strikes me as strangely narrow. A whole lot of cinema, past and present, falls into that “other ways of making movies” category, and dismissing it outright in the name of fun risks throwing out quite a few masterpieces with the bathwater.

In Mr. Schickel’s argument, “pretentious” functions, like “boring” elsewhere, as an accusation that it is almost impossible to refute, since it is a subjective hunch masquerading as a description. Manohla, you had some reservations about “The Tree of Life,” but your dispatch on it from Cannes emphasized its self-evident and disarming sincerity. Sincerity is the opposite of pretentiousness, and while it is certainly possible to be puzzled or annoyed by Mr. Malick’s philosophical tendencies or unmoved by the images he composes or the story he tells, I don’t think there is any pretending involved. (And while we’re at it, if “The Hangover Part II” is a quintessentially boring movie in its refusal to do anything new or daring beyond a few instances of easy, sophomoric shock-humor, is there a recent movie more deserving of being called pretentious than “Thor”?)

Why is it, though, that “serious” is a bad word in cultural conversations, or at least in discussions of film? Why is thinking about a movie an activity to be avoided, and a movie that seems to require thinking a source of suspicion? It seems unlikely, to say the least, that films like “Uncle Boonmee,” “Meek’s Cutoff,” “The Tree of Life” or Jean-Luc Godard’s recently and belatedly opened “Film Socialisme” will threaten the hegemony of the blockbusters, so why is so much energy expended in defending the prerogatives of entertainment from the supposed threat of seriousness? I certainly don’t think fun should be banished from the screen, or that popular entertainment is essentially antithetical to art. And while I derive great pleasure from some movies that might be described as slow or tedious, I also find food for thought in fast, slick, whimsical entertainments. I would like to think there is room in the cinematic diet for various flavors, including some that may seem, on first encounter, unfamiliar or even unpleasant. A. O. SCOTT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/movies/films-in-defense-of-slow-and-boring.html?_r=3

 Not directed at anyone (seriously), I always like these "film is art" articles, even if they're a little duh and repetitive (their main points are common).

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 16, 2011, 12:13:24 AM
I saw that was an A. O. Scott article and immediately searched the text for "tour de force," only to be disappointed.

(Don't believe me? (http://www.google.com/search?q=a.%20o.%20scott%20tour%20de%20force&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:nytimes.com+%22a+o+scott%22+%22tour+de+force%22&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivnso&ei=HZL5TYeJBoG8sAO0oqzeBQ&start=0&sa=N&fp=4b77253e6009060b&biw=1004&bih=746))
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Mr. Merrill Lehrl on June 16, 2011, 12:34:03 AM
I bet if he had one more paragraph...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on June 16, 2011, 03:01:58 AM
yeah I got really irked at the "pretentious" jabs too. it really feels like we are beyond that now, and the shock of "pretentious" as a form of reduction has worn out. it's like conservative people still think calling people "PC" packs a sting; some words go back to being words after their era en vogue is bygone. pretentious is one of them. every once in a while you find a new use for it - but as a general rule of thumb you should try to be interesting with your observation and hopefully apply it to realms unassociated with it from before.

because, "pretentious" never functioned more than a reduction of an aesthetic, before it had a name. i remembered when 28 days later came out and some dude I know said it was a "film school experiment" and was pretty proud of himself for his reduction. reduction is only useful when it's insightful; it's like if I was to talk to some red state fan of Larry the Cable Guy - I wouldn't call him "offensive", because whether or not the guy agrees he's offensive, he's probably used to that reduction and my observation is useless in the dialogue. true or not, who gives a cunt?

so that's my complaint of the pretentious argument, even if it's true (which it isn't) - it's essentially a bland statement still riding the coat tail of the charge it packed amongst critics in newspapers from 20 years ago. because it's an irrelevant word, it becomes impossible to even have a reaction to it - thus resulting in emboldening the person who says it, and tiring the person who hears it. it's like missing your target completely and gloating as if you nailed it, leaving your target impatient and indifferent.

and that's what happens when you attack with antiquated arsenal.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 16, 2011, 03:06:28 AM
yeah I got really irked at the "pretentious" jabs too. it really feels like we are beyond that now, and the shock of "pretentious" as a form of reduction has worn out. it's like conservative people still think calling people "PC" packs a sting; some words go back to being words after their era en vogue is bygone. pretentious is one of them. every once in a while you find a new use for it - but as a general rule of thumb you should try to be interesting with your observation and hopefully apply it to realms unassociated with it from before.

because, "pretentious" never functioned more than a reduction of an aesthetic, before it had a name. i remembered when 28 days later came out and some dude I know said it was a "film school experiment" and was pretty proud of himself for his reduction. reduction is only useful when it's insightful; it's like if I was to talk to some red state fan of Larry the Cable Guy - I wouldn't call him "offensive", because whether or not the guy agrees he's offensive, he's probably used to that reduction and my observation is useless in the dialogue. true or not, who gives a cunt?

so that's my complaint of the pretentious argument, even if it's true (which it isn't) - it's essentially a bland statement still riding the coat tail of the charge it packed amongst critics in newspapers from 20 years ago. because it's an irrelevant word, it becomes impossible to even have a reaction to it - thus resulting in emboldening the person who says it, and tiring the person who hears it. it's like missing your target completely and gloating as if you nailed it, leaving your target impatient and indifferent.

and that's what happens when you attack with antiquated arsenal.

If there were legit conservative people on this board one of them would respond to your post about how people shouldn't label others pretentious with "stop being so pretentious!" because they would think that is a really funny quip.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 16, 2011, 09:09:29 AM
Watch: Christopher Nolan & David Fincher Talk ‘The Tree Of Life’ In New Featurette

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVUXDn6hCY4&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 16, 2011, 09:58:18 AM
***SPOILER***

I don't mind pretense on to itself Pete. I think all of malick's films post Badlands are pretentious. I really love them all. What I don't like is when pretense meets cliche; when the easy road is taken instead of other creative choices. I hold Malick to a higher standard than that and obviously i feel he fell short.

The Dali quote I gave before kinda spoke directly to my issue with the film. I hope you don't think I'm being Glib. I'm not sure if that's directed my way. I've tried to narrow in on why I don't like it. Quite possibly not doing good enough of a job. But since this was a profound experience for a few of you, you might also see where some of us feel like your reaction is just as much a knee jerk as you claim ours is.

If this was the first movie to depict an ending the way it was, I would have probably thought "wow, innovative". The more I think about it the ending borrows a lot from "Wings of Desire", it has a very similar feel to it. I love "Wings of Desire". It is so melodramatic and pretentious and beautiful, and there was nothing I'd ever seen like it before (not a requirement but always rewarding) because of the post modern humor mixed with genuine sadness of the characters. I think part of the reason is that the angels are kind of made fun of as the film obviously uses typical archetypes and iconography. In the case of TOL, that ending is shot with very similar typical devices used in surreal and romantic art cinema. The main difference is that Malick shoots it honestly, there is no nod to something that is cliche or typical. He's trying to pass it off serious and it's so heavy handed because of this. I'm not saying he should make it post modern, rather if you're going to make it serious then don't rely on staples; the rest of the film didn't, why choose to now? The big ol' puffy cloud reference i used in previous points is another example of the self aware style that films like "Wings of Desire" have. Usually when god meets the person on this cliched heaven location, it'll be someone like Warren Beatty or Chris Rock. And they'll talk even more vernacular that the star of the movie; and that's the joke.

I've seen TOL's ending so many times, especially in short films, that i can't bring myself to take it seriously and therefore i'm pulled out of the film. Sadly Malick doesn't see it my way.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on June 16, 2011, 11:22:28 AM
SPOILER?

but wouldn't characters who believe in such a cliche experience it like that?  They make their own, right? 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 16, 2011, 12:14:34 PM
***SPOILERS (FOR VANILLA SKY AS WELL)***

SPOILER?

but wouldn't characters who believe in such a cliche experience it like that?  They make their own, right?  


I guess, but that sounds like an afterthought. It's a little reaching, but I'll give you that this is a possibility. However from the dialog and tone of the rest of the film, for malick to suddenly address that the boy became cliched in his views on life doesn't seem like it fits.

Oh Sundown, i finally thought of a movie in which a big time director did it before... Vanilla Sky. It ends on the top of a building, somehow visually suggesting a higher form of thinking, Tom cruise is now being explained why his reality is in flux. The setting and the lighting, coupled with the actor who plays some form of God/mainframe computer in his world is very cliched. One could argue the point RK just made that because this is his subconscious, then cliches are what he would conjure. And there is some validity to that, but in the end i guess I just think it's too easy.  In many ways the last scene in Vanilla Sky captures the same aesthetic of an afterlife. This is the scene where Cruise must chose to let his dream die so he can go live his life again.  I think the pretense mixed with a cliched way of depicting it is what easily makes this the weakest part of the film.  The only saving grace for that scene is Kurt Russell; a humorous performance that draws attention to the fact the whole situation is silly (much like the hypothetical Warren Beatty or Chris Rock examples i previously mentioned)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on June 17, 2011, 08:32:08 AM
Too Much Of A Good Thing? Terrence Malick Apparently Preparing 6 Hour Cut Of ‘The Tree Of Life’
Source: Playlist

Terrence Malick may be done with “The Tree Of Life,” but “The Tree Of Life” ain’t done with him. Or something like that. With film already stamped with Palme d’Or and rolling out across the country adding a bunch of new cities this weekend it appears that Malick isn’t through tinkering with the film just yet. In an interview with the latest edition of high brow fancypants film magazine Les Cahiers du Cinéma (via The Film Stage), as part of an extensive feature about “The Tree Of Life,” cinematographer Emmanuel Lubeski reveals that Malick is still playing with the 300 plus miles footage he shot for the picture and cutting a six hour version of the movie. Here’s what he had to say (roughly translated by IMDB user nlvg): Do Malick think about editing when he’s filming ? We speak about it almost everytime. But most of the ideas about the editing we share on the set don’t make the final cut. (...) We maybe have been shot 600.000 metres (around 370 miles) of film (...) The first cut was 8 hours long. Terry is working on/preparing a 6 hours long version of the movie. What I’ve seen (of this) is absolutely incredible, it’s wonderful. The longer version will have to/will likely, for the most part, relate to the children part. There were outstanding things, we’ve shot many, many things about Jack’s childhood : his friends, his evolution, his changes, his awereness of the loss of his childhood… I don’t know if I’m supposed to say all of this ! Of course, this isn’t the first time Malick has gone back to the editing bay after a movie has been released. His last effort, “The New World,” first screened for critics in a 150-minute cut, before being revised—with slightly different narration and some new footage—into a shorter, 135-minute theatrical cut. Then, a longer 172-minute “Extended Cut” was released on DVD and BluRay. So could we be in for a treat when “The Tree Of Life” goes to home video? Better start saving those pennies now. It’s interesting to note that the section Malick is choosing to expand is actually the most “straightforward” aspect of the entire film. Granted, more of the cosmos stuff will appear in the still gestating documentary “Voyage Of Time” but with “The Tree Of Life” his most clearly autobiographical film to date—we discuss that at length here—it’s perhaps not too surprising he’s continuing to mine the portion of the film closest to his heart. In fact, in a lovely article that appeared in The Millions, it’s revealed that Malick quietly screened “The Tree Of Life” in his hometown of Bartlesville, Oklahoma for his 99-year old mother Irene recently. Those who have seen the film already won’t be too shocked to hear that his father Emil, did not attend. But six hours? The film succeeds because of its lyrical, enigmatic nature. One that captures the mixed feelings of childhood—joy, rebellion, jealousy, anger, love—in a structure that’s almost like stumbling across an incomplete set of home movies. Spelling it out much, much further would seem somewhat like overkill. Of course, there is probably undoubtedly all kinds deleted or extended scenes—one reader whose late father was cast as an extra told us there was an entire day spent shooting a courtroom scene that in the theatrical cut lasts barely thirty seconds—and we can only imagine how much footage was captured as Malick searched for his “moments.” It almost seems like six hours would be too much of a good thing, but given half the chance, we’d be the first to watch it. So yet another curious chapter added to the lore of “The Tree Of Life” and career of Terrence Malick. In addition to this, he’s still got the untitled romance with Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams, another film he might shoot later this summer and “Voyage Of Time” all cooking so we’ll eagerly await whatever comes next from the director.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 17, 2011, 09:31:53 AM
what the hell is wrong with the playlist and these paragraph-less articles? I can't even bother to read that mess.

seriously mod, teach them how it's done.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: bigperm on June 17, 2011, 09:35:51 AM
All I can offer is I felt it was wonderful. I feel silly even typing that word. I don't feel I can really say anything worthwhile or "review" this film, all of you do a far better job of putting things into words than I. But if you haven't seen it or you're on the fence - I say, regardless of the outcome, experience this film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on June 17, 2011, 09:44:46 AM
what the hell is wrong with the playlist and these paragraph-less articles? I can't even bother to read that mess.

seriously mod, teach them how it's done.

I copy and paste them that way. I'm doing it from my phone so its more dificult to keep going back and forth to see paragraph breaks. Sorry.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 17, 2011, 10:15:57 AM
 :oops:  now I feel like a douche

no need to apologize my friend, you earned virtual heaven long ago.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on June 17, 2011, 10:18:07 AM
I'd watch this. It would be amazing if the 6 hour cut fixes many of my issues.

Yo that was some mad love fernando :)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on June 17, 2011, 10:25:34 AM
It doesn't help that the articles have so much extraneous bullshit, but the single paragraph just pushes it over the edge of readability, which is a shame since there is usually good info somewhere in the mess.

 maybe we should assign someone else to keep us posted of movie news from around the webs until mac can get back to a real computer.

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 17, 2011, 11:29:52 AM
The only negativity about a 6 hour cut is that it may make this theatrical release feel a little unsatisfying by the end. Ingmar Bergman's theatrical version of Scenes from a Marriage and Fanny and Alexander got good reviews and nice income, but each version was eventually forgotten when the television cuts became readily available and audiences yearned for the full vision. Audiences already unimpressed with Malick on every level will still probably just log the theatrical cut as the cut, but the rest of us will wonder if Malick knew his vision would be at least 6 hours and his audience was never going to get a fair shake to see it in theaters.

If Malick is already designing a 6 hour cut now, I believe it was always his vision. Considering the complaints here, I know some will rag on an even longer version, but I fear this previous knowledge may dent my own expectations for experience with the theatrical cut when I finally get a chance to see it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 17, 2011, 11:56:17 AM
Quote
Malick quietly screened “The Tree Of Life” in his hometown of Bartlesville, Oklahoma for his 99-year old mother Irene recently. Those who have seen the film already won’t be too shocked to hear that his father Emil, did not attend.

Wait a minute...BOTH of his parents are still alive???
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on June 17, 2011, 12:01:38 PM
I have mixed feelings about that. I liked the film, but I don't know if I could sit through a 6 hour version. If it didn't fix the problems the theatrical cut had, that would be 6 hours of my life I'd never get back.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 17, 2011, 01:43:00 PM
bad news my Mexican friends

just spoke with a woman that talks about film on the radio, and told me that the distributor Artecinema Gussi has it, and apparently the plan is to release it at the Morelia Film Festival in OCTOBER!!

I hope she's wrong cuz if true this means we will see it maybe til november/december in other cities.

and I don't think ill risk going to mcallen, highways are a little dangerous right now, and by plane it's just too expensive for me right now.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 17, 2011, 05:35:30 PM
Someone who has seen it, please watch this clip and tell us if it's a spoiler or not?

http://content.foxsearchlight.com/inside/node/4878
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on June 17, 2011, 05:42:58 PM
Someone who has seen it, please watch this clip and tell us if it's a spoiler or not?

http://content.foxsearchlight.com/inside/node/4878

It's hard to spoil the movie plot-wise, but I would definitely avoid seeing this for the first time on the internet.  It deserves big screenness.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 17, 2011, 06:15:04 PM
 :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on June 19, 2011, 08:41:26 PM
It's been a few days since I saw it now, and I sat down earlier to write a blog on it (I'll share the link once I post it).

It's here (http://daitexas.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/the-tree-of-life/).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 20, 2011, 12:41:11 PM
Saw it last night. Didn't even need to let it settle. First masterpiece of the 2010's.

Some of the montages sent chills down my spine.

Couple questions...

SPOILERS
Near the beginning, young Jack is being led away by his mother while a man convulses on the lawn in the background. What was this about? Also later on, what were all the men doing in handcuffs and why does Jack ask if it can happen to them? The men seemed to be sick.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on June 20, 2011, 02:08:14 PM
Tune into the 6 hour version to find out!!!!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: picolas on June 20, 2011, 02:40:39 PM
spoils (although if you accidentally read any of this it doesn't matter)

i would guess it's a seizure, but regardless, i'd say that fragment is a vision of being shielded from things as a kid. a half-remembered time when your mother didn't want you looking at that thing because you weren't ready to see it.

not sure how the prisoners arrived there. maybe a field trip? i think that moment is about being introduced to the idea of your own capacity for evil; being aware that anyone can become a criminal, part of the recurring theme of learning empathy for those 'lesser.'

ps. everyone remotely interested in various interpretations of tree should read that massive article i posted. and that guy's whole blog. he unlocks the shit out of things.

( http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/2011/06/song-of-himself-terrence-malicks-tree.html )
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 20, 2011, 03:12:47 PM
SPOILERS

Near the beginning, young Jack is being led away by his mother while a man convulses on the lawn in the background. What was this about?

I interpreted that as just a random coming-of-age thing, i.e. he saw some random person having a seizure and found it to be really strange. IIRC, the music during that scene was the opposite of foreboding.


Also later on, what were all the men doing in handcuffs and why does Jack ask if it can happen to them? The men seemed to be sick.

Not sure why I got this from it, but I thought they were being taken to a leper colony.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 24, 2011, 12:41:15 PM
^those are all good reasons. I'm seeing it again this weekend.

This is from a theater in Connecticut.

(http://i2.blogs.indiewire.com/images/blogs/eug/archives/treeoflifeSIGN.jpg)

Isn't Connecticut filled with upper-class WASPY white people who love Tree of Life type stuff?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on June 24, 2011, 12:45:49 PM
Isn't Connecticut filled with upper-class WASPY white people who love Tree of Life type stuff?

Upper class WASPs are the worst.  They're a huge demographic at my theater.  They come for indie movies, but when we get decent films (i.e. - ones that are not immediately satisfying or cause one to think, the bane of WASP existence) they always storm out AT THE END and demand a refund.  Not during the movie, objecting to any imagery.  Just "I didn't like it, give me a pass for next time."  This is an awful business model that our managers give in to all too often.

This same shit happened a lot after the ending of White Ribbon, people unsatisfied that "it had no ending."
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on June 24, 2011, 05:52:37 PM
the WASPs and their "if I wanted to read a book, I would've stayed at home" line for subtitled film refunds. But they don't read, which was why they were at the movie theater in the first place.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: New Feeling on June 26, 2011, 04:10:59 AM
really didn't like this, and I'm a fan of all Malick's previous efforts.  There are some fine moments but the whole is terribly unsatisfying.  Even though I feel the quality of his work has been on the steady decline I couldn't have foreseen such a mess as this. 
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on June 27, 2011, 10:32:29 AM
bad news my Mexican friends

just spoke with a woman that talks about film on the radio, and told me that the distributor Artecinema Gussi has it, and apparently the plan is to release it at the Morelia Film Festival in OCTOBER!!

I hope she's wrong cuz if true this means we will see it maybe til november/december in other cities.

it's official. the release date will be december 16!!!

http://www.artecinema.com.mx/proximamente/385-tree.html

fuckkk!!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 27, 2011, 12:20:34 PM
 :(
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cronopio 2 on June 27, 2011, 07:14:12 PM
cannot breathe.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on June 29, 2011, 03:32:33 PM
cannot breathe. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LakYh_4aEx8&feature=related)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: matt35mm on June 29, 2011, 04:43:40 PM
I was waiting for that song to pop up in this thread. I'm surprised it took this long.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on June 30, 2011, 01:54:12 PM
The song would fit the trailer if the German poster (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5663350434_d28c757b08.jpg) had anything to say about it.

Do they ever actually skip rocks or is this poster indicative of some sort of DELETED SCENE??
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on June 30, 2011, 02:04:59 PM
Doubtful. Malick never leaves any footage on the cutting room floor.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 30, 2011, 02:18:51 PM
Doubtful. Malick never leaves any footage on the cutting room floor.

Too Much Of A Good Thing? Terrence Malick Apparently Preparing 6 Hour Cut Of ‘The Tree Of Life’
Source: Playlist
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on June 30, 2011, 02:27:43 PM
I think Sleepless was being sarcastic. There was also a 6 hour cut of The Thin Red Line.

I would watch a 6 hour Terrence Malick movie. I'd watch the shit out of it. I'd watch a 6 hour Terrence Malick movie like nobodies ever seen!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Derek on June 30, 2011, 08:05:20 PM
If the Sean Penn scenes are set in the present day, shouldn't he be in his late 60's?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Kellen on July 01, 2011, 06:53:06 PM
Uwe Boll isn't a fan. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/uwe_boll_calls_the_tree_of_life_a_piece_of_shit_and_lars_von_trier_a_retard/)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: cronopio 2 on July 01, 2011, 07:15:43 PM
That critic who fought against him should've shot him in the face when he had the chance.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 01, 2011, 09:47:48 PM
Haha, Uwe Boll is still awesome.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on July 08, 2011, 12:00:55 PM
Had the break the couple weeks hiatus to say that I finally saw this and it was wonderful. Best film since CMBB.

It's not the kind of film I usually enjoy. I don't mind at all slowness at all but I like lots of dialogue. My favorite director is probably Rohmer by now. But I found Tree of Life to speak volumes even in the silent parts. I found myself looking back at my life, my childhood, my future, my choices, what kind of person I am and what kind of man my father is and was.

I saw myself on the street as a kid. I did not live 50s america obviously, but I do feel like I lived the end of an era. While watching the film I lived old memories and it was a wonderful. I think it is because the film takes it's time that you can get into it so much.

I cannot say how it is in your parts of the world, but you barely see any kid in the streets nowadays. They are all braindead Farmville zombies who take pictures of themselves and post them on the internet for no god damn reason. When I was 10, my mom had to walk through hell just to get me to wash myself or come back home when I was playing with friends. Now, 10 year olds ask their moms for Axe Body Wash.

Tree of Life is nostalgic yet fair, and I think it will enjoy cult status for a long time.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on July 31, 2011, 06:11:48 PM
http://www.amazon.fr/Tree-life-Combo-Blu-ray-Goodies/dp/B005974CTE/?tag=bluraycom05-21

French Blu-Ray coming October 12th, 2011

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61333cW0vjL._AA1054_.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on July 31, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
That cover is horrifying.

Also:

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1180
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pas on July 31, 2011, 09:15:57 PM
I don't know, it's not that bad I thought. Wait for the american cover, it will blow for sure.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ©brad on August 21, 2011, 03:46:12 PM
Sean Penn bitch-slaps ‘Tree of Life’ (http://incontention.com/2011/08/21/sean-penn-bitch-slaps-tree-of-life/)

It seems actor Sean Penn is still upset about the fact that so much of his performance in “The Tree of Life” was left on the cutting room floor.

"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."

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 21, 2011, 05:39:04 PM
Wow...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on August 22, 2011, 12:05:25 AM
My thoughts exactly Mr. Penn
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Vertigo 77 on August 26, 2011, 05:13:51 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Tree-of-Life-Blu-ray (http://www.amazon.com/Tree-of-Life-Blu-ray/dp/B005HV6Y5W)

Looks like you can pre-order the blu-ray now.
Seems to me the American cover is an improvment.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Reelist on September 03, 2011, 06:10:13 PM
I Downloaded a really shitty copy of this that looks like a 1980's VHS and is cropped really small, but it's still not a cam. I was very intent on watching it but then I remembered someone commenting this on the torrent:

Quote from: PirateBayUser
Why would you download even a decent version of a Malick movie? His movies change peoples lives, I would wait at least 264 dvdrip lol

made me change my mind.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on September 03, 2011, 06:27:19 PM
I Downloaded a really shitty copy of this that looks like a 1980's VHS and is cropped really small, but it's still not a cam. I was very intent on watching it but then I remembered someone commenting this on the torrent:

Quote from: PirateBayUser
Why would you download even a decent version of a Malick movie? His movies change peoples lives, I would wait at least 264 dvdrip lol

made me change my mind.

I saw that rip too (though elsewhere). There was a sample to download, which looks horrible and exactly as you described. I seriously hope no one watches that.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Alexandro on October 23, 2011, 12:48:28 PM
what a movie!
I feel truly sorry for people who can't be bothered to think for two seconds about why the film shows the things it shows, and why.
Love the discussions that have been happening on this thread about it, the film more than deserves them.

To see it only once is obviously not enough, but I have certain impressions:

* the first 40, 45 minutes are an uninterrupted orgasm. in fact they're so good the film kind of loses some steam after them (around the moment pitt goes for a business trip).
* the last third of the movie felt a little too long this first viewing.
* Every musical selection is INCREDIBLE.
* Lubeszki has to win every possible award for this.
* This is the best portrait / recreation of childhood in the history of cinema.
* Yes, it's amazing how similar the creation sequences are in this film and in Fantasia. This one was better.
* I had a big problem with the last sequence. It was disturbingly close to looking like a U2 video. I understand the complain of approaching cheesiness. maybe on a second viewing I will not be that bothered by it, but it certainly felt like a letdown this first time around.

All in all, we're lucky this film exists.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: O. on October 23, 2011, 02:03:27 PM
I've seen this movie twice now, and I will still and always believe (this opinion having no chance of changing) the film would 75% better without the stupid ass whispered voice-overs. Every single time I was like :roll:
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: BB on October 24, 2011, 02:06:11 AM
I've seen this movie twice now, and I will still and always believe (this opinion having no chance of changing) the film would 75% better without the stupid ass whispered voice-overs. Every single time I was like :roll:

For me, this sort of argument is immaterial. You sometimes see similar things said about the "emotional distance" in Kubrick or the over-lapping dialogue in Altman movies. Were it not for the voice-overs, The Tree of Life would be an entirely different film. Evidently, a film you would prefer. But a different film. By no means am I saying you're not entitled to dislike the voice-overs. That's completely understandable. But if we're gonna talk about the film, we've gotta talk about the film.

As I've now started to talk about the film, I may as well drudge up the months old debate regarding the beach scene at the end. I apologize, but I've only just read through the previous pages.

SPOILERS (did I do that right?)

It seems kinda odd to me that people would knock TOL for its use of archetypes (I'll use the word "archetypes" in place of "clichés" as the latter means essentially the same thing, though pejoratively so) while holding up The Thin Red Line and The New World as examples of Malick's former glory. I mean, the recurring dialectic of innoncence and experience, selflessness and selfishness, dreamer and realist between Witt and Welsh; Bell's Dear John letter; the whole Tall and Staros plot, which leans heavily on Paths of Glory and others; the whole fucking John Smith/Pocahontas love story; the relativism of cultural norms theme; the frolicking in the grass as implied fucking. Nothing too original or outstanding about any of these examples and you could easily find more.

Even Days of Heaven (which is my absolute favourite of his films, though I love them all) draws its plot from The Wings of the Dove. And, like TOL, much of its imagery from the Bible. And Badlands is but a take on the Bonnie and Clyde story (I know that it's actually Starkweather and Fugate, but you see my point). It's just kinda what he does. Out and out, balls to the walls originality of the kind found in 2001 just doesn't seem to be his bag (style aside). But to dismiss the films on account of these things would be a gross oversight of all the richness beneath.

As Malick's style has evolved so too has his treatment of character. Where Badlands and DOH (d'oh) are very much about those specific people (and DOH less so), Witt and Welsh are as much ideas as they are beings. Same goes for Tall and Staros, arguably. And Pocahontas and Smith loom large as popular historical figures, flushed out with specifics, but nonetheless representational. And, of course, Mr. Nature and Mrs. Grace. This nobody seems to have much of a problem with. Yet it essentially serves the same function as the Shores of Eternity scene.

Obtuse though his films may be, these familiar ideas situate us as viewers. Much like the voice-overs, moving from external in Badlands and DOH (where they are epistolary and conversational) to TTRL and on (where they are completely internal, beyond inner monologue or actual rational thoughts, just raw materials). As he pushes us away with jump-cuts and abstract imagery, he draws us closer with points of accessibility, things we may share, collective experience.

There's even a quote from one of Malick's few interviews where he addresses this very subject:

"When people express what is most important to them, it often comes out in clichés. That doesn’t make them laughable; it’s something tender about them. As though in struggling to reach what’s most personal about them they could only come up with what’s most public."

So, yeah, there's no denying that the beach scene is archetypal or cliché or whatever. But it strikes a tender chord in some. Which is foremostly what Malick seems to be getting at (see also the beautiful cinematography and bravado technique). The intellectual merits of his films, of which there are plenty, seem secondary to me. That's really the only defense that I can offer for TOL in general.

Sorry for the long, rambling post. But this was good practice for the upcoming holiday season where I will doubtlessly be confronted on this topic by hostile relatives.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on October 24, 2011, 02:24:33 AM
^ best post ever.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: socketlevel on October 24, 2011, 10:56:09 AM
Put it back in your pants man.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: BB on October 24, 2011, 12:12:28 PM
Put it back in your pants man.

No. Pull it out man! Let's party!
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: O. on October 24, 2011, 01:35:08 PM
OK. Now, pragmatically, how would you defend how difficult it was to make out what they were saying?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: squints on October 24, 2011, 06:10:02 PM
I had a difficult time understanding what they were saying in the VO, especially early on in the film.
But it didn't really matter because to me it doesn't matter what the fuck they're saying in the VO or in the actual scene itself, diagetic or non-diagetic.
Doesn't matter because Malick is painting with moving images; he's telling a story with images rather than furthering the "plot" through long scenes of exposition through dialogue. In much the same way Ron Fricke made Baraka, Koyanissqatsi, or Chronos, or what Kubrick did with 2001, or even the virtual absence of dialog in Drive (thats kind of a stretch but) there totally exists a "story" there but its told through the LANGUAGE OF CINEMA in the most true-to-the-medium fashion possible. They're writing lines of poetry through shot selection, lighting, editing, sound, juxtaposition, and subtle but powerful performances from the actors. The words are and were the last thing on my mind throughout the film.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: O. on October 24, 2011, 09:16:37 PM
Yes. That's why I feel the V.O. is a pretentious (though I hate to use the word) redundancy. It kills a lot of the film for me. I *personally* feel it could be done away with and the film would be just as good if not finer.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on October 24, 2011, 10:30:21 PM
Yes. That's why I feel the V.O. is a pretentious (though I hate to use the word) redundancy. It kills a lot of the film for me. I *personally* feel it could be done away with and the film would be just as good if not finer.

Honestly there were a lot of little things about the film that weren't quite perfect for me, but somehow that didn't detract from the experience at all. For example, I can hardly imagine the voiceovers taking me out of the film. No, I couldn't make them all out, but I wasn't necessarily trying to. They work pretty well on a subconscious level.

As has been said a million times in this thread, if you don't surrender to this movie, it will not work for you.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Stefen on October 25, 2011, 01:57:53 AM
Yes. That's why I feel the V.O. is a pretentious (though I hate to use the word) redundancy. It kills a lot of the film for me. I *personally* feel it could be done away with and the film would be just as good if not finer.

Honestly there were a lot of little things about the film that weren't quite perfect for me, but somehow that didn't detract from the experience at all. For example, I can hardly imagine the voiceovers taking me out of the film. No, I couldn't make them all out, but I wasn't necessarily trying to. They work pretty well on a subconscious level.

As has been said a million times in this thread, if you don't surrender to this movie, it will not work for you.

 :yabbse-thumbup: it has some faults, but it's close to flawless.

I hate the religious stuff going on. When she points to the sky and tells her infant child, "that's where God lives" I didn't like it. But there's so much to love about it that it's easy to overlook the nit-picky stuff. The beginning of time sequence is really something special. That coupled with the boys growing up and the way it's edited into one seamless montage is really, really awe inspiring.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Fernando on October 25, 2011, 04:42:44 PM
finally saw this beautiful beast, I can rest in peace now.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Alexandro on October 26, 2011, 12:58:38 AM

I hate the religious stuff going on. When she points to the sky and tells her infant child, "that's where God lives" I didn't like it. But there's so much to love about it that it's easy to overlook the nit-picky stuff.  

I felt that moment was awesome, and I'm not religious at all, at least not in that christian way. But damn, it captured so well what you feel as a kid and someone tells you something AMAZING about the world and you see it clearly in front of you.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Sleepless on October 26, 2011, 11:56:29 AM
I'm torn. I wasn't keen about the religious stuff during the film, although I probably leaned closer to Alexandro's POV. It was only really afterwards, when my Christian wife kept talking up the religious side of the film that it really grated with me. I've only seen it the once so far. There is so much in the film, that I really do think it speaks to everyone individually. It is what you make it. I just need to not let anyone else's perspective override my own, because it is a genuinely beautiful and moving scene (apart from that crap end sequence).
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pozer on October 28, 2011, 12:35:17 PM
finally saw this beautiful beast, I can rest in peace now.

FINALLY did too. happier for you though, Ferninand. purdiest bluray i ever did own. a beautiful beast is the best way to describe it for it is not a movie.

Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: chere mill on January 24, 2012, 10:19:56 PM
Christopher Plummer: "I'll Never Work With Terrence Malick Again"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xw08GQw0hBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xw08GQw0hBI)

yet another disgruntled actor. he should consider himself lucky to work with someone of malick's stature.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on January 25, 2012, 05:54:36 AM
I totally understand an actor being frustrated when he sees his work chopped in a movie like that. They invested a lot of their talent in a character and then it gets cut out/put out of context in certain scenes, and it must be fucked up for them. We get to see Malick movies as great, but an actor probably can't see past "he cut out my best scenes". Still, some actors do work with Malick more than once, so I guess it depends. Sean Penn apparently enjoyed working with him on The Thin Red Line, but later expressed his disappointment with his character in The Tree of Life.

On a related note, I saw Beginners yesterday and Plummer was great in it, as he as been in so many movies.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: MacGuffin on February 10, 2012, 07:13:08 PM
Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki Climbs 'The Tree of Life'
Source: Thompson on Hollywood

"Life is not filled with instant answers and neither are Terry's movies," Lubezki insists. "It seems to irritate lots of people. Some even left the theater because they had a hard time understanding the movie. This reminds me of all the movies that I loved [in the '70s] where we left the theater and discussed and disagreed. We carried the experience out into the open. Things were not over explained and you went out with your friends after and tried to either make sense of something or talk about a certain emotion or the parts that you didn't understand that reminded you of your youth."

On the other hand, Lubezki is pleased that so many people have been willing to climb "The Tree of Life," which was definitely an extension of "The New World," his first collaboration with Malick. "His movies are in 'The Tree.' It's a lot about his preoccupations. This is risky and it feels visually pure. The language of film is further and further away from the language of theater and is closer to music. It's abstract but still narrative. Everything feels less rehearsed. It's more experimental than classical."

For Lubezki, it's all about capturing the magic of the moment, which is easier said than done. How do you capture a moment that doesn't exist? 

"What is really hard is to create the moment," he continues. "We were lucky to be there as it unfolded. That to me is the magic of Terry. This is such a departure. The other thing is that it's very stressful. You can be shooting for several hours and are not sure if you've got the beats that feel naturalistic and have the emotion that Terry's looking for -- and that's scary."

That's especially true when working with kids that have never acted before. It's tricky trying to summon the appropriate emotions, trying to tap into their inner lives and memories without resorting to theatrical tricks. But Lubezki maintains that this was the blessing of working in this cinematic playground. And he's particularly proud of Hunter McCracken's performance as the young protagonist. "His performance was so natural and says a lot about Terry's direction and the editing because he's not an actor," Lubezki adds. "It was great to make all the kids feel comfortable with the whole film unit and tell them what to do and befriend them. Sometimes the camera was very close to them and they didn't seem to care. It's a little like what still photographers do: how to approach your subject and not intimidate your subject. And then to capture the energy of the kids and of your shooting and you have all these memories of your infancy and growing up and your relationship with your parents. "

Indeed, the cinematographer gets so physically close to everyone during their private moments in "The Tree of Life" that it's like opening up their innermost thoughts. It's like being a voyeur in the best sense of the word.

One of the best techniques, a holdover from "The New World," was shooting multiple perspectives of the same emotion. This was done through fragments and they would then "cubize" it (a cinematic form of Cubism). "In a way, it's liberating because if you're not getting it right, you'll be able to get it later," Lubezki explains. "For a filmmaker, it's like saying to yourself that you'll get it one day -- it'll be OK. But then when you really get it, you get all these different perspectives. The movie becomes much more layered with different emotions, different characters. It gives a lot weight. You can see it one time and get a little of what Terry is saying; and get more out of it with repeated viewings."

Lubezki, who has since made his third film with Malick, an untitled love story with Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams about a man who reconnects with a woman from his hometown while struggling with his marriage, has a new world view, thanks to the influence of the director.

"Working with Terry has changed my life," he admits. "I'm a different parent, I'm a different husband, and I'm a different friend. I see nature in a different way since I started working with Terry. I have much more respect for things that I wasn't aware of as much. He is one of the most important teachers in my life. And I'm a much better cinematographer in helping directors in a much more comprehensive way."

Lubezki's most recent film, in fact, is "Gravity" (Nov. 21), directed by Alfonso Cuaron and starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. The space adventure is a curious adjunct to "The Tree of Life," in which 3-D plays a crucial role in the visual design.

But like so many others, Lubezki longs for a longer cut of "The Tree of Life" on Blu-ray. "I've seen cuts that were the first or second drafts of the movie," he says. There were amazing things: much more of the children and Jessica [Chastain] and Brad [Pitt]. And you could almost make a whole other movie about Sean [Penn]. There's another side to his story. It's almost unexplored in the film."

Just another branch of "The Tree of Life" that we have to look forward to.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: theyarelegion on March 19, 2012, 03:16:12 PM
(http://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MALICK_2011_Notice_Projectionists_Tree_Life.jpg)

taking a page from Kubrick's book!

http://aphelis.net/actual-copy-terrence-malicks-notice-projectionists-tree-life/
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 19, 2012, 03:22:10 PM
Was this posted before, or am I just thinking of the Kubrick one?

It's funny that he salutes twice in one letter.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Pubrick on March 20, 2012, 01:08:56 AM
I think it's been posted before. I guess we'll never know for sure.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on May 09, 2012, 05:50:23 PM
Haha as I understand projectionists despise getting notes like this and find them condescending. James Cameron did it last year with Avatar as well. It's like, does the director understand the projectionist makes $5/an hour.

When I was a projectionist, I actually loved movies and gave a shit so I liked it when we got those letters.  Like w/ Deconstructing Henry, Woody Allen sent a letter asking us to turn off all the speakers except for the center and crank that sucker up.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: pete on May 10, 2012, 02:31:16 AM
projectionists are in unions; they make ok money as far as theater staff are concerned.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Frederico Fellini on January 22, 2013, 12:56:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeR2dETSHdc



Fuck...
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: RegularKarate on January 23, 2013, 12:11:10 PM
How about that? I knew it was based on that Fantasia segment, but had no idea how specifically beat-by-beat it was.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Alexandro on January 23, 2013, 12:53:35 PM




Fuck...

why?
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Frederico Fellini on January 23, 2013, 01:31:48 PM

why?


BECAUSE:



 I knew it was based on that Fantasia segment, but had no idea how specifically beat-by-beat it was.


Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Alexandro on January 23, 2013, 01:59:34 PM
maybe it's because i've seen fantasia a thousand times, but that's always been pretty obvious to me.
that fantasia sequence is the first encounter a lot of children around the world have with a graphic representation of the origin of life on earth, and in all likeness, Malick is one of those children. It would be interesting to know to what extent he is consciously referencing it.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: 72teeth on January 23, 2013, 03:17:32 PM
Goddammit Fred,
just when you were annoying the shit outta me, totally posting any video, slightly relevant to anything..
you go and post this fuckin thing...

AND TOTALLY REDEEM* YRSELF!  :bravo:



*'redeem' is pushing it, but this is a step in the right direction


Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 26, 2013, 12:22:31 PM
This is great. I ran across it while rewatching Pedro's Terrence Malick dance video. It's a little Christiany, but so is ToL.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh4FS8OOn3A
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Lottery on December 26, 2013, 06:12:44 PM
I haven't watched this in a quite a while, should catch it again at soon.
I read this interview with Brad Pitt where he was comparing his own beliefs with Malick, ToL has some evidently religious leanings, Malick sees god in nature and science while Brad Pitt can't buy into that.
I'd like to be able to see ToL in two ways, religious vs spiritual (nature and life as a spiritual experience, rather than a distinct relationship with a god). I mean, you'd probably be diverging from the original intent but I think that's just my own belief creeping in.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Alexandro on January 04, 2014, 01:15:43 AM
just rewatched it.
I've never been bothered by the christian optic in this film. And I'm one of those asshole atheists who mocks conservative christians. the film goes beyond that to the heart, to the soul, to the lights illuminating the universe. religion is about that too, I would say, all about that. Malick just knows how to live according to his religion and it shows in his films.

also, jessica chastain's performance brings me to tears.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Drenk on January 04, 2014, 08:46:13 AM
I've never seen a christian optic in it. Not a particular religion, I mean. The movie is about grief and memory and existence itself. When I watch it, I'm amazed by the fact that things fucking exist. The mother talks about God in the sky because she's christian. And her first voice-over, who opens the movie, with her as a child with her father, made me cry. And this is how I feel it, but the mother is then angry against God. Why did he took her child? Like she said, he was in God's hands all the time. Even when he was alive. I loved the church in the movie too; a child alone who walks on the chairs and a father playing music. O.K, I'll shut up and watch the movie again.
Title: Re: The Tree of Life
Post by: Ravi on June 13, 2016, 02:18:08 PM
http://www.wordlessmusic.org/the-tree-of-life-11-18-19-2016/

The Tree Of Life
Screening plus Live Film Score with 100 piece-Orchestra and Choir
November 18-19, 2016

Written and directed by Terrence Malick
Wordless Music Orchestra
Conducted by Ryan McAdams
Robert Fleitz, piano
Jennifer Zetlan, soprano
Music by Bach, Couperin, Mozart, Berlioz, Brahms, Smetana, Mussorgsky, Mahler, Holst, Górecki, Tavener, Giya Kancheli, Barry Guy, and Zbigniew Preisner.
BAM Howard Gilman Opera House (30 Lafayette Ave.)

November 18-19, 2016 at 7:30pm

In November, for two nights only, BAM and Wordless Music present the U.S. live premiere of Terrence Malick’s (Badlands, Days of Heaven) THE TREE OF LIFE, with 100 members of the Wordless Music Orchestra and Choir performing to a full screening of Malick’s 2011 masterpiece.

Winner of the Palme d’Or at Cannes, this impressionist epic meditates on the whys and hows of the universe, framed within an engaging coming-of-age tale set in 1950s Waco, TX. Featuring brilliant performances by Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, and Jessica Chastain, the film boasts Malick’s signature striking imagery and ambitious themes while incorporating a rich range of powerful and iconic music. Including compositions by Berlioz, Mahler, Brahms, Smetana, Zbigniew Preisner, Giya Kancheli, John Tavener, and Henryk Górecki across its two-plus hour running time, the film is as awe-inspiring musically as it is visually and philosophically.

Tickets go on sale via bam.org/thetreeoflife starting Monday, July 25 for BAM members, and Monday, August 1 to the general public.