The Tree of Life

[Green Lantern]

Is this movie not going to be screened in Utah? I was looking forward to seeing it... huge Malick fan.

It opens on Friday at the Broadway.

Salt Lake Film Society keeps a pretty comprehensive list of their upcoming releases on their homepage.

[pellegrino]

I saw this last night with a few other Mormon guys and we all thought that sections of it were an auteur version of the temple film. We all wanted to write SLC and ask them to buy the rights.

A few things that stuck out to me.

1- It's very taxing to watch and by this I mean that Malick relies almost solely on the image to narrate, dialogue is scarce and most of the spoken word is whispered voice over which makes it difficult to follow at times. Unlike most films, even many art films, you have to constantly analyze and "read" the image in order to follow. After a while that gets tiring.

2-Make no mistake about it. This is ritual drama and Malick makes that very clear with the epigraph at the beginning (Job 38:4-7) and Berlioz's Agnus Dei at the end. If you're frustrated by the temple presentation then you might be equally puzzled by this, but then again maybe not.

3- The cinematography was, for the most part, beautiful. I found a few inconsistencies that bothered me somewhat. I may be nitpicking somewhat, but for a film that relies so much on the image like this one does it was somewhat annoying.

4-Didn't like the dinosaurs. Why skip over so much of evolution, particularly human evolution? That scene needed to be done w/ cavemen.

5-I could dig his version of the CK.

6- The music was wonderful. I'll be downloading the soundtrack for sure.

To sum it up. I thought Malick was extremely ambitious with this film, but that his execution didn't quite pull it off. It could have been 20-30 minutes shorter. It's definitely worth seeing, in fact the thing that bothered me the most about it was that I left, knowing that I'll need to see it again to understand it better, which I want to do. I think I'll wait until it comes out on DVD where I can turn on the subtitles instead of relying on my deaf ears to understand every whisper that could give me more enlightenment.

[woot]

I saw this last night with a few other Mormon guys and we all thought that sections of it were an auteur version of the temple film. We all wanted to write SLC and ask them to buy the rights.

A few things that stuck out to me.

1- It's very taxing to watch and by this I mean that Malick relies almost solely on the image to narrate, dialogue is scarce and most of the spoken word is whispered voice over which makes it difficult to follow at times. Unlike most films, even many art films, you have to constantly analyze and "read" the image in order to follow. After a while that gets tiring.

2-Make no mistake about it. This is ritual drama and Malick makes that very clear with the epigraph at the beginning (Job 38:4-7) and Berlioz's Agnus Dei at the end. If you're frustrated by the temple presentation then you might be equally puzzled by this, but then again maybe not.

3- The cinematography was, for the most part, beautiful. I found a few inconsistencies that bothered me somewhat. I may be nitpicking somewhat, but for a film that relies so much on the image like this one does it was somewhat annoying.

4-Didn't like the dinosaurs. Why skip over so much of evolution, particularly human evolution? That scene needed to be done w/ cavemen.

5-I could dig his version of the CK.

6- The music was wonderful. I'll be downloading the soundtrack for sure.

To sum it up. I thought Malick was extremely ambitious with this film, but that his execution didn't quite pull it off. It could have been 20-30 minutes shorter. It's definitely worth seeing, in fact the thing that bothered me the most about it was that I left, knowing that I'll need to see it again to understand it better, which I want to do. I think I'll wait until it comes out on DVD where I can turn on the subtitles instead of relying on my deaf ears to understand every whisper that could give me more enlightenment.

I've seen it twice now, and still don't know what to think. The last 15 or so minutes are terrible; after using such a light touch the whole movie, why get so ham-fisted at the end? Particularly given the horribly cliched way he did it, it's hard not to just write off the whole thing because of it.

Still, the rest of it is quite good, both as a meditation on existence and as a touching small-scale family narrative. I agree about the similarities to the temple films; I had the thought on the first viewing that this is what the temple film would look like if the church had better post-production and weren't married to creationism.

I didn't mind the dinosaurs, but am mortified by what seems to be an implication that the scene with the raptor sparing the life of the other dinosaur was the initial instance of the "way of grace" being chosen over the "way of nature". Not only would it have been better coming from something with an ancestral relationship to us, but it's also just silly to think that such creatures were capable of "grace" in the way he seems to define it.

How did you view the "history of the universe" sections? I was thinking it was an exercise in solipsism as the parents (the mother specifically, I think) think about all the events leading to the birth and subsequent death of their son, whereas a friend of mine interpreted it as being outside the narrative, and provided to the audience just to juxtapose the vastness of time and existence with the trivial but nevertheless heartbreaking story of the O'Brien family.

I wish the ending could have been something just focusing on modern-day Jack, since we didn't get to know him much at all and anything would have been better than the trite nonsense we were left with.

I agree about the music and cinematography. I also really liked each of the performances.

[pellegrino]

I've seen it twice now, and still don't know what to think. The last 15 or so minutes are terrible; after using such a light touch the whole movie, why get so ham-fisted at the end? Particularly given the horribly cliched way he did it, it's hard not to just write off the whole thing because of it.

I didn't mind the dinosaurs, but am mortified by what seems to be an implication that the scene with the raptor sparing the life of the other dinosaur was the initial instance of the "way of grace" being chosen over the "way of nature". Not only would it have been better coming from something with an ancestral relationship to us, but it's also just silly to think that such creatures were capable of "grace" in the way he seems to define it.

How did you view the "history of the universe" sections? I was thinking it was an exercise in solipsism as the parents (the mother specifically, I think) think about all the events leading to the birth and subsequent death of their son, whereas a friend of mine interpreted it as being outside the narrative, and provided to the audience just to juxtapose the vastness of time and existence with the trivial but nevertheless heartbreaking story of the O'Brien family.

I wish the ending could have been something just focusing on modern-day Jack, since we didn't get to know him much at all and anything would have been better than the trite nonsense we were left with.

That was precisely why I didn't like the dinosaurs. That they were capable of that level of cognition is just foolish. This is why I say that part needed to be done with cavemen or some other hominid. It would have had much more presence. People were laughing during the dinosaur part, and I can't blame them.

I'll agree with you on the ending. It was a little trite, kind of new agey and I felt skirted around the weightiness of the subject matter, but I'll disagree with you on getting to know modern day Jack. I think we know him very well from what we see of his childhood and his journey throughout the film. Though the film shifts point of view a few times between Jack, Mother, and Father, it's clear that the film identifies more with him, so the juxtaposition of the desert images with his childhood memories gives us a good view at his adult mind, imo. Remember that those memories are filtered through present-day Jack's stream of consciousness.

[MarkGrace]

Saw this tonight. Somewhere in the ballpark of 10 people walked out. When the movie ended there were audible sighs and people blurting out stuff like "finally."

ha. Kind of funny.

[MarkGrace]

Been thinking about this movie constantly since I saw it last weekend. It was such an interesting experience, and I'm not quite sure how to feel about it. After mulling it over for most of the week, my thoughts are something like this: What do you make of a movie that wasn't necessarily "entertaining" in the traditional sense, but impacts your worldview? What do you make of movie that is a bit of a slog in passages, but makes you think you'll never see a tree or nature again the same way? What do you make of a movie that didn't keep you engaged the entire time in the way you would have liked, but alters the way you want to conduct your relationships with people? I don't really know the answer, but I've had fun thinking about it.

IDK, I didn't love the movie the way I do some others, but it impacted me in a way very, very few films ever do. And to accomplish what it did is something much more rare than to simply entertain. When I left the theater I thought I was fine just seeing it once -- at this point I think I'd like to see it again.

[wuapinmon]

Saw this tonight. Somewhere in the ballpark of 10 people walked out. When the movie ended there were audible sighs and people blurting out stuff like "finally."

ha. Kind of funny.

This was the same reaction when I saw The New World. Some 11 y/o kid yelled out, "FINALLY" and the audience laughed. About 10 people walked out too. I felt the same way the first time I saw The Thin Red Line, but then I came around.

Been thinking about this movie constantly since I saw it last weekend. It was such an interesting experience, and I'm not quite sure how to feel about it. After mulling it over for most of the week, my thoughts are something like this: What do you make of a movie that wasn't necessarily "entertaining" in the traditional sense, but impacts your worldview? What do you make of movie that is a bit of a slog in passages, but makes you think you'll never see a tree or nature again the same way? What do you make of a movie that didn't keep you engaged the entire time in the way you would have liked, but alters the way you want to conduct your relationships with people? I don't really know the answer, but I've had fun thinking about it.

IDK, I didn't love the movie the way I do some others, but it impacted me in a way very, very few films ever do. And to accomplish what it did is something much more rare than to simply entertain. When I left the theater I thought I was fine just seeing it once -- at this point I think I'd like to see it again.

Now I really want to see this.

[MarkGrace]

wuap, if you get the chance, I'd definitely recommend it on the big screen. The imagery is such a big part of it, and to be overwhelmed by the sheer size of it in a cinema really enhances everything about the movie. I don't think it would play the same on my home TV.

[Green Lantern]

Been thinking about this movie constantly since I saw it last weekend. It was such an interesting experience, and I'm not quite sure how to feel about it. After mulling it over for most of the week, my thoughts are something like this: What do you make of a movie that wasn't necessarily "entertaining" in the traditional sense, but impacts your worldview? What do you make of movie that is a bit of a slog in passages, but makes you think you'll never see a tree or nature again the same way? What do you make of a movie that didn't keep you engaged the entire time in the way you would have liked, but alters the way you want to conduct your relationships with people? I don't really know the answer, but I've had fun thinking about it.

IDK, I didn't love the movie the way I do some others, but it impacted me in a way very, very few films ever do. And to accomplish what it did is something much more rare than to simply entertain. When I left the theater I thought I was fine just seeing it once -- at this point I think I'd like to see it again.

Very interesting comments. I just saw it for the second time earlier this week and I have to admit, as much as I enjoyed it the first time, when I promised my friend who was dying to see it that I'd go with him, I was a little worried that I wouldn't be as "with it" upon second viewing. (Especially considering we were seeing it at 9:45 on a week night and it ain't short.)

I needn't have worried. I actually found more to ponder the second time and it was just as rewarding. There are still elements that baffle me (what's with the bodybags on the lawn at the end?) but they're not off-putting. On the contrary, they make me want to watch it another time.

[pellegrino]

wuap, if you get the chance, I'd definitely recommend it on the big screen. The imagery is such a big part of it, and to be overwhelmed by the sheer size of it in a cinema really enhances everything about the movie. I don't think it would play the same on my home TV.

this is true, the image is the show and it won't be the same on a small screen.

I'd like to see it again too, but unfortunately it isn't in any theaters close to me anymore. Looks like its theater run is coming to an end. Wuap, if you can't see it in a theater then take it to an auditorium on campus and watch it there when it comes out on DVD. I won't say you'll like it, but it is worth watching, to the point that I'll make my kids watch it when they're old enough.

[Green Lantern]

I won't say you'll like it, but it is worth watching, to the point that I'll make my kids watch it when they're old enough.

Nothing inspires a love of the cinema like being forced to watch stuff with your parents.

[pellegrino]

Nothing inspires a love of the cinema like being forced to watch stuff with your parents.

they'll love it because I'll tell them to love it.

[wuapinmon]

wuap, if you get the chance, I'd definitely recommend it on the big screen. The imagery is such a big part of it, and to be overwhelmed by the sheer size of it in a cinema really enhances everything about the movie. I don't think it would play the same on my home TV.

this is true, the image is the show and it won't be the same on a small screen.

I'd like to see it again too, but unfortunately it isn't in any theaters close to me anymore. Looks like its theater run is coming to an end. Wuap, if you can't see it in a theater then take it to an auditorium on campus and watch it there when it comes out on DVD. I won't say you'll like it, but it is worth watching, to the point that I'll make my kids watch it when they're old enough.

It was playing at the AMC Cobb Galleria in Kennesaw, Georgia tonight, so my mom and I went and saw the 9:55PM showing. Thank you, MG for motivating me to see this. WOW!

There were 10 people in the theater, and when it ended, we just sat there in silence. No one spoke. What a fantastic film! I won't call it a movie, but it's an emotional review of the nature of humanity.

Things I liked:

1. The sunflower shot
2. The line when he's praying and asks God what it'll take to go back and be like his brothers (after he's lost his sexual innocence)
3. The scene where the cat comes and lays down in the mom's lap
4. When brother #2 is a newborn, and he pokes the oldest in the face when he's a toddler and he flinches
5. The creation sequence
6. Brad Pitt's performance. I've always liked him. Snatch alone sold me on the man.
7. The mom's acting when she tries to hit the dad, "How do you like it" and then again while she's struggling while he pins her

Things I disliked:

1. The hands scene at the end on the beach.
2. The dinosaur showing mercy.
3. Too many shots into the sunlight
4. The table rules. It reminded me too much of my dad, and it made me sad. He was a hardass about table manners, and the enforcement was arbitrary.


I'm so glad I saw this film. It moved me and makes me want to be a better father.

[Jennerstein]

I just got off a 15 hour flight to Hong Kong from LAX. I saw 4 movies in between bouts of sleep, and here I am using HK Airport's free wifi, trying to resurrect a old movie thread. But I guess that just shows that the movie has a certain je na sais quoi. Or I just didn't understand that thing and am trying to find answers.

One of the things that really confused me was my attempt to figure out which brother died? About 20 minutes into the film, I thought Jack was the boy who died and that scenes in the household were of the father and mother reminiscing his existence. And then there was the pool death. That scene was going so fast that I was still trying to figure out if the boy who died at the pool was one of the brothers. I came to the end of the movie with the conclusion that they never explicitly show how the brother died, or why he died (implication seems to be something related to Vietnam).

With the exception of Jack, all of the brothers and friends looked the same to me. So I'm still kind of confused.

I know that there were 3 boys in the family (ooh, numerology). Jack is the oldest. Didn't quite get the names of the other two. I think the brother who played the guitar and painted was the one who died. Was this the same brother who forgave Jack for shooting his finger? That's the part of the movie that I really wished I'd picked up, because it'd make the symbolism quite beautiful.

After reading this thread, I sat here eating Ajisen curry and rice and wondering what caused Jack's change of heart. I didn't pick up on it until after the movie, but I believe that one of Malick's themes is grace begets grace. That Jack began to change because his brother whose name I still don't know forgave him. And his father's apology was the additional water and sunlight that gave his heart the strength to forgive.

Other random thoughts:
Yes, I also thought I was watching a temple movie at times.
I loved the birth metaphor at the beginning with the boy swimming out of a house. That was totally cool.
The film had a lot of inverted parallelism going through out. Alpha/Omega, beginning and the end.
I loved Jack's prayer. It was so simple, and totally reminded me of my 4 year old trying to pray.
Brad Pitt was great. I was amazed how he was able to display kindness, conflict, aloofness. His performance probably impacted me the most, because it made me really question whether I'm doing the right things as a father.


Anyway, I'm sure I have other thoughts, but it's time to eat dessert.

[Blueintheface]

We watched it on Sunday night. I thought it was visually stunning and I thought the performances by the children were exceptional. Dramatic acting with limited dialogue is tough for kids and the lead really did well. I need to see it again but my thoughts mirror many of yours.