Tree of Life Discussion

Just watched Tree of Life last night. It was incredible. Anyone else see it yet?

Yes. I thought it was brilliantly shot, and the middle part was extremely interesting. However I had to fight hard to stave off sleep in the opening third or so, when Mallick decided to take us to the planets and dinosaurs and volcanoes and such.

Also I felt I didn't get much of the point of the movie.

What was the point again? I felt like it was a serious case of "what do you mean it wasn't made on drugs?" I felt it was a good way of showing faith based religion and nature based faith living in harmony. Especially with that ending.

Overall my favorite theory is the following. The whole family part is just an extended metaphor for nature vs technology. The mother is nature(obviously) and the father represents technology. Technology wants us to succeed etc but at the same time it damages us and draws us away from the true peace we find in nature.

Yeah its a little crackpot but its something that makes some sort of sense....I guess.

Also you may want to fix your pothole.

edited 30th Jun '11 7:16:15 AM by syvaris

My personal thoughts on the movie are somewhat like I how I view a lot of Aronofsky films. Many different layers of meaning, though not all images being absolutely symbolic or necessary, but rather setting a certain mood in the film. I've heard that a lot of the incidental stuff in the movie were direct references to Malick's childhood.

I also feel like this movie very directly addresses mankind's struggle to have faith in a supposedly "loving" god that allows pain to occur in the lives of decent people. It may just be my religious upbringing, but the movie was such a highlight reel of very believable roles of people struggling with the very nature of God and nature, and realizing that our understanding of God will forever be flawed because our viewpoint isn't capable of fathoming Him.

I did however feel like the movie VERY accurately captured the feeling of being a child growing up with difficult parents. At least it resonated very clearly with me.

Also in regard to the "birth of the earth" sequence I think helped highlight the passage from the Book of Job that was essentially God asking a pissed-off Job, "Hey, were you around when I made the world? Can you do the same? Do you know the mysteries of the world? No? Oh, wait, I do. So stop whining and try to understand that I have your best interests at heart and just go along with it." Kinda sets the tone for the rest of the movie.

So, I just saw the movie on sunday, and I have a few thoughts. The movie had its moments where it was incredible, but it had its problems as well. I saw it with two other people, and a we found that at the end of the movie, we all had different ideas of what happened. I don't mean different interpretations of the ending or meaning of the film or anything like hat, I mean that all of us were confused about the details of the film- who was who, which brother died, did two of the brothers die or just one, who was the kid with part of his hair missing- basic story and continuity questions about the film. We were all either confused about many of these questions, or we all had different ideas about them. You could argue that Malick was trying to be ambiguous, but I would argue back that the only thing meant to be ambiguous was the overall meaning and symbolism of the film, and that basic continuity questions like this are mistakes on Malick's part.

I thought the scenes with the family were fantastic. The actors did a fantastic job, especially Brad Pitt and the young actor playing Jack. The portrayal of these complex characters and difficult family dynamics was beautifully done. I also thought the photography and the shots of nature were all fantastic. I understand that Malick was trying to suggest a connection between the natural world and the origins of life, to the life of the family, but I don't feel that the two elements tied together very well. The "smallness of man against the infinite majesty of nature" is a recurring theme in Malick's films, but it's overdone in this one. Some tighter editing and a greater attention to continuity and narrative would improve this film. The scene with the dinosaurs seemed completely extraneous and Malick could have easily made his point without them.

Overall, I give this movie an A for effort, but the effort falls a little flat when a lot of the basics aren't clear. All the same, there are a lot of scenes that will stick with me. This film overreaches, but it's a noble effort.

So I saw this today.

Christ, that was one of the dullest things I'd ever seen. Long, boring, completely nonsensical and completely up its own arse. One thing I certainly won't fault it on is the CGI, which just makes it more of a bitter pill to swallow. The dinosaurs would have been better placed in a movie about dinosaurs and the space sequences would have been better placed in a science-fiction film. What a waste.

Take some LSD....it makes it better.

I agree it was very dull and boring, still had some interesting meaning and ideas in it though.

I'm going to just come out and say it — if you couldn't get a moving message or a thoughtful, meaningful discussion out of this film, you're shallow as the puddles of cola pooled on the floors of the popcorn halls you're inevitably viewing Transformers 3 in this week.

Oh, what, you think I don't have any tolerance for long, slow films because I happened to dislike this one? I've seen 2001: A Space Odyssey from start to finish and it was descriptions of this film as 2001's Spiritual Successor that made me go in the first place (that, and the fact that there was absolutely nothing else on - Transformers 3 can go fuck itself). This was trying far too hard to be a classic artsy film and fell flat on its face.

I haven't made up my mind yet on the film and am probably going back for a second look. I can understand why some people don't like it and don't think they're simple minded. I've read some good arguments against it, and from people who like experimental film- that it pumps up a very familiar family melodrama with more bombast than that material can support.

I don't actually think the 2001 comparison is that accurate or illuminating, except that they're both visually splendid films, and they're not conventional narratives.

Someone else said this first, but it does a better job of summoning how we remember childhood, in bits and fragments, than any other film I've seen. And Pitt is amazing- it's almost impossible to give such full characterization in a non-narrative work.

edited 19th Jul '11 6:23:14 AM by suckersapien

I just saw the film in NYC, after trying out Katz's Deli for the first time. It was a good day.

I saw it in an art-house theater, probably the only way I could have seen it this many months after other theaters stopped playing it. I see the 2001 comparisons, but it also reminded me of Baraka.

I saw this at an arthouse too (with an actor who played a bit part in attendance). I thought the movie was great and easy to understand. It basically shows the history of life from pre-life, the creation of life, life itself and finally, the afterlife.

I'm guessing that you saw this at the Lincoln Plaza. They seem to get the big art films there.

Saw it at the Sunshine Theater, I think. I didn't really pay attention to what it was called, as I simply passed by it on the way to the subway and figured I had two hours to kill. I do know that they had a bunch of Criterion DVD's for sale.

That's the Sunshine. All the Landmark Theatres sell DVD's in their lobby, as far as I know.

They usually compete with the Angelika (which I've read is a little run-down but I know a few people who saw The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford there and they mentioned enjoying the ambiance of the theatre) and the Village East (which is mostly small auditoriums and one big one playing mainstream fare) for arthouse product in the Village. There's also the Quad but they usually play second runs and is supposed to do the dirtiest theatre not named the Union Square in Manhattan. That place also gets all of the WWE movies for some reason.

edited 3rd Sep '11 9:45:12 AM by Buscemi

I didn't really get the symbolism, if there is any, behind all the scenery shots.

The symbolism I believe is supposed to be the history and stages of life. Besides showing the coming of age (which I explained above), the other main plot shows off the progression of the world across millions of years. This is why we see volcanoes, dinosaurs and other elements of the B.C. era.

To further show the stages of life, there are four shots of fire (I think it was fire) being created. This is more or less Malick's way of showing one chapter has ended and another one is beginning.

edited 1st Feb '12 6:16:31 AM by Buscemi