• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Tree of Life (dir. Malick; Pitt, Penn)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, no disagreement with anything that you wrote, really. And I wasn't regarding anything as a flaw (save for the flaws that I posted earlier), merely commenting on what I think was a mistaken bit of marketing and some misguided criticism on the parts of some.

Like I say, the middle 90 minutes or so of the film I would regard as possibly the very greatest filmmaking that I've ever seen, but there are aspects that should have been tightened/altered just a bit (i.e. adding music to the creation fugue that was less serious and a bit more playful a la 2001 and moving it to the end of the film, rather than sticking it at the beginning). I had an idea while watching the film that the shots of sunflowers/elevators/etc. could have been the beginning of a visual/poetic essay a la the ending of L'Eclisse, which I think could have been a very effective way to end the film especially if it had come at the tail-end of all of the creation stuff. At least, it would have worked better than what we got.
 
Just came back from it and I think it was extraordinary. I was riveted the entire time as Malick over and over again seemed to spark pieces from my sense-memory that I believe must have been long inert.

I agree that the end segment should have been extended.

I agree with almost everything you've said so far Snowman, but I had to LOL when you called Malick's films some of the tautest around. I also disagree in that I think Tree of Life was his leanest film in that absolutely nothing in the film felt like something that could be cut without weakening the experience.
 
Did you see it as SFF Sculli?

I'm still grappling with the film. Some of the stretches are incredibly beautiful and evocative, but it might be Malick's most obviously 'flawed' work.
I don't think this has a chance to topple The New World as my favourite Malick, but it's incredibly dense and rewarding and I look forward to many repeat viewings.
 
Krev said:
Did you see it as SFF Sculli?

I'm still grappling with the film. Some of the stretches are incredibly beautiful and evocative, but it might be Malick's most obviously 'flawed' work.
I don't think this has a chance to topple The New World as my favourite Malick, but it's incredibly dense and rewarding and I look forward to many repeat viewings.

Yeah I saw it at SFF.
 
The movie has cast a spell on me. It has been running through my mind all day and all I know is that I need to see it again in the cinema, because lord knows that even on bluray, a home system will not do justice to this film.
 
Watched it a second time tonight hoping that my initial opinion of it would change. It did not

Still great, but the creation of the universe and dinosaur scenes are still time wasters regardless of how amazing they look. Glad to finally get this movie out of the way
 
lazybones18 said:
Watched it a second time tonight hoping that my initial opinion of it would change. It did not

Still great, but the creation of the universe and dinosaur scenes are still time wasters regardless of how amazing they look. Glad to finally get this movie out of the way

Yeah, those creation scenes were just... there are few times when I'm truly disappointed, but those were definitely up there. I think that if it had been put at the end and had some different music, it would have worked much better.
 
nice article: THE TREE OF LIFE: Film Print vs. Digital Print

The Landmark Sunshine is showing The Tree of Life in several theaters. On their biggest screen (theater #1) it plays digitally; in one of the smaller theaters upstairs (#5) it plays on a film print. There are noticeable differences between the two and I urge you to see it twice: once on film and once digitally.

Blader5489 said:
That was not nearly as interesting as I hoped.

You could tell Fox Searchlight begged for two popular directors to champion the film. I would love to see a room full of Nolanites experience this one. You may have to lock the doors so they don't all run out.
 
"THE TREE OF LIFE will be going wide nationally on 7/8/11."

So I can just wait until then instead of driving 60+ miles to one of the select theaters?
 
Yes, when I think "new Malick," Nolan's the first one that pops into my head!

If he's been drinking that sort of kool-aid about himself, part of me suspects we may never get something as great as Memento from him again; I think he's gotten fat on the Hollywood hog.

Edit: Icarus, the dinosaur scene is probably the only part of the creation fugue that has much resonance with the rest of the film.
 
Expendable. said:
You could tell Fox Searchlight begged for two popular directors to champion the film.

They didn't even talk about the film, did they? It was just a few minutes of the two of them trying to call Malick an auteur without using the word.

Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Yes, when I think "new Malick," Nolan's the first one that pops into my head!

If he's been drinking that sort of kool-aid about himself, part of me suspects we may never get something as great as Memento from him again; I think he's gotten fat on the Hollywood hog.

:lol

Saying Malick has influenced him =/= "I'm the new Malick!"
 
Just saw this over at IMDB and yelled " FUCK YES"

Lubezki : 'Terry is working on a 6 hours long cut of the film'

In this month's edition of Les Cahiers du Cinéma (which is the most respected movies magazine with Positif in France), there is a 21 pages special feature about The Tree of Life, with Emmanuel Lubeski, Dede Gardner, Brad Pitt, Alexandre Desplat, Mark Yoshikawa and Jack Fisk interviews.

All are very interesting (really great actually!), and I will translate some bits later, but I've jumped for joy when I've read this :

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 !

Link
 
Blader5489 said:
:lol

Saying Malick has influenced him =/= "I'm the new Malick!"

No, but him saying that there is a clear Malick influence in his work shows that either he was just doing the piece as a bit of paid puffery or that he's completely delusional about his work and what it is. Considering that he's regressed over the course of the last 11 years, rather than gotten better, I'm tempted to say that it's the latter, though of course the former is also possible. I love Memento and The Prestige, but I just don't know if he has "it" in him, anymore. Like many directors, he hit success too early, and I think his art has suffered for it.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Yes, when I think "new Malick," Nolan's the first one that pops into my head!

If he's been drinking that sort of kool-aid about himself, part of me suspects we may never get something as great as Memento from him again; I think he's gotten fat on the Hollywood hog.

Edit: Icarus, the dinosaur scene is probably the only part of the creation fugue that has much resonance with the rest of the film.

Haven't caught the film yet, but does the cosmology not fit into the bigger picture? If Tree of Life is meant as a mediation on existence from the perspective of an American family circa 1950s, the beginning of the universe stuff sounds like it could offer a powerful and even necessary method of context. But again, since I haven't seen it and don't know how it all connects, I can't personally make that determination yet.
 
brianjones said:
how dare nolan praise my malick!!

It's not the praise but the self-comparison. I freely admit that I may be stretching with this one, but it's just another drop on the scale that makes me think my suspicion accurate.

Zeliard: The cosmology stuff comes about 20 minutes into the picture and is a single sequence spanning about 15-20 minutes itself. There are some truly beautiful parts and shots (and, as I said, the stuff with the dinosaurs actually worked quite well, I thought), but it does not end up having much resonance with the rest of the film, partly because it comes too early and so lacks the narrative and intellectual context to really play against anything that we've seen, partly because it takes itself far too seriously and plays very serious music (say what you will of the slowness of 2001, but the use of music in that film is undeniably very playful and even comic, which makes the whole thing much more palatable), and partly because it's just a little too indulgent and showy. It maybe has some resonance with the ending, but as the ending is the other weak part of the film - indeed, the weakest - that's not saying or adding much. The middle part of the film should have been the beginning and led into what was chosen to be the beginning, and the ending should have been changed entirely to be less on-the-nose. Those are my main thoughts on the film, and they've remained quite static. In a way, it's the film that gives the most "in" to Malick, as it has some of his greatest work but some of the most conspicuous and yet easily fixable weaknesses, as well.

Edit: But seriously, and to reiterate: the middle 90 minutes of this would, on its own, probably crack a top 20 or even 10, for me, it's that great.
 
Interesting, thanks for the thoughts. Out of curiosity, how'd you feel about Malick's past work (apologies if you've already posted about that, I've sort of skimmed the latest responses to avoid spoilers)?
 
Badlands: Probably the least of his films but with many great parts and a lot of promise.
Days of Heaven: Great, great film.
The Thin Red Line: One of the top 10 films that I think I've ever seen.
The New World: Great film.
 
brianjones said:
how dare nolan praise my malick!!

lol dude it's not like that, it's more the fact that malick's so called 'influence' on nolan is not apparent at all. Like not even a small amount.

Oh and also TTRL >= New World > Days of Heaven > Badlands.

Finally get to see this film on the weekend. Fucking been too long a wait. I'll probably check out Midnight in Paris this weekend too.
 
Kraftwerk said:
Posted already, but indeed great news. Cant fucking wait.
Bleh, I swear I read the page in full and then scrolled up and down it twice and then searched the page for related terms and somehow thought it hadn't been posted.
 
big ander said:
Bleh, I swear I read the page in full and then scrolled up and down it twice and then searched the page for related terms and somehow thought it hadn't been posted.

I added a quote from Lubezki about his next (even more experimental) movie if that makes it better. Can't wait to get our hands on the full translation of that article, seems like a great read.
 
It's strange how his next film will be even more experimental considering the things I've heard about this one.

Have my doubts about Ben Affleck though. They should Adrian Brody his ass in the editing room.
 
Expendable. said:
I added a quote from Lubezki about his next (even more experimental) movie if that makes it better. Can't wait to get our hands on the full translation of that article, seems like a great read.
I did love the quotes about Malick's forthcoming movie. It just sounds pure.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Wait, The Burial is even MORE experimental? If it's anything like that middle section, then golfham.

Yep:

When asked about his untitled romantic drama, Lubezki reiterated the experimental style, saying “he [Malick] tries to move away from all the things cinema depends on…and he tries to find the purest way to make films.” His next film “isn’t more abstract, but it tries to be pure cinema. It is even less narrative, in the dramatic sense, than The Tree of Life. The method we use is more and more risky, perilous, destructive.”
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Badlands: Probably the least of his films but with many great parts and a lot of promise.
Days of Heaven: Great, great film.
The Thin Red Line: One of the top 10 films that I think I've ever seen.
The New World: Great film.

I'm starting up a rewatch marathon soon. I want to watch them all again, in chronological order, before going to see Tree of Life. I want to just have a weekend where I'm all Malick'd up. Just gotta finish this current Breaking Bad marathon first.

I'm so glad to see Malick seeming to make films at a more regular pace now. Perhaps it's just Malick noting his age and wanting to output more before he's unable to make films anymore, but either way, it's a good thing. I'm curious if we'll see something similar with Daniel Day-Lewis when he gets to around that age, if he's still acting.
 
Affleck is probably comparable to Pitt, anyway.

Also, is The New World any good? I can't get over my bias about the whole "colonization" thing to watch it.
 
icarus: it's not really appealing to me, either, in premise, but between the cast, the director, and the first screenshot of it that we have, I'm sold a hundred times over.

firehawk12: It's absolutely great. It's probably third in the Malick canon, behind TTRL and DoH, but between the beautiful cinematography, very tasteful use of Native American culture, great acting by everybody, and excellent music, it's totally worth it.
 
Is it tasteful? It's just hard to ignore the years of schooling that make me instantly suspicious of a movie set in that period. :lol:

Hmm. I just noticed there's an extended cut... I guess that means my old DVD copy is worthless. Dope.
 
It DOES use the fallacious John Smith/Rolfe/Pocahantas myth, not that there's anything inherently imperialist in the tale itself although it is often linked, I think, with that sentiment, but Malick cast actual Native American actors and did, by my understanding, do a good and tasteful job of representing American Indian culture. They're noble at times, savage at others; indeed, Malick doesn't really portray the colonization as a simplistic good whites versus savage Indians OR caricaturistically evil whites versus magical Earth Children, more as a missed opportunity for the sharing and melding of two legitimate cultures.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
It DOES use the fallacious John Smith/Rolfe/Pocahantas myth, not that there's anything inherently imperialist in the tale itself although it is often linked, I think, with that sentiment, but Malick cast actual Native American actors and did, by my understanding, do a good and tasteful job of representing American Indian culture. They're noble at times, savage at others; indeed, Malick doesn't really portray the colonization as a simplistic good whites versus savage Indians OR caricaturistically evil whites versus magical Earth Children, more as a missed opportunity for the sharing and melding of two legitimate cultures.
So it's not like the Disney cartoon then? :lol
Ah well, I might as well catch it some time then. It's the one big gap I probably should fill.

In an unrelated point, I'm watching The Thin Red Line and it's brilliant.
 
Just saw the film in Seattle. I'm still reeling from it. I'll post impressions later. For now I just want to let it all sink in.
 
I still have no idea why people hate the ending. From all the reviews here and on blogs/websites, only thing I have gathered is that people think it's too "religious".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom