Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Tree of Life-stunning!

konstantinos stagikas said:
I don't see the resemblance.It reminded me more of ''Stalker'' and Tarkovskiy's poetic universe.But I think his influences are not from within the cinema as they are from other visual arts and from literature.At the end i was left with this feeling i have when i finish a book.
Click to expand...

interesting observation as i think, based on my time spent with terry, that is exactly the feeling he is trying to convey. IMHO had he been born in another time, he for sure would have been purely a writer, but our technology and social mores place the feature film director above all others in the hierarchy of story telling conventions. thus he is a writer /director.

and tom...are you kidding me, you have waited this long, i am very surprised... i was at the first show in north america! 2 hours early! it was three days before the cast and crew screening, so why not...well worth it. i am sure you have a valid excuse and a note from your director, but dont let it happen again...i want you at the first screening for the next one or i am not introducing you to any other directors!
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'd guess that 95% of the movie was shot on 35mm, not counting the purely visual effects sequences. That's just a guess though. There was a night shot of modern city traffic early on that looked digital, there were some stand-alone nature shots that could have been shot on the Red One (like the sunflowers in the field, the waterfall maybe), the background plates for the dinosaur sequence looked like a digital camera was used, and I'm sure some other scattered shots here and there were shot digitally (maybe the shot of the bridge at the end), but the bulk of the movie had the same look in terms of dynamic range and grain, and I suspect all that was 35mm, even scenes with Sean Penn. I talked to some Texas crew members who worked on the film and they said that both the Red One and 35mm were used, but mostly the 35mm cameras.

I saw the movie projected digitally at the Landmark in the Westside Pavilion, which was nice because they mostly project film prints there, but have a Sony 4K projector in Theater 1. I'm used to DLP projection, so at first had to get used to the weaker black levels of the Sony projector, but otherwise, it was a very smooth and sharp image. I don't think they used a 4K DCP however, probably 2K.

It's an amazing cinematic experience, to be sure, reminded me of "2001" at times. However, I have to admit that I found the ending less moving than similar endings in movies like "8 1/2" (if you've seen both movies, you know the type of scene I'm talking about.)
Click to expand...


99% of what we did for the weeks were we in texas with red#0031, did not make it into the final movie. however, the very first shot, the shot of the images from thomas wilfred's Lumia were shot with red#0031 on two separate occasions as pick up days in los angeles. i will not go into any more detail other than saying when i watched the movie for the first time last thursday night in NY at the first show at midnight, i cheered out-loud the second that image showed up...the people around me must have thought i was some sort of mad man ready to torch the place...needless to say, each additional time it showed up i became more reserved, but inside i was still excited!

glad people are enjoying it!
 
Dino, I can provide a note from my director. :)
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I don't think this is true. This article is back in 2009. I think they did some Red tests but ended up shooting everything in 35. Although I think that it has been confirmed that Malick is using Red for his next project.
Click to expand...
i worked on tree of life . red camera was used !
 
kevin squyres said:
i worked on tree of life . red camera was used !
Click to expand...

kevin, i was on the movie for over a month and i know red#0031 was used to shoot images for the feature, but the question was did any of those red acquired images make it into the final movie...i know for sure some of mine did...how about you?
 
dino g said:
kevin, i was on the movie for over a month and i know red#0031 was used to shoot images for the feature, but the question was did any of those red acquired images make it into the final movie...i know for sure some of mine did...how about you?
Click to expand...
DINO, I MEANT YOU . I REMEMBER YOU WITH YOUR RED . I WORKED ON THE MOVIE IN TRANSPO ,JUST TO ME MALICK AND THE DP. I HAD NOT GOTTEN MY RED CAMERA YET . CHEERS KEVIN
 
The best film I've ever seen. I'm still in a daze.
 
I'm sitting under the stars right now trying to come to terms with what I have just seen.
 
Geez Tom, you are really hurting me man -- since the film doesn't show in the country I'm staying currently. Will have to wait a few weeks I guess :)
 
By the way, who else was digging on those Master Prime flares!!?!! Now I understand why Terry loves those lenses so much. If you're not shooting anamorphic, shoot MP.

Now I'm kind of curious to test the flares of the Leica Summilux-Cs against the Master Primes. Those MP flares were pure gold.
 
Watching this movie was truly an amazing experience. I am going to see it again in the theater and buy the Blu-Ray. The film truly captures what it feels like to remember and contemplate one's life and one's place in the universe.
 
Seeing this film was the best experience i've ever had in a movie theater.

I need help identifying a structure/monument that appeared in the movie, hopefully someone here can help me...
The structure appeared to be stone and looked like some kind of face (looked human to me) and it was located in a jungle or forest. Does anyone know what it was and what it is called? I don't want to give any spoilers to anyone who hasn't seen the film, so hopefully that information is enough. Thanks.
 
Malick is beyond a mature filmmaker. After seeing it twice today I'd have to say he is omniscient - possibly even beyond that. This film has the ability to touch viewers in a deep and personal way because of the universal truths at its core - though in a different way with every individual because of different personal experiences and different ways in which you have, and are, coming to grips with what Malick depicts as the grace/nature dialectic. For that reason, do not accept any interpretation by any reviewer. Experience it yourself. And certainly not everyone will be moved as deeply or in the same way. Viewers seeking a glandular experience will leave disappointed. Viewers who can't connect with the family experience will be bystanders. I expected a cerebral experience and got much, much more.

I'd also say for anyone who did not grow up as a male in 1950's white, middle class America, this is a fantastic socio/psychological profile of the experience. To understand who we are, look where we came from. And in my first-hand opinion, Malick is even conservative regarding the family dysfunction and violence. As a Biology and Earth Science teacher, I also thought it was fantastic. And as a materialist who struggles with the concept of god, the evolution and substance of Grace was challenging to say the least. Rather than make me feel like I read a book, it makes me want to write a book. So I'd better just stop.

If anyone knows where there is a script posted, please let me know. My hearing was damaged by too many firecrackers and small arms exploding near my head when I was young and I could only understand most of Brad Pitt and some of the boys' lines. Practically all of the whispered narration and Jessica Chastain's lines were unintelligible to me, so rather than being guided by Malick's lines, I had to follow the action and visuals. I'm satisfied with what I got out of it, and of course it was visually stunning, but I'd still like to better understand Malick's intentions through his narrative. Or I can just wait for the captioned DVD version.
 
Last edited:
This is a movie with many dimensions and great depth in each one. Since this is the Cinematography forum on REDUser, I guess I'm off-topic by bringing up other aspects, but as is often said here, cinematography serves a purpose. However in Malick's case, it does not serve the purpose of telling a traditional story, because this is not a story told in a traditional way. In fact, I'd say it is not even principally a story. And for that reason it is extremely challenging to get all that one can out of the movie, though paradoxically it is easy to enjoy in any one of the dimensions that strike a chord with the viewer - that's how well done it is. For example, I know I missed one major dimension of the movie because of my lack of knowledge about music. I'm sure Malick selected the score with as much care as he did camera angles. And though it always seems appropriate, I'm aware that there is a depth of meaning and message to the musical score that I missed. On the other hand, I probably got more out of the cosmic and early evolution scenes than others without the same scientific background. And I'm sure the family story had a different impact on me since I lived in that world and did everything those boys did at play - though in many cases to a more extreme level.

So what ties together all of these different dimensions? At the risk of offending Mr. Malick, I think it boils down to this meta-plot: The tree of life is a well-known metaphor for evolution. In science we learn there are different aspects to evolution, but it's often summed up as survival of the fittest, which leads to another oversimplification about how cruel nature is. Near the beginning of the movie we are presented with a dialectic: nature versus grace. The movie examines the conflict by showing the evolution of grace, as well as grace's influence on nature, on both a cosmic and personal level. The conflict is resolved with Senn Penn's middle-aged discovery of grace. The bookends are Wifred's Lumia (shot on RED), representing Chaos or the Unformed Block.

I'll stop there. Like I said, this movie makes me want to write a book.
 
Tom Lowe said:
By the way, who else was digging on those Master Prime flares!!?!! Now I understand why Terry loves those lenses so much. If you're not shooting anamorphic, shoot MP.

Now I'm kind of curious to test the flares of the Leica Summilux-Cs against the Master Primes. Those MP flares were pure gold.
Click to expand...

He he, now you know why my personal set of lenses are Mastewr Primes, and to think that some one do not use them because they say the flair easy??? He he,
if you don't know how to play with light then make sure to be well hooded, but if you do know and love to play with lighting and the rays then play all the way and use Master Primes... ;)
 
Steve Wake said:
At the risk of offending Mr. Malick, I think it boils down to this meta-plot: The tree of life is a well-known metaphor for evolution. In science we learn there are different aspects to evolution, but it's often summed up as survival of the fittest, which leads to another oversimplification about how cruel nature is.
Click to expand...

I won't argue over your interpretation of the plot (on which many critics are divided), but the Tree of Life is a philosophy that goes back over 200 years: it essentially says that all life on the planet is connected. There's a good piece on Wikipedia explaining the concept at this link.

I thought it was a beautifully-photographed film, but I can see why it sharply divided audiences at Cannes -- they either hated it or loved it. Half the people at my screening got up and left about 90 minutes in. It's not a mass-market film, and it's got a very quirky structure and a deliberate pace. I think there are good ideas in it, but the non-linear style was not my cup of tea. But I thought it had great performances, and some of the visual effects were stunning. Emmanuel Lubezki did a stellar job on the cinematography.
 
Humans are distinguished by our drive to seek explanations, and our ability to pass those theories on to our progeny. In the face of new facts and insights, those with open minds are able to help theories evolve.

Some insights, when stripped of their (often false and misleading) embellishments, endure the test of time. Such is the idea of the “tree of life.” If the core concept is taken as “all life on the planet is connected” it is a theory thousands of years old. However, Malick is clearly well versed with the more current iterations of the theory and used those ideas in the movie. The cues are understated, but as in any piece of literature the points are clear once the imagery and plot are understood.

To illustrate my point about Malick’s currency, here are a couple of examples from the segment that took us from before the Big Bang to the comet that ended the Age of Dinosaurs. These elaborations shouldn’t ruin the film for anyone, and will hopefully enrich it (especially for scientific ignoramus-reviewers who thought this segment was “warmed over Kubrick”):

Example 1
Viewers who have not taken a biology class in the last few years (or who slept through that lecture) may have missed the point of the cgi scene where a large cell takes in a smaller cell. This is not feeding, but an animated depiction of the origin of endosymbiosis – a theory that was not taken seriously when first proposed by Lynn Margulis (about the same time 2001 was released – and certainly not depicted in that film). The aspect of the theory illustrated here is that critically important organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, originated as free-living bacteria, then were taken in by larger bacteria and established a symbiotic relationship. The combination was so successful that these new cells gave rise to all life more complex than bacteria: the eukaryota, which include fungi, plants and animals. Through persistence and scientific rigor, this part of Margulis’s theory eventually was accepted and over the last 10 years has become a part of every standard introductory biology course and textbook in high school and college. In its entirety, the theory (in my opinion) represents a major step forward from Darwin’s accomplishment. The fact that she has not been awarded a Nobel prize is a testament to the close-mindedness, (male) pride and politics of the Committee.​

Example 2
In the last sequence with the dinosaurs in the river, note the movements of the carnivorous one. Add some feathers and you’ll see the obvious – it’s a bird. A fairly recent idea, and probably more universally accepted in the “yes/no” world of American popular consciousness than in the “yes, but” world of scientific inquiry. Visually though, a great advance over the mammalian/anthropomorphic movements of the Jurassic Park velociraptors.​

Regarding plot – I outlined my idea in the full paragraph above, not in one sentence. I’ll only add this: in Malick’s imagery, grace may evolve where earth meets water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top