Tree of Life-stunning!

[Peter Moretti]

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!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it looked like some of the night INT living room scenes, e.g. when Brad Pitt asks his son to bring him his lighter, were shot on Red. These shots looked considerably cleaner than much of the rest of the photography.

Perhaps they were just cleaned of grain in post, or I'm just flat out wrong. But I thought I'd throw this out there as a possibility.

 

[Richard G]

a reminder. this is a cinematography forum, we should be discussing the connection between camera (imagery) and story. not who or what was shot where and made it into when. now..

i would like to discuss what i feel is the genius behind Terrance Malick. in doing so, i will refer to a few scenes in the film. if you have not seen it, no big deal. chances are the film won't make sense anyways. hehe.

before though. let me say that although there are a lot of incredible images in this film, dealing with evolution, this is not a film of science. by any means. you must understand, that Malick uses these visual metaphors to better explain the main theme of the story, which is, the relationship between sean pean and his father, brad pitt, and how it has affected him later in life.

the first scene takes place in outer space. you are on a rock, looking out into an asteroid belt. and another which takes place in sean penns chid-hood bed-room in the dark, shining there flashlights on the walls filled with space men. space, represents sean peans childhood dreams.

the next scene is with adult sean penn. he walks through a wooden door in a desert. you appear to be on a dead rock, with no life. this is sean penns adulthood and how the deep space, of his childhood, no longer exists. all that remains are the corroded rocks which represent his years of internal struggle, caused by disfunctional parents.

this approach can be taken to every single one of Malicks scenes and YES. there is meaning to it ALL. this is what separates an ordinary film-maker from a master. most will not understand nor appreciate it's level of involvement because of a lack of understanding of the fundamental principals which have been lost in modern day film-making. it is a calling, to remember, that film is, above all, an art form. and the camera is a master tool for registering human emotion and expression.

RG

"Essentially film is a mythological statement. Its meaning has to be found on a sort of visceral, psychological level rather than a specific literal explanation. "

-Stanley Kubrick

 

[Julio Quintana]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it looked like some of the night INT living room scenes, e.g. when Brad Pitt asks his son to bring him his lighter, were shot on Red. These shots looked considerably cleaner than much of the rest of the photography.

Perhaps they were just cleaned of grain in post, or I'm just flat out wrong. But I thought I'd throw this out there as a possibility.

Interesting guess, but incorrect. Dino can tell you more specifically, but the RED was primarily used for night Sean Penn scenes in the city (plus VFX plates for space shots).

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

this film is so the jang of enter the voids jing.

 

[Julio Quintana]

a reminder. this is a cinematography forum, we should be discussing the connection between camera (imagery) and story. not who or what was shot where and made it into when. now..

i would like to discuss what i feel is the genius behind Terrance Malick. in doing so, i will refer to a few scenes in the film. if you have not seen it, no big deal. chances are the film won't make sense anyways. hehe.

before though. let me say that although there are a lot of incredible images in this film, dealing with evolution, this is not a film of science. by any means. you must understand, that Malick uses these visual metaphors to better explain the main theme of the story, which is, the relationship between sean pean and his father, brad pitt, and how it has affected him later in life.

the first scene takes place in outer space. you are on a rock, looking out into an asteroid belt. and another which takes place in sean penns chid-hood bed-room in the dark, shining there flashlights on the walls filled with space men. space, represents sean peans childhood dreams.

the next scene is with adult sean penn. he walks through a wooden door in a desert. you appear to be on a dead rock, with no life. this is sean penns adulthood and how the deep space, of his childhood, no longer exists. all that remains are the corroded rocks which represent his years of internal struggle, caused by disfunctional parents.

this approach can be taken to every single one of Malicks scenes and YES. there is meaning to it ALL. this is what separates an ordinary film-maker from a master. most will not understand nor appreciate it's level of involvement because of a lack of understanding of the fundamental principals which have been lost in modern day film-making. it is a calling, to remember, that film is, above all, an art form. and the camera is a master tool for registering human emotion and expression.

RG

Funny post...

 

[Richard G]

what's funny about it?

 

[Julio Quintana]

what's funny about it?

Sorry, Richard. I was on set typing on my iPhone, so I didn't elaborate. This part just made me laugh.

a reminder. this is a cinematography forum, we should be discussing the connection between camera (imagery) and story. not who or what was shot where and made it into when. now..

i would like to discuss what i feel is the genius behind Terrance Malick...

It's funny that this is Reduser, and you would rather talk about Malick than find out which scenes were shot on RED. That is a real testament to the power of that film, and I hope someday I can make a movie that is profound enough that people don't care what camera I used.

 

[Richard G]

oh, haha. yeah you're right. i'd figured at least. this is just my way of stirring up opinions from others. i figure if there's one group of people who know this film, it's the ones who make film images. didn't mean for it to be directed at anyone or anything.

RG

 

[rod bradley]

Alas, this will, unfortunately, be of no help in revealing the parts shot on Red... and is, granted, an insufficiently worthy tribute...

--nevertheless a heartfelt salute.

Ode to Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life

We sit in the dark cave
shadows appear on the wall
telling us yes,
we are here
we may not know why
no matter what we pretend

we are matter arranged
into thinking and doing
we live by the grace of gods
we pretend to know
we walk on pretending
as if we’re on solid ground

and sometimes what we pretend
is gentle and harmonious
and right with the world

and at times our pretending
ballons with violence
with greed
with chaos

mostly we do not know why
we do what we do
most of us fear the mystery
so we grasp an order
we name the flower
we name the butterfly
we name each other
we tell our stories
we tell tall tales
writing our ephemeral scrolls
of understanding

and today on the wall
of this constructed cave
I sit with my son
and watch an illuminated manuscript
unfurl on celluloid
laid down by a monk
and his helpers
we watch
as perhaps human beings once watched
in a cave at Lascaux
during long winters
while their first painters drew
their tribute to life
trying to understand
what they had been born to
trying to grasp their own awe

now in our own comfortable dark
we remain enthralled
as we watch this modern monk’s scroll
painting the same
mysterious tree of life
with gentle stabs of light.

 

[Julio Quintana]

That's beautiful, Rod.

 

[James B.]

Since I started this thread felt compelled to give my own synopsis after having seen it. Yes I loved it though would have preferred a better grounded narrative. The last paragraph in this review best summarizes my feelings about the photography.

'The camera is always moving, panning, gliding away, as if impatient to get to the imminent truth that lies behind this shabby reality - a truth that finds its expression in the soundtrack of transcendental choral or stately orchestral music by composers from Respighi and Mahler to Taverner and Gorecki. The problem is, we need a little shabby reality every now and then. That’s how cinematic poetry is earned.'

http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/latest-reviews/the-tree-of-life/5027636.article

As to what it all means....

 

[dino g]

, and you would rather talk about Malick than find out which scenes were shot on RED. That is a real testament to the power of that film, and I hope someday I can make a movie that is profound enough that people don't care what camera I used.

thomas wilfred's lumia was shot on red. maybe the transitional panning lights that lasted less than 5 seconds. other than that...all film. there were many many scenes shot on red that did not make it into the cut. perhaps a few will make it into the dvd.

dino
DIT/ Red Tech- Tree of Life

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I saw Tree of Life here at the Viennese premiere the last Friday, June 17 at the cinema (Kino Haydn Wien) with 2K digital projection.

Definitely it's the best American movie that I saw in the last ten years...

Obviously 99% of the movie was shot on film that is still unbeatable @ IQ, also couldn't detect any RED shot but maybe possible that was at some of VFX shots with dinosaurs ???!!!

Also in some of the parts I recognized influence from Bob Wilson theater work (and video) who is btw, also born in Waco, Texas...but that's all very nice...

 

[Julio Quintana]

thomas wilfred's lumia was shot on red. maybe the transitional panning lights that lasted less than 5 seconds. other than that...all film. there were many many scenes shot on red that did not make it into the cut. perhaps a few will make it into the dvd.

dino
DIT/ Red Tech- Tree of Life

Dino, in addition to your stuff, a majority of the VFX space stuff was shot on my RED here in Austin led by Doug Trumbull. Some portions of the VFX plates were shot on the Phantom when they needed over-cranking. None of the SPACE visual FX were shot on film.

Obviously 99% of the movie was shot on film that is still unbeatable @ IQ, also couldn't detect any RED shot but maybe possible that was at some of VFX shots with dinosaurs ???!!!

The background plates for the dinosaur sequences were all shot on 65mm.

 

[Steve Wake]

Some more info on the VFX work from Supervisor Dan Glass: http://www.awn.com/articles/article/giving-vfx-birth-tree-life

Includes more details on what cameras were used, studios, consulting scientists, and Glass's recollections of Malick's intended meaning.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Awesome article, Steve!

 

[dino g]

i stand corrected. i did not think about the vfx, although now i do recall getting phone calls about that.

 

[Joe Taylor]

I've seen it twice now, 35mm and I suppose 2K projection. A few minutes into the 'Dawn of Sequence' I knew I was experiencing a masterwork. I've also heard that Malick is making the "Dawn of Time" sequence a IMAX movie... anybody in the know?

Two things that I still don't understand and one thing that might be my own theory. (1) The poltergeist chair movement across the floor. (2) Jessica Chastain's mother character flying around that tree. Are those a child's fantasy? And the dinosaur sequence when the Raptor step's on the head of the helpless baby dino. I could almost see the raptor making a decision. Could that be a representation of the first conscious thought?

 

[Peter Dmitriyev]

I saw it last week and still can't decide whether it's a master work or a highly flawed and squandered effort. I thought the chief flaw was the complete undevelopment of the Sean Penn story line, I don't think he even has a single line of dialogue in the entire film.
The main narrative was powerful however, though a part of me still wonders if it would have been more so if told in a more linear fashion and not in such a jumbled convoluted manner.

 

[Steve Wake]

After seeing the film once I knew it was special. After seeing it the second time I was convinced it was the work of a cinematic and philosophical master. After reading comments here and several reviews I'm convinced it only works for those with whom it resonates. And knowing just a little about Malick, I'm sure he doesn't care if 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 10 get more than 1% of what he was trying to get across.

In spite of that, I feel compelled to address some issues raised in the last page or two.

Guys, haven't you ever said something really f-ed up to a woman you really cared for, then wondered why - where did that come from? If not, you are more perfect, more sheltered, more inexperienced or more in denial than Sean Penn was in this film. He did have at least a couple of lines - the first one was addressed to his wife/partner : "I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that" or something to that effect. She (who happens to look a little like the girl he had his first crush on) goes into the patio (I assume of their penthouse apartment) and brings in a tree branch (!) then lays it in an alcove (altar!) inside the apartment. Get it? Her medicine begins to affect Penn's thoughts - the arc of his adult journey toward reconciliation and grace is launched. Like a lot of shit guys carry around, thoughts first turn back to his troubled relationship with his father. That's about as shabby as reality gets - what more was that reviewer looking for? As far as Penn's acting - I thought it was masterful. Sometimes I think Sanjin is 180 off the mark, but this time I really get his point. Penn was up to the challenge of playing a Bob Wilson-esque role with almost no lines. The challenge is for the audience to read the clues.

The dinosaur, I think is open to some interpretation, but here's my take. I've seen the carnivorous dino given a couple of names - both in the same family as velociraptors, known for having a high brain to body ratio (for a dinosaur). Sentience? Maybe, but I think the point is that this is another step in the evolution of grace. The carnivore doesn't kill, but is also in no position to help or heal. It looks back - confused, purposeless. Darkness. Then the comet hits and destroys this dead-end, giving another phylum (mammals) a try at evolving true grace.

There is so much in this movie to resonate with. Look at the boys - three archetypal sons: the oldest bears the brunt of dad's weaknesses in a frontal way - the conflict turns Oedipal. The middle is a chip of the old block - but also torn by allegiance to older brother. The youngest is mostly ignored, but may bear the deepest scars of all. Every scene has a deeper symbolic and universal meaning.

Yeah, it's not a movie for everyone. But if you have demons to confront, are currently fighting them, or have even won, it's a movie whose emotional arc will resonate deeply. If you can't get it on the emotional level, there is still a lot to enjoy and appreciate, but I think it will not be coherent. If you go to movies to escape, or for an adrenaline rush or testosterone fix, don't even bother.