Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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!

I've talked to several people, young and old, who've seen the movie, and they all reported the same experience: Namely, that the family story seems to be their own story. Jessica Chastain is their Mother. In fact, the mother and father are so perfectly archetypal, it's to the point of perfection. Has that ever really been done before? And that is just one facet of the film.
 
That is definitely not my family ;-)
Both my parents were very, very sweet and not archetypical. But as I told my wife, "Tree of Life" is in a way a children's film. Not for children, but about childhood. Including the children we are at heart even as adults, when it comes to coping with life, meaning and the universe.
To me, the children were by far the most appealing and strong characters. I am impressed by the intensity and honesty in this film, particularly with the children. I look forward to seeing it again, even if I found it a bit long at times. I'm just an impatient guy...
 
Last edited:
Definitely not a modern "2001", not even close (and for what it's worth, I first saw 2001 three years ago, so I don' t have any childhood memories to complicate the remembering...)

I liked the middle third of Tree of Life, and I found the imagery in the opening third and overall "tone" enjoyable, but the last third I thought was pretty weak. Malick's never been strong at the final third (Thin Red Line anyone?), but this was IMO his worst showing yet.

Definitely my least favorite Malick film overall, but perhaps it improves on further viewings? I'm willing to try again, if only because I like his other work a lot, and hey, at least he's trying to push the boundaries. That alone was worth watching, even though ultimately I think he missed the mark.
 
there is another scene, brief where the mother is in the foreground, and her two sons in the background.

she passes by a mirror, creating a second image of herself. (reflections are very important in film, and should always be considered)

this scene represents how the children, both embody two different aspects of the mother. and how the mother is divided between her two sons

and husband.

i would like to hear others interpretations, not of the story, but of the meaning of the image. the syntax. what's between the frames.? ya know?

RG

also, i would suggest to others NOT to take this film literal. i see a lot of literal interpretations. film-art is not literal, commercial film is. this is the latter.
 
To me, the most interesting/important/intriguing visual element in the film is the numerous (50?) shots of the sun or lights, which clearly represent God, or God watching us, or God always being there or being our "light" (Jesus said he was "light of the world" - the mom points to the sky/sun and says, "That's where God lives.")

Often the camera is even moving toward or away from the light (God), coinciding with the character's current state, as seen or in voiceover. Also the sun is often semi-obscured through trees - it's there, but the characters may not see it clearly (see Him clearly), etc.

This goes along with what I believe to be the central idea behind the film - God created the world (see quote from book of Job in the beginning) and us and we will wrestle with existential issues throughout our lives (morality, sin, grief, forgiveness), hopefully turning to Him in the end, as Penn did (despite a rocky childhood). This is clearly seen and heard.
 
That was a pure spiritual experience. Like the mass I've never been to.
I loved the wide angle portraits and the emotional way of the cut. To me it is something between 2001 and Antichrist.
Although it wasn't my childhood, not even close, it felt like it. It put me into a dream stage where I kind of experienced Childhood in it's unified, universal way. To me this is what cinema can be. A story told in pictures and not a story you could simply put down in words or tell somebody. It's a moving movie that moved me
 
Unfortunately, here's the score for me seeing Tree of Life today...

Movie Theater: 1 ( ended up seeing Transformers)

Tree of Life: 0


I caught a movie theater in the Chicago suburbs playing Tree of Life, so I got a baby sitter
and took the wife for the the 3:30pm showing... IT WAS PACKED!

So, when the previews start, I notice everything is out of focus and too dark, so I look back and what do I see?

3D projection...


So I go out and ask the manager if he can he fix it, he says, "uh oh, not again, let me see"
So he steps away, says he contacted somebody, then goes with me to watch a preview and then the movie starts...
I explain what's wrong with the picture and he stares at the screen a while, then I say- can you fix it... and he says, let me see what I can do...

I then wait two minutes and then step out and see him standing around in the lobby.
I ask, what's the verdict- he offers me 2 movie passes and we go see Transformers in 2D instead ...
crystal clear in comparison...

We endlessly debate the merits of 4K when they can't get 2K projection remotely right?

As bad as I wanted to see Tree of Life on the big screen, I couldn't tolerate seeing it compromised so badly.
In the end I didn't see the movie I wanted on the big screen this weekend and
I'm sure they didn't care as they had a packed house anyway...

Not a criticism of the artists, just the terrible delivery system...


PS: sorry about the rant... just had to blow off some steam after that experience...
 
Last edited:
an experience for sure.

I found it beautiful and inspiring at times. the scenes with the kids were as good as any filmmaking i've seen. For me the mother was the heart of the film and what will stay with me is the relationship she had with her boys and with the world at large. I also thought Brad Pit was excellent.
 
Whilst I do consider myself to be in touch with my emotions I didn't quite expect the enormity of how much it would affect me. I knew certain points from the trailer of the family dynamic, but my partner has been trying to console me for the past few hours after seeing it. The family so perfectly reflected my childhood and the family I grew up in (eventhough it was the late seventies-eighties in the UK but location has little to do with it). Although my step father was more violent at times, it wasn't just the father relationship it was more the relationship between the brothers. I was the second oldest blonde kid and my darker haired older brother was the eldest. Man did he hit it so perfectly. It was like looking at my past playing out before me. I managed not to cry too much in the film but I sure did on the way home. Not a regular occurrence.

I loved the attention to feeling and touch, the camera movements and the shots. It has been a VERY long time since I have seen a director actually use the juxtaposition between camera movement and subject to relay feeling and intention (or ambiguity of intention). There was nothing traditional about shot selection and movement. It was so fluid but intentional.

The cinematography and the cosmic shot, nature et al, were superb.

Masterfully crafted piece of storytelling. The film just deeply affected me in a lot of ways (I mean that in a very positive way too).

I too noted a Tarkovsky aura to it, but reminded me more of Mirror with a little Stalker.
 
Overall, really enjoyed it. Everything was stunningly beautiful, and the childhood scenes were an incredibly accurate depiction of childhood.

That said, I thought the begininning and end were weak, particularly the parts with Sean Penn. I didn't think those scenes really contributed to the story at all.

The only bones I had to pick technically were that the CG dinosaurs were less-than-convincing (what was the point of them, anyways?), and the constant lens flares eventually started to irritate me. I mean, did EVERY shot need a lens flare?
 
Did anyone else notice the "Koyaanisqatsi" influence on many of those Penn scenes in the cities?
 
Tom Lowe said:
Did anyone else notice the "Koyaanisqatsi" influence on many of those Penn scenes in the cities?
Click to expand...
Could u elaborate?

Though didn't care for either the beginning (too didactic) or ending (too contrived) one of the few films I've seen that I eagerly look forward to seeing a 2nd time.
 
James B. said:
Could u elaborate?
Click to expand...

Not sure what Tom meant, but yes, I saw some parallels. To me it means a blurring of conceptual borders between living characters, props, and background/background elements. In particular, it means the city backgrounds represent a significant force, but with a different essence than pure Nature or Grace. Just my general thoughts.
 
Well during the Penn sequences, there were dozens of shots looking up at buildings, wandering through canyons of steel and glass, etc, that very much reminded me of "Koy". I am curious to ask Malick about what influence Godfrey may or may not have had on him.
 
So "Tree of Life" is 100x better on the second viewing. Every shot, a masterpiece. For me, the greatest film ever made, without question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top