Film The Tree Of Life

[freddy47]

I liked the film although I disagree with your assertion that it is better than 2001: A Space Odyssey I think it is a weird comparison to say the least.

Plenty of people will hate this movie for being a piece of art house trash. Others will call it a masterpiece. But one thing you cannot deny is that it is a beautiful, bold vision and the great thing about art is that we can all be right.

So totally agree. This will polarize most people as it is doing here. My favorite Terrence Malick is The Thin Red line so personally I don't think this is best work.

Apparently nobody told Terrence Malick that the 1970s ended. He even got Douglas Trumball out of retirement to create the jaw dropping special effects sequence that sets the tone for the film. Questionably rendered dinosaurs aside, that silent visual poem depicting the birth of the universe was one of the most profound cinematic experiences I have ever been a part of. It was powerful and moving and brilliantly made without using hardly any CGI. This movie is an absolute throwback to the artistic golden age of Hollywood, when movie theaters were awash with the visionary genius of directors like Nicolas Roeg, Stanley Kubrick and the man himself, Terrence Malick, who plopped out a pair of masterpieces and then vanished for two decades before coming back with stupendously bad timing and making a World War 2 epic that had to compete with the far more accessible and crowd-pleasing Saving Private Ryan.

The Thin Red Line never got the attention it deserved IMO. Saving Private Ryan is yes far more accessible, crowd-pleasing, as well as gut wrenching and adrenaline driven. While the The Thin Red Line was a thinker, a film that ponders the very nature of war and how it is essentially an offense to nature to even wage it. IMO Saving Private Ryan is about the men who fight the war. The Thin Red Line is about what is behind those men, their motives, their thoughts, as well as the world that is torn down around them.

More on topic however Terrence Malick is a true artist. Everyone of his films has the feel of a masterpiece.

 

[L2R]

^nice review. welcome to bluelight, i hope to see more from you in f&tv.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I liked the film although I disagree with your assertion that it is better than 2001: A Space Odyssey I think it is a weird comparison to say the least.

There are strong thematic similarities, both narratives take place over extraordinary lengths of time, the cinematography at times is almost identical (in terms of composition), they are both stunningly beautiful, both use juxtaposition brilliantly, are both described as "art-house," & they both have a reduced pace, which requires a relative amount of patience to endure. Again, the pieces are all there.

"The Tree of Life," is like "The Fountain," meets "2001: A Space Odyssey," except instead of being science fiction/fantasy it is drama.

welcome to bluelight, i hope to see more from you in f&tv.

Thanks.

 

[freddy47]

There are strong thematic similarities, both narratives take place over extraordinary lengths of time, the cinematography at times is almost identical (in terms of composition), they are both stunningly beautiful, both use juxtaposition brilliantly, are both described as "art-house," & they both have a reduced pace, which requires a relative amount of patience to endure. Again, the pieces are all there.

Yeah good point but I think where they differ significantly is in genre. 2001 is hard science fiction that overlaps with "art-house". All your comparisons are valid I'm just saying in terms of genre they differ. Also IMO 2001 is far more "watchable" and absorbing. Then again I think that might just be personal prejudice as my first experience with 2001 is by far my best movie-going experience I have ever had. Thanks to a handful of mushrooms and me peaking at just the right time.

"The Tree of Life," is like "The Fountain," meets "2001: A Space Odyssey," except instead of being science fiction/fantasy it is drama.

That is an interesting way of putting it. Although I personally like The Fountain and 2001 better I can see where you are coming from.

 

[freddy47]

Also I'm reading your trip report right now.

I had a somewhat similar experience (with the film 2001) but it seems we reached different conclusions about God and all that. Maybe our choice in movies or mindset had something to do with that?

 

[ForEverAfter]

The Tree of Life > The Fountain > 2001 (IMO)

Malick has a tendency to use the landscape as a character. A lot of films neglect setting. Both "The Thin Red Line" & "The Tree of Life" feature quite a substantial amount of screen time devoted to hills/ trees/ flowers/ wildlife. The former uses the landscape to illustrate the absurdity of war and the later uses it to contextualize the struggle of one family against the bigger picture. Similarly, in "2001: A Space Odyssey" the landscape is a major character. It is used to contextualize the insignificance of man against the sheer magnitude of the universe. In my opinion, the ratio of landscape/ story is a bit much at times. Malick achieves a "better" balance; setting does not take priority over story. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is not one of Kubrick's best films, as far as I'm concerned. It is too aesthetic.

 

[freddy47]

Malick has a tendency to use the landscape as a character. A lot of films neglect setting. Both "The Thin Red Line" & "The Tree of Life" feature quite a substantial amount of screen time devoted to hills/ trees/ flowers/ wildlife.

Very true. I think this is most evident in The Thin Red Line. That one shot where a tiny bird is shown struggling to get up as it dies from shrapnel was heartbreaking. And clearly illustrates that war itself (or at least industrial war) is an affront to nature. No film IMO has ever been able to show that more clearly than The Thin Red Line and it does so with one single shot.

In my opinion, the ratio of landscape/ story is a bit much at times. Malick achieves a "better" balance; setting does not take priority over story. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is not one of Kubrick's best films, as far as I'm concerned. It is too aesthetic.

Well here is where I disagree. In 2001: A Space Odyssey/I] the setting IS the story essentially. IMO the solar system is a giant Petri dish to the entities that left behind the obelisks. And the story is how these foreign entities manipulate the setting. Playing God is hard to show on film without being overly aesthetic.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Playing God generally refers to man's attempts at creation, to some degree. I'll assume you meant "God is hard to illustrate without being overly aesthetic," in which case I disagree. Constellations have similar aesthetic values to molecular structures for example. A film-maker could, with the use of current technology, and probably will at some point, make the sub-atomic equivelant of "2001: A Space Odyssey." In other words, magnitude does not bring you closer to God. God is in everything. Whether the context is the surface of a planet (in which there are living creatures) or a small part of the galaxy (which is, again, just a small part of the universe and beyond) doesn't matter. For example, Cormac McCarthy's "Sunset Limited" explores faith/the question of God with a minimalistic visual aesthetic; the film is set entirely in a shabby apartment... and the Bible, obviously, has no visual aesthetic.

In 2001: A Space Odyssey the setting IS the story essentially.

No, the main character is the human race. The setting is not the story; the story is man in the context of that setting. The idea of the landscape being a character is used effectively, I'm not saying it isn't. Kubrick was a pioneer. But, the balance is a little off. Often there is little to feel, when watching "2001: A Space Odyssey," other than awe.

edit: I misread what you said, regarding petri dishes and playing God. Sorry. My bad. But I'm still not sure why a film about aliens sparking evolution in another species needs to involve long beautiful shots of empty space; a significant portion of the film does not lend itself to any theme, let alone playing God. Kubrick deliberately moved the film away from the novel it was adapted from. He altered the original script to remove the aliens, which were very much a part of the first draft. I think, from what I remember reading, that the point of this was to focus on the thematic significance of the work rather than the literal. The film is not so much about these creatures that you mention; the circumstances as to how evolution is sparked is left open-ended. It is better without the explanation/setup.

 

[freddy47]

Playing God generally refers to man's attempts at creation, to some degree. I'll assume you meant God is hard to illustrate without being overly aesthetic, in which case I disagree. Constellations have similar aesthetic values to molecular structures for example. A film-maker could, with the use of current technology, and probably will at some point, make the sub-atomic equivelant of "2001: A Space Odyssey." Magnitude does not bring you closer to God. God is in everything. Whether the context is the planet earth (in which there are living creatures) or a small part of the galaxy (which is, again, just a small part of the universe... and beyond) doesn't matter. Cormac McCarthy's "Sunset Limited" explores faith/the question of God with a minimalistic visual aesthetic; the Bible has none.

I meant the alien entities in 2001: A Space Odyssey have essentially taken on the role of God in which case they are pretty much playing God. Or at least playing that role. I think in order to tell the story from a God like perspective aesthetics is really important. But that is just my opinion. If God is in everything as you say then IMO showing more of his creation just makes you appreciate said creation all the more. For example physicists always talk about physics and the universe with an almost awe like appreciation. How can they not when talking about the vastness of space and the beauties of a nebula or a supernova? One only need look up to the night sky to appreciate the beauty of existence.

Ultimately though I don't believe in God so really I don't really care either way. I got too much of the Bible shoved down my throat when I was growing up to ever buy into any of that religious stuff ever again.

No the main character is the human race. The setting is not the story; the story is man in the context of that setting. The idea of the landscape being a character is used effectively, Kubrick was a pioneer; the balance is just a little off.

The story is about the evolution of the human race. The Human race is a character true but in the context of evolution the setting plays a bigger role than the human race.

Frederick Montgomery Fishmonger

Hardy har har. I thought we were passed this but lol any way.

 

[freddy47]

I misread what you said, regarding petri dishes and playing God. Sorry. My bad. But I'm still not sure why a film about aliens sparking evolution in another species needs to involve long beautiful shots of empty space;

Perhaps to show that in all that vastness of space and seemingly nothingness there is an entity with God like powers watching over us? The movie is open to many interpretations which is one reason why I love it so much.

Kubrick deliberately moved the film away from the novel it was adapted from. He altered the original script to remove the aliens, which were very much a part of the first draft.

Actually the film and novel were developed concurrently and the novel was published after the film was released. Kubrick initially based it on the short story by Arthur C. Clarke titled The Sentinel and then Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick worked on the screenplay together as well as on the book.

The film is not so much about these creatures that you mention; the circumstances as to how evolution is sparked is left open-ended. If I remember correctly, this was intentional. It is better without the explanation/setup.

That is why people can draw so very different conclusions from the same film.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Yeah sorry I misunderstood you. Read my edit above. Anyway...

If God is in everything as you say then IMO showing more of his creation just makes you appreciate said creation all the more.

He doesn't show more than in "The Tree of Life." He shows less. There are no animals, no vegetation. Just shitloads of space and a couple of little people. Bigger is not more. He seems to be using the vastness of space as a contrast for man, hence the preoccupation with magnitude. And it works, but as I said only as an awe-inspiring device.

For example physicists always talk about physics and the universe with an almost awe like appreciation. How can they not when talking about the vastness of space and the beauties of a nebula or a supernova?

I wasn't implying the universe isn't awe-inspiring. My point is that you have to do something with it to make it fiction. Long static shots of planets are awe inspiring, they are beautiful, but they aren't that interesting or thought-provoking or dramatic. They simply are. Just as a rock simply is, or a leaf. Space is so inherently magnificent that you can get away with just displaying it in all it's beauty. We are distant from it. It is exotic. To acheive the same thing with a flower, on the other hand, that is difficult.

One only need look up to the night sky to appreciate the beauty of existence.

Or indeed down, at a snail.

The story is about the evolution of the human race. The Human race is a character true but in the context of evolution the setting plays a bigger role than the human race.

If it is about the evolution of humans (again: no animals; no plant-life), then why is the setting more important? You're contradicting yourself. Explain why the setting plays a bigger role rather than just stating it again. There must be a reason.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Actually the film and novel were developed concurrently and the novel was published after the film was released. Kubrick initially based it on the short story by Arthur C. Clarke titled The Sentinel and then Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick worked on the screenplay together as well as on the book.

The novel was published after the film's released, and written before/during. The screenplay is an adaptation of the novel. Arthur C. Clarke was the head screenwriter for the original draft. It contained an opening narration, among other unnecessary bits and pieces, that explained the significance of the monolith and the creatures that put it there. Kubrick cut most of Clarke's contributions to the screenplay and distanced himself from the author's vision.

The book is horrible, as is the sequel.

Perhaps to show that in all that vastness of space and seemingly nothingness there is an entity with God like powers watching over us?

The cliched implication that God is a large physical thing/ up in the heavens annoys me.

That is why people can draw so very different conclusions from the same film.

Our opinions don't differ all that much. I just think the film is over-rated, that's all. It is visually stunning, but lacking in other departments. It is eye candy, essentially. The source material was shit. Arthur C. Clarke is not a good novelist. Kubrick applied his gorgeous visual style. He was the first person to shoot a pretty film in space. Hence, the acclaim.

How about we just agree to disagree?

 

[freddy47]

I did its all right. Read my response to your edit if you're interested.

He doesn't show more than in "The Tree of Life." He shows less. There are no animals, no vegetation. Just shitloads of space and a couple of little people. Bigger is not more.

Sorry I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that Tree Of Life doesn't show all that or 2001? Because if you're saying 2001 is lacking in all those things one of opening scenes is a cheetah pouncing on one of the apes. Also the apes hunt those hogs with bones and so on and so on.

I wasn't implying the universe isn't awe-inspiring. My point is that you have to do something with it to make it fiction. Long static shots of planets are awe inspiring, they are beautiful, but they aren't that interesting or thought-provoking or dramatic.

I know you didn't imply that. I wasn't implying that you were implying... lol never mind. I am simply saying a shot does not have to be dramatic to be thought provoking. Staring at the moon for me is plenty thought provoking for me. I don't need to think about the men that landed on the moon so many years ago and think about their dramatic experience and Neil Armstrongs first words on the moon to make me think about the nature of my existence.

Or indeed down, at a snail.

Indeed. But what is more interesting? A prolonged shot of a snail crawling or a prolonged shot of the sun rising? In terms of cinematic experience I'd pick the sun any day.

If it is about the evolution of humans (again: no animals; no plant-life), then why is the setting more important? You're contradicting yourself. Explain why the setting plays a bigger role rather than just stating it again. There must be a reason.

Because the setting is what pushes a species to evolve. Without that watering hole the apes fought over that first ape would have never picked up that bone and started smashing skulls in the first place. Without the need to expand beyond the finite resources of our own planet we would have never decided to build space ships to travel to other planets and the moon. And therefore within the context of the film would have never found the second obelisk.

 

[freddy47]

It contained an opening narration, among other unnecessary bits and pieces, that explained the significance of the monolith and the creatures that put it there. Kubrick cut most of Clarke's contributions to the screenplay and distanced himself from the author's vision.

The point I was trying to make with that was that Clarke and Kubrick worked on it together. Books don't always transfer well into film if done so scene by scene and Kubrick understood that.

The book is horrible, as is the sequel.

I appreciate the books for what they are. Also I am a big Arthur C. Clarke fan so I am a little biased when it comes to his books. I liked reading 3001: The Final Odyssey just because I dig his writing not because it is remotely tied to the film.

 

[freddy47]

The cliched implication that God is a large physical thing/ up in the heavens annoys me.

Well being that the film implies that there is an alien race out there with God like powers I think this is understandable. But again I don't really believe in God. I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic that leans heavily towards atheism. But still I think the idea of aliens with God like powers is more plausible than say, some supernatural being that controls the universe and yet is somehow deeply concerned about my sex life.

Our opinions don't differ all that much. I just think the film is over-rated, that's all. It is visually stunning, but lacking in other departments. It is eye candy, essentially. The source material was shit. Arthur C. Clarke is not a good novelist. Kubrick applied his gorgeous visual style. He was the first person to shoot a pretty film in space. Hence, the acclaim.

How about we just agree to disagree?

Yeah sure on everything except that Arthur C. Clarke bit. I'm a huge fan of his so you have crossed a line. He has written some poor books and admittedly he is a little dry. But I think he is a good story teller as well as great with giving you a sense of wonder in his books. Rendezvous With Rama is my favorite book by him and from the minute I picked it up I couldn't put it down.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Sorry I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that Tree Of Life doesn't show all that or 2001? Because if you're saying 2001 is lacking in all those things one of opening scenes is a cheetah pouncing on one of the apes. Also the apes hunt those hogs with bones and so on and so on.

Admittedly, I forgot about the other animals you see during that first act. Still there is more direct focus on God's creations in "Tree of Life". Those opening scenes in "2001," with the people in ape suits, they do nothing for me. They look cheap and tacky. The only good thing about the first act, is the first act turn - that famous transition from bone to space station. In fact, that is - by a long stretch - the greatest accomplishment of the film.

Staring at the moon for me is plenty thought provoking for me. I don't need to think about the men that landed on the moon so many years ago and think about their dramatic experience and Neil Armstrongs first words on the moon to make me think about the nature of my existence.

Yes but it's not a documentary. It's fiction. Staring at a woman's naked ass gives me a hard on, but that doesn't mean that pornography should be included in the Academy Awards. The fact that something has a phyisological effect on you, outside of the context of a narrative, doesn't mean that you - as a film-maker - can just insert that thing into a story, and provoke a response from your audience. Well, you can. But it's not a great cinematic accomplishment.

Indeed. But what is more interesting? A prolonged shot of a snail crawling or a prolonged shot of the sun rising? In terms of cinematic experience I'd pick the sun any day.

The conversation at large is: which is more representative of God? not which is more interesting. The answer is: neither or if I have to chose one, probably the snail. The snail is more complex. The sun is just larger. Just like the characters in "Tree of Life" are more complex than the inanimate models of planets used in "2001." Invertebrate creatures vs. huge flaming balls of gas... You should watch microcosmos. Snails are pretty fucking amazing.

Because the setting is what pushes a species to evolve. Without that watering hole the apes fought over that first ape would have never picked up that bone and started smashing skulls in the first place. Without the need to expand beyond the finite resources of our own planet we would have never decided to build space ships to travel to other planets and the moon. And therefore within the context of the film would have never found the second obelisk.

Is it the obelisk or the setting that sparks evolution? You're contradicting yourself and referring to the book (not the movie) again.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Well being that the film implies that there is an alien race out there with God like powers I think this is understandable.

The film doesn't imply that. The book does. Stop mixing them up.

Yeah sure on everything except that Arthur C. Clarke bit. I'm a huge fan of his so you have crossed a line. He has written some poor books and admittedly he is a little dry. But I think he is a good story teller as well as great with giving you a sense of wonder in his books. Rendezvous With Rama is my favorite book by him and from the minute I picked it up I couldn't put it down.

Like too many science fiction "greats," he has interesting ideas but lacks the ability to put them to paper.

 

[freddy47]

I thought we were agreeing to disagree? Oh well at least this time around the conversation is civil and polite.

Admittedly, I forgot about the other animals you see during that first act. Still there is more direct focus on God's creations in "Tree of Life". Those opening scenes in "2001," with the people in ape suits, they do nothing for me. They look cheap and tacky. The only good thing about the first act, is the first act turn - that famous transition from bone to space station. In fact, that is - by a long stretch - the greatest accomplishment of the film.

Meh. At least it wasn't Planet of the Apes cheap and tacky. Considering the time it was made I thought it was very well done. It could have been far worse. Think Clay animation dude

Yes but it's not a documentary. It's fiction. Staring at a woman's naked ass gives me a hard on, but that doesn't mean that pornography should be included in the Academy Awards. The fact that something has a phyisological effect on you, outside of the context of a narrative, doesn't mean that you - as a film-maker - can just insert that thing into a story, and provoke a response from your audience. Well, you can. But it's not a great cinematic accomplishment.

Agree to disagree here as this is purely a matter of taste. I think pornography should definitely have a place in the Oscars. Lol I joke you laugh hahaha.

The conversation at large is: which is more representative of God? not which is more interesting. The answer is: neither or if I have to chose one, probably the snail. The snail is more complex. The sun is just larger. Just like the characters in "Tree of Life" are more complex than the inanimate models of planets used in "2001." Invertebrate creatures vs. huge flaming balls of gas... You should watch microcosmos. Snails are pretty fucking amazing.

Like I said I don't believe in God. But if I were to choose which is grander and therefore more awe inspiring I choose the vast emptiness of space over a snail. Not that snails aren't amazing I just find astronomical distances and physics to be far more interesting.

Is it the obelisk or the setting that sparks evolution? You're contradicting yourself and referring to the book (not the movie) again.

I don't think I am contradicting myself for in the book as well as in the movie the Obelisk is simply a tool that unlocks the potential of the mind. Just because it isn't outright explained in the movie doesn't make this any less obvious to me. The Obelisk unlocks this dormant intelligence in the ape mind. The setting/environment pushes and challenges that awoken intelligence and therefore sparks the forward evolution and development of the human race from ape to space explorer to the star child.

 

[freddy47]

The film doesn't imply that. The book does. Stop mixing them up.

Again just because the film doesn't explain the appearance of the obelisk does not mean it is not obvious that it is an alien construct. Even Kubrick has said as much.

That is why Kubrick consulted with Carl Sagan on how to depict alien life.

Like too many science fiction "greats," he has interesting ideas but lacks the ability to put them to paper.

Matter of opinion really.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Considering the time it was made I thought it was very well done. It could have been far worse.

Yeah it could've been much worse. Either way it doesn't do anything for me. Nor does the final act of the film with the Starchild and shit. The only part that is really well made IMO is the man vs. machine segment.

But if I to choose which is more grander and therefore more awe inspiring I choose the vast emptiness of space over a snail. Not that snails aren't amazing I just find astronomical distances and physics to be far more interesting.

You said a sunrise or a snail. Sunrises receive too much attention, and snails all too little. Space is exotic and unexplored, sunrises have been referenced in about three billion poems and gazed at by ten billion people. We stand on snails... I think I might be getting slightly off track here.

I don't think I am contradicting myself for in the book as well as in the movie the Obelisk is simply a tool that unlocks the potential of the mind. Just because it isn't outright explained in the movie doesn't make this any less obvious to me. The Obelisk unlocks this dormant intelligence in the ape mind. The setting/environment pushes and challenges that awoken intelligence and therefore sparks the forward evolution and development of the human race from ape to space explorer to the star child.

The fact that a bunch of apes are standing by a water hole doesn't really mean shit to me. There is no indication of "Earth's finite resources". The scene is before man evolves and depletes them, a period of time which is skipped over entirely in the narrative. It's just (aside from the transition to the second act) SUCH an over-rated bit of cinema. Apes first discovering tools is a commonly accepted theory. The idea that evolution began when one ape hit another with a blunt instrument. Taking that already established theory and putting it on screen isn't very interesting. People can over-analyze it and look at the shallow level of water in the background and apply all sorts of meanings. To me, it's just that annoying beginning bit before the eye candy. It doesn't appear to have required much thought.