Film The Tree Of Life

[freddy47]

You said, twice, that your interpretation was factual and that it was obviously correct.

As my final word on this subject as well as a big YOU"RE WRONG to you ForEverAfter.

Why does 2001 seem so affirmative and religious a film? What has happened to the tough, disillusioned, cynical director of The Killing, Spartacus, Paths of Glory, and Lolita, and the sardonic black humorist of Dr. Strangelove?

The God concept is at the heart of this film. It's unavoidable that it would be, once you believe that the universe is seething with advanced forms of intelligent life. Just think about it for a moment. There are a hundred billion stars in the galaxy and a hundred billion galaxies in the visible universe. Each star is a sun, like our own, probably with planets around them. The evolution of life, it is widely believed, comes as an inevitable consequence of a certain amount of time on a planet in a stable orbit which is not too hot or too cold. First comes chemical evolution -- chance rearrangements of basic matter, then biological evolution.

Think of the kind of life that may have evolved on those planets over the millennia, and think, too, what relatively giant technological strides man has made on earth in the six thousand years of his recorded civilization -- a period that is less than a single grain of sand in the cosmic hourglass. At a time when man's distant evolutionary ancestors were just crawling out of the primordial ooze, there must have been civilizations in the universe sending out their starships to explore the farthest reaches of the cosmos and conquering all the secrets of nature. Such cosmic intelligences, growing in knowledge over the aeons, would be as far removed from man as we are from the ants. They could be in instantaneous telepathic communication throughout the universe; they might have achieved total mastery over matter so that they can telekinetically transport themselves instantly across billions of light years of space; in their ultimate form they might shed the corporeal shell entirely and exist as a disembodied immortal consciousness throughout the universe.

Once you begin discussing such possibilities, you realize that the religious implications are inevitable, because all the essential attributes of such extraterrestrial intelligences are the attributes we give to God. What we're really dealing with here is, in fact, a scientific definition of God. And if these beings of pure intelligence ever did intervene in the affairs of man, so far removed would their powers be from our own understanding. How would a sentient ant view the foot that crushes his anthill -- as the action of another being on a higher evolutionary scale than itself? Or as the divinely terrible intercession of God?

Although 2001 dealt with the first human contact with an alien civilization, we never did actually see an alien, though you communicated through the monoliths an experience of alien beings.

From the very outset of work on the film we all discussed means of photographically depicting an extraterrestrial creature in a manner that would be as mind-boggling as the being itself. And it soon became apparent that you cannot imagine the unimaginable. All you can do is try to represent it in an artistic manner that will convey something of its quality. That's why we settled on the black monolith -- which is, of course, in itself something of a Jungian archetype, and also a pretty fair example of "minimal art."

Isn't a basic problem with science fiction films that alien life always looks like some Creature from the Black Lagoon, a plastic rubber monster?

Yes, and that's one of the reasons we stayed away from the depiction of biological entities, aside from the fact that truly advanced beings would probably have shed the chrysalis of a biological form at one stage of their evolution. You cannot design a biological entity that doesn't look either overly humanoid or like the traditional Bug-Eyed Monster of pulp science fiction.

Interview with the man himself talking about how the monoliths are of alien origin. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html

 

[ForEverAfter]

Tone is something often misinterpreted on internet forums. Kind of like the significance of obelisks in films.

Yeah that wasn't condescending at all.

Um. It was a JOKE. Hence the smiley face.

Again as I recall I apologized to you personally for that. Seems someone here has problems letting things go.

You apologized because you insulted me then you insulted me some more. Kind of makes the apology meaningless. And, by the way, you were the one to "dig up old grievances" by complaining - yet again - about the word fascist. However, I'm not going to call you a hypocrite just because you happen to contradict yourself occasionally.

Why the fuck can't we just find some common ground here?

Because you make no effort, I guess. Like how you just called me a dick, on top of everything else. If you really want to "find some common ground," then stop insulting me in every second post. There honestly was no tone. I was just trying to have a discussion with you about a film, and you made it personal. I'm not having a go at you. Seriously. Calm down.

But may I suggest that you remember that I ultimately agreed with you that the film this thread is about is a great film?

Whether or not we agree is not the issue. I'm happy to disagree.

Although it doesn't really bother me, I do not appreciate being repeatedly insulted for no reason.

 

[ForEverAfter]

As my final word on this subject as well as big YOU"RE WRONG/middle finger to you ForEverAfter.

Art is open to interpretation, despite the intentions of the artist.

As I said in the Contagion thread, there is no "right" and "wrong" in the context of a discussion such as this one.

No offense intended, but you need to grow up a bit.

You have said that peoples opinions are outright wrong.

No, I haven't. If you're refering to alasdairm, I was quoting Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs)

 

[freddy47]

Um. It was a JOKE. Hence the smiley face.

It wasn't funny

You apologized because you insulted me then you insulted me some more. Kind of makes the apology meaningless. And, by the way, you were the one to "dig up old grievances" by complaining - yet again - about the word fascist. However, I'm not going to call you a hypocrite just because you happen to contradict yourself occasionally.

Ok buddy. As I recall simply by scrolling up it appears you brought up the contagion thread not me.

Because you make no effort, I guess. Like how you just called me a dick, on top of everything else. If you really want to "find some common ground," then stop insulting me in every second post. There honestly was no tone. I was just trying to have a discussion with you about a film, and you made it personal. I'm not having a go at you. Seriously. Calm down.

??? Again just by scrolling up it appears you have been a dick.

Whether or not we agree is not the issue. I'm happy to disagree.

Although it doesn't really bother me, I do not appreciate being repeatedly insulted for no reason.

Nor do I. Whether you realize it or not you have been insulting.

Art is open to interpretation, despite the intentions of the artist.

As I said in the Contagion thread, there is no "right" and "wrong" in the context of a discussion such as this one.

No offense intended, but you need to grow up a bit.

This is the internet. I can be as immature as I damn well please. Its one of the perks of being anonymous. Its not representative of how I act in reality.

Also nice way of backing out of that. Nice tactical retreat there after being faced with such obvious evidence that indeed Kubrick was trying to reference aliens with the monolith.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Ok buddy. As I recall simply by scrolling up it appears you brought up the contagion thread not me.

In Contagion you told someone that they clearly don't know anything about film because they disagreed with you.

If you're refering to this^ it is not a past grievance. I've never mentioned it before.

Again just by scrolling up it appears you have been a dick.

You play the victim. You say "why me? Can't we all just get along?" yet you continue to antagonize and insult.

Nor do I. Whether you realize it or not you have been insulting.

Yet you can't point to anything insulting that I've said in this entire thread? Why is that?

This is the internet. I can be as immature as I damn well please. Its one of the perks of being anonymous.

Yeah sure you have the right to do whatever you want. Just don't act like it's somebody else's fault.

Its not representative of how I act in reality.

Because why, without the anonymity somebody might punch you?

Also nice way of backing out of that. Nice tactical retreat there after being faced with such obvious evidence that indeed Kubrick was trying to reference aliens with the monolith.

[sarcasm]Okay. You're absolutely right. Art is not open to interpretation, even though the director himself said that this particular film is open to interpretation. You are the victor. My interpretation is incorrect and yours is correct.[/sarcasm]

In Contagion, you point at critics to prove you are correct. You refer to Academy Awards to prove the validity of your opinion and the absurdity of others. You flat out tell people that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. And now you cut and paste a big chunk of text to once again prove that you're right and that I am wrong.

As I said there is no proof. There is no right and wrong.

I understand that Kubrick intended it to be an alien artifact, but there is no direct evidence of aliens in the film and all art is open to subjective interpretation. My interpretation is not wrong. It cannot be. It is an opinion. We are not arguing facts. If you cannot wrap your head around that, then don't discuss films with people. Or, if you do discuss films with people, try not to tell them they're wrong and repeatedly insult them.

It's not very flattering to your character.

 

[freddy47]

Yet you can't point to anything insulting that I've said in this entire thread? Why is that?

Because I find it tedious and a waste of time. Although I hardly consider consistently calling me Jimmy even though that isn't my name (which you then apologized for and then went straight back to calling me that again) and your tone as anything but condescending. Be that as it may I insult those who insult me. Don't insult me and you won't get insulted back. Also:

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.

And

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

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

This implies that I am not intelligent enough to tell the difference between the book and the movie. It wasn't outright insulting although it is condescending. Also it is IMO highly confrontational.

You play the victim. You say "why me? Can't we all just get along?" yet you continue to antagonize and insult.

I started this discussion very amiably and IMO I was being absolutely civil until you started becoming condescending. But of course you're just gonna deny that.

Because why, without the anonymity somebody might punch you?

Lol no because people in reality aren't as confrontational and dickish as you are. And I am a really passive person in real life. Sure I've been in fights but I tend to avoid them. But if indeed someone punched me in real life I would punch them right back.

Okay. You're absolutely right. Art is not open to interpretation, even though the director himself said that this particular film is open to interpretation. You are the victor. My interpretation is incorrect and yours is correct.[/sarcasm]

In Contagion, you point at critics to prove you are correct. You refer to Academy Awards to prove the validity of your opinion and the absurdity of others. You flat out tell people that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. And now you cut and paste a big chunk of text to once again prove that you're right and that I am wrong.

As I said there is no proof. There is no right and wrong.

I understand that Kubrick intended it to be an alien artifact, but there is no direct evidence of aliens in the film and all art is open to subjective interpretation. My interpretation is not wrong. It cannot be. It is an opinion. We are not arguing facts. If you cannot wrap your head around that, then don't discuss films with people. Or, if you do discuss films with people, try not to tell them they're wrong and repeatedly insult them.

It's not very flattering to your character.

Interpretation of art only goes so far. If an artist paints a picture of a man and someone decides to interpret that painting as actually a painting of an animal, say an ape of some sort I would dare say that that persons interpretation of said painting is wrong. The one doing the interpreting can argue circles around others who say he is wrong but that doesn't change the fact that the subject in said painting is in fact a man. Maybe the man in the subject even looks like an ape. But does that change the fact that said subject is in fact a man? No.

Take that logic to 2001. The director is openly saying that the obelisk is in fact an alien construct. The film very openly implies it but for some reason you don't see it. Sure there are religious implications. But that doesn't change the fact that the whole alien idea is in fact what was being portrayed. The intentions of the artist is everything here. In this case Kubrick was trying to portray an alien species that was so advanced in evolution that they seemed God-like to us primitive humans which is kind of ironic being that your interpretation is that the obelisk is some sort of religious talisman. Which is what primitive humans would interpret the Monolith as in the first place. Not that I'm saying you're primitive or anything. Just something to consider.

In the end I don't think the film is that ambiguous about the nature of the monolith. If Kubrick was saying that the Monoliths were some sort of artifact left by God it would have implied as much.

If I didn't think you knew anything about film, I wouldn't be having these discussions with you. You are more than a worthy adversary, though sometimes you compromise the integrity of your argument by getting upset.

I don't think I ever said that you specifically didn't know anything about film for the record. I too think you are a worthy adversary. Just that I think your are overly confrontational and condescending. Which is disappointing for I think you make some excellent points over all and if we weren't so at odds with each other we could have some awesomely good discussions. Instead it degenerates into this bickering over tedious bullshit.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I never insulted you. Everything you quoted supports that.

I'm done. In future I won't bother trying to discuss anything with you.

Good day, sir.

 

[Max Power]

I have a strange sense of deja vu.

How about you, Jimmy?

 

[freddy47]

^Glitch in the matrix?

I never insulted you. Everything you quoted supports that.

I'm done. In future I won't bother trying to discuss anything with you.

Good day, sir.

Of course not. Because a dick never admits to being a dick. That is in part what makes a dick so dickish.

That's good though. I'm looking forward to the peace and quiet.

Peace out.

 

[L2R]

thank fuck, a director's cut is coming.
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/26978/-tree-of-life-goes-longer-voyage-in-2014

 

[MrGrunge]

^ Das good. I always thought that movie could use an extra 20-30 minutes to help clear up a few questions I had about the plot and characters.