The Tree of Life (2011)

[ron_drummond]

I saw Terrence Malick's new film, The Tree of Life, on Friday. Not saying it's perfect; not calling it a masterpiece; but it is one of the most amazing, and amazingly beautiful, films I have ever seen. I am eager to see it again. It is the greatest performance of Brad Pitt's career. Jessica Chastain beautifully embodies the mythic icon of the

Comments

[randy_byers]

It really is funny to see the extremely different reactions to this film from different friends and different critics. There was quite a raging argument on Dave Kehr's blog last week. (I haven't seen the movie yet.)

[ron_drummond]

Funny, I was just urging you to see it in an email message, sent seconds ago, while you were posting your comment here. But yes, I can well imagine people absolutely hating this film -- smart people, even. At the very least, when people are reacting at such extremes, across such a wide spectrum, and on so many different levels and aspects, you know something interesting is going on with it and in it. But I'm not at all sure you will be able to predict your own reactions before seeing it for yourself, because, if nothing else, it is a one-of-a-kind film, unlike anything I've ever seen before. A cinematic landmark in the truest sense. And I very much like anselmo_b's comment, above. Malick manages to capture and convey a sense of interiority more powerfully than any film I've ever seen. But oh boy is this film ever a sensawunda movie, in the best sense. It is pure unalloyed cinematic joy, even when the subject matter is dark -- there's a PoV beneath mere subjectivity, like it's the eye of God we're seeing through, and She's peering up

[ron_drummond]

I found this comment on Kehr's blog hits closest to the mark, at least from my perspective.

[randy_byers]

Yes, a very eloquent comment. The arguments over editing technique were some of the most interesting parts of the overall argument to my mind, partly because editing is still largely invisible to me. Sweeney's comment about there being no over-arching visual structure reminds me of other people arguing that this is a genuine stream-of-consciousness film, although there seemed to be disagreement about whose consciousness it was. (Not that stream-of-consciousness and over-arching structure necessarily preclude each other either.)

But I have to say that it's the mystical aspects of Malick's worldview that make me doubtful it would resonate for me. Still, you never know until you give it a try.

[ron_drummond]

Sweeney alludes to the fact that "the mystical aspects" are actually called into question in various ways throughout the film. The infamous ending sequence is not narratively positioned as being reality-prime; the belief that it is is the single biggest mistake the naysayers are making. The film is NOT arguing for these mystical views, it is simply portraying the characters' own beliefs and perceptions, which undergo many changes in the film's course. The vision of creation portrayed in the film is faithful (ha!) to our current scientific understanding of how the universe began and the earth formed and life evolved, and it's visually stunning; yet it's done in a kind of visual shorthand, since it's not possible to compress it all into a half hour. So I would suggest setting aside the idea that Malick's worldview is mystical; sure, folks of a mystical bent can construe it that way, but folks of a scientific bent can construe very differently, and with equal or even greater validity.

[anselmo_b]

> The film is NOT arguing for these mystical views, it is simply portraying the characters' own beliefs and perceptions
Exactly.
> The vision of creation portrayed in the film is faithful (ha!) to our current scientific understanding of how the universe
And to our pop-cultural imagery. The visual references to "2001" are not the film's but O'Brien's. The obvious statement "life goes on" implied by the ending of the cosmogonic sequence with the asteroid impact is not Malick being facile, it's O'Brien meditating on life by way of cosmic history in a way that most would do today. Really, I don't understand all the criticism about the lack of clarity. The narrative surface of the film is erratic, because that is how humans see and think, but there is a very clear structure underneath.

[ron_drummond]

Hear hear!