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

[anselmo_b]

I only disagree in one thing with you. I do think this is Malick's masterpiece, in the terms of his own work. I believe he has finally perfected his technique for reproducing subjectivity and narrating from the inside of his characters. In this film the viewer gets as deeply immersed in the spirit / soul (choose the term best fitting your metaphysics) of Jack O'Brien as can possibly be achieved cinematographically.

[ron_drummond]

Thanks; well said. And, really, for what it's worth, I know perfectly well that Jessica Chastain is not the mother goddess of the world.

[ron_drummond]

I revised one sentence of my post in light of your comment; and say something nice about you in my comment to fringefaan, below.

[anselmo_b]

Yes, thanks I read your comment. Also followed fringefaan's reference to Kehr's blog. It's really interesting to see how much controversy the film is causing.

[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]

Some people are understandably put off by rumors of its unabashed mysticism. The rumors are wrong. The mystical and religious stuff is NOT the film's argument or PoV, only that of certain characters in it, and only passingly. Indeed, this is NOT a film that purports to provide answers, rather it is a film that asks questions, pretty relentlessly, and if it allows certain answers, it does so without providing any rhetorical certainty: any answers are provisional at best, in the very structure of the film. These qualities are all-but universally misunderstood by those panning the film. Knowing this going in can make all the difference.