942 The Tree of Life

[JeanRZEJ]

I agree with you, but only in half, because:
1. Malick does attempt to be omniscient, at least in the scale of the film. If the film were just about the 50's family, I might completely agree with you. But he positions the camera as being there from the beginning of time through prehistoric life. He does try to relate/compare his individual existence to the infinite breadth of nature. My question is why aren't other human beings included in this breadth? Aren't other human beings part of nature too? I see the film as attempting a totalizing view of history (which is problematic in itself, and extremely outdated in our postmodern world), except that this 'totality' seems myopic, solipsistic, which brings me to the next point-

The camera need not exist within the world. It merely allows for the representation of things that are in the mind, either memory or imagination or thoughts, etc. Tracing the history of the universe can be done in a mind without a camera - it can be done within a film without the camera being 'diegetic'. That the camera represents it does not mean that the camera exists within that representation.

Your extra questions have nothing to do with the film, again. As for the possible film - what would more humans have to add that more of everything hasn't already added? If it's about one particular experience it's not about the entire universe - that much is established BY the inclusion of the universe - and thus it's not about those other people, inclusively. Thus, they are there, implicitly, and need not be there explicitly for the same point. The film certainly doesn't do much history. It does a bit of imagination, a bit of memory, a bit of ideas, certainly no history. Malick is not positing that a dinosaur actually behaved as the dinosaur in the film behaved at any point in time. To take something like that and infer 'a totalizing view of history' is pretty absurd, if you ask me. It's at best implicit, which means your assumptions are at best guesses (which, to me, is a poor way to evaluate art), and at worst absurd (I say both). If it is so ridiculous to you - why assume that it is the case? Or why pay attention? Searching for some construct (of your own creation) to take issue with will result in a lot of issues - and no gain, I don't think.

2. He has attempted before to relate individual experience to people of other cultures in his previous films (The New World/The Thin Red Line). Although you understand from the get-go that his portrayal of indigenous people is squarely within his limited point-of-view (contemporary white middle-class male perspective), there is an attempt to reach outside his limited perspective. I may not necessarily agree with that portrayal, but at least it was an attempt to relate himself to tangible issues. The problem I see in this film is this: again, he relates individual experience to something he cannot fully understand (Time/religion), but I am just uninterested in seeing a film so dedicated to something we truly cannot fully understand, as compared to something we can at least attempt to understand (other people) - through discourse. It's just like the opening quote of the film- Job can never understand God's intentions- the people demand answers from God, but God never answers. At least in other people, we can expect an answer, although we know fully well that these answers never tell the full truth.

Grief cannot be attempted to be understood? Well, anyway, if you want to cordon off all attempts at philosophy and art based on preconceptions that's fine and dandy, I don't see why you need to discuss here that which you say cannot interestingly be discussed.

why doesn't Malick show the future at all? (I don't see the ending as visions of the future) Again it seems to confirm for me that he views History as a totality culminating in Sean Penn's character. There is no future in this film or, at least, the future matters a lot less than the past (his past). At least in 2001: A Space Odyssey (another film that I dislike immensely, but for other reasons), Kubrick attempts a vision of the future (no matter how cheesy it may look)...

You should probably ask, "Why does Malick follow what he does follow" before skipping ahead to the irrelevant stuff not in the film. Once you're done with the previous, I think it's best to stop. The film is not what is not in the film.

[Kirkinson]

I still want to post more thoughts on this film, but I just wanted to get a quick note in now regarding "the future." Malick does portray it, though it goes by very quickly.

Spoiler

Just before the final sequence, there are images of the sun as a red giant, scorching the surface of the earth (which we see both from space and on the surface of the earth itself) and finally an image of the sun as a white dwarf with a dark, lifeless planet floating in front of it. You could call this my interpretation, but I found these images much more representational and much less impressionistic than the images most people seem to agree are portraying the big bang at the beginning.

[bdsweeney]

I thought the same.

[J Adams]

I am surprised at some of the plot questions here. Yes, on first viewing there are plot points that are unclear. But a second viewing reveals that the film is a carefully constructed narrative, and very littlle is not explained. The editing is extremely skillful. Many of the scenes have "echoes" elsewhere in the film. Yes, the future IS shown. There is zero doubt about that. And the ending (the worst part of the film) is clearly taking place at the end of (Earth) time. It may not be intended to be "real", but that is when it takes place.

[Guido]

On the Ending

Like others here, I struggled immensely with the ending. Of course, not being able to curb my curiosity, I had read accounts of the beach sequence long before seeing the film, many of which did little to hide their disappointment/confusion/revulsion/etc. As the Waco segment abruptly ended and I was thrust back into the Sean Penn bit (coupled with The End), I desperately tried to be moved, to no avail; there was something preventing me from fully investing myself, and thus, I found the whole thing underwhelming as a result.

Cut to my second screening. I was in a position where I could see the film under ideal circumstances (the first screening had been ruined by lackluster projection and the afternoon granny-crowd) and focus on the intricacies of Malick's editing. Of course, when I wasn't anticipating everything (cue 'Creation' sequence in 2 minutes, cue 'Childhood' in 10, cue 'Beach' in 4...), I found the film far more mysterious that I thought it had been the first time around, a fact which had contributed greatly to my overall disappointment. Let me cut to the chase: the 'Beach' sequence suddenly worked for me. Not in a transcendent, cathartic sense (as I think many are trying to experience it), but in a frustrating one where the older Jack faces the (potential) inability of reconciling himself with his family in the way he wants. The entire film can be read as Jack's gradual distanciation from those he loves (remember the "jam" session between Pitt and the middle son, where Jack watches jealously from a distance), and his subsequent effort to re-kindle certain relationships in the wake of devastation and loss. This will, of course, seem obvious to most. But where the film works differently for me is the ending, which, superficially, should function as the final threshold for the older Jack to cross, but which reveals itself to be an impasse (at least to me). Despite all of his spiritual queries, there is the possibility that the connection he seeks will never occur (the beach sequence again works strangely in this sense, presenting the re-united individuals in a place where they can't seem to communicate verbally, and where Sean Penn, despite the occasional moments he has with his immediate family, is presented as a peripheral character. In fact, he's absent for large portions of the proceedings.)

What reinforces this reading of mine is the way in which Malick bookends the 'Beach' sequence, in a subtle, yet incredibly powerful set of images that may just be amongst the most beautiful thing he's ever conveyed. Before propelling us to the beach, Malick gives us glimpses of Penn riding up an elevator of the high rise in which he works, only to give us the exact reverse when the Beach sequence ends: Penn coming back down the elevator, back down to earth. What a beautiful conceit this is to me - the idea that, in a moment of closure, when a human being desperately tries to create his/her own canvas of memory and reconciliation, he/she must face the limits of their imagination. One can only go so high...

Of course, these are only half-formed sketches of a larger idea. I'd love to hear the varying ways in which others have read the final sequence.

[J Adams]

I agree with much of that, despite my disappointment with the ending (too Fellini, unoriginal, and disjunctive with the tone of the rest of the film). But also notice the look on Sean's face in the (almost) final shot. It's a happy ending. The Sean parts are far more important to the film than people are giving credit (both to the film's benefit and detriment). And they do not need to be given more airtime. The balance is just right. Sorry for not burying this in spoiler tags, but isn't it time to stop that?

[rs98762001]

That's a really interesting reading of the ending, Guido. As someone who also was disappointed by what seemed like the banality of the conclusion, it certainly makes me wonder if it's more nuanced and intelligent than I gave it credit for. Something to keep in mind when I see the film again. Incidentally, it also makes further mockery of all these ridiculous posts dismissing Malick's film after a single viewing. Hasn't anyone learned the lessons of Days of Heaven, Thin Red Line, and New World yet?

[Tom Hagen]

The elevators are very interesting, Guido. Beautiful as they were in their own way, I saw them (and the rest of the city shots) as serving primarily the same symbolic function as the mechanized farm equipment in Days of Heaven, the artillery in The Thin Red Line, etc.: humanity's alienation from nature (and Being) due to technology. It's a pretty common Malickian motif, one that he shares with Antonioni. I definitely noticed that the esoteric, spiritual sequences that the Penn character experiences are bookended with depictions of technological overload, whereas the scenes themselves are set in places of natural beauty almost entirely free of technological development: a cathedral of hoodoos in the Utah desert, the surf of a pristine ocean beach.

[EC666]

Has Malick ever stated whether or not he is religious? I always thought he was an atheist, but it seems some of his family members are devout Christians.

[swo17]

Sorry for not burying this in spoiler tags, but isn't it time to stop that?

Of course not, the film still hasn't even opened wide yet. Anyway, using spoiler tags is just good etiquette, no matter how old the film is.

[Guido]

I'll most likely be seeing it a third time; there's something pulling me back, just like The New World. After the second screening, a great friend of mine described his admiration for the moment

Spoiler

in which Chastain, pointing to the sky in a moment of utter joy, declares that "That's where God lives"

He saw it as "the most dangerous" moment of the film, and indicative of a typical Malickian idea that may initially come off as banal, but which in fact reverberates in so many different ways. Hearing things like this makes me admire the film more and more...

[J Adams]

The ending to me is very Red Desert--acceptance (albeit an uneasy one) of the modern world--

Spoiler

last 3 shots (I think) (excluding the lumia thing)--Sean on ground vaguely smiling; beautiful cloud shot mirrored in skyscapers; bird flying past bridge

.
Not sure how you discuss any film without revealing plot points but whatever.

[bdsweeney]

Has Malick ever stated whether or not he is religious? I always thought he was an atheist, but it seems some of his family members are devout Christians.

Coincidentally, I was listening to BBC's Desert Island Discs yesterday. The guest was Martin Sheen. He spoke of how, after Apocalypse Now!, he reconnected greatly with his faith from his childhood (it may have been Catholicism that he mentioned, but I can't be sure ... it was a Christian denomination of some sort). He spoke that a great influence on this was a trip to Paris where he met his 'great friend' Terrence Malick, who he spoke of as a 'very religious man'. He also spoke of how 'Terry' had given him a copy of Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, which he found extremely helpful when trying to come to terms with his faith.

[Tom Hagen]

The Brothers Karamazov makes the most compelling case for religious faith in all literature or philosophy that I've personally encoutered.

[MichaelB]

Sorry for not burying this in spoiler tags, but isn't it time to stop that?

Of course not, the film still hasn't even opened wide yet. Anyway, using spoiler tags is just good etiquette, no matter how old the film is.

It hasn't opened at all in several countries, including the UK - so many posters here (including me) won't have had the chance to see it.

And surely spoiler tags should be pretty much mandatory for a film that had its world premiere only about six weeks ago?

[domino harvey]

Sigh, I wish I cared enough about this film one way or the other, but it left me indifferent-- a fate worse than being worse, really. I could appreciate what Malick does at times, and the film is quite strong for a 45 minute stretch or so immediately following the creation sequence, but it's just too long, has no strong narrative pull, and whoever it was here that described it as a 2 1/2 hour perfume commercial deserves a ribbon of some sort. No idea whatsoever what Penn's two minutes of screen-time contributed other than a name for the poster (and that may be the point). I'm glad y'all got your masterpiece, but perhaps the reason many people are feeling let down is because, well, they were let down?

[Guido]

I'd like to see more people hate on this film. I'm not saying that it should only inspire extreme responses, but it'd be nice to come across a few passionate, vitriolic comments; it'd spice up the conversation!

[JeanRZEJ]

Sigh, I wish I cared enough about this film one way or the other, but it left me indifferent-- a fate worse than being worse, really. I could appreciate what Malick does at times, and the film is quite strong for a 45 minute stretch or so immediately following the creation sequence, but it's just too long, has no strong narrative pull, and whoever it was here that described it as a 2 1/2 hour perfume commercial deserves a ribbon of some sort. No idea whatsoever what Penn's two minutes of screen-time contributed other than a name for the poster (and that may be the point). I'm glad y'all got your masterpiece, but perhaps the reason many people are feeling let down is because, well, they were let down?

I don't doubt your closing point one bit. I also don't doubt that some people who were let down will eventually come to appreciate the film through any number of different ways, and if we aren't working to facilitate that sort of thing for any and all people then what are we doing here?

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

I'd like to see more people hate on this film. I'm not saying that it should only inspire extreme responses, but it'd be nice to come across a few passionate, vitriolic comments; it'd spice up the conversation!

Check the last two pages where Mfunk brings up some good points in opposition.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

You guys are all missing the real point of the film, which is that on the eighth day God made really bad CGI dinosaurs - was not pleased - and then wiped them all out. We should heed his example.

[Grand Illusion]

You guys are all missing the real point of the film, which is that on the eighth day God made really bad CGI dinosaurs

I like to believe that the CGI dinosaurs evolved from that computer-generated screensaver-looking thing that keeps popping up in the movie. Unless of course, that's supposed to be God. In which case, it's exactly as I always believed: God is a screensaver.

[oh yeah]

I hate to say it but, as a fairly big admirer of Malick -- The New World is the only of his previous films I'd say is less than "great," though I've only seen it once in the non-extended cut -- I was pretty disappointed overall with ToL.

To be sure, there are moments and scenes and long stretches throughout of exquisite, fleeting impressionistic beauty. In a way, the film is the total culmination of the increasingly elliptical and "poetic" aesthetic Malick has been dabbling in ever since his 20-year hiatus... yet it felt to me like something of a mess. Like many others, I thought the childhood sequences were the greatest of the film; surely one of the best and most moving portrayals of childhood I've seen in cinema. But I thought the creation scenes, whilst well-done, felt like they belonged to a different film. I simply don't see how they cohere to the rest of the film in any meaningful or remotely "deep" way, and any insights gleamed from trying to analyze their connection seem to me embarrassingly banal.

I don't know what to make of the ending; on the one hand, it might be the worst thing Malick has ever shot, the only stretch of film I've seen from him that is truly, outright bad and shamefully so... on the other, I'm open to seeing the film again to see if my reaction to it is any different. As it is, though, I found it to be a very overwrought, overblown film; in comparison with, say, 2001, which so many can't help but compare to ToL... well, let's just say that Kubrick's film feels completely thought-out, coherent, fully-formed: every scene serves a purpose and masterfully supports the whole of the film. But I didn't feel that at all with ToL. In this respect, I second mfunk's criticism of the bookending sections as an attempt to provide a thesis for a film that doesn't really have one.

I don't think it's a bad film. The cinematography is, of course, wonderful. I even teared up during a certain sequence, which in and of itself makes Malick deserving of the adjective "visual poet." But I'm getting a little tired of his whisper-y, increasingly ponderous voice-overs (which did, mostly, work quite well in The Thin Red Line), and sometimes one simply longs for the direct, lucid statement of a Badlands. I'm not sure he'll ever quite top the one-of-a-kind brilliance of that picture. But I digress.

ToL may be a failure in many respects, but it's certainly a noble one. I do hope to see it in the cinema again, if only to see it somewhere that actually projects it on film and not digitally. (Not sure how much the digital presentation went towards my opinion of the film, though I can't imagine it's an astronomical difference).

[hollyharry]

I think if you take away the creation stuff, you would be missing a major element of the film. Part of what makes the film so moving to me is how it puts the specific in the context of the universal. This is not merely the story of a kid coming of age, it is the story of every human's and every thing's evolution. It is a story of our attempts to reconcile the dichotomies that plague both the universe and our souls, of how cruelty and jealously innately coexists with grace and kindness, of how cold indifference and hostility coexists with awe and beauty. The stuff with the dinosaurs and the creation is not pointless, it is to illustrate how these things are perpetual and eternal. It is probably the single most life-affirming movie I've ever seen.

[jojo]

I agree that the creation scenes were important to put Malick's themes into context, but like some posters here I do feel that the way they were juxtaposed with the family stuff, the "execution" if you will, wasn't as sharp as it could have been. I feel they are essential to the film but handled somewhat inelegantly.

There are scenes in this film that are just brilliant, some of the best stuff Malick has ever done, but then there are some scenes that are edited in a curiously hesitant manner, as if it was afraid of the audience's unforgiving attention spans. I'm not down with a 5-6 hour cut, but I would have no problem with another hour tacked onto this film.

For now, I still like The New World the best. As someone in here mentioned earlier, Q'Orianka Kilcher adds a level of physicality and energy that can't be found in any other Malick film.

[Jeff]

I'm still unsure what to make of The Tree of Life. The first hour is transcendent cinema. I loved the creation sequence, and as others have pointed out, the depiction of childhood is wonderful -- perhaps the best I've ever seen. Pitt and the kid are both great. Even though I couldn't relate to many of Jack's experiences, I found myself emotional at scenes for reasons I don't even really understand. Even though I think I understood everything as much as one can, the film has yet to coalesce into a meaningful whole for me though. I found the ending uncomfortably maudlin, and the scenes with the adult Jack are so elliptical that they didn't feel integrated to anything else. It is certainly worth a second (and third, and fourth) viewing, not only to continue to try to make meaning of the beautiful abstractions, but for what is surely the best visual and aural experience I've had in a cinema in years. Right now it stands as my least favorite Malick film, but that's very heady company and I can imagine it growing in my estimation with time. Even though I think it's his least successful film, it's also certainly his most ambitious. Simultaneously deeply personal and strangely universal, he's attempting to tackle nothing less than the meaning of life and man's place in the universe. While I believe that Malick's reach exceeds his grasp, it's a pleasure to watch a master of the form trying to distill such grand themes into a digestible work of art.