criterionforum.org

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:59 pm**

ltfontaine wrote:Farrel was a lead weight in The New World, which suffered generally from leaden performances by movie stars.

I don't think any of the performances in The New World are particularly great but there's certainly nothing wrong with them. It's not like Malick's films are ever actor-driven anyway. If anything, it's probably good that he doesn't use talented actors since that might distract from the visuals, which are no doubt his strength.

I am still very skeptical of this film, though. It seems like it'll either be a disaster or the greatest film of all time.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:44 pm**

Calling out actors in a Malick film is almost as facetious as going after the 'models' Bresson's film. I think it's high praise to Malick that when I think of the film Farrel is only in my peripheral, and with none of his burdensome associations as an actor-- the same thought to The Thin Red Line, but to an even more miraculous degree.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:32 pm**

To defend The New World here (well, at least the acting) I do have to say that Christian Bale's role was quite amazing. Many of the other peripheral actors, too, did a very good job (David Thewlis, anyone?).
They're just so naturalistic that it doesn't really seem too much like acting (or at least any kind of acting most people are used to). The acting in Malick's films reflect his interest in the subtle details.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:50 am**

sidehacker wrote:
ltfontaine wrote:Farrel was a lead weight in The New World, which suffered generally from leaden performances by movie stars.
I don't think any of the performances in The New World are particularly great but there's certainly nothing wrong with them. It's not like Malick's films are ever actor-driven anyway. If anything, it's probably good that he doesn't use talented actors since that might distract from the visuals, which are no doubt his strength.

I am still very skeptical of this film, though. It seems like it'll either be a disaster or the greatest film of all time.

Even if Tree of Life is Malick's worst film, it will still be one of the five greatest films ever made. Guess which are the other four?

Also, in regards to acting, I think Malick's strength there is his casting. While I think the acting is fine in all of his films, it's how the actors look, and their "presence" that matters. Gere is wonderful in Days of Heaven because his face just exudes a sort of petulant, unearned smugness... but because of his unbelievable, delicate features, there's also something almost poetically saintly about him. Hearing that Malick wanted Travolta, with his enormous jaw and chin and nose, for the role, flabbergasted me. He's a great actor, but he wouldn't have looked right at all.

And Malick is one of the few - if not the only - American director willing to cast extremely unattractive or unusual looking faces in a non-condescending way. He might only do this in minor roles, admittedly, but it's still a nice touch.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:17 am**

John Sayles does that, too.

But it is a short little list.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:05 pm**

sidehacker wrote:I am still very skeptical of this film, though. It seems like it'll either be a disaster or the greatest film of all time.

It could be both? Tree of Life (if it is related to the Q project) could very well be the most polarizing of Malick's films so far, which may not endear it to a mainstream audience but on the otherhand would be like mana from heaven for Malick fans.

you gotta be kidding me wrote: Even if Tree of Life is Malick's worst film, it will still be one of the five greatest films ever made.

You wait 20 years for a Terrence Malick film and then 3 come along in the space of 10 years

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:44 pm**

ivuernis wrote: It could be both? Tree of Life (if it is related to the Q project) could very well be the most polarizing of Malick's films so far, which may not endear it to a mainstream audience but on the otherhand would be like mana from heaven for Malick fans.

Yeah, I should clarify that. I meant that it could end up being a self-indulgent mess. Just reading the title, Tree of Life, evokes images of Aronofsky's The Fountain. Now, I'm sure this will be better no matter what considering the fact that Malick is one hundred times the director but I'm still skeptical that it could end up focusing more on a "grand statement about life" or some stupid shit like that.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:41 am**

Pitt replaces Ledger.

[i][url=http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117977922.html?categoryid=13&cs=1]Variety[/url][/i] wrote:Pitt in talks to star in 'Tree of Life'
Sean Penn to co-star in Malick drama
By MICHAEL FLEMING

Brad Pitt is in talks to climb into "Tree of Life," a drama Terrence Malick wrote and will direct.

River Road is financing, and Bill Pohlad is producing with Sarah Green ("The New World") and Grant Hill.

Pitt, who recently ankled the Universal Pictures drama "State of Play," would replace Heath Ledger, who was skedded to star with Sean Penn in the Malick-directed drama, which begins production in the spring. Though Penn is booked to play the title character in the Gus Van Sant-directed "Harvey Milk," he's still expected to play a supporting role in "Tree of Life." Penn has an allegiance to River Road's Pohlad, who co-financed with Paramount Vantage the Penn-directed "Into the Wild."No deals have been made with Pitt or Penn. Pitt would have earned $20 million against gross to star in "State of Play," but he'll likely sign on to "Tree of Life" for nearly no upfront money.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:56 am**

Ouch, I just got a lot less optimistic about this film after reading that. I can easily imagine how horribly smug Pitt would sound reading V.O lines from Malick. WHY or why i ask?

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:08 am**

Okay, somebody has to say it.

Didn't Pitt already sign up and then drop out of a film about a "tree of life"?

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:14 am**

John Cope wrote:Okay, somebody has to say it.

Didn't Pitt already sign up and then drop out of a film about a "tree of life"?

Right. But wasn't money the biggest issue in that case? Or maybe Aronofsky is just a Giant douche to work with and Malick isn't.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:57 am**

Pitt wasn't so bad in The Assassination of Jesse James. I'm sure if Malick has his appearance roughed up a bit he'll do okay when surrounded (read: overwhelmed) by Malickian surroundings, soundscapes and editing.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:21 am**

Macintosh wrote:
John Cope wrote:Okay, somebody has to say it.

Didn't Pitt already sign up and then drop out of a film about a "tree of life"?
Right. But wasn't money the biggest issue in that case?

No, like State Of Play, it was "issues with the script". Pitt ended up looking like the biggest douche for walking away from The Fountain because they were literally days away from starting shooting.

For Malick's sake here's hoping Pitt likes the script for this one.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:59 am**

A lot of the sets for The Fountain were destroyed after Pitt left, so the project was a pretty huge waste of money. In his defence, apparently Aronofsky did some rewrites between Brad Pitt signing on and the start of shooting which Pitt didn't like. Still, after State of Play it's hard to be sure what happened.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:39 am**

Cde. wrote:Pitt wasn't so bad in The Assassination of Jesse James. I'm sure if Malick has his appearance roughed up a bit he'll do okay when surrounded (read: overwhelmed) by Malickian surroundings, soundscapes and editing.

I agree. Richard Gere, Colin Farrell.. err how bad then can Brad Pitt be? And he must like to work with Malick if he's willing to do it without any advance money. As you say Cde.; Malick will just dip him in nature's realm, like the other two guys.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:12 am**

Malick films always have star casts and decent performances. Since the underlying emotions of the pieces are rarely on display in the character performances (especially in his recent work) the actors just need to convey a mood in service of the film's tone and rhythm. There's no reason to believe Pitt would ruin this film. As you say Glass, Colin Farrell, for example, did fine in The New World. And anyway, think about how hard it would be for a Malick film to get made if big name actors weren't willing to star for little advance pay? Considering that TNW cost $35 million and made back only $30 million worldwide, I'm surprised we're seeing a new one so soon.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:57 am**

Antoine Doinel wrote:Pitt ended up looking like the biggest douche for walking away from The Fountain because they were literally days away from starting shooting.

Er, no he didn't. Pitt looked like a genius for managing to get out of that one.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:01 pm**

Getting Pitt to join your film (with no money up front, no less) is a God send. All of you would die for such an opportunity.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:31 pm**

rs98762001 wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:Pitt ended up looking like the biggest douche for walking away from The Fountain because they were literally days away from starting shooting.
Er, no he didn't. Pitt looked like a genius for managing to get out of that one.

Tell that to the people who lost their jobs.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:03 pm**

The film will be shooting in Smithfield, Texas beginning in late March.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:15 am**

From the above link:

[quote]The historic project has been kicked around since the '70s, most recently set for Colin Ferrell after working with Malick on The New World

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:14 am**

you gotta be kidding me wrote:I don't understand what they mean by "Both aspects"? Meaning it's no longer set in India?

I do think it meant India and Farrell.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:56 am**

Looks like it's really happening, and it is indeed a period piece set in the 1950s.

[i][url=http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/nation/02/13/0213makers.html]The Austin American-Statesman[/url][/i] wrote:After weeks of rumors and speculation, the location manager of "Tree of Life," the Terrence Malick project starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, addressed the Smithville City Council on Tuesday to talk about filming there, beginning in late March. The shoot will last approximately three months, the film's John Patterson said.

"Security is going to be a big issue" with the film company, said Smithville City Manager Tex Middlebrook, who added that producers have met with the Police Department several times. Many of the cast and crew members for the film, a 1950s period piece, have rented houses in Smithville, a town of about 4,000 people 45 miles east of Austin.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:06 am**

I really, really don't want Sean Penn to be in this.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:16 am**

kaujot wrote:I really, really don't want Sean Penn to be in this.

Yeah, he really stunk up The Thin Red Line. #-o

criterionforum.org

942 The Tree of Life