criterionforum.org

From what I have read about this film, the phrase 'gnostic fable' comes to mind. Perhaps the protagonist experiences visions of the history of life on Earth up until - and perhaps beyond - his own lifetime. I also think that the film is semi-autobiographical.

FerdinandGriffon wrote:I'll admit that on the best of days I'm no Malick fan, but does anyone else find it strange (and somewhat hypocritical) that a man apparently so completely infatuated and mesmerized by nature has chosen to turn away from the real thing in favor of inevitably rubberized, lifeless CG creations?

Not really. He's been trying to make a movie along these lines (looking at the evolution of life on Earth) since right after Days of Heaven. Likely part of what stopped him before was the lack of satisfactory technology.

that a man apparently so completely infatuated and mesmerized by nature has chosen to turn away from the real thing in favor of inevitably rubberized, lifeless CG creations?

According to Douglas Trumbull, Malick dislikes CGI and he will rely on old-fashioned photographic effects for Tree of Life. Thank God.

I'm betting any dinosaurs (or other prehistoric life) that appear in the film will be CGI; Trumbull I imagine will be handling more abstract optical effects, probably cosmic or microscpic in nature?

Jeff wrote:If Tree of Life isn't finished, it will be soon. The suddenly prolific Terrence Malick is scheduled to begin production on his next film the first week in October.

All signs point to it being finished. The hold-up now is what's going on at Apparition. I wish they'd just sell it to Sony like they did Welcome to the Rileys.

Dylan wrote:According to Douglas Trumbull, Malick dislikes CGI and he will rely on old-fashioned photographic effects for Tree of Life. Thank God.

The dinosaurs and some pre-historic landscapes are CG. There's also optical effects from Trumbull and The Fountain's Peter Parks.
I think complaining about the use of CG in a film that deals partly with species extinct for millions of years is pretty silly.

Cde. wrote:I think complaining about the use of CG in a film that deals partly with species extinct for millions of years is pretty silly.

Indeed, The Lost World (1925) would be unthinkable without all of that CGI.

Releasing a film with effects like that in 2010 would be pretty unthinkable, yes.

Malick is a director who embraces naturalism. Say what you will about the charms of stop-motion animation, but it would look completely absurd when thrown up against scenes of contemporary fauna and 50s kitchen-sink realism.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:We can assume Affleck will be in his 60s when the film is finally shot and released, yes? So he has time to hone his craft.

It looks like it really will be shot in October.

Cde. wrote:Malick is a director who embraces naturalism. Say what you will about the charms of stop-motion animation, but it would look completely absurd when thrown up against scenes of contemporary fauna and 50s kitchen-sink realism.

This reminds me of Jean-Jacques Annaud's L'Ours (The Bear) - technically highly impressive in the manner in which it captures the landscape and the wildlife (on 70mm too), an effect destroyed somewhat by the stop-motion deployed for the titular bear's dream sequences and the scene in which he hallucinates on mushrooms. Admittedly, there is a certain bizarre charm to these moments, but there's no denying how they also destroy the mood.

Cde., I hate to pick a fight with you, but I'd call Malick a poetic/romantic and not a naturalist at all. And I'd be perfectly happy to see a new dinosaur movie with all-practical FX. Overjoyed, in fact.

Perkins Cobb wrote:Cde., I hate to pick a fight with you, but I'd call Malick a poetic/romantic and not a naturalist at all.

You're right.

Perkins Cobb wrote:And I'd be perfectly happy to see a new dinosaur movie with all-practical FX. Overjoyed, in fact.

Well, chances are it would be derided on release. I love practical effects too, but that's just the way things are.
I'd like to see someone like Joe Dante make a new practical-effects driven dinosaur adventure movie.

Joe Dante can't even sell a 3-D children's fantasy film. No way will they bite at (the awesome opportunity) Dinosaur adventures.

Rumors on the IMDB board expected a trailer this week. Obviously that failed to be the case.Some are now saying it won't see a release until mid-to-late 2011... I'm pretty goddamned tired of waiting.

Oh my god, this is gold, the first description I've ever read of his student film:

Can Terry Malick tell a joke? The serious and the absurd in Terrence Malick's Lanton Mills.

Some excerpts (italics mine):

The joking begins right away, in the musical score that Malick himself composed, a score that sounds more appropriate to a Pink Panther film than a Western

Reminiscent of the place of songs in classic Hollywood musicals, the whole film seems to halt for the extraordinary dance sequence of Malick's “big bird.” Malick careens down a hill, arms pumping like a chicken, legs and hips ambling rhythmically in a slow jig. He dances with naïve abandon, and then, without warning, his dance turns into a dejected walk. He slumps, his gaze hanging down, while his stomach hangs out. He stops still, looks around aimlessly as if unsure what to do next, then goes back into the big bird strut. Malick's faltering, starting & stopping dance carries on for nearly a minute.

I'll say again that I think Badlands is one of the funniest films ever made, and funny in such an inscrutable, non sequitur (but not quite) way that it never fails to amuse me, no matter how familiar I am with it. And as much as I adore his post-hiatus work, I sure do wish he'd write something funny again. I don't imagine there'll be much laughing in Tree of Life.

You really need to see Deadhead Miles, which Malick wrote. It's full of found surrealism, deadpan humor, and the completely inexplicable.

Seen it, like it a lot, though I miss his directorial touch, obviously. Lots of quirk in those early scripts of his, but quirk so genuinely... quirky... and unlike the godawful Sundance-approved "quirk" we've been inundated with the last two decades.

From Todd McCarthy's recent NYFF update:

...it now seems clear the picture will not be opening this year. I can’t prove it, of course, and he’s supposedly set to start shooting a new film in Oklahoma in October, but I’m convinced we won’t be seeing “The Tree of Life” until, at the earliest, the 2011 Cannes Film Festival. Or perhaps it could turn up at the New York Film Festival a year from now.

Just curious but why is everyone so convinced this simply must premiere at a film festival? The New World didn't...

I guess we would be seeing a trailer really damn soon if it was in fact coming out this year.

A trailer would probably spoil it.

We'll probably get a release date before a trailer.

If this film doesn't even premiere until 2011, then I will be PISSED. I'll accept a 2010 limited release with a 2011 wide release as we'll at least get thorough reviews by then. But people are now talking May, even Fall of next year? Fuck that shit, Terrence malick, fuck that shit!

One thing I can't understand is: the film has been screened to the MPAA board and assorted theater owners, right? And we don't have one single leaked review? Not one word! I know the MPAA people aren't, like, actually interested in film, but you'd think one or two of the theater folks would be too excited to contain themselves.

Maybe they all agreed the film is garbage and Malick is doing us a favor by working on it for another year?

Thompson on Hollywood says:

The Tree of Life Should Open by Year’s End

But is that a statement or a request?

Also, how reliable is this person? I've never even heard of her before.

Some other unusual excerpts:

Back at the University of Texas at Austin, he lets film students take a crack at editing various scenes

...er, what?

It will change the language of movies. It’s a real event. People will say, ‘what the fuck is this?’”

...which recalls Jack Fisk's statements in an earlier interview.

And, from the IMDB boards, a link to John C. Reilly discussing Malick (near the 1 hr mark) (and providing a pretty funny impression as well -- perhaps the closest we'll get to ever hearing his voice again.)

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:One thing I can't understand is: the film has been screened to the MPAA board and assorted theater owners, right? And we don't have one single leaked review? Not one word! I know the MPAA people aren't, like, actually interested in film, but you'd think one or two of the theater folks would be too excited to contain themselves.

This isn't accurate. For one, we have that new 'change the language of cinema/what the fuck is this?' quote. There was also a VFX employee who said his boss claimed it was Malick's best work since Badlands. But that's all...

Anne Thompson says that Malick is currently cutting it down from 3 hours to 2 1/2. I'm guessing the former version is the one screened to the MPAA, and since material will only be subtracted from here on in, they won't need to resubmit it.
I think people can stomach this being three hours when it covers not only a family drama that spans decades, but also the history of life on earth, so I really hope Malick knows what he's doing in editing it down further. If it's because of commercial considerations, then I really hope we see a (Criterion?) Blu-Ray set with the theatrical and extended cuts.

This may be completely off the mark, but what are the chances of us seeing something at Telluride? As most here know, the festival's policy is to keep its program under wraps until the day before it begins, and its general atmosphere - almost totally devoid of press - would seem perfectly low-key enough for someone like Malick. Probably a pipe dream though...

Guido wrote:This may be completely off the mark, but what are the chances of us seeing something at Telluride? As most here know, the festival's policy is to keep its program under wraps until the day before it begins, and its general atmosphere - almost totally devoid of press - would seem perfectly low-key enough for someone like Malick. Probably a pipe dream though...

Malick may indeed prefer something low-key to premiere the film, but I doubt the producers will, after all this is a pretty big budget film...

Peacock wrote:Malick may indeed prefer something low-key to premiere the film, but I doubt the producers will, after all this is a pretty big budget film...

And at this point, the producers' next best option is...