criterionforum.org

He ruined a perfectly good Dakota Fanning movie by acting really stupid-- what a clod!

and he's going to ruin a Van Sant film by being really gay.

Looking at this Youtube user's videos, it looks like the film does actually feature a literal 'tree of life'.
The '1950's period piece' information may be false (or at least misleading), since this literal 'tree of life' imagery recalls the rumours about the film being a time hopping depiction about the evolution of life on earth. If that is the case, it's easy to see how such a secretive project could be misconstrued as being a 1950's period piece, if that era plays a part in the film.
This is of course speculation. It could be that the tree plays a part in a more traditional drama set in 1950s texas. But if the film really is more fantastical in approach, then it's interesting to see Malick taking the opposite approach to Aronofsky (just as expected) using a genuine 100 year old tree rather than obviously artificial sets.

Again, just speculation, but good to see none the less.

"Security is going to be a big issue" with the film company, said Smithville City Manager Tex Middlebrook

Mm-hm.

imdb reports on Penn and Pitt's living arrangements

The independently produced Tree of Life , written and directed by Terrence Malick (The New World, The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven), is being shot in Texas on such a tight budget that the two stars, Sean Penn and Brad Pitt, are being required to pay for their own travel accommodations, MSNBC.com's "Scoop" column reported Monday. The column indicated that the film's production company had arranged to have both Pitt and Penn stay at the same hotel, the Hyatt Lost Pines near Austin, TX, but that "Pitt's people" balked at the $2,000-a-night tab and initially offered to pay $3,000 for the entire one-month's stay -- a figure that the hotel declined. Pitt and Angelina Jolie opted instead to rent a house near the shooting location, the column said.

That confirms that there never was a hundred million plus budget, wherever that rumor came from.

I've heard that they will be shooting this on 65mm. I know that parts of The New World utilized that format, and if there's anyone who could use the medium to its fullest it's Emmanuel Lubezki under Malick's direction.

also, about the $100million+ budget, those were rumors when he had (apparently) received some financing from Bollywood (as the film was partially going to take place in India)... but from what's been written, it looks like Malick has cut out large chunks from his original screenplay to concentrate on whatever part is being shot in Texas.

Malick needs some pregnant moms and babies.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Malick needs some pregnant moms and babies.

Sorry to disappoint the sizable expectant mother constituency on this forum, but those scenes were actually shot six weeks ago.

They now need extras for shooting in Utah.

It's amazing how the only news coming from this film is reports about extras casting. I just say thank god they are still (and actually) shooting.

Just stumbled across this thread on Reduser where one lucky Red camera owner got to work with Malick and Lubezki. Not too much is revealed in terms of the film itself, except that it might have a more contemporary setting, at least for some part of it. The poster is quick to point out the vast majority of the film is being shot on 35mm, and that there's of course no guarantee the Red-originated footage will end up in the final cut, but it's really cool to see Malick is experimenting with digital.

Beyond the camera talk, the poster's description of Malick's directing methods later on in the thread (here) is wonderful.

Thanks for the link. Hearing how Malick works is indeed wonderful.

I know that, whatever this film is about, whenever it finally comes out I will love it unreservedly.

Perhaps a ridiculous thing to say considering how much potential there should be for the film to miss my expectations, but Malick's view of the world is so beautiful and has such meaning to me, and his films touch such deep emotions for me, that no-matter how bad the film is assessed as being I will still find something to love in it.

Oedipax wrote:Beyond the camera talk, the poster's description of Malick's directing methods later on in the thread (here) is wonderful.

This sux. I think I missed it. Evidently the poster removed his comments. Can you possibly relate what you took to be the high points, Oedipax?

Here it is:

i did not ask for nor did i get a script, i am sure if i asked for one, i would have received one, but honestly he has a very unique way of making a film. even though lines are scripted, he kind of makes things up on the fly, constantly, it is unreal.

he consistently feeds scripted and unscripted lines to actors, he is very very hands on second to second, giving direction as things are happening, realizing always that if actors take the appropriate beats between his direction and their acting, then his direction can be cut out. everything, shots, areas of shooting within a location, extras, lens choice, sound, no sound, talent, it is all up in the air until the moment he asks for it, it is amazing. he shoots 360 degrees constantly, so carted equipment m st be out of the area completely, but yet close enough for changes and quick moves. a camera intern lost 50+ pounds on tree of life from just the back and forth of it all.

i heard stories about the bullpen on TRL, name actors waiting in the bullpen for when he was ready for them, he knows what he is doing and makes films in an organic way. sometimes challenging for all the other departments, but the concept of flexibility must be part of your complete makeup or you will not survive on his set.

it is a breath of fresh air compared to commercials and music videos and i am not sure anyone else could pull it off besides him since he has such a great track record for doing things that way.

more later, fathers day and all.

Heh, I had a feeling the whole thread might disappear. Hope the guy is still allowed back on set.

Dunno how closely any of you have been following the - admittedly unconfirmed - comments on the film's IMDB page, but there has been a fairly steady stream of info from folks who purport to be extras or who have witnessed the shoot.

Most interesting to me is the list of supposed locations and what it suggests about the content and scope of the story. First rumors led us to believe the film was Malick's long-gestating Q, which was supposedly an outrageously ambitious film touching on mythology, fantasy, science-fiction, etc. Then reports from the shoot seemed to suggest otherwise - that the film was now just a period family drama (perhaps even autobiographical). I found the notion of a scaled-back story very disappointing, myself.

So we knew of the relatively "domestic" Texas "family" settings, but now it seems that shooting is planned for Death Valley, Utah and - most enticingly - Iceland.

Also, there was filming taking place at two locations in Houston which suggest a more flexible and extended timespan of the film's story - possibly up to the modern era or even the future, which may mean a return to the epic ideas of the original story. The two locations are the Pennzoil Building, designed by Philip Johnson and completed in 1976, and The Escobar. What fascinates me about these locations is the fact that they are decidely modern and urban, a milieu Malick has not yet explored. The Escobar location practically looks like something out of Wong's 2046.

"Mr. Malick was attracted by an actual tree in the lobby."

Edit kinjitsu: Location images removed at Mr. Malick's request.

I'm confused... is this a biopic about August Renoir?

Welcome to the forum and thanks for the info!

those pics are quite hilarious, mostly because Malick is so paranoid about his image that he doesn't allow on-set photography (it's in his contracts, if I remember correctly) and that they are obviously taken with a cell phone.

I am going to approach any news with apprehension because it seems the whole production is being cast in mystery to obscure any speculation as to the film's subject. I'll wait for an official press release in a year.

miless wrote:those pics are quite hilarious, mostly because Malick is so paranoid about his image that he doesn't allow on-set photography (it's in his contracts, if I remember correctly) and that they are obviously taken with a cell phone.

To be honest, if I were taking illicit photographs and saw Sean Penn sauntering towards me my hands would be shaking too!

Those pics are hilarious. The one of Malick reminds me of the blurry "last known photograph" of an overweight Marlon Brando in Cambodia that is at the very end of Sheen's dossier in Apocalypse Now.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:"Mr. Malick was attracted by an actual tree in the lobby."

From the article:

"Casting agents spent a year and a half crisscrossing Texas seeking a young boy for an unnamed, top-secret "Hollywood family film" that ended up being Mr. Malick's project."

So this is a family film? Is this going to be Malick's The Straight Story?

No, that's just what they told casting agents they were hiring for.

Perhaps its a Heideggerian family film.