criterionforum.org

Kropinski wrote:Two notes, though:
1) A Con! Dinosaurs. Much has been written on Malick's delay of Tree of Life, in parts due to the visual effects. Now, it seems, much more is being written on Voyage of Time, how Malick hopes to now complete it. And, if this IMAX presentation is to include the same quality of effects, in terms of dinosaurs, then I wont sit for it. Because, ultimately, no matter how beautiful the Universe creation, no matter how stunning the landscape photography is, a bad CG dinosaur is still a bad CG dinosaur. As soon as that Pleisiosaurus (Water Horse?) sat on the beach, I was out. The illusion broke. And the following scenes with other dino denizens, felt clunky, overly soundeffects heavy (what was with those pebbles?), and plastic. They had no texture, no life. Now, I for one, due to the amount of time Malick spent on this film, was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of VFX, but he too succumbed to the squint test. They really ruin the Creation sequence for me. What ever happened to those good ol' 1993 JP dinos?

2) A Pro! Brad Pitt is phenomenal. Finally, he leads with that jaw; finally the pretty boy is beaten out of him.

1. Absolutely agree... I was detached from the cgi dinosaur scenes (and the subsequent 15 minutes of all that creation jazz, tbh).

2. I thought he was fantastic for the most part, but I don't understand why he or Malick felt that his character would be so ostensible with his sentimentality when he finally does reveal it. He doesn't even lower his head when he weeps. I thought that was somewhat odd and unfitting for his character's machismo...

gokinsmen wrote:

James Mills wrote:I will just say that it really reminds me of Davies' The Long Day Closes, and that I will need to view it again with a more relaxed and receptive open mind to fully gauge my opinions of it (also like Davies' film).

I know exactly what you mean.* And in terms of an elliptical, poetic coming-of-age film that limns the line between memory and imagination, I definitely prefer The Long Day Closes (then again, it's one of my all-time favorite films). Whereas The Tree of Life attempts to unite the personal and the sublime, Davies' film elevates the personal to the sublime.

Yup, it's as if both are crafted around a "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" mold of the epiphanies that build one's subconscious at a young age. And though I've only seen The Long Day Closes once, I think I also prefer it to TToL after the initial viewing.

I can't hate though because just discussing it with y'all is getting me really antsy about seeing TToL again.

Kropinski wrote:Two notes, though:
1) A Con! Dinosaurs. Much has been written on Malick's delay of Tree of Life, in parts due to the visual effects. Now, it seems, much more is being written on Voyage of Time, how Malick hopes to now complete it. And, if this IMAX presentation is to include the same quality of effects, in terms of dinosaurs, then I wont sit for it. Because, ultimately, no matter how beautiful the Universe creation, no matter how stunning the landscape photography is, a bad CG dinosaur is still a bad CG dinosaur. As soon as that Pleisiosaurus (Water Horse?) sat on the beach, I was out. The illusion broke. And the following scenes with other dino denizens, felt clunky, overly soundeffects heavy (what was with those pebbles?), and plastic. They had no texture, no life. Now, I for one, due to the amount of time Malick spent on this film, was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of VFX, but he too succumbed to the squint test. They really ruin the Creation sequence for me. What ever happened to those good ol' 1993 JP dinos?

What struck me was not the texture (which agreed, was not up to snuff) but how impressive the actual animation was. I feel like I may need to spoiler this just in case:

Spoiler

The beached plesiosaur was phenomenal. It seemed more interested in its wound/mortality than worried or in pain. This all comes across through the subtle head movements and I found it immensely touching. The same goes for the larger dinosaur (unsure of the species) who steps on the smaller, weaker one then leaves. This proposes multiple ideas. Either the large one was simply showing its strength and superiority to intimidate the smaller one, or it thought about killing it but saw it as unnecessary and granted mercy. I took this moment to show some kind of very slight mental advancement on the part of these dinosaurs. Perhaps Malick is insinuating that this was the first step in evolution of the mind toward humanity or the capacity for compassion? The plesiosaur having the first concept of its own mortality? It could also be that this was as far as Malick's God could take this particular creature and decided to wipe them out and start over? Its open to so much interpretation.

So basically it's the movements that mattered to me, leading to my disregarding the less than ideal textures.

tavernier wrote:And a typically clunky Armond review

i know this is probably a futile question, but can anyone explain what this armondism is supposed to mean? I think Everlasting Moments is one of the best films in recent years, but I can't for the life of me understand how it is remotely in tune w/ Tree of Life in "probing human relations and social progress"....anyone who has seen both care to respond?

Everything Malick attempts in The Tree of Life was already achieved in Jan Troell’s Everlasting Moments, a memoir that used a wife’s photographic talent to probe human relations and social progress.

Apparently any film that "probe[s] human relations and social progress" is now passé.

Kropinski wrote: What ever happened to those good ol' 1993 JP dinos?

Those good ol' 1993 JP dinos look like total shit. And whereas Spielberg is all about "whoa look at the dinosaur, isn't the crazy and spectacular," Malick is trying to say something with them.

And speaking of the dinosaur scene:

Spoiler

Did anyone else draw the connection between the dinosaur stepping on the smaller ones head, but "deciding" not to kill it and the scene of young Jack walking by the car jack supporting the car his father is working under? Jack realizing he could kill his father in this instant, yet is merciful.

Having seen this film twice now, the second viewing today at the Cinerama Dome at the Hollywood Arclight (HOLY SHIT), this is by far one of the best films I've ever seen. The discussions following the viewings could never end and it keeps revealing itself and peeling back like an onion. Despite being radically different in form, I was curious if anyone felt like this had many similarities to Fanny and Alexander,

Spoiler

particularly with the blending of memory, family, fantasy, impressions, etc...

Every single shot of this film tells the story.

I was rewatching The Thin Red Line tonight and couldn't help but feel all those idolized images of Miranda Otto looked a lot like those I've seen of Jessica Chastain in this film's trailer, in part due to the vibrancy of their red hair. Along with Sissy Spacek in Badlands, Malick really has a thing for redheads. If Chastain is supposedly a surrogate for Malick's own mother in this film, is it possible that these similar-looking women might, in some way, be as well?

So... Cannes has come an gone and still there's still no sign of a UK release date (or new distributor) on the horizon... I can't say I'm surprised, as it will probably favour Summit financially simply to pursue legal action against Icon - and, in a wider sense, it would be good to see Icon punished for their dreadful behaviour - but the situation is nonetheless frustrating for those not planning any immediate trips abroad...

CircusVocabulary wrote:

Kropinski wrote: What ever happened to those good ol' 1993 JP dinos?

Those good ol' 1993 JP dinos look like total shit.

And speaking of the dinosaur scene:

Whoaaa, really now? I totally agree with the earlier poster who said they look better than TToL's, personally....

Good call on the first spoiler, I hadn't picked up on that the first viewing.

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:

Grand Wazoo wrote:Got my tickets for midnight tonight at Landmark Sunshine in NYC, though I just read on their website that it's being projected digitally.

Yea I noticed that too, the weird thing is, I have my ticket for the 7:45 show on Friday and there is no note with the showtimes to say it's being projected digitally, unlike the midnight show. Oh how I wish this was opening at say, the Ziegfeld...

This "film" was destroyed by Landmark's digital projection.

To some degree it is a 2-1/2 hour trailer for a re-boot of Zerkalo. Not necessarily a flaw.

This Recording has a good review of the film up. I'm surprised that they didn't pan it like most of their reviews do.

****** POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT (I CAN'T TELL) ******

The creation of the universe segment had me enthralled. Malick's eye is truly unique and reverential to everything from mitochondria to jellyfish. His cinema may come off as naive at times or overly earnest, but when dealing with the humbling vantage point of the beginning of the universe, I appreciated the sense of wonder. I didn't mind the CGI or the effects or any of that because I was willing to suspend disbelief, as I do from Melies to Spielberg. I was able to sit back and say, "Wow. This is amazing. I have never seen it portrayed like it is here, and this, all of this, actually happened."

Which is precisely the reason that the ending left me cold. Because the overwhelming naivete when looking, as a child would, at the beginnings of our inflationary universe are equally applied to the scene when Sean Penn's older Jack meanders on a beach full of lost souls. The freshness of Malick's viewpoint of our collective genesis gave way to the feeling that I have seen exactly this portrayed exactly this way. People reuniting on a beach, walking towards the light, hands in the air with blown-out white skies, revisiting dead relatives (who are always just as young as they were when we last saw them in a given film), etc. And the same sense of wonder applied to something that we now know actually happened is applied to something that, well, didn't and doesn't.

Of course, the film is rife with archetypes, but the performances of Brad Pitt and the children flesh out the characters. I wonder if Brad Pitt's father figure was enhanced due to his producer credit because it's the most well-developed in the film. Nonetheless, he constantly makes strong, layered choices, playing him as Willy Loman with an even bigger chip on his shoulder.

Emmanuel Lubezki is perhaps the film's greatest performer. Tree of Life creates its own visual lexicon with a combination of low angles, naturalistic lighting, varied camera moves, and jump cuts. The visuals definitely make the main thrust of the narrative (of Jack's life into his teenage years) worth seeing from, again, a new angle. From birth to Jack's rebellious teenager, Malick takes us through the major Hallmark moments without making it feel as though we've done it all before. He's aided by his willingness to sprinkle in the darker moments in life, treating them with the same sense of wonder. A mother shielding her son's eyes from a stroke victim is given the same sense of reverence as a child's first steps. The only time he perhaps overplays his hand here is the constant repetition of certain motifs (low angle shot, creating a halo with the Sun; water as a metaphor for life; etc.)

The middle section, the Waco Texas Wonder Years as it were, definitely worked for me. Conversely, the Sean Penn years seem off. The older Jack just mopes around, but nothing indicates how this sense of ennui or regret settled in. He's ostensibly going through an existential crisis due to the earlier death in the film, but it's hard to believe that he made it as a successful businessman (reviews tell me architect) if he's been this depressed his whole life. So what motivates his retrospection, his internal longing, his existential crisis? It would appear that nothing does, and the role is severely underwritten. Why now? We enter into older Jack's life at a time that he's waiting for answers, and, frankly, so was I.

If my response to the film is fragmentary, it's only natural. Like the universe, I suppose, I can't like everything in it. But the sheer magnitude of moments such as the Waco scenes and their reflection through nothing less than the Big Bang makes the film worthwhile for me. It's a shame that the preposterous ending with the underdeveloped older Jack leaves me with a slightly bitter aftertaste.

Fantastic post, Grand Illusion. I applaud you for articulating my thoughts almost to a T (I didn't care for the creation segment, but I completely agree with your takes on the older Jack scenes and the ending).

PS: you might want to add some spoiler alerts though

Thanks, James. Spoiler alert added!

The person I went with was dreadfully bored during the creation segment while I loved it. Then again, I watch all those CGI BBC "Walking With Dinosaurs" things, so maybe that's just my thing.

Not sure where else to put this but GQ's recently published Oral History of Badlands is absolutely essential reading!

This should prove useful when Fox try to change the aspect ratio to 3:1 in 35 years.

A question for NYC folks:

I am flying from Florida to NYC in the morning. Yes, just to see The Tree of Life. Which one of the following theaters do you recommend the most:

Clearview at First & 62nd St.
Lincoln Plaza
Landmark Sunshine
AMC Empire (42nd St.)

Thanks!

The AMC's probably the biggest screen

I would vote Lincoln Plaza just because you wouldn't have to go through the Times Square hellscape to get there. It's also rarely very crowded. I'll admit to seeing it at Landmark because I didn't realize it was a digital projection.

I saw it at the BAM Rose Cinemas, and it was great. Not the largest screen, sure, but it's an intensely intimate theater.

I was not fan of TOF, but I hardly found it challenging. The comparisons to Marienbad or even 2001 are exaggerated. In fact I would say that this is exactly the kind of "art" film you could drag anybody to, and they wouldn't be uncomfortable. It's like Fantasia with Brad Pitt playing the Mickey Mouse role.

Michael wrote:A question for NYC folks:

I am flying from Florida to NYC in the morning. Yes, just to see The Tree of Life. Which one of the following theaters do you recommend the most:

Clearview at First & 62nd St.
Lincoln Plaza
Landmark Sunshine
AMC Empire (42nd St.)

Not Landmark because of the digital projection. AMC is probably digital and attracts the noisiest audiences. Lincoln Plaza might be showing it in 35mm but the screens are tiny tiny tiny. 1st and 62nd sucks but would be tolerable if in 35mm. BAM would be the best choice IF it's in 35mm and in one of the two bigger theaters.

I have to say after one (digital) viewing on opening night I'm meh about a second viewing unless a decent 35mm screening is available.

Pretty sure Tree of Life is playing at BAM in 35 and in the biggest theater they have. That would be my pick, theaters are nice, screens are decently sized and (most importantly) audiences have (at least when I go there, which is often) always been quiet and respectful. It's where I'll be going for my second viewing (hopefully soon).