criterionforum.org

I'm going to take my choice back and say if you're flying all the way up here you should venture out to BAM. It's a nice theater and has none of the aforementioned problems.

It's a no-brainer if it's at BAM in 35mm in their biggest theater. I'm going too!

BAM all the way...avoid Lincoln Plaza at all costs (I wish I took my own advice when I saw it there last week).

Lincoln Plaza was definitely digitally projected. Add that to the small screen and the ever-present musty smell of the place, I would go elsewhere. BAM is probably your best presentation by a long shot.

I am in touch with Cobble Hill Cinemas (my local place around the corner from me), and they are in negotiations to getting a print for the 17th but they won't know for a few days. I am pretty sure they use film projectors, but maybe not. Best of all, Tuesday and Thursday is $7 night.

Zot! wrote: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.

I must say I agree with this. I didn't find the film to be as deep or philosophical as it may have intended to be, but, then again, I've never found Malick films (which I've loved) to have the intellectual depth of the serious-minded Bergman, Antonioni, or Tarkovsky films. That's not to say his first four films are not wonderfully poetic and thought-provoking in a general sense (i.e. social conditioning in The New World and nature vs. man's nature in The Thin Red Line). To me, Malick is more interested in the concrete sensations he is recording and their emotional effect on the audience. His previous films have the ability to put me in a trance I'm saddened to let go of once the end credits start to roll.

Since viewing The Tree of Life this past weekend, I've been wondering why I didn't like it as much as the other Malick films. Craftwise, I noticed that he was cutting much faster than he usually does. There are beautiful, inspired shots in the film, but he cuts away from them after only a few seconds. He does this throughout the whole film. Perhaps this is due to the amount of footage he accumulated and his desire to not make another 3-hour film. I guess I felt that the film was yearning for some breathing room, but Malick's seemingly urgent need to move on to the next shot kept the rhythm clipped. As such, that trance-like effect I enjoyed from Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, and The New World did not have time to develop.

Also, while Malick's previous films were all very poetic in nature, Tree is the first one (aside from the shot of the Native running out of the house at the end of The New World, which was more symbolic than anything) to have what I can only call scenes of pure fantasy. The scene with

Spoiler

the mother strangely floating in the air

was the first hint. Not to mention the

Spoiler

spiritual ending on the beach.

When Malick decided to leave this earthly plain, I felt the concept of the movie slip from his grasp and get away from what he is good at - viewing the world through his uniquely poetic, yet still within the realm of possibility, gaze.

Now, there were moments in the middle of the film when something interesting would happen, i.e.

Spoiler

the boy stealing the dress from his neighbor's home and sending it down the river

and I would be sucked into the characters' world. This mainly happened during the middle stretch of the film, and mainly in the second half of it. But most of the time, I found myself trying to care about characters that were hard to see as more than ciphers or symbols. It reminded me that characters are interesting because of what they do and the way they behave. I think there was more of the latter than the former in this film. Sue me, but I wanted a little more to happen. And don't say that Malick's always been that way - so much happens in Days of Heaven and The New World!

Brad Pitt's father is by far the most developed character. I was downright angry with the portrayal of the mother - does she have more than two lines in the whole film (the ending not withstanding, of course)? And even those lines are of the "Don't do that!" variety. Mainly, I just wanted to know more about the characters. I felt like I walked into a photography exhibit full of wonderful photos that meant nothing to me because I was missing the crucial context that would allow me a way in. This is definitely the first film where I didn't feel Malick had much of a story to tell. I mean, what's up with Sean Penn? Is that his wife? Girlfriend? Why is he so unhappy? If his

Spoiler

brother died at 19 years old,

Penn's character would have been 21 or so, right? Sean Penn is a 50 year old man. What's going on here?

Alas, I wanted to love The Tree of Life. And maybe there is material that didn't make it to the final cut that would flesh out some of the basic questions whose answers are (deliberately?) omitted. I didn't mind the forming of the cosmos scene, though felt it went a little long. I truly appreciate the ambition and thought he obviously put into the film. I just wonder if more of it could have made it to the screen in the end. The film has an interesting conceit - the way of grace vs. the way of nature. Instead of just posing the question, I would have liked a more expansive exploration (i.e. how did the events of his childhood really effect his adulthood beyond walking around in a morose daze), hence why I didn't find the film terribly "deep" in the intellectual sense.

Aspect wrote:Mainly, I just wanted to know more about the characters. I felt like I walked into a photography exhibit full of wonderful photos that meant nothing to me because I was missing the crucial context that would allow me a way in. This is definitely the first film where I didn't feel Malick had much of a story to tell. I mean, what's up with Sean Penn? Is that his wife? Girlfriend? Why is he so unhappy? If his brother died at 19 years old, Penn's character would have been 21 or so, right? Sean Penn is a 50 year old man. What's going on here?

Even more underdeveloped than the mother and Penn was the third brother... It took me three quarters into the film to realize there even was a third brother, as I figured he was just one of their friends since he's never spoken to or of.

You guys are awesome. Thank you sooo much for the recommendation. BAM sounds wonderful and I will make sure to check it out next time I am in NYC. I couldn't make the flight to NYC this morning. I was to fly standby but the flight ended up full. Bummer. My plan was to catch The Tree of Life at BAM in the morning, then lunch at Baked, then the afternoon screening of La dolce vita at Film Forum. The Tree of Life is coming to Orlando next Friday, I just learned.

The New World is my favorite Malick film, pre-The-Tree-of-Life viewing. Malick films are soo beautiful but what makes The New World stand out as not only as Malick's best film but one of the greatest films ever made for me is Q'orianka Kilcher. That brilliant actress carried this whole gorgeous epic on her back all the way through and every time she comes to my mind, my eyes well up with tears. Her work is incredibly moving. Reading comments and reviews of The Tree of Life, I'm afraid there is nothing to match Kilcher and her affect on me in the film - it doesn't seem to be character-driven as much as The New World. But I will still go see it next week.

The performances is ToF are all very good, though Sean Penn mostly just grimaces and stares out windows. If you like Malick's imagery and directing of actors, you will not be disappointed in that regard.

The abbreviation for Tree of Life should be TfF, i.e. first letter of the first word, second letter of the second word, and third letter of the third word (capitalized). C'mon guys, this is like second grade grammar stuff here.

This is lovely:

On the drive back to Tulsa, completely wrecked by what I’d just experienced, I couldn’t get Malick’s mother out of my head. What did she think? Was it obvious to her? Did she get it? In the film, the mother is portrayed as an ethereal, almost angelic archetypal figure of grace and beauty. Yet sitting behind me, in a stainless steel wheelchair, having lived on this earth for nearly a full century, was the woman herself in flesh and blood. As images of an imagined afterlife flickered on the screen, I wondered if it would ever cross her mind that her son may have created for her, the only true afterlife that really exists.

Michael wrote:Reading comments and reviews of The Tree of Life, I'm afraid there is nothing to match Kilcher and her affect on me in the film - it doesn't seem to be character-driven as much as The New World.

The films are not really all that comparable, but Hunter McCracken (the oldest brother in TfF who is played by Sean Penn as an adult) is pretty amazing and carries almost the entirety of the emotional weight of the film. Kid's got a great scowl.

One might argue that he overdoes the scowling. Or that Pitt overdoes the underacting. The beauty of the imagery carries this film. I even liked the Sean Penn bits. But in the grand scheme of things it is a failed film. The family story is not that interesting. The cosmos bit is not integrated at all into the film (hence, as has been pointed out, the comparisons to 2001 are ludicrous). The Sean Penn parts are pretty, but trite. The ending is terrible. "Days", "Line" and "World" are all better films because they give you more to connect to besides the beauty.

J Adams wrote:The cosmos bit is not integrated at all into the film

Integrated, no, but not superfluous. It's all right there in the opening quote from the Book of Job. I'm not in the habit of recommending that people read the Bible, but in this case, familiarity with Job (particularly God's response to Job's complaints, which basically boils down to

Spoiler

"You little shit. I created the world, don't question me.")

can only improve one's appreciation of this film.

Even so, it's probably third on my ranked list of Malick's films, squarely in the middle of the pack.

UK release date is now 8 July. According to the Launching Films website, it's being distributed by Fox.

Currently showing at the Max Linder Panorama in Paris, though it seems to be a digital projection ("projection numérique"). If you're in Paris, the same cinema (with I'm told one of the largest non-IMAX screens in the city, though not as large as that in the Grande Salle at Le Grand Rex across the road) has a one off showing of Badlands tomorrow (Monday) at 8pm.

Some brief thoughts:
I saw this at BAM this afternoon and I am very conflicted. I think the film tried very hard to be a lot deeper and philosophical than it ultimately was. It didn't really move me on any deep emotional level. As others states, Pitt's character is the most explored, and I think that took away from this film, since the movie wasn't supposed to be about him. The creation sequence with the dinosaurs was well done, and much better than I thought it would be; though, the CGI looked clunky at times and the sound design was too loud at other moments (dino's footsteps on the rocky river bed for example). I don't know why CGI has to be used for everything. For the scene with the dino on the beach looking at its wound, could they have taken the foam and rubber path? Did the CGI really save them a ton of money? Jabba the Hut in Jedi was more convincing.

Do any of you know Malick's religious beliefs? This movie came off to me as atheist, and sometimes even nihilistic. I certainly don't mean that pejoratively. I got the vibe that he was really going after the Book of Job: since man invented God, and God is identical to man with all of their nonsensical emotions, the Book of Job is simply in the Bible for convenience. To let God off the hook when confronted with logic or rationality. God is an asshole, but 'boys will be boys'.

I also with Malick had fleshed out Penn's character more. I guess we don't need a whiny mid-life-crisis sequence, but anything would have been welcome. Does Penn have more than one line in the film?

Spoiler

I also found the ending somewhat lackluster. But, I am happy Penn was able to "build his bridge" to the light.

I don't know why, but the film just seemed to run out of steam in both photography and editing by the last 10 minutes. I almost want to take the last 10 minutes of Synecdoche, New York and edit it into ToL at the end. I just thought ToL lacked a punch at the end.

With that said, the performances were the best I have seen in a Malick film. They had rhythm and flowed quite well. And finally, the crowning achievement here is the cinematography. What a gorgeous film. I almost think Malick would be a better photographer instead of a filmmaker, but I say that after viewing all of his films.

Questions:

Spoiler

1. So, since the death notice was a telegram, and with the years and ages in mind: the brother was killed in Vietnam, right?
2. Did they ever explain why their one boyhood friend was mangled? Half his hair was burned off.

I just saw the film myself so I don't want to work with any definite yet, but I think Penn was intended more as a guide than a character in the normal sense (he lacks an arc through action with everything about him coming from the younger self). He seems to be there to introduce the story more or less. On the whole I doubt anything is meant in a literal way and I was actually annoyed at the middle section before a realized it's basically a bunch of musical montages set that introduce ideas that are poked and prodded in the 'traditional' parts of this dance. The one thing I noticed is that the music seems to supplement where most of the narration would be in a normal Malick film.

aox wrote:Questions:

Spoiler

1. So, since the death notice was a telegram, and with the years and ages in mind: the brother was killed in Vietnam, right?
2. Did they ever explain why their one boyhood friend was mangled? Half his hair was burned off.

Spoiler

1. I think the bulk of the audience, including me, assumed that it was a wartime/Vietnam related death, until I read that Malick's actual brother moved to Europe to play guitar and upon realizing his lack of the appropriate skill set, broke his own hands and killed himself. Although, in the film it could still be a war related death, perhaps this also informs the scene.

2. The boy's house burned down and he was presumably in the house when it occurred. Jack's friends ostracized him because he was different (ala The Painted Bird), but in the end, his hair regrew where it was burnt and Jack befriended him.

CircusVocabulary wrote:

aox wrote:Questions:

Spoiler

1. So, since the death notice was a telegram, and with the years and ages in mind: the brother was killed in Vietnam, right?
2. Did they ever explain why their one boyhood friend was mangled? Half his hair was burned off.

Spoiler

1. I think the bulk of the audience, including me, assumed that it was a wartime/Vietnam related death, until I read that Malick's actual brother moved to Europe to play guitar and upon realizing his lack of the appropriate skill set, broke his own hands and killed himself. Although, in the film it could still be a war related death, perhaps this also informs the scene.

2. The boy's house burned down and he was presumably in the house when it occurred. Jack's friends ostracized him because he was different (ala The Painted Bird), but in the end, his hair regrew where it was burnt and Jack befriended him.

Spoiler

Yeah, the telegram did suggest that, but I did know that story about his brother, and yes, knowing that did bring some additional weight to that scene.

Re: the boy with the burned head, Kenneth Turan (who wasn't a fan) argued that the film was too opaque to audiences, writing that "the filmmaker seems to see and feel things in these images and situations (for instance, the shaved back of one brother's head) that we do not."

CircusVocabulary wrote:

aox wrote:Questions:

Spoiler

1. So, since the death notice was a telegram, and with the years and ages in mind: the brother was killed in Vietnam, right?
2. Did they ever explain why their one boyhood friend was mangled? Half his hair was burned off.

Spoiler

1. I think the bulk of the audience, including me, assumed that it was a wartime/Vietnam related death, until I read that Malick's actual brother moved to Europe to play guitar and upon realizing his lack of the appropriate skill set, broke his own hands and killed himself. Although, in the film it could still be a war related death, perhaps this also informs the scene.

Spoiler

If we are to look at the movie with the idea that Malick's own brother killed himself for that reason, I think the audience is being deprived something very emotional in the film. Think back to that scene where the brother is strumming his guitar on the front porch while the father plays along on the piano. It is a moment of bonding and understanding that those two characters share. Jack resents both of them for having a mutual passion that brought them together and it's a memory like that that haunts people later in life. Know adult Jack is damaged by guilt/shame years later after his brother's suicide brings many different emotions than if he died in Vietnam (which I assumed too).

knives wrote:

Spoiler

Is it wrong that I assumed that was the third brother also and as a result was confused as to how he lived despite having a funeral.

Spoiler

Mistaking him as the third brother is understandable...I noticed a substantial number of people who were confused as to what was happening with the third brother (did he just drown? or was that not him? etc.), similar to the way people were confused as to what narration belonged to who after The Thin Red Line (something that wasn't completely clear after just one viewing, but at least in that case, I thought it was partly intentional).

But from Turan's review and some other bits he's posted, he didn't even seem to understand that the boy's head was actually burned.

Whut?

The burned hair dude is explained by a brief shot of a burning house.

And the 3rd brother obviously doesn't die. The woman crying over him is not Jessica C and all 3 brothers are at the funeral. Duhsville.

I tend to miss a lot of plot points in films as that is not my main interest, but please.

Now passed 12A by the BBFC for "potentially dangerous behaviour". And the distributor is indeed Fox.

J Adams wrote:Whut?

The burned hair dude is explained by a brief shot of a burning house.

That shot reminded me a huge deal of Badlands, to the extent that I was wondering if it was an extract.