criterionforum.org

According to Lubezki, Malick is working on a 6 hour cut of the film.

Featurette with Nolan and Fincher talking about Malick.

Um, thanks Terry, but the film is long enough as is. And this from someone who "allowed" (sorry, I forget the exact backstory) the far superior "New World" to be butchered. The pretension-meter needs a reset.

I haven't seen The Tree of Life, but perhaps that old saying round here about longer cuts feeling faster paced might apply? Especially if, as the interview seems to say, it focusses on a wider number of characters?

It's become clear, given the film itself and this new update regarding a longer cut, that Malick is wrestling with his content, unsure of the way(s) in which his highly personal approach should be conveyed. Without going into detail (I'll save a longer critical excursion into the depths of Tree of Life for another time), the film struck me as lacking that level of mystery that it so obviously wanted to achieve, and the result for me is that there is no resonance between micro- and macro-cosmic narratives. I wanted so badly to be enveloped by this beautiful conceit, but alas, it didn't do much for me. I was expecting the film to balance those two visions in a more interesting way, to cause synaptic explosions, but I was left considering them on their own, wholly separate terms. That being said, I do occasionally get a flurry of images from the film passing through my head, which is success on some level or another, given the film's preoccupation with (the structure of) memory. I also feel like the more I think of certain images (SPOILER: the flame-like abstractions that bookend the film), the more they cast an interesting shadow over other parts of the narratives. This is so vague, my apologies.

Of course, I fall into the more conservative bunch, which sees the Waco sequence as the film's finest achievement. It is here that Malick touches on something otherworldly (ironic, isn't it?), where each cut carries a sense of weight and leaves you wondering what is that is buried within it. I feel like, of all things, this is what should be expanded, so the prospect of a longer cut which would focus largely on the development of Jack as a child intrigues me. But who knows - Malick might just be digging himself into a deeper hole.

Well I'd be happy to see the film at the length Malick truly intended, whether 6 minutes or 60 hours... And that's regardless of what I may think of the theatrical cut (due in 3 weeks time, yay...) The New World was a lot weaker in its theatrical version, and that had only been chopped by 45m, so who knows what difference an extra 4hrs (!) could make to this - we're talking about a different film, essentially. Anyway, rather 'pretension' than the rote formula and hackery that is the rest of modern Hollywood.

The hackery of modern Hollywood is the same as old school Hollywood.

If he simply cut a couple sequences out of the film, I'd be advocating this as one of the best films of the new millennium.

J Adams wrote:Um, thanks Terry, but the film is long enough as is. And this from someone who "allowed" (sorry, I forget the exact backstory) the far superior "New World" to be butchered. The pretension-meter needs a reset.

Um...Barmy?

This may have already been settled, but

aox wrote:

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?

Spoiler

I hadn't considered that, but I remember hearing the mother saying "to his head" when talking about what happened. The dialogue wasn't super prominent in the mix though, so that's why I only remember that fragment. P Hardly conclusive, but it's something.

whocansay wrote:This may have already been settled, but

aox wrote:

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?

Spoiler

I hadn't considered that, but I remember hearing the mother saying "to his head" when talking about what happened. The dialogue wasn't super prominent in the mix though, so that's why I only remember that fragment. P Hardly conclusive, but it's something.

Spoiler

If he died in Vietnam, wouldn't they get a visit from soldiers, not a telegram? And I don't remember, but it didn't appear to be a military funeral either. Since this is largely autobiographical, the suicide thing seems to make sense. Especially because Brad Pitt is lamenting that he was hard on the kid. Someone tell me otherwise if I am wrong.

Also, what was the scene in the attic with the tall guy about? They cut back to it at least twice.

Zot! wrote:

Spoiler

If he died in Vietnam, wouldn't they get a visit from soldiers, not a telegram? And I don't remember, but it didn't appear to be a military funeral either. Since this is largely autobiographical, the suicide thing seems to make sense. Especially because Brad Pitt is lamenting that he was hard on the kid. Someone tell me otherwise if I am wrong. Also, what was the scene in the attic with the tall guy about? They cut back to it at least twice.

Spoiler

I hadn't considered the telegram vs. visit from the war department. I don't know how these things were handled during the Vietnam War. Vietnam was a the first war where our soldiers had to find there way home themselves on private carriers generally. I only point that out to illustrate that the Vietnam War had some procedural changes from previous American conflicts. The suicide angle is fine as well, but I think it is unfair of Malick to assume autobiographical knowledge. Though, I suppose Pitt's reaction would fit under a suicide narrative. For some reason, the only funeral I remember is the one of their neighbor's. I don't remember the brother's funeral.

As for the attic scenes, I found those to be allusions to God (the Tall Person), Man (The Kid on the Tricycle), and the Universe (the Attic Itself). It seems to fit within the context of the film, especially considering the creation segment.

I just wanted to point out this quote from further down in that Lubezki thread:

After three films with Malick, do you feel he is evolving as a director?
Emmanuel Lubezki : Malick is like a snake, he tries to change his skin. (...) I believe he tries to move away from all the things cinema depends on, like theatre, to make it a "pure medium", even if I don't like this expression. He wants to use only cinema tools/resources, he tries to find the purest way to make films. The film we did after The Tree of Life is even more experimental. It isn't more abstract, but it tries to be pure cinema. It is even less narrative, in the dramatic sense, than The Tree of Life. The method we use is more and more risky, perilous, destructive.

As has been previously reported Malick is going even more experimental with The Burial so everyone might want to prepare themselves. I feel like most of the naysayers on here are just disappointed after having years to build up in their imaginations what their idea of ToL is.

This is an experimental film through and through and any pining for Badlands isn't going to change that. Malick hasn't made a movie like Badlands in thirty years and he's consistently been moving towards this style. It's abstract and rooted in the way we remember things, which is in clipped bursts. Now that there's talk of a 6 hour cut (and I am dubious that this'll ever happen) we have to hold off judgement on exactly what this film is but as it is, it's an experimental remembrance of things past.

I don't want to give my final opinion yet because I have a lot to say and haven't gotten it all together, especially when it comes to how the biographical elements relate to my own childhood having grown up in the south in a neighborhood much like this. I found the story very moving and identified with everything very much. The parents were like pieces of my folks just separated into distinctive sides of a coin.

As far as the form I'll mention the interview with the experimental filmmaker whom Malick used a clip of for the cosmos sequence. He was applauding Malick for "Dropping a 20 minute experimental film into the middle of a big budget hollywood epic" and that's not really the case. It's a 20 minute almost purely abstract sequence in the middle of a 2.5 hour experimental film. I see it very much like "eye myth" dropped into the middle of "window water baby moving".

When I imagine these fragments stretched out over the course of a 6 hour film I see it becoming a six hour version of "george washington", the master returning to teach the student. I think it could be great but I highly doubt I'll watch it in one sitting.

Does the notion of "Pure Cinema" include narration? Isn't narration the dirty and lazy method of anti-cinema by telling and not showing?

I don't want to join the camp of anti-narration cinema purists from the 40s-60s. I like narration and think it can be a useful tool. but those comments struck me as odd. :-k

The cosmos sequence is not experimental. It is a linear narrative. I enjoyed it a lot (especially after seeing it in 35mm--it looks much fakier in digital) until the dinosaur in the river scene which would have been good if it looked more realistic.

The Waco parts are also fairly narrative. There is nothing "experimental" about a film that intersperses scenes of an adult man with a childhood story (which is presented fairly linearly post-cosmos sequence).

The "experimental" element, I suppose, is the minimal character dialogue. But I don't see that as being particularly noteworthy per se.

No one is disputing the beauty of the film. And I think most people appreciate its style. What is lacking is emotional connection, which is present in Malick's other 4 films (I am less high on Badlands than others, because I am not a fan of the "killer" genre).

I think this is due in part to the almost complete absence of a "relationship" between Brad and Jessica. They have almost no dialogue scenes. And very few scenes of interaction. The father-son conflicts are touching to some degree, but both Brad and young Sean are presented as totems and their interactions are a bit repetitive after awhile. And there is nothing new about this theme.

I'm totally fine if Malick continues on this path and can get funding to do so. But to me ToL is not a great film. It aspires too hard to be a masterpiece. (As did Thin Red Line, but it succeeded.) I'd still give it a B+.

aox wrote:

Zot! wrote:

Spoiler

If he died in Vietnam, wouldn't they get a visit from soldiers, not a telegram? And I don't remember, but it didn't appear to be a military funeral either. Since this is largely autobiographical, the suicide thing seems to make sense. Especially because Brad Pitt is lamenting that he was hard on the kid. Someone tell me otherwise if I am wrong.

Also, what was the scene in the attic with the tall guy about? They cut back to it at least twice.

Spoiler

I hadn't considered the telegram vs. visit from the war department. I don't know how these things were handled during the Vietnam War. Vietnam was a the first war where our soldiers had to find there way home themselves on private carriers generally. I only point that out to illustrate that the Vietnam War had some procedural changes from previous American conflicts. The suicide angle is fine as well, but I think it is unfair of Malick to assume autobiographical knowledge. Though, I suppose Pitt's reaction would fit under a suicide narrative. For some reason, the only funeral I remember is the one of their neighbor's. I don't remember the brother's funeral.

As for the attic scenes, I found those to be allusions to God (the Tall Person), Man (The Kid on the Tricycle), and the Universe (the Attic Itself). It seems to fit within the context of the film, especially considering the creation segment.

Spoiler

Not the best source, but Jimmy Cliff's "Vietnam" and a Loretta Lynn song from that era both suggest that a letter was sent.

hearthesilence wrote:

Spoiler

Not the best source, but Jimmy Cliff's "Vietnam" and a Loretta Lynn song from that era both suggest that a letter was sent.

Spoiler

I was under the impression that war department visits were re-instituted during Operation: Desert Storm.

J Adams wrote:The cosmos sequence is not experimental. It is a linear narrative. I enjoyed it a lot (especially after seeing it in 35mm--it looks much fakier in digital) until the dinosaur in the river scene which would have been good if it looked more realistic.

The Waco parts are also fairly narrative. There is nothing "experimental" about a film that intersperses scenes of an adult man with a childhood story (which is presented fairly linearly post-cosmos sequence).

The "experimental" element, I suppose, is the minimal character dialogue. But I don't see that as being particularly noteworthy per se.

No one is disputing the beauty of the film. And I think most people appreciate its style. What is lacking is emotional connection, which is present in Malick's other 4 films (I am less high on Badlands than others, because I am not a fan of the "killer" genre).

I think this is due in part to the almost complete absence of a "relationship" between Brad and Jessica. They have almost no dialogue scenes. And very few scenes of interaction. The father-son conflicts are touching to some degree, but both Brad and young Sean are presented as totems and their interactions are a bit repetitive after awhile. And there is nothing new about this theme.

I'm totally fine if Malick continues on this path and can get funding to do so. But to me ToL is not a great film. It aspires too hard to be a masterpiece. (As did Thin Red Line, but it succeeded.) I'd still give it a B+.

There is more to experimentation than just not being a narrative. In fact just pushing around colors on screen isn't exactly experimental considering how often it's been done. Malick is EXPERIMENTING with how fragmented a narrative can be while still telling a story and being effective moment to moment. "Window Water Baby Moving" and "Dog Star Man" are narratives as well, are they not also experimental?

There's very little relationship between Brad and Jessica because it's not about their relationship or the sons remembrance of their relationship. It's about the way the son remembers his father and vague memories of his idealized mother. What you're asking for isn't what the movie is about.

As to your last comment I don't think it's a masterpiece either. Few films are.

aox wrote:

hearthesilence wrote:

Spoiler

Not the best source, but Jimmy Cliff's "Vietnam" and a Loretta Lynn song from that era both suggest that a letter was sent.

Spoiler

I was under the impression that war department visits were re-instituted during Operation: Desert Storm.

Spoiler

Thanks for that. I think you're right that there was no funeral for the brother, just the drowned kid. I guess I was distracted by that dino.

f the 6 hour cut was just the Wonder Years stuff, I would watch it. I'm also in the camp that found that to be the successful part of this.

I don't see the narrative as that fragmented. There are 2 narratives--cosmos and post-cosmos father-son(s). Both fairly linear and not fragmented. The pre-cosmos bit is the most fragmented.

I'm not saying the film is "about" Brad and Jessica. I'm trying to explain why some people feel meh about the film. I don't see Jessica's character as being successfully presented although Malick is clearly trying to make her a central, resonant figure. If she had a relationship with Brad or something more developed with the boys (other than the traditional "good cop" parent/"idealized mother" element), that would have helped. But we are just supposed to adore her because she's pretty and she floats and is anti-conflict. Malick's other films had nuanced relationships that you could grab onto. This one almost did with Brad/young Sean but did not quite succeed.

Also not saying that films have to be emotionally resonant to be great, but it doesn't hurt.

Considering Thin Red Line's assembly cut was 5 hours, I can't imagine Tree of Life's would be significantly more than that, so unless Malick is wanting to throw in one version of each scene he shot (when he is well known for throwing a lot out in the edit) I don't think there will be a 6 hour cut. 4 hours maybe, but at 6 hours things surely he'd start losing his elliptical style...

Alan Smithee wrote:This is an experimental film through and through and any pining for Badlands isn't going to change that. Malick hasn't made a movie like Badlands in thirty years and he's consistently been moving towards this style. It's abstract and rooted in the way we remember things, which is in clipped bursts. Now that there's talk of a 6 hour cut (and I am dubious that this'll ever happen) we have to hold off judgement on exactly what this film is but as it is, it's an experimental remembrance of things past.

I haven't had a chance to see The Tree of Life yet, but I watched Zoltán Huszárik's Szindbád more than once this year when writing its DVD booklet, and that seems to be doing something very similar.

It's essentially a tangle of memories presented in very short cuts (often so brief that they last mere frames, sometimes in such extreme close-up that it's impossible to interpret them as anything other than abstract colours, shapes and tactile textures until much later, when their origins are revealed), and the only reliable way of keeping track of where you are in terms of chronology is to look at the greyness of the protagonist's hair. In other words, it's an absolute bastard to synopsise, but it makes a surprising amount sense when actually watching it.

That sounds interesting, but is nothing like ToL.

aox wrote:Does the notion of "Pure Cinema" include narration? Isn't narration the dirty and lazy method of anti-cinema by telling and not showing? I don't want to join the camp of anti-narration cinema purists from the 40s-60s. I like narration and think it can be a useful tool. but those comments struck me as odd. :-k

The Tree of Life is, no doubt, pure cinema. If anyone watches this movie and thinks "Malick's telling me, but not really showing me," then I don't know what movie they watched (not to mention, who cares if a filmmaker tells you and doesn't show you everything if it's still amazing? Ever watch a Bergman film? (This isn't directed towards you, rhetorical)). I think he almost only shows you (which I think is why so many people aren't that into the movie. A lot of people don't know how to "read" a film's language). Each shot tells a story. The visual language is telling the story. I don't think the "lazy method" of voice over accusation can really apply to a line like, "Lord...Why?" Haha, ironically, Malick DOES attempt to show this on screen.

On another note, I'm kind of amazed at the reaction from the criterion forum people. I would have thought this would blow minds apart, especially with people of this ilk (foreign/art film fans). I'm also amazed that people think there wasn't enough emotion or the film came off as "cold." Seriously?

Spoiler

I was weeping in the first 10 minutes with the death of the brother, then again during the universe sequence (with Priesner's "Lacrimosa," AMAZING), then again when the father and son play music together, then again when the Mother floats, then again when Pitt has the lines, "I'm a failure. I couldn't see the glory all around me," then again when they're leaving the house and the Mother's line, "Unless you love, your life will flash by," with the music, then AGAIN when the old hand cuts to the young hand on the beach.

Are you nuts? I'm not some sap, but this film is pure emotion.

I've seen it four times. I can't get enough. Stoked on the 6-hour cut and "Voyage Through Time" and 'The Burial.' I hope Malick keeps pushing the style he's been working with and only hope people come around to this in time. I really think The Tree of Life is "future cinema."

Well I'm starting to realize that we just experienced this much differently J Adams because that is how ToL was for me. Just not as extreme. I will say that the editing calms down a bit mid-way through but if you didn't notice just how erratic the editing is shot to shot and scene to scene I think it's a testament to success for Malick.

I just can't see how you can watch this and tell me it's told in a straight forward manner. It simply isn't. There are indeed two narratives as you say and they are linear as you say but they are far from a this-follows this-follows this- traditional form of story telling. It's the same as TTRL or TNW in that he is constantly painting mise en scene, texture and subjective experience but it is throwing more and more at you in a far more jarring fashion than either of those films.

I don't think any final cut will be 6 hours long but if you took out the jump cuts and let these shots play as is it would probably be at least another hour long.

As far as people not being moved by the characters, I understand, but I was. One of my favorite character scenes was

Spoiler

When the boys are playing with the lamp, which is followed later with one of them shooting the others finger with a bb gun. It reminded me of all sorts of little moments of guilt and cruelty as a child.

Alan Smithee wrote: I just can't see how you can watch this and tell me it's told in a straight forward manner. It simply isn't. There are indeed two narratives as you say and they are linear as you say but they are far from a this-follows this-follows this- traditional form of story telling. It's the same as TTRL or TNW in that he is constantly painting mise en scene, texture and subjective experience but it is throwing more and more at you in a far more jarring fashion than either of those films.

Absolutely! Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am genuinely surprised by some of the reactions people are having who generally like Malick's style. It's not my favorite of his films but all I could think while I was watching it was that it was sort of a culmination of the style Malick has been working towards his entire career!