criterionforum.org

Including the evidence that all three brothers are seen at the funeral, and throughout the rest of the film? Pitt runs over and takes charge because that's the kind of showboating "take charge" guy he wanted to be. The neighbor boy's mother - who looks like Chastain, yes - is grieving next to Pitt, while Chastain stands behind.

I was definitely left with the same impression as MyNameCriterionForum.

Without any doubt, only one brother died: the one she receives the telegram about in the beginning. The drowning at the pool was someone outside of their family. All three brothers are at the funeral. The woman who runs up to the boy is NOT Chastain. She resembles her (which isn't a very sensible choice when you're making such an impressionistic film) but it's another woman, another boy, another family. I've only seen the film once, but this was all exceedingly clear to me.

However, I don't think any of this makes zedz initial point irrelevant: it makes sense that the other brother receives less screen time, because it is the recollection of the dead brother which prompts this investigation into his past. It's only natural that he should be foregrounded.

I have things to say about this film, plenty of them, but it's late and I'm not prepared to say them yet. I just wanted to reinforce MNCF's assertion.

Recall that, after the middle son dies at 19, Fiona Shaw's character attempts to console the mother by telling her that she has two sons left.

I'm wondering if Malick intended to cast actors who looked like each other to make a point about the universality of the events. The neighbor boy who drowns looked a lot like the youngest brother and I started searching the screen during the funeral service to identify the brother to make sure I hadn't misunderstood the scene. Malick was particularly stingy in giving us a shot that clearly revealed the younger brother at this time although he is, in fact, there.

zedz' interpretation again aligns this film with 2001 as many have commented that Kubrick's film is presented from a "God's eye-view". My initial reaction was to see THE TREE OF LIFE through the eyes of Jack, but then only an omniscient entity would be present for the creation of the world and its end.

I'm wondering if Malick intended to cast actors who looked like each other to make a point about the universality of the events.

Of course he did. The camera hovers on the red-headed woman who's kid drowned before Chastain appears behind her. Malick does this a few times in the film where you think it's going one way only to reveal something else.

I don't think this movie is about god at all. Well, it is, in the sense that Malick's god is nature and a unified universe. It is certainly not a christian or bearded man god. Think about it:

Spoiler

When young Jack is praying, his prayer is interrupted by HIS QUESTION (the opposite of religious obedience), "Where do you live?" The mother does something similar in the beginning after the middle son dies and shes walking through the streets. The prayer/religious upbringing has answered NOTHING for them (and don't forget the horrifying organ music when Brad Pitt wakes up the boys for church). "Why should I be good when you aren't?"

When the mother says "I give him to you," I don't think she's talking to a god, I think she's talking to the earth and the universe. We even see the brother in the ground following the drowning scene! He is back in the Earth, it's practically literal. Part of the storyline revolves around Jack's question of "How did she bear it?" And finally, I see the final scene as a unifying of the "grace/nature" dichotomy. Adult Jack is miserable because he gravitated towards nature ("Mother, Father, always you wrestle inside me") and only after understanding how grace deals with death, does he realize he needs both nature AND grace. Malick is not saying that grace is perfect either, I think he's suggesting you need to be aware of both aspects inside yourself otherwise you'll "dishonor it all and not see the glory." Hence the final bridge shot on which many metaphors can rest.

CircusVocabulary wrote: I don't think this movie is about god at all. Well, it is, in the sense that Malick's god is nature and a unified universe. It is certainly not a christian or bearded man god. Think about it:

Spoiler

When young Jack is praying, his prayer is interrupted by HIS QUESTION (the opposite of religious obedience), "Where do you live?" The mother does something similar in the beginning after the middle son dies and shes walking through the streets. The prayer/religious upbringing has answered NOTHING for them (and don't forget the horrifying organ music when Brad Pitt wakes up the boys for church). "Why should I be good when you aren't?"

That's a really, really narrow view of what Christianity asks for during prayer- it's unclear what denomination the family belong to (I would guess Catholic, but that doesn't fit well for 50's Texas) but prayer as an open conversation with God in addition to (or instead of) reciting memorized verses is encouraged in quite a few of them. I think you could make a case that the earthbound religious experience of Church is connected more to the father- insofar as it seems to be as much about a display of piety and a chance to talk with the neighbors for him- while ecstatic, spontaneous displays of grace and holiness are connected with the mother, but that's not a strong case for the argument that the movie is rejecting Christian faith, particularly given the focus given to the mother's convictions. I think you are separating the internal and external displays of religion we see, in a way not supported by the movie.

Spoiler

When the mother says "I give him to you," I don't think she's talking to a god, I think she's talking to the earth and the universe. We even see the brother in the ground following the drowning scene! He is back in the Earth, it's practically literal. Part of the storyline revolves around Jack's question of "How did she bear it?" And finally, I see the final scene as a unifying of the "grace/nature" dichotomy. Adult Jack is miserable because he gravitated towards nature ("Mother, Father, always you wrestle inside me") and only after understanding how grace deals with death, does he realize he needs both nature AND grace. Malick is not saying that grace is perfect either, I think he's suggesting you need to be aware of both aspects inside yourself otherwise you'll "dishonor it all and not see the glory." Hence the final bridge shot on which many metaphors can rest.

I agree that part of what we see at the end is a reconciliation of the ways of grace and nature- insofar as we see that nature is itself imbued with grace, throughout the history of the universe. I don't really see where that's incompatible with Christianity, since the glory of God's Creation is something religious artists have reveled in for centuries- although certainly you could make a case that there is some ambiguity here, as views of holiness we get could equally apply to an Emersonian transcendentalism, or something along those lines.

I completely agree. Malick's vision is very in line with specifically christian tradition ranging from the Christ Pantokrator icons to Augustinian cosmology to Franciscan spirituality. Though this may not by recognizable if one is mainly acquainted with american protestant fundamentalism which often leans towards gnosticism in regards to its vision of creation. It is also definitely not pantheistic, as has been suggested, (Jack and the rest of creation are not 'part of God') rather a very orthodox traditional christian interpretation of creation in relationship with the creator and source.

(Jack and the rest of creation are not 'part of God')

I disagree with this. In fact, I think that's the point of the movie, actually: Jack, and us, the viewers, are all part of god/nature/the universe. God isn't an other or an externalization, it is literally everything around us, including us (which feels very atheistic as opposed to a traditional religious view of some shining heaven waiting for us after this life). The universe scenes show that we are all made of stardust and connected, that's why they're in the movie. I also don't know if it's a narrow reading of christian prayer or not, I'm just reading the film. Look at the scene: He is praying in a very forced, almost bored, manner, he looks out the window and in between the words of the prayer we hear "Where do you live?" And I think Malick tells us. "It" (life/love/"the spark") lives inside all of us and all things.

(In the church scene, the shot of the stained glass window shows Jesus not with arms open, but with his hands bound.)

CircusVocabulary wrote:

(Jack and the rest of creation are not 'part of God')

I disagree with this. In fact, I think that's the point of the movie, actually: Jack, and us, the viewers, are all part of god/nature/the universe. God isn't an other or an externalization, it is literally everything around us, including us (which feels very atheistic as opposed to a traditional religious view of some shining heaven waiting for us after this life). The universe scenes show that we are all made of stardust and connected, that's why they're in the movie. I also don't know if it's a narrow reading of christian prayer or not, I'm just reading the film. Look at the scene: He is praying in a very forced, almost bored, manner, he looks out the window and in between the words of the prayer we hear "Where do you live?" And I think Malick tells us. "It" (life/love/"the spark") lives inside all of us and all things.

(In the church scene, the shot of the stained glass window shows Jesus not with arms open, but with his hands bound.)

This equally works for the traditional Christian view of creation. The 'It' just as easily be the imprint of the divine that the creator leaves upon the creation, sometimes called general revelation, directing the individual back to God the creator. The film is probably not saying anything about the 'afterlife' or heaven, focusing instead on creation and the life of grace. The narrow interpretation that [Christianity = american protestant fundamentalism] is the only one that would exclude this (most non-fundamentalists do not have a problem with the stardust creation connection because they do not have a problem with either evolution or the big bang) which is inconsistant with the rest of the historical tradition.

The bound Jesus likely is a sign of suffering, than anything else. (Remember, Malick uses a nearly 10 minute Agnus Dei which repeats 'Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world' several times, reflecting back to this image of the suffering Jesus and making direct reference to the redemption of the world through grace.)

Fortunately, the truth is we will never definitively know exactly the interpretation...

I'm curious if you see these explicit religious things in the rest of Malick's films, because a friend of mine told me they didn't like Tree of Life so much because there was "too much god." To which I replied, "That's weird to me because I thought it has the same amount as all his other movies." I think he is celebrating the same ideas in Thin Red Line mostly, but all his films are kind of about the same thing (I don't mean this in a negative way at all). Just curious.

I agree.
The religious themes in Tree of Life is quite consistant with both Thin Red Line (which was an obvious christ parable) and the New World (not so obvious, but I have a well thought out hunch...)

See, maybe this is the thing: I'm not religious at all and wasn't raised as such either. While I'm knowledgeable about world religions, I really look at these films from a totally secular perspective. Besides the self sacrifice at the end of Thin Red Line, could you talk about what makes that film some kind of jesus parable?

Malick uses a very common theme from the western artistic / literary tradition. A humble person, (here a pacifist) unjustly suffering for refusing to compromise this 'grace' to do what society expects of him (here - to fight as a soldier) and ultimately sacrifices his life. The Melanesian hymns / litugical chants further add to this interpretation.

If one considers that the film takes place inside Jack's mind from beginning to end (the scenes where he isn't present being his imagining of what occured), it is basically impossible to ascribe a Christian or non-Christian view to the film itself. Jack has been raised a Christian and this manifests itself in the way he views the world, that is about all one can say I think.

About The Thin Red Line:

Spoiler

This is partly true, and yet Witt doesn't experience the 'glory' after death that he is expecting. We see light, and hear the echoes of the gunshots as his life ends but then that's it, blackness.

Giap wrote:About The Thin Red Line:

Spoiler

This is partly true, and yet Witt doesn't experience the 'glory' after death that he is expecting. We see light, and hear the echoes of the gunshots as his life ends but then that's it, blackness.

Spoiler

We have no access to what Witt may or may not experience after death. The blackness you refer to is ours. You are certainly right, however, that his lingering memory doesn't experience glory ("Where's your spark now?", etc.) but then even that depends on how you look at it ("One man looks at a dying bird..", the prominence of life in the final shots, etc.). I can only appropriately quote that line from Temple of Doom: "I've followed you on many adventures...but into the great unknown mystery, I go first, Indy!"

Yes, you have put it more precisely. Malick doesn't force an interpretation either way, which I think is also true of The Tree of Life despite more prominent Christian content.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Jack's wife? No, I think she's speaking to God, regarding the middle brother who died.

(I've unspoilered this since it should be safely obscure without context.)

Doesn't that voiceover accompany the shot of Jack's mother in a three-way embrace that includes his wife? To be honest, there are all sorts of possible meanings, but it's only the too-blatant Jesus one that bothers me.

zedz wrote:Doesn't that voiceover accompany the shot of Jack's mother in a three-way embrace that includes his wife? To be honest, there are all sorts of possible meanings, but it's only the too-blatant Jesus one that bothers me.

You may be right, I'll have to watch specifically for that on my next viewing. I do think she is raising her head into the light, eyes closed, when she utters the lines, so... But I'm fine (in favor of, actually) multiple readings.

Giap wrote:If one considers that the film takes place inside Jack's mind from beginning to end (the scenes where he isn't present being his imagining of what occured), it is basically impossible to ascribe a Christian or non-Christian view to the film itself. Jack has been raised a Christian and this manifests itself in the way he views the world, that is about all one can say I think.

Echoes my feelings exactly. Looking back, I see the footage framed by the fragmented memories of someone wracked with guilt and a crisis of faith. And perhaps, someone measuring their own existence/pain to that of the universe's (or his perception of it?). That's how I chose to read the film, anyway.

I should also mention that I loved the film. I can't place it with his others, it seems like it's in a class of its own.

Does anyone know where the

Spoiler

drowning

scene was filmed? I would very much like to go there.

GoldenPilgrim wrote: Does anyone know where the

Spoiler

drowning

scene was filmed? I would very much like to go there.

That particular scene was filmed at Barton Springs in Austin, Tx. It's one of our fair city's attractions, and worth a visit.

J Adams wrote:

MichaelB wrote: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.

Actually, I found that the two films had a huge amount in common - to the point where I was really grateful that I spent so much time with Szindbád last May, as it put me on the right wavelength to appreciate The Tree of Life pretty much from the start.

It seems to me that both Malick and Huszárik are trying to express ideas about the present, the past and human memory that challenge conventional film grammar on a fundamental level, and both The Tree of Life and Szindbád revolve around a meticulous, almost tactile recreation of a particular historical epoch (1950s Texas and 1900s Hungary) conveyed almost entirely from the protagonist's fractured viewpoint (fractured because it's conveyed as flash-cut memories rather than something more conventionally structured).

The really fundamental difference is that Malick is generally looking outwards (medium to long to cosmic shots), while Huszárik is looking inwards (medium to close-up to extreme close-up) - though Malick's cosmic shots and Huszárik's extreme close-ups both ultimately achieve a similar kind of abstraction.

Blu-ray release schedule so far:
September 27 - Canada
October 12 - France
October 31 - United Kingdom
November 9 - Australia
November 10 - Germany

??? - USA

This is one of the most epic threads in forum history, no? I have taken for granted that it's in my "View New Posts" list almost every single day for years now.

Shhhhh. Stop now before someone starts a consensus rankings of the greatest forum threads ever.

"Fantastic" news, Estonian theatrical release date has been bumped by a whole week: 2nd December.

Wait, that's still six months too late...

LAME!!! (Eric Cartman)