by Sam Juliano
For the second time in five years an American director has crafted a cosmic, impressionistic light show with profound spiritual underpinnings and an existential inquiry into the meaning of life and the indominability of love in the general scheme. Terrence Malick’s long anticipated The Tree of Life, like it’s 2006 cinematic soulmate The Fountain, explores the sensual possibilities of the cinema in an astounding rebuke to the conventions of multiplex fare that recalls Kubrick while at the same time establishing its own irregular aesthetic. This is the second time (after The New World) the reclusive director has opted to scrap any semblance of a narrative structure, choosing to tell his story through interlocking themes, intimate ruminations on life and humanity, and a kind of stream-of-consciousness that reveals the characters’ innermost thoughts often uttered underneath a perplexing metaphysical tapestry. Needless to say the enigmatic presentation will doubtlessly alienate some film fans, hungry for a more cogent connection between the awe-inspiring scenes depicting the beginnings of life on earth, and the perplexing and painful travails of a Texas family circa 1950.
The shape of The Tree of Life is more attuned to a symphony in music than it is to a story arc in literature. This is partly as a result of Malick wanting to express himself in “movements” where each evokes moods and textures, but are unquestionably tied to the larger whole of the work, where he intends everything to come full circle. Again recalling Kubrick, the director places music as the vital component to replace dialogue in enhancing his visuals with the proper aural accompaniment to bring his entrancing ideas to full fruition. Among other notable composers, Malick, echoing 2001: A Space Odyssey makes superlative use of Brahams, Gorecki, Berlioz, Bach, Holst and Mahler, which he apparently instructed Alexandre Desplat to incorporate into his own score. The sublime choral passages underline the film’s extraordinary second act, when Malick envisions the dawn of the universe include Zbigniew Preisner’s sublime “Lacrimosa” and give the film a spiritual undercurrent that oddly meshes with the astronomical truths that have always negated theological doctrine. After a planetarium-like showcase of the galaxies in flux, Malick moves back to earth and the prehistoric era, where he captures a cruel act that will later parallel the human clashes in his twentieth centry story. Further, the human fetus in the mother’s womb is a microcosm of evolution, where millions of years are compressed into a few months. There are subsequently long stretches of silence evinced in a visual holding pattern that will allow viewers to ponder the serious questions that are rarely posed in narrative films. In keeping with the central theme couched in the film’s title, Malick aims his camera up trunks to the loftiest branches and green leaves and beyond into the sky. Basically he takes up where he left off in The New World in bringing visual adornment to the the central symbol in all it’s awe-spiring and majestic beauty.
In any event the main story is an abstract coming of age tale that centers around young Jack (Hunter McCracken), one of the three sons of Pitt and his lovely wife (Jessica Chastain) who is before long coming face-to-face with death, iniquity and deviant behavior. In brief vignettes Jack watches the neighbor’s boy drown, breaches his brother’s trust, and steals a dress from another home. But the overriding domestic discord is caused by Pitt’s inability to overcome his authoritarianism. He instructs his kids to address him as “Sir” and even to “Hit me!” in toughening them up for life’s inevitable cruel turns. It’s clear enough that Pitt is loving and well-intentioned, but that he was scarred in a career gone astray. His propensity at the keyboard suggest a missed opportunity, caused by armed forces intervention. Likewise, with any luck, he may have secured a patent for his “inventions.” The mother is less vividly drawn, and in fact is only an ideal for her kids, representing the symbol of motherhood that follows the old-fashioned rules of patriarchal authority. But in this household a volcano is ready to explode. It mirrors the harmony and discord that characterize the difficulties in families when emotions are held in check.
Yet it’s clear enough that Malick’s overarching point is that mankind’s place in the general scheme is as miniscule as a blink of the eye in the billions of years since the Big Bang, and that feelings and memory are as fleeting as the onset of the next series of human events. Certainly one is reminded of the remembrances that are caught for a nano-second near the conclusion of Spielberg’s A.I Artifical Intelligence that are meant to last for all eternity.
It could be reasonably argued that the modern-day framing sequences involving the grown up Jack (played by Sean Penn as a successful architect) detract from the central story. Jack for one, appears distraught, and the largely wordless sequences are awkwardly staged and inconclusive, at least until the arresting sequence on the beach, ushered in by flowers, when the long-suffering souls are reconciled. The Tree of Life, which opened with a death (the middle son, R.L.) concludes with a kind of resurrection, a clear enough sign that Malick has infused his work with Christian principals, even if his scientific assertions are at odds with theological doctrine.
Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who brought such visual distinction to the futuristic Children of Men employs a roving camera to arresting effect, while imbuing the Texas sequences with a a mysterical pictorial beauty that has long become a Malick trademark. The 17 minute cosmic sequence of course immediately takes its place as one of the most astounding and spectacular segments in the history of the cinema, a fact that cements Lubezki’s place as a cameraman par excellence. Visual effects wizard Douglas Trumbull, whose work on 2001 is justly celebrated, served as a consultant on The Tree of Life, further establishing an artistic kinship with the 1968 film landmark. The meticulous and believable recreation of the film’s period was essentially the result of ongoing re-takes by Malick, and the work of production designer Jack Fisk and costume designer Jacqueline West.
As the tyrannical father who still professed an unconventional love for his children, Brad Pitt delivers what is probably the finest performance of his career. The film’s real finds however are Jessica Chastain, who plays the angelic, nature-loving mom, and young McCracken, a non-professional Texan found near the end of a talent search, whose expressiveness and rich portrayal rank among the most remarkable ever for a child actor. The Sean Penn role, as implied earlier, is more of a symbol than any kind of fleshed-out character, and it’s value here is little more than a marquee name.
The Tree of Life will inspire serious debate among cineastes for decades to come. It’s one of those rare films that has you thinking days after with the same veracity that dominated your consciousness in the hours immediately following the experience. It’s a towering work by a towering artist, and it will likely exaserbate as many as it will enthrall. It’s a metaphorical voyage into the outer recesses of memory, faith and the infinite that requires far more than the logistics of order and logic. The Tree of Life is both elusive and accessible, vague and lucid, real and surreal. Its a film about the loss of faith and the renewel of belief. Malick has mustered up the audacity to survey the cycle of life and it’s origins, and we can only look on riveted and enthralled on a level one rarely experiences within the confines of a movie theatre.
Final Rating: ***** (masterpiece)
Note: I saw “The Tree of Life” on Saturday evening, May 28th at 7:45 P.M. at the Sunshine Landmark Cinemas on Houston Street with Lucille, Broadway Bob and Bob Clark. Broadway Bob’s final opinion was scathing, while Bob Clark’s response falls somewhere in the middle. We all stopped at The Dish for a late night snack and enjoyed a marvelous talk.
I saw The Tree Of Life friday after work with my girlfriend. We caught the 530 show at Sunshine Landmark. I must agree with you Sam, that it is an absolute classic. Your essay does a great job describing the indescribable. I was awed by the philosophical heft and multiple interpretations the director throws at the audience. I love replaying certain scenes in my minds eye and trying to develop possible meanings that could be relevant. Is the beach conclusion heaven? Is it a daydream by Jack hopeful to one day reuniting with all his loved ones? A Christian vibe is clearly detectable throughout The Tree Of Life, but like any great artist, that message/factor is not forced or even required to be appreciated.
It is impossible to fully assess the movie in relation to the rest of Malick’s filmography after one viewing. I do think it stands above both Badlands and Days Of Heaven. Since I have always been a bigger fan of post exile Malick, the bigger question for me is where it sits with The Thin Red Line and The New World. Time will tell in the end… It surly is on the same pedestal overall. A great movie and a wonderful review.
I haven’t seen the film, but how can a Christian vibe come from a film so concerned with the cosmos? I mean once the Big Bang is evoked Christianity sort of goes bye-bye.
Not all Christians are against the big bang would be my answer (the idea that god willed the big bang into happening would be the explanation given by many). Some people do believe in both god and evolutionary science. I get the sense that Malick is in that group and somewhat explicitly expresses beliefs in both. He uses biblical passages not just in the opening, but also in some of the narration and dialogue. Part of the movie seems to be a subtle plea to god about why certain things happen to those we love. Sam and others who have seen The Tree Of Life can surly back this up. In many ways it could be viewed as a partially religious/Christian movie that isn’t bound by hardline traditional dogma. As a questioning skeptic when it comes to a higher power, I enjoyed the picture immensely because Malick never truly commits to one absolute answer (or any) to the origins of the universe. He leaves it up to the audience to take what they need from his work.
Jamie, are you aware the the Big Bang theory came from, of all people, a Catholic priest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
that’s the classic ‘have your cake and eat it too’ of modern Christianity. Kinda like them bending the Bible to match evolution (God orchestrated it, and continues to orchestrate it). Only more laughable then the claims are the people that suddenly believe it.
Again, I haven’t seen it but I do want to see it multiple times thinking specifically about it’s Philosophy. Malick is a Heideggerian philosopher which means he isn’t dogmatically atheistic, but he also probably doesn’t believe in God with a capital ‘G’ as you guys are speaking here.
Oh, and most of the Christian readings I’ve read in reviews (and you do to as does Sam) point to the idea of resurrection/reincarnation. This is just your Western perspective singling out Christianity as pretty much all theistic religions in the World today offer this idea (and several others do too).
Jamie, I’m not making any comment on the film’s attitudes towards religion vs. science. I was just demonstrating that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Christianity doesn’t go out the window with the Big Bang theory– in fact, without the first, we likely wouldn’t have had the second.
Not sure I’d put it like that Bob, in fact I wouldn’t.
I think it’s as important to consider Lemaitre’s status as a priest as it is to consider the backgrounds of any revolutionary scientific thinker. If a religiously devout man of the cloth can coin the Big Bang theory, why should believing that be contrary to any kind of religious belief?
I am pretty sure I read somewhere (actually a few times) that Malick is deeply religious. I have seen the movie and it seems quite apparent that Malick believes in some higher power. God is explicitly mentioned throughout the film, and there are clear visual cues that the director is asking some higher power for answers to his questions on human existence. I would assume that Malick is not a hardcore traditional Christian that takes the bible literally, but that he clearly believes in some grand mystical force that helped create this world. Stating these things are not to reinforce some view I hold to be true and dear, but from what I clearly saw while watching the film.
Malick is also American and a westerner, so perhaps the heavenly ending and other religious aspects in The Tree Of Life is the influence of a similar perspective that me and Sam noticed (among many critics).
“I would state that Malick is not a traditional Christian that takes the bible literally, but that he clearly believes in some grand mystical force that helped create this world.”
Absolutely Maurizio!!!
This was clear as day in THE TREE OF LIFE, but beyond that Malick’s religious slant has been docmented and attested to by many analysts. It’s generally thought that Malick’s embrace of an abstract Christian conviction has gathered momentum in recent years. In fact a number of critics have out and out called THE TREE OF LIFE a religious treatise.
I don’t see anything wrong with believing in God and the big bang or evolution. Christians who subscribe to this belief would be a wiser group in my opinion. I almost want to subscribe to this notion myself lol. For now I will continue to believe that the answers are beyond human comprehension and only truly possible once we expire.
Bob, I couldn’t disagree more. It reminds me of the old Sam Harris quote, when it was asserted to him how many discoveries or beauty was created in the name of God that it must lead to some sort of stance one could assert about God. Harris took a moment, then brilliantly said, (something along these lines) ‘you could draw a conclusion about house painters in the 1800’s too, most were probably all Christians in America. And yest this says nothing about the divinity of applying paint to a house.’ Brilliant.
_ _ _ _
Maurizio, don’t confuse ‘deeply religious’ and ‘believes in God’. He may be, but those aren’t mutually exclusive.
“It’s generally thought that Malick’s embrace of an abstract Christian conviction has gathered momentum in recent years. In fact a number of critics have out and out called THE TREE OF LIFE a religious treatise.”
See this Sam is interesting… man I want to see this. Strange too when you think of his first two films specifically are certainly dealing with a world with religions inherent (phony) values, or a ‘God’ in general. Again, can’t wait to see this and speak further.
“For now I will continue to believe that the answers are beyond human comprehension and only truly possible once we expire.”
It’s egotistic, or foolish (or both) to believe that answers actually exist and that we’ll be given them, or should seek them.
I will say since Sam outlines a bit of the plot it’s amazing how much this film thematically seems like Noe’s recent ‘Enter the Void’, has anyone seen both films to speak on this?
It’s egotistic, or foolish (or both) to believe that answers actually exist and that we’ll be given them, or should seek them.
“Some day we’ll fall down and weep, and we will understand it all. All things……”
Ah Jamie, I have no excuses for missing this film to this point. I was close to seeing it about four times, but there was seemingly always a conflict. I must watch the DVD very soon, thanks for the rightful reminder.
Jamie I have not seen Enter The Void yet, but many critics have linked the two (usually with Malick’s film considered superior) as having similarities.
I must admit while watching The Tree Of Life I actually predicted that Sam would give it 5 stars to my girlfriend. It also has similarities to The Fountain (the Malick film is better overall) that I figured he would embrace. The classical music employed is second to none. It is as effective as Wagner in The New World and Kubrick’s use in 2001. I also wondered to myself what Jamie would think since a belief in god seems very clear throughout The Tree Of Life. I await your take when it reaches Chicago.
Seeking out answers to life is the whole point. The reason science and scientists even exist. There is nothing egotistical or foolish to try to get down to why we are here. Maybe assuming that they will be given to us is a fallacy, but trying to find answers or seeking them out is the greatest quest/journey for mankind.
yeah I can’t wait… and I now wonder what you’ll think of the Noe, it’s not transgressive like his others. I mean it’s extreme, but not violence per say. And it’s moments of transcendence use trance/beat music which seems more natural to me then classical at this point for those sort of moments. More hypnotic, less bombastic.
Jamie, I’m not asserting that a scientific discovery made by a priest or even a lay religious person says anything about God, or whether or not such a thing exists. I’m saying that it’s wrongheaded to say that religious and scientific ways of thinking are mutually exclusive, especially when so many scientific discoveries are made by devoutly religious individuals. Christianity cannot simply go “bye-bye” when considering the Big Bang– if a goddamn priest can have an open mind enough to come up with the theory, I don’t think it’s any contradiction in terms for somebody to believe in both it and God without breaking a sweat.
Whether or not God exists is beside the point. The question I’m talking about is not one of divinity, but one of humanity. Believing in God and the Big Bang or evolution is no more a challenge than believing that the Earth is neither round, nor the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. It’s the belief that there has to be a sharp line dividing science and faith that leads to so much intolerance and persecution on either side, and the more it can be blurred, frankly, the better.
Bob, the priest that first identified the Big Bang himself said it wasn’t a religious proposition, or that religion was needed in it’s discovery. He said it was entirely a scientific theory based on science.
You evoking some sort of me being ‘narrow minded’ for rejecting religion in this field says more about Religions prevailing scope on everything. It’s not inherent on anything until we (you in this case) put it squarely there, and no it’s not ‘better’ this way.
I will say anytime religion is said to be ‘persecuted’ by secular thought makes me chuckle. As I’ve seen this comic:
“Seeking out answers to life is the whole point. The reason science and scientists even exist. There is nothing egotistical or foolish to try to get down to why we are here. Maybe assuming that they will be given to us is a fallacy, but trying to find answers or seeking them out is the greatest quest/journey for mankind.”
Maurizio I couldn’t agree more as here you imply a journey that is individualistic, unique, and creative. Earlier you hint at the readymade (Religious) idea that our ‘answers’ are delivered by an omnipotent thing at death (the idea of afterlife would be here). So yes I agree life should be a journey of personal discovery— a road with no borders— the religious quest is one road that you can’t step off of, and it travels in one direction. Leading you to preset questions and answers. This is where we perhaps don’t jive, or where I disagreed (though maybe not).
I’m aware that Lemaitre’s science was unmotivated by religion. But his belief in one didn’t contradict the other, and that’s the issue I have with your statements here. And yeah, intolerance towards anybody who maintains something more than aggressively atheistic secularism nowadays is something worth fighting, because all it does is stoke the fires of the religious zealots out there. You win more converts with honey than bees.
But then I’m just seeking something personal. Adding converts to my side isn’t what I’m after.
I’m not sure you can maintain isolationism if you’re really motivated to hold a place in any philosophical discourse. Nobody gets to be Switzerland in the Culture Wars.
Switzerland was neutral, I’m quite a bit opposite of that. In a world full of agnostic fence sitters in theistic discussions I’m am no neutral.
Yes, you are. You’re Neutral Evil.
My larger point here is that I’m not sure of the validity of claiming you have a concrete position on a subject, but don’t quite care if you sway anybody else to your point of view. You might not care to win converts, but you have a stake in encouraging pluralism over orthodoxy, which might be a better way to put it.
Being agnostic is not fence sitting. It means you accept that the answers are not knowable at this present moment in terms of the origins of life etc. I view atheists as being almost as foolish as bible thumpers in that they cannot prove their beliefs beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is all speculation and guesses that science can’t back up concretely yet. One day the time may come where an absolute belief in some mystical power is clearly wrong and easily dismissed. At this present time we are all making unsubstantiated claims about things we still do not know or fully understand (like asking a child to understand grownup scenarios). In terms of evolution we are still 6 year olds without any answers to our existential questions.
Malick takes a great crack at it and unleashed a powerful film. Remember Jamie my religious statements above are more about what I feel Terrance Malick is trying to say then something I personally may believe.
Like Humphrey Bogart I need the facts….
Methinks Maurizio makes quite a bit of sense here!
The entire discussion though, with Bob and Jamie is fascinating for sure.
Don’t you mean Joe Friday?
No Sam, Maurizio is not making a sound argument (as his argument is essentially no argument). You need to understand the etymology of the term ‘atheist’. It essentially derives from ‘anti-theist’. I think any rational or half way reasonable person can read any of the sacred texts of the theistic religions and know that if they were put on the stand their claims would be shown to be false more often then not thus rendering there ‘testimony’ not admissible.
Saying ‘you don’t know enough’ amounts to answers forthcoming (false), or ‘humans don’t have the capacity for such things’ (probably true) renders any stance on the subject (even fence sitting like agnosticism) pointless to the point that even saying you don’t know isn’t worth the breath it takes to push from your lungs.
It short I feel agnostics are nothing more then people who haven’t read nor thought about the subject enough (or worse they don’t want to offend, i.e. the epitome of soft mushy thinking).
“One day the time may come where an absolute belief in some mystical power is clearly wrong and easily dismissed.”
that day has come, too many times to count. Maybe it was the day Nietzsche publish ‘The Gay Science’, maybe it was the day the witches were burned at the stake, maybe it was the day Darwin realized what he did in the Galapagos, maybe it was when the atom was seen (then harnessed and split)…
Or maybe it’s the day you look inside yourself.
Jamie: What you say makes quite a bit of sense as well, and you probe deeply. I guess this is a subject I would need to apply much more of my thought-process and my philosophy on, before coming forward with a satisfactory response.
“I think any rational or half way reasonable person can read any of the sacred texts of the theistic religions and know that if they were put on the stand their claims would be shown to be false more often then not thus rendering there ‘testimony’ not admissible.”
Aside from the necessity to sift through the layers of poetic metaphor and absolute fiction with which practitioners have read the substance of most religious texts over the centuries (reading the more outlandish tales of the Bible as pure fact is really more of a modern convention than anything else), just because you’ve got a few false witnesses doesn’t mean that the case they’re being asked to prove isn’t correct. Jim Garrison might not’ve gotten all the facts right when he took the Kennedy assasination to trial, but does anybody believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone-gunman, nowadays?
Bob, comparing it to the JFK trial is all sorts of wrong (logically I mean, not morally)… this is a convo to bookmark until I travel to NYC next to be finished (or formally started?) over beers.
The O.J. Simpson trial, perhaps? I’m just saying that the burden of proof argument is an iffy thing when faith itself dictates belief outside of the spectrum of imperical evidence, altogether. If there is a God, then probably leaving no traces of existence behind is something of an act of mercy. Without room for doubt (reasonable or otherwise), people couldn’t live freely.
And as for beer, remember what Benjamin Franklin said.
In a court of law you need concrete facts to win your side of the argument. Both atheists and theologians come up to the judge and jury without indisputable forensics, hard evidence, or reliable eyewitness testimony. Neither group has a slam dunk case regardless of what they say. “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” When there is no case the defendants go home and the court tries another incident. Agnostics are the hung jury that realizes its madness to take either side. Mushy thinking is actually self restraint and not giving in to pompous self importance/beliefs. Your examples are one sided and completely inconsequential when explaining anything. You bring up Nietzsche, while someone could probably counter with C.S. Lewis. Endless loop of unsubstantiated testimony.
I will say that the atheists have the better case when it comes to providing some evidence. Still the holes in their defense are much to large to win a conviction. I feel like the baseball guy in 12 Angry Men. Get me out of this room so I can go see the Yankees already.
Maurizio, here is something truly beautiful to unwind to: (from the French film LES CHORISTES, music by Bruno Coulais)
Maurizio, if I was sitting right next to you I’d wash your mouth out with soap… comparing Nietzsche to CS Lewis! lol.
In all seriousness though, I’m reading Nietzsche’s THE WILL TO POWER again, and yesterday while traveling back to Chicago I had about 6 hours to ‘deal with it’ one on one. He was onto something, something profound that CS Lewis et al can only dream about.
Jamie, I wouldn’t have made the CS Lewis comparison myself, as he’s a writer of fiction instead of philosophy (which automatically puts him higher, in my book). But I will say that even a more or less non-religious person like me finds a good deal of worth in his stuff. The “Narnia” stories are classics, far greater than the rather static mythic aspirations of Tolkien. “The Screwtape Letters” are an absolute hoot, probably the finest piece of religiously inspired literature since the likes of Dante or Milton. What’s so fascinating about that work is how he cuts deep into the substance of human psychology and thinking through thinking about things from the perspective of the Devils on our shoulders, out serving “Our Father Below”. I’m not of the same mind of him when it comes to spiritual cosmology, but he writes fascinatingly and persuasively when it comes to diagnosing the problems of self-defeatist thinking, of how we trap ourselves in painful doubt and vicious circles– how we all too often wind up “selling our souls” and getting nothing back in return. He’s a writer worthy of being cherished– even a devout atheist like Phillip Pullman (whose “His Dark Materials” trilogy is the only piece of fantasy-lit that comes close to “Narnia”) doesn’t write him off entirely.
I’ll react to all this after I get through the chore of doing a Morning Show, but I’ll say this.
Tolkien: “Clive, this is not it.”
Fantastic reaction Maurizio! Thanks for the exceedingly kind words and the appreciable analysis. I’m sure it will take a bit of time to assess the overall standing in Malick’s canon, but we aurely agree it’s one of his great ones. I only wish we could have met up. I’m sure that will happen soon.
Well Sam let me know if you and Dennis go see it again. I have no problems watching The Tree Of Life for a second time before a DVD release. Maybe Bob will make the trip again as well. I heard the big bang section has about an hour of extra footage that might be turned into some IMAX doc narrated by Brad Pitt. I hope Malick includes it in a director’s cut instead and extends the 138 minute theatrical cut by some margin.
For Jamie… my opinion on C.S. Lewis is immaterial and not really the point. I bring him up as one example of an intellectual who would defend the other team’s view. Your profound love for Nietzsche is no different than an old college professor I had who was brought to tears over The Screwtape Letters in an English class I took. We studied that book for a brief amount of time as he waxed lyrical about its absolute greatness to everyone. To him and you I say….. case dismissed!! Come back when you have some sort of real bombshell evidence. This agnostic is going to shower and then ponder the meaning of Dirk’s one legged jump shot vs Lebron’s athletic freak of nature status. Unlike religion/atheism a victor will be crowned. Hopefully the refs and Mr. Stern won’t tamper the evidence.
But here Maurizio you show your (perhaps) shaky scholarship, it just isn’t factually accurate to say CS Lewis is yin to Nietzsche’s yang. Nietzsche is one of the greatest minds our deepest intellectual endeavor (philosophy) has ever produced, his works shook and continue to shake our culture and the world around us. CS Lewis was one in the long line of Christian apologetics of which each generation has several. Yes, I like Nietzsche, but I also dislike him because he shakes me and everything about my (and your) world, I think your professor liked Lewis (and every CS Lewis fan I’ve ever encountered is the same) because he tells them exactly what it is they want to hear, and he dresses it up in such a way they it seems that more legitimate.
In short, if you really feel the need to write off Nietzsche’s supreme brilliance at least compare him to Kierkegaard or Pascal (though Pascal is iffy as surely Nietzsche renders him moot to downright trivial).
But we agree on basketball, such a beautiful game. LeBron to me is the painter of great beauty (even if he’s probably someone I wouldn’t want to stand next to off the court for longer then 5 seconds).
Mauriz, if the extra-hour of “Tree of Life” reappears in theaters, I might consider seeing it again, as the Big Bang section was probably the only part I didn’t have major problems with. Otherwise, I felt as though my time seeing it was already my umpteenth time, as it felt so rote and familiar.
Jamie– philosophy is man’s deepest intellectual endeavor? Really? I can appreciate that as an opinion, man, but there’s something a little disconnected from the real world that makes me doubt its practicality. For how it affects everyday life in the modern world, I’d label it more as an intellectual entertainment. Imperfect as they are, institutions like politics and religion probably offer more substantial ways to positively influence people’s lives on small and large scales. Philosophy, in its pure-bred form, is off on its own. It’s butter, not guns.
Yes Bob but politics and religion are both derived from Philosophy. It’s how we think, it’s art.
I don’t know– wouldn’t religious doctrine and belief structures have predated any kind of philosophical rigour? Wouldn’t the outlining of a primitive society have come before, as well? Hell, I’m willing to bet that cavemen drew stuff on walls long before any of that.
Granted, philosophical debate as we know it probably led to the greater organization of religious and political thinking, but there are genuine human instincts that those things are driven by. Philosophy is a bit more abstract. We tend to think of religion and politics only in the Western forms we know them as today, but even if you’re just looking back to the first stories of Zeus (or whoever), these things have a longer reach than we tend to give them credit.
Maurizio: I will e mail you as soon as I speak to Dennis. In fact he will be here this evening for our weekly “pasta night” with a few others. I will attempt to get a mutual date, though I do know he is off only on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Are you available on either of those two days?
If so we can all see the film next week on the 8th or 9th.
Bob: I love that new title—“Monsieur Clark”
Excellent review, Sam. The second paragraph is truly exceptional!
Thanks so very much for that Srikanth!
Now the ultimate review will emnate from your own pen, and I can’t wait!
I always love to see a film connect with someone completely. I’ll have to wait a couple weeks, but I’ll come back and reread this piece once I’ve seen the film. For now, though, I’ll just have to vicariously bask in the glow of your writing. Days of Heaven on the big screen this Saturday ought to tide me over until it’s time to leave the fields for the forests. Or something like that.
Those are exceedingly kind words Jean, and coming from someone as talented as you they mean quite a bit to me. Yes, there is nothing to match the feeling of being overwhelmed. Some may argue it blinds you to seeing flaws in any work, but I would counter that if these imperfections were so pronounced, they would in some way compromise the experience. Malick’s film goes beyond the relatively modest state of thought-provoking, and induces you to ponder the most important questions in our existence. At the risk of posing an oft-used cliche I’ll say it’s truly transcendent. That’s agreat idea to re-visit DAYS OF HEAVEN, and time permitting I might follow up with THE NEW WORLD!
Anyway, I’m sure we’ll soon be reading a revelatory essay at VELVETY BLACKNESS!
Wow Sam. This is indeed a remarkable review!! Thank you for beautifully conveying a sense of the awe-inspiring cinematic experience you were treated to. Like many others, I am eagerly waiting to dive into this film and hope my wait won’t be more than 2-3 weeks now. Although I know people who were expecting to see this film at Cannes 2010 and have been waiting for it for more than 1.5 years, so a few more weeks does not seem too painful 🙂
Even before I read any reviews of The Tree of Life, I had wondered if there would be such cosmic sequences in the film, given the title, some of the initial posters and going by what I had seen in the thai film Mundane History (Anocha Suwichakornpong) last year. I am not sure if you saw Mundane History? The film featured two amazing sequences which paused the ‘mundane’ narrative thread of the film to show us the origin of the universe via the big bang and then the evolution of mankind leading up to a baby’s birth. The film was mostly set in a hospital/health-care facility so the birth sequence carried possible reincarnation/rebirth motifs. However, those scenes were shorter in length, as the was whole film at 82 minutes, but they still managed to put a completely different spin on the film in the second half. I expect The Tree of Live to elevate things to an entirely different level especially given the impact of the soundtrack on such sequences.
This is an altogether brilliant comment Sachin in every sense!
Your kind words are deeply appreciated, and your additions here are fascinating. I’ve never seen MUNDANE HISTORY (I definitely would love to at some point) but it appears that Malick has travelled the same road, though you rightly note that music plays a major role in THE TREE OF LIFE.
I know you are being tortured waiting for the soon-to-be-opening, and have been eagerly awaiting this film for quite some time. I know you’ll pen something unforgettable at SCRIBLINGS and RAMBLINGS too!
Thanks again my friend!
Thanks Sam. I have to admit not being tortured too much while waiting because I know it will be here soon. In the meantime, I am seeing all of his previous films to prepare myself 🙂
Normally, I get tortured with films that I have doubts if they will ever make it here or not, or even get a DVD release.
Indeed Sachin. And I agree with that strategy of re-viewing prior Malicks. I look forward to hearing or reading your reaction.
I love your description of the way “The shape of The Tree of Life is more attuned to a symphony in music than it is to a story arc in literature.” Looks like there is no UK release date for this film yet because of some depressing legal wrangle over distribution rights, but hopefully that will be sorted out soon, and I will then see it and return to your review!
Thanks very much Judy! Malick is definitely a conductor, rather than a storyteller, but it words superlatively within his sphere. That is definitely a bummer to hear that some rights issues will hold back THE TREE OF LIFE from a UK opening in the near future, though I agree that there must be a good chance matters will be sorted out. I know you’ll be in a theatre before long.
So, someone needs to find a screener. Someone????
I know, I know, I know…
I’m trying to get in touch with the guy I used to get ’em from… Can’t promise i”ll be successful but it’s definately worth the shot.
This movie should absolutely not be seen on a screener disc. Goodness sakes. Please see it on the big screen. You can watch DVD Blu-ray later as a second or third. Seek it out or wait for it on the big screen. It is terrific.
Hi Matt! Great to have you stopping by! Yes, you are quite right. This is one films that pleads for a big-screen viewing, and anything less is fully unaceptable. Sad to say however, Allan Fish is stuck in an area of the UK where a big screen viewing is impossible, situated as he is about 50 miles south of the Scottish border. I do wish he were here at this time.
This ius a superlative and deply felt essay on a film that, frankly, I was betting would take Sam away.
I am laying low on this thread for a short while as I am hoping to see the film before the end of the week…
As with Kubrick’s work, it comes as no surprize to me that the film is erupting debate but mostly garnering rave reviews…
Dennis, I am 100% certain you will be ravished and then some for all sorts of reasons. I’ll discuss my position with you in person. Hopefully we can hook up for a viewing very soon!
Many thanks for the very kind words my friend!
This is an insightful essay Sam and I can appreciate your comparisons to a symphony, even though I haven’t seen it. You definitely convey your awe and love of the film. Did you find the audience to be mostly “Malick-ites” or mixed with general moviegoers? Did you get a sense of the overall reaction? Were people respectful or was their alot of fidgeting and talking etc?
Thanks so much Jon for those exceedingly feel-good words! I’ve seen some critics use the ‘symphony’ approach, but this was honestly exactly how I felt while watching the film. It was no surprise that many others felt exactly the same way. The audience was extremely quiet and respectful, though I would have to say it was largely Malick-ites. I always make it a point to take some quick scans around, and the faces were dead-serious and seemingly awed. Prime-time Saturday night is never easy to predict, but it’s clear this crowd knew exactly what to expect and came in with an aire of reverence. I heard a few people talking in the men’s room, and they were obviously blown away by the film.
Thanks again my friend!
This is an incredible, extraordinary review Sam. The writing is aces – I agree with one of the other commentators here that the second paragraph is remarkable – but more importantly your excitement is woven into every sentence, every word. Malick himself would be enormously pleased to read it if he were interested in the reactions of critics and audiences. I guess it’s fair enough to say that you are proclaiming the film as the best of the year and beyond. This proves too that Pitt can rise to the level of first class with a director of this caliber. Don’t know if I can get over to the Landmark, but will see it as soon as it crosses the Hudson.
Frank, your over-the-top praise has me smiling from ear-to-ear, but I will back off from any such position. I will admit that like others at this site and elsewhere I am exceedingly motivated when I like something this much, but as you know I am prone of excessive hyperbole, a fact that my dear friend and colleague Allan Fish reminds me of regularly.
I do think however that the hyperbole for this film is warranted, and that one is left breathless trying to gather the most extreme words to proberly gage the practically indescribable feelings.
True what you say about Pitt, and yes I now see this as Malick’s greatest film, even with THE NEW WORLD and THE THIN RED LINE pushing close. It does appear too that it’s the best film of the year, though I also adore JANE EYRE, OF GODS AND MEN, BAL, WIN WIN and a few others. I’ll wait till year’s end to see how I feel.
If you do decide to see it again this week, let me know. I’ll definitely join you.
I am with Frank and others on the magnificence of this review. You are a terrific writer Sam, but moreso when you are pumped. I didn’t need any extra prodding to see this, but your reverence has made a visit urgent. I have read about that 17 minute sequence. I am salivating. Sounds like this might be Malick’s best movie of all.
Thanks for the over-the-top praise Frederick. I can never take for granted my cheerdeader squad at school. Truth be said there will be some great reviews appearing soon on this film at many blogs I respect; heck the discussion has only started! Yes that 17 minute sequence is spectacular, and will take hold of your consciousness. I say it’s Malick’s best, and I am a huge fan of THE NEW WORLD and THE THIN RED LINE.
Thanks again my friend!
congratulations Sam…on this stunning piece of writing. I haven’t been at the site in a long time I’m sorry to say. But I’ve been reading so much about this Malick film, and hope to see it with Sandy sometime in the near future. My favorite Malick is ‘Badlands’. But I’d say ‘The Thin Red Line’ is a close second. I think the award the film won at Cannes is only the beginning. We may even see Oscar nominations, even though this is the antothesis of what those awards mean. I feel your excitement buddy.
Thanks for paying a visit John! Always appreciated my friend! And thanks for the very kind words. I agree that we may see that rarest of occurances this year at the Oscars. The film will attract the artistic contingent and with Pitt and Penn aboard (both exert enormous influence in the Academy) the film will make headway in that direction as well. Some in Hollywood liken Malick to a God, and see this as a kind of career acknowledgement. Anyway, it should be most interesting. I know you have long been a big admirer of BADLANDS in particular.
So I take it that you liked this film, no?
Boy do I wish I had been there Saturday night. But I’m sure you’ll be dragging the whole town to see it by the end of the month, and I’ll be there.
Just a little Bob! Ha! Yes I have some grandiose plans to use subliminals with the ones that might be somewhat resistent. As soon as it hits NJ screens I go on my deciple mode!
Sam what did Lucille think?
Maurizio: Lucille fell asleep (LOL!) after about 30 minutes, but I fully expected this. On the weekends she is less willing to “think” and much prefers to be entertained with comedies or films that make less of a demand on your thought process. Our weekend companion Broadway Bob on the other hand flat out hated the film, though he is no fan of Malick. But to each his own. Bob Clark appears to be still wrestling with his response.
Ah my girlfriend liked it a considerable amount, but she is still more of a Badlands/Days Of Heaven fan overall. Like you, I consider the post exile Malick films to be his worthiest. I’m still not sure where I would rate The Tree Of Life with his other two masterpieces. I need to see it a few more times…
Yep, Maurizio. It seems that when it comes to Malick you and I agree the last three are the masterpieces, though BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN are still exceptional works. But those other three are among the greatest American films of the past 40 years.
Sam,
Thank you for this very thoughtful beautifully composed blog. I have looked forward to this review since you wrote about your desire to view this film.
To be visually, emotionally, and spiritually moved by a film takes a lot of doing in this world. When one takes the movie home with them in their mind, thinking, provoking more thoughts about what went on within the film. When the emotion is brought forth by music and silents, or awesome views that stir the spirit a work of art has been created.
I look forward to seeing this film, something worth spending money to see, and worth time to have all my sense’s stirred!
“To be visually, emotionally, and spiritually moved by a film takes a lot of doing in this world. When one takes the movie home with them in their mind, thinking, provoking more thoughts about what went on within the film. When the emotion is brought forth by music and silents, or awesome views that stir the spirit a work of art has been created.”
Jeff, those are truly magnificent words, and the thought behind them perfectly embodying the feelings one comes away from after seing THE TREE OF LIFE. As you say it’s rare to come away with that elemental trifecta, and with Malick’s film one could make a persuasive argument. Thanks for remembering that I was more eager to see this film than just about any other in recent years. (and my expectations were met and then some) Knowing a bit about your own artistic taste and philosophy I am just about certain you will be deeply moved by the film.
Thanks so much for this feel-good, insightful comment my friend!
“…scrap any semblance of a narrative structure, choosing to tell his story through interlocking themes, intimate ruminations on life and humanity, and a kind of stream-of-consciousness that reveals the characters’ innermost thoughts often uttered underneath a perplexing metaphysical tapestry.”
This descriptor pulled me in HOOK, LINE, and SINKER! I can hardly wait to see it on the big screen. Thank you!
Thanks as always Laurie for the wonderful and especially thoughtful response, and for the “I like” validation at the top of the comment thread! Much appreciated both!
What you point out there is the essence of the film, and a true delineation of it’s style and structure. I know to assert that is easier than fully buying in to it’s workability for some, but it should be pointed out at the outset well before any spoilers. I am fairly certain Laurie you will glowingly respond to THE TREE OF LIFE, which seems to broach some of your own ideas and general philosophy. But I am absolutely sure that some sequence will elevate you into the stratosphere.
Thanks as always my very good friend!
Nice work Sam, you’ve done nothing to alter my intense desire to see this film, which looks like the weekend of June 11th slated for arrival in Chicago (though I could be wrong about this).
I’ll say little else as I haven’t seen it, but I did want to quickly explain my absence from this thread wasn’t anything to do with you essay. I’ll return when I have a chance to see it.
I will say, based on most of what I’ve read on the film, and a few other takes on the film above (and elsewhere on the blogosphere) never before have I seen a film called ‘philosophical’ so often with nary a mention of actual philosophy or philosophical points (and this really doesn’t pertain to this essay), which I just find really interesting.
Jamie: I do hope the film hits the Windy City BEFORE July 11th, but we’ll have to see how things pan out. That seems like a very long time for a market as big as Chicago, especially since Sachin indicates a Canadian release is only about two weeks away.
You’ve done a yeoman job all over this thread today explaining your philosophy and of your long-time eagerness to see this film. (a fact I’ve indeed known for a while) While I would wager you will respond quite favorably, I could wind up being wrong. I’ve found that Malick isn’t everyone’s cup, even if you’ve (in the past) defended him vigourously here.
And yes, the ‘phiolosophical’ label isn’y often explained. I would speculate many are daunted by the task.
Many thanks as always my friend!
Actually I thought June 11th, but just checking it’s website I see it’s in one theater this weekend (the third). I will see it probably on saturday, and if I like it/love it/feel it necessary, see it again sunday.
Great news Jamie! I await your estimation eagerly!
Lovely and loving encounter, Sam, with this much-anticipated film. Your great review demonstrates how Malick has induced a remarkable number of viewers to reflect directly upon issues generally brushed against in the course of other priorities.
Your observations upon the liberties taken with conventional narrative, and the towering function of music, elucidate, I think, Malick’s ongoing struggle with the strange consequentiality of dynamics.
Talk about eloquent responses! Wow Jim! Your comments, like your reviews are pure poetry! And they are as always packed with insight!
Many thanks my friend! I do hope you and Valerie will be able to see this soon!
You never cease to amaze Sam. While there’s little doubt this is as fine a review as has ever been displayed at this site, it would be just as notable a promotion of the film. Fox Searlight take notice!
I’ve been eager to see this going back a few years. I hope I won’t be waiting much longer.
Peter:
Thanks for the over-the-top praise. Let’s just say that this review is as “personal” a reaction as I have ever posed here. I expect this will be in Montclair (perhaps even in Edgewater) is about two weeks.
I’m by the phone waiting to hear from Fox Searchlight! Ha!
A wonderfully heartfelt review, Sam. I would expect nothing less. I am greatly anticipating checking out this film myself. As a big Malick fan any chance to see his films on the big screen where their sumptuous visuals work best is a must.
I’ve always known you are a huge Malick fan J.D., and I can well understand you will be heading out as soon as this one appears locally. Yes, the big screen is the only way to go with THE TREE OF LIFE, though I know at least a few don’t have that option.
Thanks as always for the very kind and flattering words my friend!
Sam – This is eloquently written and very perceptive and I agree with your praise of this movie. Dazzling cinematography, excellent performances by Pitt and Chastain, but, in my opinion, McCracken stands out as the star of the show, saying worlds without a word by means of a look or a shift in his body posture.
I really enjoyed reading your post and I’m glad you loved the movie!
We passed in the night! While you were waiting in line to go into the movie, I was waiting with Jason Bellamy, my nephew, to go up to the top of the Rock to see the city at night after a 2:45 showing at the Sunshine. I had taken the bus from Cape Cod solely to see The Tree of Life and to meet Jason. We saw the movie again on Sunday at 11:00 am. before I took the bus back to the Cape. It was the pilgrimage of two Malick fans and a memorable experience.
Thanks so much for the very kind words Hokahey!
This is truly a comment from a long-time Malick admirer, and I am thrilled to hear you saw the film not ONCE, but TWICE over the weekend, and with Jason Bellamy no less! Ah, now I see the connection; somehow I was thinking you were Jason’s older brother. (I know, a bit too much of a stretch, though I am the oldest of five, with the youngest brother 18 years younger!)
I know Jason is a huge fan too and have already seen the first part of an intended two chapter Malick examination with Ed Howard at THE CONVERSATIONS. I know THE TREE OF LIFE segment will be incomparable!
That said, I lament not running into you guys while we passed in the night! You came all the way down from Cape Cod to see this movie in NYC? Unbelivable! But fantastic!
Ya know Hokahey, I actually am with you hook, line and sinker on young McCracken! His performance is actually the one in the film that (emotionally) resonates the most. This is the second time this year a non-professional young actor has turned in an extraordinary performance (the other being Alex Schaffer a New Jersey state wresting champion in Tom McCarthy’s WIN WIN) and in McCracken’s case everything seems to come so naturally. I certainly can’t get his strained face out of my mind.
Did you say you went to the top of the Empire State Building too?
I know I’ll soon be seeing a towering piece on Malick’s film at LITTLE WORLDS!
Thanks as always my friend! I do hope we will meet one day!
A “rapturous philosophical inquiry,” eh? You don’t see that every day. That goes for your judicious rave as well, Sam. I’m not exactly sure when this hits Albany but I’ll be there when it is. As you know, I’m not the biggest Malick fan but this sounds challenging. My gut feeling is that it’ll reveal Malick as an American Fellini, but I’ll elaborate on that idea when the time is right….
LOL Samuel!!
That is an awkward lead-in for sure! I contemplated ditching it, but in the end I want to go with the abstract flow of the concept in keeping with the fabric of the film. But yeah taken literally it doesn’t really make much sense.
I do know you aren’t the biggest Malick fan (and as I noted earlier I understand he is not everyone’s favorite director) but we’ll see how you react to this one. Interesting point as an American “Fellini” though; that one deserves some serious thought!
Thanks as always my friend!
Sam. damn, Sam, damn – and you saw it at my favorite NYC movie theater to boot!
Spectacular review! I don’t know what else I will have to say when I finally see it (unless I hate it, which I know I won’t based on this assessment and my love for all of Malick’s work) —
— seems like you and me (and many others) are on the same page when we think of Malick more as a composer of film rather than a director.
…and we wait…for the end of the world and Melancholia….
Ah, that’s right David, you are a big Landmark Cinemas guy! I remember that! There is no way indeed that you will hate or even mildly dislike this film in view of your track record for Malick. I predict you will be coming in with a towering assessment, but we’ll see. I don’t want to compromise your thunder. I know you will pen a masterpiece too.
Yep, I definitely agree he’s much more of a composer, and that’s in large measure what makes him so fascinating.
I can’t wait for your reaction!
Thanks so much for those exceedingly kind words my friend!
Sam, I had a blast taking the bus to New York JUST to see a Malick movie; and I’m sure I’ll be back and we can meet some time. Would be lots of fun!
Absolutely my friend. It will definitely happen! Thanks again!
Breathtaking film. It is not quite like anything else I’ve ever seen, including previous Malick films. It requires patience, the right mind-set, and a willingness to submit to a slow, sometimes abstract, and deep viewing experience.
Having eagerly anticipated this film for years, I was pleased but unsurprised at the stunning visuals and the idiosyncratic, lofty, reverent tone. I was surprised at how incredibly good the acting was…none of the vague sense of discomfort or confusion from some performers that was evident in Malick’s previous two films. It feels like everyone working on the movie, onscreen and off, submitted fully to whatever bizarre plan Malick had hatched, and it shows.
I was surprised at how deeply religious the film is. I was also struck that in a film that aspires to examine some of the loftiest questions and issues imaginable; it doesn’t come across as indulgent or histrionic in the least. For a movie that literally includes a long sequence showing the beginning of the Universe and the creation of humanity, it is remarkably humble, focused, and moving. Despite the lack of traditional plot, it hangs together very well.
Beautiful comment my friend, and many thanks for stopping by here to share it.
I must say I am on the same wave length with you with just about every contention you pose. THE TREE OF LIFE is a monumental work.
Without seeing “The Tree of Life,” which may be a transformative experience but I doubt it, in his other films Malick’s meanings are so fuzzy, his work so opaque that the films can mean anything the viewer wants them to mean — Heidegger, Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost,’ Frazer’s ‘The Golden Bough,’ the Old Testament, the Romantic poets, especially Wordsworth (Recollections of Early Childhood, ‘The Child is Father of the Man,’ etc., etc.). Malick’s films are all things to all viewers, they can confirm anyone and everyone’s philosophy of life. His films can be theistic, atheistic, intelligent design, mythologic, orthodox Christian, anything you prefer. I think the contentiousness in this thread proves that. It’s why I don’t care for his later films and his constant hammering on metaphysical themes. The vastly superior Kubrick made ‘2001’ only once and then moved on. I have the sinking feeling that Malick will keep making these metaphysical inquiries until the Rapture.
(The temps perdu story of the Texas family, without all the swirling nebulae, dinosaurs, microscopic cells et al, sounds interesting). But Malick seems too artistically arrogant and puffed up to make a simple, penetrating film like ‘Badlands’ anymore. Besides, his choir demands these bloated Orchestral Manuevers every five years or so.
The connection to Heidigger of course is deliberate Mark, as Malick is a long-time proponent of his philosophy.
I can’t possibly disagree with you more on your summary position of Malick, who I feel is every bit the equal of Kubrick and one of the greatest of all American directors. THE THIN RED LINE, THE NEW WORLD and THE TREE OF LIFE are masterpieces, and you get more out of them with every viewing. I don’t see the same arrogance as you, but a purposeful resistence to conform. I personally love the “musical” approach, the defiance of traditional forms, and the profound and moving tapestries he conjures up.
It’s the old ‘beauty is the eye of the beholder’ argument, and I do respect where you are coming from. We don’t disagree often, but this is one instance where we seem to stand on opposite ends.
No matter. I just got my Stanley Kubrick blu-ray set today, and what with Dennis Polifroni coming over tonight for “pasta” night we’ll be celebrating “Mark Smith” style!!! Which one would you watch first?
Thanks as always my very good friend!
Well, since you’ve just seen ‘Barry Lyndon’ I say go for ‘Dr. Strangelove.’ Those mushrooms clouds at the end are more beautiful than anything Malick has ever come up with!
Watching Dr Strangelove again recently, I was actually less impressed by the out and out slapstick comedy of it all. As I said in a post last week, it would not make my top 5 or 6 Kubrick films anymore (though still a great movie). As for Malick… he has bettered Strangelove three times in my opinion. Like Sam, I would argue that Malick is now just as great as Kubrick with the release of The Tree Of Life.
‘Dr. Strangelove’ is a black comedy about the annihilation of the human race. Part of the definition of slapstick is to exceed the limits of common sense, and there is nothing nonsensical about ‘Dr. Strangelove.’ The film proceeds inexorably with all the logic of a nightmare. If one recalls the exhortation to nuclear arms of Krushchev, Johnson, Kennedy and various secretaries of defense of the early post-war era, the missile gap, etc. ‘Dr. Strangelove’ makes perfect, hideous sense. Learn to love the Bomb, Maurizio.
Mark, DR. STRANGELOVE is one of the screen’s greatest satires. You are dead-on what you say there, methinks!
Sam,
And the film is hilarious, too! Sellers’ impersonations are maniacally funny, he’s never been better.
And that randy old pornographer Terry Southern. He must have been the one to come up with names like Merkin, etc.
If ‘Wonders’ gets around to a Greatest All-Time poll a la ‘Sight and Sound’ ‘Strangelove’ would rank very high on my list.
I disagree with the openness of Malick’s films, certainly those early two. There is a very specific worldview/philosophy at play there, something like ‘intelligent design’ has nothing to say there. Nor is Malick interested in many of the themes you list here.
You can read anything you want into Malick’s later films.
Not ‘Badlands,’ which is still his best, but the others are indeed opaque, and since no one can come up with any specific worldview/philosophy, at least no one has articulated one here, one can extricate ‘The Golden Bough,’ orthodox Christianity, classical Romantic poetry, etc. I can’t speak about ‘The Tree of Life,’ which I haven’t seen, but the Book of Genesis and Proust may be lurking in there, too.
How can you know what Malick is interested in since he refuses to talk about his films, refuses to be interviewed, even refuses to have his photograph taken. Clearly a sphinx with no secret.
I roll my eyes at anyone who says Badlands is Malick at his best. I guess A Hard Days Night is better than Revolver or Rubber Soul, or Picasso’s Blue Period is better than the post D’Avignon stuff to some…
Not an accurate comparison, it’s easy to say BADLANDS is his best… the examples you cite are clearly not as intellectual or artistically substantial as the other later works. BADLANDS is as enigmatic, artful, and philosophical as any of his other works. In a lot of ways it’s philosophy is quite a bit tighter.
Not an accurate comparison, it’s easy to say BADLANDS is his best… the examples you cite are clearly not as intellectual or artistically substantial as the other later works.
I DISAGREE WITH THIS PART. BADLANDS IS NOT AS ARTISTICALLY SUBSTANTIAL OR CINEMATICALLY WORTHY. MALICK IS STILL A NOVICE FILMMAKER WITH A BASIC 70’S BLUEPRINT AT THIS POINT. HIS FIRST FILM LOOKS AVERAGE WHEN COMPARED TO STUFF LIKE TAXI DRIVER, CHINATOWN, KLUTE, ALFREDO GARCIA AND APOCALYPSE NOW. TIGHTER YES, INTELLECTUAL YES, BUT NOT AS STRUCTURALLY INNOVATIVE OR NARRATIVELY CHALLENGING.
BADLANDS is as enigmatic, artful, and philosophical as any of his other works. In a lot of ways it’s philosophy is quite a bit tighter.
I AGREE WITH THIS SECTION FOR THE MOST PART. I MIGHT ARGUE ABOUT ITS ENIGMATIC/ARTFUL STATUS IN RELATION TO THE LATTER FILMS, BUT CAN CONCEDE ON THE OTHER POINTS.
Just my opinion of course…
well Maurizio all I can say is that I’m prepared to state and explain intellectually why all these films are equals AND shouldn’t be foolishly compared and ordered. are you?
In other words, it’s easy to flippantly say ‘Klute’ is better than ‘Badlands’, it’s quite different to explain why, because it isn’t. And in the other cases (taxi Driver at el) it’s worthless to discuss art solely on the merit of ranking it, as is the want with virtually everyone here (no more then anyone but you).
You can start the discussion if you want. I await your detailed and highly intellectual genius like argument. I’m sure it will be as mind blowing as some of your other cinematic examples which really panned out for me.
You always seem to forget that I don’t look at film just on a “intellectual” one dimensional level like you do, but also respect it as the visual, emotional, technical, structural, impressionistic, art form it is. Maybe studying it in school and actually working behind a camera makes me view it differently than you. I said a few times that something like The Tree Of Life is better than Badlands not because of intellectual material (which all of Malick’s pictures fulfill equally), but due more to innovative narrative structure, cinematography, soundtrack/score, grander scope/personal themes, incredible editing techniques, etc. For someone as smart as yourself you should of picked up on this point. I understand that the contents/execution flaws of an actual movie mean nothing to you if the ideas meet your specific world view, but don’t drag me down to such a place.
Badlands is a great film that is hampered (again only my opinion not gospel) by the fact that a novice director would surpass it subsequently with a much more avant-garde and complex approach to his work. Every basher of future Malick projects argue the same thing…. Badlands is less pretentious and “tighter” (code for accessible) than the latter movies. No different than Kubrick lovers who dislike post Strangelove stuff. They want to be grounded on earth, me and many others reach for the stars.
“You always seem to forget that I don’t look at film just on a “intellectual” one dimensional level like you do, but also respect it as the visual, emotional, technical, structural, impressionistic, art form it is”
What a hilarious revealing statement. You know you can think about the visual, emotional, technical, etc aspects of art intellectually (and ‘intellectual’ is an approach not a ‘dimension’). You can cite your studying film in college but it’s a hot air balloon that pops when you make a statement like this. I’m self taught (on film), but I apply a formal education on art to approach all art forms. If you think ‘the visual’ can’t be intellectual then obviously your glorious courses should have included either Gilles Deleuze books on Cinema, or Bresson’s Cinematography Book, or maybe Berger’s ‘Notes on Seeing’ etc . All books I found on my own which color my thoughts, thankfully I don’t need a professor to hold and guide my hand.
Besides if your so interested in craft and technique why do you so often exult on films of such blasé appearance?
Oh, and don’t build false statements, “Every basher of future Malick projects argue the same thing…. Badlands is less pretentious and “tighter” (code for accessible) than the latter movies. No different than Kubrick lovers who dislike post Strangelove stuff. They want to be grounded on earth, me and many others reach for the stars.”
Doesn’t jive with what I actually said: “BADLANDS is as enigmatic, artful, and philosophical as any of his other works. In a lot of ways it’s philosophy is quite a bit tighter.” and “why all these films are equals AND shouldn’t be foolishly compared and ordered” I’m saying they are all great films, I’m definitely NOT raising BADLANDS up while pulling the newer ones down. Besides, I’ve said countless times around here that Malick is probably my favorite American filmmaker to ever live.
‘Philosophically tighter’ isn’t ‘tighter’ as you use the term for accessible. It means his ideas there are rather concise and on a specific point.
I’m just saying ranking the films it’s pointless to this discussion.
Your taking what I said out of context. By intellectual, I meant that at times the ideas of a film matter more to you than the execution or ability for it to be conveyed cinematically (Badlands is obviously not the film I’m alluding to here). Putting “intellectual” in quotes was my way of saying how I perceive your idea of that word, not mine.
My whole argument was not just visual beauty, so your last sentence is meaningless. The way Malick edits, narrates and soundtracks his latter films are just as great as the cinematography.
The problem with blogging is that misunderstandings arise. In person you would understand before I inevitably elbow you in the eye that I was not referring to you specifically with your false statement response. I know you like all Malick. I do as well. I just find the last three are greater on certain levels. Lets move on…
But Maurizio that way films work, move, and are cut are all in service to the ideas. A cut is only interesting as technique if it reveals something about the story or the idea of the film. For example, DAYS OF HEAVEN’s beautiful images mean nothing as stills other then incredibly pretty shots. You can walk into a hallmark store and find those, but when you understand the ideas of the film (specifically the lines about how these people people work from sun up to sundown, thus making the morning–dawn– and evening– dusk– ‘magic hours’ that much more important. It’s the only time people in that class–the film is essential socialistic– have to themselves and the sun. It’s fleeting, and magical, and essential then that the film be shot at that time of day, with that beauty) everything else falls into place. Malick is a supreme audio cutter as well, as THE THIN RED LINE shows mixing stark monologues with image, etc. Here, the audio syncs are fantastic but they don’t mean anything if the intellectual ideas are put in the back (if at all) of your mind.
And besides, you can look at virtually any piece I’ve written on this blog about film to see how much I’m concerned with film’s formal elements. You’ve asserted at least 5 times now that I don’t concern myself with these things, which is just flat out false.
I used ‘visual’ as but one idea, I could have listed books on all the topics you said as countless exist which I’m sure you’re more then aware of.
Maurizio –
You can quote Wilde all you want, but there’s nothing wrong with accessibility in a film, just as ‘difficulty’ can be rewarding, too. By the way, I don’t think Malick’s later films are difficult (excluding ‘The Tree of Life’ unseen by me), in fact it’s all too obvious that the emperor is stark naked.
By the way, I didn’t know you were an aspiring film director. Congratulations, dude. Un film stupendo, directed by Maurizio Roca! Photography by Sven Nykvist. Edited by Dede Allen. (I know they’re both gone, but it feels good to say their names). I’m really impressed. No shit.
Aye, Jamie
Maybe we’ll soon stand united behind ‘Tree of Life.’ I hope. I have great respect for your taste and opinions, though we continue to clash over Malick (excluding ‘Badlands,’ which is an extraordinary film for a maiden director, for any film director actually). To tell you the truth I have seen so much Malick recently (‘The Thin Red Line’ twice and ‘The New World’ one-and-one-half times) that he is beginning to oppress me.
The most honest response to these sun-dappled forests, purling streams, waving grasses and azure skies is a purely emotional one. Some of the images indeed take your breath away, but I just can’t respond cerebrally. He’s ditched the storyline for fantasias on nature. After ‘Badlands’ and ‘Days of Heaven’ Malick’s films barely contain any dialogue, the actors look trapped and disconnected up there on the screen. Even the whispered voice-overs are barely audible (I really couldn’t make out many of the words in ‘The New World’).
Well, Judgement Day approaches, though I think you’ll get a peek at ‘The Tree of Life’ before I do (next weekend).
May the film be an imperishable masterpiece
later ~
Sorry Mark I dabbled with filmmaking in college and slightly beyond. I am in exile like Malick after Days Of Heaven. My stay there will undoubtedly be much much longer…
Just read Anthony Lane’s piece on ‘Tree of Life’ in the May 30th ‘New Yorker’. A recommended consideration.
Mark: Thanks for the heads-up! I want to read Lane’s piece ASAP. I am now reading through your comment at the diary and am preparing to respond.
Sam, – a stunning review, one of your best! That second paragraph is amazing and like others I love the comparison to a symphony. I am looking forward to catching this film which hopefully will open soon down here. I have always love BADLANDS. And believe it or not, I still need to see THE THIN RED LINE.
John: Thanks very much for the very kind words. I am not the first to suggest the symphony comparison and I certainly won’t be the last either, but like others it came to me as I was watching the film, and seems rather a natural concept all things considered. I will make sure you see THE THIN RED LINE very soon! I have just the tonic! Ha!
I am finally on the PC, as Dennis and my kids are watching excerpts from the just-arrived Kubrick blu-ray set. I went overboard with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE I’m afraid, and now THE SHINING is being watched. I am heading over to the diary to address your spectacular comment of yesterday–and those from Jaime, Mark, Samuel et al.
Many thanks as always!
It’s indeed amazing that a film about rape, murder and Beethoven can totally entrance. Sammy is 13, Danny is 12, and Jeremy has just turned 9 and they were glued to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. I think this has to do with two major components evident in this Kubrick film.
1. The absolutely luring build-up of the plot and the “connection” the audience has with the naughty Alex (and much of this can be attributed to Malcolm McDowells tour-de-force performance.
2. The playfulness of the direction of Stanley Kubrick. Say what you want about the subject and the themes of this film, but there is no denying that you can feel it through the film that Stanley was having a blast making this movie.
Seeing it again with this tight picture and amazing sound opened my eyes up to these two evry clear points.
By the way: The BLU RAY box set is an absolute stunner. The transfers are all pretty amazing (2001 being the best of the crop and BARRY LYNDON looking better than it ever has) and the DTS sound on all of these new transfers adds a new level of depth to his films from 2001 on. The sound design on THE SHINING was simply jaw dropping…
The BLU RAY box set gets a clear *****, A+ review from me…
Nice to be able to have three impressionable young children join me and Sam for a group of films that explore the polite cruelties of 17th century social status (BARRY LYNDON), our place in the cosmos (2001), getting the shit kicked out of you in boot camp (FULL METAL JACKET), watching a college professor reel in joy over the death of his wife so he can fuck his step daughter (LOLITA), have atomic bombs destroy the world (DR. STRANGELOVE), watch a father track down his small son so he can stick an ax in his head (THE SHINING), tap your foot to the strains of “Singin’ In The Rain” as a group of teenage tuffs rape the shit of a woman (A CLOCKWORK ORANGE) and watch the leader of a slave revolt cut, chop and dice his way to freedom (SPARTACUS)…
P.S.-we didn’t pop in EYES WIDE SHUT because Sam felt there was some “questionable” stuff in that one that he felt wasn’t “appropriate” for young children (HUH??????)…
All in all, a wonderful Disney-esque night at the movies for Sam Juliano’s kids…
We’ll be reading about them in the paper some day…
LOL!!!! 😉
Holy cow a 9 year old watching A Clockwork Orange!!!
Lol Dennis. Eyes Wide Shut more objectionable than Orange… perhaps in quality and worth, not thematic adult elements. Sam probably has the most knowledgeable cinematic pre teens outside of France.
Ha Maurizio! We shielded his eyes at those crucial moments, I assure you.
Dennis –
Let me give you the name of my psychiatrist. I have a feeling your 9-yr.-old will be needing one soon.
I first watched stuff like “Akira” when I was that age, it seems to be around the time when younger viewers are first able to reach outside the comfort zone of their target age demographic. Point of fact, I think it was around that age when I first saw “The Shining” as well, and that’s got just as much objectionable material, when you get right down to it. The cinematitic age of reason…
This is an extraordinarily illuminating piece Sam, one of your very best, quite frankly easily the best one I’ve seen so far on this work without exception because it seems most attuned to the nature of Malick’s world. Bravo Sam! Wish you could somehow get this through to the director. I shall finally be watching it this weekend and will revisit this piece once I’m done. But this is superlative stuff, especially the first two paragraphs.
And THAT my excellent longtime friend is about the most incredicle compliment I’ve ever received at this site. I won’t say you are right, but I’ll at least temporarily bask in the glow of your comment. Ha! As fara s Malick, though, from what I’ve read about him he shies away from discussion of his films, and barely acknowledges any critical dissections. But that’s appropriate I guess. He’s as enigmatic as his subject.
I have what appears to be firm plans to see teh film again on Thursday evening at around 7:30 ish at teh Landmark Cinemas in Manhattan. Perhaps you’ll be joining us?
Thanks again many times over Kaleem!
One of the downsides of moving to India in January: this film isn’t playing here 😦
Hello Qalandar! Hope all is well.
There must be away to get it through various means on the PC. Does anyone have any ideas to help out?
Of course on the PC, but good god!!! This screams to me me that it’s one for the cinema!
I’m glad I held out on PC! The film has finally been released on a few screens in Bombay, woohoo!!! Can’t wait for this…
Qalandar, I would love to know what you think of the film. I’m sure you will add some exceptional insights!
I don’t think Terrence Malick’s film could better be served than by your remarkable eloquence and peerless enthusiasm.
Sam, you are far more than an avid moviegoer and tireless organizer. You are a tremendous writer. This incredible review is the latest evidence to support this contention.
You have me feeling that I want to see the film, now, tonight.
My own top Malick movie to this point would be The New World.
Oh I see Mr. Hasan took the words out of my mouth.
And another one!
Looks like today is really my day.
Thanks David, for everything you say and observe. I know THE NEW WORLD is your favorite Malick, and up until this new film I’d readily agree. As it is, they are BOTH great and it’s tough to pick one over the other. But I’ve gone with THE TREE OF LIFE by the narrowest of margins.
Thanks for spending so much time at teh site today my friend. much appreciated!
“There must be away to get it through various means on the PC. Does anyone have any ideas to help out?”
Sam I sympathize with Qalandar here but it’s a crime to watch this on anything less than the biggest movie screen!
Yes, Kaleem, the big screen seems to have been made for this film!
Well, Sam, it should come as no surprise that you were right on the money here. What a film! I can’t wait to watch it again. And I love how I didn’t know what I thought of it until I left the theater, meaning I was completely enraptured while viewing it – totally in the moment. I couldn’t even get my head around it until I got home. This is what cinema is all about.
Here are my first thoughts:
Thanks David!
I have of course seen your great review, and appreciate your ‘expansion’ of the literature!
I saw “The Tree of Life” last night at our local cheap movie house that’s chopped up into several mismatched screening rooms. The seating was uncomfortable (hard on your ass, with no leg room); the sound was awful; and (surprisingly) the tiny theater was packed. On top of all this, the only available seats were in the fourth row, and everything appeared out of focus, though for the first half hour or so of the film, it probably didn’t matter much. Admittedly, not the ideal conditions to sit through this tedious and pretentious too-long film.
Ten minutes into it, I knew I made a mistake and, to my own astonishment, regretted not choosing the film in the theater next door, where “Captain America” was playing — another movie I was sure to hate, but probably a lot less than the one I was subjected to. At least I would have been treated to the live organ performance that preceded the film. I kept thinking how I could graciously exit, without disrupting the tightly packed people to the right and left of me. In fact, I was envious of the couple of plopped themselves in front of us because they had an easy exit access that they, wisely, took advantage of shortly after the film started.
I’ve read some of reviews, many filled with high praises and superlatives, but I’m going to have to take the side of the uncivilized masses. I found it to be tedious, pretentious, self-absorbed, and intentionally impenetrable. I agree with A.O. Scott who suggested that Malick should have left out the visual meanderings on the dinosaurs and afterlife and just focus on the core story of Jack’s struggle and rapidity of social change.
I’m glad the admission price was just $4.75.
Jeffrey, I fully understand where you are coming from here! The film has left a number of people I respect indifferent and bored, which seems to be a general view of Malick. As you may have seen at the site here, our revered Jamie Uhler was no fan. (and he wrote his own dissenting view of it here) Your description of the out of focus presentation, hard seats and general discomfort (not to mention the $4.75 admission price) sounds like Movie City in Teaneck! Ha! You got that place sized up perfectly! With your narrative and textual reservations, I doubt that you would have embraced this film at another theatre, but that place is not to be trusted, as I’ve learned more times than I could remember.
The gang here saw CAPTAIN AMERICA yesterday afternoon and seemed to like it, but I was busy with the pre-coders, and might see the super-hero flick with Danny late Sunday night if the situation allows.
Thanks so much for stopping by and sharing your fecund views here!
True, I was and am no fan of the new Malick… but I’d never be this condescending towards it. My negativity came from giving it rapt attention for its complete running time and many, many hours afterward of contemplation. Not for one second did I think about how I could leave while it was playing– which would be a clear indication that I wasn’t paying attention or giving it a fair shake.
The only films that deserve this sort of anger or resentment or short sightedness are the summer blockbusters and comic book fare… in short the thing he contemplated leaving it for.
I myself wish that Malick had cut out the dull Texas family stuff and made a movie entirely about the birth of the universe, dinosaurs walking the Earth and Sean Penn spacing out in penthouses for no reason. It was the 50’s suburban stuff that lost me.
Captain America was fun, but I’m not in synch with the die-hard praise it’s been getting from the Comic-Con set. I’d put it about even with Tree of Life, but that gets bonus points for being a Malick movie that I didn’t hate completely. Granted, I haven’t seen it since the opening weekend, but it’s been growing on me in retrospect.
Do you know what is the most important philosophical reference of the Tree of Life? Something as “christian” as Michel Foucault’s “Of the Other Spaces” (“Des espaces outres”, 1967). Because this is the film of the “other spaces”, the “heterotopias”: the “tree house”, the “Indian tent” (look for it in Jack’s “No!” to his mother), the parents bed, the bathtub, even the house itself when father goes on the trip and his authority his absent (etc.). All these are spaces where some kind of “normality” can be suspended or inverted (for those not familiar with Foucault, a “heterotopia” is just that). But the real “heterotopia” of this film is itself. “The Tree of Life” is Malick’s “heterotopia”, the cinema theatre the space where he can suspend normality, that belly you see O’Brien putting his ear to listen what’s inside, the space where he can play God and make all of you his sons: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth, when the morning stars sang together… and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” – weren’t you seated at the cinema’s chair? I was. It is Malick asking. He’s God in this movie. Nothing but a riddle, like the Sacro Bosco ones, from where he took the “Mouth of Hell” shot.
http://reviewingtreeoflife.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html