Tree of Life

It was a beautiful film. The cinematography was definitely mind-blowing. The shots of the formation of the universe were unreal. I would be really interested to see how they produced some of those. The dinosaurs sort of made me go LOL WUT though. Overall I just don't think I quite got all of it. Some of the symbolism was beyond me and it was so non-linear and bizarre at times that it just left me behind. The imagery and the musical score were amazing though. I think I might just have to see it again now that I know what to expect.

Malick (as well as others who worked on the film) have hinted numerous times that the film isn't supposed to be a narrative. If anything it is a vignette, and even then the sole purpose of the film is to evoke childhood memories in an extremely visceral way. I keep hearing self-righteous film buffs dismiss the film, calling it "pretentious" for being more poetic than linear/narrative. It's funny because that was Malick's sole intent...

And the space sequences were a combination of various substances in water filmed with high-speed cameras. They also worked with NASA for a few of the more complex shots.


I also thought it was fascinating how much of the film was unplanned. The butterfly for instance, was a real butterfly that appeared on set entirely by chance. Malick found it fitting and asked Lubezki to capture it. Or certain shots of the boys were completely candid; the young actors had no idea they were being filmed during their break.

Finally, the fact that they shot the whole film in natural light without dollies is truly impressive. Everything with done with either steadicam or slider.

Here's a great article on the production:
http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2011/05/11/sights-unseen/

Haven't seen the film but based on what you said some of it sounds a little like Space Odyssey. I've always liked how self-indulgent Kubrick was in making some of the space montages, sounds like there are some similar sequences (similar in that they're self-indulgent) in this film?

Its funny you mention Kubrick, because this film is often being compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Similarly, both films were largely booed at their premieres. What Malick and Kubrick have in common is how they are both completely unapologetic about their art. Instead of simplifying their films to satisfy the uncivilized mass, they created something that would floor deep thinkers everywhere.

Lubezki (1st DP) had said in numerous interviews, "Photography is not used to illustrate dialogue or a performance...We're using it to capture emotion so that the movie is very experiential. It's meant to trigger tons of memories, like a scent or a perfume."

Malick himself said that the point of the film was not to tell a story, but to create a feeling.

That's so sick. I personally got kinda bored watching Space Odyssey, but I've always loved and respected the fact that Kubrick had the courage to make such long and slow montages, even though he probably knew most people wouldn't appreciate them. there are way too few filmmakers that are willing to do that

I agree. While it is the very nature of an epic to seem painstakingly drawn out at points, part of Space Odyssey were a chore for me to sit though sober. Overall I enjoyed it (being a Pink Floyd fan, how could I not love epics?), let alone admire Kubrick's genius. And I sure don't berate Kubrick the same way too many have berated Malick, Kaufmann, Gondry, Aronofsky, and others out of blind frustration and confusion.

If I had read that before I saw it I think I would have enjoyed it more, and gotten more out of it. I hadn't heard too much about it before I went to see it, so I was expecting somewhat of a normal narrative film. Obviously I was expecting something rather unconventional out of Terrence Malick, but not to that extent.

Same here. During the film I heard/saw many people shifting uncomfortably in their seats, and afterwards I overheard mostly criticism along the lines of "too boring," "too artsy" or even "gay." It was painful seeing firsthand why movie theaters are filled with such mindless crap these days: to entertain simpleminded neanderthals. Feltbadman, although it didn't overshadow how completely blown away I was from the film.

I'm very excited for this film. It's playing at our sundance cinema, where, by chance my short film is screening tonight. I will for sure go see this.

Okay Im going to post it here too since I still find it weird...

I wrote a 12 page paper on that movie, now that my friend was a chore

I wonder how this movie will be received in 10 years? 20 years?

Good point, but Malick didn't want the film to make statements, he wanted it to make the viewer ask questions. He said he was trying to play into the whole "open interpretation" type of filmmaking, and deliberately didn't give the film a dominating narrative. It kinda goes along with the old quip "good art raises more questions than it answers," which I agree with.

The dinosaur part was a little out there, but I can at least see its purpose. Throughout the film the creation of the world is juxtaposed with the vignette of the family/life as a child. I know they worked with NASA to make sure the sequence of Earth's creation accurately depicted scientific theories (eg The Big Bang and Evolution). The dinosaurs were just another "chapter" in Earth's creation. I've heard many people interpret that scene as the birth of compassion, because the carnivore decided not to eat the Prosaurolophus out of pity. Of course, the implication of comparing this phenomena with the childhood experience is open to interpretation.

The trailer was pretty spectacular, why wasn't it shown in theaters?

It didn't have a teal/orange color palette.

This thread should be in M&A and  i will be seeing that looked really awaesome

That's lame, woulda watched it in theaters to.

man that movie was amazing!
the whole inception of the universe segment was crazy, the cinematography was perfect, brad pitt is epic.

The shots where we see the shades of the kids are really cool too