TREE OF LIFE Pre-Release Discussion

Reaction seems to be very mixed @ Cannes.  Light applause, and some booing.  James Rocchi and Andrew O'Heir weighed in with tweets that seemed like they were lukewarm.

I never understood how you could go to a film festival and fucking BOO a movie. That shit's better served for opening night at Paranormal Activity, not for the premiere of a goddamned Terrence Malick movie.

Far more clapped, than booed, he said.

"Yes, some booed at TREE OF LIFE's end, but a) far more clapped, b) wouldn't a monobloc of opinion be dull? and, of course, c) jerks abound."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/tree-life-cannes-review-188564

Brad Pitt gives one of his finest performances in Terrence Malick's drama about the beginnings of life on Earth and the travails of a 1950s Texas family.

"Voice-over snippets suggestive of states of mind register more importantly than dialogue, while both are trumped by the diverse musical elements and the rumblings and murmurs of nature, which have all been blended in a masterful sound mix. Emmanuel Lubezki outdoes himself with cinematography of almost unimaginable crispness and luminosity. As in The New World, the camera is constantly on the move, forever reframing in search of the moment, which defines the film’s impressionistic manner."

Sounds like something a lot of the Cannes crowd wouldn't like.

Of all the quick reactions, the one that's sticking with me is Rocchi calling it gorgeous but shapeless. Disappointed I haven't seen anything singling out Jessica Chastain, as I was hoping this was the movie that would be her breakout.

It sounds like a Malick film, basically.

That's a nicely written review - I haven't really dug into the HR before - and it makes me want to see the film all the more.

Renn and I see it tomorrow. Will report back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata 

Renn and I see it tomorrow. Will report back.

Another tag-team review. Excellent.
 

Yeah, I love the tag team reviews.  Nick, as you said THIN RED LINE is only 'somewhat watchable' I don't think you'll like it!   Are you a fan of THE NEW WORLD?

Awaiting your thoughts, gentlebeards.

Here is a beautiful little review from Slant Magazine (whose opinions often mirror my own). Hopefully my thoughts will be more in line with this than some of the loud dismissals that have abounded.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2011/05/cannes-film-festival-2011-day-six-the-tree-of-life/#more-21754

Wow... this thread was started back in 06?  

Malick doesn't always work for me.  But I'm still going to try to see this in the best theater.

I wish we'd get the odd amazing grown-up visual treat of a film like this one to play at Imax.

I'm reticent to call it a masterpiece. But.

Don't be coy.  Give it to us!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

 

Malick doesn't always work for me.  But I'm still going to try to see this in the best theater.

Same here. I have all sorts of love for THIN RED LINE, but NEW WORLD was a mixed bag. Malick, also, I have to see when I'm in the right mood. His stuff isn't "oh, hey, pop that in the DVD player" kind of fare.

The only Malick I've seen is LINE, which I found half-masterful/half-maddening, but I'm curiously psyched for this one.  I'm a big Pitt fan, so that will help.  

Yeah, I don't want to trot out that word either... but only because I think I use it way too much already.

I will say this - it's an incredibly subjective film, in my opinion.  What you bring to it, with your experiences, your family history, your life, factors heavily into what the film does for you.  That's what it did for me, anyway.  Ebert summed it up perfectly in his tweet yeaterday: "THE TREE OF LIFE is a prayer."  And it is.  It's one of the most spiritual films I've ever seen.

That said - Pretentious? You bet.  Indulgent? Absolutely.  Too long?  There's definite ass-awareness at the two-thirds mark.

This is a Malick.  You have to work at it.

Comparisons to 2001 - I can understand them, but that's only at the base level of the film's more cosmic diversions.  The only real comparison movie I can think of is ENTER THE VOID, but only thematically.

Visually, Lubezki's work is revelatory.  It's imaginative, playful, epic when it needs to be, and in the end is pretty much perfect.

Brad Pitt is really good.  He plays a quite guilt-stricken, beaten down man who obviously loves his kids but has no idea how to show it.  Jessica Chastain doesn't exactly play a character but an ideal, and that's okay.  Sean Penn isn't really in it much but I thought he was fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny 
Ebert summed it up perfectly in his tweet yeaterday: "THE TREE OF LIFE is a prayer."  And it is.  It's one of the most spiritual films I've ever seen.

Ebert expanded that quote into a longer essay, and this understanding of the film seems to be a thread running through many of the reviews.

That said, one of the reasons this all makes me concerned is that I don't think any conception of "spiritual but not religious" adds up to much beyond some airy-fairy ideas and emotional feelings, and the comments of folks like Robert Koehler--and his comments are certainly the most robust and articulate I've seen on THE TREE OF LIFE so far--have only reinforced my suspicions that THE TREE OF LIFE won't add up to much.

I haven't seen the film, but what I gather from the consensus of reviews is that on an initial viewing it's something to behold, but will falter and seem kitsch on repeat viewings.

I don't think Ebert would feel as strongly about if he hadn't had grown up in the same era as Malick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 
That said, one of the reasons this all makes me concerned is that I don't think any conception of "spiritual but not religious" adds up to much beyond some airy-fairy ideas and emotional feelings, and the comments of folks like Robert Koehler--and his comments are certainly the most robust and articulate I've seen on THE TREE OF LIFE so far--have only reinforced my suspicions that THE TREE OF LIFE won't add up to much.

The Koehler review is indeed excellent and detailed - he really seems to analyze it more than anyone else has done, although I realize that upon initial viewing in a festival setting that can be quite a difficult thing to ask of a critic. It's certainly a more helpful critique than, say, Hoberman's dismissal of the film, though.

The problem with criticisms of Malick's films is that, while I can understand the angle they're coming from, I'm usually (as in, four out of four times for his filmography thus far) on the complete opposite end of the opinion spectrum. Where one person sees kitschy, self-indulgent nonsense, I see purely cinematic poetry nearly unique in film history. (Tarkovsky is/was sort of on a similar wavelength. Sometimes.) I'd say THE THIN RED LINE is probably my favorite film, or at least a top tenner, and that was pretty savagely torn apart by the people who weren't affected by it the way I am by Malick's films. I won't say that they didn't "get it," because that's always seemed a rudely condescending attitude toward anything artistic put on a personal pedestal that others may dislike, but rather that if Malick doesn't work for you his films would seem to be absurdly pretentious and annoying.

Anyway, the fact that Koehler makes positive references to Malick's previous films in that review is actually what's got me worried about this, because he doesn't seem like the kind of person who would react negatively to Malick's basic techniques except when they're used in such a way that doesn't really add up to much. The wonder of his previous films is largely down to the way he combines imagery, music and voiceover in such a way as to give unexpected meaning and depth to the premise he's working with, and if that's as incoherently scrambled as Koehler makes it sound, I'm truly worried about what TREE OF LIFE has ended up being.

Interestingly, Lars Von Trier's MELANCHOLIA seems unable to avoid being compared to this film in positive, negative, and neutral ways in nearly every review I've read of it because of the juxtaposition of cosmic and personal story threads in each film. They'd seem to be the talk of Cannes, at least at the moment. Better publicity than Lars himself can muster, apparently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis Jr. 

I haven't seen the film, but what I gather from the consensus of reviews is that on an initial viewing it's something to behold, but will falter and seem kitsch on repeat viewings.

Wouldn't it make sense to wait until people have actually had the chance to make repeat viewings before making that particular call?

I haven't seen the fucking thing, I'm only positing what I've gathered from reviews.

I'm just saying that 'falls apart on repeat viewings' is a very specific criticism to make of a film that few, if any, of the reviewers will have seen more than once.

I quit.

I found Tree of Life revealed more on a second viewing. It's easy to fall in and get lost, but it works better on a second pass, so Capital M.

It just won the Palme D'or at Cannes. Malick wasn't there to receive the award, of course.

Yay! I'm guessing this helps the film get into more theaters, perhaps?

Probably not. Though the per screen next weekend should be sell-outs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

I found Tree of Life revealed more on a second viewing. It's easy to fall in and get lost, but it works better on a second pass, so Capital M.

Wow, so good to hear. You going to be writing about it anywhere?

I can not fucking wait to see this.  It sounds like it might be his most personal film from what people are saying.  That Slant review brilliantly connects it to the rest of his filmography (regarding some of the violence and brutality in Badlands) which sounds totally fascinating. 

Kinda neat, although I'm actually not sure if it should make me feel even more ambivalent considering I have mixed feelings about many past Palm D'Or winners. Ha.

I'm just going to try not to think/read about it too much more until it opens in Tucson sometime in June so I can sort of clear my preconceptions about it prior to actually watching it; and also not to agonize too much.

Forgive me, but are there still dinosaurs here, for those who have seen it? The mix of suburban drama and DINOSAURS is one of the things that intrigued me the most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Forgive me, but are there still dinosaurs here, for those who have seen it? The mix of suburban drama and DINOSAURS is one of the things that intrigued me the most.

Yeah, and they dominate most of the front half of the film from what I understand. There's a pretty big dino battle.

If anyone's interested, my review:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49760

It's a sloppy review - I repeat too much.  But there you go.

Just came back from the film after shying away from all the reviews and...

well... THIS. THIS.

THIS is why the medium of cinema was created.

I was so small, so powerless in the face of this film. Obviously it wasn't an IMAX film, or any sort of enhanced presentation, but no movie screen has ever felt SO BIG.

We will never see a film like this again. The five years of waiting since it was first announced was well worth it.

To say it's "not for everyone" is to say it is not for those who are not spiritual, who take life lightly, who are vulgar, narcissistic and vain. When the movie ends, you will want to forgive them. You will want to forgive anyone else who has done wrong by you.

If you are in Los Angeles or New York, there can be no greater experience this weekend.

Don't know about accepting the award, but he was at Cannes.

Can't wait to see this film.

Here's where I'm coming from:  I'm deeply agnostic and tend to get annoyed with a lot of God-God-God talk.  Plus, the only other Malick film I've seen is The Thin Red Line and felt it was only "okay" with a fatally dull third act. 

Having said that, I think TREE is a near-masterpiece and a genuine work-of -art.  Certainly from a technical filmmaking perspective, I imagine it will be unsurpassed this year.  They shouldn't even nominate four other films for Best Cinematography next year.  Just no.   Give that fucking award out now.  The use of music and the way the special effects are integrated into the film are stellar (literally!).  The period detail was flawless and doesn't rely on recycled late 50's pop tunes or background historical events.  And Jessca Chastain is just supernaturally lovely.  I shall follow her career with great interest. 

It's also the most heartfelt and genuinly spiritual movie I think I've ever seen.  Leave your cynicism at the door, or the film will not work for you at all. 

Is there going to be a Post Release thread opening soon?

This is the kind of movie that will get me to the theatre, when an artist deeply cares about his work and pours himself into it, I feel priviledged to have a chance to see it.

With so many movies being rote, soulless, focused group drivel, I eagerly await the chance to experience something else.