The Criterion Collection

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by joie

Narration is certainly not a bad thing, if the story is about characters who rarely, if ever, talk. Then, it's the right thing -- the only thing? -- to do; the voiceover functions as an interior monologue. It worked very well in "Badlands." I suppose "Tree of Life" is about some characters who have little to say to one another, but why? In "Badlands," the unspeakableness of the crime spree could explain why Kit and his girlfriend had little to say to each other.

A lot of the voice over in TTOL is what the character feels and wants, they can't say it out loud to each other. There is conflict between Nature and Grace which are reflected by the Father and the Mother.

When the son dies she can't talk to him about it because of the contrasting opinions and feelings. Again the Son ha been brought up with conflict and he struggles to let it out and speak to them.

Also a lot of people pray quietly or in their head and some of the things said in the voice overs are a prayer in a way by the characters.

He doesn't use all the time -

http://movieclips.com/5g8X-the-tree-...eauty-of-life/

In that scene he isn't having them say 'Oh I love you' or 'This is love blah blah blah' he is trusting the audience to see the love and the beauty, also with the music.

He mainly uses as I said, when they can't express out loud or if they are praying.

He is also letting us into their minds and hearing their thoughts, people don't take 24/7 there is so much we don't say but think, because we can't or we are scared - he is opening his characters to us and letting us in. It's also his way of speaking to the people who love his films without him doing publicly due to his fear of being in the lime light - he is expressing his ideas and opinions through his passion of film making which he may struggle to do so publicly.

But he doesn't use it constantly in this film, there are plenty of images and scenes which are left for us to discover and understand in our own ways.

Also to your last point, there are so many things we can struggle to discuss or explain - emotions are so broad and open, some do struggle. But for me Malick sousing other medium to express these feelings, he isn't limiting to imagery, he is using poetry in a way - which people do use to express themselves. He also uses music so perfectly - like the video I put in this post.

Nature only wants to please itself. Get others to please it too. Likes to lord it over them. To have its own way. It finds reasons to be unhappy when all the world is shining around it. And love is smiling through all things. Grace doesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries.

[mallomar]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Anyway i wouldn't call a film pretentious just because i can see the intentions of the director and i am not reacting to them,

Another great point. It's true my definition is kind of reductive and certainly does not apply to all cases. But I would make a distinction between a director's ultimate intentions (to move, inform, upset, impress, edify, overwhelm, what have you) and the temporary subversion of these intentions to the craft that characterizes great art. The subversion involves caring about the plot or characters or setting or atmosphere or suspense or any number of elements that are more difficult to focus on than their intended results. But you can't just start grabbing for the gold ring or the audience will be put off.

Stanislavski describes an exercise with his acting students. He asks the students to simply walk across the stage, one at a time. They all do so, but in a transparently false manner. Bad acting, in other words. Then he asks them to pretend they are putting out a small fire on the other side of the stage. This time, they all demonstrate poor acting ability in putting out the fire, but move across the stage with great and convincing urgency. Their bodies are so focused on putting out the fire correctly, that the movement across the stage, as a means to that final end, arises naturally. In this way, at least for the duration of time it takes them to cross to the fire, they have forgotten their desire to impress, and lost themselves to the requirements of the fictitious moment.

I would argue that any novel or movie or whatever that seeks to impress more than it is impressive elicits the p-word reaction in viewers. And that probably explains why some people find TTOL pretentious and others not. Everyone can agree that it seeks to impress, that it is very insistent about its own grandeur. But some people feel it really is that impressive, and so gets away with it.

I think roughly the same thing about many Bergman films, including Cries and Whispers and Persona. They risk some eye rolls, but transcend them.

Also, I don't agree that voice overs are p------ per se. Like practically everyone, I loved them in Badlands and Days of Heaven.

[dsman71]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yep, that's the one.

I need to give it another look at some point too. For some reason it didn't really do a lot for me. Same with They Made Me A Fugitive. I just expected more.

They Made Me A Fugitive is that the They Made Me A Criminal alternate title with John Garfield ? I keep mixing those up. Odd Man Out if memory serves, didn't do anything for me either but Id try it again , why not ?

[Vinyl]

Malik does like his naration/voiceover movies. Tree of Life and Thin Red Line did have great voiceovers.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by Vinyl

Malik does like his naration/voiceover movies. Tree of Life and Thin Red Line did have great voiceovers.

He did study and teach philosophy I believe, so its only natural for him to want to use that in his story telling - and for me it works beautifully.

Its his signature - just like other directors have them

[mallomar]

Originally Posted by octagon

You mentioned pornography earlier and I'm assuming you were by extension referencing Justice Stewart's 'I know it when I see it' definition of obscenity and it's a solid analogy.

It's true I was, in a sideways kind of way. Thanks for catching it!

Also, basically I'm just devil's advocating. I totally take your meaning. I hate when people say such and such artist is a genius, or something is overrated or, yes, pretentious. Lazy use of language to paper over, usually, half-baked reactions. But when you feel deeply that p------ is the best word that applies, then you have to make a fuss and petition for an exception.

I was kidding about the movies of my (seventies) youth. I don't think I caught any good ones till I hit high school. At that age, though, they're pretty much all good. I even remember being dazzled at the opening of Doctor Dolittle. Nothing pretentious about Rex Harrison talk-singing to the animals.

[jdw89]

Ordered Scanners!

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

re: the cartoon

it is clever, but I, for one, am ALWAYS saying what I represent - probably to the point where I share too much (i.e. have too vocal of an opinion)

having an opinion that is in stark contrast to the popular opinion is not the easy thing to do. nobody is being challenged when they use the word breathtaking, awe-inspiring, etc. to heap mounds of praise upon TTOL.

but pretentious (?), which, as I have mentioned before, is a subjective adjective not unlike 'beautiful' or 'sad,' is a banned word

Like the previous poster has stated that pretentious is "an attempt for unearned profundity" leaves more questions than answers.

What is "profound" and what can be earned. These words vary in each individual. As art appreciation is subjective, there will never be a set criteria. I hold Dr. Samuel Johnson's literary opinion more highly than other critics because I know he was a learned man.

The anonymity of internet makes even harder to judge ones criticism. All these posts become a matter of opinion, if it goes beyond technical aspect of the film.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by octagon

Please, people can't agree that water is wet (what about when it freezes, you didn't think about that, did you, hah) so I'm going to go with no on that

Me? I don't like to throw the p-word around too much either but Crash (best picture Jack Nicholson startled 'whoa Crash' Crash, not the car crash Crash) is one of the exceptions. For my money it was one long series of trite, superficial observations intentionally masquerading as something deeper and more profound.

That was precisely the film that came to my mind while writing the question, but mainly because how everyone hates it.

But to tell the truth, and i know this is extremely unpopular opinion, but the year it won was the last time i remember that the movie i was rooting for won at the oscars , i haven't seen it since then but now i am afraid i might hate it like everyone else.

[Edward J Grug III]

Well I'm much more excited by Odd Man Out coming to the Criterion Collection than I would be about The Tree of Life. :P

[Scottie]

The thing I enjoy the most about Terrence Malick is that he doesn't really need dialogue to tell his stories. The beauty and his extreme attention to detail tells more of a story than most dialogue-driven narratives.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Well, I think Criterion isn't only about the transfer. It's more than that..
I mean why people wish for Criterion to release this and that?
Why not be content with just a good transfer from any other studio?

I don't really understand what you're saying.

I said that for Criterion to release the theatrical cut of Tree Of Life on Blu-ray would be a waste of a spine, due to the fact that the existing Blu-ray of Tree Of Life looks excellent. I wouldn't object to Criterion doing an extended Tree Of Life, should such a cut ever come to fruition.

[mallomar]

Originally Posted by iScottie

The thing I enjoy the most about Terrence Malick is that he doesn't really need dialogue to tell his stories. The beauty and his extreme attention to detail tells more of a story than most dialogue-driven narratives.

This whole exchange has convinced me I should give Tree of Life another try. Maybe with a couple of beers.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

I don't really understand what you're saying.

I said that for Criterion to release the theatrical cut of Tree Of Life on Blu-ray would be a waste of a spine, due to the fact that the existing Blu-ray of Tree Of Life looks excellent. I wouldn't object to Criterion doing an extended Tree Of Life, should such a cut ever come to fruition.

As much as I want TTOL in the collection I agree, my bluray is pretty impressive in terms of quality and suppliments.

Although if they were to expand the supplements and have the extended cut then would defo be worth adding. But then again my Thin Red Line Blu is same transfer as Criterions (although it is UK version).

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by dsman71

They Made Me A Fugitive is that the They Made Me A Criminal alternate title with John Garfield ? I keep mixing those up. Odd Man Out if memory serves, didn't do anything for me either but Id try it again , why not ?

They Made Me A Fugitive (a.k.a I Became A Criminal) has Trevor Howard as the lead. I was impressed enough with it to go straight online and order the Blu-ray....that said, I don't think it's as good as Odd Man Out.

You're thinking of "They Made Me A Criminal" with John Garfield.

Actually, looking on IMDB, the 1939 Garfield film is also known as "I Became A Criminal" and "They Made Me A Fugitive". Holy confusion, Batman!

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

I don't really understand what you're saying.

I said that for Criterion to release the theatrical cut of Tree Of Life on Blu-ray would be a waste of a spine, due to the fact that the existing Blu-ray of Tree Of Life looks excellent. I wouldn't object to Criterion doing an extended Tree Of Life, should such a cut ever come to fruition.

I said, if the only thing that matters is a good transfer, then people wouldn't ask of Criterion to release various films.
(by the way, there are some region free European Blurays of certain films with excellent tranfer, but still people persistently ask for Criterion)
Why do they ask them if the transfer is all that matters (as you yourself say you're content with the transfer)? They should be happy with the existing Blurays.
Why should Criterion release eg. Tootsie, since there is already an excellent region free Bluray but not Tree of Life?
I didn't see anyone complaining about that like "Oh, tootsie is already released in an excellent Bluray, it will be a waste of spine for Criterion to release it".
I also didn't see anyone complaining about Mr. Fox.
Why is that?
Because Criterion is beyond just a good transfer.
It's the covers, the great menus, the supplements, the transfer of course, the OCD of many that want Criterion films for various reasons etc.

So, I would love a Criterion Tree of Life because except for the transfer (which as you say there is an excellent one in the US Bluray), I would get:
-a good artistic cover perhaps
-a good menu (I love most Criterion's menus)
-more supplements
-it would be a great companion to the other Criterion Mallic films, so there would be a kind of consistency (than having his films in various studios Blurays)

Bottomline:
I don't understand why when someone mentions a Criterion Tree of Life, everyone complains, but they don't complain about other films that are already released in excellent Blurays yet they are released by Criterion too.

[ShellOilJunior]

It's been several years since I saw Odd Man Out but I recall

[Show spoiler]being a tad disappointed that James Mason is hurt for much of the picture and not the usual James Mason.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Bottomline:
I don't understand why when someone mentions a Criterion Tree of Life, everyone complains, but they don't complain about other films that are already released in excellent Blurays yet they are released by Criterion too.

People do complain about other films that already have excellent (and sometimes not so excellent) releases. It's very common.

Tree of Life isn't being singled out here.

[easydreamer]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Just wondering are there any Criterions that feature a heavy Jazz soundtrack? I really cant think of any off the top of my head >.< Only one I can think of is All That Jazz but not seen and only going based on title lol

Some Krzysztof Komeda stuff, such as Knife in the Water & Cul-de-sac. There is a coupling CD for these, and it is great!

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

So, I would love a Criterion Tree of Life because except for the transfer (which as you say there is an excellent one in the US Bluray), I would get:
-a good artistic cover perhaps
-a good menu (I love most Criterion's menus)
-more supplements
-it would be a great companion to the other Criterion Mallic films, so there would be a kind of consistency (than having his films in various studios Blurays)

As much as I love Criterion 3 of your 4 reasons are superfluous at best. (it's worth me mentioning that I'd written off the supplements element for this film given the reclusive nature of the director, tho admit this might be short-sighted on my behalf).

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Bottomline:
I don't understand why when someone mentions a Criterion Tree of Life, everyone complains, but they don't complain about other films that are already released in excellent Blurays yet they are released by Criterion too.

People do complain though. There were lots of vocal complaints about Fantastic Mr. Fox, given the high quality of the earlier disc. Tootsie has presumably dodged such criticism due to the fact that there is no US disc. Either way, there's no need for the straw-man addendum to your original point: my complaint lies solely with the idea of a basic Tree Of Life package being thrown out for the sake of it, nothing else, because the existing disc is excellent and a tiny C on the front cover won't make a blind bit of difference.