The Tree of Life (2011)

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The problem with audiences today is that they don't want to think when going to the movies. So, when watching a film that challenges them on an intellectual level and they don't get it, it's quickly labeled as pretentious art house trash. People don't want to admit that they hated something because they couldn't follow it, so it immediately becomes the filmmaker's fault for not doing a good job at delivering the theme. That's the problem with Hollywood spoon feeding the masses and telling them what to think and how to feel in almost all of their films.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a strong hatred for films that ask the viewer to think, yet absolute drivel like Transformers always get a pass under the guise of "fun". Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. However when that's all that's out there, it's a problem. While there are some incredible indie films released every year, they never get the recognition that they deserve. It hurts my soul that shit like Pirates 4 makes all that money and The Tree of Life can't even get a widespread release. I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

There is some truth here, but I can also offer the counter-argument that:

People who enjoy these artsy, slow, often disjointed films automatically play the "you dont get it" card as soon as someone dares to call their beloved artsy movie boring or pointless. Is it always that the aduience didnt get it? I find that hard to believe since many competent and likely smart people saw this film and found it boring and/or pointless.

I understand the whole challenge thing and there are people that just want to watch Transformers. Thats fine and they often hate these artsy films even before giving them a chance and thats lame. However.... maybe they just simply didnt like it? Is that OK? Do we all have to just blindly love these artsy films? Im sorry but some of them DO suck and they are boring and impossible to watch.

2001 is one of my personal favs and that film always ends up in these types of discussions. Ya know what? Some people find the film slow and useless. Maybe they didnt get it, maybe they did. Doesnt matter - they didnt care for it and thats 100% legal in this country.

Its hard to determine whos more annoying - The sex and explosions film fans that cant watch more than a minute of dialog before they get bored/agitated or the self-righteous film "pros" that label everyone who dislikes artsy, slow films as stupid. Personally, I find both types to be equally obnoxious.

[Riff Magnum]

^^ Agreed!!

I loved TOL. It's probably in my all time top 10, but i can see why people wouldn't like it and i don't really need to call them stupid in order to feel better about myself. Kinda hard for a 150 minute movie about "the meaning of all things" not to get the pretentious label. It is pretentious. It is slow paced. It has themes where most movies have plot lines and twists. It has music where most movies have dialogue. It has voice over where most movies have music. It holds shots where most movies would've cut. It cuts where most movies would've held on.

On the other hand it's almost impossible not to deny the fact that more and more of our population has problems with their attention spans. It's rampant. I see signs of it everywhere everyday and it's not just people under 30 who've been raised on tv, the internet, and video games. I think that's more at the root of the problem than people simply being dumb or closed minded.

Half my theater left during the "universe forming" scenes. I admit to feeling angry at that, but hey, it's their loss right?

[exolstice]

Originally Posted by double_l4488

I did not like the ending of this at all, but it was a very intresting movie. The shots in space especially with that amazing classical music should look and sound incredible on blu-ray.

Yeah, he had me up until the last 10-15 minutes. If it weren't for the ending I'd probably give it a 10/10.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

On the other hand it's almost impossible not to deny the fact that more and more of our population has problems with their attention spans. It's rampant. I see signs of it everywhere everyday and it's not just people under 30 who've been raised on tv, the internet, and video games. I think that's more at the root of the problem than people simply being dumb or closed minded.

It does seem as if people get ants in their pants more now than ever. I blame that on the instant-ness of everything due to cell phones and the fact they we all just have to be available 24/7/365 now, even though noone really can explain why.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but I have also noticed that we have become so instant-gratification enhanced that people cant even leave messages anymore - they just keep calling back unitl they get the person. Cant ya leave a message? Geezus!

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Half my theater left during the "universe forming" scenes. I admit to feeling angry at that, but hey, it's their loss right?

From the screencaps Ive seen and clips Ive watched - isnt this sequence just a collage of already fairly well-known astronomy photos? I see the Horsehead Nebula, The Ring Nebula, the Sombrero Galaxy and some others too. If thats the case then I could see why people might be life WTF...????

[exolstice]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

From the screencaps Ive seen and clips Ive watched - isnt this sequence just a collage of already fairly well-known astronomy photos? I see the Horsehead Nebula, The Ring Nebula, the Sombrero Galaxy and some others too. If thats the case then I could see why people might be life WTF...????

Some people didn't like the CGI dinosaurs.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The problem with audiences today is that they don't want to think when going to the movies. So, when watching a film that challenges them on an intellectual level and they don't get it, it's quickly labeled as pretentious art house trash. People don't want to admit that they hated something because they couldn't follow it, so it immediately becomes the filmmaker's fault for not doing a good job at delivering the theme. That's the problem with Hollywood spoon feeding the masses and telling them what to think and how to feel in almost all of their films.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a strong hatred for films that ask the viewer to think, yet absolute drivel like Transformers always get a pass under the guise of "fun". Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. However when that's all that's out there, it's a problem. While there are some incredible indie films released every year, they never get the recognition that they deserve. It hurts my soul that shit like Pirates 4 makes all that money and The Tree of Life can't even get a widespread release. I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I totally agree, however, Transformers gets a pass because it made $1 billion worldwide. Hollywood is a business - and business is about money. It's ALWAYS been that way. Now, granted, movies have gotten dumber and dumber, but it's still about the bottom line. Especially in this economy, less and less "art" films are getting made, because less independent producers have the money to fund them.

And, truthfully, indie films are indie for a reason - they appeal to a "select" market, not the mass audiences. Black Swan was more or less indie yet it managed to make over $100 mil... so indies CAM cross over IF they have enough appeal. But to be honest, I've seen more wretched indie films in the last 10 years than in the previous 10... because filmmakers TRY SO HARD to be indie, that it becomes pretentious. On the flipside, I've seen some great Hollywood films in the 90s and 00s.

John Sayles is and will always be the king of indies. He's a smart man, makes thoughtful films... yet still has difficulty finding financing. Why? Because his films don't make money. But he will re-write for Hollywood, then use that money to make the films he wants. Some people call it a sell out, but he's just doing what he has to if he wants to put HIS work out there.

That said, I love Malick for what he does, and I love Transformers for what it does. But in no way can you even compare the two. There's room for variety in art otherwise it wouldn't be art.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by exolstice

Some people didn't like the CGI dinosaurs.

[rezpekt]

Originally Posted by exolstice

Some people didn't like the CGI dinosaurs.

Yeah, Malick should have used real dinosaurs instead.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Yet I'm sure they'd have no problem sitting through 2 hours of Jurassic Park

The problem is you need to have a simple plot, and have a character use some inane piece of dialog or have a conveniently placed TV showing Fox News to explain to the audience what is going on.

OT, but "Unstoppable" was just about the worst example of this. It was like having Green Eggs and Ham read to you and having each page explained afterwards

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Yet I'm sure they'd have no problem sitting through 2 hours of Jurassic Park

The problem is you need to have a simple plot, and have a character use some inane piece of dialog or have a conveniently placed TV showing Fox News to explain to the audience what is going on.

OT, but "Unstoppable" was just about the worst example of this. It was like having Green Eggs and Ham read to you and having each page explained afterwards

Um, Unstoppable was a good action thriller, Malick doesn't make films, he creates pretty images with zero substance. All of his movies are boring, tedious, and devoid of anything deep. Tree of Life is pretentious rubbish. It's pseudo intellectual nonsense for people who want to feel smarter than they really are.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Um, Unstoppable was a good action thriller, Malick doesn't make films, he creates pretty images with zero substance. All of his movies are boring, tedious, and devoid of anything deep. Tree of Life is pretentious rubbish. It's pseudo intellectual nonsense for people who want to feel smarter than they really are.

This is a little harsh and I actually enjoyed Days of Heaven but as a whole, Malick does nothing for me either. Zero.

[exolstice]

Originally Posted by rezpekt

Yeah, Malick should have used real dinosaurs instead.

If Spielberg could do it, I don't see why Malick couldn't.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Um, Unstoppable was a good action thriller, Malick doesn't make films, he creates pretty images with zero substance. All of his movies are boring, tedious, and devoid of anything deep. Tree of Life is pretentious rubbish. It's pseudo intellectual nonsense for people who want to feel smarter than they really are.

Seriously? I understand someone not being able to adapt to the narrative of his films, but to say that there is zero depth whatsoever is absurd.

Originally Posted by exolstice

If Spielberg could do it, I don't see why Malick couldn't.

Spielberg had the access to a budget much larger.

[Carl Elvis]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Um, Unstoppable was a good action thriller, Malick doesn't make films, he creates pretty images with zero substance. All of his movies are boring, tedious, and devoid of anything deep. Tree of Life is pretentious rubbish. It's pseudo intellectual nonsense for people who want to feel smarter than they really are.

Exactly!

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The problem with audiences today is that they don't want to think when going to the movies. So, when watching a film that challenges them on an intellectual level and they don't get it, it's quickly labeled as pretentious art house trash. People don't want to admit that they hated something because they couldn't follow it, so it immediately becomes the filmmaker's fault for not doing a good job at delivering the theme. That's the problem with Hollywood spoon feeding the masses and telling them what to think and how to feel in almost all of their films.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a strong hatred for films that ask the viewer to think, yet absolute drivel like Transformers always get a pass under the guise of "fun". Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. However when that's all that's out there, it's a problem. While there are some incredible indie films released every year, they never get the recognition that they deserve. It hurts my soul that shit like Pirates 4 makes all that money and The Tree of Life can't even get a widespread release. I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

Exactly! Great post! People just want to be entertained.

Most people don't even get all the spiritual undertones in SW. They only see the action and want to see s%^t blow up!

I love these deeply spiritual meditations on life and nature!

TNW is still my fave though!

This one had a bit too much Christianity in it for my taste, although the good stuff.

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

^^ Agreed!!

I loved TOL. It's probably in my all time top 10, but i can see why people wouldn't like it and i don't really need to call them stupid in order to feel better about myself. Kinda hard for a 150 minute movie about "the meaning of all things" not to get the pretentious label. It is pretentious. It is slow paced. It has themes where most movies have plot lines and twists. It has music where most movies have dialogue. It has voice over where most movies have music. It holds shots where most movies would've cut. It cuts where most movies would've held on.

On the other hand it's almost impossible not to deny the fact that more and more of our population has problems with their attention spans. It's rampant. I see signs of it everywhere everyday and it's not just people under 30 who've been raised on tv, the internet, and video games. I think that's more at the root of the problem than people simply being dumb or closed minded.

Half my theater left during the "universe forming" scenes. I admit to feeling angry at that, but hey, it's their loss right?

Yeah, I saw people leave the theater too, and the wife of a guy next to me very badly wanted to walk out, but he wouldn't let her, so she slept, ate, nagged...the whole time...it was utterly annoying.

I loved it too, but I totally understand how people would hate it.

Either you like it or you you don't, I guess.

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Um, Unstoppable was a good action thriller, Malick doesn't make films, he creates pretty images with zero substance. All of his movies are boring, tedious, and devoid of anything deep. Tree of Life is pretentious rubbish. It's pseudo intellectual nonsense for people who want to feel smarter than they really are.

Thi shas got to be the biggest pile of rubbish I have read in a long time!

Man, you are so out of line, it's not even funny anymore.

For your dignity, you should go back and delete that post.

Seriously, just because YOU don't understand his films, doesn't mean they are meaningless trash.

How many times have you seen T3 already?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

There is some truth here, but I can also offer the counter-argument that:

People who enjoy these artsy, slow, often disjointed films automatically play the "you dont get it" card as soon as someone dares to call their beloved artsy movie boring or pointless. Is it always that the aduience didnt get it? I find that hard to believe since many competent and likely smart people saw this film and found it boring and/or pointless.

I understand the whole challenge thing and there are people that just want to watch Transformers. Thats fine and they often hate these artsy films even before giving them a chance and thats lame. However.... maybe they just simply didnt like it? Is that OK? Do we all have to just blindly love these artsy films? Im sorry but some of them DO suck and they are boring and impossible to watch.

2001 is one of my personal favs and that film always ends up in these types of discussions. Ya know what? Some people find the film slow and useless. Maybe they didnt get it, maybe they did. Doesnt matter - they didnt care for it and thats 100% legal in this country.

Its hard to determine whos more annoying - The sex and explosions film fans that cant watch more than a minute of dialog before they get bored/agitated or the self-righteous film "pros" that label everyone who dislikes artsy, slow films as stupid. Personally, I find both types to be equally obnoxious.

I get where you're coming from and I agree with some points. It would be incredibly stupid of me to suggest that all art house films are automatically good simply because they are art house, but I never said that. What prompted my response was the poster who compared TTOL to going to the museum and suggest that films that require you to think never work.

What I find interesting is that you are kind of doing exactly what I talked about in my post. People who have zero interest in artsy films are basically given a pass with you saying their tastes are okay, yet people who enjoy more intellectual films are being taken to task for being "self-righteous film "pros"".

Also, there is a difference between people who see these films, understand the point and hate them and the people who have no idea what's going on and hated them before it even began. Unfortunately, a large part of American moviegoers don't have good taste. That's exactly why we are in this sequel, remake, prequel, regurgitation hell. All those people actually like seeing the same thing over and over again and continue to pay to see them in theaters and buy them on DVD/BD. If a large part of moviegoers had better taste, they wouldn't keep paying to see such rubbish and we would have more creative films coming out of Hollywood as a result. Because Hollywood has put out some incredible films, but they are so few and far between now because they are too risky. Why waste time and money developing an original film that might blow up in your face when you can easily put out a guaranteed money maker? Hollywood only cares about money and the type of films they put out are dictated by the American public, and soon to be the Chinese as well.

That's the way it is. Again I ask why is it fine for the vast majority to have it their way, but as soon one of the few self-righteous film "pros" speaks up, we get slammed for being self-righteous? That always bugs me.

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

I loved TOL. It's probably in my all time top 10, but i can see why people wouldn't like it and i don't really need to call them stupid in order to feel better about myself. Kinda hard for a 150 minute movie about "the meaning of all things" not to get the pretentious label. It is pretentious. It is slow paced. It has themes where most movies have plot lines and twists. It has music where most movies have dialogue. It has voice over where most movies have music. It holds shots where most movies would've cut. It cuts where most movies would've held on.

Why can't it be ambitious instead of pretentious? Malick is not some hipster douche fresh out of film school who is trying to make a name for himself. He's a well established and respected filmmaker who was trying to do something different. I don't see why that should automatically make the film "pretentious".

Originally Posted by retablo

I totally agree, however, Transformers gets a pass because it made $1 billion worldwide. Hollywood is a business - and business is about money. It's ALWAYS been that way. Now, granted, movies have gotten dumber and dumber, but it's still about the bottom line. Especially in this economy, less and less "art" films are getting made, because less independent producers have the money to fund them.

And, truthfully, indie films are indie for a reason - they appeal to a "select" market, not the mass audiences. Black Swan was more or less indie yet it managed to make over $100 mil... so indies CAM cross over IF they have enough appeal. But to be honest, I've seen more wretched indie films in the last 10 years than in the previous 10... because filmmakers TRY SO HARD to be indie, that it becomes pretentious. On the flipside, I've seen some great Hollywood films in the 90s and 00s.

John Sayles is and will always be the king of indies. He's a smart man, makes thoughtful films... yet still has difficulty finding financing. Why? Because his films don't make money. But he will re-write for Hollywood, then use that money to make the films he wants. Some people call it a sell out, but he's just doing what he has to if he wants to put HIS work out there.

That said, I love Malick for what he does, and I love Transformers for what it does. But in no way can you even compare the two. There's room for variety in art otherwise it wouldn't be art.

Oh, I completely agree. That's why I wrote that "I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it." I also agree about what indie films have become as of late. They are almost a genre in themselves and are trying to copy the success of stuff like Little Miss Sunshine. But that's what happens when a lot of "indie" films are populated by Hollywood actors and producers. With that said, there are still some great ones too.






In the end, all I want out of film is an original or unique story. I don't care if it comes out of Hollywood or the indie scene, I just want there to be more variety and see films from different perspectives with different talking points. I want film to take more risks, be more honest and try to look at something in a new light. And the only way for that to happen is that the American public has to start rebelling against the drivel currently in theaters. As others have already pointed out, $$$ is the only thing that Hollywood listens to. So if we keep eating everything that they throw at us, it will never change.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Um, Unstoppable was a good action thriller, Malick doesn't make films, he creates pretty images with zero substance. All of his movies are boring, tedious, and devoid of anything deep. Tree of Life is pretentious rubbish. It's pseudo intellectual nonsense for people who want to feel smarter than they really are.

Threadcrap much?

I get you don't like the film, that's your buisness, but coming in here on multiple occasion just to say so is pointless, I don't particularly care for the new Pirates of the Caribbean, but would I go into that thread just to say so? No, because whats the point and purpose? Judging by your posts and your sig your main purpose here is to stir people up and create drama where there shouldn't be. And that's the difference between having an opinion and just threadcraping.

[duggie walker]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Um, Unstoppable was a good action thriller, Malick doesn't make films, he creates pretty images with zero substance. All of his movies are boring, tedious, and devoid of anything deep. Tree of Life is pretentious rubbish. It's pseudo intellectual nonsense for people who want to feel smarter than they really are.

The point with something like TREE OF LIFE is that the viewer brings the substance. Malick provides images, fragments of poetry, a very loose narrative that's designed to stimulate memory, and some more cosmic elements in juxtaposition. I don't believe his aim is to provide substance, or any kind of answers; nor do I believe there's anything "intellectual" about it - in fact, the quasi-religious elements will more likely inflame the academic elite. THE TREE OF LIFE is a meditative work, designed to drive the viewer into his own mind; to fill the empty spaces with their own feelings, memories etc

So I doubt really that there's anyone that doesn't "get" TREE OF LIFE. It's a film that invites self-reflection and that's not something that many people are comfortable with, and sometimes with good reason; a lot of people have pain in their lives that is unbearable. They use the cinema as a place to escape their anxieties, not to examine them; and though all films are art of some kind, much Hollywood product is escapist; true art is not escapist - it shouldn't be depressing - but it does seek to hold up a mirror to reality; to illuminate the business of living.

It seems, at first, ridiculous to compare TRANSFORMERS and TREE OF LIFE. The first is certainly escapism, the second art; poetry, even. There should be no problem in accepting their differences; we wouldn't in a medium like music, where TRANSFORMERS is Heavy Metal and TREE OF LIFE is ambient trance. Most likely you will prefer one to the other, but you might enjoy both in different circumstances.

But what TRANSFORMERS has in common with TREE OF LIFE is that they are both quite pure forms of cinema. What these films do is not something that could be done on stage, or radio, in the novel or in music. These are juxtaposed images, married to sound, working to two very different effects; one to send us deeper into ourselves, one to take us out of our selves. The horrible phrase "leave your brain at the door" is really "leave your pain at the door". Your pain is required to appreciate Malick fully and that's never going to break the box office records that everyone - including the audiences - seem so obsessed with these days.

By the way - this is a good litmus test. If you could be bothered reading all this post, you have half a chance of enjoying TREE OF LIFE.

[42041]

Originally Posted by duggie walker

nor do I believe there's anything "intellectual" about it

agreed. it is an art film, but not some kind of avant-garde conceptual brainf**k. its themes are universal and much of the film's appeal, to me at least, is at the surface: it is beautifully shot, beautifully scored, brilliantly put together as cinema. but like all art, it's subjective and personal: some people will be blown away, some just won't feel it.

[duggie walker]

Originally Posted by 42041

agreed. it is an art film, but not some kind of avant-garde conceptual brainf**k. its themes are universal and much of the film's appeal, to me at least, is at the surface: it is beautifully shot, beautifully scored, brilliantly put together as cinema. but like all art, it's subjective and personal: some people will be blown away, some just won't feel it.

Exactly. The story's pretty straightforward and blue-collar at that. It's just not structured in plot-terms, and you aren't being directed to feel a particular way about it. You really will get out of it what you're prepared to put in.

But people shouldn't be afraid of it. It's not Peter Greenaway. It's the story of two brothers, really, and their relationship with their Father. The stuff about evolution and the Universe sounds intimidating but it' s just making the point that we're all part of a bigger picture.

It's true, though, that you jettison linear narrative at your peril. There's an argument to be had that a strong narrative is actually the more successful "delivery system" for artisitic concepts. I was really knocked out by the first hour or so, but after that I was hungry for narrative connections (whch Malick just about provides enough of); and the last twenty minutes or so did stretch at the limits of my patience (though the same could be said of RETURN OF THE KING, to be fair!). For me, there was a touch of the diminishing returns; and the atheist in me found a few of the images a little hard to take.

Even so, it's a hell of a film and, as has been said before, a near miracle for those of us who despair of anything genuinely interesting being produced by the studios.