Jul 3, 2015

a perfect film.

Here are some words I wrote a while ago, since I don't wanna write again, despite that my critical abilites have grown in the past 4 years and I'm at odds with some of my phrasings here. Gets the point across well enough...

The Tree of Life is a brilliant piece of art that the world is not yet ready for. While its narrative bears striking similarities to other “art-house” films – most notably Tarkovsky’s Mirror, which meditates on humankind and man’s relation to man (as one in the same, in essence) – Malick’s Tree of Life stands in a league of its own. The film expresses itself poetically, allowing the formal aesthetics of (visual) images and (musical) sounds to share with the audience a profound truth about nature, existence, and God (spirituality) – whether you believe this truth or whether you get it is besides the point, this is Malick explaining life and death from his eyes, not yours.

The soundtrack is beautiful, and Malick applies the musical phrases to the visual images as if they belong together. This is, without a doubt (imo), Malick’s finest use of music. His use of Zbigniew Preisner’s Requiem for Kieślowski (Lacrimosa) is incredibly touching, and I wonder if it is, at all, a reference to Kieślowski – no idea what Malick thinks of him.

Unlike others in the theater, I did not like the middle scenes of the family as much as I liked the beginning and ending (though I loved those scenes too). Malick’s use of lighting and shadow is brilliant, and he remains one of the finest director’s of natural lighting and settings. I loved every outdoor scene where the sun could be seen in the background; Malick clearly puts a lot of effort in making sure the sun is exactly where he wants it when he shoots.

Moreover, the celestial growth, from out of that ball of light/energy, is spectacular. Things like larvae and crustaceans, double helixes, planets/galaxies, exploding gases, fire, water, earth, and air coming to be, protein enzymes (or so they looked to be) etc. have never been so majestically applied to celluloid. The underwater pre-birth is incredible, and great support to Malick’s beliefs, as I take them to be, that God is nature, and that, once born, one comes out of God, and once dead, one goes back to God.

The ending sequences are brilliant, with some of the most gorgeous settings I’ve seen on film. A lot of people seem to be wondering why Jack is only now, in the City, starting to come to terms with his brothers death (at age 19, so presumably at least 20 years earlier). I for one consider Jack to be a stand-in for Malick, and that Jack’s existential-struggle and questioning of faith is a metaphor for Malick’s. I think Jack is nearing the end of his life, and he knows that – Malick is, therefore, utilizing the character of Jack to ostensibly premeditate his own death.

In light of this, Jack needs to find solace, peace, understanding, and, in the beautiful ending sequence, his brother – with his loved ones – show him how. They bring love into his heart, and take him to a state of grace – the state of grace that once existed in their hearts, when they were children, and were loved. As Brad Pitt’s character states, “Someday we’ll fall down and weep. And we’ll understand it all, all things”. This is Jack’s moment of truth, realization, understanding. Earlier he asks (in voice-over), “Are You watching me? I want to know what You are. I want to see what You see”. The ending is Jack becoming closer to seeing things as God sees them – a kind of vision that, and I think Malick would agree, comes at the point of one’s passing. I have not dismissed the idea that Jack really is dying at the end…

By the way, any Lost fans reading this? Did Tree of Life remind you of Lost at all? The light/energy that is the source of all life, and the ending – an allegory that poetically expresses how one may realize, at a moment of awakening, that love is in their heart, brought there by those they love and are loved by, and that love – or grace – is the form of nature, which is God.

It’s interesting to note that the way of grace seems to belong to nature, and the way of nature belongs to man. Nature is corruptible, and seeks to please itself – the ego is its doing; however, grace never tries to please itself, and never comes to a bad end. Grace is free, like trees, leaves, and the sun – there is beauty and love in the grace of nature. However, there is no love in the nature of a man that doesn’t allow grace to enter their soul. Man needs to find the way of grace, in order to hold love in their hearts.
Anyways, Malick’s use of the concepts of nature and grace allow the seamless, rather poetic language of the film to be held together; it’s a tenuous hold, but it is one, nonetheless. These concepts drive the film’s structure, and, while allowing free-form – well, the film is almost entirely a formal experience – the story retains composure and consistency in the world it is a part of.

In other words, while the film reads more like a piece of music or a painting, Malick’s concise use of the concepts of nature and grace prevent the film from bloating into a space of nonsense and incomprehension – there is a definite structure created within Tree of Life’s seemingly unstructured narrative.

Lastly, if film is to be thought of as a stream of consciousness, with the narrative guiding said stream, Malick chooses to let the visual and auditory aesthetics of Tree Of Life guide the audience on a stream of consciousness that is fueled by emotion rather than thought. Like all great artworks – whether it be a great piece of music, painting, poem, or film – The Tree of Life is meant to be understood in feeling, not in thought. In light of this, I’m going to stop writing.

 

Jul 4, 2015

I'd argue To the Wonder is Malick far more unrestrained than The Tree of Life is, which is probably why most mainstream critics reacted more harshly to it (it is rotten on RottenTomatoes after all, though I'm a big fan). In To the Wonder, Malick does away with spoken dialogue almost completely and characters are defined solely by their physical presence (Kurylenko's graceful, lithe movements contrasted with Affleck's lumbering physicality). The Tree of Life, for all of its artistic daring, at least has sequences that play out like traditional scenes, enough so that the typically conservative Academy connected enough to nominate it for Best Director and Best Picture.

And is the mystery of love that less grandiose than the questions of "Why?". Not to mention, numerous filmmakers from Tarkovksy and Kubrick to the Coen brothers and Woody Allen have all tackled the same question in their own way. I don't think it's pretentious to swing for the fences in this regard. I find The Tree of Life's grandiose pursuit also to be rather grounded in the micro and very personal story of a child's coming of age in 1950s suburban Texas (The beautiful macro sequence of the universe coming of age occupies 20 minutes of the 2-hour plus film).

I find the stream-of-consciousness flights of fancy also to be well integrated within the whole, with my two favorites being Jessica Chastain flying and that of the child escaping the house submerged underwater, a potent image of birth and new life. I don't think Malick is necessarily breaking any rules with these sort of sequences.

 

Jul 3, 2015

One of the first films I watched that blew the arthouse door open for me along with The Thin Red Line/Spring Breakers/Dogtooth. Not sure where I would be as a film fan without it.

#7 in my top 10.

 

Jul 4, 2015

The first time I saw the tree of life I had no idea what the film was going to be like (it was my first malick film), and I remember when the first of the "macro" segments started, I sat up in my seat, eyes wide and mouth open for the entire scene.

Best theater experience ever.

 

Jul 4, 2015

"The approach to shooting the movie is connected to the kind of movie he wants to make — the form and content are fundamentally connected. For example, when we talk about using natural light, it’s not because we don’t want to have a truck with lights, but because what we want to capture can only be captured accidentally as it happens in front of us. So we prepped in a very unconventional way. Even Tree of Life felt very conventional — very Burbank — compared to this movie. Terry didn’t say this, but I felt that he was trying to separate To the Wonder from all the moviemaking that’s still connected to theater — from movies that feel acted, prepared and rehearsed. We were trying to find a more cinematographic approach to filmmaking and a way of using film language that was less connected to theater and literature and other art forms. Terry wants this art form to have its own way of expressing ideas and emotions, and that’s what was very exciting about the movie." - Emmanuel Lubezki on To the Wonder

 

Jul 4, 2015

I agree with @Pinhead that it's quite impossible to imagine someone liking Tree of Life or To The Wonder individually without liking them both. Tree of Life began and To the Wonder continued a visual dialogue and search for the absolute. All true art is a search for the absolute; it resonates with our innate human desire to understand the meaning of our lives. An artistic image holds within it the totality of life's truths, the answer to all questions, as a truly artistic image extends infinitely—with infinite possibilities of interpretation, none of which will be as complete as the image itself. Tree of Life is utterly replete with artistic images. No person that is open and sensitive to artistic images would dislike Tree of Life. It is quite possibly the closest that cinema has come to being true art. People who don't like Tree of Life must not be receptive to art.

I'm not usually as bold or polemic or, as some would say, "pretentious" as this (a lame defense for lack of inner awareness) but s--- is real, bro.

@CharlieWork a film is a complete work; you wouldn't read the first half of a book or look at a half blacked out painting and then comment on it. I suggest watching the film in a single, complete, open, and uninterrupted viewing before commenting. #endtreeofliferant.

 

Jul 4, 2015

charliework enter back ur plebmobile n get the fukka my sight

 

Jul 4, 2015

f---, i wish i could make the reviews you guys write.

On topic, i love with passion The Tree Of Life, i admit it took me a few attempts but when i got it i was blown away. The Tree of life is the biggest spiritual journey you can get from a film, it is a complete experience that can even get out of depression anyone. In addition to the theme of the film, cinematically speaking is top notch aswell, from the engaging score to the photography. Particulary i feel like a new person after i see it. Very powerful film.

On the other hand, i liked To The Wonder but not that much, however, i saw it when i wasnt a big fan of tree of life so i need a rewatch.

 

Jul 4, 2015

In a lot of ways, To The Wonder with its literalization of God is more grandiose. I love them both.



Here's my review on To The Wonder which is really mostly an exposition of Malick's formal system

The film begins with a series of film-photographic images, taken from a variety of sources; they are at once a reflection on the transition from film to digital as well as the transitions in people’s lives. By this end, the viewer is found in the midst of a meditative narrative that comments on the impact that the notion of God—or spirituality—has on one’s life. Its interdependent nature—that one’s thinking about God causes God to be a part of one’s life—is considered in Malick’s search to find nature in man. His search has never been quite so clear as in To The Wonder.

Malick’s signature editing is firmly in place, as he takes continuous flow jump cutting—what he mastered in Tree of Life—to a further degree. When this unique form of montage is in effect, Malick’s films have a certain power, or character, that is not found anywhere else in the cinema. The scenes retain the ebb and flow that one might find naturally in the experiencing of physical reality; unlike the ordinary jump cut, these don’t have a disorienting effect—the viewer is kept in tune with the movement. In spite of this, all the energy once found in the short takes and quick cuts of montage cutting is built within the image. The rhythmic time is moreover kept steadily in tune with the dynamic and fluid affect of the musical interludes.

To give a deeper impression of this, let’s look at an example. A woman prances forward—as one does in a Malick film. The camera too tracks forward, perfectly aligned with the woman. In a mere few seconds, three editing points are found. These are not so much transitions between images, but movements in framing of the same image. The camera continues the track forward, the woman continues to prance forward, but editing points have moved the woman ever so slightly amidst the frame, perhaps making her slightly smaller or bigger in the process. Since the camera’s movement is made progressive, even positivistic, by the continued movement into the next shot, there is no substantial change from the spatiotemporal continuum that the viewer is privileged with. It has a similar effect to the long take, except that moments have been taken away. It’s as if one is watching the event in real time yet, by blinking, one misses brief moments of change.

This interpellation of change, fluidity, and dynamism is fundamental in Malick’s aesthetic. In that brief moments are sequestered, the film is built from a series of movements rather than a continuous whole, and yet the series of movements complete a whole. In a sense, the editing parallels the natural images found in the scenes. Water droplets are shown to build, one by one, into a continuous stream, just as, one by one, the series of images build to a reality. In that a continuous flow is built, and yet change—even discontinuity—is intended, the images can only be interpreted by an attentive yet open, if not transparent, mind. For example, when sound bridges keep a person’s conversation in real time, yet continuous flow montage estranges the person’s movement from their voice, the viewer must continue with the narrative progress—the content—yet remain detached enough to apprehend the formal conveyance of the ebb and flow of life. This is the key to accepting and thereby enjoying a Malickian film, particularly his most recent, and formally affective, pieces.

While the film begins strongly, with a profound sense of energy, To The Wonder reaches a point of saturation about midway. With the appearance of Rachel McAdams, the film loses some of its intended affect—perhaps the viewer has been spoiled by this point. The cinematic sensibility once appreciated and distilled by the viewer becomes altered as if a metabolic change has caused a disruption in the flow of images. Towards the end, the original discourse of Malick’s meditation is reinstated, and to great effect, with visions of the earth reflecting the sky. By its final moment, To The Wonder, has given the viewer an enriching an exhaustive experience. Religious underpinnings aside, the film boldly deems to evoke an aspect of human life that is difficult to express; the spiritual-human dimension is blurred and the primordial nature of man seeks to be found.