360 Minutes

email this story
read comments (28)
post a comment

Tree of Life cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezski (a.k.a. "Chivo") has told Cahiers du Cinema that Terrence Malick is working on a six-hour version of the Pitt-Penn-dinosaur flick.

"What I've seen [of this] is absolutely incredible," Lubezki says. "It's wonderful. The longer version will likely, for the most part, relate to the children part. There were outstanding things...we've shot many, many things about Jack's childhood -- his friends, his evolution, his changes, his awareness of the loss of his childhood. I don't know if I'm supposed to say all of this!"

On 5.17 I wrote the following from Cannes: "I heard from a trusted source yesterday that Sean Penn's part in The Tree of Life, which is barely there with maybe ten lines of dialogue, if that, was fairly substantial in earlier cuts [one of which was said to be five hours], but like Adrien Brody's character in The Thin Red Line, it was gradually cut down to nothing."

From Collider.com via The Film Stage via Cahiers du Cinema.

Va-Va-Voom<< previous | next >>Mike Covered With Bugs

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM

comment #1

Joe Gillis says ...

I don't doubt that the material exists to cut together a 6-hour (or 8-hour, or 12-hour, or 24-hour) version of TREE OF LIFE, but what's the over/under on the general population actually getting to SEE this longer cut?

It seems that every time Malick releases a film, we hear all about some week-long alternate cut in the works, and then...nothing (I'm looking at you, 6-hour version of THE THIN RED LINE). The closest we've ever come to Malick actually following through on this talk was with the extended NEW WORLD cut that streeted a few years back, and that ran only 172 minutes (so, 22 minutes longer than the 2005 Oscar qualifier cut and 37 minutes longer than the theatrical cut).

When I see it, when I'm holding a 6-hour TREE OF LIFE Blu-ray, I'll believe it. Until then, speculating is fun, too (I guess).

Posted by Joe Gillis at June 17, 2011 2:41 PM

comment #2

Mr. Palmer says ...

Yeah, WTF is he gonna do the 6 hr TTRL??? That's what us true fans are waiting on.

Posted by Mr. Palmer at June 17, 2011 2:45 PM

comment #3

CMed1 says ...

Finally saw this in flyover country today. While I liked it quite a bit, I was so ready for it to be over at 2 hours and change. Six hours would surely be unbearable.

Posted by CMed1 at June 17, 2011 2:46 PM

comment #4

Joe Gillis says ...

It reminded me so much of FANTASIA (and not just because of the whole Planet Earth creation/prehistory segments in both films); taken in individual, 10-or-so-minute chunks, TREE OF LIFE is a masterpiece (I imagine it'll play great on Blu-ray, when you can watch some of it, press pause, ruminate, go for a walk, watch a little more, repeat). As a 138-minute whole, it IS an endurance test, and one that never coheres into a satisfying whole.

Posted by Joe Gillis at June 17, 2011 2:52 PM

comment #5

K. Bowen says ...

So Malick is working on a six-hour TOLversion, closing out the Affleck film, maybe shooting one this summer, and still working on The Voyage of Time CGI dino movie. Holy cow.

Posted by K. Bowen at June 17, 2011 2:54 PM

comment #6

K. Bowen says ...

No. It's a masterpiece.

Posted by K. Bowen at June 17, 2011 2:55 PM

comment #7

Mark says ...

I can't wait to Netflix the 6-hr version so that it can gather dust atop the Best of Youth discs I never cracked and claimed as lost in the mail years ago.

Posted by Mark at June 17, 2011 3:02 PM

comment #8

bobbyperu says ...

It most certainly does "cohere into a satisfying whole." The Tree of Life is a masterpiece hands down, a flat-out, all-time great film.

Jeff, very much think you should take a second look because you seem to credit the picture for it's "levitational" first 40 minutes. However, those stretches are far from its most involving or meaningful. The second half, with its evocation of childhood rituals and very moving cumulation of moments between Pitt (never better) and Hunter McCracken is where the meat, and meaning of the film, lie. It's also totally unsentimental yet very moving when Pitt, brought low by his job loss and realization that he focused on the wrong things in life and paid the price of not being loved, embraces the boy and says: "You're all I have. You're all I want to have."

Extraordinarily meaningful film.

Posted by bobbyperu at June 17, 2011 3:06 PM

comment #9

Rashad says ...

So everyone just accepts Pitt is supposed to be the negative force in the movie? He just seemed like a normal parent. Chastain was unbearable. She wasn't even a human.

Posted by Rashad at June 17, 2011 3:13 PM

comment #10

DiscoNap says ...

Yeah exactly Rashad. I know for a fact both of my grandfathers were meaner. They certainly didn't have scenes apologizing after every outburst.

Posted by DiscoNap at June 17, 2011 3:48 PM

comment #11

gazer says ...

Mr. Wells has tried to strip validity of any of those initially being "invested" in The Tree of Life with regard to their eventual oppinion of it - whether their views held any sound "objectivity," I gather. What is that, Mr Wells - a strained attempt at giving your own so-so views more credibility? You're somewhere in-between with your intial verdict, and others have to follow example if they don't want to be labled "invested" or otherwise "exeedingly exalted"?

When's your follow-up with an elaborate review of a second viewing? I really think you should seriously consider giving Tree another go, as proposed by bobbyperu, as I believe you'd then likely revise your views on the 40+ minutes of the film. And maybe even consider whether a digital or film print showing is to be desired:

http://www.hammertonail.com/editorial/the-tree-of-life-film-print-vs-digital-print-mike-s-ryan/

Posted by gazer at June 17, 2011 4:20 PM

comment #12

bobbyperu says ...

Rashad and Disco-

You both saw a different film than I did. Pitt is far from a "negative force" in the film. He represents the base aspects of human nature from his philosophies of how to succeed in the world via "trickery" to his operating nearly exclusively from a false self, or ego if you will. His ideology of the self and desire for success and love in the eyes of society and those he envies who have more material wealth than himself, combined with his sense if failure as a musician and later, an inventor, informs his interactions with the family and illustrates Malick's point about human "nature," which here drives him and eventually son Jack toward outward fulfillment and away from spiritual peace (the way of grace). That he realizes this late in the film is tragic.

As for someone's grandfathers being "meaner," you must realize that Malick does not intend for us truly think Pitt's father is an abusive or mean parent. Rather, he is PERCEIVED this way through the eyes of his children -- we are seeing memories after all, not objective reality from an adult point of view.

Posted by bobbyperu at June 17, 2011 7:06 PM

comment #13

bobbyperu says ...

Also, in two viewings I saw no scenes whatsoever where Pitt's character apologizes to anyone for anything. He doesn't think he is doing anything wrong at all. Unless you saw a different cut than I did, there are zero apologies.

The only moment he experiences regret is at the beginning of the film (and much later in his life) when reflecting on the death (suicide?) of his son, remarking that he criticized the boy as a youngster for not turning the pages of the sheet music quickly enough.

There are no apologies here.

Posted by bobbyperu at June 17, 2011 7:12 PM

comment #14

Rashad says ...

I don't remember him saying anything about "trickery." He was always about "fierce will" and going out and making something for yourself. Like when he commented about some guy's house "well he inherited it." He tried to be successful and failed. It happens; personal accomplishment is something everyone strives for. He still loved his family, did things with them, and never treated them poorly. I don't see what's so special about "spiritual peace." It isn't applicable to every day life.

"Malick does not intend for us truly think Pitt's father is an abusive or mean parent."

I don't agree at all. The son only realizes he's like him after he hurts his brother, and blows up the frog. And just because it's his memories doesn't mean that it's okay. We see the actions of the dad, and there's nothing unjust or abnormal about them. The movie paints him as the negative force in the household, from him representing nature (which is also defined by being selfish), to contrasting him with the perfect Chastain. The boys seem happiest when he wasn't around as well.

Posted by Rashad at June 17, 2011 7:31 PM

comment #15

Heinz, the Baron Krauss von Espy says ...

Hmm. A 360-minute version of TREE OF LIFE. I could wait for this to come out, or I could see GREEN LANTERN three times. Time well spent, either way.

Posted by Heinz, the Baron Krauss von Espy at June 17, 2011 7:46 PM

comment #16

jessie says ...

The unpleasant away
cheap mac makeup

Posted by jessie at June 18, 2011 6:32 AM

comment #17

Kit Sung says ...

Mallick needs to be stopped. The praise that this simplistic film with its absurd message of new age mysticism and death as a source of life gets is a much truer sign of intellectual decay than the praise mainstream jung like The Kings Speech gets.

Posted by Kit Sung at June 18, 2011 7:09 AM

comment #18

Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy says ...

[Bobby: DN was commenting upon Rashad's ignorance; read his comment again in this light. Myself, at this juncture I can only point at Rashad and laugh.]

Posted by Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy at June 18, 2011 12:43 PM

comment #19

BobbyLupo says ...

"Also, in two viewings I saw no scenes whatsoever where Pitt's character apologizes to anyone for anything."

Bobby, one of them is the phone call to Pitt, and another is right before the kid says "It's your house, you can do what you want." That's two off the top of my head, to say nothing about the numerous times when Pitt clearly has *something* he wants to say, then changes his mind and walks away.

Posted by BobbyLupo at June 18, 2011 4:55 PM

comment #20

BobbyLupo says ...

er, phone call to Penn.

Posted by BobbyLupo at June 18, 2011 4:56 PM

comment #21

Rashad says ...

Baron, DN's other comments indicate he doesn't like the movie. You're certainly a bitter person who sees what they want.

Posted by Rashad at June 18, 2011 5:21 PM

comment #22

bisonfilms says ...

bobbyperu nails it. congrats, dude. i hit every review out there on this film and your one sentence here in the HE comments section is the most intelligent and astute thing I've read.

"His ideology of the self and desire for success and love in the eyes of society and those he envies who have more material wealth than himself, combined with his sense if failure as a musician and later, an inventor, informs his interactions with the family and illustrates Malick's point about human "nature," which here drives him and eventually son Jack toward outward fulfillment and away from spiritual peace (the way of grace). That he realizes this late in the film is tragic."

Posted by bisonfilms at June 19, 2011 2:09 PM

comment #23

Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy says ...

Oh, Rashad.... bitter I ain't. I haven't given one iota on any indication of a "mood" either way.

But you are certainly one *dumb* child. By all means, keep on proving it.

Posted by Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy at June 19, 2011 3:06 PM

comment #24

Kakihara says ...

If there are people willing to sit through Love Exposure and those long-ass Warhol things, I guess a 6-hour TOL ain't out of the question.

Posted by Kakihara at June 20, 2011 2:24 AM

comment #25

bobbyperu says ...

Bison- THANKS for remarks...

Lupo -- We're talking about Pitt apologizing, not Penn apologizing to Pitt; I heard none

Rashad -- He very clearly says "trickery" so you missed it

Kit -- "Malick needs to be stopped" huh? So a filmmaker interested in exploring real stuff about human interaction, growth, change and so much more -- the only major filmmaker in America doing it in the mainstream (except perhaps Tom McCarthy) -- and he needs to be stopped? Go ahead and enjoy The Hangover II and Mr. Popper's Penguins but please refrain from texting if at all possible while marveling at the originality and inventiveness of those movies.

Posted by bobbyperu at June 20, 2011 7:35 AM

comment #26