comment #1

Edward says ...

THE TREE OF LIFE is the best film of the year.

comment #2

DiscoNap says ...

Because you WANT IT TO BE. Film is a mess, even Sean Penn (not exactly Bruce Willis in terms of his sensibilities) thinks so.

comment #3

bluetide says ...

Agree with all of Penn's criticisms. But I still think it's the best film of the year. Mallick isn't just swinging for the fences; he's swinging to put the ball into orbit and he does so quite often in the movie even if the Penn stuff doesn't really fit in.

I'd be genuinely interested in a six or seven or forty hour cut of that movie. The cosmic stuff is fascinating and gorgeous. It would work even better if it was tethered to a more grounded story.

comment #4

DiscoNap says ...

I want a lifetime cut. I want to spend the rest of my life looking at the world through the eyes of Terrence Malick. In fact, fuck it, I'm putting that refracted light effect box over my head like an astronaut's helmet. See you all on the beach of life.

comment #5

bluefugue says ...

>Film is a mess, even Sean Penn (not exactly Bruce Willis in terms of his sensibilities) thinks so.

Maybe not Bruce Willis, but maybe he still expects a conventional narrative sensibility. I'm glad there's at least one American filmmaker, able to work with a sizable budget, who doesn't feel constrained by that.

comment #6

K. Bowen says ...

My turn:

THE TREE OF LIFE is the best film of the year.

comment #7

Terry McCarty says ...

Re bluefugue's statement:
I could envision a more conventional cut of THE TREE OF LIFE which would open with a shorter creation scene, then a linear telling of the central story ending with the death of the son. Afterwards,a trimmed-down version of the present-day Houston scenes centered around Sean Penn's phone call to the aged, offscreen Brad Pitt--then closing with a brief reprise of the creation. Roll credits.

comment #8

Bilge Ebiri says ...

I agree that THE TREE OF LIFE is the best film of the year. And as much as I admire Penn, I'd trust Malick's directorial instincts over Penn's any day. Also, it's worth pointing out that the screenplay for TREE OF LIFE doesn't actually contain that much more of Penn's character either, though I'm sure Malick improvised stuff on set.

But perhaps more importantly, actors are ALWAYS complaining about their scenes that have been cut. Remember Ryan O'Neal complaining about BARRY LYNDON? Christopher Lee complaining about RETURN OF THE KING? Etc.

comment #9

arch451 says ...

The Tree of Life is Malick's worst film but it's still better than 90% of films. Not good enough for the best of this year.

comment #10

Terry McCarty says ...

Bilge Ebiri wrote:
But perhaps more importantly, actors are ALWAYS complaining about their scenes that have been cut. Remember Ryan O'Neal complaining about BARRY LYNDON? Christopher Lee complaining about RETURN OF THE KING? Etc.

And Brad Pitt complaining about LEGENDS OF THE FALL.

comment #11

K. Bowen says ...

"But perhaps more importantly, actors are ALWAYS complaining about their scenes that have been cut. Remember Ryan O'Neal complaining about BARRY LYNDON? Christopher Lee complaining about RETURN OF THE KING? Etc."

Richard Gere in Days of Heaven. Half the cast in The Thing Red Line ... :)

comment #12

K. Bowen says ...

And Marie Antoinette would be so much better if they had just let a peasant throw a potato at her.

comment #13

jjgittes says ...

If it's the best movie of the year then this is a shitty year because the film doesn't work. It has great moments and awful, laughable moments - as a coherent piece, it fails.

People are using "best" as synomyous with "most ambitious", it's an unsuccessful pretentious film with moments of greatness. It should be respected, admired and discussed......it shouldn't be made into more than it is.

comment #14

Tristan Eldritch2 says ...

I thought the Tree of Life was an absolutely wonderful film, with the exception of the final sequence. To say that a clearer and more conventional narrative would have benefited it seems risible to me. First of all, as far as experimental films go, it has a pretty effing clear and coherent narrative. Secondly, so much of what the film is about, was it is basically, comes down to its form, to the way that it reflects the elliptical flow of memory through its editing rhythms. To change that would be to make a completely different, and probably less interesting, film.

comment #15

Gaydos says ...

Imagine how different this story would be if Sean had read that email from Adrian Brody before the shooting started. You know, the one that said:

"Dear Sean, I did a picture with Terry, called The Thin Red Line, or should I say I THOUGHT I was doing a picture with Terry, until I went to the theater and found out I could have spent that time cultivating orchids or perfecting my backswing. Anyway, good luck and enjoy yourself and don't take it personally if those months of your life are gone for good, with no record of having ever happened. Bring your own camera and shoot lots of home movies, cos it may be all you have. Love/Respect, Adrian

PS: I understand that in the editing room it came down to me and the redtailed hawk. So if you see any of them sonsofbitches flying around the Tree of Life set, shoot the bastards down. We SAG members gotta stick together!"

comment #16

Rashad says ...

This is now 3 for 3 since his return where a major actor has complained about Malick.

I'd trust Malick's directorial instincts over Penn's any day

Into The Wild is a better film than Malick's ever made, and in the one scene where Christopher looks at the deer with tears in eyes, captures everything Malick tries to do with the numerous nature shots intercut all movie.

Christopher Lee complaining about RETURN OF THE KING

In this case it was justified, since it leaves a glaring hole in the film about Saruman's end. All we get is a passing line that says "he has no power now." How?

comment #17

The Criterion Guy says ...

Penn is an ungrateful hothead and always is a boorish person. Malick is an artist and his choices are what make him unique. Penn should be more grateful and thankful that a director of Malick's stature still wants to use him.

comment #18

The Criterion Guy says ...

BTW, almost ANY actor IN THE WORLD, would give their careers to work with Terrence Malick. Case closed.

comment #19

arispil says ...

Best film of the year for me too. Sure it was a bit of a mess at the end, but overall, nothing released this year comes close to it. We should all be thankful we can still see a film like this once in a while in 2011.

comment #20

Ray DeRousse says ...

About 85% of the film is the best of the year. The other 15% must drag its estimation down because those parts are so obviously screwed up.

comment #21

Robert Cashill says ...

"Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context!" You and me both.

comment #22

markj says ...

"Into The Wild is a better film than Malick's ever made."

Wow Rashad. DZ, you've got yourself some serious competition!!!

comment #23

childeroland says ...

@Ray DeRousse: Which 15%?

comment #24

Jason S. says ...

TREE OF LIFE on blu-ray October 11th.

Malick's movies are living dreams.

comment #25

eddie mars attacks says ...

Most actors IN THE WORLD don't know who Terence Malick is.

comment #26

The Criterion Guy says ...

Rashad = Sean Penn.

comment #27

Los Bostonian says ...

@CriterionGuy

Malick is not an actor's director so I don't suspect working on his film's would be viewed as an actor's lifetime achievement. The actors in his films never get any awards love and frequently are overshadowed by trees and wildlife. Actors like dialogue or complex roles where they are the center of attention, can steal scenes and look brilliant. There are exceptions, but Malick is not really a name that comes up when actors are asked who they would LOVE to work with. He may be on their list of directors to make a movie with because he is an auteur, but there a probably a couple dozen that would come to mind first especially given meatier roles from lesser visually dominant, mainstream narrative directors.

I would say that working with Malick would be a wonderful achievement for a DP, a producer, editor, a film school grad or below the line crew member.

comment #28

great scott says ...

The Tree of Life is the best film of the year. I hope I see it someday.

comment #29

actionman says ...

"...What's more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly."

I love Penn as an actor, but man-o-man does this comment come off as uber-douchey. Terry doesn't need to explain himselt to ANYONE. True art doesn't require explanations.

comment #30

actionman says ...

Oh, and the film is the best of the century.

comment #31

Ray DeRousse says ...

@childeroland- the 15% involving Penn wandering around in a wordless daze. Also, some of what's happening in the main story is confusing - for instance, which boy ends up getting killed? The group with whom I saw it came up with different answers (I happened to get it right). I have no problem with ambiguity, but here it needs to be clearer if you're going to try and tell a personal story.

comment #32

Ray DeRousse says ...

@actionman- I disagree. Any director needs to be able to communicate necessary information. The Penn sequences (though gorgeous, of course) are awful and impossible to embrace. The fact that Penn himself is confused is not surprising considering those sequences, and how much they detract from the whole.

comment #33

Los Bostonian says ...

A director is absolutely responsible for letting his Academy Award winning actor know why his scenes were cut out from the film. He doesn't have to be nice, but it is only courteous and professional.

comment #34

Edward says ...

This film is poetry, we get themes, but not necessarily a full narrative. For me it was transcendent and life afirming. The fact that it was not all spelled out in any fashion does not trouble me. To argue about some of it's parts, has no bearing on the whole.

comment #35

DiscoNap says ...

Come on, actionman. Come ON. Talking that trash and we'll pull your card. In all other areas you've got such solid chops or at least arguable taste, then there's this Tree of Life is the reason man first put a bulb to a stream of moving film stuff. It's too much.

It isn't even the best Malick movie of this century.

comment #36

DiscoNap says ...

Terrence Malick needs to hire Stephen Lang and then get his ass kicked.

comment #37

arispil says ...

Ray DeRousse - If anyone's confused about which son got killed, they weren't paying attention. Christ some people are so DENSE.

comment #38

rick blaine says ...

If you are going to call a film like The Tree of Life "the best of the year" shouldn't you at least qualify the statement by adding "that I have seen" or words to that effect?
Same as "nothing released this year comes close" What? You have actually seen everything released this year? Hell, since january I've seen 123 films on the big screen and TTOL wouln't make my top 100.
Seriously I think someone should steal Malick's old VHS copies of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi before Godfrey Reggio decides to sue for plagiarism..

comment #39

K. Bowen says ...

While we're talking about The Tree of LIfe ......

Jessica Chastain's wonderful performance gets a little lost in the shuffle when people talk about it. Malick gets something out of her, particularly during the early childhood sequences, that's beyond performance and into essence. There are a lot of times when she's no longer acting and is just being. Or at least that's the way it seems.

It's like Malick saw something in her that maybe she didn't even know was there (or maybe she's just really good at making it seem that way). For the life of me, no matter who directs her, no doubt how good she is in a perfomance, I don't know if she will ever be that good again.

comment #40

bobbyperu says ...

Concur with those above: THE TREE OF LIFE IS THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR. Nothing else even comes close in approaching its thematic ambitious and scope, visual poetry and poignant observations on the loss of innocence. Jeff, have you taken a second look? When you originally saw the film you thought it lost steam after its "levitational" opening third, which I find to be its most difficult passage given all the structural experimentation. The family stuff in the rest is the heart of the film.

No doubt Penn has sour grapes over his role being diminished but you know what -- that's what you sign up for when you are in a Malick film. In that recent Christopher Plummer interview he mentioned that you do all of this great work for Malick then you see the film and realize that he was focused on the birds, or something to that effect. The point is, you kind of know what you are getting into and knowing Penn, whom I do admire, he's miffed about Pitt emerging as the strongest performance and being lauded as such -- that has to be a bitter pill for Penn who one can easily imagine has wholly embraced the general narrative about himself being up there with Daniel Day Lewis as one of the greatest actors of all time.

comment #41

actionman says ...

Nope, sorry, best film of the century so far, with other possible exceptions being Enter the Void or The Fall. The Tree of Life is that rare, true work of cinematic art. I don't really care what anyone else thinks of the film to be perfectly honest. Sean Penn can loose tons of sleep over what his character's motivation was. Disconap can call me a Communist for loving the film to the degree that I do. Bottom line -- The Tree of Life is like NO OTHER FILM EVER MADE, or at least, like no other film I've ever seen. I worship at the alter of Malick, have watched his other films COUNTLESS times, too many times to even estimate. He's some sort of magician, some sort of special filmmaking entity. I shudder to think about these new, apparently even more experimental efforts he has coming in the near future. The Tree of Life will mean something to people who are willing and open to being touched by the cinematic artform. Those last 15 minutes on the beach, the stuff that so many people on HE seem to hate -- get this one -- IT"S ALL FUCKING BRILLIANT. I had chills up and down my spine when he was reunited with his parents and brothers. And that Benjamin Button-esque shot of Penn's old-age arms and hands. I am not a religious person in the slightest, don't believe in "God," and until I see someone parting the Red Sea with their hands, my belief is that we're all here as a result of random evolution, and we make of this world what we put into it.

To re-state: Malick doesn't need to tell anyone anything about his film. He doesn't need to explain it or rationalize it or dumb it down for the slow kids in the room. You either get it or you don't. It's that simple. So on this point, Penn's a douche.

comment #42

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

"Needs to be clearer"
"impossible to embrace."

Some of you guys are incredible pussies. Sorry the movie didn't hold your goddamned hand the whole way through. It's a towering achievement, and I feel bad for those people who would offer the same sort of banal critiques used for middlebrow crap made by journeymen filmmakers.

Also, Rashad... jesus, man. Jesus.

comment #43

Mark says ...

Penn is defending Mallick here, Mallick the writer who along with Penn was betrayed by Mallick the director.

C'mon, it was one long montage, and the Penn stuff didn't work, making the reunion unearned.

comment #44

DiscoNap says ...

actionman, you're not just a Communist, you're a Maoist, except your Mao is Malick.

Also Gabe don't even start. The last thing the bending over backwards for Terry camp needs is more machismo.

Maybe this bullshit conversation is the real tree of life. I'll try to stop.

comment #45

actionman says ...

the penn stuff DOES work. why do so many people feel it doesn't? i just don't/won't/can't understand this criticism. it's so lazy. to quote that film-school tool in the back of the classroom in stone's the doors: "you need you art spoonfed to you!"

when penn finally makes it outside his office building, and he sort of smiles/smirks, it's in that ONE PRECISE moment that maybe, just maybe he's found some BALANCE in his life. that's what this film is about -- at least to me personally -- finding balance in one's life after they've been presented with all options.

it's a glorious film with zero missteps.

comment #46

Bilge Ebiri says ...

I just want to basically second everything actionman has said here. Everything. Well, except for that bit about THE FALL, which I haven't actually seen.

comment #47

actionman says ...

I adore the fall. endless imagination on display, both narratively and visually. couldn't tell you how many times i've watched it. i love reading ebert's review of it when i'm bored.

comment #48

Mark says ...

I spoke too soon. Just found the script online, and Penn should've known what he was getting into.

Page 25:

Jack: [smirks slightly, acknowledging that he's found balance]

CUT TO DESSERT. Big Jack plays grab ass w/ little Jack. The End.

comment #49

actionman says ...

mark, you're extremely clever. lemme guess -- you're a writer?

comment #50

Rashad says ...

Aside from the cinematography, The Fall isn't very good

The Tree of Life is like NO OTHER FILM EVER MADE,

It's remarkably similar to The Fountain, but Aronofsky actually grounds all his out there aspects in a narrative that is applicable to our lives and is coherently structured. Well, at least until the end where Jackman starts drinking pudding from a tree and there's a spiritual light show

comment #51

DiscoNap says ...

One hopes that now that Qadaffi's sons have been captured and his surrender/death is imminent, the threatened six hour version of Tree of Life won't be necessary.

comment #52

elzilcho says ...

Rashad, The Fountain was a pile of shit. For all it's flaws, Tree of Life is better movie in every way.

comment #53

J. Ho says ...

The Tree of Life is the film of the year for sure. And the ending is fine. Those who don't get that now will get it in a few years when the film will be reassessed as a best of the decade type affair. Just as what happened with The Thin Red Line and The New World.

comment #54

actionman says ...

i liked the founting a lot, really trippy stuff. and yeah, there's certainly some similarities, but TOL towers over it.

comment #55

YND says ...

I've never been so strongly affected by a film as I was by TREE OF LIFE. As far as I know, it's only playing in one (pretty sub-par) theater in L.A. anymore... but I'm really tempted to get out and see it a 3rd time on the big screen. It's the kind of movie you want to wrap around yourself. Seems like the transition to home theater might be something like 2001 or LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, which can still impress on a smaller screen but demand a movie theater for the full impact.

comment #56

Gabriel says ...

I would just like to recommend that all the TREE OF LIFE fans - and I'm right there with you - keep an eye out for REDLAND. It played a week in Los Angeles in March and then basically disappeared off the face of the fucking earth, to the point that I can't even get the director to respond to my Twitter DM's asking what the film's future is. But it is an absolutely STAGGERING work that has quite a bit in common with TOL - a stunningly-photographed story of a family whose struggle to survive the Great Depression is cast as an eternal conflict that mirrors the infinite cycle of existence. I was absolutely floored by it and I have to say, if I made my best of 2011 list today, TREE OF LIFE would be #2.

I promise I have no vested interest in this film other than being desperate to see it a second time. I don't know how we can campaign for it to get further theatrical release - or Blu-Ray, if nothing else - but it's fucking killing me to think that I may never get to experience it again.

www.liveredland.com

comment #57

berg says ...

I always liked Penn in The Beaver Trilogy

comment #58

BobbyLupo says ...

Anybody who can keep a straight face after "That's where God lives" (which is not the only horrible line by a longshot) is trying too hard to love this movie.

Just because Malick is a genius and the movie is interesting doesn't mean you have to defend it as flawless.

comment #59

andybluex says ...

I always liked Penn in The Beaver Trilogy
blogwendyax yaplog blog

comment #60

Chris Willman says ...

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that most HE readers are dumping on the very idea of God in one thread and then creaming themselves over "Tree of Life"--a movie that is largely a treatise on the nature of God--in an adjacent thread? Just wondering.

comment #61

LFF says ...

THE FOUNTAIN is better. THE NEW WORLD is better. THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES is leagues better.
...and frankly given the number of shots of shirtless redneck boys I was half wondering if Malick had hired Victor Salva as the DP.

comment #62

Glenn Kenny says ...

Here's the second half of Penn's quote: "Mais c'est un film que je recommande, a condition d'y aller seul sans idee preconcue. A chacun d'y trouver une connexion personnelle, emotionnelle ou spirituelle. Ceux qui y parviennent en ressortent en general tres touches."

Mon translation: "But it's a film I recommend, on the condition that you go in without preconceptions. Each viewer could find in it a personal, emotional or spiritual connection. Those who are able to make that connection generally find themselves very touched by the picture."

comment #63

ThriceDamned says ...

"The Fountain" is for me the best film of this century and nothing else even comes remotely close to it.

The visual artistry, the imagination, the artistic vision, the thematic depth and profound philosophical implications of it are astounding. Career best performances for the leads and possibly the best score ever made for a film. I never get tired of watching it and marveling that something so beautiful exists in the world.

And, apparently, it doesn't do anything for a lot of you guys, and that's cool. I really enjoy the fact that each of us is so different that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

"The Tree of Life" is opening in my neck of the woods next Friday and I'm going. Love all his films, except "Thin Red Line", so I remain optimistic.

comment #64

lawnorder says ...

THE FOUNTAIN is a far superior film to TREE OF LIFE. And I agree that THE FOUNTAIN has one of the best scores (by Clint Mansell) ever composed for film. The more you watch THE FOUNTAIN, the more you see the brilliance and superb craft in it. TREE OF LIFE definitely had its moments, but ultimately left me confounded. It's hokey in so many places. But like most Malick movies, always leaves me on the outside looking in. I need more than pretty pictures to fall in love with a film. I need to feel I'm on a journey to somewhere instead of three hours of navel gazing.

By the way, that story about Adrian Brody getting fucked over by Malick is absolutely true. And to make it even worse, Brody invited his family to the premiere of the film (or a special screening), intending to have them share in his great moment of pride - and was stunned and humiliated to witness his lead role almost entirely excised from the film - and Malick never so much as called him or gave him the slightest warning. The guy is a super cock and could give a shit about the actors who work for him. And I think that is reflected in his work on screen.

comment #65

K. Bowen says ...

I try not to be too hard on The Cult of the Fountain, because of its ambition and craft. it certainly was treated badly at the time of its release.

That said, The Fountain is a great example of a complex sci-fi film that overexplains itself, which I don't think anyone would accuse The Tree of Life of being. That makes it hard on the actors.who have tons of exposition to recite. It's the only bad performance I've seen from Weisz lately.

I always thought of The Foutain as a film that got stuck in production hell and then compromised and overexplained to get out of it. It does have a lot of great stuff that's still there.

I almost wish that at some point, an Aronofsky with more chips to play re-visits the original.

comment #66

K. Bowen says ...

And maybe Adriren Brody wasn't expecially good in The Thin Red Line. He's certainly not as good in what we do see as Caviezel and Penn. I think it's pretty hard to watch those two in that film and then think, "Hey, give us more Fife."

comment #67

Gabriel says ...

BobbyLupo says ...

"Anybody who can keep a straight face after "That's where God lives" (which is not the only horrible line by a longshot) is trying too hard to love this movie."

This is an absurd criticism. That line is delivered from a Christian mother to her young sons, a context in which it seems wholly organic. Would it make more sense if she were to eloquently explain the concept of heaven to children who would not be able to comprehend it? Perhaps Malick shouldn't have cut the scene where she reads Paradiso to them before bedtime.

Chris Willman says ...

"Does it strike anyone else as ironic that most HE readers are dumping on the very idea of God in one thread and then creaming themselves over "Tree of Life"--a movie that is largely a treatise on the nature of God--in an adjacent thread? Just wondering."

More absurdity. The reason most intelligent people seek art is to fulfill their sense of curiosity and explore (ideally, challenge) their preexisting worldview. This is virtually impossible if one responds only to art that affirms one's preconceptions.

comment #68

Rashad says ...

Gabriel, their worldview isn't being challenged since they aren't willing to accept it on any grounds. You can't say religion is the scourge of society, then go on to love a Christian film with how it deals with man's relationship with God.

The Fountain doesn't have much exposition. I do think Weisz's performance kills the movie. Jackman gives it his all, but she's just acting so flippant about everything. Mansell's score is one of the best ever.

comment #69

K. Kurt says ...

I dont think its the BEST film of the year ( what a year :)) but respect there work and the effort.

comment #70

DavidF says ...

Since everyone is regurgitating stuff they've said on previous Malick threads, I'll do the same.

First, Penn knows what he's talking about not only because he's a director in his own right but because he's worked with Malick twice. IIRC, he was one of the guys who hung around the TRL shoot even after his stuff was done, just to soak in the Malickness of Malick. (I agree with the poster who said Into the Wild probably out-Malicks Malick.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People forgive Malick a ton of bullshit they'd eviscerate "lesser" directors for. There's this perception that somehow he has TRANSCENDED narrative. He's so awesome he doesn't need anything as blase as a story.

It's bullshit. The Thin Red Line is a very good movie but it I'll bet there's an even better one in the stuff he cut. I don't just mean something more conventional but something that would have made his point without the 500th sunlight shot or the hit-you-over the head symbolism and crappy voiceovers.

Make any excuses you want - fact is that not only are the narrators in TRL totally indistinct from one another, they're not even distinct from Linda Manz's Days of Heaven narration or Spacek's in Badlands. They are, in short, MALICK's voice and not the characters. It's the auteur theory taken to its extreme: forgiving the director for telegraphing his intentions through his own narration; it's showing instead of telling; it's bad writing.

That said (believe it or not) like most of Malick's films. Clearly there is genius at work but he doesn't know when to stop and clearly is above letting others offer advice. The long list of actors and composers he's fucked over testifies to this even as cinephiles say, "They should have known better. Why, they were lucky just to BE NEAR Malick!"

It's hard to get a sense of whether Malick is lost in his own mythos but there sure are a lot of fanboy types who are.

In short, he's like George Lucas for people who think they know film.

comment #71

Mark says ...

If we could only go back in time, release the same cut of TOL under Paul Haggis's name, and see if it gets the same unhinged devotion.

I hate questioning people's reaction to a piece of art, but i hope they are questioning just how much that they are projecting onto it.

Know without doubt that Mallick did not set out to transcend narrative in TOL and cut Penn down to 10 lines said into a phone. He did so only in post for reasons we don't know. But what so many are calling genius, and Penn a douche for disagreeing with, is the result of Mallick's failure to execute his original intent.

comment #72

TimDG says ...

"...long, long stretches that seem so goddamn indelible and beautiful and sad and relatable and tragic and perfect and exquisite you don't want them to ever end, that take on a life and rhythm of their own...often interrupted or shortly followed by bits so risible and pompous you're stifling involuntary cringes and an urge to titter at the precious solemnity of it all...then it's back to an evocation of time, place, mood, guilt, sadness and coming of age so haunting and precise yet universal that afterwards you can't wait to experience it again, even with its crazy rhythms and imprecision and moments of near-howler level staggering pretension that could ONLY come from a total, insane genius..."

Spot-on assessment from an earlier thread, but I can't remember who posted it.

comment #73

JohnCope says ...

"Know without doubt that Mallick did not set out to transcend narrative in TOL and cut Penn down to 10 lines said into a phone. He did so only in post for reasons we don't know. But what so many are calling genius, and Penn a douche for disagreeing with, is the result of Mallick's failure to execute his original intent. "

It's called finding-it-in-the-editing-room. Why is this inherently a failure? Why wouldn't that be considerd and even assumed to be part of his process, part of his "original intent"? Why is that not viable?

comment #74

cangefilmfest says ...

I say this without sarcasm: This movie contains the best sunflower footage EVER and the forth best dinosaur stepping on other dinosaur's head footage ever. A masterpiece? I'll let the footage speak for itself. But i'll just add that "No, it's not."

comment #75

meimei says ...

private coach shop save Marc Jacobs Outlet Private coach Shop Baggage private coach crystal clear eyewear Marc Jacobs Handbags private coach set haul marc by marc jacobs bags baggage private coach shop pack coach outlet store online private coach shop Bookbag coach outlet bags marc by way of marc jacobs travelling bag marc by way of marc jacobs baggage marc by way of marc jacobs purses and handbags small coach bag silver marc by way of cheap tory burch shoes marc jacobs purses and handbags profit marc by way of marc jacobs profit most economical tory burch reva flats cheap tory burch homes tory burch boots and shoes profit tory burch sandals profit tory burch boots and shoes tory burch sandals clearance tory burch patti wedge tory burch wedges.

comment #76

Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy says ...

"Most actors IN THE WORLD don't know who Terence Malick is."

"Most" actors aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, nor are most of them film aficionados. You've added nothing the the conversation, Eddie.

"It's remarkably similar to The Fountain, but Aronofsky actually grounds all his out there aspects in a narrative that is applicable to our lives and is coherently structured. Well, at least until the end where Jackman starts drinking pudding from a tree and there's a spiritual light show..."

The only way in which is at all similar to TOL is that is deals with "BIG THEMES". (And not even the same 'big themes', at that.) Just because films attempt to do more than make robots 'splode at an ADD-satiating pace does not automatically place them in the same category.

Chris Willman:
Does it strike anyone else as ironic that most HE readers are dumping on the very idea of God in one thread and then creaming themselves over "Tree of Life"--a movie that is largely a treatise on the nature of God--in an adjacent thread? Just wondering.

No, not really. The "heathen" among us are able to hold more than one incongruent thought in our head for assessment without fear of letting down a man in the sky. And you'd have to already be "among the saved" to SOLELY view TOL as such, and only, "a treatise on the nature of God" in the first place. It is not.

Rashad: You can't say religion is the scourge of society, then go on to love a Christian film with how it deals with man's relationship with God.

Fantastic: now it's being seen and/or described as "a Christian film". Featuring the famed dinosaur duo from 2:14 of Genesis.

[Rashad: from your "action cutting" thread comments, I gathered you should just stop watching movies. You confirm that in this thread.]

LFF: "frankly given the number of shots of shirtless redneck boys I was half wondering if Malick had hired Victor Salva as the DP."

Frankly, in a period piece in the South in the 50s (and in many Summer scenes, come to think of it,) the shirtlessness was entirely appropriate. I'd be far more concerned that the thoughts in LFF's head immediately screamed "pedophilia!"

Mark: "Know without doubt that Mallick did not set out to transcend narrative in TOL and cut Penn down to 10 lines said into a phone. He did so only in post for reasons we don't know. But what so many are calling genius, and Penn a douche for disagreeing with, is the result of Mallick's failure to execute his original intent."

Well, at leask we now "know without doubt" that Mark has no idea wtf he's talking about.

The earliest script reviews, including Jeff's, here at HE, noted that he was trying to "transcend narrative" AND that Penn had a surprisingly tiny amount of screen time. So your "conclusion" is pretty much laughable - except that John Cope explains it with far more patience for you than I could gather.

"By the way, that story about Adrian Brody getting fucked over by Malick is absolutely true. And to make it even worse, Brody invited his family to the premiere of the film (or a special screening), intending to have them share in his great moment of pride - and was stunned and humiliated to witness his lead role almost entirely excised from the film - and Malick never so much as called him or gave him the slightest warning."

Oh puh-leeze. Brody was a nobody when he made TRL, "owed" no "extra consideration" by anyone. As but one actor in an ensemble piece, no actor - but especially one with no real clout in the industry yet - has ANY right to expect/demand/anticipate ANY amount of actual screen-time in the final edit, whether the film is the most soulless franchise film or the latest artistic free-form film from a noted prickly auteur. Since it was the latter, his expectations should have been even more muted. You can bank that his acting agreement was quite clear in that regard...and you can also bet that his management likely "played up" his expectations and ego in this regard too.
_______________________

And kudos to G Kenney - who, like Bordwell, actually TRANSLATED an excerpt of the Figaro interview...to find that its not nearly as damning or critical as many wish it/strain to make it appear.

comment #77

Mark says ...

"The earliest script reviews, including Jeff's, here at HE, noted that he was trying to "transcend narrative" AND that Penn had a surprisingly tiny amount of screen time. So your "conclusion" is pretty much laughable "

Are you laughing at my assertion or Sean Penn's same assertion? You think Penn saw the final cut and said, "Fuck, what about all those other scenes that were not in the script and we didn't film? I can't wait to separate myself from this."

comment #78

Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy says ...

I'm so sorry it wasn't clear, Mark: I am wholly laughing at YOU. Because your assertion is NOWHERE to be found in Penn's interview; Penn never asserts any such thing. Either in reality in the interview, or in your wild misplaced-sarcasm-filled example above.

He discussed TOL solely in the lone quote which Kenney translated above....and never alludes to such "other scenes."

QED.