The narration was mostly inaudible. It was like someone whispering in the rear of the movie theater. I had the volume on my TV loud enough to hear rare dialog very well but the whispering narration was just annoying.
shareI downloaded subtitles and read certain positions that I didnt understand in the movie.
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
And it made no sense... just random ramblings of the different characters haha
shareIt makes perfect sense if you only invest in the movie and at least try to think for yourself. This is no typical Hollywood, blockbuster kind of movie. It's an impressionistic piece of art which requires you to lock into the feel of the movie in order to understand it's true meaning. Unfortunately, people have mostly lost touch with that sensitive part of human nature and are expected to have everything explained to them. Tragic.
Also, I didn't see the whispers as narration as such. I thought they were prayers, reflecting the current emotions of the characters.
I don't think a highly respected director would go about and make a totally nonsensical movie just for people to think he's clever. If you check out Malick's background you'll see that he studied philosophy at Harvard, graduated with the highest honor and later taught philosophy at the MIT. I think he knows what he's doing.
There's a difference between making an art film that isn't a blockbuster and making outright tripe... this film is a standard case of style over substance and you know it. I'm all for artistic films and no I don't need my art fed to me. I'm a Fine Art major and studying Film History and Theory at Masters level. Go and watch a film like "The Science of Sleep", for example of an artistic movie- against Hollywood conventions but still narratively coherent and not just nonsensical babble that's lost on 95 percent of the audience.
Tell me this, if "The Tree of Life" was directed by first time "Joe bloggs" would you appreciate it as much? That's something I've been pondering in correlation to this Film.
On a side note the cinematography in this film is astounding. Shame there was too much style over substance.
Just don't give up on it. It's hardly nonsensical babble. You're wrong there. It took me 2, 3 tries before really appreciating Assassination of Jesse James and The New World...they tend to grow on you. The Tree of Life, I knew I'd love, right from seeing the trailer, which is as good as they come (revisit that if you haven't seen it). Attitude is everything.
"Hey...I like that...I like that!!" Terry Silver Karate Kid III
Interesting you mention "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" I loved that the first time of seeing it. Some people just differ in opinion and with films like this you need to accept it.
shareBelieve it or not, but this film was actually my introduction to Terrence Malick. I had never seen any of his other films before watching this, I'm quite ashamed to say. So yes, I probably would enjoy this movie even if it was directed by a first-timer. I'm all about quality in a movie, not about who made it or who's in it. Also, this was recommended to me by a friend, so I didn't go out of my way looking for a hard-to-comprehend art film.
And I am sure that you are very knowledgable when it comes to art and film, but if you call this movie tripe I'm afraid you've missed the point completely. There are plenty of people who understood the meaning of this movie, although it's subjective, so just because you didn't quite get it doesn't mean it's a bad movie.
I will take a look at "The Science of Sleep". It seems like just the kind of movie I'm looking for.
I'm not all that knowledgeable I was simply saying that I don't need film spoon fed to me like you suggested, like apparently if you don't enjoy this film it makes you a "blockbuster" sort of film fan.
I don't think I have missed the point. In my opinion for lack of better words "The Tree of Life" is tripe. Yes it is subjective and like you originally said, impressionistic. So in my view I did get something from it and it wasn't enough in terms of narrative. When I said it didn't make sense I was talking about the random little whisper monologues.
I watched the special behind the scenes features and the he filmed all the "space" scenes by squirting random bits of watercolours onto a dish and filming them overhead. I remember the artist who helped him was stressing the fact how they would just "see what happened". To me that's just art. Like you'd see projected in the Tate. Not coherent storytelling which you'd see at the cinema.
I'll point you in the direction of Sean Penn's quote on the film, even though you've probably already heard it,
"The screenplay is the most magnificent one that I've ever read but I couldn't find that same emotion on screen," he said. "A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What's more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly."
And I agree with him. All I would've wanted was a more coherent narrative and less of the strange whispers.
But I can see why you like it, I really can. You as well as all the other people who love it just need to realise that it's not for everybody, and there's a whole host of reasons for that. I'd welcome any recommendations from you as well, love or hate films I still love to watch as much as possible.
I'm sure you understood what I meant when I said this isn't a typical "Hollywood-blockbuster" film. All I meant was that it is out of the ordinary, and I didn't mean to imply that you're stupid or anything if you don't like this movie. Believe me, I don't want to come off as pretentious or mean-spirited.
I am familiar with Sean Penn's quote and I can definitely understand him, seeing as he did about 300 hours worth of material for this movie but he only ended up being in it a few minutes. I believe that Malick altered this movie so much during the process that, in the end, the screenplay and the movie ended up being two almost completely different stories (not really, but you know what I mean). And what can I say? I found the prayers to be fitting and well reflecting what the characters went through at the time.
I agree with you, it's unfortunately not for everyone and I fully accept that. And as I said earlier, I never wanted to belittle anyone but I just found it a little odd to call this movie tripe, which is in fact just another word for garbage. But I'll accept that I probably just misunderstood you. Let us agree to disagree and leave it at that.
It makes perfect sense if you only invest in the movie and at least try to think for yourself.
Unfortunately, people have mostly lost touch with that sensitive part of human nature and are expected to have everything explained to them. Tragic
Also, I didn't see the whispers as narration as such. I thought they were prayers, reflecting the current emotions of the characters.
I don't think a highly respected director would go about and make a totally nonsensical movie just for people to think he's clever. If you check out Malick's background you'll see that he studied philosophy at Harvard, graduated with the highest honor and later taught philosophy at the MIT. I think he knows what he's doing.
Adding on that Sean Penn is kind of a douche, so for him to find little meaning in a film HE'S ACTING IN is hardly surprising. His role, for what it's worth, is disjointed at times. The role of the children with the dynamic of the mother and father, in my view, is spot on, and the feeling gushes over you like a river.
"Hey...I like that...I like that!!" Terry Silver Karate Kid III