That’s all Versailles. The real thing. The garden has many gates, this must be one. There is a shot of a vase/urn; a statue of a slave from behind; the main lake with its fountain (Apollo chariot); the stairs. Low angles, stylish effects. The camera is still, the shots are paced, nice contrast with all that jerking mess.
The Tree credits included a mention to Versailles, this might be from there.
I haven’t though much about this sequence. Even so, on a superficial level, why Versailles?
Well, it is “a masterpiece of bad taste and magnificence”, like the film (more the first than the second).
It is the palace of the “sun king”.
It offers a small collection of some of Malick’s dearest metaphors: the sun; the gate/door; water; the garden; the stairs.
And there is an obvious relation with the deserted Mont Saint Michel. The place aside from the rest, the architectural wonder, etc.
This film is saturated with works of art, particularly “masterpieces”. Malick was more at ease when he kept with Maxfield Parrish. The Cluny tapestries, Mont Saint Michel and Versailles in just one picture is more than too much. (And the statues, and the Rembrandt, etc.)
When his means were poor his dreams were more powerful. To the Wonder is little more than a heavy handed mess.
“Oh! là là! que d'amours splendides j'ai rêvées!” (“Oh! My! My! What splendid loves I dreamt!”, Tatiana reciting Rimbaud, Ma Bohème)
bye
reply
share
HarryPowell
12 years ago
Wow, so it is Versailles. A quick image search didn't seem to tie with the images in the film, but it must be from the TTOL rushes because as you say, Versailles is specifically credited there (but only as 'Footage from THE TREE OF LIFE' here).
Whether it is a 'heavy handed mess' is open to debate, but one could argue that his means have never been poorer, in terms of minimising crew and budget - more like a documentary approach (like the French New Wave) than typical 'Hollywood' - something he was aspiring to since Badlands I think, as this interesting exchange illustrates:
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/newsevents/nomovie.shtml
Anyway, thanks oljurder, and as always, fascinating to read your thoughts and references.
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
HarryPowell
11 years ago
You're right, it is intriguing. I also notice a character named 'Love', and another as 'Neighbor in Earthquake'. Curiouser and curiouser .. Not so interesting reading the 'untitled' character-list (yet), except for one listed as 'Satan'!
reply
share