More Tree of Life

1-22-12
Okay, you are hitting a lot of points here, some of them contradictory which I'm sure isn't your intent. We only have so much space here to examine these themes, unfortunately.

1. Like inside dreams, all characters in a story or movie are the director. Some directors hide themselves to miniscule dimensions, but that is not true in this case. Malick is feeding us his ideas, no way around that. His characters are ephemeral ghosts, vapours even. He could have just as easily used masks or puppets. [that's not a criticism, BTW] We are being exposed to his ideas in ToL, first and foremost. He makes that intention pretty clear from the beginning, and abundantly clear with the Evolution sequence.

The Nature vs Grace dichotomy isn't based on an exploration of Chastain, it's the (goofy) point of the whole movie.

2. Okay, so whose subjectivity is being represented here? Jack's? The Mother's? There doesn't seem to be enough individual content for me to grasp anything other than the director's subjectivity, which he makes painfully clear is like god's - closer to objective than other mere mortals. The magical content, the flying and such, I found silly. Actually no, I found it painful. I don't know why yet, but it embarrassed me for Malick. Maybe he wanted to incorporate fairytale elements as a facet of natural human drive, I don't know. But I'm still cringing with Fremdschaemen.


Malick isn't obligated to present anything. The complexities of the female world obviously didn't fit into this movie as well as the complexities of the male world which can incorporate the contradictions of Love/Violence, Art/Work, Self Reliance/Self Pity. Well, then why give such a dopey character so much screen time, if she's going to have all the depth of Bambi? For that matter, the Sean Penn character was equally shallow though every tick of his anguish and lurv wasn't shown to us as an object of worship.

I didn't find many questions in this movie, nor explorations. I don't think the movie respected the viewer enough to allow for questions. At the same time, it seems like Malick slid into the rut of "something for everyone" cosmology where no one leaves the theater offended, except those of us who thought the whole shebang was rather silly.

1-22-12
Jack,

Malick has a strong philosophical signature throughout all his films. From the first time I saw Badlands, it was obvious and I loved it. If you would like me to explore it with you, I'd be happy to. Just say the word.

For the moment I will restate (are you listening this time?) that I've never known another director who so incorporated Nature in his films as the ultimate environment for his stories, one that is largely ignored by the characters though it envelops and saturates their being. Briefly, every Malick film shares this quality...except for Tree of Life which is just dogma.

[sidebar. If an author or director chooses to make beautiful art about men, why should I care? It's still beautiful. I often think, personally, that if male artists are uncomfortable with women or a female role, they shouldn't explore it just to make some lame assed point.]

Who and what I am shouldn't be important. Do you have something to say about my criticism? Or is attacking me easier in a lazy-minded way? If you only feel comfortable with labels, fed to you from unquestioned sources, then I can't help you. Sad.

1-22-12

Harry,

Well, Einstein never collected money for shoe tying and made a masterwork out of it. ;)

Malick never demanded such hollow representations from his female roles in his past movies. Sissy Spacek was phenomenal in Badlands. Her character clumsily clung to childhood promises in interpreting horrific events. At the same time, she was a force of nature, scratching her name permanently into the stone of human narrative. Fantastic role!

Brooke Adams and Linda Manz weren't bad in Days of Heaven, though it was less an "actor's movie" and more a concept. The characters were whipped around like the wheat in that movie, barely holding to the ground. I'd give Nature and Physics the greater power in that one, while humans held to their woefully inadequate ideas of faith and love for dear life.

Truthfully, the talent of recent Hollywood movie actresses is minimal compared to the past. They train to pose at pageants, act in commercials and emote in Up With People, and the results in films are largely terrible. (It's no accident that good actresses are moving to TV for meaty scripts and memorable characters.) Perhaps Malick simply couldn't make anything out of Chastain's performance, in which case, he should have edited the film accordingly.

Nonetheless, ToL is Malick's baby. He chose the cast, every shot, all the themes. I'm very disappointed that he chose and manipulated such a weak character to represent spiritual resolve. It's not my biggest disappointment with the movie, but it is the most obvious.