After watching it three times, now I think I understand the film. The film begins and ends with a light which represents god. In a pan theist way, as a king of cosmic energy pervading the universe. The film is like a prayer addressed to him. The two basic ideas are Nature and grace. They are two ways of living and people are conflicted which one to follow. Nature is often harsh, terrible things happen to kind people , the films advocates to live by grace, to be pacifistic, humble and accepting. This is the internal conflict of Jack, nature and grace are embodied by his father and mother respectively. We see the big bang, the evolution of universe, earth and life and this parelled by the birth and growth of Jack. A human life may seem insignificant compared to the vastness and immensity of the cosmos, but we are a part of it. We are the product of billions of years of evolution and so the film looks at the infinite through the infinitesimal. It also contrasts the world of nature and the world of man. Even after decades, Jack is still affected by his brother's death and cannot come to terms with it. He is unable to fit into the modern world and is isolated. He seeks to live with grace, he ruminates about his brother and we see him roaming in dry barren land, wondering endlessly for some answer. He reminisces about his childhood and desperately ponders on existential questions of life, death, man's place in universe and his relationship with god. At the end, he gets a glimpse of an afterlife where he is reunited with his family, this takes place near the sea which is opposite of the barren land. We see metaphors throughout the film, the shot of camera looking upwards to the sky, upwards on a tree, a half open door. It is like Striving for something eternal, it is a never ending quest. Perhaps living gracefully and being spiritual we can understand and experience 'what is'. Jack has experienced it at the end and he appears nourished and rejuvenated.

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

excellent, thank you!

@danielosetromera2090

2 жыл бұрын

I don´t think this movie deal with God in a pantheistic way, it´s resolutely christian in its portrayal.

@issues9828

2 жыл бұрын

I saw this film 4 times when it was in the theater, and I've probably watched it another 30 times since. I generally agree with many of the things you're saying, but there is a lot more to it. For example, the final scene at the beach. It's not just about Jack's character's struggle with accepting the death of his brother. It's also about the MOTHER'S final acceptance. She is walking along the beach, crying, as she cradles the boy's face in her hands. They show the image of the mother with older generations of women, borrowing the imagery from Klimt. This generational view of life and death and that eternal cycle actually alludes to the Job quote and the evolution of the universe and the earth interlude. In a way it's the mother recognizing as part of her healing and acceptance of his death that she fits into this larger, eternal pattern of life and death, as does her son. We see her walking toward the sun, toward God as she defined him earlier in the film when she pointed to the sun and proclaimed "that's where God lives". And in the ULTIMATE sign of her final acceptance of his death, she speaks to God and says, "I give him to you --- I give you my son". After the beach scene we also see Jack's acceptance. Notice when he is in his office building how the sunlight is brought into the scene, and how at various times he is moving up an elevator toward the light, or moving down an elevator toward the earth. This symbolizes the inner conflict he articulates earlier in the film when he says, "Mother, Father, you always wrestle inside me". This is the human's struggle to integrate the mother and father, the masculine and feminine, the father sun and mother earth energies, within themselves into a cohesive, whole. In the end Jack accepts his brother's death, and integrates the masculine and feminine. He finds resolution. Remember that last scene where it gets quiet when he comes down the elevator, and he steps outside and he smiles in the sunlight. I could go on and on and on with the rich imagery and symbolism from the beach. Remember that the beach is where the dinosaur first emerges from the water with the shark bites. What we see in the ocean scenes is life emerging from whatever bacteria were on that comet that hit the ocean, and evolving. Being under water symbolizes our unconscious. The life that evolves in the ocean is unaware of God and love, and it's a nasty, brutal life. And you'll notice in many of the scenes under water the perspective is looking UP through the water where you can see the sun --- where God lives. And you'll notice that so many of the creatures are striving up toward that light. Toward consciousness. Toward God. And FINALLY that one wounded dinosaur escapes the sharks and heads to the shore. The shore is the threshold between unconsiousness (being under water) and consciousness/God awareness (being on land and having direct access to the sun). That's why the final scene takes place at the shore again. It's that threshold point, and all of these people are struggling in their unconscious to resolve inner conflicts, which are impacting their outer lives. The idea is that there is a lot of psychological energy moving back and forth across that threshold, and it's at the beach at that threshold where Jack and the mom reach the pinnacle of that struggle and find resolution. There's a lot more, but I'll stop there. This is one of the most brilliant films I've seen. But I feel that the ones he made after this flopped --- he tried to use this vernacular he developed with this film, but didn't do so effectively in those other films.

@VvendigO.

Жыл бұрын

@@issues9828 What a pleasure to read your comment, I totally agree with your view here and your words are very inspiring considering I'm gonna make an edit of the film. The only thing I disagree with is the fact that I consider the movies that followed just as beautiful as this one, my favourite being Knight of cups.

@issues9828

Жыл бұрын

@@VvendigO. I'd have to watch "Knight of Cups" again to remember what specifically I found lacking in the film --- it was so long ago, and I only saw it once, so I can't remember in specific terms what it was. What do you mean you are going to make an edit of the film?

Great analysis. I was fortunate to see this in the theatre, I can’t imagine watching it at home. I’m not a Christian, but I certainly appreciate the richness of the poetry, including Augustine, and I’m in awe of Malick’s brave desire to fully explore his faith through film. I was profoundly moved by Tree of Life. The infant-hood sequence in the opening segment brought me to tears, it so accurately portrays the intense joy and pain of young parenthood. As you say, it uses film differently than most of us are accustomed to, it’s more like a poem of remembrance and yearning, and it generously allows us to meditate on our own lives and beliefs as we watch along. The moment of mercy in the dinosaur sequence - clunky though it may be - is extraordinary. Incredibly moving film, one of my very favourite of this century, and of all of American cinema. And yes, loved your reference to Brainstorm, a flawed masterpiece that also affected me deeply when it was first released.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

thank you.

@tonybennett4159

2 жыл бұрын

I too, saw this in the cinema, and from a Catholic upbringing I've been an atheist for the greater part of my life. I therefore have decidedly mixed feelings about this film : it's half a wonderful film and half a terrible film. The voice overs, intelligently used in Badlands and Days of Heaven act as a counterpoint to some of the unsavoury things that are happening. In The Thin Red Line, the wispy voice overs contrast the natural world with the brutality of war. After that, Malick's images become ever more lyrical, but for me at least, the voice overs no longer offer an ironic distance but become the vocal equivalent of lyricism, lending the experience far too saccharine a taste. The film became then, far too reverential, so much so, I would venture to add, that those most likely to enjoy it are those who are committed Christians. It effectively locked me out. In case anyone should accuse me of an inability, or unwillingness to allow the film to speak to me in another way outside of plot, I would tell them that Tarkovsky's Mirror did that for me in abundance. Tarkovsky was also a believer, but he was not smothering the viewer in syrupy verbiage. In both films the images are sublime, but Tarkovsky still leaves space for the viewer, while Mallick tends to lead you by the nose with his swooning images, camera movements and angles, and insistent whisperings. Unlike Mallick, there is nothing in Mirror that can compare with the badly misjudged sequence in Tree of Life when a dinosaur predator exhibits empathy for its prey. That struck me as being somewhat infantile, something I never thought I would see in a Mallick film. Tarkovsky's film I believe can speak both to the atheist and the believer with equal force and is therefore by far the greater film.

Malick films in general are polarizing, I suspect because of his affinity for significantly visual storytelling. A lot of people are used to watching movies where the plot is given to them very explicitly, often through actual dialogue between characters, but Malick opts for a more meditative style, where the ideas of the film are hinted at subtly through actions, montages, and shots of the environment. His films are also notorious for featuring heavily philosophical voiceover monologues, but even those instances of dialogue are more about the interior lives of the characters, rather than a method of advancing the plot along. It's a style that works well in his films, but I understand why people find them arcane and slow.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

My wild guess is that the average Hollywood movie repeats important information that the audience must know over five times, through various means. Malick almost never repeats key info more than once. It's not anti-populist per se, but it feels like it to audiences used to a lot of aid.

@achasingafterthewind

3 жыл бұрын

There's a similar thing going on with this film. Audiences are used to very structured forms of storytelling--not just a simple A-B-C plot format, but stories that are very clear as to what they're about and how you should think about them. "The Tree of Life" is not that. If you watch this movie expecting Malick to give you a completely coherent story where every scene logically and realistically links to the one before and after it, you're going to end up confused, and you will walk out of the theater or stop watching the film out of frustration, believing that just because there doesn't appear to be an inherent meaning to the film, that means it doesn't have one at all. Rather, the film leaves that sort of analysis to each viewer to determine on their own, actually making the film infinitely meaningful. There is no one way to interpret this film that will completely fulfill and explain all of its elements, so it is up to the viewer to determine how the film speaks to them personally and reconcile their own thoughts and beliefs with what the film shows them. I'm a Christian, so I interpreted a lot of things in this film as dealing very blatantly with Christian ideas, but I've also listened to atheists and agnostics share their views, and I recognize that their interpretations are just as valid, and make as much sense from their point of view, as mine.

@achasingafterthewind

3 жыл бұрын

Addressing one of the Christian ideas in this film, I saw Jack struggling a lot with understanding his propensity for sin. There's a scene where he almost completely quotes Romans 7:15: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." This ties in to his relationship with his father, whom he has significant resentment for, which is compounded by his realization that many of the things he dislikes about his father are things that he sees in himself. I was interested to see you reference Augustine's Confessions, as when Jack steals his neighbor's dress, then throws it into the creek to wash away, I was instantly reminded of the pear scene in Augustine's book and his attempts to understand and come to terms with his own sin. I've seen this film twice now--once in 2012, when I didn't understand it at all, and earlier this year, when I gave much more attention to it and came away with some very revelatory insights. Both times, I watched the shorter theatrical version, but I hope to watch the longer one after some more time has passed and see if I can gain anything new from that. Also, I'm sorry to make three separate comments on this thread, but KZread was marking the one post I made (these three comments together as one) as spam for the above comment. Turns out I can't use the words "dislike" or "meaningless," so I had to rewrite it.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

that's excellent, and no problem about the multiple comments. thank you.

This movie makes way more sense when instead of trying to follow the plot, instead you ask in each scene "what does this represent?" When you look at it from the point of view of spiritual, emotional and symbolic representation, you see it for what I think it is: an attempt to bring the modern world, especially its moral questions, into perspective with the entire universe. To make our problems and suffering worthwhile. This is definitely ambitious, but I think it's a marvellous and captivating attempt to do that. You also see more the more you watch it. It's very affecting.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

and, big picture, the little lives of a few people are miraculously formed through a dynamic history that extends back eons. It's a wonder we're all alive, and it's a gift. The entire movie represents that.

@BloggerMusicMan

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies Absolutely :)

The most unique films I have ever watched are: 1. Fantasia (1940), 2. Rashomon (1950), 3. Rear Window (1954), 4. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), 5. My Dinner with Andre (1981), 6. The Tree of Life (2011), and 7. It's such a Beautiful Day (2012)

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

very neat, thank you.

@davidfernandez1992

2 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies comment, if you have already reviewed the rest or I suggest you to watch and review. 👍

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

Rashomon, Rear Window, and Tree of Life each have videos on this channel. there's also a 2001 vs. Solaris video here. I have Dinner with Andre on my shelf to make a video on, at some point.

@miguelguerrero3394

Жыл бұрын

Missing something by Tarkovsky or Lynch

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but Douglas Trumbull was not the cinematographer of 2001: A Space Odyssey; he was one of the special photographic effects supervisors. The film was photographed by Geoffrey Unsworth, with additional photography by John Alcott. Douglas Trumbull was actually a visual effects consultant on The Tree of Life.

@LearningaboutMovies

2 ай бұрын

thank you for this correction.

Recently saw this movie & was blown away by the creative by the narration, the silent prayers & poems

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

excellent! If you have not, you might try Malick's other films. I have videos on Days of Heaven, The New World, and The Thin Red Line, all on this channel. Oh, and Knight of Cups.

Hello and thank you for this reference to Saint Augustine. A director who has studied heidegger, kierkegaard and wittgenstein inevitably feels the need to adapt cinematographic language to his thinking, and not the other way around. Along with tarkovsky, he is certainly one of the rare directors to have worked on the question of ontology.

It's one of most important films. I saw it 3 times within one month of it coming out. I certainly understand why it's not for everyone, including that it's very long and drawn out which one could find to be tedious. Yet i would not want it shortened one iota. The film is about one's relationship with God, who is the main character of the film -- from the opening title shot (quoting from the Book of Job). It's a prayer, hoping to be a dialogue with God in understanding our purpose on Earth. The long scenes of creation. The dinosaurs, which show that millions of years have transpired from then until when this takes place. The creation of God and His ways are beyond our understanding, but the idea is here that everything has a reason and purpose. The theme is very religious in that way, which also is very unusual in today's movies. The film is just brilliant in the small scenes -- which probably took hours and hours and hours of camera footage before getting this amazing small scenes with the children. It's a slice of life, with the Brad Pitt character being truly noble yet very flawed. The acting is just amazing. I would recommend allowing yourself to feel the film and not be bothered if you don't get everything about it. It doesn't follow the typical Hollywood formula which is troubling to many. But life doesn't follow that formula either. And this film is truly a replica of a Slice of Life.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

that's really well said. I am currently making a video on Knight of Cups, which syncs very well with this movie and with what you said.

@pepethepatriot7524

3 жыл бұрын

If you actually knew anything about the Bible, you'd know that the earth isn't "Millions of years old".

@elfsieben1450

3 жыл бұрын

Apart from watching this film as "a dialog with god" you can watch it as internal dialogs between Jack's memories while he is trying to make sense of his life, reinterpret who he is, rearrange his view of the world and his origin, place and direction in it. While religion played a role in his upbringing and still plays a role in his memories and their shapes as he is trying to piece them together, his interpretations need not be taken at face value. You can watch, follow and understand the entire movie as his thought process. It works as a constructivistic piece of art even for agnostics and atheists as well as deists.

@andybee9764

3 жыл бұрын

@@elfsieben1450 I saw the film 3 or 4 times within the first 8 weeks it came out. But i haven't seen it since, so i'm a little rusty on everything. I love how you see the film that way. The amazing thing about art is that everyone can interpret it their own way, even if that was not the intention of the artist (filmmaker). However, i don't see it your way. Nor do i feel you have to believe in God to appreciate that the film is talk about a belief in God. (Similar to enjoying a Martin Scorsese film without having any involvement or sympathy with the Mob :) The film opens with a quote from the Book of Job, and i felt it was clearly talking about understanding God and what He wants from us, especially as life often becomes complex. While i do have a strong faith in God. Again, i don't feel that's necessary to still appreciate the artist's vision.

Interesting, there's a link between "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Brainstorm," and "The Tree of Life"? The first two films "I get" and wish that "Brainstorm" is/was more highly regarded than it is. I'm currently trying to figure out if "The Tree of Life" is worth watching to the end. (Much of the time, I can't hear what the characters are whispering about, which makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time.) If not for the Classical music soundtrack, I'd have "walked out," too. (I don't recall any recent movie using Bedrich Smetant's "The Moldau," to illustrate the flow of memory?) I lived through the 1950's and find those scenes almost nostalgic, though Brad Pitt's character "has a ramrod stuck up his rectum." It's the late afternoon of 30 June, 2020, and this film has the misfortune of following two Robert Bresson films from Turner Classic Movies.

@LearningaboutMovies

4 жыл бұрын

the Bluray, as all Malick Blurays do, tells the audience to turn up their speakers as loudly as possible -- presumably to hear the whispering,

This film has troubled me from nearly 10 years, trying to understand what it means. I’m only 26, so as I’ve grown since I first watched it, it’s had different meanings. Do you think films like these have room left by the writer/director for relative interpretation? Maybe part of the reason it was so critically acclaimed was that Malick knew there would be such a spread of different theories of its meaning, and that is part of the viewing experience. This video gave me a whole new perspective on the film, and I thank you for it.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

you're welcome. probably once you age another 60 years, you will still be troubled by it. all great films are more open to interpretation than lesser films. they are inherently complex, gesturing to all areas of life and hence most experiences. Now whether "The Tree of Life" is great or just an incomprehensible mess is up for debate. Malick has earned the right for us to assume that his movies are very open and potent, though. I am impressed that you tried this movie at 16; that is not common, and college-student reaction to this movie ranges from "what the...?" to "that stunk."

@-RajgeetTalukdar

3 жыл бұрын

Even i watched it at like 11yo cause i had essentially nothing important to do...but even then i ended up crying though i didn't understand a thing...and then here i am now at 19yo...now i understand better after all these years of torturous teenage hood😂yet a lot more to understand i guess...

People thought Renoir was crazy and maniacal, walked out of the theater, with Rules of the Game as well. They hated Stravinsky for Rite of Spring. Often the best works require generations to appreciate them, especially in modern times when the general public is fed really kitschy stuff in the name of 'art' and so come to expect this out of movies. If they came without expectations and just let the experience wash over and change them they wouldn't react in that way. In my opinion, the audiences' reaction to Malick's work does not at all detract from his achievement. Moreover, as cinema becomes more and more shaped by his style of filmmaking (which is already beginning to happen) his work will become more accessible to the general public, though of course will always remain challenging and will always force viewers to move out of their comfort zone (which is what all great art does).

I highly recommend you to read his script which details what malick meant. As well as leaving room for interpretation. It is a masterpiece. One I didn't like at first but as each viewing went by it shot up to my top 4 favorites movies ever. Malick is my favorite Director. God Bless him.

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

that's great, thank you.

@robertojacome8461

2 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies My pleasure. 😅

Really helpful analysis. I hadn't ever heard anyone make the connection to the Augustine before.

@LearningaboutMovies

4 жыл бұрын

thank you.

Wow! I'm blown away by this.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

thank you.

The concept of brainstorm reminds me of the movie strange days.

a film I simply watch to see the directions that the underlying themes generate within me. Love to hear yoyr thoughts on "A Hidden Life"✔✔✔

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

I would love to cover that movie. Will be going through Terence Malick next and making a bunch of videos on him this summer.

Thanks for reminding me of "Brainstorm" again. I want to watch rewatch it as soon as possible. It's premise was also taken up in "Strange Days" again, another interesting movie. To me, "The Tree of Life" is also a reflection on story-telling itself, its mechanism and its power; as Jack re-cuts, re-arranges, re-tells his own story in montages, voice-over, imagined/invented inner monologue of what his parents might have thought. Is it a re-mix? A re-write? Something re-made or made-up? If the latter, made up out of what? Any which way, it seems to give Jack purpose, direction, fulfillment. So, the movie might not even be about the universe at large, but about Jack (re-)creating his own universe, his personal origin story, to find his own role amidst a staggeringly large universe outside of him. Therefore I would connect it to movies like "Dark City", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Still Alice" (all of them asking what remains of us if memories are taken out of the equation?) and "Living in Oblivion", "The Machinist", "The Science of Sleep", "Tideland" (all of them dealing with how we process our memories and even our real-time perception of the world, by ways of art, dreams, playing, stories).

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

yes, Brainstorm is coming out just when cyberpunk comes to the fore in written science fiction, right around William Gibson's Neuromancer (same year, or close). very good comment, thank you.

@amaury12x

2 жыл бұрын

Yes! I love brainstorm it’s so underrated

Wow, great analysis.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

thank you.

I wouldn't get too hung up on allusions to previous literature. Malick is an existentialist filmmaker, which means conceptual understanding should be avoided, experiential understanding is key. The multitude of different shots around the Universe and between ages is meant to show the superfluity of life and how it is its own thing, i.e it cannot be contained in any conceptual understanding. However, there is the potential for redemption from the mass of suffering that exists in becoming, to realise that there is also being and being always exists now, represented by the shots of pure light included in every scene. Once you find that, when Sean Penn's character realises that, then all suffering is overcome, all things happen at the same time and all beings are fundamentally united, shown by the beach scene at the end. Therefore the mother can give her son up at the end. She gives him over to God because God is all there ever is, and all separation and therefore suffering is just an illusion. Most beautiful film I've ever seen and certainly a movie I'd recommend to anyone who's lost a loved one, though they may have to sit with it a while.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

thank you. a fine comment.

@zootsoot2006

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies Thanks, to you too for making the video. Great to know there are still master film makers out there making true art, which is really just an expression of true religion.

@moons_mind

3 жыл бұрын

You've done an excellent job at capturing the essence of this film. Thank you

Well done sir

@LearningaboutMovies

4 жыл бұрын

thank you.

Watched it 4 years ago now that i am filming i know it's importance

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

excellent, thank you.

What few people pick up from the timeline...and the learning of the death via 'telegram' is that he died in Vietnam. The son his father wanted to 'make tough'....'HIT ME"...the son that had something to prove. And it cost him his life. Then the guilt. It's actually a story about a man who dies in a war. His childhood and the family that survives it and has to live with it. Nothing more but told so brilliantly that it's rarely comprehended that is what it is.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

yeah, my good friend claims it's a Malick-autobiographical move, as I think his brother committed suicide at an early age.

The tree of life is made for each one of us separately and I think malick knows how to speak to everyone of us.Let us talk to ourselves first to understand the movie.

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

thanks.

I saw it. 2 1/2 hours of worship.

A great movie. IMHO the greatest I've seen, and I've seen many.

I saw this film 4 times when it was in the theater, and I've seen it probably 20 more times since. I have several comments: (1) To completely understand this film I feel it's critical to understand Jungian dream analysis, with a special emphasis on dream symbols; (2) Rather than think of the narrative as a wisdom book, I think it's far more accurate to think of the symbolic scenes as being driven by dream logic, as you'd see in, say, Fellini's "Fellini Satyricon". (3) The final scene could be interpreted as heaven, etc. But you're missing a CRITICAL point at the end --- both Sean Penn's character and the mother find resolution, they come to fully accept the loss of the brother/son. Note that in that final beach scene the mother says, "I give him to you, I give you my son". She is accepting his death, and releasing him back to God. (4) The dominant symbology of the film revolves around the sun, and the light. Everything moves toward the light. Note in the final scene, when Jessica give her son back to God and accepts her loss, the boy walks toward the sun. I could go on and on about the light as a theme, and moving toward the light. (5) The point of the evolution of the universe sequence is to show how, in part, under the ocean, as life evolved, it was all darkness and savagery. But you'll note everything moves up toward the light they see above the surface of the water. Then that first dinosaur goes from the water to the land. And then we see the first glimpse of empathy of compassion when that one dinosaur is dying, and the other one that stumbles upon it spares its life. But that beach scene -- the beach is the threshold from the ocean to the land. Life moved toward the land, and out of the depths of the water, to get closer to the light, to God, to the sun. (6) Sean Penn's character is struggling with accepting his brother's death, but his other big struggle is integrating the dark and light within himself. Remember he says as a child, "mother, father, you'll always wrestle within me". The mother is love, the light, the father carries that fighting warrior spirit we initially see underwater, when the sharks attack.

Have you ever seen the video of Like stories of Old? What do you think of his analysis? I found it very convincing.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

No, I haven't. I assume that is a KZread channel?

@francescodelsette7832

3 жыл бұрын

@@LearningaboutMovies Yes, I highly recommend it

I know im only 15 but I feel dumb for needing to see this video. Thank you for helping me

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

don't feel dumb, as all of us have encountered great art that baffles us. You're welcome.

@Pancrasio-it9qd

Жыл бұрын

😎

Great vid. I was not well read enough to pick up on any of the religious references. Without that context, I was still floored by the creation of the earth part. Made me meditate of on the lived experiences of not just every human being but every single organism that ever lived (the dinosaurs). However, the rest of the movie is a huge a downer. Not an easy watch!

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

yes. I think Malick shows us how remarkable it is that we are even here, and all of the vast unthinkable complexity that goes into to making any human life possible.

I loved this film. However, it's not a popcorn kind of experience. It's not really a movie theater experience, either. It's a deep, soulful, thoughtful meditation on life and our response to Love (God), embodied in flawed human beings. Definitely not your Hollywood escapist fare.

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

just about the opposite of escapist.

One of the great works of art-on par with Four Quartets or Starry Night or Beethoven’s 9th-before the haters gear up-these are my feeling from my perspective as a Christian (not the MAGA kind-I believe in science and I actually studied the bible for 3 years on an academic level though my degrees are Psychology, Law and 6 hours short of Masters in Literature). The law degree was in hopes of paying off enormous student loan debt and interceded in my desire for a PhD in literature-thankfully it worked. If you are non-Christian or agnostic, I understand how the film may leave you flat. By the way, I also love Melancholia and Synecdoche, New York as much as Tree of Life.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 ай бұрын

thank you

The Birth of Tragedy

Agreed. Malick is just another animal in the film making world.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

animal? can't tell if that's a compliment or slam.

ITS MY FAVE MOVIE is it about being a boy?

@LearningaboutMovies

2 жыл бұрын

I'd say yes, if I had to reduce the movie down to a one-liner and simple concept, which I think is one way of understanding a movie.

It also helps to have a high tolerance for cringey/bad voice over dialogue. I hated this movie from the first frame. No disrespect to those that love it, of course. Each to their own.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

okay.

@peperoni_slayer8918

2 жыл бұрын

how is "mother" cringey?

@MonstersNotUnderTheBed

Жыл бұрын

Still prefere serious voices talking about the most serious topics of life, loss, pain, and death than this incredibly low value opinion of yours. Lol

If you're familiar with the basic bible stories you can understand 90% of Malicks work. This movie is honestly one of the easiest to accuratly interpret of his.

@LearningaboutMovies

3 жыл бұрын

First time easy and this movie have been used together?