The Tree of Life [DVD]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS ALERTMost viewers will give The Tree of Life either one star, and complain vehemently that they can't understand (there's a clue there!) why others praise the film so highly when it was clearly self-indulgent tosh, or they will give it five stars and declare it a masterpiece. In other words it will divide the audience very clearly in two, just like 2001: A Space Odyssey did in the sixties, and for some of the same reasons. The Tree of Life also reminded me very strongly of Terence Davies' Distant Voices, Still Lives. All three are beautifully crafted, and could be called emotional experiences rather than "films".All three are intensely visual and don't tell you in any straightforward linear narrative what is going on. They also use music very deliberately and powerfully. You have to have a certain faith in the film-maker that he knows what he's doing and although he is making some bold moves you have to give him enough slack because he will give you an experience that will play in your mind for months or even years. But although viewing any film requires us to suspend our disbelief (gosh, if you look to the side you can see "Exit" signs) I think that with 2001 and Tree you have to go that bit further, give the film-maker a bit more latitude to take you on that journey while you have to try to suppress your critical faculties of the particular bits you don't like, or at least don't like yet. You have to let yourself sink into the film as you would into a warm bath, and let it happen to you.I found I was being intensely critical for the first half-hour, saying to myself "I don't think I'm going to like this very much," and I even thought at one point, "It is just possible that I may walk out in the middle." I thought the dinosaur bit was taking things a bit too far, and instead of thinking about compassion or grace I was thinking that CGI still looks a bit clunky. But I am glad that I relaxed, switched off the critical point-scoring and just opened up to the experience. The end result was that I enjoyed the film more than almost any other I have ever seen, and found it profoundly moving - quite literally it moved me to tears.Some say that it is deep and others that it's a con, and not deep at all. I think it is emotionally resonant, so conjures deep emotions in you, the viewer, but only if you're prepared to let it. Others say it's complex, and others found it facile or just dumb, and resent that the other parties impugn their sensibilities because they didn't "get it". In my opinion, it's not complex in that it's not a puzzle with clues you have to work out, but it does require you to interpret your own meaning from it. So you have to suspend being over-critical, but that doesn't mean you are just a passive viewer; the film demands that you interpret what you see and hear and to be aware of your own emotional response to it. You have to make your own emotional contribution to the film while you're watching it and afterwards; like all great art, perhaps, in the end it's what it makes you feel that is the measure of how good it is, and that's a very personal thing. And in the end, the love you take...Oddly, even people who like the film a great deal have different opinions about what works and what doesn't. I still don't much care for the dinosaurs bit, but I loved the "everybody meets on the beach" part which reminded me of Richard Thompson's epic song Meet on the Ledge (written when he was a callow youth of 17, and still sung 42 years later every year at midnight by a tear-stained crowd of 20,000 people who've come together on an old English Civil War battlefield in Oxfordshire.) On the other hand, some people loved the dinosaurs and hated the meet on the beach part, thinking it was corny (or some kind of heaven.)An explanation (thank you, Martin Carthy) for readers who are unfamiliar with Richard Thompson: "Bob Dylan is the American Richard Thompson."Similarly, those of a religious bent find it a confirmation of their religious belief, I found it an affirmation of my atheism, or more accurately my humanism, crystallised in the softly spoken voice over from the mother near the end that goes something like, "All that matters is that you love...for without love life will pass you by in a flash."Part way through the film my interpretation became this: the creation of the universe, the formation of the Earth, the evolution of life, all leads up to this point in time, to this boy's life - the brother that died, or the brother that is grieving, or the boy that is you remembering your own childhood and is now watching this film. It might be stretching a point (and sound a bit too Pythonesque) to say that The Tree of Life is about the meaning of life. But it clearly is, you know.Finally, there's some biographical stuff about Terrence Malick that I picked up from some recently published critiques. They shouldn't be plot spoilers, but do add a sledgehammer blow to the emotional impact and "meaning" (if you insist) of the film. I have no idea if this is completely true but what I read was ... Malick was brought up as the oldest of three brothers in Waco, Texas (there's at least one clue in the film that we are in Waco.) When Terrence was in his early twenties his middle brother, Larry, still in his teens, went to Spain to study classical guitar under guitar maestro Andrés Segovia. (We recall the short scene in Tree where the middle brother picks out a melody on guitar while sitting on the step that his frustrated musician father is playing on piano, and they share a moment of mutual discovery.)Something clearly went very wrong, and Malick's father asked him to go over to Spain to find out what was happening, but Terrence refused, having better things to do. Malick senior made the trip to Spain to discover that some stress or depression or pressure of study had caused Larry to break both his hands and ultimately take his own life. His father brought Larry's body back home to the devastated family. It seems very likely that this tragedy has been a burden of grief for Malick all his life, and is the mainspring for finally making this film.I can only suggest that those reviewers who found the film trivial and meaningless read the two paragraphs above, then go and watch it again - I think you may have missed something.

American screenwriter, producer and director Terrence Malick`s fifth feature film which he wrote, is an American production which was shot on locations in USA, Chile, Italy and Iceland. It premiered In competition at the 64th Cannes International Film Festival in 2011 and was produced by producers Dede Gardner, Bill Pohlad, Brad Pitt, Grant Hill and Sarah Green. It tells the story about the American family O'Brien whose good and quiet life in a Texas suburb during the 1950s, is disrupted by the eldest son's confrontation with his own adolescence.This philosophical, religious and scientific journey through time and mind is a surreal and evangelical allegory, a family portrayal, a depiction of childhood, a period piece, an existentialistic drama, an all-embracing and retrospective study of character and an atypical science-fiction film which renders an extensive and vivid exploration of our existence. Merging various voice-over narrations with ethereal music from French composer Alexandre Desplat, a fragmented narrative structure and versatile camera movements, this nuanced, experimental and symbolic piece of modern cinema is notable for it`s fine editing, production design by American production designer, art director and director Jack Fisk and cinematography by Mexican cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. This character-driven epic about the loss of innocence, the past, the present, the future, grief, faith and family relations, is a profoundly moving fictional tale from a visionary and impressionistic filmmaker who correlates and marks the differences between human kind and nature in his particular way.American actor and producer Brad Pitt, in yet another unconventional role and one of his greatest acting performances, and Jessica Chastain who expresses more with her body language than with words, is notable in the unorthodox role as Mrs. O'Brien. A role certainly as enigmatic and somewhat similar to Australian actress Miranda Otto's character in "The Thin Red Line". At the center of the story is Jack who is played by American actor, screenwriter and director Sean Penn as an adult and as the young Jack by Hunter McCracken in his debut feature film role, an impressive performance in the demanding role as the eldest son who is torn between a father and mother who has very different ways of showing their affection. This indelible and life-affirming fable which makes it mark in cinema history gained, among numerous other awards, the Palme d'Or at the 64th Cannes Film Festival in 2011.

Förbättra informationen om vad som saknas och vad som finns på hemsidan.

Visualmente una de las mejores películas que he disfrutado. Es cierto que esta edición no trae doblaje al castellano (sí subtítulos), pero a un film así, ni falta que le hace. Y menos aún por su ajustado precio.

This is, literally, a stunning film, especially on blu-ray. The natural first response at the end of it, if you've given it your undivided attention for its full 139 minutes, is to feel stunned into silence as if you've been hit with something huge and heavy. And the next response is to feel that you'll have to see it again to clarify just what you've been hit with. It's not that the film is conceptually complex or difficult; it's just that Malick, as in his other films, takes on truly enormous themes and takes them seriously in a way that filmmakers hardly ever do in our jaded and ironic age. This will surely strike some viewers as TOO serious, ponderous, even pretentious. Nobody chooses a Malick film for light entertainment.The quotation from the Book of Job which opens the film is the first clue to what it's all about. As in the Book of Job, some of the most compelling "dialogue" consists of unanswered questions addressed to the mysterious creative spirit behind the universe. Or perhaps we should say that the Creator's answer is the universe itself. We don't see God in the film, but we do see the Creation, rendered with spectacular visual effects to tell a story informed by the cosmological insights of contemporary physics, followed up with the evolution of life on earth, compressed into a few minutes. It's left to the viewer to discern the connections between this cosmic narrative and the story of an ordinary family living in Texas in the 1950s, which is the other subject of the film. It's the members of this family whose disembodied voices whisper the agonizing questions to the unseen Creator in the first part of the film. Then in the latter part, we see where these questions are coming from, especially for the family's eldest son - and in the end, we see the resolution to which all the conflicts and questions lead.As in Malick's other films, this is all done with a minimum of dialogue between the characters, relying on the visuals (including the actors' expressions), and gloriously evocative music, to tell the story. And as before, Malick takes an idea that has been developing in his imagination for years or decades, and captures it with amazing spontaneity (and almost exclusively with natural light and steadicam). His process, like his product, is quite unique, and it's good to have the illuminating half-hour extra on the blu-ray, in which that process is described by the producers, cast and crew members. Other filmmakers, Christopher Nolan and David Fincher, also testify to the unique quality of Malick's films and the influence he's had on them. (The DVD in this combo pack does not include this "making-of" featurette. I should also mention one oddity of the blu-ray: it offers a soundtrack dubbed in French, but only English subtitles with the English soundtrack.)In short, i can see why this film won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. But i expect i'll be watching it again soon and further exploring the vast world Terrence Malick has rendered in film.

Ero titubante sull'acquisto non avendolo ancora visto, e invece Malick, un grande regista di qualità, tira fuori una riflessione sul senso della vita e lo fa attraverso gli occhi di un bambino che si porterà dietro anche da grande i segni di un rapporto non idilliaco con il padre. Il film mostra che nella vita di ognuno si incrociano due mondi, due stili: natura e grazia. Questi due mondi dall'inizio alla fine ritorneranno, la grazia di una madre e la natura più forte del padre sono solo due manifestazioni, ma torneranno e cresceranno in noi, prevalendo o meno l'una o l'altro, come le radici del nostro "tree of life". Il messaggio è forte e molto intenso, molto onirico e astratto, ma proprio per questo anche molto forte. L'unica cosa è che forse se cercate un film spensierato non è questo quello che fa per voi, in compenso però vedrete un grande film! Lo consiglio vivamente.Inoltre attualmente il blu-ray è offerto da amazon ad un prezzo molto basso, considerando che questo film ha vinto la palma d'oro a Cannes solamente un anno fa! Inoltre è presente una intervista nei contenuti speciali che spiega alcuni dettagli del film...imperdibile!!!

5 films en tout dont celui-ci qui sera probablement le dernier de Terrence Malick. 5 films étalés sur un peu plus de 40 ans aux sujets à chaque fois différents mais qui racontent pourtant aussi la même idée. Une filmographie qui évoquerait des psalmodies où chacun de ces 5 films sont des liturgies, des chants sacralisant la vie, le monde et la nature sans pour autant imposer, juger, dogmatiser.Sans connaître son rapport à la religion ou ses croyances qu'elles soient judéo-chrétienne ou autre, sans parler de l'homme lui-même, Malick a su bel et bien poser une autre emprunte que celle qui consiste à vitrifier ce qui nous entoure tout en reproduisant toujours les mêmes motifs sur nos croyances, nos doutes et nos peurs. Qu'il aborde la guerre, la jeunesse, l'amour, les peuples, la domination, la mort, Malick est un cinéaste immense parce que oui, il nous parle des sujets qui ont construit l'humanité avec ce qu'il sait faire et rien d'autre. Il nous embarque (ou non) avec sa propre grammaire. Tout y est pourtant si familier. Ces oeuvres ne sont jamais écrasantes, supérieures. Nous n'éprouvons jamais ce sentiments d'assister à une démonstration géniale mais froide, prétentieuse ou définitive.Terrence Malick à l'instar de Bergman, Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos et tant d'autres de ces cinéastes obstinés par les grandes questions comme par exemple d'essayer de comprendre comment fonctionne ce paradoxe entre une haine absolue de l'être humain et de ce qu'il représente et en même temps l'amour sans borne pour cette drôle de créature terrestre. Avec cependant pour Malick le soin de se débarrasser de tout l'arsenal hiératique de ces autres auteurs qui intellectualisaient plus qu'ils ne faisaient ressentir dans leurs films.Malick ne questionne pratiquement pas. Il laisse les questions aux livres ou aux autres cinéastes qui ont tenté l'approche philosophique. Lui préfère les forces telluriques et il se sert de cet outil qu'est le cinéma pour tenter de nous faire entendre avec surtout les autres sens que le cerveau. Nous rappeler sans cesse d'où nous venons et de quoi nous sommes fait.Plus précisément, si l'on doit essayer de cataloguer ce cinéaste et son oeuvre, on peut tenter l'analogie avec Hayao Miyazaki, cet autre grand artiste Japonais qui lui oeuvre dans le domaine de l'animation. En effet, ces deux hommes ont toujours mis en avant la Terre dans le sens le plus entier du terme. La nature, tient pour Miyasaki une place impérieuse, écrasante et redoutée, alors que chez Malick, cette nature est en osmose avec l'homme ou du moins sur un pied d'égalité. Par sa signature formelle, tous les films de Malick montrent les arbres, le ciel et tout ce qui nous entoure et dont nous ne sommes pas les créateurs, à un même niveau que l'être humain. En ce sens, Malick évoque un optimisme, de l'espoir.Les deux hommes ont pourtant le même langage malgré ces deux points de vues culturels.C'est en fait l'aspect méditatif qui prévaut tout en se risquant à espérer tenir le spectateur plus habitué à cette langueur. Miyasaki et Malick se rejoignent sans doute par la vision chamanique de leurs oeuvres.The Tree of Life, tel qui l'a été accueilli à sa sortie, dénote, reflète bien le monde dans lequel nous vivons.Ce sont des ricanements qui ont été les arguments du contre. Aujourd'hui, ce qu'il aborde, prête plus à sourire pour tous ceux qui en ce début du 3 ème millénaire n'ont plus foi en rien. Je ne parle pas forcément de celle religieuse. Où le cynisme est devenu une doctrine et l'individualisme un moyen de diviser et cloisonner les individus, les isoler toujours plus, il est évident que l'on ne peut que rester étranger aux propos d'un tel film, ne pas le comprendre ou l'aborder de manière cauteleuse. Un film qui parle donc surtout de communion.Ce film qui d'abord se découvre surtout sur grand écran est l'oeuvre la plus ambitieuse de son géniteur. Il est évident qu' à ce stade, on peut détester ou s'ennuyer ferme devant ce que l'on regarde. Il ne s'agit pas de parti pris ou d'une querelle stérile entre ceux qui aurait tout compris à l'oeuvre et les autres qui manque de recul.Le film interpelle ou non chacun de nous, personnellement, nominativement. Soit on y voit que des images sublimes, sorte de tableaux animés mais vides de sens avec un message post new-age plus du tout en phase avec les préoccupation d'un monde actuel schizophrène qui aurait besoin d'un autre miroir' ou bien alors on est littéralement happé, enveloppé.The Tree Of Life parle de nous et de ce court passage sur la terre. Malick une fois de plus n'a pas essayer de nous imposer Le Film Définitif, l'oeuvre absolue du maître comme essaye aussi de nous le vendre depuis toujours certains comme pour mieux encore agacé ces détracteurs.Il a réalisé son film.Ce n'est pas un film où l'on doit juste contempler, baisser les yeux et dire "amen". C'est un lien, une communication, un dialogue, une voix, un souffle.... Et c'est beau.