"Tree" Reflection #2

Looking at the movie's format on a larger scale, it seemed fragmented to me when i first watched it. My idea of why that might be is this: Sean Penn is Jack all grown up and he is remembering memories from his childhood as he goes through some sort of rough patch in his adult life. No one can pick and choose the images/events the their mind remembers. For example, you may remember playing with your younger brothers in a friend's backyard one day but not remember what you ate for dinner that night with your family. This explains some of the serious time jumps that occur in the film. Unfortunately, this is also extremely confusing for the viewer. But memory is a tricky thing; usually we only remember snapshots of events, or a particular feeling. I think Malick tried to mimic this in his use of the camera.

Perhaps more importantly, my hypothesis for why the film started with the excerpt from the Book of Job was to establish the lesson of the movie before it even began. The particular passage, and even the rest of the film, try to tell us that we as humans cannot be too secure in where we are. I think the whole point of the movie is to humble us. Why show huge, elaborate, long Creation sequences and then focus on just a single man and family? I think Jack is meant as an example of how low humans really are, how significantly insignificant we are when it comes to the larger picture. Hence the title "Tree of Life": by choosing to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil human nature was condemned, and if we even want to get live forever we need to find the Tree of Life. The idea of living forever is conveyed by many characters in the film, especially the mother, who said in the beginning that no one who follows to path of grace comes to a bad end. But Jack is reminded on the anniversary of his brother's death, and he searches his past for some sort of meaning to apply to his current, empty and warped world. But no matter what, he keeps looking for answers in his childhood but has difficulty. He is Job. Job tried to find reasons for why God did the things He did, but Job was unable to understand. His friend basically told him he is nothing, just a worm. Jack is figuring this out, but he needs closure. He needs to reach the Tree of Life, gain knowledge and wisdom, and come to a "good end". Reuniting with his former self in the beach scene at the end of the movie may be a way of finding that closure and possibly gaining a piece of the Tree of Life.

"Tree" reflection blog #1

After Friday's class, my perception of the film had been completely turned upside down. At first I knew that the movie had a plot; it was that a son in the family had died at the age of 19 and the family was coping with it, as shown through the three boys' childhood experiences. But now I'm starting to think its not about the family coping as much as it is about Sean Penn/ Jack coping. Friday's class we watched the third scene when Sean Penn wakes up from a sort of dream and goes to work. That particular day, I think, was the anniversary of his brother's death. He was apologizing to his dad on the phone, even though he seems alone in this "modern" world of empty houses and office buildings. But then it jumped to him being placed in his childhood home, stroking his mother's face while his father sat on the couch in the back just staring from afar.
That, combined with the dream/ walking through the door in the desert made me think that this movie is more about Jack coping with his brother's loss, rather than the whole family. He had the two conflicting sides of nature and grace in him during his childhood. But as an adult, he doesn't display either of those sides; he's not acting out and being violent like he was in his childhood, nor is he being graceful like his mother and brother were. This makes me think that he's trying to get back to his deceased brother in order to reconnect with grace. Does he need some sort of closure? Maybe like a mid-life crisis?  He could be searching for answers about his own life (like what I assume happens during a mid-life crisis), and he must think that by following the path of grace he can get to where he needs to be. But I still don't know where exactly that is. 

Tree of Life review/ first impressions

It was a long movie. It kept me interested for the majority of its time, except for watching the universe expand for about twenty minutes straight. But my interest was also combined with sheer confusion. The flashbacks and flashwards were hard to discern from the "actual movie", for one thing. The mother was also making me extremely angry because she wasn't doing anything about the father! Why are you letting him hit your kids and tear apart the household?!More than once it seemed that he would have been better leaving that staying at home to teach his boys the lessons that he thought we valuable.  I was getting a little fed up with that and her constant questions that never seemed to get a clear answer. Maybe there is no clear answer for some of the questions she was asking God, but I was thinking, "at least give us something." Another thing that perplexed me was Sean Penn's character. I think he is the oldest son, but for a long time I also thought that the oldest son had died and gone on to the afterlife. So about halfway through him talking with a colleague over engineering blueprints I realized that he couldn't be dead (I was pretty sure they didn't need blueprints in heaven).
But most of all, I felt like I was choking on symbolism. What did the lights mean? What about the windows that were always shown? Why was every other shot, or so it seemed, looking at the sky through tree branches? There were also a lot of shots of just water, or seashores. And why were the mother's feet always shown getting washed?  Not to mention , there were so many awkward hugs between the father and boys. It just seemed like Malick was trying to convey too many themes in one movie, and I don't think symbolism enhances a movie when the viewer can't understand what you're trying to say with your symbols.

Tree, Our Town, Job: my "blind" expectations

It seems to me like there will be a component of pain in the Tree of Life. I have a gut feeling that it will not be as a big of a component as other themes, but I think it will still be there. Emily and Job both raise the question of pain, or misery, in asking the same question, "why do good things happen to bad people?" In Emily's case: why do good people realize that life has passed them by only when its too late, and they are forced to feel the pain of regret? Job 's question is a little more general: why do people have to feel pain in their losses in order to regain part of themselves? (in Job's case, he had to be spoken to by God and realize he was a worm before his possessions were restored sevenfold).
I am also expecting this film to address a lot of "human nature" themes, maybe like dealing with loss? or how morality may play into the individual coming from a family with complex issues? Often times, human emotions and reactions can be murky and difficult to interpret, and since I've heard that this film may have "pushed the envelope a little too far", I'm expecting it to be a little "out there" and obscure. I also think God will feature a big role in this movie, since history/time will be reflected on and humans will definitely be incorporated into it. Space and time, I have no doubt, will be the two governing themes of this movie. They are the two obscurest and hard-to-mentally-grasp concepts, yet they penetrate our daily lives and enslave us to them.  

"Tree of Life" Rotten Tomatoes Reviews

Based on the overall response that critics gave on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems like it was a positive experience for those that took time and put in the effort to unpack the film. Generally, there were more good ratings than bad, but the good ratings brought up some things that wouldn't normally be anticipated in a positive review.
For example, one man said, "Terrence Malick's astonishing masterpiece of light, movement, and spirit, casts a dizzying spell and somehow manages to pronounce the ineffable while telling its humble tale" (Hiller). A "dizzying spell" is not exactly what a viewer wants to hear going into a movie for the first time; I'm already getting a little nervous. And yet, a writer for Laramie Video Scope claimed, "I'm not sure all of its diverse elements successfully make a whole story, but I am giving this film extra credit for being so incredibly ambitious, visually stunning and humane. It is a refreshing contrast to films that show the worst of humanity" (Roten). This gives me a little sense of hope that maybe I can find something in this film to appreciate.
So far, it seems like people approve of how the film was made and directed. What I'm hoping is that the film has something prophetic to teach me about human nature through time, and that I'm up for the challenge. It's starting to sound daunting, but I am willing to put my trust in the reviews that say I will come out of this film changed if I am willing to put in the effort to unpack it.

Our Town (with some Beast connections)

The stage director is an outsider, yet very involved in the inner workings of how the community and characters are portrayed. He specifically separates himself while he is the narrator, but also pops in and out of other roles when they need to be filled. He reminds me a lot of Melies in this way. He stands back and lays everything out for the audience, and other times he can't help but jump in to enhance the story. Basically, the stage director is equivalent to a movie director's role. He determines what gets emphasized and when, who should come in next, and where they should go. He manipulates time too! Between the first and second acts three years go by. Between the second and third acts nine years go by. He picks certain days to show the audience, dictates time jumps from year to year and even determines how long characters live for. Additionally, he shares a special connection with the audience. In more than one instance, talks to them in a very informal, colloquial manner more like he's telling a memory, rather than a historical account of a town.

On a separate note (or maybe not so separate), Emily has a similar experience to Hushpuppy in Act 3. She enters “the afterlife” and finds a maternal figure in Mrs. Gibbs, her mother-in-law, similar to Hushpuppy’s encounter with her mother in Elysian Fields. Emily continues talking to her but Mrs. Gibbs shushes her, not in a stern way but more of a comforting, let-it-go way. At one point Emily says, “Oh, Mother Gibbs, I never realized before how troubled and how…how in the dark live persons are…From morning till night, that’s all they are- troubled” (97). I think this may be connected to the Bathtub and how it has so many holidays compared to the one or two that “normal society” has. Emily also gets the idea in her mind that she can go back to the world of the living and relive days, happy days. Is this what Hushpuppy realized after she was cuddled by her mother? That she can go back and make things better? Choose to live a better life? Emily keeps saying she’ll choose a happy day to relive; Hushpuppy went back and chose to help her father, and make her world happier. She went back to correct her error, to attain absolution for her sin, the sin of hitting her father in the heart and knocking him down. She went back to nurse him and comfort him, to try and make things right. And only then was he able to fully “rest”, by dying and no longer having to suffer in his sickness.

Making of Beasts

Benh Zeitlin said he went down to the very fringes of the south to discover, and eventually recreate, the environment that would become the Bathtub. I thought it was interesting and ingenious to live among the dwellers of the swamp to get the closest, most organic vibe from the community. He and his crew became part of the community they were going to portray. I think that is the only way to make sure that one's film accurately depicts the tensions and temperament of the area. The film has a documentary feel because of its organic and home-grown feel. I puts the viewers right smack dab in the middle of the south, just as the crew was. Living modestly, even working out of an abandoned gas station, was Zeitlin's way of paying homage to the Bathtubbian mentality. "This immersive, grass-roots approach to filmmaking blurred the lines between Mr. Zeitlin’s invented world and the place that inspired it", said Rachel Arons. I completely agree with this assessment, and applaud his unstilted and casual way of going about film. It shows a true dedication to his source material and his work's objective.