Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus.

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 5:24:06 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


quote:


Literally taking us to some kind of heavenly afterlife where we all meet up with dead loved ones... My jaw hit the floor with the dumb simplicity of it all. Over two hours to get to this!!?


It wasn't an afterlife and they weren't dead, this is quite clear.
quote:


I do wish the many film critics in thrall to his myth would wake up and face the fact that, yes, Malick is an interesting director but also very flawed and, too often, deadly dull.


Why should they, actually why should I? OH YEAH WAIT WAIT BECUASE YOU BELIEVE THAT THEREFORE YOU ARE RIGHT



Please explain how it is "quite clear" that it wasn't an afterlife? On the contrary I feel it clearly was (or at the very least some kind of metaphysical claim about death and eternity) and many commentators have identified it as such. Sean Penn meets his dead brother there for one thing. But I'd be interested to hear your explanation of what you think is going on when the whole cast meet (including dead characters) at the end?

On the second point: I'm simply expressing my view that the film critic community seems to me to have deified Malick and are too quick to see everything he touches as 'genius' where as I personally think he is overrated and the praise heaped on him doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. But this is just my view on the situation and I don't claim that "THEREFORE I AM RIGHT" categorically. Jeez, by your logic no one can express a contrary view without you writing on the end - in caps - "OH YEAH WAIT WAIT BECUASE YOU BELIEVE THAT THEREFORE YOU ARE RIGHT".

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 181
RE: The Tree of Life Review - 8/1/2012 5:25:53 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

To dismiss criticism as simply viewers lacking patience is extremely condescending.


Just as well you avoided being condescending in your response.

quote:

I think a more likely reading of the situation is that you are much more gullibly taken in by empty profundity whispered with a sense of DEEP MEANING over the soundtrack. Taken in by very pretty, but very slick and empty, TV-ad style cinematography. Taken in by a bizarre Christian/pantheistic religiosity that has all the depth and complexity of a dodgy Sunday sermon.


Oh...



I was just trying to give The Film Guy a taste of his own medicine.

< Message edited by fiercehairdo -- 8/1/2012 5:51:17 PM >

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 182
RE: The Tree of Life Review - 8/1/2012 5:27:16 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo


quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

To dismiss criticism as simply viewers lacking patience is extremely condescending.


Just as well you avoided being condescending in your response.

quote:

I think a more likely reading of the situation is that you are much more gullibly taken in by empty profundity whispered with a sense of DEEP MEANING over the soundtrack. Taken in by very pretty, but very slick and empty, TV-ad style cinematography. Taken in by a bizarre Christian/pantheistic religiosity that has all the depth and complexity of a dodgy Sunday sermon.


Oh...



I was just trying to give rawlinson a taste of his own medicine.


And what medicine were you giving me a taste of exactly?

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 183
RE: The Tree of Life Review - 8/1/2012 5:46:36 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo
Personally I found the film's religiosity naive, simplistic,sentimental and unconvincing. I wouldn't mind so much if the means of conveying it's ideas were more interesting that an overlong, slick TV commercial, which is what this feels like.


And how so? I want proper explanations and no silly puns or reductive criticisms.

(especially the unconvincing bit since Malick himself is religious)



This is a big question that I really don't have time to get into. Suffice to say I feel a lot of the voice-over script just consists of empty platitudes that sound deep superficially but really do not get you very far intellectually on the big questions he wants to address: man's place in the universe, death and bereavement, theological and ontological questions generally etc. I feel Malick just pays lip service to these questions without really getting into the hard complexities of them. Claims like the one about there being two ways through life - the way of grace and the way of nature - just seem empty, and frankly plain wrong - vaguely poetic but also meaningless. Finally the scene at the end on the beach which I did read as an allusion to some kind of eternal afterlife (you seem to think otherwise?) seemed sentimental and is just part of the wishful thinking of so much religious belief. I found it unconvincing in the sense that a lot of the creation of the Universe stuff seemed to mitigate against it - suggesting a scientific/evolutionary outlook. Though I don't doubt Malick's own religious convictions. I personally find it hard to take seriously. Approaching this as an atheist I guess I would, but I can, and do, enjoy a huge amount of wonderful religious art (indeed a lot of the soundtrack is wonderful) so it isn't normally a barrier.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 184
RE: The Tree of Life Review - 8/1/2012 5:50:40 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo


quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

To dismiss criticism as simply viewers lacking patience is extremely condescending.


Just as well you avoided being condescending in your response.

quote:

I think a more likely reading of the situation is that you are much more gullibly taken in by empty profundity whispered with a sense of DEEP MEANING over the soundtrack. Taken in by very pretty, but very slick and empty, TV-ad style cinematography. Taken in by a bizarre Christian/pantheistic religiosity that has all the depth and complexity of a dodgy Sunday sermon.


Oh...



I was just trying to give rawlinson a taste of his own medicine.


And what medicine were you giving me a taste of exactly?



Apologies Rawlinson. Wrong guy. I meant The Film Guy who originally posted the comment. Sorry, dumb mistake. Don't take the medicine!

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 185
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 6:00:53 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:


Please explain how it is "quite clear" that it wasn't an afterlife? On the contrary I feel it clearly was (or at the very least some kind of metaphysical claim about death and eternity) and many commentators have identified it as such. Sean Penn meets his dead brother there for one thing. But I'd be interested to hear your explanation of what you think is going on when the whole cast meet (including dead characters) at the end?


Because many of the characters featured there weren't simply dead but they were represented in the way he remembers them in childhood, like his brother (who in fact died in the war, and last time I checked, children weren't allowed in the war), his mother, the blacks, the children we only see for some shots (like the one with the burned scars) and also features characters making reconciliations for things that happened in the past, and all of them from the 50s which is where most of the film is set. It's not death and afterlife, it's reconciliation. It's basically closing the entire plot of the film, that being Sean Penn remembering his childhood and the death of his brother (I think even the first word in the film mentioned his brother). Religion is only one part of Tree of Life and not even the biggest aspect. Remember the first opening chapter of Tree of Life, it was all about the grief coming from the death of his brother in the war.

Let alone that after the salt lake sequence, he walks away from the building. Just. Exactly. After. The. Saltlake. Feeling better. Exactly after the scene where the "mother offers her son to God" which is the most focused part of the entire shot. It even makes sense viewing it on a personal level for Malick considering what happened to his IRL brother, but that irrelevant. Also, which commentators? The only thing that gave me the idea of an afterlife was the heartbeat, but even that could me the impression it was something else as he was talking to his now old father. Why would Sean Penn be aged and everyone else be stuck in the 1950s?


quote:


On the second point: I'm simply expressing my view that the film critic community seems to me to have deified Malick and are too quick to see everything he touches as 'genius' where as I personally think he is overrated and the praise heaped on him doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. But this is just my view on the situation and I don't claim that "THEREFORE I AM RIGHT" categorically. Jeez, by your logic no one can express a contrary view without you writing on the end - in caps - "OH YEAH WAIT WAIT BECUASE YOU BELIEVE THAT THEREFORE YOU ARE RIGHT".


No, it was your logic of people only liking the film for the director and lavishing praise just for the name and to look nice. Really, what was the critic's community response to The New World? Did they lavish it with praise? OH NO WAIT...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1152954-new_world/

And that 61% is only recent, before it was on Rotten. So no, they really did like Tree of Life and stop being patronizing and stupid on this matter.

quote:

feel Malick just pays lip service to these questions without really getting into the hard complexities of them. Claims like the one about there being two ways through life - the way of grace and the way of nature - just seem empty, and frankly plain wrong - vaguely poetic but also meaningless.


Aside from the part where the paths of grace and the nature are mostly shown through the archetypes of the mother and father. Yes, it is a poetic and metaphysical view from the film but also one that follows what Sean Penn's character is thinking, a dualistic, contradictory way of seeing the world. It was Sean Penn trying to grow with the two opposing philosophical views of life his parents held.

Original? No. Groundbreaking? Hardly. But it is not empty. Also, it barely touched any theology, the "God" in the film was much more abstract than that.


quote:

Though I don't doubt Malick's own religious convictions. I personally find it hard to take seriously. Approaching this as an atheist I guess I would, but I can, and do, enjoy a huge amount of wonderful religious art (indeed a lot of the soundtrack is wonderful) so it isn't normally a barrier.


Aside that there is a line that seems to imply that the film might not be that religiously inclined. I remember a line of narration during the shots of the playground, which stated that either Penn or the Pitt's character bno longer believes in God, here always referenced "You". Penn is questioning the existence of God (and from what I got, not just the Christian God) which to me, is always a fascinating subject.

To put it simply, it's about growing up and loosing childhood innocence.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 8/1/2012 6:23:59 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 186
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 6:18:20 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I have a question though aimed at everyone. Is one of the two girls seen with O' Brien's mother on the Salt Lake his future wife, ie, the one seen in the film in the contemporary segments? Cause that would most certainly mean that it is not the afterlife. 

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 187
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 10:28:00 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:


Please explain how it is "quite clear" that it wasn't an afterlife? On the contrary I feel it clearly was (or at the very least some kind of metaphysical claim about death and eternity) and many commentators have identified it as such. Sean Penn meets his dead brother there for one thing. But I'd be interested to hear your explanation of what you think is going on when the whole cast meet (including dead characters) at the end?


Because many of the characters featured there weren't simply dead but they were represented in the way he remembers them in childhood, like his brother (who in fact died in the war, and last time I checked, children weren't allowed in the war), his mother, the blacks, the children we only see for some shots (like the one with the burned scars) and also features characters making reconciliations for things that happened in the past, and all of them from the 50s which is where most of the film is set. It's not death and afterlife, it's reconciliation. It's basically closing the entire plot of the film, that being Sean Penn remembering his childhood and the death of his brother (I think even the first word in the film mentioned his brother). Religion is only one part of Tree of Life and not even the biggest aspect. Remember the first opening chapter of Tree of Life, it was all about the grief coming from the death of his brother in the war.

Let alone that after the salt lake sequence, he walks away from the building. Just. Exactly. After. The. Saltlake. Feeling better. Exactly after the scene where the "mother offers her son to God" which is the most focused part of the entire shot. It even makes sense viewing it on a personal level for Malick considering what happened to his IRL brother, but that irrelevant. Also, which commentators? The only thing that gave me the idea of an afterlife was the heartbeat, but even that could me the impression it was something else as he was talking to his now old father. Why would Sean Penn be aged and everyone else be stuck in the 1950s?


quote:


On the second point: I'm simply expressing my view that the film critic community seems to me to have deified Malick and are too quick to see everything he touches as 'genius' where as I personally think he is overrated and the praise heaped on him doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. But this is just my view on the situation and I don't claim that "THEREFORE I AM RIGHT" categorically. Jeez, by your logic no one can express a contrary view without you writing on the end - in caps - "OH YEAH WAIT WAIT BECUASE YOU BELIEVE THAT THEREFORE YOU ARE RIGHT".


No, it was your logic of people only liking the film for the director and lavishing praise just for the name and to look nice. Really, what was the critic's community response to The New World? Did they lavish it with praise? OH NO WAIT...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1152954-new_world/

And that 61% is only recent, before it was on Rotten. So no, they really did like Tree of Life and stop being patronizing and stupid on this matter.

quote:

feel Malick just pays lip service to these questions without really getting into the hard complexities of them. Claims like the one about there being two ways through life - the way of grace and the way of nature - just seem empty, and frankly plain wrong - vaguely poetic but also meaningless.


Aside from the part where the paths of grace and the nature are mostly shown through the archetypes of the mother and father. Yes, it is a poetic and metaphysical view from the film but also one that follows what Sean Penn's character is thinking, a dualistic, contradictory way of seeing the world. It was Sean Penn trying to grow with the two opposing philosophical views of life his parents held.

Original? No. Groundbreaking? Hardly. But it is not empty. Also, it barely touched any theology, the "God" in the film was much more abstract than that.


quote:

Though I don't doubt Malick's own religious convictions. I personally find it hard to take seriously. Approaching this as an atheist I guess I would, but I can, and do, enjoy a huge amount of wonderful religious art (indeed a lot of the soundtrack is wonderful) so it isn't normally a barrier.


Aside that there is a line that seems to imply that the film might not be that religiously inclined. I remember a line of narration during the shots of the playground, which stated that either Penn or the Pitt's character bno longer believes in God, here always referenced "You". Penn is questioning the existence of God (and from what I got, not just the Christian God) which to me, is always a fascinating subject.

To put it simply, it's about growing up and loosing childhood innocence.



The film opens with a quote from Job in the Bible. The Christian Bible. Pretty clearly indicating it's religious inclination - Christian - right at the outset. Christian themes continue throughout. Malick is a Christian. I really don't think you can seriously suggest that "that the film might not be that religiously inclined". Furthermore, a lot of the music is Christian and used for specifically for it's Christian themes. "Amen" blasts repeatedly from the soundtrack for example. Although vaguely spiritual in places it frequently tips into specifically Christian iconography.

Your comment on the chronology of events where you patronising spell. the. words. out.one. after. another really is unnecessary. Also, it misses a screamingly obvious point: the film is not told chronologically! So what if Penn walks away after the beach scene? We also had his brother's death at the beginning, his brother's life in the middle and FFS the creation of the universe in the middle of everything!! Chronological jumps were part of the technique here and to read events so linearly is a mistake. Your tone here is all the more unimpressive given that you call me "stupid" a few lines later despite missing this obvious point.

Regarding Rotten Tomatoes; Among the 'highbrow' film critics at least Malick has been regarded as something of an Old Master ever since Badlands.There have been odd blips in response but remember RT is an average of all sources and I'm not surprised if tabloid critics aren't quite going for his wannabe highbrow films. But serious critics take him very seriously. to deny this is to ignore plain facts I'm afraid. He is NOT under appreciated by critics. I just think his Old Master status is overblown. If you're saying it doesn't exist I suggest you read a bit more on him and see the superlatives mount up. "Genius" is used very often.

Look, I didn't think the film worthless. it has some great things in it. But I do feel he is overrated an I felt this one of his least successful films rather than his masterpiece as so many have claimed.
But I also think you really don't need to be so rude to commentators just 'cause you buy in to it.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 188
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 10:34:01 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

I have a question though aimed at everyone. Is one of the two girls seen with O' Brien's mother on the Salt Lake his future wife, ie, the one seen in the film in the contemporary segments? Cause that would most certainly mean that it is not the afterlife. 



They were intended to be Angels I think. A number of commentators have suggested this (here for example but lots of others too: http://goatmilkblog.com/2011/05/17/the-tree-of-life-movie-review-and-reflection/).

I know that sounds ridiculous but that is exactly why I found the film a bit silly at times. Frankly, I find the idea of Angels ridiculous. I mean as actually existing. I really don't think there is much doubt that that scene represents an eternal afterlife type thing. Again, a concept I personally find pretty silly.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 189
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 10:54:46 PM   
UTB


Posts: 9553
Joined: 30/9/2005
This might seem like an odd comment given that the two films are so different, but quite often since watching The Tree Of Life whenever I think about it, I think "I really must watch Enter The Void again.".

Might make for an interesting double bill, thats for sure.

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 190
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 11:12:15 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

The film opens with a quote from Job in the Bible. The Christian Bible. Pretty clearly indicating it's religious inclination - Christian - right at the outset. Christian themes continue throughout. Malick is a Christian. I really don't think you can seriously suggest that "that the film might not be that religiously inclined". Furthermore, a lot of the music is Christian and used for specifically for it's Christian themes. "Amen" blasts repeatedly from the soundtrack for example. Although vaguely spiritual in places it frequently tips into specifically Christian iconography.


Which are at best, religious allusions referring to the boys education and Malick's life, not necessarily making the film just Christian. Scorsese is a Christian. There are various Christian motifs throughout all his work, from Mean Streets to The Departed, but they don't make his work just Christian. Magnolia has religious references, doesn't make it just a religious film. There is something more universal in Tree of Life other than Christianity.

Also, which Christian music? http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/music_list_all_37_songs_features_in_terrence_malicks_the_tree_of_life

There's an entire list and only three or four might qualify as that.

quote:

Your comment on the chronology of events where you patronising spell. the. words. out.one. after. another really is unnecessary. Also, it misses a screamingly obvious point: the film is not told chronologically! So what if Penn walks away after the beach scene? We also had his brother's death at the beginning, his brother's life in the middle and FFS the creation of the universe in the middle of everything!! Chronological jumps were part of the technique here and to read events so linearly is a mistake. Your tone here is all the more unimpressive given that you call me "stupid" a few lines later despite missing this obvious point.


The contemporary events are told chronologically. The entire hour and a half in the past are chronological going from happy family to fights to peace is told chronologically. From the first shot of him feeling depressed on bed to him feeling better in the last three shots after going out from that very building . It jumps from one timeline to memory but during those timelines, you don't find many jumping back and from in those segments while they are happening.

Hence, A- Sean Penn remembering his brother's death. B-Sean Penn muses about Creation. C- Sean Peen muses about childhood. D- Sean Penn reconciles with his memory on the salt lake/beach. It's all going on in Sean Penn's head.

There is nothing more plotwise and all the Sean Penn scenes follow the previous Sean Penn clips shown. You will need to offer me an example of when they don't. You will have to show me that other the odd surreal sequence (the flying mother doesn't count as it follows the narration going on), the childhood sequences didn't follow each other scene per scene as well without a definite structure going on. That's as far as the non-linearity goes.

quote:

Regarding Rotten Tomatoes; Among the 'highbrow' film critics at least Malick has been regarded as something of an Old Master ever since Badlands.There have been odd blips in response but remember RT is an average of all sources and I'm not surprised if tabloid critics aren't quite going for his wannabe highbrow films. But serious critics take him very seriously. to deny this is to ignore plain facts I'm afraid. He is NOT under appreciated by critics. I just think his Old Master status is overblown. If you're saying it doesn't exist I suggest you read a bit more on him and see the superlatives mount up. "Genius" is used very often.


What are you trying to say? The point is still that 84% of critics gave Tree of Life a positive review while only 61% of the reviews brought it for The New World were positive and I doubt these were just tabloids giving him high reviews. "Serious" critics weren't even that convinced with The Thin Red Line either. You are still passing judgement on people liking the film just for the director when the opposite has been shown.

Also, who is a "serious" critic? Pauline Kael is a very revered one and she found Days of Heaven empty.


Also, I don't know what a wannabe highbrow film is but it is moronic.

quote:


Look, I didn't think the film worthless. it has some great things in it. But I do feel he is overrated an I felt this one of his least successful films rather than his masterpiece as so many have claimed.
But I also think you really don't need to be so rude to commentators just 'cause you buy in to it.


I'm sorry but I don't have any patience for people who seriously use overrated as part of their criticism and going on how people like thing way more than they should, nothing is overrated and nothing is underrated, it's just rated.

quote:


They were intended to be Angels I think. A number of commentators have suggested this (here for example but lots of others too: http://goatmilkblog.com/2011/05/17/the-tree-of-life-movie-review-and-reflection/).

I know that sounds ridiculous but that is exactly why I found the film a bit silly at times. Frankly, I find the idea of Angels ridiculous. I mean as actually existing. I really don't think there is much doubt that that scene represents an eternal afterlife type thing. Again, a concept I personally find pretty silly.


One of them is definitely not an angel as it was the girl young O'Brien is seen following during the childhood sequence and it seems to be referenced that she will grow into his wife. I'm honestly being represented with no counter-evidence that it is heaven.


< Message edited by Deviation -- 8/1/2012 11:24:25 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 191
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 8/1/2012 11:13:47 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

This might seem like an odd comment given that the two films are so different, but quite often since watching The Tree Of Life whenever I think about it, I think "I really must watch Enter The Void again.".

Might make for an interesting double bill, thats for sure.


Enter the Void and Uncle Boonmee who can Recall his Past Lives. That's how it should be done.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 192
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 12:00:41 AM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

The film opens with a quote from Job in the Bible. The Christian Bible. Pretty clearly indicating it's religious inclination - Christian - right at the outset. Christian themes continue throughout. Malick is a Christian. I really don't think you can seriously suggest that "that the film might not be that religiously inclined". Furthermore, a lot of the music is Christian and used for specifically for it's Christian themes. "Amen" blasts repeatedly from the soundtrack for example. Although vaguely spiritual in places it frequently tips into specifically Christian iconography.


Which are at best, religious allusions referring to the boys education and Malick's life, not necessarily making the film just Christian. Scorsese is a Christian. There are various Christian motifs throughout all his work, from Mean Streets to The Departed, but they don't make his work just Christian. Magnolia has religious references, doesn't make it just a religious film. There is something more universal in Tree of Life other than Christianity.

Also, which Christian music? http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/music_list_all_37_songs_features_in_terrence_malicks_the_tree_of_life

There's an entire list and only three or four might qualify as that.

quote:

Your comment on the chronology of events where you patronising spell. the. words. out.one. after. another really is unnecessary. Also, it misses a screamingly obvious point: the film is not told chronologically! So what if Penn walks away after the beach scene? We also had his brother's death at the beginning, his brother's life in the middle and FFS the creation of the universe in the middle of everything!! Chronological jumps were part of the technique here and to read events so linearly is a mistake. Your tone here is all the more unimpressive given that you call me "stupid" a few lines later despite missing this obvious point.


The contemporary events are told chronologically. The entire hour and a half in the past are chronological going from happy family to fights to peace is told chronologically. From the first shot of him feeling depressed on bed to him feeling better in the last three shots after going out from that very building . It jumps from one timeline to memory but during those timelines, you don't find many jumping back and from in those segments while they are happening.

Hence, A- Sean Penn remembering his brother's death. B-Sean Penn muses about Creation. C- Sean Peen muses about childhood. D- Sean Penn reconciles with his memory on the salt lake/beach. It's all going on in Sean Penn's head.

There is nothing more plotwise and all the Sean Penn scenes follow the previous Sean Penn clips shown. You will need to offer me an example of when they don't. You will have to show me that other the odd surreal sequence (the flying mother doesn't count as it follows the narration going on), the childhood sequences didn't follow each other scene per scene as well without a definite structure going on. That's as far as the non-linearity goes.

quote:

Regarding Rotten Tomatoes; Among the 'highbrow' film critics at least Malick has been regarded as something of an Old Master ever since Badlands.There have been odd blips in response but remember RT is an average of all sources and I'm not surprised if tabloid critics aren't quite going for his wannabe highbrow films. But serious critics take him very seriously. to deny this is to ignore plain facts I'm afraid. He is NOT under appreciated by critics. I just think his Old Master status is overblown. If you're saying it doesn't exist I suggest you read a bit more on him and see the superlatives mount up. "Genius" is used very often.


What are you trying to say? The point is still that 84% of critics gave Tree of Life a positive review while only 61% of the reviews brought it for The New World were positive and I doubt these were just tabloids giving him high reviews. "Serious" critics weren't even that convinced with The Thin Red Line either. You are still passing judgement on people liking the film just for the director when the opposite has been shown.

Also, who is a "serious" critic? Pauline Kael is a very revered one and she found Days of Heaven empty.


Also, I don't know what a wannabe highbrow film is but it is moronic.

quote:


Look, I didn't think the film worthless. it has some great things in it. But I do feel he is overrated an I felt this one of his least successful films rather than his masterpiece as so many have claimed.
But I also think you really don't need to be so rude to commentators just 'cause you buy in to it.


I'm sorry but I don't have any patience for people who seriously use overrated as part of their criticism and going on how people like thing way more than they should, nothing is overrated and nothing is underrated, it's just rated.

quote:


They were intended to be Angels I think. A number of commentators have suggested this (here for example but lots of others too: http://goatmilkblog.com/2011/05/17/the-tree-of-life-movie-review-and-reflection/).

I know that sounds ridiculous but that is exactly why I found the film a bit silly at times. Frankly, I find the idea of Angels ridiculous. I mean as actually existing. I really don't think there is much doubt that that scene represents an eternal afterlife type thing. Again, a concept I personally find pretty silly.


One of them is definitely not an angel as it was the girl young O'Brien is seen following during the childhood sequence and it seems to be referenced that she will grow into his wife. I'm honestly being represented with no counter-evidence that it is heaven.



Honestly, dude, I'm not even going to get into more detailed responses 'cause life is too short and your general tenor is very unpleasant and rude. You seem to indicate that you don't understand my point yet feel free to call it 'moronic' nevertheless. Nice.

Read some other reviews of this film. They nearly all identify a clear religious theme. And many clearly identify the end beach scene as a vision of some kind of afterlife/eternity/metaphysical vision. You cling to your idea that it isn't religious all you like but you will be in a very small minority of people missing the bleeding obvious. Near the end there is a scene where the mother, caressed by angelic females, bathed in heavenly light, offers to "give her [dead] son to you" (i.e. God or some God like being). If that doesn't strike you as religious then I guess we ain't ever gonna see eye to eye on this one.

By "wannabe high brow" I meant a film that has ambitions to intellectual content but doesn't deliver. Pretty self explanatory. But since you didn't get it I'm surprised you're so bold as to call it 'moronic'.

By "high-brow critics" I meant more intellectual critics. i.e. not Jonathan Ross. Yes, some (Kael as you mention) will be exceptions but on the whole, in general, the more 'serious', less populist, critics take him very seriously as a 'genius'. That's why his films are so anticipated. Are you really saying this isn't true? That he isn't highly rated? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary (looky here at no.5 on this list of critics best living directors: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html -but they did get no.1 dead right in my view with Lynch)

Finally, I simply don't accept that the use of 'over-rated' is off limits. It is a perfectly adequate way to express the feeling that someone or something is over valued beyond it's worth. There is nothing wrong with that concept. To arbitrarily declare it off limits and not to be taken seriously is plain silly. If one can express an opinion then one can also express an opinion about an opinion. "Over-rated" is a way to do that.

If you do reply, try to limit the insults.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 193
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 2:51:49 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

Read some other reviews of this film. They nearly all identify a clear religious theme. And many clearly identify the end beach scene as a vision of some kind of afterlife/eternity/metaphysical vision.


Which people? I'm honestly asking for explanation for how it is since it all seems to allude to his memories in the 50s rather than afterlife. Everyone is in the age of their were in the 50s. Some 60% of the film is about Penn being haunted by his memories of the 50s. How is it not a reconciliation? Will you please offer your explanation, cause you still haven't.

Also, NOT A BEACH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats

(Plus, most explanations I've seen lead to the idea of reconciliation, I've seen the idea of heaven but they were all too simplistic)

quote:


You cling to your idea that it isn't religious all you like but you will be in a very small minority of people missing the bleeding obvious. Near the end there is a scene where the mother, caressed by angelic females, bathed in heavenly light, offers to "give her [dead] son to you" (i.e. God or some God like being).
If that doesn't strike you as religious then I guess we ain't ever gonna see eye to eye on this one.


Actually you're right, it can be very religious but I can't see it as just Christian. It is religious but that idea is hardly just Christian. Also, you still have a big majority dealing with childhood and a duality which is not merely Christian, it goes back to Chinese Philosophy or Taoism. I don't even think that is a Christian but mostly a Far Eastern one. Also, God-like being is hardly religious, it's going for much more specific. Of course, it could be referring You could say that Malick is Christian but then I could say that he is a Philosophy Graduate from Harvard who focused his studies on Heidegger. Also, could you point me on how they are angels? I've told you that one of them ISN'T an angel yet you seem to have ignored that, unless of course it isn't the girl young O'Brien is following but it looked a hell lot like her.

I think the film's philosophy is much more syncretic (and don't forget that the Book of Job isn't just Christian, the whole thing being about the problem of evil). You could say it is totally Christian and the parents are allegorical to both natures of God, I can see that (this is actually a great interpretation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh4FS8OOn3A) and that the whole thing is about the problem of evil, I can see that, it would definitely work that way but I wouldn't see it as just being that. The theme of the Book of Job however, is not merely Christian, A Serious Man was also deeply influenced from that book. What I loved about it, is that it felt more open than just that, death of a loved one, guilt and pondering existence is not just Christian, Job's plight was universal and I don't think God and Christ were ever mentioned, which for such a supposedly Christian film, it is odd. One thing I'm sure is that the salt lake is not heaven, too many connotations with past, present and futuristic connotations and people who are still alive, it's a memory bank represented in a heavenly manner, it is after all where he reconciles with his brother's death, but it is not even close of being a literal vision of heaven.

Also, didn't Platoon start with a quote from the Bible?

quote:

By "wannabe high brow" I meant a film that has ambitions to intellectual content but doesn't deliver. Pretty self explanatory. But since you didn't get it I'm surprised you're so bold as to call it 'moronic'.


But it isn't wannabe, Malick just wanted to do he wanted to do, hence my opposition. It was a very personal work and not just there to impress Cannes.

quote:


By "high-brow critics" I meant more intellectual critics. i.e. not Jonathan Ross. Yes, some (Kael as you mention) will be exceptions but on the whole, in general, the more 'serious', less populist, critics take him very seriously as a 'genius'. That's why his films are so anticipated. Are you really saying this isn't true? That he isn't highly rated? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary (looky here at no.5 on this list of critics best living directors: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html -but they did get no.1 dead right in my view with Lynch)


And so do many filmmakers, actors and his films, while very true on being an acquired taste, have a devoted fanbase. Again, you need to define serious critics, from what I know there are good ones and bad ones. There's Rosembuam, then there's White. Also, Jonathan Ross loved Black Cat White Cat, for that he's awesome.

quote:

Finally, I simply don't accept that the use of 'over-rated' is off limits. It is a perfectly adequate way to express the feeling that someone or something is over valued beyond it's worth. There is nothing wrong with that concept. To arbitrarily declare it off limits and not to be taken seriously is plain silly. If one can express an opinion then one can also express an opinion about an opinion. "Over-rated" is a way to do that.


No it isn't, it's just saying that you didn't like it as much as others did and that others are somewhat mistaken in liking it. It's a pointless word and I loathe it.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 194
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 10:45:25 AM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

Read some other reviews of this film. They nearly all identify a clear religious theme. And many clearly identify the end beach scene as a vision of some kind of afterlife/eternity/metaphysical vision.


Which people? I'm honestly asking for explanation for how it is since it all seems to allude to his memories in the 50s rather than afterlife. Everyone is in the age of their were in the 50s. Some 60% of the film is about Penn being haunted by his memories of the 50s. How is it not a reconciliation? Will you please offer your explanation, cause you still haven't.

Also, NOT A BEACH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats

(Plus, most explanations I've seen lead to the idea of reconciliation, I've seen the idea of heaven but they were all too simplistic)

quote:


You cling to your idea that it isn't religious all you like but you will be in a very small minority of people missing the bleeding obvious. Near the end there is a scene where the mother, caressed by angelic females, bathed in heavenly light, offers to "give her [dead] son to you" (i.e. God or some God like being).
If that doesn't strike you as religious then I guess we ain't ever gonna see eye to eye on this one.


Actually you're right, it can be very religious but I can't see it as just Christian. It is religious but that idea is hardly just Christian. Also, you still have a big majority dealing with childhood and a duality which is not merely Christian, it goes back to Chinese Philosophy or Taoism. I don't even think that is a Christian but mostly a Far Eastern one. Also, God-like being is hardly religious, it's going for much more specific. Of course, it could be referring You could say that Malick is Christian but then I could say that he is a Philosophy Graduate from Harvard who focused his studies on Heidegger. Also, could you point me on how they are angels? I've told you that one of them ISN'T an angel yet you seem to have ignored that, unless of course it isn't the girl young O'Brien is following but it looked a hell lot like her.

I think the film's philosophy is much more syncretic (and don't forget that the Book of Job isn't just Christian, the whole thing being about the problem of evil). You could say it is totally Christian and the parents are allegorical to both natures of God, I can see that (this is actually a great interpretation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh4FS8OOn3A) and that the whole thing is about the problem of evil, I can see that, it would definitely work that way but I wouldn't see it as just being that. The theme of the Book of Job however, is not merely Christian, A Serious Man was also deeply influenced from that book. What I loved about it, is that it felt more open than just that, death of a loved one, guilt and pondering existence is not just Christian, Job's plight was universal and I don't think God and Christ were ever mentioned, which for such a supposedly Christian film, it is odd. One thing I'm sure is that the salt lake is not heaven, too many connotations with past, present and futuristic connotations and people who are still alive, it's a memory bank represented in a heavenly manner, it is after all where he reconciles with his brother's death, but it is not even close of being a literal vision of heaven.

Also, didn't Platoon start with a quote from the Bible?

quote:

By "wannabe high brow" I meant a film that has ambitions to intellectual content but doesn't deliver. Pretty self explanatory. But since you didn't get it I'm surprised you're so bold as to call it 'moronic'.


But it isn't wannabe, Malick just wanted to do he wanted to do, hence my opposition. It was a very personal work and not just there to impress Cannes.

quote:


By "high-brow critics" I meant more intellectual critics. i.e. not Jonathan Ross. Yes, some (Kael as you mention) will be exceptions but on the whole, in general, the more 'serious', less populist, critics take him very seriously as a 'genius'. That's why his films are so anticipated. Are you really saying this isn't true? That he isn't highly rated? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary (looky here at no.5 on this list of critics best living directors: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html -but they did get no.1 dead right in my view with Lynch)


And so do many filmmakers, actors and his films, while very true on being an acquired taste, have a devoted fanbase. Again, you need to define serious critics, from what I know there are good ones and bad ones. There's Rosembuam, then there's White. Also, Jonathan Ross loved Black Cat White Cat, for that he's awesome.

quote:

Finally, I simply don't accept that the use of 'over-rated' is off limits. It is a perfectly adequate way to express the feeling that someone or something is over valued beyond it's worth. There is nothing wrong with that concept. To arbitrarily declare it off limits and not to be taken seriously is plain silly. If one can express an opinion then one can also express an opinion about an opinion. "Over-rated" is a way to do that.


No it isn't, it's just saying that you didn't like it as much as others did and that others are somewhat mistaken in liking it. It's a pointless word and I loathe it.




It really isn't my job to provide you with basic research that you cant be bothered to do yourself. Again and again you ask for proof of anyone reading the film in this way, as if it was obscure mis-understanding rather than screamingly obvious message on the screen, when you could simply google it and get straight there. Your ignorance of the current debates around this film does not give weight to your argument but rather the opposite.

Nevertheless since I hate to see you squirm in your mis-conceptions here are just a couple of links that show how most commentators see the final scenes as vision of an after-life and also how most of the film was Christian in outlook.

First, The Telegraph: "A catastrophic final section sees him wandering through a discolored landscape — beach, desert, distant mountains — and stepping through wooden frames, wandering past what looks like mummified bodies, sinking to his knees. Around him mill men and women, many of them from his youth: it’s a vision of the afterlife as shot and choreographed by an expensive perfumier. It’s all Too Much, and yet Not Enough."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/8623873/The-Tree-Of-Life-review.html

Second, FilmFour: "In this final spiritual chapter, characters reunite on what can only be described as a beach of souls...All of which is not conducive to feeling anything very much about these characters meeting again in heaven/purgatory/a hallucination/Neverland.
http://www.film4.com/reviews/2011/tree-of-life

Third, The New York Times: "Mr. Malick might have been well advised to leave out the dinosaurs and the trip to the afterlife"
http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/movies/the-tree-of-life-from-terrence-malick-review.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=2

Fourth, Jason Solomons in the Observer: "The film flashes back to adult Jack, now wandering a salt flat, or some kind of beach, surrounded by lost souls...The dinosaurs, I can take; the souls on the beach, the hugging and the rapprochement with God, that's too much."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jul/10/tree-of-life-terrence-malick-review

Fifth, Time Out: "In the film’s heavenly final scene, he gathers on a beach with a crowd of characters, including his own family as they were in the 1950s. It is then that the film will tip into an uncomfortable place for some. It feels overtly religious and even Christian (rather than just interested in the spiritual)
http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88572/the-tree-of-life.html

And there are many, many more out there (see the blog I linked to earlier), but since I'm not your paid researcher I'll leave you to continue searching. Shame you didn't do that before you came on line boldly declaring others "stupid" and "moronic".
As you can see though many people read it as some kind of afterlife on a beach (unfortunately you can't even see the beach...let alone the obvious religious allusions).

On your other points: I'm not saying that any film that quotes the bible is religious. Of course not. Just the ones that quote the bible AND depict the afterlife without irony, while playing lots of religious music AND having characters pointing at the sky saying "that's where God lives" ..those ones.

Again, I don't use "over-rated" to express my view versus another view. I use it in the context off overwhelming critical praise. It is to do with the numbers- large numbers of critics love Malick- and degrees of praise, hence I think he is over-praised in relation to his actual output. As i said before, simply declaring words off limits isn't an argument.

On the angels point, you sound like you'd only buy it if they had wings and halos! I'm not sure if one was featured earlier in the film, but either way that wouldn't rule it out anyway.To me the symbolism was so blatant that it was clear. the blog link I sent you earlier concurred also. Google is your friend to find more as I am not here to google for you.





< Message edited by fiercehairdo -- 9/1/2012 10:50:09 AM >

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 195
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 11:08:57 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54438
Joined: 1/10/2005
Without reading the articles in detail I'd admit, I'd suggest those quotes undermine the suggestion of a simply Christian view on the film - most of those quotes actually suggest something broader, covering many ideas with Christian possibly being a part.

'and even Christian' - is only a part.

Souls/gods/afterlifes/purgatory/heaven - concepts that are not restricted to christian mythology.

Also, this conversation would be a lot more interesting if both/either of you could quit with the pissy terminology and actually just talk.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 196
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 11:16:03 AM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Without reading the articles in detail I'd admit, I'd suggest those quotes undermine the suggestion of a simply Christian view on the film - most of those quotes actually suggest something broader, covering many ideas with Christian possibly being a part.

'and even Christian' - is only a part.

Souls/gods/afterlifes/purgatory/heaven - concepts that are not restricted to christian mythology.

Also, this conversation would be a lot more interesting if both/either of you could quit with the pissy terminology and actually just talk.



Fair point. It's not up there with fundamentalist preacher I admit - a touch more nuanced and open, for sure. But I do think it is Christian-biased at least. Christian music is used repeatedly, not Hare Krishna songs (imagine!)... Also, The Father resembles the punishing God of the Old Testament and the serene mother resembles The Virgin Mary. There are allusions to the Garden of Eden... The title itself references The Book of Genesis...etc, etc
But Mr Deviation was going as far to question that the ending was even an afterlife at all - Christian or any other.

< Message edited by fiercehairdo -- 9/1/2012 11:26:46 AM >

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 197
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 12:47:07 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo


It really isn't my job to provide you with basic research that you cant be bothered to do yourself. Again and again you ask for proof of anyone reading the film in this way, as if it was obscure mis-understanding rather than screamingly obvious message on the screen, when you could simply google it and get straight there. Your ignorance of the current debates around this film does not give weight to your argument but rather the opposite.


HOW IS IT HEAVEN?! Heavenly in Jack's eyes yes, but I can't see it as Heaven in any way. You really need to explain and stop putting the opinions of others who I obviously don't agree with.

quote:


Nevertheless since I hate to see you squirm in your mis-conceptions here are just a couple of links that show how most commentators see the final scenes as vision of an after-life and also how most of the film was Christian in outlook.

First, The Telegraph: "A catastrophic final section sees him wandering through a discolored landscape — beach, desert, distant mountains — and stepping through wooden frames, wandering past what looks like mummified bodies, sinking to his knees. Around him mill men and women, many of them from his youth: it's a vision of the afterlife as shot and choreographed by an expensive perfumier. It's all Too Much, and yet Not Enough."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/8623873/The-Tree-Of-Life-review.html

Second, FilmFour: "In this final spiritual chapter, characters reunite on what can only be described as a beach of souls...All of which is not conducive to feeling anything very much about these characters meeting again in heaven/purgatory/a hallucination/Neverland.
http://www.film4.com/reviews/2011/tree-of-life

Third, The New York Times: "Mr. Malick might have been well advised to leave out the dinosaurs and the trip to the afterlife"
http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/movies/the-tree-of-life-from-terrence-malick-review.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=2

Fourth, Jason Solomons in the Observer: "The film flashes back to adult Jack, now wandering a salt flat, or some kind of beach, surrounded by lost souls...The dinosaurs, I can take; the souls on the beach, the hugging and the rapprochement with God, that's too much."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jul/10/tree-of-life-terrence-malick-review


Fifth, Time Out: "In the film's heavenly final scene, he gathers on a beach with a crowd of characters, including his own family as they were in the 1950s. It is then that the film will tip into an uncomfortable place for some. It feels overtly religious and even Christian (rather than just interested in the spiritual)
http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88572/the-tree-of-life.html


And I disagree with them. Even Ebert or A.O Scott considered it a vision of the afterlife but I still disagree (there is the script which apparently states that some of the people seen on the salt lake are not known by Jack but the final product gives no indication of this, also, there's been many changes while it was made). Also, they might call it beach all they want, it was still filmed on the Bonnette Salt Flats. The heaven is an interpretation, that it is a salt flat is a fact about where it was filmed. Also, look at the part which shows uncertainty if it is a beach.

I've given you why but you haven't bothered to tell me why it is an afterlife other than going for the fallacy that if many people think it is, then it must be true. There's three-five shots which disprove that and an entire film that seems to hint that it is going within Jack's head.

quote:


And there are many, many more out there (see the blog I linked to earlier), but since I'm not your paid researcher I'll leave you to continue searching. Shame you didn't do that before you came on line boldly declaring others "stupid" and "moronic".


You know what I declared stupid and moronic? Your comments on "wannabe highbrow" and your comments on critics liking the film just on the name. Check the posts again. I will also remain that they are stupid and moronic things to say.

quote:


As you can see though many people read it as some kind of afterlife on a beach (unfortunately you can't even see the beach...let alone the obvious religious allusions).


Religious allusions, which are heavy, don't make a film simply Christian, especially when vague as this one


quote:


On your other points: I'm not saying that any film that quotes the bible is religious. Of course not. Just the ones that quote the bible AND depict the afterlife without irony, while playing lots of religious music AND having characters pointing at the sky saying "that's where God lives" ..those ones.


Did you even see the link I linked you? You could be right considered Domine Jesu is played in the salt lake sequence, but the rest of the music is classical which is not necessarily religious and you could see that if you clicked on the linked.
quote:


Again, I don't use "over-rated" to express my view versus another view. I use it in the context off overwhelming critical praise. It is to do with the numbers- large numbers of critics love Malick- and degrees of praise, hence I think he is over-praised in relation to his actual output. As i said before, simply declaring words off limits isn't an argument.


And that's just saying "I didn't like the film/director as much others do", hence nothing. To offer an example, I'm no fan of De Palma or DeMille or Cameron's later work and I find Scarface to be tosh, but do I consider it overrated? No, people love them and rate them high and for that, they are rated.

quote:


On the angels point, you sound like you'd only buy it if they had wings and halos! I'm not sure if one was featured earlier in the film, but either way that wouldn't rule it out anyway.To me the symbolism was so blatant that it was clear. the blog link I sent you earlier concurred also. Google is your friend to find more as I am not here to google for you.


Being portrayed as angelic does make them angels (including the mother), it just follows the heaven-like reconciliation Jack is feeling. Why wouldn't he? He is reconciling with his father, the death of his brother an his childhood.

quote:


Fair point. It's not up there with fundamentalist preacher I admit - a touch more nuanced and open, for sure. But I do think it is Christian-biased at least. Christian music is used repeatedly, not Hare Krishna songs (imagine!)... Also, The Father resembles the punishing God of the Old Testament and the serene mother resembles The Virgin Mary. There are allusions to the Garden of Eden... The title itself references The Book of Genesis...etc, etc
But Mr Deviation was going as far to question that the ending was even an afterlife at all - Christian or any other.


Ok, go to the link I just put on the music and show me which are religious and used all the time (one composition refers to Hades and the other Dionysus, how very Christian), and how Christian music is use repeatedly. I want you to show me this, as I found only four. Secondly, I didn't deny it was Christian biased, I denied it was primarily Catholic (let's make this bit clear), not that you'll care. It's not that I never considered afterlife while watching, it's that Malick puts one shot after it ends that severely that causes problems to that.

And to be honest, whether it is Christian or not is an incredibly boring discussion and a disservice to the film's philosophy. Plus, for a Christian film, it sure has a lot of spirituality that seems to come from the East.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 9/1/2012 1:04:16 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 198
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 1:47:36 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo


It really isn't my job to provide you with basic research that you cant be bothered to do yourself. Again and again you ask for proof of anyone reading the film in this way, as if it was obscure mis-understanding rather than screamingly obvious message on the screen, when you could simply google it and get straight there. Your ignorance of the current debates around this film does not give weight to your argument but rather the opposite.


HOW IS IT HEAVEN?! Heavenly in Jack's eyes yes, but I can't see it as Heaven in any way. You really need to explain and stop putting the opinions of others who I obviously don't agree with.

quote:


Nevertheless since I hate to see you squirm in your mis-conceptions here are just a couple of links that show how most commentators see the final scenes as vision of an after-life and also how most of the film was Christian in outlook.

First, The Telegraph: "A catastrophic final section sees him wandering through a discolored landscape — beach, desert, distant mountains — and stepping through wooden frames, wandering past what looks like mummified bodies, sinking to his knees. Around him mill men and women, many of them from his youth: it's a vision of the afterlife as shot and choreographed by an expensive perfumier. It's all Too Much, and yet Not Enough."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/8623873/The-Tree-Of-Life-review.html

Second, FilmFour: "In this final spiritual chapter, characters reunite on what can only be described as a beach of souls...All of which is not conducive to feeling anything very much about these characters meeting again in heaven/purgatory/a hallucination/Neverland.
http://www.film4.com/reviews/2011/tree-of-life

Third, The New York Times: "Mr. Malick might have been well advised to leave out the dinosaurs and the trip to the afterlife"
http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/movies/the-tree-of-life-from-terrence-malick-review.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=2

Fourth, Jason Solomons in the Observer: "The film flashes back to adult Jack, now wandering a salt flat, or some kind of beach, surrounded by lost souls...The dinosaurs, I can take; the souls on the beach, the hugging and the rapprochement with God, that's too much."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jul/10/tree-of-life-terrence-malick-review


Fifth, Time Out: "In the film's heavenly final scene, he gathers on a beach with a crowd of characters, including his own family as they were in the 1950s. It is then that the film will tip into an uncomfortable place for some. It feels overtly religious and even Christian (rather than just interested in the spiritual)
http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/88572/the-tree-of-life.html


And I disagree with them. Even Ebert or A.O Scott considered it a vision of the afterlife but I still disagree (there is the script which apparently states that some of the people seen on the salt lake are not known by Jack but the final product gives no indication of this, also, there's been many changes while it was made). Also, they might call it beach all they want, it was still filmed on the Bonnette Salt Flats. The heaven is an interpretation, that it is a salt flat is a fact about where it was filmed. Also, look at the part which shows uncertainty if it is a beach.

I've given you why but you haven't bothered to tell me why it is an afterlife other than going for the fallacy that if many people think it is, then it must be true. There's three-five shots which disprove that and an entire film that seems to hint that it is going within Jack's head.

quote:


And there are many, many more out there (see the blog I linked to earlier), but since I'm not your paid researcher I'll leave you to continue searching. Shame you didn't do that before you came on line boldly declaring others "stupid" and "moronic".


You know what I declared stupid and moronic? Your comments on "wannabe highbrow" and your comments on critics liking the film just on the name. Check the posts again. I will also remain that they are stupid and moronic things to say.

quote:


As you can see though many people read it as some kind of afterlife on a beach (unfortunately you can't even see the beach...let alone the obvious religious allusions).


Religious allusions, which are heavy, don't make a film simply Christian, especially when vague as this one


quote:


On your other points: I'm not saying that any film that quotes the bible is religious. Of course not. Just the ones that quote the bible AND depict the afterlife without irony, while playing lots of religious music AND having characters pointing at the sky saying "that's where God lives" ..those ones.


Did you even see the link I linked you? You could be right considered Domine Jesu is played in the salt lake sequence, but the rest of the music is classical which is not necessarily religious and you could see that if you clicked on the linked.
quote:


Again, I don't use "over-rated" to express my view versus another view. I use it in the context off overwhelming critical praise. It is to do with the numbers- large numbers of critics love Malick- and degrees of praise, hence I think he is over-praised in relation to his actual output. As i said before, simply declaring words off limits isn't an argument.


And that's just saying "I didn't like the film/director as much others do", hence nothing.

quote:


On the angels point, you sound like you'd only buy it if they had wings and halos! I'm not sure if one was featured earlier in the film, but either way that wouldn't rule it out anyway.To me the symbolism was so blatant that it was clear. the blog link I sent you earlier concurred also. Google is your friend to find more as I am not here to google for you.


Being portrayed as angelic does make them angels (including the mother), it just follows the heaven-like reconciliation Jack is feeling. Why wouldn't he? He is reconciling with his father, the death of his brother an his childhood.

quote:


Fair point. It's not up there with fundamentalist preacher I admit - a touch more nuanced and open, for sure. But I do think it is Christian-biased at least. Christian music is used repeatedly, not Hare Krishna songs (imagine!)... Also, The Father resembles the punishing God of the Old Testament and the serene mother resembles The Virgin Mary. There are allusions to the Garden of Eden... The title itself references The Book of Genesis...etc, etc
But Mr Deviation was going as far to question that the ending was even an afterlife at all - Christian or any other.


Ok, go to the link I just put on the music and show me which are religious and used all the time (one composition refers to Hades and the other Dionysus, how very Christian), and how Christian music is use repeatedly. I want you to show me this, as I found only four. Secondly, I didn't deny it was Christian biased, I denied it was primarily Catholic (let's make this bit clear), not that you'll care. It's not that I never considered afterlife while watching, it's that Malick puts one shot after it ends that severely that causes problems to that.

And to be honest, whether it is Christian or not is an incredibly boring discussion and a disservice to the film's philosophy. Plus, for a Christian film, it sure has a lot of spirituality that seems to come from the East.



Boy, you are an angry fellow aren't you. It does you no good to be so consistently angry and so consistently wrong. I see you've abandoned your "IT'S NOT A BEACH" claim - important one that!

At least four pieces of Christian music? Is that all? You say that as if four pieces equals zero!! It wouldn't matter, four would be plenty, but you are wrong anyway. In fact I count AT LEAST nine pieces that are religous/christian in theme:

“After the Rain: Antiphon”
Written by Barry Guy

“Lacrimosa 2”
Written by Zbigniew Preisner
independently
“Berlioz: 10. Agnus Dei [Requiem, Op. 5 (Grande Messe des Morts)]”

“Hymn 87: Welcome Happy Morning”
Performed by Hanan Townshend

“Berlioz: 7. Domine Jesu Christe [Requiem Op. 5 (Grande Messe des Morts)]”

“Resurrection in Hades”
Written by John Tavener and Mother Thekla
(On this one I know you think it doesn't count but Tavener is famously an Orthodox Christian known for composing sacred music and Mother Thekla is an Orthodox Nun!!! - does that count as religious enough for ya??! and see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades#Judeo-Christian_Hades).

“Lacrimosa 2”
Composed by Zbigniew Preisner

“Morning Prayers”
Written by Giya Kancheli

“Funeral Canticle”
Written by John Tavener and Mother Thekla

I do not think it 'simply Christian'. I think it religious with Christian leanings. But remember you were claiming it "might not be that religiously inclined." Have you abandoned that one too?

But do you see how your arguments keep crumbling?

For example, you demand where is the evidence that the scene has been interpreted as an afterlife as if no one else had done:

quote:


Which people? I'm honestly asking for explanation for how it is since it all seems to allude to his memories in the 50s rather than afterlife. Everyone is in the age of their were in the 50s. Some 60% of the film is about Penn being haunted by his memories of the 50s. How is it not a reconciliation? Will you please offer your explanation, cause you still haven't.

I provide several links proving the it has been seen this way. Not to show I am right to read it that way but to prove that others had done so also, which you seemed to doubt was the case. But then you shift ground claiming I only think this way 'cause they do. Wrong. I thought this independantly and only provided other sources 'cause you asked me too!!!!! I know you disagree with me (and everyone else listed here) - fair enough, but don't complain that I provided the evidence you asked for!! (again evidence of a consensus on the interpretation not evidence that it is therefore right - geddit??

But we are really starting to go around in circles. You loved it, I didn't. I see it as a religious Opus you seem more unsure. I find the religious trappings off putting and underwhelming. You loved it. Good for you.

< Message edited by fiercehairdo -- 9/1/2012 2:04:04 PM >

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 199
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 2:17:59 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

Boy, you are an angry fellow aren't you. It does you no good to be so consistently angry and so consistently wrong. I see you've abandoned your "IT'S NOT A BEACH" claim - important one that!


Pfffffffft, if you think that is anger than you've seen nothing yet, itìs happiness compared to some of the anger featured here. I actually haven't abandoned the beach thing, set location proves that it is a salt flat but whatevs....And it's not anger, it's annoyance at the way you were debating previously and still are, in a patronizing manner while criticizing others for being patronizing. ALSO MASSIVE ANNOYANCE AT DA QUOTING but that's petty.

quote:

At least four prices of Christian music? Is that all? You say that as if four pieces equals zero!! It wouldn't matter four would be plenty but you are wrong anyway. In fact I count AT LEAST nine pieces that are religous/christian in theme:


You're right, absolutely right, but by right, I mean you got 9 out of 37. Hardly a majority.

quote:

I do not think it 'simply Christian'. I think it religious with Christian leanings. But remember you were claiming it "might not be that religiously inclined." Have you abandoned that one too?


Erm....yeah, I claimed it MIGHT not be that religious inclined due to the existentialism but you know, it could pretty much be, the word MIGHT showing lack of concreteness, or do you not know what might means?

quote:

For example, you demand where is the evidence that the scene has been interpreted as an afterlife as if no one else had done:


Yeah, you haven't offered a single one I haven't argued back.

quote:

I provide several links proving the it has been seen this way. Not to show I am right to read it that way but to prove that others had done so also, which you seemed to doubt was the case. But then you shift ground claiming I only think this way 'cause they do. Wrong. I thought this independantly and only provided other sources 'cause you asked me too!!!!! I know you disagree with me (and everyone else listed here) - fair enough, but don't complain that I provided the evidence you asked for!! (again evidence of a consensus on the interpretation not evidence that it is therefore right - geddit??


Where did you offer this if I may ask. One of the angelic figures with his mother is his wife, I said why not, I claimed why it is not heaven, you claimed non-linearity and I answered back on why in that case it doesn't count, you claim consensus through RT (which is fair enough as I used the same thing on The New World) but almost every discussion I've heard or seen on the nets shows that it something of a memory bank represented heavenly (the 2007 script might disprove me, but I don't know if it is the one used for the film), I offered you why this might be all reconciliation but you never said anything about that.

In fact, that paragraph meant nothing.

quote:

But we are really starting to go around in circles. You loved it, I didn't. I see it as a religious Opus you seem more unsure. I find the religious trappings off putting and underwhelming. You loved it. Good for you.


Of course I'm going in circles, you aren't offering anything. It would be nice if you offered more input, you haven't. All those links described very little on that scene. I offered more, you're not offering anything other than "these people agree with me".

That said, the mother being the Virgin Mary is something that I wouldn't agree at all either, there is not a single thing hinting that.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 9/1/2012 2:21:59 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 200
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 2:34:59 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

Boy, you are an angry fellow aren't you. It does you no good to be so consistently angry and so consistently wrong. I see you've abandoned your "IT'S NOT A BEACH" claim - important one that!


Pfffffffft, if you think that is anger than you've seen nothing yet, itìs happiness compared to some of the anger featured here. I actually haven't abandoned the beach thing, set location proves that it is a salt flat but whatevs....And it's not anger, it's annoyance at the way you were debating previously and still are, in a patronizing manner while criticizing others for being patronizing. ALSO MASSIVE ANNOYANCE AT DA QUOTING but that's petty.

quote:

At least four prices of Christian music? Is that all? You say that as if four pieces equals zero!! It wouldn't matter four would be plenty but you are wrong anyway. In fact I count AT LEAST nine pieces that are religous/christian in theme:


You're right, absolutely right, but by right, I mean you got 9 out of 37. Hardly a majority.

quote:

I do not think it 'simply Christian'. I think it religious with Christian leanings. But remember you were claiming it "might not be that religiously inclined." Have you abandoned that one too?


Erm....yeah, I claimed it MIGHT not be that religious inclined due to the existentialism but you know, it could pretty much be, the word MIGHT showing lack of concreteness, or do you not know what might means?

quote:

For example, you demand where is the evidence that the scene has been interpreted as an afterlife as if no one else had done:


Yeah, you haven't offered a single one I haven't argued back.

quote:

I provide several links proving the it has been seen this way. Not to show I am right to read it that way but to prove that others had done so also, which you seemed to doubt was the case. But then you shift ground claiming I only think this way 'cause they do. Wrong. I thought this independantly and only provided other sources 'cause you asked me too!!!!! I know you disagree with me (and everyone else listed here) - fair enough, but don't complain that I provided the evidence you asked for!! (again evidence of a consensus on the interpretation not evidence that it is therefore right - geddit??


Where did you offer this if I may ask. One of the angelic figures with his mother is his wife, I said why not, I claimed why it is not heaven, you claimed non-linearity and I answered back on why in that case it doesn't count, you claim consensus through RT (which is fair enough as I used the same thing on The New World) but almost every discussion I've heard or seen on the nets shows that it something of a memory bank represented heavenly (the 2007 script might disprove me, but I don't know if it is the one used for the film), I offered you why this might be all reconciliation but you never said anything about that.

In fact, that paragraph meant nothing.

quote:

But we are really starting to go around in circles. You loved it, I didn't. I see it as a religious Opus you seem more unsure. I find the religious trappings off putting and underwhelming. You loved it. Good for you.


Of course I'm going in circles, you aren't offering anything. It would be nice if you offered more input, you haven't. All those links described very little on that scene. I offered more, you're not offering anything other than "these people agree with me".

That said, the mother being the Virgin Mary is something that I wouldn't agree at all either, there is not a single thing hinting that.


My friend, you have indeed 'argued back'. Just not very convincingly in my view. But as I said a while ago life is too short to argue these points. The film itself was long (and tedious) enough anyway.

But let us try to end on settling the most important point: IT WAS A BEACH!!!!! It also featured salt flats. True. But there was definitely a scene at the waters edge, at the meeting point of a body of water and land (may have been a lake, may have been the sea - still counts as a beach -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach - but a clear symbol for the movement between different worlds, a liminal space) - that constitutes a beach - A BEACH I TELL YOU - A BEACH!!!!!!!!

I can agree to disagree on everything else but I won't allow this CRUCIAL point to pass unacknowledged - go on, admit it, there was a beach in there wasn't there?! Everyone else saw it, tell me you didn't, go on, I dare you!

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 201
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 2:50:17 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

My friend, you have indeed 'argued back'. Just not very convincingly in my view. But as I said a while ago life is too short to argue these points. The film itself was long (and tedious) enough anyway.


Oh whatever. HOWEVER, if you found it long and tedious than you have every right to see it that way and I can see why people would think that, that was not what I was typing about.

quote:

But let us try to end on settling the most important point: IT WAS A BEACH!!!!! It also featured salt flats. True. But there was definitely a scene at the waters edge, at the meeting point of a body of water and land (may have been a lake, may have been the sea - still counts as a beach -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach - but a clear symbol for the movement between different worlds, a liminal space) - that constitutes a beach - A BEACH I TELL YOU - A BEACH!!!!!!!!

I can agree to disagree on everything else but I won't allow this CRUCIAL point to pass unacknowledged - go on, admit it, there was a beach in there wasn't there?! Everyone else saw it, tell me you didn't, go on, I dare you!


Which would be fair enough (I thought it was when I first saw it) if it wasn't for the fact that it was filmed on a salt flat.

http://www.google.com.mt/search?q=Bonneville+Salt+Flat&hl=mt&client=firefox-a&hs=ITH&sa=G&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=TfwKT6XFEoOVswbkl-CCDw&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=633

There really is no arguing this, it was the filming location for the scene. It definitely looked like a beach, but it wasn't a beach.




_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to fiercehairdo)
Post #: 202
RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. - 9/1/2012 6:09:47 PM   
max314


Posts: 2707
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
Thoroughly moving film.

_____________________________

MAX

Laying the 314 on your candy ass.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 203
RE: The Tree Of Life - 2/2/2012 1:34:14 PM   
m_er


Posts: 3955
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Istanpool
7/10 The Tree of Life: This film’s an odd but very interesting (for some folks a very powerful) film. It is absolutely very artistic! I liked it. Some film fans might find this painstakingly slow and too 'Artsy-Fartsy' though. It’s love it or hate it sort of film. You should see it before you judge it.

_____________________________

WHOA. I don't believe what I'm hearing. Check out the BALLS on this kid. Hey Spider, this is for you.

My movies
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4044070

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 204
Masterpiece - 4/2/2012 12:11:56 AM   
bobbyperu

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 21/10/2007
A true Masterpiece -

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 205
Overrated Tree of Life - 23/2/2012 11:14:41 PM   
lynnshep


Posts: 428
Joined: 17/1/2007
From: USA
Overrated, overhyped, contrived, confusing. Stupid, preposterous waste of time.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 206
Overrated Tree of Life - 23/2/2012 11:14:42 PM   
lynnshep


Posts: 428
Joined: 17/1/2007
From: USA
Overrated, overhyped, contrived, confusing. Stupid, preposterous waste of time.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 207
Overrated Tree of Life - 23/2/2012 11:14:43 PM   
lynnshep


Posts: 428
Joined: 17/1/2007
From: USA
Overrated, overhyped, contrived, confusing. Stupid, preposterous waste of time.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 208
Overrated Tree of Life - 23/2/2012 11:14:44 PM   
lynnshep


Posts: 428
Joined: 17/1/2007
From: USA
Overrated, overhyped, contrived, confusing. Stupid, preposterous waste of time.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 209
I'm fairly certain thats not a film. - 22/2/2013 10:56:52 AM   
RLTShirley

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 30/5/2009
I honestly don't know where to begin. I don't think you can really call this a film. It's like 10 hours long and there's basically no dialogue or plot. It starts with Shaun Penn looking bored and saying nothing, then there's about 2 hours of Brad Pitt looking angry and saying nothing before a really long montage of a chic floating around a tree (literally floating) saying nothing. At this point I fell asleep then woke up about 3 hours later and the film had changed into a bunch of shots of a rubbish dinosaur cutting about a forest. This went on for fucking ages then the dinosaur just dies for no reason. It then cuts back to Shaun Penn still looking bored and moping around on a beach. I think he has one line in the whole film when he sees Brad Pitt on the beach and just says something like "it turns out it was all a dream" or some shit like that (i wasn't really listening to be honest). Finally it's just a shot of the moon and a chic keeps saying "it was the pony" over and over and then it finally ends.
It was quite possibly the most pretentious thing I've ever seen. But I will give it one star because I like dinosaurs.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Terrible - It's "Depth" is entirely bogus. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078