Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life"
Any idea when it will be showing in europe?
dp
July
Malick also used Smetana’s music “Vltava” conducted by Vaclav Smetacek:
the music used in the film:
“Funeral Canticle”
Written by John Tavener and Mother Thekla
Performed by George Mosley, Paul Goodwin
and the Academy of Ancient Music
Courtesy of Harmonia Mundi USA
“Cosmic Beam Take 5”
Written and Performed by Francesco Lupica
Courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
“Symphony No. 1”
Written by Gustav Mahler
Performed by the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra conducted by Michael Halász
Courtesy of Naxos
By arrangement with Source/Q
“Morning Prayers”
Written by Giya Kancheli
Courtesy of ECM Records
“Faunophonia Balkanica”
Written, Performed and Produced by Arsenije Jovanovic
Courtesy of Arsenije Jovanovic
“Wind Pipes”
Written and Performed by Michael Baird
Courtesy of Sharp Wood Records
“Approaching”
Written, Performed and Produced by Arsenije Jovanovic
Courtesy of Arsenije Jovanovic
“Ta Há 1”
Written and Performed by Klaus Wiese
Courtesy of Aquamarin Verlag GmbH, Germany
“Snapshot from the Island”
Written and Performed by Tibor Szemzo
Courtesy of Leo Records
“Lacrimosa 2”
Composed by Zbigniew Preisner
Performed by Elzbieta Towarnicka (soprano) and the Sinfonia Varsovia
and the Varsov Chamber Choir, conducted by Jacek Kaspszyk
Courtesy of New Music B.V.
“Ascending and Descending”
Written by David Hykes
Performed by David Hykes and The Harmonic Choir
Courtesy of Harmonic Presence Foundation
“Resurrection in Hades”
Written by John Tavener and Mother Thekla
Performed by Joseph Jennings and the Chanticleer Choir and Chorus
Courtesy of Warner Classics
By arrangement with Warner Music Group Film & TV Licensing
“Berlioz: 7. Domine Jesu Christe [Requiem Op. 5 (Grande Messe des Morts)]”
Performed by Wandsworth School Boys Choir, London Symphony Chorus, London Symphony Orchestra, Sir Colin Davis
Courtesy of Decca Music Group Ltd.
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
“Siciliana Da Antiche Danze Ed Arie Suite III”
Written by Ottorino Respighi
Performed by the National Symphony Orchestra of Ireland Conducted by Rico Saccani
Courtesy of Naxos
By Arrangement with Source/Q
“Hymn to Dionysus”
Composed by Gustav Holst
Performed by The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus
Courtesy of Unicorn-Kanchana Records
“My Country –Vltava (The Moldau)”
Composed by Bedrich Smetana
Performed by Vaclav Smetacek and
The Czech Philharmonic Orchestra
Courtesy of SUPRAPHON
“Brahms: 2. Andante moderato [Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Op. 98]”
Performed by Berliner Philharmoniker, Herbert von Karajan
Courtesy of Deutsche Grammophon GmbH, Hamburg
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
“Symphony No. 3”
Written by Henryk Górecki
Performed by the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra conducted by Antoni Wit
Courtesy of Naxos
By Arrangement with Source/Q
“Pièces de clavecin, Book II 6e Ordre N5:Les Barricades Mistérieuses
Written by Francois Couperin (1668-1733)
Performed by Angela Hewitt
Courtesy of Hyperion Records Ltd.
“J.S Bach: Fugue [Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565]”
Performed by Helmut Walcha
Courtesy of Deutsche Grammophon, GmbH, Hamburg
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
“The Well-Tempered Clavier”
Written by Johann Sebastian Bach
Performed by Jenő Jandó
Courtesy of Naxos
By arrangement with Source/Q
“Pièces de clavecin, Book II 6e Ordre N5:
Les Barricades Mistérieuses
Written by Francois Couperin
Performed by Hanan Townshend
Courtesy of Hanan Townshend
“Hymn 87: Welcome Happy Morning”
Performed by Hanan Townshend
Courtesy of Hanan Townshend
“Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition – Promenade – The Tuileries – Bydio (Piano Version)”
Performed by Vladimir Ashkenazy
Courtesy of Decca Music Group Ltd.
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
“Schumann: 1. Allegro affettuoso [Piano Concerto in A Minor, Op. 54]”
Performed by Martha Argerich, Gewandhausorchester, Leipzig, Riccardo Chailly
Courtesy of Decca Music Group Ltd.
Under license from Univesral Music Enterprises
“Klangschalen 2”
Written and Performed by Klaus Wiese
Courtesy of Akasha, Germany
“Eternal Pulse”
Written and Performed by Hanan Townshend
Courtesy of Hanan Townshend
“After the Rain: Antiphon”
Written by Barry Guy
Performed by Richard Hickox and the City of London Sinfonia
Courtesy of NMC Recordings
“Harold in Italy”
Written by Hector Berlioz
Performed by the San Diego Symphony Orchestra conducted by Yoav Talmi
Courtesy of Naxos
By Arrangement with Source/Q 42
“Piano Sonata No.16 in C Major K. 545”
Composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Performed by Jim Lynch
“Siciliana Da Antiche Danze Ed Arie Suite III”
Written by Ottorino Respighi
Performed by Hanan Townshend
Courtesy of Hanan Towhnshend
“Lacrimosa 2”
Written by Zbigniew Preisner
Performed by Hanan Townshend
Courtesy of Hanan Townshend
“Berlioz: 10. Agnus Dei [Requiem, Op. 5 (Grande Messe des Morts)]”
Performed by Wandsworth School Boys Choir, London Symphony Chorus, London Symphony Orchestra, Sir Colin Davis
Courtesy of Decca Music Group Ltd.
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
“Sound Testament of Mount Athos”
Written, Performed and Produced by Arsenije Jovanovic
Courtesy of Arsenije Jovanovic
“Ma Maison”
Written, Performed and Produced by Arsenije Jovanovic
Courtesy of Arsenije Jovanovic
Christ. Why even have Desplat write a score?
Malick uses music through almost the full length of the film, justifying the aforementioned long music tracks list.
The soundtrack was one of my favorite things about the film, matching the beauty on the screen or punctuating the moments of blackness, and never in a petty or sentimental way. This is a film that rarely tells you exactly what it’s trying to say, so you get to participate to find out what it means to you. It’s most like Thin Red Line but far better than that film, and this is one of the reasons why. The narration in that film was too much, in hindsight. Tree of Life actually makes that film pale a bit in comparison.
For me this is Malick’s best film (caveat: haven’t seen Badlands yet) since it seems to outdo them all in execution. It’s a much more universal story and while its about an American family in the 1950s that setting almost doesn’t matter. Of course there’s the dynamic between the husband and wife that is very much of that time and place, but in the way that dynamic influences the children (which is where the story really lives) it could almost be from anywhere, anytime.
A couple of the people I saw the film with expressed frustration with some of the contemplative aspects of the film—that they would like to see it cut by half-an-hour or that the evolution sequence should be excised, and I kind of felt sorry for them. The film really moves along, and I hardly noticed the time passing because of the frame-by-frame beauty on display. And there are not many long takes, the film is filled with beautiful compositions but we don’t linger on any of them too long.
As for the evolution sequence—it lifts the film up for me. I love films that get to the heart of the human condition, and there are countless ways to do this and so many films have done it well. The way Malick gets at it, aside from the humanity on display in the family dynamic (especially in the portrayal of children) is to start with that eternal question, “Why?”
A full answer to that question, as much as is possible, anyway, ultimate leads back to the beginning of time—and Malick takes us there, showing in majestic scope exactly how things progressed from the Big Bang to post-WWII rural America. This sequence was twenty minutes long and necessary to the film.
Pitt usually bothers me but he blends into this film just fine. The children do the real work here—but not by emoting (there’s only a bare script here) but just by being kids. Malick shot a million feet of film and I would guess that much of that was spent following the kids around until he got them not acting, but being themselves in a way that would serve the film.
Loved it.
Yes, I agree entirely with you House of Leaves. I’m simply amazed there are people saying this is Malick’s weakest or most unsuccessful film, as for me it’s far and away his best. I’ve liked all his other films very much (although like you have yet to see “Badlands”), but this was really the first time I felt like I completely understood him. It was just a miraculous experience.
Also, and I know this is an extremely vague description, but does anyone know what that piece of music was that plays during the sequences when the children are growing from toddlers through preteen age?
Had the pleasure of seeing this film at a local premiere earlier today. After seeing all of Malick’s limited filmography, this is Malick’s most personal, philosophical, and ambitious film. The initial quote from the Book of Job: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation…while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” sets the tone. Malick gives us a modern day parable of the Job tale, with more than a nod to Malick’s own favorite philosopher, Heidegger. This is definitely Malick’s own way of defining himself relative to the quest for Being (Dasein) at the heart of Heidegger’s own search. It is a 2001 for the nuclear family.
This film has a definite autobiographical element, as the story is set in Texas, in the approximate time period of Malick’s own youth. The film pivots around the question of a brother’s suicide, which also happened in Malick’s life. The pain that resonates from the sudden death (typical of Malick, this suicide is never shown, but only alluded to after-the-fact and never really talked about directly) is a key to understanding all that happens in the film, especially in the scenes we see of the young boy as an adult played by Sean Penn. The film unfolds as the longest flashback ever, where the adult Penn goes back to the beginning of the cosmos (!) to reflect on his own journey and mortality. For this, Malick uses a variety of images, reminding one at times of a Nova or nature documentary (ala Herzog in say Encounters at the End of the World). We see shots of the cosmos, galaxies, planets, the forming earth, volcanoes, and even a dinosaur segment. What does this have to do with the story of a family in 1950’s Texas is left to each viewer’s imagination – it either works for you or it doesn’t.
Malick’s actor’s often whispered voice-overs (difficult to hear in the crowded theatre where I saw this) set the tone for a film that attempts to deal with the ‘big’ questions of man’s fate/place in the universe, faith, the nature of God, and man’s relationship with God – the family at the center of the story are presented as pious and religious. It is a film ripe with questions of faith and why God allows things to happen a certain way (going back to the story of Job) – as reflected in the characters’ questioning of God throughout the film. The film deals through shifting images of nature and kids at play with how life intersects tangentially at a myriad of small but meaningful points in any given life. Malick wants us to see ourselves in the life of his rather thinly drawn characters. We need to fill in the blanks ourselves as Malick is alluding, but not really revealing that much. It is all like a jigsaw puzzle we see one of the boys trying to piece together – but do all the pieces fit? It is the personal (the life of the nuclear family) becoming the universal (i.e., all families) that seems to be Malick’s distinctive ambition. Whether he succeeds or not depends on how far you are willing to go with him along this path.
By taking incidents in the life of a small boy, growing up with two brothers in Texas, Malick combines his own autobiographical elements with of day-to-day life, the changing family dynamics, and the wonder of a child’s early apprehension of the beauty and pain of life. Episodes are short and often abstracted, cinematic images flowing like the water Malick often shows on screen, or on display in the frequently fractured sunlight beaming down on the scenes. This is not an idealized vision of childhood, but one that is both surreal and sublime. Brad Pitt as the young boy’s dad has to tackle most of the dramatic action, as he is the only strongly drawn adult character. He acts as the realistic counterpoint to the idealized mother, the hard-driven achiever, who tries to instill his own school of tough love on his sons. The boy who we mainly see the action through is often resentful of his harsh and demanding father. The mother, played in an understated way by Jessica Chastain, is given very little dialogue, and acts as the wispy, nurturing, all-forgiving type of earth-mother. The boy’s concern for his mother takes a Freudian twist when he steals a piece of her lingerie.
We learn piecemeal the conflicted dynamics of the household, mainly through the eyes (and height) of the boy. Malick often has the camera at exactly the angle of the young boy’s vision. There are many quick pans and cuts to nature scenes, typical of Malick’s earlier films, but much more prevalent – and purposeful – in this film. This is a film about the universality of each person, with the young boy representing the microcosm of any child growing up in a conflicted household, sharing the pain he brings on himself through his own selfish actions, what he gets from his disciplinarian father, and what he learns of love and forgiveness from his mother.
Whether these scenes work or not depends on the tolerances of the viewer. The film uses the sun and light in a way much reminiscent of Kubrick in 2001. In fact, there is a similar eclipse scene, which surely is used by Malick as a definite homage to 2001. The film uses classical music to heighten the sense of spiritual reverence before nature and life that seems so much a part of the film. Music is a crucial part of the film, both as backdrop and as a window on to the frustrated artist hiding in the gruff father, who is seen playing soulfully on the piano and organ. He tells his son that he wanted to be a great musician, but he is now a rather frustrated businessman instead.
The cinematography (DP Emmanuel Lubezki) is breath-taking and visionary. The ending, when all the characters in the film intersect in a timeless, mystical space, is a haunting and contemplative journey to the emotional heart of the film. Whether the highly personal story these scenes are entwined around resonates with you or not is all a matter of taste. I intend to see it again and would recommend it to anyone who likes a strong dose of visual poetry mixed with metaphysics in a film. Don’t go expecting anything conventional in the way of narrative or you will quickly get disengaged. A film that intends to manipulate you into your own dreamy reverie of ‘ecstatic truth’. But it won’t work for everyone. Much like 2001, it must be experienced (preferably on the big screen) and digested, but not all will buy into its message, which will vary from person to person.
Cosmic and personal, visionary and static, but firmly stationed in everyday reality, this is Malick’s own testament to what he has learned from his life in film. For Malick, Heidegger’s Dasein is definitely grounded in the minutiae of the everyday, the mundane world that opens up a world of wonder if we have the eyes to see it. Malick tries to open our eyes to the mystery all around us, in each shimmering blade of grass or branch (the tree of life itself) blowing in the wind. I thank him for sharing with us this very personal and profound vision.
That’s my long take on it, anyway.
Jon – does anyone know what that piece of music was that plays during the sequences when the children are growing from toddlers through preteen age?
From my recent memory, it could be Smetana’s Má vlast (My Country or fatherland), which plays throughout the early scenes (and is on the trailer, I believe – if that is the piece).
@HoL -
For me this is Malick’s best film (caveat: haven’t seen Badlands yet)
Dude…
I have the utmost of respect for Malick, but this film felt like one long, giant trailer. The rhythm and pacing of the editing destroyed the film for me, which felt like it was attempting impressionistic beauty but only achieved a rambling, grasping incoherence. Coupled with its length, lack of narrative momentum, and what I felt was very heavy handed borderline preaching, I was sorely disappointed.
Bob the Obscure
Heidegger:
Through the ontological interpretation of Dasein as being-in-the-world no decision, whether positive or negative, is made concerning a possible being toward God. It is, however, the case that through an illumination of transcendence we first achieve an adequate concept of Dasein, with respect to which it can now be asked how the relationship of Dasein to God is ontologically ordered…..Only from the truth of Being can the essence of the holy be thought. Only from the essence of the holy is the essence of the divine to be thought. Only in the light of the essence of divinity can it be thought or said what the word “God” is to signify.
Yes, Robert – excellent quote from Heidegger. I am aware that Heidegger is an atheistic philosopher, having stumbled through Being and Time at one point (and a few other of his writings). I think Malick’s take is, however, rooted in theology – that is, a different take than Heidegger’s. Because Heidegger’s own terminolgy can be applied in so many ways (that devious German language and all those gigantic German nouns that can combine words forever…), there are many ways of interpreting Heidegger’s Dasein. In any case, I can’t comment further on just what themes (beyond very general ones) Malick takes from Heidegger for this film. As a non-believer myself, I take the theological conversations with God in the film as more symptomatic of the time the film is set and the religious background of the characters. I don’t know Malick’s own take on these questions, beyond what he has put into his films.
I want to correct one mistake in my review (among many, I am sure) where I mistakenly say the young boy was raiding his mother’s lingerie. I realize he had broken into his neighbor’s house, of the girl he is infatuated with in the scene before. Apologies. Because of an eye condition, I can’t always see everything clearly – which is very important for this film. My wife (who saw this with me) and subsequent reviews I have read have enlightened me. I also missed the mother levitating in the air ala Tarkovsky’s Mirror.
Although I can’t re-read my own very convoluted take on the film in the sober light of another day, I realize that the film does require further reflection – which is a good thing. I would be interested in other takes on the film either positive or negative. Perhaps the weakest parts of the film for me is the ill-defined character of the mother, the rather incessant voice-overs, and the way the film centers on just one period in the life of this family, without fleshing it out. That is Malick’s weakness – clearly defined characters – as opposed to say, Bergman’s very well-defined characters in Fanny and Alexander. Think of the father figure in Malick’s film and how both Alexander’s father and step-father are so well fleshed-out in F & A. Mind you, dialogue is not Malick’s strong point, whereas it is Bergman’s
The visuals in the film and the conception of the piece are still the strongest elements for me, on reflection.
It seems that Malick is working on a 6 hour cut
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/too_much_of_a_good_thing_terrence_malick_preparing_6_hour_cut_of_the_tree
I haven’t seen The Tree of Life yet, but I will definitely be seeing it when it gets released wide on July 8th.
As for the 6-hour cut, I will absolutely watch that if I enjoy the theatrical version (which I believe I will). From what I’ve read about the extended cut, it sounds like it could be unbelievable.
I agree with the comment above that the films feels a little like a long trailer. Many clips, heavy use of music etc. However, it had it’s moments of greatness I would say. But the scenes could run a little longer, and the universe, dinosaur stuff didn’t succeed so well maybe. I know the point is to show that everything is fragile, small, “nothing stands still”. Malick is a lot closer to the typical modern Hollywood style than to someone like Sokurov. I feel this could have been a great film if edited different, let the scenes run longer, don’t overuse the music, skip the dinosaurs, perhaps most of the universe part, let us know the characters better, even if it would take several hours (actually most films are too short, they should run for 10 hours or longer, the same time it takes to read a novel). The film has beautiful architecture, Pitt plays better than ever before (I forget it’s Brad Pitt, one of the world’s most famous actors), the other actors are also great, the portrayt of conformity in 50’s America are maybe shown before, but seldom as good as here. I think especially of the scene with the family going to town seeing a drunken man and some criminals being taken into police cars. This is both a very good and a very bad movie, but mostly very good.
I’m not a huge fan of Malick (not for his lack of talent or skill, it’s just a different preference of style, he’s a wonderful filmmaker), but I really liked this.
The only real weakness I saw in it was the ending (the beach scene) – really inconsistent tone with the rest I thought. I can see how Malick might have thought it integral to the film but I would’ve left it out, call me crazy. I, however, loved the Kubrickian evolution scenes. Right after seeing the film in the theatre, this guy in front of me is like, “What’s with the dinosaur stuff!?” and I could only shake my head in bemusement. I don’t understand the criticism of that, I mean should we criticize Kubrick for having a bunch of guys in monkey suits hop around, the only thing missing from TOL is a derivatively vague plot device called a black monolith … good or bad thing?
Anyway, The Tree of Life has its flaws (really, just cut out the ending and I’d consider it near-perfect) but it’s worthy of being called a Malick film. For me it goes like this: Badlands, The Tree of Life, The New World, The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven (sorry, I can’t stand Gere).
EDIT: I just noticed Bob mentioned 2001 earlier, heh nice.
This film lives up to the ALL the hype and some more.
How rare is it for a film to do that? Can anyone name any?
I agree with Deckard
Thanks for laying out those tracks for us Bezruc. The music was so breathtaking. I hadn’t heard such great complimentary sourced music in a film since “Eyes Wide Shut”.
The state of American audiences:
That poster makes me sad :(
I agree with what Deckard says about the last scene, but…
…it’s a 138-minute long montage. I think this film had great pretensions (in the truest sense of the term) that it didn’t live up to. In other words, it’s a film about “life.” I think that says it all.
Also, the film is based on a fundamentally flawed idea of human nature. The opening (spoken, of which there are very few) lines of the film are more or less “there are two ways of living: according to nature and grace.” I imagine the mother is supposed to represent “grace” and the father “nature?” I’m not sure I understand why “grace” which seemingly is an overcoming of “nature” should in fact be set against it. But then again, that’s a relatively minor footnote. In any case, I think setting up the male/ female opposition the way they did was clichéd and ridiculous.
Basically, I think we’d have a half-decent film if they would have cut out the dinosaur scene and the (two or three?) with Sean Penn which were completely unnecessary. The astronomical and planetary birth scenes though were at least… cool, however?
I’m actually surprised at how few people walked out of this film.
“I’m not sure I understand why “grace” which seemingly is an overcoming of “nature” should in fact be set against it.”
Basically, it’s a product of an historical conversation between Christian theologians and rationalists critiques of that theology. Thomas Aquinas wrote that "although man is inclined to an end by nature, yet he cannot attain that end by nature, but only by grace because of the exalted character of the end.” The high rationalists later countered that the concept of grace alienated man from nature.
Erik79
@House of Leaves: Dinosaurs. :)
@Miasma: Briefly. I pushed the off button. As for “mega-star power,” Malick shoots unknowns and movie stars with an equal eye. Wouldn’t call this a particularly hyped film either way, the way it’s being marketed is rather calculated, not overbearing.