MovieChat Forums > The Tree of Life (2011) Discussion > What this film is all about, why it's ha...

What this film is all about, why it's hated, and why I love it...

posted 10 years ago by adr5500
30 replies | jump to latest

This will probably be a lengthy explanation, but here we go. There are three major reasons why this movie is amazing, and at the same time, why so many do not like it. These reasons are interconnected, so I'll probably repeat myself a lot.

1. The film is an impressionistic experience.

This is the most important. It seems like nobody understands this, then everybody gets angry because "what's with all the pretty pictures and no story" or "the characters were so underdeveloped and I didn't connect with any of them" or "this story is so bad and nonsensical." No, no, no. For those that don't know what "impressionistic" is, it means that the film tries to evoke unconscious emotions through its sights and sounds rather than through its story or characters. Most people go to a movie expecting a focus on the story, when in this case, the focus is on what you see, what you hear, and the impression that it leaves on you. Stop thinking about it, lie back, lower your defenses, and just let yourself experience it. You'll probably enjoy it much more.

2. The plot is not what this movie is about and therefore, not what you should be focusing on.

There is nothing to "get" in this film. This is not Inception. There are no hidden meanings or intellectual puzzles to solve. What's on the surface is everything the movie has to offer; some people just don't see it all because they're too busy trying to look past it. When people tell you that you don't "get it", they're not referring to some subtle and profound truth that us who like the film have somehow discovered. They just mean that you're watching the film wrong; you're looking for and expecting that which is irrelevant to this type of film. And therefore, you leave the movie unimpressed because what you were looking for was never even there in the first place. It's like going to a Disney movie expecting a horror film and then walking out halfway because it wasn't scary at all, and then going onto IMDB and rating it 1/10 because it didn't scare you.

3. This film ventures extremely far from traditional film making.

BUT IT IS STILL A FILM. It may be unorthodox and unlike other films, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. "Film" isn't some strict categorical term, it is a form of art. And all art forms have room for new ideas and new methods of creativity. Just look at how painting has changed over the years, or how drastically music has changed in just the past century. Impressionism isn't even a new concept, it's simply been uncommon in cinema because a narrative focus is a much more straightforward and accessible approach.

As for my opinion of the movie, I think it is a masterpiece and the best film ever made. The first time I saw it, I fell asleep thirty minutes in. When it was over, I was left underwhelmed. I thought there would be something more to it. But each time I watched it again, I found it more and more beautiful. I wasn't sure why, but I kept being drawn back to the film, and would watch specific moments again and again, unsure why or how it was making me feel how it was. And now, every shot takes my breath away, and I can understand and appreciate why. This really is a movie that you need to watch multiple times to fully appreciate.
Many point out how this movie is too pretentious, and it is pretentious if you watch it through a very cynical lens. But I've found that watching it with a more sincere attitude reveals how truly sincere the movie is as well. The emotions it evokes are as genuine as you allow them to be. As I said before, lower your defenses and you'll have a much better time. Some people can't stand the religious aspect of it. I'm an atheist, but I interpreted it more as a spiritual thing than a religious thing, and I'm much more comfortable with spirituality than I am with religion. And honestly, it's 1950s Texas, it would be weird if the characters weren't religious.
That's it for what I have to say about the Tree of Life. I've watched it countless times now, and will likely watch it countless times more.

[–] Sir_Alfred 10 years ago

Pretty much agree with all of that.

Except I didn't fall asleep the first time I saw it- I cried.

"In this world a man, himself, is nothing. And there ain't no world but this one."

[–] eolloe 10 years ago

No, no, no. For those that don't know what "impressionistic" is, it means that the film tries to evoke unconscious emotions through its sights and sounds rather than through its story or characters. Most people go to a movie expecting a focus on the story, when in this case, the focus is on what you see, what you hear, and the impression that it leaves on you.

Any film that offers what appear to be bits of story will evoke conscious impressions that try to make sense of what the viewer has witnessed in the work. That's the way we're wired as humans. So attempting to find meaning in the bits and pieces of plot the viewer thinks she sees is only natural and should be expected by the artist and by reviewers/critics, at least if it is a first viewing and the viewer isn't on mind-altering drugs.

[–] eolloe 10 years ago

Just to expand a bit on my previous post:
We humans are able to view a scene of a grassy meadow or of a bubbling brook and just take it in impressionistically without effort. But by our nature we can't do that with a scene that involves people (or, for that matter, many other animals) shown up close. We automatically, unconsciously, start analyzing and trying to explain what the people are doing, thinking, feeling. Overcoming that instinctive impulse takes a lot of effort. Add in that we learn to view films in a certain way (expecting a linear telling of a story), and especially if the viewer has gone into the film with no idea of what to expect (ie, no idea that it won't be a film like anything they've ever seen before), and it's extremely unlikely that most viewers will be able to experience the film in the way that you are saying it should be/was intended to be experienced.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] svenrufus 9 years ago

Good post, thanks. It's always a chore to trawl these boards looking for the intelligent comments, avoiding the rage that this sort of film seems to elicit.

I say 'this type of film' but this is really one of those films where you can't actually say things like 'this is one of those films' because it is so so very different from anything I've seen before.

So, while I'm grateful for the time and effort you put in to explaining why you liked it so much, I've got to say that I don't actually share your views on it. The visual treat of watching this is undeniable, and while it was quite hard work to shift my way of seeing it to do as you suggest (ie just wash over me, take it in as it is etc), I did do that.

This was my second time of seeing it, and it's stunning, mesmerising, really an outstanding piece of work in terms of the cinematography and editing, but in the end, I just find it almost immediately forgettable. So far from coming back to it again and again and rethinking it constantly, on my second viewing it was like seeing it for the first time, because nothing had stuck with me. I'm not one of those to bemoan the lack of characterisation, plot, substance etc, but what I did find was that in the end it lacked ... significance, it lacked impact.

For me at least that's the case, but as I say, I'm grateful to have had such a clear explanation of why it matters for you. I just don't agree.

[–] adr5500 9 years ago

Thanks for the kind words, and for offering your opinion in a civilized way as well. As for the film being forgettable and lacking impact, I can understand how one may feel that way after pondering it for a while. For me, the film excels at evoking feeling from within, rather than imparting it upon me. As weird as it sounds, you calling it "forgettable" actually rings true with me as well. Other than when I've just finished the film, it's rather difficult for me to recall or think back to any specific scene or moment from the movie. Instead, I can only remember the movie in large, vaguely shaped portions. For example, I can remember the general experience and ideas of the introductory portion, the universe/creation portion, the childhood portion, or the afterlife/finale portion. However, I cannot recall many specific scenes in detail at all. Scenes like the boy stealing the dress and throwing it in the river escape my mind completely until I see it again and remember that it ever happened. On the other hand, moments such as the father's outburst at the dinner table are poignant and hard to forget. What I find most interesting is that my recollection of those events differs just as it would if they happened in my real life. I guess that's the result of this film being more of a "first hand experience," if you will.

Well, I tend to get lost in my words whenever I try to explain anything about this film, and I saw a review that summed up what I had felt about the film quite well, in a much more meaningful and succinct way than I ever could: http://7eyes.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/the-tree-of-life-2011/

And if you're more interested in an academic look at this film, I'd recommend this excellent video analysis I stumbled across a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYy8CKj_ZEc

Anyways, thanks for reading my original explanation, and for sharing and explaining your viewpoint as well. I appreciate it.

[–] bear022013-588-696101 9 years ago

Not my idea type of film.All of the aforementioned is well said and I fully comprehend.
Perhaps this quite belongs in a category all to itself as to entertainment.
Let me leave it as such.Good Day all...to your health.

[–] tingkagol 9 years ago

Thread starter is explaining at length why the emperor's new clothes is brilliant.

[–] thanatogenos 7 years ago

Thread starter is explaining at length why the emperor's new clothes is brilliant.

Agreed.
________________________

"I don't know anything about music. In this business, you don't have to." --Elvis Presley

[–] thebe123-484-488327 9 years ago

Loved reading your review.

I believe the film is a personal experience and the best way to watch is in a semi meditative state and just experience it rather than view it for a story or plot.

Each time I seen this film, I felt a tranquility within my being, that everything is all right in the big scheme of things. Part of that is that I go through feelings while viewing of regret in not taking time in my personal life to embrace the most important aspects of the smallest moments, especially in concerns with my family and children.

From the first time I viewed it, I wished it came out twenty years ago. It was that life changing of an experience for me.

For people who don't get that experience, well it is what it is and I can only hope there is a film out there for such people that delivers the same feeling of transcendence the Tree of Life delivers for me.

[–] adr5500 9 years ago

The tranquility and transcendence that you're talking about rings true for me as well. No other film has evoked such sublime feelings as this one has, and yes, this movie really changed the way that I looked at the world in terms of just plain beauty. And I never realized it until I saw it mentioned by some review I read, but this film oozes transcendentalism. Yes, as in the 19th century philosophical movement. I read up about Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Nature", and it feels as if Malick had written it himself. I think the reason this film is so great at evoking that "feeling of transcendence", as you put it, is because of how closely the film follows a transcendentalist doctrine.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]