“I have a little bit of catch up to play. The past few days have been sorta nonstop and exhausting, so I didnt feel like putting in the effort to get these done on time. Considered just skipping them, but I actually do have a lot to say about Tree of Life.
The buzz coming back about Tree of Life from Cannes was quite curious indeed. The early report was that there were boos and walk outs at the screening. But then somehow it went on to win the Palm D’or. Strangely enough, having watched the film, I could see how it’d get such strong contradictory reactions. And I hate to say it, but Im on the negative camp.
The approach to the film was interesting. It wasn’t really a through story, just a bunch of images. By images, I mean small scenes, but they weren’t connected in a narrative. It felt more like a moving picture gallery. Frankly, I found the whole thing \m/ boring. I’m sorry, but I like to be told a story, and I didnt grasp one here. Sure, most of the images ran like scenes in any other movie, but there wasn’t a strong connection between them. It was like jumping from one set of events to another without any resolution. It’s exactly the sort of snooty and pretentious feel that does go on to win awards at film festivals.
But here’s the real kicker for where it lost me. Yes, it started off with some images of the family and then a few of the flash foward to one of hte kids as a grown up. Then, the next 45 minutes was just images of nature with classical music playing. Kinda reminiscent of 2001, but far longer and with less point. IMDB trivia tells me that apparently Terrance Malick had wanted to do a film about the origins of life. This is sorta the remnants of that idea. Bo-ring. In all honesty, I fell asleep for a good half hour or so during this, drifting in and out of consciousness, only to find that nothing had really progressed). Again, the type that wins film snob awards.
I hear tell that Malick has a 6 hour long director’s cut in mind. Please dear God dont ever make me hafta sit thru it.
Tree of Life – \m/