Why it should be 'Tree of Life'

For the first time in ages, a true landmark is in the running for Best Picture

Why it should be 'Tree of Life'

A nice distillation of the micro/macro theme running through "The Tree of Life"

Credit: Fox Searchlight Pictures

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

When the nominations for this year's Academy Awards were announced two weeks ago, there was one Best Picture nominee that yielded a great sigh of relief from me. It was less that I felt it was deserving (it unquestionably is, but to quote "Unforgiven," deserve's got nothing to do with it when it comes to the Oscars) than the fact that I was actually going to have something to passionately champion.

The line-up that was settling into place until that time, I have to say, was lackluster. I mean, I think "Midnight in Paris" is delightful. I'm incredibly happy for Martin Scorsese and his personal ode in "Hugo." "The Help" really did affect me emotionally when I saw it in August. "The Artist" is charming. But none of it is really enough for me. Elsewhere, "War Horse," well, I don't really have any strong feelings on it. And "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" fit like a square peg in a round hole for me. "Moneyball" was really the closest I could have come to having a rally cry, but it still wasn't on the proper echelon for me.

So to hear not just Terrence Malick's name called as Best Director, but "The Tree of Life" for Best Picture, as well -- let's just say I was so pleased to have "my" horse in the race (because we all know "Margaret" wasn't going to come close).

With that in mind, I watched the film for a third time Sunday night as preparation for the upcoming fifth-annual "top 10 shots of the year" column. (Yes! It's coming! OMG!) And I settled into its rhythms easily and naturally, finding every level of added nuance I expected to discover on repeat viewings, the surround sound cranked up, the visual and aural experience of the film as glorious as ever.

I've written about "The Tree of Life" twice now, both times at In Contention's former space. The first was a day-after consideration during a jury duty lunch break that noted a desire to revisit and further consider. But I wanted to get some thoughts out as the film had just played Cannes and was very much the talk of the cinephile world for a few days. (And all these months later, I'm so happy Fox Searchlight had that handful of screenings in New York and Los Angeles immediately following the Cannes bow, fearlessly opening all the flood gates.)

Related

Want More...

Academy Awards?
  • Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

The second piece came 10 days later, after a second viewing and with the particulars of the film firmly in my head, its imperfections fully considered and noted, its lovely thematic strokes coming across appropriately soft yet not maddeningly nebulous. I left the film then and knew it would rank rather high on whatever my year-end collective of 2011's best films might be. And I watched it take on its own life, first in the marketplace, then on home video and finally, on the awards circuit as one of the most laureled films of the year.

On that score, it's worth pointing out that "The Tree of Life" is second only to Best Picture-frontrunner "The Artist" when it comes to critics' Best Film prizes. Just looking at the ones we've curated over the last several months (and I'm sure we've missed a few), "The Artist" has a whopping 15 wins. "The Tree of Life" has eight, while "The Descendants" has seven. "Hugo" and "Drive" each have two. It doesn't mean anything because critics don't vote for Oscars, but it's indicative, as always, of a more thoughtful place in which the Oscar race should probably be.

Of course, the critics were always going to be the most likely champions of the film, but I was nevertheless surprised it stood out that much along the circuit. And perhaps revelatory of the faith I have, I still expected both the film and Malick to come up short on January 24.

I recognize that "The Tree of Life" has fierce detractors. Some want to tell the "it's a screen saver" joke for the hundredth time or act like the 15-minute effects sequence at the tail end of its first act is superfluous when it's THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE, but that's okay. Malick and his work (for which, I should note, I'm not full-blown in the tank) have weathered that kind of criticism for years.

Others still will take umbrage with Judeo-Christian imagery and considerations that run like a current through the film. I get how that kind of thing will chafe, but it misses the point. This film deals in micro/macro, and those elements are important to that construct. A religious family's story is bound to be told in these kinds of strokes, but the film itself is ultimately much more universal, even in its purposefully vague "afterlife" interpretation at film's end.

But "The Tree of Life" is mainly important for one reason, and it's been my line on the movie since day one, so I'll reiterate it now: It makes us feel small. Art can be about countless things. It can be emotional celebration, it can be personal expression and it can paint a portrait of a time and place. At its best, though, it contextualizes. And when you boil everything down, "The Tree of Life" is the ultimate contextualization.

So say what you will about it, but no other film in this year's Best Picture line-up sports a density such as this. Often films working on this kind of rhythm don't even make it to the big dance, and indeed, if not for the allowance of more than five Best Picture nominees, I'm betting Terrence Malick would have been our lone director nominee this year. (We can't be sure of this, of course.)

But that's all beside the point. It did make the cut. It's there to be championed. There's an opportunity present in phase two of the Oscar season that is all too rare: A true landmark is in the running for Best Picture. And not to push the issue on AMPAS members too much, but if you're even thinking about voting for it, you probably should. You'll feel really good about yourself in the morning.

I promise.

For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!

Trending Now on HitFix Boards

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 77 Comments
  • Tumblr_linbqgiznz1qz9qooo1_r1_500_talkback_profile

    Dooby

    Tree of Life and Moneyball are the only Best Picture nominees I have seen that are deserving of the title. (Haven't seen The Artist or Extremely Loud) If either miraculously won, I would be happy to say the least.

    February 7, 2012 at 4:18PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Pahedi Moneyball a landmark in cinema? Really ? Comparing The Tree of Life to Moneyball is beyond my understanding.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:22PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley I think by "deserving of the title," Dooby just means deserving of "Best Picture," not the landmark thing. Though correct me if I'm wrong.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:35PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart I 110% agree with Dooby. Also, Dooby is the best name ever.

      February 7, 2012 at 11:42PM EST
  • Yeah-yeah-yeahs_f8p9_talkback_profile

    LaHaine

    Yea I'm really happy Tree of Life got nominated too. I agree, it would fill that sole director spot if there were only five best picture nominees (City of God and Mulholand Dr. comes to mind). At first I thought Moneyball would fill that sole best pic. nomination based on the number of below the line nominations it got, but I think The Help would fill that spot.

    February 7, 2012 at 4:28PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Conor

    I wish I could agree with what you say here, but The Tree of Life really didn't work for me. If the effects sequence is "THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE" then I think the movie's pretty pointless. The idea that we're small isn't new to me, and I don't think the movie deals with it in a way that's all that insightful.

    I'd totally love if it won BP though. That'd be just too crazy, and even if I wasn't moved by the film, I'm totally sincere when I say I admire it.

    February 7, 2012 at 4:36PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley "The idea that we're small isn't new to me..."

      It's a vital theme, perhaps not "new to you," but necessary regardless.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:38PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      SamuelM And the creation sequence isn't only about saying that we're small. It's about a whole bunch of other things too; like processes of death and rebirth, the continuity and (to be somewhat trite) the 'oneness' of life and the universe, and spiritual questions of meaning.

      For me, what would simply be a story about growing up in Texas in the 50's (albeit a stunningly emotionally real story) becomes transcendent because of that sequence.

      February 7, 2012 at 7:37PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    SCOTT

    "The Tree of Life" is entirely POINT--LESS.

    February 7, 2012 at 4:49PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley I wish you could think more than you apparently choose to.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:09PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    panickyintheuk

    I could not agree with you more, on pretty much every single point. Thanks for writing this, I've tried to explain my feelings about the film before and I just ended up waffling. I can basically point to this and say "here, this is what I think, except coherent".

    February 7, 2012 at 4:49PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

    DylanS

    The inherent issue I have with the film is that it's too long (and I know how that sounds). I don't have any issues with a film being long in and of itself. But it needs to have a great deal of plot to keep you engaged in what's going on. Many have made the suggestion that "Well, any film that begins with the creation of the universe is going to be long". I hate that talking point, because that is only a 15 minute segment at the very beginning of the film, while the rest of the time we're in 1950's Waco with the family storyline (I hesitate to even call it that). That part makes up roughly 2 hours of the film, and it becomes tedious and repetitive rather quickly, without any character arcs or narrative progression playing out. I'm sure it's Malick's intentions to keep the film narratively slim, that's never been his concern, by why then does the film need to be so incredibly long. Go back to "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven", both much much shorter than "The Tree of Life", and you see a very concise director who covers all the ground he needs to without overextending himself. "The Tree of Life" would work much better at a similar length. There are many moments where Malick's undeniable genius shine through, but he is an artist given the free range to indulge as much as he pleases, and he has abused that privilege.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:07PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley I never once feel The Tree of Life's length. So I can't see your point, personally.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 I would agree with Dylans. Well, not the length. But it's more about the pacing with me.

      I'm sorry, but you can present an image or present a sequence or a scene and let it hang without having it overstay it's welcome by a good 15-20 seconds and STILL have it be be very effective. I felt like this occurred many times during the film. That's probably my biggest beef with it.

      Because honestly, I DO think it's a weighty film that has something to say. I thought it was beautiful. I thought it was well-acted. And its' the kind of film that I would have no issue with it winning. I also eagerly anticipate a second viewing. But I understand Dylans (or other peoples) issues with length and/or pacing.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:24PM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS Kris: I find that hard to believe, but if that's the case, I envy you, because I do think it's a rich and beautiful film, but one that gets very repetitive and I wish I could get past that issue. (I'm sure the more viewings the less I'll feel that way)

      JJ1: I couldn't agree more.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:50PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley It's true. I relish the atmosphere. And I stand by the spirit if not the text of Ebert's quote: "No good film is too long and no bad film is too short."

      February 7, 2012 at 5:53PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      thekingbulletin I feel the length of "Ghost Protocol" more so than "The Tree of Life."

      February 7, 2012 at 6:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 ah, good quote, Kris! My pal, Kev, refers to that quote all the time. I always thought he'd made it up. :)

      February 7, 2012 at 6:11PM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS I think that Ebert quote oversimplifies it. Yes, a truly perfect film is just the right length, but here are incredible films that I think are either overlong or, in some cases, too short. It is a clever quote though ;)

      February 7, 2012 at 6:19PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley Which is why I said the spirit, if not the text. Which, to be perfectly honest, is how I believe he meant it to be interpreted.

      February 7, 2012 at 6:49PM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS absolutely

      February 7, 2012 at 7:10PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Cde. The Tree of Life doesn't have a great deal of 'plot' to keep you engaged, but it's full of interesting ideas and feelings. Many films with loads of 'plot' get boring to me fast because they have nothing worthwhile to say, but TTOL keeps me engaged.

      February 7, 2012 at 7:55PM EST
  • Dsc00002_talkback_profile

    loyal_mehnert

    Tree of Life was the first Best Picture nominee I saw this year some 9 months ago and it's the one Best Picture nominee I'll remember years from now.

    For shelf life alone, it's worthy of a Best Picture win. But it's also the best film of the 9 nominees and arguably the best film of 2011.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:07PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Tr

    I couldn't agree more. The Tree of Life is the deserving film for Best Picture, but we all know it won't win.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:12PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew Starr

    "For the first time in ages, a true landmark is in the running for Best Picture"

    There Will Be Blood I thought was pretty landmark. Mulholland Drive, Moulin Rouge and Thin Red Line as well.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:17PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley I don't think "There Will Be Blood" is the landmark many on the web would like it to be. (I think it's masterful, mind you.) "Mulholland Drive" wasn't even nominated. "Moulin Rouge!" doesn't really reach the level I'm talking about.

      "The Thin Red Line" is, for me, one of the best films of all time, but again, I don't think it will be viewed the way "The Tree of Life" will. The only other film of recent memory that is a "landmark" along the lines of what I'm talking about is "Avatar," for completely different reasons (and it's not a film that really challenges the language of the medium, so it doesn't quite reach my point).

      It's subjective, I suppose, but none of the films you mention register what I'm talking about.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:25PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr Ok. I read the article and don't think you described what you meant by landmark so I was not certain. Still am not entirely sure although now I have an idea.

      February 7, 2012 at 7:06PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley In a nutshell, something that transcends the medium.

      February 7, 2012 at 7:27PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart I second Moulin Rouge as being a landmark pic. I thought Titanic was, too.

      February 7, 2012 at 11:45PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart And I'm going to go ahead and throw in The Social Network. My definition of landmark probably doesn't fit yours. But all four (including TOL) are landmark films according to me :)

      February 7, 2012 at 11:49PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    carbo25

    What "afterlife interpretation at film's end"? There was none. That scene on the beach at the end was Sean Penn's character reconciling with his father and his family, but that happened IN HIS MIND. That's why immediately after that scene ends they cut to him standing around perplexed in front of his office building and ends with him smiling. (All of which I found to be both hilarious and idiotic)

    February 7, 2012 at 5:34PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley That's why I said it was purposefully vague. It's also why I put the word "afterlife" in quotes, because that's what it has been considered by so many, making it an easy shorthand.

      I wish you could flesh out your thoughts without resorting to name-calling directed at the film, though. Perhaps you have none worth fleshing out?

      Your comments and Scott's are indicative of the kind of reckless, inconsiderate "criticism" that unfortunately represents the bulk of arguments against the film. I long for educated discourse from people with beef against it, but I rarely get it. It's easier to just dismiss something, call it "idiotic," feel better about yourself for having blasted it and move on.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:39PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      carbo25 I feel that movies are/should be prose, not poetry.
      It can even be nonlinear, it can have its themes and messages, and it can be vague and ambiguous at times. But when a film is 100% vague because that's the purpose of it, you have to be able to respect my decision to call a movie pretentious and pandering if I find that there is nothing to take from the film

      February 7, 2012 at 5:58PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley I don't find the film on the whole "vague." I think it's rather clear for the most part. It's just not definitive. And that, actually, is a virtue to me.

      I also don't think a film should be so rigidly defined. It's a medium. So is literature. But thankfully, long ago, they didn't place boundaries on what literature can and can't be, so we were ultimately gifted with poetry.

      But I appreciate your thoughts. You're of course free to call it a pretentious film.

      February 7, 2012 at 6:08PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Joe7827

    Nicely written, Kris. I was actually pretty happy for you when I found out it got nominated.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    SJG

    Hey Kris, are you going to do your Top 10 Shots column this year?

    February 7, 2012 at 5:51PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      SJG I keed, I keed.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:51PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley lol

      February 7, 2012 at 5:52PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 love that, lol

      February 7, 2012 at 6:13PM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS haha. I actually rolled my eyes at this until I read your follow up.

      February 7, 2012 at 8:34PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JJ1

    My rankings/thoughts on the 9:

    Hugo - I have issues with some of the pacing early on, but overall, a glorious film that moved me more than any other this year.
    The Help - best ensemble acting of the year. And I think the film did well balancing all the characters and the weighty nature of the film.
    The Artist - What can I say, I was charmed.
    Moneyball - smart, funny, moving.
    The Tree of Life - I spoke about my issues with it in another thread (pacing). But it's a gorgeous, well-acted, well-meaning film that I respect a lot.
    War Horse - manipulative as Hell, but I fell for it anyway. It's a beauty, as well.
    Midnight in Paris - I liked it, but expected to love it.
    Extremely Loud - great performances, a bit long, made me depressed.
    The Descendants - highly overrated. I still shake my head at the accolades it's received.

    February 7, 2012 at 6:03PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    martin

    Huh. So I guess you weren't one of the thousands that walked out or asked for their money back.... ;-)

    February 7, 2012 at 6:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Danny

    It would be thrilling if Tree of Life wins Best Picture. Certainly it would be my first choice too if I had a ballot. It is a true masterpiece amongst a group of great/good/fine movies.
    But I will be happy too if The Artist wins as expected (my second choice on this particular ballot, closely followed by Hugo). I find it absolutely delightful and moving, even on second/third viewings on a tiny ocean-hopping airplane seat screen.

    February 7, 2012 at 6:26PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    fsff

    Tree of Life is not the only landmark in the running.

    February 7, 2012 at 6:30PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Kieran Scarlett I love The Tree of Life in spite of its flaws. Regardless of my opinion of it, you can't really have the Best Picture race without it. I sort of liken it to (and bear with me for a moment) "Apocalypse Now," in terms of a landmark film that I'm kind of right in the middle of, in terms of opinions. But, my tepid response aside, the Best Picture race of 1979 would have looked asinine without "Apocalypse Now," much in the same way that "The Tree of Life" is essential to any movie narrative of 2011.

      To me, it is the only landmark in the running. It's not a foolproof test, but how does "The Tree of Life" hold up to the best of recent past years? Look at last year's Best Picture nominees, handily one of the best rosters in recent memory, for scope and ambition alone. "The Tree of Life" doesn't feel weak paired against those films at all. Same with 2007, another strong year. "The Artist," a film I enjoy, would have looked embarrassingly limp in last year's best picture race. Ditto "The Help." Ditto "The Descendants." Ditto "Midnight in Paris," frankly.
      "The Tree of Life," love it or hate it, will be studied and talked about for years. The only person who will be talking about "The Descendants" or "The Artist" in twenty years will be Oscar prognosticators as they assemble some comparison chart.

      February 7, 2012 at 6:48PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart ... the other one being? Yup, nothing.

      February 7, 2012 at 11:48PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    HoustonRufus

    I agree with you overall, Kris. Tree of Life sits at number two on my personal year end list. It's easily my favorite of the films nominated. There are parts of the film I still struggle with. I will always wonder about and question certain choices Malick made. Initially, those hesitations turned me off. But a few viewings later, I have come to love that I will never be able to fully embrace or understand all of the film. I totally agree with Kris' point that film shouldn't be limited to any particular form or narrative. For me the film works more as an experience, a meditation. It feels more like a museum piece or gallery film at times--and I'm ok with that.

    In some ways, the film and Malick remind me of modern painters I studied. They believed the very medium they were using could express certain universal truths. Those ideas are outdated now--the idea that art can save all, express all. And even if I find such ideas too romantic in an age when we've come to emphasize individual experience, I find Malick's reach and conviction in his art profoundly moving. However vague the film is to some, it struck very personal chords with me, in form and substance.

    I understand the misgivings. I still have some of them. Tree of Life will always be a sort of imperfect masterwork, in my opinion. (and I know that word is overused) But Tree of Life has provided images and underscored questions I'll contemplate for the rest of my life. No film, not even my number 1 choice for the year, did that for me.

    February 7, 2012 at 6:48PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chris138 Imperfect masterwork is the way I'd describe as well.

      February 7, 2012 at 8:59PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JLPatt

    I 100% share your enthusiasm for "The Tree of Life" (although I find it very interesting it took you three tries to get there), but I can't agree it's "the first landmark in ages" to be nominated for Best Picture. I would have to mention "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" from 2007, and most recently "The Social Network."

    Then again, I'm not sure your definition of "landmark."

    February 7, 2012 at 6:58PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley It didn't take me three tries to "get there." What are you trying to say? I was on board from day one, but it's been a growing experience each and every time. If you think you soaked up all this film has to offer on one viewing, you didn't soak up anything at all.

      See my replies to Matthew about what is and isn't a "landmark" in my book. Though "The Lord of the Rings," I might give you.

      February 7, 2012 at 7:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt I didn't mean the comment as a slight. And I'm certain I didn't soak up all the film had to offer from one viewing. But I can also say that I had no reservations or misgivings about the film from that first viewing. I was instantly, unabashedly in love.

      February 8, 2012 at 12:24AM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley As was I.

      February 8, 2012 at 1:54AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Nicolas Mancuso

    After a second viewing yesterday, I like the film a lot more than I did the first time... but I still have trouble figuring out what I think of it. In many ways, it's undeniably a masterpiece -- Malick's attention to detail is astonishing; the little things he notices really hit you emotionally and ring so true. The film is also incredibly accurate in the way we remember our childhood: the joy, the sadness, the parental figures that are so distant yet so essential, the way the summer seems to last forever, nothing but a series of endless formless days spent outside. And that's not to mention the absolutely staggering cinematography; any frame of this film could be hung on the wall of a museum. Plus, the actors -- Pitt, Chastain, all the boys -- give such exquisitely rendered, remarkably lived-in performances. Each one of them says more in a single reaction than many actors say in a whole film. I truly feel like I know this family. I love them and am invested in their lives.

    BUT, there are many elements that just don't work. The voice-overs are out of control. The Sean Penn parts are pointless and should have been edited out, or used more meaningfully. And, as beautiful and breathtaking as it is, the origins-of-the-universe sequence is... well, I don't know if it connects the Texas narrative to the larger we-are-inconsequential theme as organically as it could. This is a film that defies a critic's letter grade. It's such a heartfelt, complex, abstract work of art that it requires a more complex and detailed response. Indeed, it's the kind of film that you may have a different opinion of each time you watch it.

    All I know is that, for all its strengths and weaknesses, "The Tree of Life" is my favourite film in the Best Picture line-up this year, and perhaps my #1 of the year. It's a film I look forward to revisiting again and again. And it looks amazing on Blu-Ray.

    February 7, 2012 at 7:01PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      HoustonRufus VERY well said in my opinion. You got to the heart of much of what I love and also what still gives me pause.

      February 7, 2012 at 7:11PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 Bingo (Nicolas and Houston). I can't wait to re-visit ToL again, as well. I know I will. And that happens with "great" films, or even "challenging" films. You know how many times I've seen 'The Aviator' or 'Gangs of New York' or 'The Hours' or 'Mulholland Drive' etc etc? Like ToL, those are not perfect films. Sections annoy me; challenge me. But there's something about them that makes me want to pop them into the dvd player and observe/feel all over again. Each viewing gives me something ... more.

      February 7, 2012 at 8:59PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Marc R

    I had so many issues with this film at first that it's pretty funny that i now find it to be a near-masterpiece. One of the things i love about the film is that the family scenes are filmed w/ such beauty and clarity that it forces me to consider the beauty in my life as well. I find that "TOL" does well to make us remember how beautiful life can be, even the simple moments like lying next to your mother on a sunny day or playing outside at twilight. However, i still feel that the film is not totally complete. The Sean Penn segment needed to be there, i think, but it wasn't fleshed out enough for me. I wanted more narrative from that period. Just a little more might've gone a long way. I wish the "big bang" sequence could've been implemented into the film in a different way, but i can't really think of another way to do it so i don't really have a problem with it. As it stands, it's an astonishing piece of work that will certainly live on for a long time. I hold out no hope that it will win either picture or director, but I am praying w/ all my might that it wins best cinematography. Even more than picture and director, "TOL" is a god among insects in that category

    February 7, 2012 at 8:14PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Marc R

    Oh and i recently bought the criterion of Thin Red Line and I'm, very glad I did. It's one of the better criterions imo (great cover too). However, i have a few problems with it. As ambitious as it is, Malick holds back by not really showing the viewpoint of the japanese forces, which hinders the film's impact for me. And some of the narrations kinda baffle me. Ex: "oh my soul, let me be in you now..." Still, it's a brilliant film

    February 7, 2012 at 8:29PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Mark Johnson

    It's been Hugo or The Tree of Life for me all year. Would love nothing more than to see one of the two pull it off. C'mon AMPAS! Grow some balls!!

    February 7, 2012 at 8:58PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JMC

    To me, Tree of Life, Moneyball, or The Descendants would all be worthy winners. I can't remember a year where I was actually rooting for, or would be okay with, winning best picture. On a personal level, The Descendants would probably get my vote. It worked for me perfectly, even Sid's portrayal, as reminiscent of some of my time with the youth of Hawai'i. Moneyball is just flawlessly done in my eye. Tree of Life is epic, somehow flawed, but somehow, I still wake up some days and think it's perfect and amazing. Call me a sucker, but I'd have to vote for The Descendants based on the emotional connection for me. While it has detractors who say things like "the family land story is a distracting subplot," like Kris says of the Tree of Life montage, the family plot IS what The Descendants is all about! Look at the very name of the movie...it's not about finding out your wife is cheating on you, it's about family, his girls, being a father, a husband...

    After all this time, I haven't made it to Midnight in Paris. I find Hugo the worst of the bunch, perhaps just my own sense of detraction from a film I find overhyped. I just found it plodding and amazingly unmagical somehow. I just never connected to it. The Artist is adorable, for sure, but I don't think it's anything special, a film overhyped by cinephiles. In my mind, I always wonder, "Would this film even be nominated if it were made in the silent era?" I'm not so sure.

    The Help is endearing, but I find it a little bit cliche and flat beyond some amazing performances.

    I'm rather fond of "War Horse" and find it deserving of a nomination, not a win. Finally, I actually really do adore "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close." While Horn's character annoys some, I find it an amazing tale of a special needs child dealing with loss. I also thought it was Sandra Bullock's best performance. I've connected with everyone of Daldry's films (even "The Reader"). In that regard, the beauty of film to me is the subjective nature as to how one connects with art and storytelling.

    While many attack the quality of films this year, many of these (and DRIVE) were a great bunch, better than average for me.

    February 7, 2012 at 8:59PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      JMC *My 2nd sentence should say, "I can't remember a year I would be happy with any of three different winners."

      February 7, 2012 at 9:03PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    The Dude

    When I saw TOL in August (I think) I liked it very much, but nowhere near as much as Kris did.

    However, nearly 6 months now and I can't get the movie out of my head, stayed like very few movies do. It really demands a rewatch.

    February 7, 2012 at 9:09PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    eurocheese

    Love this article. This is certainly one of the most unique BP nominees in years (in fact, I can't think of something more out-of-the-box at the moment), and the Academy should be very proud they included it. I will be over the moon if this can pull off a victory, but I'm not putting any money on it.

    February 7, 2012 at 9:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Logan

    I'm in a Malick course right now, and I did not appreciate Tree of Life till we watched his previous films. Watching his progression as a director, writer, and philosopher chronologically I think really lends itself to a stronger understanding and/or appreciation of TOL. What's really special about this film and Malick's work on the whole is he employs the medium of film to philosophize. He's not discussing or teasing out pre-existing philosophical concepts (although Heidegger is clearly an influence), instead he transcends the medium by using it to achieve a greater truth. I think that's what Kris is getting at?

    February 7, 2012 at 11:43PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      HoustonRufus I'd love to be in that course. I should have taken more film classes in school.

      February 8, 2012 at 10:54AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew Starr

    I'm happy that in mid February a Tree of Life post has more comments than any of the Oscar Guide posts. Thank you In Contention community.

    February 8, 2012 at 12:52AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr or beginning of February.

      February 8, 2012 at 12:52AM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley Truth.

      February 8, 2012 at 1:55AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Tom

    The Tree of Life getting director and picture nominations was one of the most pleasant surprises on a nomination morning in a long time. This is one of the few films that has stuck with me long after seeing it. Unfortunately everyone I know that saw this does get the movie.

    Any guesses on what percent of the academy plans on voting for it in picture or director based on your conversations?

    February 8, 2012 at 1:31AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    ideemo

    I'm not afraid to admit I didn't entirely understand the film or the dinosaur part. I plan on watching it again, but honestly, I get a little offended when a lot of people's reaction to "I'm not sure I understood Tree of Life" is something along the lines of "Gee, you must be stupid." That sort of bullshit has unfortunately made me dislike the film a lot more than I do. It's highly obnoxious.

    February 8, 2012 at 9:57AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ideemo BTW, that wasn't really directed at you, Kris.

      February 8, 2012 at 9:58AM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley I understand what you mean. I only get frustrated when a person's response to not clicking with the film is to chastise it for being willfully nebulous. There's nothing wrong with not "getting" a film and stating as much.

      RE: the dinosaur bit, my take is that, amid an entire sequence depicting the stages of evolution, it is indicative of, perhaps, the first act of mercy. A new step in evolution, consideration of fellow living things. And mercy is indicative of the "grace" element of life, which is pitched up as separate from "nature" in the film (which ultimately looks to reconcile them, I feel, as opposed to pitting them against each other).

      February 8, 2012 at 1:35PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      ideemo Yeah, I would never suggest that the film was willfully nebulous. I want to understand the film, I believe that there is something that I'm missing, and I'm willing to see it again to find out.

      And interesting...I've never heard it explained like that before. I'll keep that in mind when I rewatch it. That response made me look forward to seeing it again a lot more than "you're not smart enough to understand it" haha.

      February 10, 2012 at 3:10AM EST
  • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

    Mykill

    I'm so happy that Tree of Life was nominated for best picture, director, and cinematography - it truly deserved those nominations. I'm glad that a film like that has not only been made, but also found a passionate audience.

    With that said, I really can't say that I enjoyed the film that much at all. I definitely appreciated the artistry on display, but I felt like the film kept self-sabotaging itself whenever it started to get a "groove" going. There were little clusters where the film would start a story thread that was easy to get into, and then all of a sudden the film would shift its focus to something else and it made a film that was a little over 2 hours feel like a film that lasted twice as long.

    I think for me it was just TOO MUCH - too much visual stimulation, too much classical music, too much voiceover, etc. that I felt there was no relief or balance to be found. I know it is sacrilege to think this, but I couldn't help but feel that if the film had been trimmed down a bit more (and cut down to about 90 min or so) then it would have been a much more enjoyable film. But that was just me personally, b/c I felt exhausted by the end and wish it had trimmed some of the fat so only the best parts were there. Overall, it is definitely an impressive film for sure, just not one that I have any desire to ever revisit any time soon.

    I'm just curious Kris - have you ever seen Le Quattro Volte? I thought it was a film that had a similar micro/macro thing going on but utilized a less is more approach that I thought was very interesting.

    February 8, 2012 at 1:37PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chris138 Le Quattro Volte... that movie was interesting in theory, and I respect it in that regard, but I thought it was a chore to sit through.

      February 8, 2012 at 11:06PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley Need to see it.

      February 8, 2012 at 11:25PM EST
  • 1
  • 2
Next 77 Comments

About This Blog

Spearheaded by editor Kristopher Tapley, In Contention represents a collective of awards obsessives who comment and reflect upon, muse about and attempt to decipher the Oscar season on a daily basis throughout the year, and especially during the Oscar crunch of the fall. Regular contributors include Guy Lodge, Roth Cornet and Gerard Kennedy.

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention

2011-2012 OSCAR NOMINATIONS

oscarside.jpg

Best Picture

Best Director

Best Actor

Best Actress

Best Supporting Actor

Best Supporting Actress

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Original Screenplay

Best Art Direction

Best Cinematography

Best Costume Design

Best Film Editing

Best Makeup

Best Original Score

Best Original Song

Best Sound Editing

Best Sound Mixing

Best Visual Effects

Best Animated Feature Film

Best Documentary Feature

Best Foreign Language Film

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook