themanwithnoname said:
Reasonable said:
themanwithnoname said:
Reasonable said:
themanwithnoname said:
Reasonable said:
themanwithnoname said:
Never will understand the praise for The Tree of Life. Images and symbolism does not a movie make. |
Says who? I see no problem with that.
|
Have you actually seen this film? Yeah, I understood what Malick was going for, but it just doesn't work. The family story does not warrant the scale of the universe story (if we're even calling those "stories" by the way) and that's not even mentioning the fact that you had Penn saying afterwards that he really had no idea why he was in the film at all, a point I wholeheartedly agree with him on.
|
Yeah I've seen it. I thought it was pretty excellent. I'd note everyone of us and our families live and die against the backdrop of the Universe. Malick I'd argue was simply counterpointing this fact explicitly in the film. Like 2001 I'd say it's more concerned with asking questions than answering them - which is fine because we have no answers against that backdrop. Really it was a visual poem, much like 2001, where the actors where there to provide certain aspects of humanity but never to truly have a normal narrative nor arc.
My point is images and symbolism are perfectly fine for a film (maybe not a movie if you want to dive into the cinematic equivilent of "hardcore" vs "casual") - not every film sure, but for some it's no problem. Look at the work of David Lynch with Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, the core of those films is built of nothing by images and symbols and metaphors we're asked as the audience to first decode then apply to the film to derive a view of its meaning (at least our view of its meaning).
|
So you might as well be stating that any film can shoehorn some universe sequences into its narrative because we all live and die against the backdrop of the universe. I get the idea of the universe sequence, but for me it doesn't work because I didn't care about the family arc all that much and certainly not to the degree that would make the sprawling universe plus dinosaurs scenes fit in. I have no intention of watching David Lynch's films (for that very reason) aside from Dune, which I don't think anybody would say is his best work, so I won't bother commenting on it. I will freely admit that I watched The Tree of Life blindly, not knowing what it was going into it, but I still manage to grasp what it was Malick was going for, and I still don't think it all comes together as well as he and a lot of other people think it does.
|
The point I'm making is it's fine for you to say you don't like films that are nothing but images and symbols but you can't claim they can't be as a fact. TBH most critical views would be against you. Most films that are considered timeless classics are built more on images and symbolism than standard narratives and character - i.e. you were making the mistake of stating your personal view as FACT. Something I find particularly annoying on the internet.
If everyone thought Tree of Life was amazing I'd be amazed. Of course some people won't like it, nor should they feel they have to. But plenty do and critically it was well received as a work of art.
|
I thought it would be understood from my first sentence about me not understanding the praise it gets that I was speaking from opinion there. I'm well aware there are films considered timeless classics built on symbols and images, but I really don't see how I was trying to pass off my opinion as fact. *shrugs* But whatever, I'll keep out of this thread as I appear to have done more harm than good.
|
Hey sorry - didnt' mean it as a slam. I just took the statement "images and symbolism do not a movie make" to be a claim.
Personally I'd fight for your right to have your opinion, so by all means voice it. I guess I just missread your post (problem with English being so damn flexible a launguage online).
