Melancholia & Tree of Life - WTF?

I love the cinematography...Nothing else....Is this the movie about nature or parent-son relationship?

__________________
Special of the day History of the day

Nature if you want to put it that way

Welcome to MoFo, mate.


I haven't seen Tree Of Life, but it seems to have had a mixed response. Critics call it masterful, but a lot of non critics find it pretentious and that it doesn't really have much to say. To be fair, Mallick's other films have fallen under the same criticism, so this isn't exactly new. I'm in no rush to watch it though.

Cheers man, yeah, sometimes it's a little beyond my comprehension why these 'Arty' films get so much recognition.

True. I hated Tree Of Life. Days Of Heaven is still the best Malick film, imho.

It's not that you're stupid, as by the way you articulate yourself, it's clear you have some brains. I think it more comes down to how much exposure you have had to cinematic language and whether or not you look for and understand the subtext of film.

This isn't something that is required to enjoy film, but it's something can can enrich and expand your enjoyment.

That said, some films are all about their subtext, using abstract or obtuse narrative and imagery to get the meaning across, expecting the viewer to do a bit of work to really penetrate the work.

David Lynch's Mulholland Drive is a superb example of this style, and is a film that many people tend to dislike on first watch. Once folks go back to the film after seeing it for the first time, something tend to "click" in the viewers mind and the layers of subtext and allegory begin to emerge. Instead of a collection of random visceral scenes, we begin to see a brilliant tapestry of metaphor with clear intent.

Personally, I find these types of films more rewarding and engaging than something like Harry Potter, which I also love. If I want to just kick back and be entertained, I will pop Mr. Potter in and have a fun romp. But if I really want to think and engage, I go for a dense, difficult work that takes some extra effort to understand.

Malik is a painterly director. He is very calculated and he puts a TON of time into creating his frames and scenes. He never phones it in.

I am not the site's Malik expert, though. Perhaps Holden or someone like that will step in and comment. I have seen his stuff, and I like it (especially Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line), but he isn't one of my favorites to re-watch a lot.

__________________

I'd say reading Roger Ebert's epic essay on the cinematic language of 2001: A Space Odyssey would be a good place to start. I wrote a review on how both that movie and The Tree of Life operate in the same vein- that is, exploiting the viewer's reaction to cinema and playing around with it. They're not made simply to be viewed and enjoyed (even though the cinematography is incredible) only, but to also function as more of a discussion point on things like the Kuleshov Effect. That's why critics like like it and viewers don't (usually). If you can't appreciate what the director is doing cinematographically and philosophically (something simply reading some criticism on those films could fix), there is little if any value to either of those films.

On Melancholia, I didn't see it, so I can't comment.

Ah, but you are illustrating it, right here. The films are challenging, and challenging art can be good art, I think more often than art that isn't challenging can be good art. These are the films that leave an indelible impression on us, instead of simply fading into memory, never to be considered or approached again.