Search This Blog

Showing posts with label alexandre desplat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alexandre desplat. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

The Tree of Life (4/5 Stars)


He’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun
But he knows not what it means
Knows not what it means
When I say….
In Bloom, Nirvana

“The Tree of Life,” is a very pretty movie. I admit I didn’t quite understand it, but that still won’t stop me from suggesting other people see it. I would say it is worth seeing just because it exists. Sure, it is probably a good idea to take some time to think about it or read an article or two about the meaning in order to draw your own conclusions. That is something I myself will attempt to do at the end of this review. But I don’t think you have to in order to enjoy the movie. If there is one thing about this movie I can definitely say, it is that it is not the least bit preachy or confrontational. The movie is rated PG. It contains gorgeous images that are flashed onto the screen at a dime a dozen pace. It is lovingly directed, acted, and edited with great attention to artistic detail and is told in a calming, meditative, and above all, spiritual way. There was once this very similar movie called “2001: A Space Odyssey.” It too involved an incredible scope of vision that intertwined the eons of history with a visual odyssey set to an amazing score. Sure it was kind of long at times and had a meaning that was kind of hard to grasp, but the children of the sixties had a good way of dealing with that problem. They got high before they saw the movie. Now I’m not saying that you should do that before seeing “The Tree of Life.” I’m just saying I heard it worked for “2001: A Space Odyssey.” No, I wasn’t high when I saw the movie. I was tipsy on white wine, which is totally fine with Jesus.   

The director of “The Tree of Life,” is none other than Terrance Malick. He has made five movies since 1973. Rounded out, that is about one movie per decade. It shows. A Malick movie is something that always looks like the creator took the time to make as perfect as possible. In most other movies, there will perhaps be a scene or a single shot of great beauty that will catch your eye. Those movies will almost always take the time to really linger on the shot and milk it for all its worth. This happens about every 30 seconds in a Malick movie. If you watch the trailer and then the movie, you will notice that most of the images in the trailer happen within the first half hour of the movie. There is plenty more where that came from and it is just as good. The cinematographer’s name is Emmanuel Lubezki and the composer’s name is Alexandre Desplat. You should remember those names, as it is very likely that they will be hoisting Oscars come next February.

The plot of the story is unconventional to the extreme. After a brief prologue concerning several family members hearing about the death of a 19-year-old son and brother, the movie takes a detour to show the creation of the universe, from the big bang to the formation of the Earth. Evolution takes over in a series of montages that could be described as a biologist’s wet dream. This includes dinosaurs. Finally a boy named Jack is born in 1950s suburbia. At this point, we finally get characters. There is the mother played by Jessica Chastain, the father played by Brad Pitt, and three boys played by Hunter McCracken (“Jack”), Laramie Eppler, and Tye Sheridan. The story of the family is told through vignettes of specific details. The camera flows through the house and surrounding neighborhood in a curious and wonderful way. Most of the time it doesn’t matter what scene came just before or what scene comes right after. When the people speak it has the tendency to break the spell, so most of time the characters don’t speak, or when they do it is whispered in a voiceover or replaced by the lyrical score. In a way, the actors are even really acting. They are more like models in a moving Norman Rockwell painting. The main conflict in the movie is Jack’s relationship with his domineering father, a strict disciplinarian who insists that his sons call him sir, do their chores very perfectly, and learn how to fight him, etc. He is a bully but is deliberately shown as having the belief that he is doing his son’s a service in getting them ready for a hard world. He speaks enviously of neighbors with more money and his failed dreams of being a musician. He has it all figured out for his kids though, that is until the end of the movie where something happens and he doesn’t anymore. Life goes on and the family moves away from their idyllic house in the suburbs. We then see Jack all grown up as Sean Penn. The movie loses reality as Sean Penn looks like he’s taking a journey into the wilderness until we see that he is meeting up with a crowd that contains his already dead parents. They all walk around a big lake together to the tune of a Gregorian chant. Then the movie and the song end with several Amens. I read Ebert’s review and he suggested that the last couple of scenes were some kind of afterlife. I’m going to take his word for it. (Although if heaven we’re walking around a lake for all eternity, I think I would rather be reincarnated.)

So okay, what the hell does all of it mean? I’ll take my best shot at it. We might as well start with the quote at the beginning of the movie. It says “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”  It is from the biblical book of Job. For those not acquainted, the book of Job is the story of a good person who has many bad things happen to him. Wallowing in self-pity and scorning life, Job is joined by three friends who insist that since God is just, Job must have done something to deserve his situation. Job disagrees. He does not lay blame at God’s feet nor ask for anything back but simply asks for an explanation. If he is guilty than what did he do? This conversation goes on for a while until finally God shows up to put in his two cents. And here is where it gets interesting. God doesn’t explain himself. Instead he chides Job for having the gall to even raise the question. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” God asks. The point being that men do not have the knowledge or experience to understand what God is doing nor does God have the duty to answer the questions of his own creations. The book of Job is part of a series of books in the Bible called the Books of Wisdom (others are Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). These are kind of amazing books because in essence they take an agnostic view of God. They don’t deny the existence of God, but they also quite explicitly reject the idea that God can be fully understood. Ecclesiastes is particularly skeptical. It declares everybody to be wrong and everything done on Earth to be in vain. All of this just goes to show that no matter what your beliefs are, there is a book somewhere in the bible that will support them.  

My best guess is that “The Tree of Life,” is a deeply spiritual agnostic movie. It juxtaposes the creation of the universe over billions of years with the story of how young Jack’s father was really mean to him for seemingly no reason. It assumes that they are connected somehow in some greater plan but does not explain why or how. In other words, a connection between the different parts in this movie is something the audience has to take on faith. Either you believe it or you don’t. The ending of this movie drew giggles in the theater that I was in. I can understand that because I saw the movie and I can attest that it doesn’t make logical sense. But such is spirituality and I believe Malick gets it at least that much right by not trying to prove anything. It is a mistake I would think to look to biblical prophecies or miracles as definite proof of God or his will because basing belief of God on tangible things isn’t exactly faith. It is more of a pseudoscience. In essence, faith is about being presented with a legitimate mystery, attributing it to God, and accepting that you won’t be able to understand it. Science on the other hand is based on the assumption that with enough work everything is knowable and if there is a God, then how that works is knowable as well. The two are completely incompatible no matter what anybody says. Both points of view have their downsides when it comes to living life though. The linchpin in this movie is the conflict within the Brad Pitt character. He is struggling to master a world he doesn’t understand and ruinously brings that fight into his home instead of accepting the mystery and being thankful and enjoying the life that has been given to him. 

I don’t know, maybe.



For those interested in spending more than one restless night thinking about these sorts of things, may I suggest the Coen Brothers movie, “A Serious Man.” It is about a Jewish physics professor who wants a decent explanation as to why his life is turning to shit, just like Job. 

Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3/5 Stars) 12/29/08

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button reunites Brad Pitt and Director David Fincher for the 1st time since 'Fight Club.' It tells the story of a man who ages in reverse. He is born eighty years old and slowly gets younger as he gets older. Why? The movie gives no real explanation. It just happens. Cate Blanchett plays Ben's childhood sweetheart, Daisy. Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) adapted the screenplay from a Fitzgerald short story.
The overall effect of this movie is a triumph of style over substance. Benjamin Button, as a person leads no extraordinary life (besides the whole aging in reverse thing) and isn't an incredibly interesting person. The strength in this movie lies in the gorgeous cinematography of Claudio Miranda, a haunting score by Alexandre Desplat, and the beauty and charms of the two leads Pitt and Blanchett.
Much of the joy in this movie is simply looking at the screen. Brad Pitt is a special actor. He has the unique ability to appear flat out gorgeous. At one point in the movie, Cate Blanchett sees him and says matter-of-factly "you're perfect." This line garnered laughs from the audience because it was the 1st time in the movie that Pitt wasn't wearing his digital makeup. In other words he looked like himself. and who else but Brad Pitt could make that line seem an appropriate thing to say. I will venture that the major draw to see this movie is the prospect of seeing a 25 year old Brad Pitt again. Unfortunately the technology needed for eternal youth on the silver screen is not completely there yet. The effects in this movie are ten times better than Beowulf, but the digital rendering still didn't fool me. Young Pitt didn't look completely natural. It was especially distracting when he talked. This is probably the reason why Young Pitt is kept in the shadows for most of the time and very sparingly used in closeups. He doesn't even take off his shirt. What a shame. 
Any digital effect used on Cate Blanchett on the other hand went completely unnoticed. And this is maybe a huge compliment because her character, when young, is a dancer, and I have trouble believing that a middle aged woman like Cate can move like that. I was looking everywhere for a stunt double but couldn't see her. So somebody deserves major kudos. Either the stunt double or Cate the Great herself because there is some beautiful ballet here. (For the record, Cate has broken the tie with Renee Zellweger to become my favorite actress. Amy Adams has also supplanted Renee at the two spot.)
As always with a David Fincher film, there is gorgeous cinematography. Or at least it looked like it should have been gorgeous. Let me explain. It has been said that the difference between shooting with a digital camera instead of a film camera is an intangible element called 'warmth.' I had never really noticed it until this movie. A lot of the scenes in this movie felt 'cold.' I am convinced it had nothing to do with the crew's competence, it simply is because they shot the movie digitally. I could tell because Fincher decided to go for a very rich and bold New Orleans look. For a good example of this style on film take a look at 'JFK' or 'Miller's Crossing.' This type of look intangibly looks better on film. I don't know why. It may seem nitpicky to criticize a movie for lack of 'warmth' but I did notice it and it did sort of bother me. 
Another thing I didn't like about the movie was the idea to have a dying woman narrate the story. Call me age-insensitive but the raspy and stuttering voices of the elderly are not the best for storytelling. I hadn't experienced such a bad storyteller since 'The English Patient.' And I don't see why they had to make Cate Blanchett so ugly and so out of breath. I don't understand why they needed her dying in the hospital at all. It is so unattractive and unappealing. Take it out altogether I say. There I just cut twenty superflous minutes out of a 2 hour and 45 minute movie without losing anything. Your welcome. 
I also have to point out that this is the second movie this year to have at least five funeral scenes. The other was "Syncedoche, New York." In terms of style "Benjamin Button" is superior because you get to stare at Brad Pitt getting prettier instead of Phillip Seymour Hoffman getting uglier. But in terms of substance, "Synecdoche" is much better than "Button." What "Button" only mentions in small vignettes "Synecdoche" delves into in great detail and a better discussion. The numerous funeral scenes are funnier and more thoughtful in "Synecdoche" than they are in "Button."
There is buzz that "Button" will garner a lot of Academy nominations. I don't agree with the buzz. I don't think it is good enough for Best Picture or Best Director. I have always been a fan of Brad Pitt and believed he has been snubbed before (Especially for 'Fight Club' 'Snatch' and 'Babel') but he shouldn't get a nomination for this role. Seriously, there isn't too much here and how many accolades should you receive simply by looking like yourself. I can see support nominations for cinematography, visual effects, original score, and Blanchett perhaps depending on whether it was indeed her who was dancing. But that's all.