Movie: The Tree of Life
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Cinematography, Director (Terrence Malick)
Ok, so I didn’t know this was an “impressionist” piece. I didn’t even realize people paid for feature-length impressionist film pieces.
The “story” is about a man who grew up in the 1950s and basically the idea is that he’s looking at his past and discovering how he sees God and the meaning of sin. The spiritual undertones are actually really fantastic. I just wish they were presented in a more palatable format for a general audience. The real-life example of Romans 7 presented in the movie really breaks down how real sin nature is and shows it play out in a normal, un-dramatized way. The “story” happens in the middle of the movie. The beginning is just (beautiful) images with occasional voice-overs. The end is some obscure metaphor where there are a lot of people on a beach. I think it’s when the main character comes to acknowledge the sin of his past and his broken relationships and reconciles those relationships as well as his relationship with God. I think that’s what it was…
The cinematography was out of this world beautiful. Lots of creative shots of nature, light, and space. Even during the “story” parts, the shots were set up really fantastically. It was just SO hard to be patient and watch it.
I really don’t know how to describe anything else. It was beautiful but could’ve been done in half the amount of time and been more watchable. I can’t believe I wasted 138 minutes of my life. Everybody who’s jumped on this bandwagon must be trying to seem more artistic than they actually are. Just because something is new and different doesn’t mean it’s a good film.
Best Picture: No way. It got the nomination solely because of it being a totally unique project.
Cinematography: Possible. It definitely was the most creative and unique type of cinematography.
Director: No. Again, he got the nomination because it was so far off the wall of normalcy.