I am sure Mr. Gamble will have something to say about this bit of decision making that has been circling the web regarding Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life (Kurt’s Review). Has the arthouse fallen into such a rut in terms of audience awareness and open-mindedness for cinema sacrificed for safe feel-good adult dramedys? (Call it the Bottle Shock effect.) Or is this simply a ‘it doesn’t hurt to warn people?’ preemptive thinking? When David O. Russell’s Three Kings came out, some cinemas (and eventually the DVD release) had warnings that the colour palette of the film (desaturated and grainy) was intentional and not a flaw of the projection, so this sort of precedent is not unheard-of . Even if you want to just talk about content and not technical aspects, I’m sure there were warnings on Enter The Void and Irreversible in North America during their runs, and that is probably a good thing. Examples of cinema-goers being warned about unusual content or style beyond the simple rating system warnings of extreme violence or harsh language are unusual, but by no means unheard of, but still worth examining why some theatres might be proactive about informing their customers, particularly when the films have huge Hollywood stars in them, which may draw some folks that might not be aware of what the film is actually about (in terms of Brad Pitt, see also The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford). Here is the Avon Theatre notice:
Jim Emerson over at Scanners Blog probably has the best summation. Halfway down his piece is probably the best example of a warning/disclaimer that plays like comedy, yet was posted at Cannes of all places.
Back to Tree of Life, from an IndieWire interview with an Avon Theatre executive:
“The overwhelming response to the film was, in fact, positive. There was a small but vocal minority of patrons who walked out of the film, but there were a few individuals who were fairly nasty and belligerent towards the management staff, demanding their money back. There have been a significant number of people who were fascinated by the film and there were plenty of individuals who have written to us to tell us that they thought the film was a masterpiece.”
and
“The combination of walkouts and isolated instances led us to take our approach with the memo. We always want to be as direct, open and transparent as possible with our patrons and potential filmgoers. If they’re not totally informed about the movie’s stylistic approach, then they might want to take a moment to read up on it and decide whether or not it’s something they might want to see. We wanted to keep customers aware while preemptively diffusing instances like what happened last week when customers got up in the faces of our kind and caring staff.”
This sort of ‘belligerent behavior’ this was spotted by Rowthree pal Jason Gorber (thanks to Mamo! Matt Brown for the heads up on this one) as a touch of passive-aggressive graffiti in the Bell Lightbox (The TIFF group multiplex in Toronto) washroom:
Got an opinion? Got a Tree of Life cinema story? Chime in in the comments section.
the second time I watched it in The Varsity, I moved six times before it started because the first five locations were inevitably in close proximity to people that looked like the kind this warning is directed to. It was worth it, as there was no one bothering me where I was, and the experience was incredible.
Wow, I guess it’s been a long time since I’ve been around purely popcorn movie goers! I can’t imagine needing such a preface for a film, but it’s a good reminder that not all folks have art house on their radar.
If that graffiti was a Bansky, I’d finally like a Banksy.
I saw it at Lightbox last week and the crowd (about a third to half full at a 6PM screening) was completely silent during the film. I could see the Varsity being a different experience…
I think (no, I know) I need to see it again. There was gobs to love about it – gorgeous beyond what I expected; the scenes with the brothers playing were fantastic and so completely evocative of what I used to do as a kid; Chastain floating in the air next to the tree; Pitt’s performance; the waves of waves (including that awesome – though perhaps overused – diving camera move); etc.
But it wasn’t a perfect film for me by any means…I never felt a sense of being connected to these people nor did I feel much emotional weight. Days Of Heaven had that for me, but I didn’t get that here. I’m not sure why: was it too much of the opening universe coming into creation? the slightly affected whispering? the ending with Penn that didn’t do anything for me?
That’s OK though…I immediately knew I wanted to see it again, so that’s a great sign. If a film doesn’t completely work for me the way I think it should (or have expected it should), but I still want to dive into it again, then obviously something has clicked with me.
And Mike…The music was indeed incredible.
“got up in the faces of our kind and caring staff.”
Really? I just can’t get my head around that kind of behaviour…
sounds like my first reaction to the film. Check the review thread, I go from a place of frustration to talking myself through aspects of it, to seeing meaning behind what seemed a kind of sloppy pacing and placement of events, to holy shit, to seeing it again, to best film I have ever seen. Only other time that has happened so profoundly is The Thin Red Line.
I’ll definitely dive into the review thread Mike…I “think” I get a lot of the film’s intent – the struggle between nature and grace, loss of innocence, the doubling of those themes between the Waco family and the grander scheme of the universe, etc. – but I’m still not sure how I feel about how he put it together. Since Malick tends to find his films as he puts them together, I couldn’t help thinking that he was still searching for “the film”. I expect that I’ve missed a lot too…
I should have also mentioned the scenes of the boys when they were younger were also fabulous. That super close up of the baby lying on the ground is one of the best shots I’ve seen – I don’t know if anyone has ever shot a baby in that fashion before. Being that up close, where a parent’s face will usually be, being within the very short focal length of a baby’s vision…That may have been the most emotional part of the film for me.
I watched the film a second time at Cineplex Mississauga, and it was way underlit (but not a dealbreaker, but still kinda annoying after the pitch-perfect press-screening at the Varsity). Mixed crowd (mostly older) for a Friday afternoon show was totally respectful, and no walkouts.
I’m not sure if the film resonated more the second time, but it underscored a lot of what I felt about the film (the inner-space (memory in this case) being as awesome and powerful as the cosmos).
*MILD SPOILERS*
I do not think the beach scene is as facile (or pretentious) as many write it off as. i.e it being Heaven or something. I merely think of all the people you collect in your memories over a life time and how you often think of them at a ‘certain age’ depending out whether they died, or whether it was a key year in your childhood, or whatever. I think that scene is marvelously realized in the film and a good way to end it. The film is basically a flashback for Sean Penn, with a couple other scenes (grief, the universe, Pitt walking in a factory) for good measure, otherwise it is all completely from the point of view (in the minds eye) of Penn’s character as he goes through a lot of ‘adult ennui’ following a phone conversation with his Dad.
The meaning of the scene or what it is supposed to represent is not what people take issue with (allow me to speak for everyone else for a second
. The issue is the way or style it is played out in feels so clumsy, lazy and hackneyed. Its eye rollingly artsy-fartsy and looks like college, on-stage visual art. It not only feels tired but almost laughable. Seth MacFarlane could not do a better parody of the situation (albeit there would likely be a miniature chuck-wagon running through the crowd with a small dog chasing it).
I can just picture a woman on stage wistfully moving around the stage while all of the other actors that we’ve seen throughout the play wander about. I see spotlights focusing on one, then another, then another. In the end, the main character has a solo spotlight on himself as he drops to his knees and whispers, “I came from the sun. Now release me and I melt into your hands of sand.” Head drops to the floor. Spotlight fades. Audience cheers wildly.
/being an asshole.
As far as the warning goes, I think it’s simultaneously hilarious and sad. I can’t imagine needing warnings on my films, even ones like Irreversible and Enter the Void, and probably would’ve been offended if I’d had the ticket-seller ask me again if I was sure I wanted to see it (as one commenter on Emerson’s piece was) – I know what I’m getting into whatever film I see, whether it’s Thor or Enter the Void, and if I don’t, that’s my fault and no one else’s. But I know that I (we/film bloggers/cinephiles) are unusual in that – it shocks me every time I talk to casual moviegoers and they know basically nothing about a film before going into it. I only do that at festivals, and I’m at my most open-minded then. I guess it’s a good reminder, as Shannon said, that our approach to films is far removed from the mainstream.
“and probably would’ve been offended if I’d had the ticket-seller ask me again if I was sure I wanted to see it…”
This.
*MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS* it is definitely not heaven or the afterlife, it is very clear in the sequence that it is a visual depiction of revelation for Jack, and potentially for his mother too, as throughout the film there are two prayers playing out, and they coalesce in this scene. A beach with calm water makes sense because it plays off the torrential falls water associated with the creation of life that Malick keeps calling back to. The activity of birth is aggressive, chaotic, and what is being depicted in the revelation is a calming awareness, the birth imagery is echoed with the swimming through the doorway, the end of time is evoked with some imagery of Earth dying. It makes sense visually, playing off of the signifiers Malick has established throughout the film. What I find brilliant about it is the inclusion of seagulls, which makes this less an idealized landscape as one embedded in the real world (God through nature). That the film ends on one of the seagulls ‘escaping’ into the real world and one of the last things you hear is the gull and the waves, to me he is emphasizing it deliberately. In iconography, the white dove is the holy spirit, and here, the less idealized, more base whitish bird takes its place symbolically. The pantheism is hinted at in this last shot for those who care to see it.
The beach scene is essential, I get that pretense of it from the outside, but it makes so much sense, feels so right, from inside of Malick’s visual play.
First of all, I live in Phoenix, which for being such a large city is a shit place for movies. We have one local theater chain that brings in art house or independent movies. And really the movies they bring in are the high profiles ones, nothing halfway obscure is playing in the valley.
I went to TREE OF LIFE the day it opened. The theater was jammed packed, mostly with a geriatric crowd. The movie started out okay, but once the “creation of life” sequence started the crow with south in a hurry. There were no less than 25 walk outs. I’ve been in movies where a few people have walked out of the theater, but I’ve never seen such a mass exodus in a movie. There were people talking throughout movie. “I don’t get this.” “Do you understand what’s going on?” “This is terrible.” This went on throughout the movie. People were still walking out when there was only ten minutes left.
I absolutely fucking loath seeing a movie with old people. In every place I’ve lived the trend is the same. The local art house/independent theater is frequented by old assholes. It doesn’t matter the movie, the theater is going to be packed with old fucks. It’s like a goddamn retirement home in there and they treat the theater like it’s their living room. I’d frankly rather watch a movie with a bunch a teenagers. At least you can tell a teenager to shut the fuck up and they’ll usually listen. A theater with old people has as much crowd involvement as a screening of THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. I constantly have to weigh whether I want to see the movie so bad that it’s worth putting up with the old lady perfume and the incessant chatter that I’ll have to endure. Most of the time, I cross my fingers and hope the movie will open wider in a couple of weeks.
@Andrew,
on second viewing, I think the beach scene was worse in memory than in actuality.
I think the beach scenes are by far the worst part of the movie and I would go so far as to say that it is the worst sequence Malik has ever done. It is completely opposite in style and approach to everything that preceded it. The Texas scenes are so rich is character and observational detail and the beach scene is heavy handed in the most obvious imagery one can imagine. It is a shame too because everything that leads up to this sequence is so amazing and rich and just exhilarating on a filmmaking/storytelling level.
second time it worked like a charm. It doesn’t matter to me how contrived it appears outwardly if it works emotionally. There are countless melodramas I can respond to irrespective of the same apparent lack of innovation. I do take issue with the desert-walking, which is the bridge between the two states, if anything that to me is the weakest part of the film, but like, a minute maybe, I can tolerate that.
I’m not as upset as a lot of others. It’s fun to look down on philistines and chide them for not appreciating film on our level (whatever that is), but I’d much rather see theaters address the problems themselves than have some overzealous senator try to make a federal case of it.
As for the beach scene in the movie, I’m with Kurt. It may go on a bit long, but I didn’t have a problem with it. As cliched a metaphor the water/rebirth symbol may be, Malick sets it up with the dinosaur scene and the kid in the pool. You could criticize him for using hackneyed imagery (I wouldn’t), but at least he’s consistent.
*MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS**MILD SPOILERS*
“on second viewing, I think the beach scene was worse in memory than in actuality.”
I felt this as well. My main issue with the scene is I think there are a couple of false endings (unlike Return of the King where the false endings are represented by full sequences, in this case I’m talking certain shots). There are two moments where I thought it was going to end (a moment where a strong white light strobes on screen, the sunflowers), and it doesn’t. This wasn’t as much of an issue the second time (although I was more sensitive to it being at the screening with people I know), and I do like the final image of the bridge.
I seem to remember there being some talk about the editing style of the film on the Cinecast. I think it might have been Gamble or Andrew complaining that it was too haphazard and lazy. After watching the film a second time, I would have to disagree completely. The style makes perfect sense in the context of memories. Many might notice the film is more disjointed in its first 40 minutes and becomes a little more grounded as time goes on…this seems to be a clever way of representing early memories of childhood (which are usually disjointed and image based) and the more fleshed out memories of “tweenhood” (is that a word?), which begin to play out in greater detail the older you get.
Nat, just to clarify, I’m not chiding people for not appreciating film on our level – if people don’t like Tree of Life or other arthouse films, that’s fine. I’m chiding them for not doing their homework on what movies to see before they go see them, and then being angry enough to want a refund for something they didn’t properly research before going in. Andrew didn’t care for Tree of Life, but I doubt he would consider demanding a refund from the theatre.
I never got my Refund from Transformers 1, and I did my homework.
Jay, I’m a firm believer that Tree of Life is as much about importance/significance/depth of memory as it is about anything else. What are we other than a collection of memories that occasionally define our actions.
This is why films about Alzheimers are as horrific as films about death, and why Philp K. Dicks books and even the film-adaptations of his work (most of ‘em anyway) are generally so darn interesting.
“this seems to be a clever way of representing early memories of childhood (which are usually disjointed and image based) and the more fleshed out memories of “tweenhood” (is that a word?), which begin to play out in greater detail the older you get.”
Also Schopenhauer, A philosopher Malick would certainly have been versed in, went on about how our first experience of things imprint on us… I forget what he called it… but essentially the ideal that becomes a touchstone for each new iteration of the experience, so your first kiss, your first feelings of romantic love, your first sense of evil in the world. I, like Andrew, was originally one of the people complaining about the uneven quality to the film, how much is devoted to the endless summer, but like Jay said, and in lieu of this Schopenhauer idea, it does make sense. It also makes sense how the characters appear on the beach, they are all connected to the first feelings, the germ, from which all of problems and happiness derived. The film is trying desperately to reproduce the sensation of stirred emotions, the editing and pacing decisions working in accordance to this muse.
Jandy, I think asking for a refund because you didn’t enjoy the film itself (as opposed to the environment in which it’s shown) is silly regardless, but I don’t agree that there’s a responsibility of the moviegoer to research a film before they see it.
I think there is if they expect to get a refund for not liking it when the style of the film fits perfectly with the director’s previous work and all the marketing. That’s like saying someone’s justified for asking for a refund from McDonalds because they were expecting a filet mignon and they got a cheeseburger. They should’ve found out more about the restaurant they were going to before going there.
EDIT: I should say, that if you don’t research what you’re getting into, then the proper response when you don’t like it is “oops, I screwed up choosing that, I’ll be more careful next time if I want a better experience,” not “I am angry that I didn’t like this thing that I personally chose to see and someone else should pay for it.”
Jandy, are you sure you are American? Entitlement is the name of the game in the consumer experience these days in your country (and If I’m totally honest with myself, in Canada too!).
These reactions do not surprise me but they do make me sad.
(and I completely agree with your statement, that if you made a mistake due to ignorance/lack of information, just say oops and move on, don’t take it out on the establishment that probalby offered you 5 or film choices)
The customer is NOT always right.
Jandy, your example is right on. Though it would be even more accurate to say it is like looking at a menu, seeing the picture and description of a steak, then ordering said steak, then eating the entire thing and requesting a refund because it didn’t taste good.
old guy in front of me at McDonald’s today berated this 17 year old because they didn’t have decaf coffee ready for him, it was going to take ‘a couple minutes’. He wouldn’t let up… wanted to file a complaint.
Entitlement is alive and well in Canada
Well, I haven’t actually seen my birth certificate for a while, but I don’t remember living anywhere else except the semester studying in England.
But yeah, I hate the entitlement thing. With a passion. I probably would’ve gone off on the old guy at McDonalds, Rot. Or would’ve wanted to, if I didn’t also dislike confrontation. I can’t tell you how often I want to apologize on behalf of other customers who are being asshats.
I hadn’t thought of it in broader entitlement terms, but you guys are right, this is basically “I don’t want to take responsibility for my actions/decisions, I’d rather blame someone else.” I guess I grew up in a subculture that valued personal responsibility highly, so I am still actually shocked when I see people unwilling to just say “oh, my bad,” and move on. (Obviously, sometimes there are issues with the services provided, and that’s fine to call out, but most of the time when I see people complaining, it’s not that big a deal.)
That’s the thing, the ending really didn’t work for me emotionally. Part of this has to do with Sean Penn as the older Jack. He seems more a symbol than a real character, so his catharsis on the beach didn’t work. Also, the Texas portion of the movie affected me in real profound way. I’ve never seen a movie that felt so alien and familiar at the same time. I grew up in Phoenix in the late 70s early 80s and my experience was so different than Waco in the 50s but so much of it was the same as well. There was so much in the movie that hit me on a real gut level. It’s hard to properly articulate, but I was so moved by the characters and the events in the Texas section that the beach sequence was a let down. This is where you were leading me to?
perhaps the six hour version Malick is planning to edit together will resolve your issues with Penn, Phil?
Like I said, first watch I agree with you, second watch, all problems washed away.
@phil, “I grew up in Phoenix in the late 70s early 80s and my experience was so different than Waco in the 50s but so much of it was the same as well. There was so much in the movie that hit me on a real gut level. “
I grew up just outside of Toronto in the 1970s/80s and dang if my experiences (father included at times) weren’t eerily familiar too. I think this movie works BETTER for being a (within a zone) somewhat general experience. One thing definitely in common here was that there were no digital toys in this film when the kids were growing up, which makes for a profound change.
I have to say that the brooding Sean Penn scenes didn’t work for me either. Watching him endlessly mope around with his serious actor face was pretty brutal.
I found the childhood Texas scenes to be affecting, and Brad Pitt was excellent. But I’m not gonna lie and say that I didn’t entertain the idea of walking out towards the end, especially with all the false endings, as Jay pointed out. I was really tempted when an underwater shot of a theater mask floating in the ocean flashed on screen. That was an eye-rolling moment, and I really had to fight the urge to leave–and if I did leave, I wouldn’t have blamed it on the theater and demanded a refund.
“I was really tempted when an underwater shot of a theater mask floating in the ocean flashed on screen. That was an eye-rolling moment…”
Oh that’s right! Yeah we actually laughed when that image hit the screen.
Its dickish and pretentious of the theatre to post that “warning”.
“and we hope you will expand your horizons with us”
Yeah, that disclaimer is a little distasteful. It’s true that movie-goers can be major assholes, but you never want to talk down to your customers. If I saw that disclaimer at a theater, I’d think to myself “screw this place.”
For the record, every first-run theatre (both chain and independently owned) that I know of gives refunds to patrons. There are typically caveats (it needs to be in the first 30 minutes) but it is industry standard to give them out.
I might be able to buy a refund being given to those who leave within the first thirty minutes (might), but it would be absurd for someone to sit through the movie or most of the movie and expect a refund. It’s like eating 3/4 of a steak, then demanding of the restaurant to take it off the bill because it was overcooked. The only difference being, of course, that at least the restaurant would be at fault. It’s going to a movie. If some clown went to see the movie based solely on Brad Pitt being in it and didn’t like it for whatever reason, they don’t get their money back. You don’t get your money back from the zoo when you go, only to find out once you’re in that there aren’t any elephants. Fuck that shit. The customer isn’t always right. The customer is an idiot.
I remember parents being angry about all the swearing in the South Park movie back in the day and asking for refunds. As a good customer service agent, you’ve got to give them a refund. As a human being I’d tell them to get bent that the movie is clearly marked and advertised as being rated R. That doesn’t stand for “Really great for kids.” If they say, “I didn’t know it was rated R. I’d tell them they are an idiot and irresponsible parents.
Totally agree…I had mentioned the mask shot on the Film Junk podcast last night as probably the worst image in the film.
Funny, the shot of the MASK really stood out on second viewing. It’s kinda blunt, but Malick’s imagery has always been that. No issue with it here.
How is it any different than a kid beating Call of Duty and then having mommy take it back to the store demanding a refund because there was violence and swearing? It really isn’t. Both are business that provide a venue to be entertained. Why a person should be able to demand a refund just because they didn’t like said entertainment is absurd. I went to a Steelers-Dolphins game once where the game was 3-0… it was goddamn boring by any definition of the game, and it poured rain on me, and I paid just as much as someone who saw a game that was 31-30 in OT. If I demanded a refund, I’d be laughed out of the building.
I mean, I understand the economic reasons of giving them their money back – if you don’t refund the $22.75 or whatever, you risk losing their business permanently which is potentially 100s-1000s in the long run (on top of bad word of mouth), but Jesus Christ, still.
Going back to the restaurant analogy from earlier, when I was a waiter, I once flat-out refused to refund a man who decided to make a verbal scene over a meal that he ate in its entirety, which he never made a single complaint about until after he ate it, even when I asked the token, “How is everything?” I said bluntly, “Had you told me when I asked how everything was, I could have either put in another order or taken it off the bill, but I can’t refund it at this point.” After demanding to talk to the owner, the two spoke and the patron ended up being asked by said owner to pay the bill in full and leave or the police would be called. The patron complied. He probably never came back – but the owner later said to me, “Well, you know, we don’t want assholes like that eating here anyway.” Granted, he also told me to not make it a habit and to discuss it with him first, but I got away with similar instances 2 or 3 more times in the years that I was there.
It goes against everything a customer service 101 book tells you, so I don’t know the point of this story other than to say businesses need to get some balls when it comes to dealing with stupid people. The customer is not always right. But I repeat myself.
I can count on one hand the number of people who have asked for a refund after the movie was over. When people ask for a refund it is because they are walking out, for whatever reason it might be.
My wife found SEVERENCE to be a bit too ‘slasher/scary’ so we walked out (I’d already seen it) at about the 20 minute mark and the theatre had no issue give a refund. Seems to make sense that if you know within the first 3rd or so of the film that you don’t want to stay that the cinema should give you your money back, or at the very least passes/vouchers for another show at another time.
I forgot about the mask, THAT is the worst part of the film, completely unnecessary.
In life we have so many choices. Sometimes our eyes are covered with blinkers and we can’t see, sometimes it’s just a self imposed eyepatch. Look at the film…with both eyes…find the art…it’s there. Nipping! There are false endings in this film at times…but at least there aren’t any false beginnings. It’s a watch again kind of flic from my perspective and then a ‘grow’.