There doesn't seem to me to be much ambiguous about the theme of this film: Faith with a capital "F". Attempts to "de-religion" this film are doomed to failure. While I'm not a believer Malick's argument for faith results in a compellingly beautiful film. If I'm not mistaken I believe that Malick's brother committed suicide while they were in their 20s. It is interesting to compare this film with "The Thin Red Line"; empathy is a recurring theme in Malick.
i don't agree with the notion that God "allows" evil to exist for the purpose of introducing good.. i think that: good, truth, light, matter, life.. etc.. are all inherently a STRUGGLE.. existence has much more of bad than good.. falsehood than truth.. vacuum than matter.. death than life..
it is HARD to genuinely believe in God as a mere restricted mortal.. it is HARD to survive.. it is HARD not to succumb to worldly pressures.. it is a HARD path.. hence God selects for the few.. the true
Terrence Malick has a degree in philosophy, and went to Harvard. I don't think it's too hard to believe that, upon creation of this film, he expressed ideas from different religious backgrounds. Evolution included.
i think that's the great thing about this film. people can discuss for ever on what is it exactly about, but everybody will always see something different and it will mean something different for each person. i think the director achieved his goal, on making people think outside the box a little bit, and reminding people that there's so much more to life than what we limit ourselves to see now days. wether it's about religion, science, evolution, etc.....we all came to a personal conclusion.
Also, why is it not possible to appreciate Biblical literature and to be accepting of science? I'm very much an atheist and in no way religious, but I am certainly moved by parts of religious texts. Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8, for instance. (And I'm not saying Malick is the same, as he clearly IS a Christian man)
The film struck me more as pantheistic than religious. Although the theme of religion runs throughout the film, it never explicitly chooses a side (so to say), and instead chooses (as with his other film, The New World) to find beauty and meaning through nature.
While Fr. Barron has difficulty appreciating films that aren't in line with his religious beliefs on their own terms (see his review of "A Serious Man" where he completely misses the point) this film is right in his wheelhouse and he hits a home run this time.
Although I am certainly not a "believer" in any way, shape or form this is the most beautiful film I've seen in the last decade & Barron gets it right. He might want to stick to what he knows (faith) and steer clear of films about doubt.
I think this is a fantastic interpretation of the film.
And one of the best ive seen or heard. As an Atheist i only have a basic understanding of Genesis, Revelation, and the Gospels.
And i mean him just talking about Job, unlocked instantly a brand new meaning of the film to me. As well as the meaning of the title.
Although personally i agree with said comment above, i read the dinosaur sparing the other dinosaur, and the boy not dropping the car on his father as an act of grace, not nature.
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism"
@skworq: Umm, evidentally you don't realize that Terrence Malick is a devout Christian. So, I don't think Father Barron's interpretation of the movie, from a Christian and Catholic perspective is not "naive". Malick's narrative and imagery is absolutely evocative of his Christian beliefs and Faith...without beating a "message" into the viewer's head. He is to subtle, and too much a master at his craft for that. It reminds me a bit of J.R.R. Tolkien, who was also devout Catholic.
I too saw the dinosaur scene as a form of grace as well. The way the scene was setup, the audience is made to expect that the larger dinosaur is going to kill and eat the smaller dinosaur. But then Malick defies expectations and large dinosaur winds up sparing the smaller dinosaurs life. Of course, this momentary grace note in the movie is immediately undercut with the scene of the asteroid that collided with the Earth and cause the extinction of the dinosaurs.
@garbot12, @andresbv18, I see the cosmos in awe & I refer to it as I would to god if I believed in one. The evolution detour clearly throws all notions of god out of the realm of true reality. Malick's respect of the cosmos, nature & the kindness in humanity is of outmost respect similar to god worshipers. The references to the book of genesis is a curve ball, this is why many (specially Christians) walk out of the movie theater 45 minutes into the film.
@limitlesslimited Well, to Christians, and I believe catholics in particular, the cosmos, nature & the kindness in humanity are the manifestations of God. Therefore, since Malick is a passionate Christian one can assume that in showing these things he is talking about God's glory. All of the splendor of the earth and the cosmos give testiment to the glory of God. Also, an evocation of evolution doesn't rule out religion as most religions accept evolution, including catholicism.
IMO the movie was about evolution and its highest achievement: empathy. the first glimpse of the evolution of empathy is seen in the dinosaur sparing another dinosaur scene... also, the movie shows that the will world end with the red giant sun swallowing the earth (many miss this), and NOT when "Jesus comes back". Christianity is just part of the setting in the movie, not the point. it acknowledges that our great human empathy CAN manifest through religion (in this case Christianity).
@xjaskix Oh come on! The title of the film is taken from the book of Genesis and the statement that opens the entire movie is taken from the book of Job. More to it, Malick is a passionate Christian. And you think it's about evolution?!
@wordonfirevideo yeah, well, it SHOWED evolution, and how it will all end (red giant sun, not Jesus). how can you get around that? the dinosaur showing compassion also kinda conflicts with a Christian view of nature, as only humans are thought to be able to be either good or evil. and how do you know he is a passionate Christian? i'd like to read about it or see himself talk about it in an interview, if possible.
Why the arrogance? I think it's clear that Malick is a Christian, but equally so that he is an appreciator of science and knowledge. He uses the latter to explore life and the former to explore religious interpretation of it.
@bluemoonrising26 See you're not getting it. All things stem from God, the scene of evolution is God's speech. Evolution is God's creation story in a way, and that I think is what is being expressed.
They both were highly religious, because science is of God as well.
@wordonfirevideo the tree of evolution is fundamentally rooted within the yin-yang.. OR "Nature and Grace".. evolution is a resultant of the accumulation of favorable mutations.. in which a lot must die (nature) for a few to survive (grace).. a lot must be a poor for a few to be rich.. it is a beautiful balance between life and death.. rationality and irrationality.. truth and falsehood.. existence and nonexistence.. light and darkness.. you simply cannot have one without the other :)
@wordonfirevideo Why not both? This is a catholic priest, catholics recognize the truth of evolution. And I don't think there's any proof stating Malick is a Christian. What we do know is he is a philosopher, who is heavily influenced by Heidegger and what it is to be dasein. Plus, how do you know that reading it Christian is completely wrong since Genesis and Job are both originally from the Tanakh? Just saying don't be so sure of this one outlook. Art by definition is multiply interpretable.
I agree. Malick is clearly of the position that our goodwill and incorruptibility is the realization of humanity. Malick, in my opinion, omits the supremacy of a single belief system, instead giving consideration to numerous theological, moral and scientific based elements of philosophy.
Fr. Barron, you have a talent for interpreting art. I enjoyed listening to your exegesis of this film the way I enjoyed listening to my literature professors in college. Thank you
As another atheist, I too appreciated Fr. Barron's comments.
Yes, it is completely possible for this movie to affirm our atheism. It's very interesting that both Brad Pitt and Sean Penn are atheist/agnostic, but the director/writer Terrence Malick seems not to be. When I hear the Grace and Nurture narrative early in the film, it reads that Grace is what God is not, and Nature is what God is. I think the story of Job is the ugliest fictional stories in all of literature.
@yoohootube How Is it ugly? Did you ever finish the book, you know the part where Job gets everything back, and finds eternal happiness? The book of Job is actually one of the most beautiful stories in the OT. It conveys a relationship between man and God where when all seems dark and hopeless God is there to help. You should honestly reread the story and ask a theologian to describe the parts that don't quite make sense.
@garbot12 Seriously, "how is it ugly"? I don't need to ask a theologian to spin the story until it's acceptable. Job doesn't "get everything back" at the end, he gets a NEW family, as if that makes up for the horrific suffering that God gave Satan PERMISSION to inflict. God is there to "help"? You have GOT to be kidding me.
This film completely denounces god. A boy's death and a mother's plea to god (why), takes us on a 30 minute detour of the evolution and the cosmos over millions of years and not seven days. Once he establishes the absence of god, he proceeds poetically to comfort us, reminding us of the beauty of life. We are just a an astroid away from extinction, so just try to be good to one another and enjoy your frail moment in the cosmos together. Abandon your religious crusade and embrace life as it is.
@limitlesslimited The scenes of evolution were depicting God's slow process of creation, at the end of the movie they were essentially in Heaven. Open your mind brother and see past the walls you built yourself.
@limitlesslimited The final line in the film is Jessica Chastain saying "I give my son to You". I don't think Malick would be denouncing God in doing this.
I'd like to echo the comments of some others I have seen that, although I am not religious in the least, I found this to be a very thoughtful and insightful analysis of this wonderful film. Mr. Barron actually explained the "universe sequence" in a way that I hadn't considered before, but which makes perfect sense. Very appreciative!
I see in that sequence, preceded by a whispered "how did I get here?"(something like that) - I see the ingredients of nature in all it's messy glory: violence, beauty, cells splitting, sulfuric acid boiling away - to me, all that really is an illustration of How We Got Here: beautiful Evolution.
Of course, as an atheist that's what I see. Theists of course will see what they see.
Isn't interpretation a wonderful indicator of how we think and analyse?
@cinesimonj hat sequence was not preceded by "how did I get here" though. It was preceded by Jessica Chastain's "Lord, why? Where were You?" In fact, i'm not 100% sure but "how did I get there" I don't recall that line being in the film.
Enjoyed his opinion and he really knows his stuff. I don't find myself religious or atheist. For me when I hear someone say the word God I have to assume they're talking about something more then an individual.
I disagree. He so naively saw this film via his religious agenda, and has interpreted these scenes quite differently to how I did, which of course is the wonderful ambiguous nature of impressionistic art forms. Btw, I viewed the dinosaur sparing the other's life as a form of Grace. Nature has grace woven throughout it.
@skworq I wouldn't call it an agenda, it merely fits into his particular belief system.
For me, it was obviously showing the beauty of nature and evolution - that's not an agenda either, just how I see the world and how it works: through science, not faith.
No need to be harsh on theists when they're not being evil.
@cinesimonj My frustration lies with people whom denounce Nature as someone outside the realm of one's own faith-based concept of the world. Morality exists via the accumulative processes of Nature. Indeed, both Fr Barron's source and subject of his zeal exists via the accumulative processes of Nature. I've worked for wilderness conservation trying to convey a message of Grace, to spare the existence of rainforests in the face of human demands for resources. Perceptions of what is truly sacred.
@skworq the "nature" referred to by the movie is slightly different from your understanding of natural "processes" IMO. Malick's film isn't talking about the natural world when it referred to "nature." Nor does the film laud Grace over Nature. It simply states that they "always....wrestle inside me."
@wordonfirevideo I think this is a quite reasonable review. Is it leaning toward a certain interpretation? Well, of course. Isn't the entire movie a rumination on grace and faith, a question as to what it means and whether it should even exist? Of course, there can be no pure conclusion on which we'd all agree because that is the nature of faith, existing beyond the easily defined. If anything, a conversation about what this means could go back and forth forever. It is a poem... about grace.
@wordonfirevideo For some reason, I'm reminded of Spanky and Alfalfa at the end of one of their shorts where they have their hands on their chins, looking at something in disbelief and they say, "They'll never learn!"
I don't understand how you can ignore the opening. The movie is given a religious frame by the director. To ignore that is to assert a agenda different from his.
skworq, this was just one interpretation of many available. I'm just glad that people are responding thoughtfully to this movie. I sat through a screening with people who texted throughout and booed at the end.
I think your absolutely right about the dinosaur, though.
@skworq But Malick is openly catholic and religious. He has made no secret of that, despite being an overly reclusive filmmaker. Of there is a man who is not afraid of injecting religion in his movies, in western cinema today, it is Malick.
@skworq I actually saw the dinosaur scene as a form of Grace being a million times more powerful than nature. The way of Grace is always victorious.
I don't understand how you can say it's naive to have a religious interpretation, and then go on about the wonderful ambiguous nature of the film. If u're saying it's ambiguity is a good thing, then every interpretation is valid. I actually believe this about art forms in general.
@skworq However, this particular film references the bible countless times and ends with the mother surrendering her son to God. Accepting His ways gracefully. If anyone has a different interpretation, it's perfectly fine. In my eyes, it is thoroughly a spiritual and religious film.
I have never found a more beautiful explanation this movie. Everything had meaning - I will think about this for a very long time. There is a reason for why I loved it so much and it brought so many emotions. Truly a masterpiece.
I loved this analysis. However-after you brought up the title & how to take from the Tree of Knowledge assumes a god-like perspective (I'd also call this a detached, objective, non-particular perspective) & that is not really living. You lose the tree of Life when you gain the tree of knowledge. I'd want to suggest that the best interpretation of this point is as a duality between a Heideggerian authentic Being-IN-the-World vs a removed subject to the world-as-object.
Your insight on the opening segment being a re-enactment of Job was fascinating, but I'd disagree that the dinosaur scene was about nature. The one dinosaur does dominate the other, but being able to let him live, I think, demonstrated grace.
In addition to the Christian overtones present in this movie, there are heavy instances of Buddhism/Taoism. The combination of the three would, in my opinion, make this more of the spiritual movie, rather than a "THIS RELIGION IS THE RIGHT ONE" movie.
I don't buy the nature vs grace element. I think there is no God, everything is "nature", people do what they do to survive. It's just that humans have surpassed the other forms of life on the planet and are now at a crossroad and wonder what this all means. They are part animal, part something else and it's that struggle that exist in themselves that confuse them. And one day the human race will shed their animal/nature self and become higher beings, one with the cosmos.
@megaead69 yes. the priest was using the movie to go on about a philosophical thing. i'm not talking about the movie but what I believe we're all about. and how I don't believe Malick's take on life
This is, by far, the best Tree of Life commentary. I've showed this to some of my friends who had mixed feelings after seeing ToL- they were able to see the film from an entirely different and more complete context.
@MrWakeup71 This is a good commentary but it's not flawless or the only correct perspective. I don't think ToL is solely about the Christian God. Actually, I thought it was more of an agnostic or pantheistic approach to spirituality. I think 2001 a space Odyssey addresses one aspect of humanity: technology. Tree of Life addresses another aspect that makes us unique: love, or just emotion. But of course, it's all subjective and ToL can have many valid interpretations.
I'm NOT a "religious person" AT ALL, but I've ALWAYS been deeply, deeply and lastingly affected by ALL of Terrence Malick's movies ... including verrrry much "The Tree Of Life" that I saw for the first time last night and which I'll certainly be seeing AGAIN VERRRRY soon....
Jesus told us to "consider the lilies of the field" Mathew 6: 28. He did not tell us to enter into a trance state and enter into a mindless pirouette amongst them. Jesus knows all things. As God and man, He is both the creator and the experiencer both heaven and earth. Without Jesus, Satan's 'spiritual fairy dance' view of the world, would be the closest that we would ever get to knowing God.
When I was under the influence of demons, I experienced Mallick's films as entirely spiritual. In 2009 I was born again through Jesus Christ. I rewatched Mallick's films and I now find them creepy. Why? I think because they sensualise a worldly demonic reality. They seduce and mesmerise, but to what purpose? It is like we are placed under an enchantment that we can never escape. Mallick uses the fallen world to hypnotise, but JESUS overcame the world. Hallelujah!
I've reread your post and I find YOU creepy.Under the influence of demons? The interesting thing about religious fanaticism,it allows people a somewhat accepted platform to say and believe things that they would otherwise be commited to a mental institution for.
I disagree on the fact that the father is the nature, and mother is the grace. We can see Chastain in constant contatc with the nature (barefoot, hair on wind), and her love for people, animals, and plants. Pitt, in oposite, represents discipline and the hard education of religion (he's the one who always takes his family to church), representing the grace.
@MrPig That's actually really interesting. Did Malick ever say the mom was grace and the dad was nature? Maybe people jumped to conclusions if he didn't.
@AmbroseEpeeMaster The entire film is the Garden of Eden and the Grace vs. Nature speech is made only to the spectators. There are two ways of seeing ToL and you will probably only get in one piece home through Grace. Mother=Father. What poem inspired this film?
"Long have I loved you and for my own delight
Would call you mother, give you an artless song,..."
This is nothing but a game with the spectator:
"Grey, my friend, is every theory And green is Life’s golden tree."
I also think that in the book of Job, God answer to Job, is I am Grand, and you are small. How can you judge my Justice? That is the answer to all suffering. The whole world give us plenty of joy, yet, we complain about its harshness. The same goes for the boy in the movie, he had a great life, but always complaining about his father, he didn´t feel small compared to his father. This same atittude we have toward life; to judge, instead of being grateful
Im surprised you didnt mention what St. Bonaventure wrote in his Tree of Life, that God rules the universe partly through nature, partly through grace, partly through justice, and partly through mercy. I thought the father represented more justice than nature. Since nature is the brutal reality of a pitiless world. However, in the end of the fiilm everything led back to our heavenly Father and divine mercy as represented through Malick's use of blue and pink (as seen during Divine Mercy Sunday).
One of the reviewers made a clever observation that it is not an accident that Jack O'Brien's name initializes to JOB.
For another exposure to some of the same themes that the Priest mentions here from the movie, read Carlos Eire's exquisite memoir, Learning to Die in Miami.
Sorry, but the film is unexplicitly a Christian film. Malick is episcopalian and devout. If you're not religious, what is your reading of the images of the dead bodies and the hand rising out of the grave? This isn't just an image of an imaginative afterlife. I believe it's the depiction of the hope of bodily resurrection in the new heavens and new earth. Given Malicks background, and films content I'm convinced it's a Christian film but something that atheists can still get something from.
@aloh86 ---i came to the same reading of the film without knowing malicks background. it wasnt hard to come close in a guess, either catholic or episcopalian.
I'm atheist, and although we disagree on things I love hearing your opinions on films and to hear some comments and analysis from a christian perspective, it's good to hear insightful remarks from an individual such as yourself. Personally I don't see the Tree of Life as a religious film per se, rather a spiritual film as the movie explores that which is imbedded in every human, regardless of creed. I'd like to hear you talk about this film more and maybe some comments on 2001: A Space Odyssey.
@ItsJester94 In my own opinion, the Tree of Life is thoroughly Christian. That is not to place a limit on it. In fact quite the opposite. What worth is a religion if at its core it doesn't possess things that are ultimately universal? Every faith "explores that which is embedded in every human, regardless of creed." That's why people have the ability to form attachments to a particular faith in the first place.
The film is indeed spiritual, as it perfectly shows the struggles of people; however how can you reject it as religious? The first scene is a passage from the book of Job.
Even though Fr. Barron misses some of the movie, I think this is my favorite review of Tree of Life. It's just not an easy movie to break down, and I think he does the best job of specifying ideas that are very broad in scope.
i.e. because an immanent God transcends time and space. the chair you are sitting on always existed at a particular point in time and space. You can claim that the hands of the craftsman are what really created it but then you still have to show intent, something which is not scientifically possible. You see, teleology does not even work when applied to artifacts of man. I suppose you could argue there is no meaning whatsoever and a chair is no better for sitting on than a box...
What I'm driving at is that if you're arguing against a God (or supreme being in general) who is immanent, then Teleology is a philosophical dead end. It was originally a medieval tool of rationalist philosophers attempting to scientifically prove the existence of God despite the fact that miracles imply something outside the chain of events. God doesnt exist in only one point of time and you cant ask anyone to show you when God invented the eye. Or the chair, or computer. They always existed.
it is spirtual but not in the religious way. we all now that how religion is ignorant about evolution and can not accept it. the whole film is around this subject that all human emotions are the product of evolution. so asking the question about why death and why we are here in a higher point of view will be irrelevant. and that quotation of Job will be useful but not in its religious way. if the film was religious it would show the creation like fake stories in bible not in the scientific way!
@amirhosseinfarhang The only reason evolution has anything to do with discussion of religion is because certain fundamentalist sects don't believe in it. You might as well claim that religion cannot accept electronics because the Amish don't like to use them.
Certainly this has no bearing on Catholicism (who actually contributed to the scholarship of evolution, e.g. Gregor Mendel). So did Islam and other mainstream denominations that believed that the work of God was reflected in physical laws.
@ijwi I think you have got a vague understanding on evolution. accepting or not accepting the electronics has got nothing to do with GOD but accepting the evolution means you do not need any designer for the life and complexity in the universe. So I believe the whole discussion you brought up is fundamentally wrong. we are the result of evolution and so our emotions are as well. all the purpose of film was to show how irrelevant are the questions of life compare to real story of life.
@amirhosseinfarhang In any case, the people who are most prone to teleology are atheists and folks abandoned religion over simple questions like the "problem of evil" that do not require proof of God. (e.g. stating the question of why we are here irrelevant, or the illogical claim that God cannot exist because he allows evil to happen and therefore there is no such thing as good.) Teleology is ironically a very modernist concept but it only works if you reject the notion of an immanent deity.
unbelievers seem to be reluctant to accept this film as a product of a deeply held faith in god. fr. barron's review of "A Serious Man" shows a similar inability to accept a work of art on its own terms.
dont be scared! see these films for what they are! "the tree of life" is a moving confession of faith. "a serious man" is a bleak, ironic satire, as far removed in tone and outlook from malick as can be imagined. try to see what theyre doing & accept that both films speak of real truths.
in an evolutionary process. so all the feeling and emotions are the result of the evolution we are here because of that and we have the feeling just because of that. yes we have the better brain and logic that it is going to ask why why... but still the brain itself is the product of evolution. so when someone asking these questions that why we have made and how and why something bad happened or so on then the quotation in meaningful, although not in its religious meaning.
then it is going to show the evolution road in which human has been made through billion years (all of these are controversial subjects in religion point of view) in other words it want to say why on earth we have to ask these questions why we think we are so special and something different than nature. so it is not religious yet again that quotation is meaningful. where have you been when I was creating the world. surely if the film was religious it wouldnt show that creation in an evolutionary
but the main problem is human is actually a product of evolution in the universe. so human is the part of nature and in nature when something is going to die or going to be extinct even, there is always something new that will take over it. so we human we think we are something especial. actually we are not we are not that especial creature of god that every thing should have some explanation for us. so when the mother and brother in their thoughts asking these mysterious questions then
I did not say the whole subject of this film is against religion. I said the concept of the film is not something that religion would agree with that. yes we have that qoutation from the book of job. but it does another meaning in this film. the film is about how human is being affected by joys and grieves through the life and through these emotions and feelings sometimes he just wonder why he is here and what is the point of being here and .....
film is religious? yes .... but would you please stop saying nonsense. as far as I concerned the film shows beautifully the evolution which is against all religion we have. I enjoyed the film anyway and I believe the questions in this film are the questions that religion wasnt able an won't able to answer them at all.
@amirhosseinfarhang So let me see if I have your position straight? The film is religious, but it's just against religion! If you think this movie is just a meditation on evolution, why do you think it commenced with a quotation from the book of Job?
@wordonfirevideo Religion is just organised philosophy on life with a doctrine and tradition . I m a complete atheist yet i quote the gospels all the time . And i dont think mallick is religious , he uses buddhist philosophy or zen in the thin red line. most of the good quotes from the gospel are completely relevant to life . sometimes the most so. theres no line between philosophy religion and reality.
@dwpais theistic evolution!!! how on earth theories that shows the universe do not need a designer(chaos theory) and life is came out of nothing (evolution theory) have got something to do with God? it is an obvious that God is an answer but bring more questions that can not be answered even by himself. However I must confess that this film can be seen in both point of view. in religious way as it mentioned in the verse of JOB and in scientific way as it shows in evolution.
so y did u say 'evolution is against all religion we have' when evolution is completely compatible and not at all inconsistent with the vast majority of religions such as roman catholicism which exposes theistic evolution, and particularly when you have roman catholic priests such as georges lemaitre and gregor mendel inventing the big bang theory and the science of genetics? the media and many non-religious segments like to propagate such falsities
i think its interesting that this film got made. who was the target audience? to me, it is clearly a religiious, or spiritual if you will (the difference is lost on me sometimes), film grounded in a deeply held faith. i would think this would be box office poison unless aimed at the christian right which it isnt. it'll take a while for it to break even im sure.
that said----this is the most powerful film ive seen in quite a while & its too bad that soon it will be lost in the shuffle......
but, and here comes the blasphemy, do you think that in the story that Job is able to perceive things that perhaps the God in the story is not able to perceive...frailty. Am I off here? Several years later as an adult, I came across Jung's "Answer to Job" which I think also touched on some of these themes...I am very interested in what your thoughts are on this. As well I am interested in your interpretation of the last scenes on the beach, as Mallick lost me here!
God's speech to Job, but I do remember being in my teens and reading the story and being absolutely rankled by some of the verses...God takes away Job's family, smites him with disease, takes everything from him....Job is crushed...and he does ask the question as to why, which I think is a fair one....and in the story God goes on in this long speech about how great and powerful he is...which I think Job is acutely aware of since he has taken everything from him.....
What I find fascinating about the story is the oldest son perceives qualities in the father, his duality, the loving and the destructive aspects, that the father cannot see at the time...the father does realize this later on when he loses his job, and experiences 'failing', realizes he was too hard on his sons....my question is maybe blasphemous, but I am wondering if you feel that this too mimics the biblical story of Job? I love your interpretation as the cosmic scenes mimicing....
...I also love how Mallick shows how this gets passed down generations, how the oldest son mimics the father with his younger brother, how he plays these games with him to test his trust, sometimes loving and sometimes intentionally hurting him....and how at the end he stops and experiences grace because he realizes he should not hurt him because he is his brother after all...I thought tthat this was an interesting undertone to this story here, the passing on of shame....
The story of Job is particularly one that is hard for Christians, and I remember it unsettled me and got me thinking for a lot of reasons; I think the film did a great job in inspiring that same feeling....I particularly loved how the oldest son really is "Job" in this story, in that he perceives the father, this God like presence who is at times loving, but also hard, violent and destructive, the ambivilance and challenge it takes to reconcile and love a Father like that....
Thank you for this interpretation. I watched this film last night, and the reaction from the crowd was hilarious. No one clapped, and the reaction on my friend's face was priceless: absolute perplexion. So I have to agree with some of the comments, although this is a spiritual story in a vaguer sense, to me it really is grounded in the story of Job.
As a 15-years-retired practicing catholic, I am not religious, but I accept the beliefs of people who are very genuine and fair when it comes to their faith. Some people can at times denounce anything that contradicts their beliefs, or can cause them to fabricate or distort for their own purposes. Despite Father Barron's loyalties and affiliation with the church, his review of this film is probably the most articulate and fair description I've heard yet. A very good and useful interpretation.
I think artsy oriented people no matter what religion or non-religion will feel this movie and apply it to their beliefs. It helps to know of the story of Job ... somewhat. But being that the story is placed in the USA in the mid-fifties of an average type family ... I don't think quoting the Gita or Buddha would make much sense.
@MsThebeMoon-i dont think you have to be too "artsy" to figure out that this movie is a prayer, or a dialogue between the characters and what they conceive of as "god". the music at the end (agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi.....) ending in "amen" is a pretty obvious tip-off.i do agree that an eastern spiritual perspective doesnt help much as the spirituality in this film is distinctly western. if malick isnt catholic, i can see how he could be mistaken for one. incidentally im not a believer.
weirdly i found myself comparing this film to the coens' "A Serious Man".both are films about faith, but "Tree of Life" is the flip side to the brutally dark, almost nihilistic look at the human condition that is the coens' film.penns character finds late mid-life salvation in faith (going thru the doorframe at the end) whereas larry in "Serious" succumbs to despair. while im not a believer, i found malicks film an eloquent and deeply moving hymn to faith. both films are different takes on job.
@wordonfirevideo That's stupid, quotes from the bible can be used in a completely non religious way. I would say that The tree of Life is spiritual, but not religious
@wordonfirevideo I think part of what makes the movie so great is it can be seen through religious and agnostic eyes. The Job quote does not denote - for me (because I'm Agnostic) - that Malick believes in story of Job specifically. It can simply be a narrative tool. I've used multiple Bible verses in some of my short stories because I've studied religion (I grew up Christian) & because it's an interesting device that is easily relatable to the masses.
@rivasdre Oh I don't know, man, that strikes me as a tad facile! I mean, there are certainly Biblical citations that are generic enough to appeal to an agnostic with a conscience, but the book of Job?! I think it's impossible to make any sense of that book apart from a specific belief in God. Don't forget, too, that Mallick is a profoundly believing Christian.
@wordonfirevideo The Coen Bros. made A Simple Man, also heavily referencing the story of Job. They are certainly not Christians... having said that. My point is that whether or not Malick is Christian, I - as an agnostic - can enjoy the film's themes and messages outside the scope of Christianity. The themes are the same, the details a bit different perhaps.
@rivasdre The Coen Brothers might not be Christian, but they are certainly interested in spiritual themes and the things of God. And friend, I'm not telling you that you're incapable of enjoying a film like Tree of Life, but I think it's disingenuous of you to say that you don't see the religious themes in it.
@wordonfirevideo We're getting into semantics here perhaps. I 100% agree the themes are spiritual in nature and that Malick must be a deeply spiritual person. Call it nature, call it God, call it the way or undiscovered truth of the cosmos... I'm just saying this movie - for me - doesn't adhere to one organized religion's rules, even if it begins with a quote from the Bible. There are many quotes from the Bible I'm sure Malick would not quote, after all.
@wordonfirevideo the quotation is meaningful but not necessarily in religious way. the film is about conflicting paradoxical feelings and emotions and some unanswered questions about life. the citation is telling us stop asking about these nonsense because you(human) do not know anything about creation. where have you been when I (God) created the universe? what do you know about all secrets? film is trying to show that this quotation is yet meaningful although in its evolutionary concept.
@wordonfirevideo (part 2) so it tells us that yes again we human do not have any idea about how the world has been created, either in its religious stories or in the scientific discoveries. but in a very intelligent way the director has chosen the scientific way which is against religion stories about creation. it shows how we have evolved from nothing and from bacteria and so on and the feeling and emotions we have is actually the by product of that evolutionary process nothing more.
@wordonfirevideo As an introduction to how the O'Brien family understand life. In Fiddler on the Roof Tevye's life is strongly connected his god, but it doesn't make the film a religious film, I think.
@JordanJC92 Pantheism (i.e. the universe is God) also is a religious concept, so in a way you think that his film is religious. Personally I think, TToL is more of a spiritual-theological-philiosophical meditation, the fact is that we cannot be 100% sure whether Malick is a devout Christian or just somebody who has a strong personal interest in theological and philosophical issues and concepts.
@JordanJC92 I think it can be interpreted either way. Malick is a devoutly religious person but he doesn't wish to lecture his beliefs to his audience but rather allow them to interpret it their own way so that way, he gets to express his religiosity without alienating people who don't share his faith.
@klausweasley --judging from his film it wouldnt surprise me if malick was a regular churchgoer with an intelligent, very deep belief. while i dont share this belief, the beauty of his vision and the eloquence of his defense or "apology" for faith really was stunning. hes not lecturing because hes not teaching; hes building a bridge (the image at the end). a transcendent vision; i was surprised.........
@majorhoop According to an interview with Brad Pitt (who is an agnostic), Malick is indeed a religious man. Martin Sheen was quoted in saying Malick restored *his* faith in God when they worked together on "Badlands".
@klausweasley --if its true that malicks brother committed suicide at 19 this fact would put an edge on some of the "dark night of the soul" doubts expressed by characters in the film. malick doesnt give a cause of death for the brother in the film, i think placing his death in a larger spiritual/cosmic context.
@JordanJC92 Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not necessarily religious at all? Have you seen this film, by chance? It begins with a bible verse, images of Christianity are littered throughout the film, there are moments where it is almost undeniable that our protagonist is talking to God. On top of that, the moment where the grief of the deceased son is released, or expelled, or whatever, is the moment where the mother gives her son up to God.
@JordanJC92 On top of that, the title is a reference to the Bible. What part of this does NOT scream "religion" to you? Sorry if I come across as aggressive, I just (obviously) don't understand your logic.
I cannot stop thinking about what was said at the beginning of The Tree of Life, what was said about that which differentiates grace from nature.
I think nature usually wins out at the local googolplex these days. The film was strange, beautiful, challenging, unsettling, and revealing. It asks something of the viewer.
I just saw this film. Many people walked out within the first thirty minutes. Many people snickered throughout it. When it was finished, many people burst out laughing and exclaimed that it was the "stupidest" movie they had ever seen. I have read reviews and comments claiming it to be pretentious and absurd.
When I saw The Hangover II, the audience applauded and whistled at the end exclaiming that the best part was when the monkey was licking the dead drug dealer's minuscule erection.
@BurgoFitzgerald Ha! This was my experience too - although no one got up and left (we're Canadians, after all, lol), a few of my friends mentioned that if it was on t.v. they would've changed the channel. Perplexion and a feeling of release was clear from most of the audience, as if they were being held captive through the bizarre scenes. I found it perplexing too, but I think this is one case where knowing the biblical context helped...I loved this movie, felt Malick did his job as a filmaker.
I just came back from this film. It was just awesome. Breathtaking. Alot of people will disagree with me, but this was a film mostly about God. Fr. Barron's explanation I think nailed what the film was about. I loved it.
Malick studied philosophy at Harvard and is a Rhodes Scholar. I know you religious types love to claim everything as your own, but this is a PHILOSOPHICAL film first and foremost.
@tobreakcustom Are you trying to say that there is no connection therefore between the philosophical position of Malick and his understanding of the Book of Job? What's your take on the reason the movie opened with a line from Job?
There doesn't seem to me to be much ambiguous about the theme of this film: Faith with a capital "F". Attempts to "de-religion" this film are doomed to failure. While I'm not a believer Malick's argument for faith results in a compellingly beautiful film. If I'm not mistaken I believe that Malick's brother committed suicide while they were in their 20s. It is interesting to compare this film with "The Thin Red Line"; empathy is a recurring theme in Malick.
majorhoop 2 days ago
@majorhoop he based quite a bit of the film on his early childhood.
sixamsedna 1 day ago
The Tree of Life was an absolute masterpiece, and this greatly intellegent and intellectual priset has made me love it even more.
kalel0192 2 days ago
i don't agree with the notion that God "allows" evil to exist for the purpose of introducing good.. i think that: good, truth, light, matter, life.. etc.. are all inherently a STRUGGLE.. existence has much more of bad than good.. falsehood than truth.. vacuum than matter.. death than life..
it is HARD to genuinely believe in God as a mere restricted mortal.. it is HARD to survive.. it is HARD not to succumb to worldly pressures.. it is a HARD path.. hence God selects for the few.. the true
bygonevexation114 3 days ago
so if that 20 minute sequence was "GOD's" perspective, wouldn't then CARL SAGAN'S the "COSMOS" - be a different take on "GOD'S" perspective?
Wouldn't the movie BARAKA also be GOD'S PERSPECTIVE?
xudnoxaj 1 week ago
This is a wonderful movie and even if you are not religious I think this is a very interesting and true analysis.
Terrence1242 1 week ago
Nonetheless a respectable interpretation!!!
7YOBMOfficial 1 week ago
Terrence Malick has a degree in philosophy, and went to Harvard. I don't think it's too hard to believe that, upon creation of this film, he expressed ideas from different religious backgrounds. Evolution included.
7YOBMOfficial 1 week ago
i think that's the great thing about this film. people can discuss for ever on what is it exactly about, but everybody will always see something different and it will mean something different for each person. i think the director achieved his goal, on making people think outside the box a little bit, and reminding people that there's so much more to life than what we limit ourselves to see now days. wether it's about religion, science, evolution, etc.....we all came to a personal conclusion.
DATART85 2 weeks ago
Thank you so much for all these extremely relevant points in this film. I surprised myself at how many I missed.
prolatey 2 weeks ago
Also, why is it not possible to appreciate Biblical literature and to be accepting of science? I'm very much an atheist and in no way religious, but I am certainly moved by parts of religious texts. Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8, for instance. (And I'm not saying Malick is the same, as he clearly IS a Christian man)
bluemoonrising26 3 weeks ago
The film struck me more as pantheistic than religious. Although the theme of religion runs throughout the film, it never explicitly chooses a side (so to say), and instead chooses (as with his other film, The New World) to find beauty and meaning through nature.
Jonmad17 1 month ago
While Fr. Barron has difficulty appreciating films that aren't in line with his religious beliefs on their own terms (see his review of "A Serious Man" where he completely misses the point) this film is right in his wheelhouse and he hits a home run this time.
Although I am certainly not a "believer" in any way, shape or form this is the most beautiful film I've seen in the last decade & Barron gets it right. He might want to stick to what he knows (faith) and steer clear of films about doubt.
majorhoop 1 month ago
I think this is a fantastic interpretation of the film.
And one of the best ive seen or heard. As an Atheist i only have a basic understanding of Genesis, Revelation, and the Gospels.
And i mean him just talking about Job, unlocked instantly a brand new meaning of the film to me. As well as the meaning of the title.
Although personally i agree with said comment above, i read the dinosaur sparing the other dinosaur, and the boy not dropping the car on his father as an act of grace, not nature.
rorrt 1 month ago
Direct quote from Tolkien:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism"
Deuterium2H 1 month ago
@skworq: Umm, evidentally you don't realize that Terrence Malick is a devout Christian. So, I don't think Father Barron's interpretation of the movie, from a Christian and Catholic perspective is not "naive". Malick's narrative and imagery is absolutely evocative of his Christian beliefs and Faith...without beating a "message" into the viewer's head. He is to subtle, and too much a master at his craft for that. It reminds me a bit of J.R.R. Tolkien, who was also devout Catholic.
Deuterium2H 1 month ago
I actually like this "Father Barron". His analysis was not too shabby.
tcullz760 2 months ago
I too saw the dinosaur scene as a form of grace as well. The way the scene was setup, the audience is made to expect that the larger dinosaur is going to kill and eat the smaller dinosaur. But then Malick defies expectations and large dinosaur winds up sparing the smaller dinosaurs life. Of course, this momentary grace note in the movie is immediately undercut with the scene of the asteroid that collided with the Earth and cause the extinction of the dinosaurs.
lorddio99 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:13 going back to the errr ahh err ahh, evo.... I mean, the beginning of the earth.
leisurelydinner 2 months ago
Comment removed
leisurelydinner 2 months ago
@garbot12, @andresbv18, I see the cosmos in awe & I refer to it as I would to god if I believed in one. The evolution detour clearly throws all notions of god out of the realm of true reality. Malick's respect of the cosmos, nature & the kindness in humanity is of outmost respect similar to god worshipers. The references to the book of genesis is a curve ball, this is why many (specially Christians) walk out of the movie theater 45 minutes into the film.
limitlesslimited 2 months ago
@limitlesslimited Well, to Christians, and I believe catholics in particular, the cosmos, nature & the kindness in humanity are the manifestations of God. Therefore, since Malick is a passionate Christian one can assume that in showing these things he is talking about God's glory. All of the splendor of the earth and the cosmos give testiment to the glory of God. Also, an evocation of evolution doesn't rule out religion as most religions accept evolution, including catholicism.
DMCTrader 1 month ago
IMO the movie was about evolution and its highest achievement: empathy. the first glimpse of the evolution of empathy is seen in the dinosaur sparing another dinosaur scene... also, the movie shows that the will world end with the red giant sun swallowing the earth (many miss this), and NOT when "Jesus comes back". Christianity is just part of the setting in the movie, not the point. it acknowledges that our great human empathy CAN manifest through religion (in this case Christianity).
xjaskix 2 months ago
@xjaskix Oh come on! The title of the film is taken from the book of Genesis and the statement that opens the entire movie is taken from the book of Job. More to it, Malick is a passionate Christian. And you think it's about evolution?!
wordonfirevideo 2 months ago 11
@wordonfirevideo yeah, well, it SHOWED evolution, and how it will all end (red giant sun, not Jesus). how can you get around that? the dinosaur showing compassion also kinda conflicts with a Christian view of nature, as only humans are thought to be able to be either good or evil. and how do you know he is a passionate Christian? i'd like to read about it or see himself talk about it in an interview, if possible.
xjaskix 2 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Can't it be both?
I myself saw both many themes about faith and evolution.
Mrhaux 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo
Why the arrogance? I think it's clear that Malick is a Christian, but equally so that he is an appreciator of science and knowledge. He uses the latter to explore life and the former to explore religious interpretation of it.
bluemoonrising26 3 weeks ago
@bluemoonrising26 See you're not getting it. All things stem from God, the scene of evolution is God's speech. Evolution is God's creation story in a way, and that I think is what is being expressed.
They both were highly religious, because science is of God as well.
garbot12 1 week ago
@garbot12
What you're saying does not oppose my interpretation of Malick's movie
bluemoonrising26 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo the tree of evolution is fundamentally rooted within the yin-yang.. OR "Nature and Grace".. evolution is a resultant of the accumulation of favorable mutations.. in which a lot must die (nature) for a few to survive (grace).. a lot must be a poor for a few to be rich.. it is a beautiful balance between life and death.. rationality and irrationality.. truth and falsehood.. existence and nonexistence.. light and darkness.. you simply cannot have one without the other :)
bygonevexation114 3 days ago
@wordonfirevideo Why not both? This is a catholic priest, catholics recognize the truth of evolution. And I don't think there's any proof stating Malick is a Christian. What we do know is he is a philosopher, who is heavily influenced by Heidegger and what it is to be dasein. Plus, how do you know that reading it Christian is completely wrong since Genesis and Job are both originally from the Tanakh? Just saying don't be so sure of this one outlook. Art by definition is multiply interpretable.
bassman462 3 days ago
@xjaskix
I agree. Malick is clearly of the position that our goodwill and incorruptibility is the realization of humanity. Malick, in my opinion, omits the supremacy of a single belief system, instead giving consideration to numerous theological, moral and scientific based elements of philosophy.
fitzy098 2 months ago
@xjaskix Sir, with all due respect, did you even see the movie?
MGR1900 1 month ago
The raptor overpowering the smaller one was grace, I thought, since he could have eaten him, but left him instead.
Tengent 2 months ago
Fr. Barron, you have a talent for interpreting art. I enjoyed listening to your exegesis of this film the way I enjoyed listening to my literature professors in college. Thank you
vegforlife555 3 months ago
As another atheist, I too appreciated Fr. Barron's comments.
Yes, it is completely possible for this movie to affirm our atheism. It's very interesting that both Brad Pitt and Sean Penn are atheist/agnostic, but the director/writer Terrence Malick seems not to be. When I hear the Grace and Nurture narrative early in the film, it reads that Grace is what God is not, and Nature is what God is. I think the story of Job is the ugliest fictional stories in all of literature.
yoohootube 3 months ago
@yoohootube How Is it ugly? Did you ever finish the book, you know the part where Job gets everything back, and finds eternal happiness? The book of Job is actually one of the most beautiful stories in the OT. It conveys a relationship between man and God where when all seems dark and hopeless God is there to help. You should honestly reread the story and ask a theologian to describe the parts that don't quite make sense.
garbot12 2 months ago
@garbot12 Seriously, "how is it ugly"? I don't need to ask a theologian to spin the story until it's acceptable. Job doesn't "get everything back" at the end, he gets a NEW family, as if that makes up for the horrific suffering that God gave Satan PERMISSION to inflict. God is there to "help"? You have GOT to be kidding me.
yoohootube 2 months ago
This film completely denounces god. A boy's death and a mother's plea to god (why), takes us on a 30 minute detour of the evolution and the cosmos over millions of years and not seven days. Once he establishes the absence of god, he proceeds poetically to comfort us, reminding us of the beauty of life. We are just a an astroid away from extinction, so just try to be good to one another and enjoy your frail moment in the cosmos together. Abandon your religious crusade and embrace life as it is.
limitlesslimited 3 months ago
@limitlesslimited The scenes of evolution were depicting God's slow process of creation, at the end of the movie they were essentially in Heaven. Open your mind brother and see past the walls you built yourself.
garbot12 2 months ago
@limitlesslimited The final line in the film is Jessica Chastain saying "I give my son to You". I don't think Malick would be denouncing God in doing this.
andresbv18 2 months ago
Wow, Father Barron gave very insightful commentary on the movie.
banana4698 3 months ago
I'd like to echo the comments of some others I have seen that, although I am not religious in the least, I found this to be a very thoughtful and insightful analysis of this wonderful film. Mr. Barron actually explained the "universe sequence" in a way that I hadn't considered before, but which makes perfect sense. Very appreciative!
wilk1978 4 months ago
I enjoy the interpretation, but disagree.
I see in that sequence, preceded by a whispered "how did I get here?"(something like that) - I see the ingredients of nature in all it's messy glory: violence, beauty, cells splitting, sulfuric acid boiling away - to me, all that really is an illustration of How We Got Here: beautiful Evolution.
Of course, as an atheist that's what I see. Theists of course will see what they see.
Isn't interpretation a wonderful indicator of how we think and analyse?
cinesimonj 4 months ago
@cinesimonj hat sequence was not preceded by "how did I get here" though. It was preceded by Jessica Chastain's "Lord, why? Where were You?" In fact, i'm not 100% sure but "how did I get there" I don't recall that line being in the film.
gariadara 4 months ago
A wonderful explanation!
bruesoYT 4 months ago
Enjoyed his opinion and he really knows his stuff. I don't find myself religious or atheist. For me when I hear someone say the word God I have to assume they're talking about something more then an individual.
pmilleroly27 4 months ago
I disagree. He so naively saw this film via his religious agenda, and has interpreted these scenes quite differently to how I did, which of course is the wonderful ambiguous nature of impressionistic art forms. Btw, I viewed the dinosaur sparing the other's life as a form of Grace. Nature has grace woven throughout it.
skworq 4 months ago
@skworq I wouldn't call it an agenda, it merely fits into his particular belief system.
For me, it was obviously showing the beauty of nature and evolution - that's not an agenda either, just how I see the world and how it works: through science, not faith.
No need to be harsh on theists when they're not being evil.
cinesimonj 4 months ago
@cinesimonj My frustration lies with people whom denounce Nature as someone outside the realm of one's own faith-based concept of the world. Morality exists via the accumulative processes of Nature. Indeed, both Fr Barron's source and subject of his zeal exists via the accumulative processes of Nature. I've worked for wilderness conservation trying to convey a message of Grace, to spare the existence of rainforests in the face of human demands for resources. Perceptions of what is truly sacred.
skworq 4 months ago
@skworq the "nature" referred to by the movie is slightly different from your understanding of natural "processes" IMO. Malick's film isn't talking about the natural world when it referred to "nature." Nor does the film laud Grace over Nature. It simply states that they "always....wrestle inside me."
gariadara 4 months ago
@skworq Friend, why would you think it "naive" to provide a religious interpretation to a film that commences with a citation from the book of Job?!
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago 37
@wordonfirevideo I think this is a quite reasonable review. Is it leaning toward a certain interpretation? Well, of course. Isn't the entire movie a rumination on grace and faith, a question as to what it means and whether it should even exist? Of course, there can be no pure conclusion on which we'd all agree because that is the nature of faith, existing beyond the easily defined. If anything, a conversation about what this means could go back and forth forever. It is a poem... about grace.
jackster1212 3 months ago
Comment removed
MGR1900 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo For some reason, I'm reminded of Spanky and Alfalfa at the end of one of their shorts where they have their hands on their chins, looking at something in disbelief and they say, "They'll never learn!"
MGR1900 1 month ago
@skworq
I don't understand how you can ignore the opening. The movie is given a religious frame by the director. To ignore that is to assert a agenda different from his.
McWader 4 months ago
skworq, this was just one interpretation of many available. I'm just glad that people are responding thoughtfully to this movie. I sat through a screening with people who texted throughout and booed at the end.
I think your absolutely right about the dinosaur, though.
mattbenzing 4 months ago
@skworq
Seeing as Terrence Malick is very religious and obviously Christian, I wouldn't brush off his opinions and take on the film so easily.
KillSwitch2 3 months ago
@skworq But Malick is openly catholic and religious. He has made no secret of that, despite being an overly reclusive filmmaker. Of there is a man who is not afraid of injecting religion in his movies, in western cinema today, it is Malick.
MaridAudranBudayeen 2 months ago
@skworq I actually saw the dinosaur scene as a form of Grace being a million times more powerful than nature. The way of Grace is always victorious.
I don't understand how you can say it's naive to have a religious interpretation, and then go on about the wonderful ambiguous nature of the film. If u're saying it's ambiguity is a good thing, then every interpretation is valid. I actually believe this about art forms in general.
andresbv18 2 months ago
@skworq However, this particular film references the bible countless times and ends with the mother surrendering her son to God. Accepting His ways gracefully. If anyone has a different interpretation, it's perfectly fine. In my eyes, it is thoroughly a spiritual and religious film.
andresbv18 2 months ago
I have never found a more beautiful explanation this movie. Everything had meaning - I will think about this for a very long time. There is a reason for why I loved it so much and it brought so many emotions. Truly a masterpiece.
shelleyAnn4 4 months ago
i still haven't found a better explanation of The Tree of Life 4-5 months later!
bonndiablo 4 months ago
I loved Tree of Life like no other film. Thank you for your particular and helpful insights on the film.
thomaswong8105 4 months ago
I loved this analysis. However-after you brought up the title & how to take from the Tree of Knowledge assumes a god-like perspective (I'd also call this a detached, objective, non-particular perspective) & that is not really living. You lose the tree of Life when you gain the tree of knowledge. I'd want to suggest that the best interpretation of this point is as a duality between a Heideggerian authentic Being-IN-the-World vs a removed subject to the world-as-object.
Would you agree in any way?
danielmizzle 4 months ago
Your insight on the opening segment being a re-enactment of Job was fascinating, but I'd disagree that the dinosaur scene was about nature. The one dinosaur does dominate the other, but being able to let him live, I think, demonstrated grace.
obscurereference7 4 months ago
In addition to the Christian overtones present in this movie, there are heavy instances of Buddhism/Taoism. The combination of the three would, in my opinion, make this more of the spiritual movie, rather than a "THIS RELIGION IS THE RIGHT ONE" movie.
SlowRiotNewKanada 4 months ago
I don't buy the nature vs grace element. I think there is no God, everything is "nature", people do what they do to survive. It's just that humans have surpassed the other forms of life on the planet and are now at a crossroad and wonder what this all means. They are part animal, part something else and it's that struggle that exist in themselves that confuse them. And one day the human race will shed their animal/nature self and become higher beings, one with the cosmos.
skinwalkerxxx 4 months ago
@skinwalkerxxx Did you watch the movie?
megaead69 4 months ago
@megaead69 yes. the priest was using the movie to go on about a philosophical thing. i'm not talking about the movie but what I believe we're all about. and how I don't believe Malick's take on life
skinwalkerxxx 4 months ago
Such a fine understanding.
TeflonDom 4 months ago
This is, by far, the best Tree of Life commentary. I've showed this to some of my friends who had mixed feelings after seeing ToL- they were able to see the film from an entirely different and more complete context.
MrWakeup71 5 months ago 14
@MrWakeup71 This is a good commentary but it's not flawless or the only correct perspective. I don't think ToL is solely about the Christian God. Actually, I thought it was more of an agnostic or pantheistic approach to spirituality. I think 2001 a space Odyssey addresses one aspect of humanity: technology. Tree of Life addresses another aspect that makes us unique: love, or just emotion. But of course, it's all subjective and ToL can have many valid interpretations.
Ryan5m1th 1 month ago
Terrence malick is an Assyrian,just an intresting fact.
1jilu 5 months ago
I'm NOT a "religious person" AT ALL, but I've ALWAYS been deeply, deeply and lastingly affected by ALL of Terrence Malick's movies ... including verrrry much "The Tree Of Life" that I saw for the first time last night and which I'll certainly be seeing AGAIN VERRRRY soon....
--John Pluntze
(Ketchum, Idaho)
pluntze2001 5 months ago
Jesus told us to "consider the lilies of the field" Mathew 6: 28. He did not tell us to enter into a trance state and enter into a mindless pirouette amongst them. Jesus knows all things. As God and man, He is both the creator and the experiencer both heaven and earth. Without Jesus, Satan's 'spiritual fairy dance' view of the world, would be the closest that we would ever get to knowing God.
voyagersystem 5 months ago
When I was under the influence of demons, I experienced Mallick's films as entirely spiritual. In 2009 I was born again through Jesus Christ. I rewatched Mallick's films and I now find them creepy. Why? I think because they sensualise a worldly demonic reality. They seduce and mesmerise, but to what purpose? It is like we are placed under an enchantment that we can never escape. Mallick uses the fallen world to hypnotise, but JESUS overcame the world. Hallelujah!
voyagersystem 5 months ago
@voyagersystem
I've reread your post and I find YOU creepy.Under the influence of demons? The interesting thing about religious fanaticism,it allows people a somewhat accepted platform to say and believe things that they would otherwise be commited to a mental institution for.
jdgalee 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jdgalee, Get behind me, Satan.
voyagersystem 5 months ago
@voyagersystem Cocaine is a helluva drug, a helluva drug...
wdamian 4 months ago
Comment removed
voyagersystem 5 months ago
I disagree on the fact that the father is the nature, and mother is the grace. We can see Chastain in constant contatc with the nature (barefoot, hair on wind), and her love for people, animals, and plants. Pitt, in oposite, represents discipline and the hard education of religion (he's the one who always takes his family to church), representing the grace.
MrPig 6 months ago
@MrPig That's actually really interesting. Did Malick ever say the mom was grace and the dad was nature? Maybe people jumped to conclusions if he didn't.
AmbroseEpeeMaster 6 months ago
@AmbroseEpeeMaster The entire film is the Garden of Eden and the Grace vs. Nature speech is made only to the spectators. There are two ways of seeing ToL and you will probably only get in one piece home through Grace. Mother=Father. What poem inspired this film?
"Long have I loved you and for my own delight
Would call you mother, give you an artless song,..."
This is nothing but a game with the spectator:
"Grey, my friend, is every theory And green is Life’s golden tree."
(Faust)
Gooltter 5 months ago
Your review is by far the best
titanayrum 6 months ago
I also think that in the book of Job, God answer to Job, is I am Grand, and you are small. How can you judge my Justice? That is the answer to all suffering. The whole world give us plenty of joy, yet, we complain about its harshness. The same goes for the boy in the movie, he had a great life, but always complaining about his father, he didn´t feel small compared to his father. This same atittude we have toward life; to judge, instead of being grateful
kinoglazvideo 6 months ago
Im surprised you didnt mention what St. Bonaventure wrote in his Tree of Life, that God rules the universe partly through nature, partly through grace, partly through justice, and partly through mercy. I thought the father represented more justice than nature. Since nature is the brutal reality of a pitiless world. However, in the end of the fiilm everything led back to our heavenly Father and divine mercy as represented through Malick's use of blue and pink (as seen during Divine Mercy Sunday).
Tondars 6 months ago
Comment removed
conceptonefilm 7 months ago
One of the reviewers made a clever observation that it is not an accident that Jack O'Brien's name initializes to JOB.
For another exposure to some of the same themes that the Priest mentions here from the movie, read Carlos Eire's exquisite memoir, Learning to Die in Miami.
honeyjbc1 7 months ago 2
Philosophically the film is naive and uninteresting. Aesthetically it was beautiful.
mikaelhs 7 months ago
@mikaelhs exactly. quite simplistic.
skinwalkerxxx 4 months ago
Sorry, but the film is unexplicitly a Christian film. Malick is episcopalian and devout. If you're not religious, what is your reading of the images of the dead bodies and the hand rising out of the grave? This isn't just an image of an imaginative afterlife. I believe it's the depiction of the hope of bodily resurrection in the new heavens and new earth. Given Malicks background, and films content I'm convinced it's a Christian film but something that atheists can still get something from.
aloh86 7 months ago 2
@aloh86 ---i came to the same reading of the film without knowing malicks background. it wasnt hard to come close in a guess, either catholic or episcopalian.
majorhoop 7 months ago
I'm atheist, and although we disagree on things I love hearing your opinions on films and to hear some comments and analysis from a christian perspective, it's good to hear insightful remarks from an individual such as yourself. Personally I don't see the Tree of Life as a religious film per se, rather a spiritual film as the movie explores that which is imbedded in every human, regardless of creed. I'd like to hear you talk about this film more and maybe some comments on 2001: A Space Odyssey.
ItsJester94 7 months ago 44
@ItsJester94 In my own opinion, the Tree of Life is thoroughly Christian. That is not to place a limit on it. In fact quite the opposite. What worth is a religion if at its core it doesn't possess things that are ultimately universal? Every faith "explores that which is embedded in every human, regardless of creed." That's why people have the ability to form attachments to a particular faith in the first place.
snillocgrom 4 months ago
@ItsJester94 Couldn't have said it better myself.
dkurmanov 3 months ago
The film is indeed spiritual, as it perfectly shows the struggles of people; however how can you reject it as religious? The first scene is a passage from the book of Job.
garbot12 2 months ago
Even though Fr. Barron misses some of the movie, I think this is my favorite review of Tree of Life. It's just not an easy movie to break down, and I think he does the best job of specifying ideas that are very broad in scope.
bonndiablo 7 months ago
The movie is very subjective and I think everyone is entitled to their interpretation
ErikHutt 7 months ago
i.e. because an immanent God transcends time and space. the chair you are sitting on always existed at a particular point in time and space. You can claim that the hands of the craftsman are what really created it but then you still have to show intent, something which is not scientifically possible. You see, teleology does not even work when applied to artifacts of man. I suppose you could argue there is no meaning whatsoever and a chair is no better for sitting on than a box...
ijwi 7 months ago
What I'm driving at is that if you're arguing against a God (or supreme being in general) who is immanent, then Teleology is a philosophical dead end. It was originally a medieval tool of rationalist philosophers attempting to scientifically prove the existence of God despite the fact that miracles imply something outside the chain of events. God doesnt exist in only one point of time and you cant ask anyone to show you when God invented the eye. Or the chair, or computer. They always existed.
ijwi 7 months ago
it is spirtual but not in the religious way. we all now that how religion is ignorant about evolution and can not accept it. the whole film is around this subject that all human emotions are the product of evolution. so asking the question about why death and why we are here in a higher point of view will be irrelevant. and that quotation of Job will be useful but not in its religious way. if the film was religious it would show the creation like fake stories in bible not in the scientific way!
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
@amirhosseinfarhang The only reason evolution has anything to do with discussion of religion is because certain fundamentalist sects don't believe in it. You might as well claim that religion cannot accept electronics because the Amish don't like to use them.
Certainly this has no bearing on Catholicism (who actually contributed to the scholarship of evolution, e.g. Gregor Mendel). So did Islam and other mainstream denominations that believed that the work of God was reflected in physical laws.
ijwi 7 months ago
@ijwi I think you have got a vague understanding on evolution. accepting or not accepting the electronics has got nothing to do with GOD but accepting the evolution means you do not need any designer for the life and complexity in the universe. So I believe the whole discussion you brought up is fundamentally wrong. we are the result of evolution and so our emotions are as well. all the purpose of film was to show how irrelevant are the questions of life compare to real story of life.
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
@amirhosseinfarhang In any case, the people who are most prone to teleology are atheists and folks abandoned religion over simple questions like the "problem of evil" that do not require proof of God. (e.g. stating the question of why we are here irrelevant, or the illogical claim that God cannot exist because he allows evil to happen and therefore there is no such thing as good.) Teleology is ironically a very modernist concept but it only works if you reject the notion of an immanent deity.
ijwi 7 months ago
unbelievers seem to be reluctant to accept this film as a product of a deeply held faith in god. fr. barron's review of "A Serious Man" shows a similar inability to accept a work of art on its own terms.
dont be scared! see these films for what they are! "the tree of life" is a moving confession of faith. "a serious man" is a bleak, ironic satire, as far removed in tone and outlook from malick as can be imagined. try to see what theyre doing & accept that both films speak of real truths.
majorhoop 7 months ago
in an evolutionary process. so all the feeling and emotions are the result of the evolution we are here because of that and we have the feeling just because of that. yes we have the better brain and logic that it is going to ask why why... but still the brain itself is the product of evolution. so when someone asking these questions that why we have made and how and why something bad happened or so on then the quotation in meaningful, although not in its religious meaning.
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
then it is going to show the evolution road in which human has been made through billion years (all of these are controversial subjects in religion point of view) in other words it want to say why on earth we have to ask these questions why we think we are so special and something different than nature. so it is not religious yet again that quotation is meaningful. where have you been when I was creating the world. surely if the film was religious it wouldnt show that creation in an evolutionary
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
but the main problem is human is actually a product of evolution in the universe. so human is the part of nature and in nature when something is going to die or going to be extinct even, there is always something new that will take over it. so we human we think we are something especial. actually we are not we are not that especial creature of god that every thing should have some explanation for us. so when the mother and brother in their thoughts asking these mysterious questions then
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
I did not say the whole subject of this film is against religion. I said the concept of the film is not something that religion would agree with that. yes we have that qoutation from the book of job. but it does another meaning in this film. the film is about how human is being affected by joys and grieves through the life and through these emotions and feelings sometimes he just wonder why he is here and what is the point of being here and .....
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
film is religious? yes .... but would you please stop saying nonsense. as far as I concerned the film shows beautifully the evolution which is against all religion we have. I enjoyed the film anyway and I believe the questions in this film are the questions that religion wasnt able an won't able to answer them at all.
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
@amirhosseinfarhang So let me see if I have your position straight? The film is religious, but it's just against religion! If you think this movie is just a meditation on evolution, why do you think it commenced with a quotation from the book of Job?
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
Comment removed
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Religion is just organised philosophy on life with a doctrine and tradition . I m a complete atheist yet i quote the gospels all the time . And i dont think mallick is religious , he uses buddhist philosophy or zen in the thin red line. most of the good quotes from the gospel are completely relevant to life . sometimes the most so. theres no line between philosophy religion and reality.
olliephelan 7 months ago
@olliephelan Malick is a devoutly practicting Christian!
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@amirhosseinfarhang against all religion we have? theistic evolution. perhaps u should also look up who came up with the big bang theory.
wonderful, beautiful reflective review.
dwpais 7 months ago
@dwpais theistic evolution!!! how on earth theories that shows the universe do not need a designer(chaos theory) and life is came out of nothing (evolution theory) have got something to do with God? it is an obvious that God is an answer but bring more questions that can not be answered even by himself. However I must confess that this film can be seen in both point of view. in religious way as it mentioned in the verse of JOB and in scientific way as it shows in evolution.
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
so y did u say 'evolution is against all religion we have' when evolution is completely compatible and not at all inconsistent with the vast majority of religions such as roman catholicism which exposes theistic evolution, and particularly when you have roman catholic priests such as georges lemaitre and gregor mendel inventing the big bang theory and the science of genetics? the media and many non-religious segments like to propagate such falsities
dwpais 7 months ago
i think its interesting that this film got made. who was the target audience? to me, it is clearly a religiious, or spiritual if you will (the difference is lost on me sometimes), film grounded in a deeply held faith. i would think this would be box office poison unless aimed at the christian right which it isnt. it'll take a while for it to break even im sure.
that said----this is the most powerful film ive seen in quite a while & its too bad that soon it will be lost in the shuffle......
majorhoop 7 months ago
I apologize for the long comments here. Clearly this film and the story has gotten under my skin. Malick did his job well I'd say:)
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
but, and here comes the blasphemy, do you think that in the story that Job is able to perceive things that perhaps the God in the story is not able to perceive...frailty. Am I off here? Several years later as an adult, I came across Jung's "Answer to Job" which I think also touched on some of these themes...I am very interested in what your thoughts are on this. As well I am interested in your interpretation of the last scenes on the beach, as Mallick lost me here!
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
God's speech to Job, but I do remember being in my teens and reading the story and being absolutely rankled by some of the verses...God takes away Job's family, smites him with disease, takes everything from him....Job is crushed...and he does ask the question as to why, which I think is a fair one....and in the story God goes on in this long speech about how great and powerful he is...which I think Job is acutely aware of since he has taken everything from him.....
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
What I find fascinating about the story is the oldest son perceives qualities in the father, his duality, the loving and the destructive aspects, that the father cannot see at the time...the father does realize this later on when he loses his job, and experiences 'failing', realizes he was too hard on his sons....my question is maybe blasphemous, but I am wondering if you feel that this too mimics the biblical story of Job? I love your interpretation as the cosmic scenes mimicing....
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
...I also love how Mallick shows how this gets passed down generations, how the oldest son mimics the father with his younger brother, how he plays these games with him to test his trust, sometimes loving and sometimes intentionally hurting him....and how at the end he stops and experiences grace because he realizes he should not hurt him because he is his brother after all...I thought tthat this was an interesting undertone to this story here, the passing on of shame....
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
The story of Job is particularly one that is hard for Christians, and I remember it unsettled me and got me thinking for a lot of reasons; I think the film did a great job in inspiring that same feeling....I particularly loved how the oldest son really is "Job" in this story, in that he perceives the father, this God like presence who is at times loving, but also hard, violent and destructive, the ambivilance and challenge it takes to reconcile and love a Father like that....
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
Thank you for this interpretation. I watched this film last night, and the reaction from the crowd was hilarious. No one clapped, and the reaction on my friend's face was priceless: absolute perplexion. So I have to agree with some of the comments, although this is a spiritual story in a vaguer sense, to me it really is grounded in the story of Job.
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
Father, I could sit and discuss this movie with you for hours. It is a stunning masterpiece of Catholic filmmaking, whether or not Malick knows it!
MizznicoleArc 7 months ago
As a 15-years-retired practicing catholic, I am not religious, but I accept the beliefs of people who are very genuine and fair when it comes to their faith. Some people can at times denounce anything that contradicts their beliefs, or can cause them to fabricate or distort for their own purposes. Despite Father Barron's loyalties and affiliation with the church, his review of this film is probably the most articulate and fair description I've heard yet. A very good and useful interpretation.
spunger 7 months ago
Genius, I love your interpretation
MrGoodClass 8 months ago
I think artsy oriented people no matter what religion or non-religion will feel this movie and apply it to their beliefs. It helps to know of the story of Job ... somewhat. But being that the story is placed in the USA in the mid-fifties of an average type family ... I don't think quoting the Gita or Buddha would make much sense.
MsThebeMoon 8 months ago
@MsThebeMoon-i dont think you have to be too "artsy" to figure out that this movie is a prayer, or a dialogue between the characters and what they conceive of as "god". the music at the end (agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi.....) ending in "amen" is a pretty obvious tip-off.i do agree that an eastern spiritual perspective doesnt help much as the spirituality in this film is distinctly western. if malick isnt catholic, i can see how he could be mistaken for one. incidentally im not a believer.
majorhoop 8 months ago
Comment removed
MsThebeMoon 7 months ago
Great Film, definitely one of my favorites.
VenusProject2025 8 months ago
weirdly i found myself comparing this film to the coens' "A Serious Man".both are films about faith, but "Tree of Life" is the flip side to the brutally dark, almost nihilistic look at the human condition that is the coens' film.penns character finds late mid-life salvation in faith (going thru the doorframe at the end) whereas larry in "Serious" succumbs to despair. while im not a believer, i found malicks film an eloquent and deeply moving hymn to faith. both films are different takes on job.
majorhoop 8 months ago
I don't think the film in necessarily religious at all - I think Malick sees the universe itself as God.
JordanJC92 8 months ago
@JordanJC92 Then how do you explain the citation from Job at the beginning of the movie?
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 11
@wordonfirevideo That's stupid, quotes from the bible can be used in a completely non religious way. I would say that The tree of Life is spiritual, but not religious
littlepro22 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Context. Establishing a theme. Setting a spiritual tone.
xerxesshavedhead 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo I think part of what makes the movie so great is it can be seen through religious and agnostic eyes. The Job quote does not denote - for me (because I'm Agnostic) - that Malick believes in story of Job specifically. It can simply be a narrative tool. I've used multiple Bible verses in some of my short stories because I've studied religion (I grew up Christian) & because it's an interesting device that is easily relatable to the masses.
rivasdre 7 months ago
@rivasdre Oh I don't know, man, that strikes me as a tad facile! I mean, there are certainly Biblical citations that are generic enough to appeal to an agnostic with a conscience, but the book of Job?! I think it's impossible to make any sense of that book apart from a specific belief in God. Don't forget, too, that Mallick is a profoundly believing Christian.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo The Coen Bros. made A Simple Man, also heavily referencing the story of Job. They are certainly not Christians... having said that. My point is that whether or not Malick is Christian, I - as an agnostic - can enjoy the film's themes and messages outside the scope of Christianity. The themes are the same, the details a bit different perhaps.
rivasdre 7 months ago
@rivasdre The Coen Brothers might not be Christian, but they are certainly interested in spiritual themes and the things of God. And friend, I'm not telling you that you're incapable of enjoying a film like Tree of Life, but I think it's disingenuous of you to say that you don't see the religious themes in it.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo We're getting into semantics here perhaps. I 100% agree the themes are spiritual in nature and that Malick must be a deeply spiritual person. Call it nature, call it God, call it the way or undiscovered truth of the cosmos... I'm just saying this movie - for me - doesn't adhere to one organized religion's rules, even if it begins with a quote from the Bible. There are many quotes from the Bible I'm sure Malick would not quote, after all.
rivasdre 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo the quotation is meaningful but not necessarily in religious way. the film is about conflicting paradoxical feelings and emotions and some unanswered questions about life. the citation is telling us stop asking about these nonsense because you(human) do not know anything about creation. where have you been when I (God) created the universe? what do you know about all secrets? film is trying to show that this quotation is yet meaningful although in its evolutionary concept.
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo (part 2) so it tells us that yes again we human do not have any idea about how the world has been created, either in its religious stories or in the scientific discoveries. but in a very intelligent way the director has chosen the scientific way which is against religion stories about creation. it shows how we have evolved from nothing and from bacteria and so on and the feeling and emotions we have is actually the by product of that evolutionary process nothing more.
amirhosseinfarhang 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo As an introduction to how the O'Brien family understand life. In Fiddler on the Roof Tevye's life is strongly connected his god, but it doesn't make the film a religious film, I think.
Trombonauta 5 months ago
@JordanJC92 Pantheism (i.e. the universe is God) also is a religious concept, so in a way you think that his film is religious. Personally I think, TToL is more of a spiritual-theological-philiosophical meditation, the fact is that we cannot be 100% sure whether Malick is a devout Christian or just somebody who has a strong personal interest in theological and philosophical issues and concepts.
Ilsimeone 8 months ago
@JordanJC92 I think it can be interpreted either way. Malick is a devoutly religious person but he doesn't wish to lecture his beliefs to his audience but rather allow them to interpret it their own way so that way, he gets to express his religiosity without alienating people who don't share his faith.
klausweasley 8 months ago
@klausweasley --judging from his film it wouldnt surprise me if malick was a regular churchgoer with an intelligent, very deep belief. while i dont share this belief, the beauty of his vision and the eloquence of his defense or "apology" for faith really was stunning. hes not lecturing because hes not teaching; hes building a bridge (the image at the end). a transcendent vision; i was surprised.........
majorhoop 8 months ago
@majorhoop According to an interview with Brad Pitt (who is an agnostic), Malick is indeed a religious man. Martin Sheen was quoted in saying Malick restored *his* faith in God when they worked together on "Badlands".
klausweasley 8 months ago
@klausweasley --if its true that malicks brother committed suicide at 19 this fact would put an edge on some of the "dark night of the soul" doubts expressed by characters in the film. malick doesnt give a cause of death for the brother in the film, i think placing his death in a larger spiritual/cosmic context.
majorhoop 7 months ago
@JordanJC92 Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not necessarily religious at all? Have you seen this film, by chance? It begins with a bible verse, images of Christianity are littered throughout the film, there are moments where it is almost undeniable that our protagonist is talking to God. On top of that, the moment where the grief of the deceased son is released, or expelled, or whatever, is the moment where the mother gives her son up to God.
AnthonyLeePhillips 7 months ago
@JordanJC92 On top of that, the title is a reference to the Bible. What part of this does NOT scream "religion" to you? Sorry if I come across as aggressive, I just (obviously) don't understand your logic.
AnthonyLeePhillips 7 months ago
@JordanJC92 That is exactly fucking right, I was about to make the same comment when I saw this one
littlepro22 7 months ago
@JordanJC92 That is exactly fucking right, I was about to make the same comment when I saw this one
littlepro22 7 months ago
I cannot stop thinking about what was said at the beginning of The Tree of Life, what was said about that which differentiates grace from nature.
I think nature usually wins out at the local googolplex these days. The film was strange, beautiful, challenging, unsettling, and revealing. It asks something of the viewer.
BurgoFitzgerald 8 months ago
I just saw this film. Many people walked out within the first thirty minutes. Many people snickered throughout it. When it was finished, many people burst out laughing and exclaimed that it was the "stupidest" movie they had ever seen. I have read reviews and comments claiming it to be pretentious and absurd.
When I saw The Hangover II, the audience applauded and whistled at the end exclaiming that the best part was when the monkey was licking the dead drug dealer's minuscule erection.
I ca
BurgoFitzgerald 8 months ago
@BurgoFitzgerald Ha! This was my experience too - although no one got up and left (we're Canadians, after all, lol), a few of my friends mentioned that if it was on t.v. they would've changed the channel. Perplexion and a feeling of release was clear from most of the audience, as if they were being held captive through the bizarre scenes. I found it perplexing too, but I think this is one case where knowing the biblical context helped...I loved this movie, felt Malick did his job as a filmaker.
feedingthechickens 7 months ago
Malick is actually Episcopalian and regularly attends services with his wife at an Episcopalian church.
noizetrauma 8 months ago
I just came back from this film. It was just awesome. Breathtaking. Alot of people will disagree with me, but this was a film mostly about God. Fr. Barron's explanation I think nailed what the film was about. I loved it.
aloh86 8 months ago
What an amazing review!! As a former atheist, I'm so thankful for men like Fr.Barron : )
megaead69 8 months ago
Malick studied philosophy at Harvard and is a Rhodes Scholar. I know you religious types love to claim everything as your own, but this is a PHILOSOPHICAL film first and foremost.
tobreakcustom 8 months ago
@tobreakcustom Are you trying to say that there is no connection therefore between the philosophical position of Malick and his understanding of the Book of Job? What's your take on the reason the movie opened with a line from Job?
gambleor 8 months ago