Slog
News & ArtsSunday, August 21, 2011
Film The Tree of Mystical Birds
Posted by Charles Mudede on Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Those who have not seen The Tree of Life, this is about as deep as it gets...
3
Charles, are you trying to say you DIDN'T like the movie? Please clarify with at least another 3 or 4 posts.
5
The more you hate this movie, the more I love it.
And life is a mystery. You don't know very much about the universe if you think we know everything about life.
And life is a mystery. You don't know very much about the universe if you think we know everything about life.
7
Charles, how can you simultaneously be right in mocking that ICP-esque mysticism in the movie (fucking birds, how do they work?) and also pompous and wrong about why you're mocking them?
8
What an atheist knows is what a religious person knows; namely, an atheist decided that something is, without the requisite proof that reason demands.
Well, whatever floats your boat, Charles.
Well, whatever floats your boat, Charles.
9
"A woman suddenly floats up a tree."
Maybe you should mention that the woman is the main character's mother. And that fleeting image (of her floating near a tree, not up one) followed her describing getting to fly around in a small prop plane when she was younger. Kids sometimes see their parents as more graceful/amazing than they really are. Too bad you were too grumpy to enjoy ToL.
Maybe you should mention that the woman is the main character's mother. And that fleeting image (of her floating near a tree, not up one) followed her describing getting to fly around in a small prop plane when she was younger. Kids sometimes see their parents as more graceful/amazing than they really are. Too bad you were too grumpy to enjoy ToL.
11
@3, he's so enjoying wrestling with its meaning I think we should start a betting pool. I say he does three to four posts a week through October, then just a couple every month through 2012. But wait: when do Oscar noms come out? There could be a blizzard of them around them.
13
So, supposing one has the option to either view this movie or The Hulk....close call.... or go to the real comic book movie?
14
I was waiting for the smug agnostic, and there it is.
I don't know what this has to do with atheism, the lack of belief, or agnosticism, the lack of knowledge (or as I like to put it: the belief that neither you nor anyone else can possibly know anything). This shows how neat the patterns make because of the way birds follow each other, fly, and use air currents. It's more than the grocery bag in American Beauty, and it makes us think about it. I feel it's a really artistic, sort of right-brain thought process.
But no, it has to be a thread for agnostics be superior to atheists.
I don't know what this has to do with atheism, the lack of belief, or agnosticism, the lack of knowledge (or as I like to put it: the belief that neither you nor anyone else can possibly know anything). This shows how neat the patterns make because of the way birds follow each other, fly, and use air currents. It's more than the grocery bag in American Beauty, and it makes us think about it. I feel it's a really artistic, sort of right-brain thought process.
But no, it has to be a thread for agnostics be superior to atheists.
15
The Tree of Life has been out for what, three months now? You wrote a blind, negative (non-)review, later hated on the title, then finally saw it two months after the rest of us (and didn't change your opinion much). I guess, fine, you didn't like it, but also hasn't the moment passed? Maybe if it had gone Avatar, but that's clearly not the case with a to-date take of some $12,000,000 domestically. What's your deal?
18
@14, I didn't say I was agnostic, HA. But I forgot to include the obligatory blog-commenting /snark off switch, so shame on me anyway.
19
You are making a hobby out of hate for this movie - can you get over it? Can you get over yourself?
The mysteries of life are still vast. The life within you is still not fully understood. Religion aside, can't it be beautiful enough that we don't yet know everything about how we arrange and unfold and expand?
You are wasting parts of your life and parts of ours by being an enemy of an artistic work. WTF Chuckles.
The mysteries of life are still vast. The life within you is still not fully understood. Religion aside, can't it be beautiful enough that we don't yet know everything about how we arrange and unfold and expand?
You are wasting parts of your life and parts of ours by being an enemy of an artistic work. WTF Chuckles.
20
charles, you need to wear a black turtleneck and beret, and recite this to bongo drums in a smoky basement boite somewhere in greenwich village. NOT HERE.
21
@9, no no, he's not interested in putting anything into context -- that would take all the fun out of his pseudo-intellectual Malick-bashing. Just let him keep making his posts. He'll tucker himself out eventually.
22
Whelp, Cranky McCrankyPants is yelling again because people don't model the universe the way he models it. He's gonna crap his pants (or post to Slog, same difference) until everyone agrees that the way he views the world is the only true way to view it.
Remind me again, why aren't you a TeaBagger?
Remind me again, why aren't you a TeaBagger?
25
@23: I think you should see the movie and make up your own mind. I loved it because I saw it with someone and managed to have a long conversation afterward about its meaning, and also because it was really beautifully filmed. It is too long, I think. The finishing sequence drags and gets boring. But I think there's enough good in the movie to justify at least giving it a chance.
26
@2, Charles *always* tells people what to think via making pronouncements. True atheists do this, Blabblahblah is the best film, the only animal worth making a documentary about is the human, etc. There are no opinions, only truths, and Charles is the truth-revealer.
27
Also, Charles, do you really think people who think the universe is mysterious aren't real atheists? I'm feeling a strong "fuck off" coming on. Oh, there it was.
28
Listen, we know so much about the universe. We even know that quantum fluctuations left temperature traces on relic radiation. Something so fine (measuring the temperature of the cosmic microwave background) and so true and so present to us.
In terms of the big picture, all that remains unknown is extremely deep within the second of this universe's birth. I feel none of this is mysterious. Stars manufactured the heavy elements of which I'm composed. I'm made of recycled star stuff. This stuff cycles through the biosphere. Sometimes it is in the atmosphere, sometimes the hydrosphere, sometimes it's coursing through my veins. Where is the mystery in all of this?
Cinema must no be mislead by this Malick character. Cinema can present a coherent, clearer, and more profound vision of the universe we live in. Please see Guzmán's Nostalgia for the Light. It dusts this TOL crap. It points us in the right direction. In the words sampled by DJ Premier, "Trust me, I'm as live as it gets."
In terms of the big picture, all that remains unknown is extremely deep within the second of this universe's birth. I feel none of this is mysterious. Stars manufactured the heavy elements of which I'm composed. I'm made of recycled star stuff. This stuff cycles through the biosphere. Sometimes it is in the atmosphere, sometimes the hydrosphere, sometimes it's coursing through my veins. Where is the mystery in all of this?
Cinema must no be mislead by this Malick character. Cinema can present a coherent, clearer, and more profound vision of the universe we live in. Please see Guzmán's Nostalgia for the Light. It dusts this TOL crap. It points us in the right direction. In the words sampled by DJ Premier, "Trust me, I'm as live as it gets."
30
@ 29, I'm starting to wonder if this isn't personal. Does anyone know if Malick took part in any of the film festival juries that judged Charles' films?
31
The only subject matter worthy of pondering in a deep and meaningful way in a film is horse fucking.
32
Matt, I'm pretty sure one thing true about Malick is that he doesn't do stuff like that, sitting on film juries and such, the industry whatnot that directors sometimes engage in when not actually directing.
No, I think a return trip to Wiki has the clues behind Charles's fascination. Malick did a philosophy degree at Harvard summa cum laude, and he was an ex-Rhodes scholar and Heidegger translator teaching philosophy at MIT while freelancing in journalism.
But he quit teaching and journalism to concentrate on films.
I wonder whether to Charles, Malick looks like the path not taken. Charles sees this man doing just what he wants and nothing other and may wonder: after Zoo, after Police Story, should I have quit this journalist nonsense and devoted myself to moviemaking as Malick did? What if it is too late? What if it is not too late?
No, I think a return trip to Wiki has the clues behind Charles's fascination. Malick did a philosophy degree at Harvard summa cum laude, and he was an ex-Rhodes scholar and Heidegger translator teaching philosophy at MIT while freelancing in journalism.
But he quit teaching and journalism to concentrate on films.
I wonder whether to Charles, Malick looks like the path not taken. Charles sees this man doing just what he wants and nothing other and may wonder: after Zoo, after Police Story, should I have quit this journalist nonsense and devoted myself to moviemaking as Malick did? What if it is too late? What if it is not too late?
33
My take is that if you're not amazed by and baffled by being alive, the universe, life existing, and to some degree by every blade of glass, then you're not thinking very deeply. All this philosophizing is eggshell-deep.
(Also, I didn't trust my spelling, and so I found myself amused by Google's first returned result for "philosophizing," from Miriam-Webster online: "1. Speculate or theorize about fundamental or serious issues, esp. in a tedious or pompous way.")
(Also, I didn't trust my spelling, and so I found myself amused by Google's first returned result for "philosophizing," from Miriam-Webster online: "1. Speculate or theorize about fundamental or serious issues, esp. in a tedious or pompous way.")
34
"...this Malick character"? Are you for real with this crap? I am not one of those people who loved the film, but man how I appreciate a director with the vision and talent to make such a movie that stirs such passion. You, Charles, are the "character" no one should be paying any attention to.
36
@28: Seriously, Charles? You think we basically have the natural world figured out? Just a few trivial details to fill in? If so, your brand of atheism is just as stupid, naive, and superstitious as any religion.
For every question that a given scientific theory answers, it raises dozens more. Like the four year old who responds to every explanation with "why?", scientific investigation never ends.
What's more, there are vast areas of study -- e.g., how the human brain works -- where scientists readily admit our understanding hasn't even scratched the surface
The world of the intelligent atheist is far more mysterious than that of the mystic.
For every question that a given scientific theory answers, it raises dozens more. Like the four year old who responds to every explanation with "why?", scientific investigation never ends.
What's more, there are vast areas of study -- e.g., how the human brain works -- where scientists readily admit our understanding hasn't even scratched the surface
The world of the intelligent atheist is far more mysterious than that of the mystic.
38
@28: P.S - you need to brush up on your philosophy of science, starting with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which has essentially put an end to the kind of scientific hubris you expressed in your comment.
Newtonian physics was at one point considered obviously and infallibly true among scientists. Then Einstein demonstrated it was false. There is no reason to believe our current understanding of the universe won't likewise become obsolete.
Newtonian physics was at one point considered obviously and infallibly true among scientists. Then Einstein demonstrated it was false. There is no reason to believe our current understanding of the universe won't likewise become obsolete.
39
Charles, what do you think of the use of these same sort of blackbird swarms in Im Kwon-taek's The Taebek Mountains? And if you haven't seen it, why haven't you seen it?
40
The hypocricy of Mudede complaining about somebody else's pseudo-deep meaningless twaddle continues to astound me...
42
They are not birds. They are bats. There's a bunch of bats from Mexico that live under the bridges in Austin, which is where the film was filmed. Doesn't make the movie any better, but bats are cooler than birds.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS