LTTP: The Tree of Life (And Art Films)

H

HollowCentral

Member
So I saw The Tree of Life today, and therefore saw my first "art" film. By "art" film, I'll use the definition given by Wikipedia:
An art film is typically a serious, independent film aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience.[1] An art film is "intended to be a serious artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal";[2] they are "made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit",[3] and they contain "unconventional or highly symbolic content".[4]

Film critics and film studies scholars typically define an art film as possessing "formal qualities that mark them as different from mainstream Hollywood films",[5] which can include, among other elements, a sense of social realism; an emphasis on the authorial expressiveness of the director; and a focus on the thoughts, dreams, or motivations of characters, as opposed to the unfolding of a clear, goal-driven story. Film scholar David Bordwell describes art cinema as "a film genre, with its own distinct conventions".[6]
Click to expand...
...which I think Tree fits perfectly into the category of.

First, my thoughts of Tree: What an incredible experience. This film has some of the most incredible visuals ever recorded, and still manages to tell an engaging and thought-provoking story across it's 2:20 runtime. Everything that is shown clearly has a purpose, though what that purpose is can be left up to debate. And while it is very obtuse at times, it never made me feel stupid for not understanding everything it wanted to project. The music helped give those visuals a voice, and created an incredible sense of scale towards the start. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain both give the best performances I've seen from them, Brad Pitt in particular, who earns his place as one of my favorite actors with this and Benjamin Button. But it's really the outstanding child acting that brings the whole thing home. The only gripe I really have with it is the choppy editing; I will always prefer long, uninterrupted shots than quick shots, but that's just a personal preference, and one that doesn't really affect my opinions on the film. Other than that, I loved this film, and would be open to seeing more films like it.

To that end, MovieGAF: what other "art" films fall in the same vein as The Tree of Life? I would love to hear suggestions and be exposed to more great cinema.

Edit: Added Wikipedia definition.
 
2001 A Space Odyssey
Pink Floyd's The Wall
Eraserhead
Blade Runner the Director's Cut
Brazil
 
Choomp said:
IIIRC GAF isn't big on Tree of Life but I love that dang movie
Click to expand...
Tree of Life is pretty popular on moviegaf and so is Malick. I'm not that much of a Malick fan and still haven't seen Tree of Life. Badlands is great though.

Edit: closest to Malick you're gonna get are films by Apichatpong Weerasethakul and David Lowery.
 
I fell asleep watching the film. The way the mother whispers all the time and the whole bit about life since the beginning and dinosaurs was too soothing.
The home life part was pretty good.

Edit: as far as arthouse films go I like Harmony Korine's weird stuff.
 
More_Badass said:
How are 2001 and Blade Runner art films? You must subscribe to a pretty broad definition to see them as fitting in that category
Click to expand...

You consider 2001 a commercial film for mainstream audiences? And yeah, blade runner can probably also be considered an art film.
And OP, you should watch In the Mood for Love, Under the Skin, The Fountain
 
Sans Soleil (1983) albeit documentary in style, I believe it has the feeling you are looking for. If you like it you may want to check more Chris Marker. (La Jetee is pretty famous and rather short)

Persona (1966) different type of emotions, but you can give it a try and then see if you want to check out more Ingmar Bergman after that.
 
HoJu said:
You consider 2001 a commercial film for mainstream audiences?
Click to expand...

The demarcation between "art" and "commercial" film is completely meaningless, and my advice to OP would be to not worry about such labels or distinctions. A film is a film.

If you enjoyed Tree of Life, definitely echo the suggestions of checking out the rest of Malick's filmography. His earlier films, in particular, are surprisingly accessible given their (imo misleading) reputations.
 
More_Badass said:
How are 2001 and Blade Runner "art films"? You must subscribe to a pretty broad definition to see them as fitting in that category
Click to expand...

I'd say that 2001 ultimately goes into "art film" territory, (it's climax) especially in 1968.

Or maybe you could say it's bridging a gap of sorts, being a decently budgeted commercial product with a big studio behind it while also being highly unconventional and symbolic, still confounding plenty of first time watchers.
 
Really not sure what the distinction between art and commercial film is. One of my favorite films is Cloud Atlas, and I've yet to see another movie try to tell a story like that.
 
HollowCentral said:
I own 2001 but haven't seen it yet. Plan to get around to it soon.

Definitely going to after this. Are his post Tree of Life films worth checking out as well? I know Song to Song came out this year, so I might watch that one first.
Click to expand...

Weirdly enough, I've never gotten around to watching anything he's done after Tree of Life. They seem fairly divisive.
 
HoJu said:
You consider 2001 a commercial film for mainstream audiences? And yeah, blade runner can probably also be considered an art film.
Click to expand...
I tend to think of art films as stuff like Tree of Life or Antichrist, or David Lynch's films. 2001 isn't like those. It's less...metaphorical/allegorical, I guess, compared to what I see art films usually attempting to do
 
Malick's pre-Tree of Life stuff is the most obvious suggestion. His work since then has been kinda bad unfortunately. The current major director whose work most resembles Malick's (minus the mysticism) might be Claire Denis. Beau Travail and White Material are the most obvious suggestions for her. The historical filmmaker that Malick most resembles is probably Andrei Tarkovsky (check out Stalker and Solaris first). You said you prefer long takes so you should check out Stanley Kubrick's back catalogue if you haven't already. And if you're feeling adventurous you should search out stuff by Bela Tarr (Werckmeister Harmonies is probably the best starting point) and Hou Hsiao-hsien (The Assassin or Flight of The Red Balloon might be his most accessible).
 
To the wonder
Knight of Cups (my fave)
Song to Song

I'm really big into Malick's cinema. It's probably the best experience I've had in a film both mentally and spiritually, his films usually have a deep message of you follow closely. Ahhh I love Malick!
 
I would throw Hiroshima Mon Amour and the works of Federico Fellini (Specifically 8 1/2) onto that list of essentials.

Man I loved that classic film class I took in college. Introduced me to alot.
 
More_Badass said:
How are 2001 and Blade Runner art films? You must subscribe to a pretty broad definition to see them as fitting in that category
Click to expand...
2001 is one of the most seminal art films of all time. 2001 is outrageously art over commerce in almost every aspect of its creation. Some huge revolution of the film industry notwithstanding, we'll never again see a strange and challenging film with such a huge budget and such broad penetration into the collective consciousness.

It has long scenes about watching things slowly drift across the screen, almost no dialogue, and a climax that makes no sense to most people. Of course 2001 is an art film.
 
jtb said:
The demarcation between "art" and "commercial" film is completely meaningless, and my advice to OP would be to not worry about such labels or distinctions. A film is a film.

If you enjoyed Tree of Life, definitely echo the suggestions of checking out the rest of Malick's filmography. His earlier films, in particular, are surprisingly accessible given their (imo misleading) reputations.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and any genre can be considered sn art film, and its pretty subjective.

But if one thinks there are art films, I don't know how 2001 can't be considered one. Because it's sci-fi?
 
mjp2417 said:
You said you prefer long takes so you should check out Stanley Kubrick's back catalogue if you haven't already.
Click to expand...
Watched Paths of Glory last month, which was my first Kubrick movie, and fucking loved it. Probably my favorite war movie that I've seen. And, like I said, own 2001, but haven't seen it yet. I really want to get the collecting from Amazon so I can do a marathon of all of them.
 
Window said:
2001 is more of an 'art' film than Tree of Life. It has plenty of allegories, metaphors and abstractions.
Click to expand...
A lot of movies - conventional and otherwise - have subtext, metaphors, and allegorical elements. That's not enough to make something an "art film"
 
Some artsy films to check out (if you want):

The Double Life of Veronique (dir. Krzysztof Kieslowski)
Persona (dir. Ingmar Bergman)
Under the Skin (dir. Jonathan Glazer)
Eraserhead (dir. David Lynch)
Vivre Sa Vie (dir. Jean Luc Godard)

Basically, just go through the Criterion Collection and find something that catches your eye. They have a nice variety of English/Foreign films they curate. Not all of the films in the Criterion Collection are hits, but it's a great entry point to discover more art/foreign films.
 
More_Badass said:
A lot of movies - conventional and otherwise - have subtext, metaphors, and allegorical elements. That's not enough to make something an "art film"
Click to expand...

All film is "art" and 99% of it is "commercial" (in that it's being funded to make a profit for... somebody, somewhere).

The only question is if it's any good.
 
Krev said:
It has long scenes about watching things slowly drift across the screen, almost no dialogue, and a climax that makes no sense to most people. Of course 2001 is an art film.
Click to expand...
I think that's a odd list of specifics to conclude with "it's an art film"

I mean, using a qualifier of "it doesn't make sense to everyone" seems like a broadly subjective measure to describe if something qualifies as an art film

What specifically about 2001's story, structure, etc. makes it an "art film"? I guess that depends on how you define an art film. I'd argue that unorthodox structure, unorthodox use of visual language/filmic design, and/or a concerted effort to ingrain a narrative with metaphorical/allegorical/subtextual meaning is the largest factors that distinguish an art film.

I'd describe 2001 as a science fiction epic, but I wouldn't call it an art film. 2001, for all its grand epic scope, has a quite linear and straight-forward narrative. Sure, it leaps between each story almost like an anthology, but overall plot is very A to B to C. And while 2001 does have long scenes "where things slowly drift across the screen", there's a clear narrative and atmospheric intent for the design of those scenes (i.e. tension, display the unsettling vastness of space, etc)
 
More_Badass said:
A lot of movies - conventional and otherwise - have subtext, metaphors, and allegorical elements. That's not enough to make something an "art film"
Click to expand...
That 2001 is guided by creative choices that were very against the commercial cinema trend when it was created (as well as today), in the service of metaphor and abstraction, should be enough.
More_Badass said:
What specifically about 2001's story, structure, etc. makes it an "art film"? I guess that depends on how you define an art film. I'd argue that unorthodox structure, unorthodox use of visual language/filmic design, and/or a concerted effort to ingrain a narrative with metaphorical/allegorical/subtextual meaning is the largest factors that distinguish an art film.

I'd describe 2001 as a science fiction epic, but I wouldn't call it an art film. 2001, for all its grand epic scope, has a quite linear and straight-forward narrative. Sure, it leaps between each story almost like an anthology, but overall plot is very A to B to C.
Click to expand...
Why do films need a non-linear narrative to qualify as an 'art film'?
And while 2001 does have long scenes "where things slowly drift across the screen", there's a clear narrative and atmospheric intent for the design of those scenes (i.e. tension, display the unsettling vastness of space, etc)
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a narrative film, things serve a narrative purpose, but the way those scenes are directed has as much to do with creating a unique aesthetic experience as anything else.
It's a Stanley Kubrick film - that's always been one of his main guiding principles. He has said that cinema should above all hit you like music does - narrative, etc is secondary.
 
Borgnine said:
Come hang out in the monthly movie threads.
Click to expand...
Started hanging out there last month. It's pretty great.
jon_i634 said:
Basically, just go through the Criterion Collection and find something that catches your eye. They have a nice variety of English/Foreign films they curate. Not all of the films in the Criterion Collection are hits, but it's a great entry point to discover more art/foreign films.
Click to expand...
I recently went through the catalog on their website and added a lot of the movies to my watchlist. It's a great company.
 
jtb said:
All film is "art" and 99% of it is "commercial" (in that it's being funded to make a profit for... somebody, somewhere).

The only question is if it's any good.
Click to expand...
Of course, but clearly the specific label of "art film" has certain connotations and expectations beyond just "film is art"

Krev said:
That 2001 is guided by creative choices that were very against the commercial cinema trend when it was created (as well as today), in the service of metaphor and abstraction, should be enough.
Click to expand...
Do you consider Dunkirk an art film? Being a film about survival in the midst of war, rather than a conventional war film, that goes against the well-established conventions and expectations of the genre by never showing you the enemy, having an unconventional non-linear structure, and using its protagonists in a metaphorical manner with each being a microcosmic representation of their group's experiences rather than having a traditional character-focused narrative?
 
Krev said:
That 2001 is guided by creative choices that were very against the commercial cinema trend when it was created (as well as today), in the service of metaphor and abstraction, should be enough.

Why do films need a non-linear narrative to qualify as an 'art film'?
Click to expand...
They don't. Being non-linear is just an example of unorthodox or unconventional film structure
 
More_Badass said:
Do you consider Dunkirk an art film? Being a film about survival in the midst of war, rather a war film, that goes against the well-established conventions and expectations of the genre by never showing you the enemy, having an unconventional non-linear structure, and using its protagonists in a metaphorical manner with each being a microcosmic representation of their group's experiences rather than having a traditional character-focused narrative?
Click to expand...
Dunkirk is more of an 'art film' than say Hacksaw Ridge, but it's more in line with conventional cinema of its day than the 'what the fuck is that' that 2001 was and continues to be.
More_Badass said:
They don't. Being non-linear is just an example of unorthodox or unconventional film structure
Click to expand...
Well, 2001 does have an unorthodox or unconventional structure.
 
Fuck, I just remembered

Watch The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

I'm surprised no one's mentioned it yet, tbh; there's a ton of fans of this great film on GAF, and it's got one of Brad Pitt's best performances

More_Badass said:
Of course, but clearly the specific label of "art film" has certain connotations and expectations beyond just "film is art"
Click to expand...

Does it? As far as I can tell, the only connotation it has is "has a portentous sense of self-importance" or "imparts a portentous, inflated sense of self-importance upon its viewers."
 
Gobias said:
A lot of people seem to hate Upstream Color but I love it. I didn't even like Primer either
Click to expand...

Same, Haven't seen it in years but I remember this movie very very positively. Incredibly film.

Primer, lol. [eyeroll]
 
More_Badass said:
A lot of movies - conventional and otherwise - have subtext, metaphors, and allegorical elements. That's not enough to make something an "art film"
Click to expand...

I'm using those as qualities of 'art' films because that's what you used to differentiate 2001 from ToL earlier in the thread. Can you please explain in what ways does ToL display these qualities in greater concentration than 2001 that qualifies it as an 'art' film? Or what do Lynch films display that makes them 'art' films? I'm curious about what your take is on the monolith and the ending to 2001.
 
Anyone ever seen Timecode (2000) I can't remember anything about it.
 
Gobias said:
A lot of people seem to hate Upstream Color but I love it. I didn't even like Primer either
Click to expand...

love both, didn't think either were art films...wait...what is an art film? this thread is doomed.

I'll throw out there films by Luis Bunuel I guess. This seems really arbitrary. Do people just consider slow films to be art films?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TERRIFIER 4 will be the last film in the franchise, and finally reveal the true origin of Art The Clown
19
1K
DrFigs replied
  • Locked
Fuck life.
2
58
2K
Go_Ly_Dow replied
Who are your heroes in life?
2
63
2K
Wildebeest replied
Leaked Avengers: Doomsday concept art
2
73
6K
MonkD replied
Brian Cox explains the Fermi Paradox (why we have not yet seen evidence of intelligent alien life)
2
68
3K
GloveSlap replied
Top Bottom