Tree of Life et le cinéma de T. Malick

Terrence Malick Preparing Six-Hour Cut of ‘The Tree of Life’

Does Malick think about editing when he’s filming ?

We speak about it almost everytime. But most of the ideas about the editing we share on the set don’t make the final cut.

We maybe have been shot 600.000 metres (around 370 miles) of film.

The first cut was 8 hours long. Terry is working on/preparing a 6 hours long version of the movie. What I’ve seen (of this) is absolutely incredible, it’s wonderful. The longer version will have to/will likely, for the most part, relate to the children part. There were outstanding things, we’ve shot many, many things about Jack’s childhood : his friends, his evolution, his changes, his awareness of the loss of his childhood. I don’t know if I’m supposed to say all of this !

Wouldn't it be cool if death is really like that. You get to see all the people that were important to you in life and move on to heaven together.
Traye76 il y a 2 semaines 8

Eyquem a écrit:
Ici, j’ai pensé à la fin de La ligne rouge : la tombe en pleine nature de Witt (quelques plans après, on voit un cimetière militaire, avec son enclos bien délimité). Et Welsh demandant « Where is your spark now ? » En quoi il se trompe : il croit que le monde que Witt a vu est avec lui, à six pieds sous terre maintenant, que ce monde n’a jamais eu lieu, ne fut rien qu'une illusion, alors que c’est le contraire que suggère le montage : du fait que cette tombe est en pleine nature, et pas dans un cimetière fermé, c’est la juxtaposition de l’ici-bas et de l’au-delà qui est affirmée (mais c’est ce que Welsh ne peut pas voir).

Caviezel: “Terry said to me :

- “What do you think of Sean Penn?”
-I said, “He’s like a rock. One day you can go up and talk to him, and there’s some days he doesn’t know who you are. That’s Sean Penn.” When we were shooting that scene, Terry says, “Tell him that, tell him what you told me.”

On many days Sean and I would go out and run and work out together, and I kind of talked to him a lot about where I came from, my faith, and so on.

-Once Penn asked me, ‘What makes you tick?’”

-“Do you really want to know?”

-“Yeah.”

-“Jesus Christ.”

“When I came on the set, Penn [as Welsh] said “You still seeing the big ole’ light?” I think I said, “I still see a spark in you. I know he’s in you, I know there’s something going on.”

Le qasida (aussi transcrit qasîda, qaçida ou qasideh et ghasideh) en Arabe قصيدة, en Persan قصیده, est une forme de poésie originaire de l'Arabie pré-islamique. Elle a typiquement une longueur de 50 vers, parfois plus de 100. Cette forme a ensuite été adoptée par les Persans, qui l'ont transformée en poème non versifié de plus de 100 vers en l'utilisant et la développant énormément.

Le qasida est souvent un panégyrique écrit pour louer un roi ou un noble. Ce type est connu sous le nom de madih. Les qasidas ont un seul sujet, développé logiquement jusqu'à une conclusion.

Souvent, ou bien tous les vers riment dans un couplet ou une ligne sur deux dans un couplet de quatre vers. La forme classique du qasideh maintient un seul mètre tout au long du poème, et chaque ligne rime. Ces poèmes sont considérés comme faisant partie des plus élaborés dans le monde.

Dans son livre du IXe siècle, Kitab al-shi'r wa-al-shur'ara (Livre de la poésie et des poètes), l'écrivain arabe ibn Qutaybah affirme que le qasida est formé de trois parties. Il commence par une ouverture nostalgique, connue sous le nom de nasib dans laquelle le poète reflète ce qui est passé. Un concept commun est celui de la poursuite par le poète de la caravane de son amour ; au moment où il atteint le campement, elle s'est déjà déplacée.

Le nasib est généralement suivi par le takhallus - une libération ou un désengagement. Le poète l'atteint souvent en décrivant sa transition de la nostalgie du nasib vers la partie suivante du poème. La deuxième section est le rahil (section du voyage), dans laquelle le poète contemple la dureté de la nature et de la vie loin de sa tribu. Finalement, il y a le message du poème, qui peut prendre plusieurs formes : une louange à la tribu, fakhr ; des blagues à propose des autres tribus, hija ; ou quelques maximes morales, hikam. Alors que de nombreux poètes ont dévié intentionnellement ou non de ce plan dans leurs qasidas, on le reconnait souvent.

Eyquem a écrit:'soir Adeline,

je ne me souviens plus avoir vu quelque chose à côté de la tête du dinosaure à terre, j'avais simplement compris qu'il était blessé, ou malade, en tous cas "à la merci" du grand dinosaure.

en fait, en repensant à cette image, j'ai "vu" dans mon souvenir une tache sombre à côté de la tête de l'animal et j'ai pensé que j'avais loupé quelque chose (une tache de sang ?). Mais c'était peut-être juste une ombre, ou une pierre plus foncée que les autres. Ca n'a pas grande importance.


Je pensais aussi au rôle de l'imagerie cet après-midi.
C'est vrai que c'est un reproche qui revient souvent : c'est des belles images, ça ressemble à de la pub, des photos, des fonds d'écran, etc.

...ces musiques et ces images portent les questions les plus importantes du monde et de la vie, et il les hissent alors à la noblesse qu'une position élitiste leur refuse...

C'est convaincant.
J'ai lu dans l'article de Peter Biskind que Malick déteste la télévision :

The first real fight he and Michèle had was over buying a television, which she thought Alex, who was 11 or so by then, needed to help acclimate her to a foreign country. Malick, who has the habit of casting his likes, dislikes, and personal eccentricities as matters of principle, argued that TV was trash, that it would ruin the child. (When traveling, Malick often had the TV removed from his hotel rooms, and when that wasn’t possible, covered it.)

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/classic/features/runaway-genius-199812?currentPage=2

Si cette imagerie ne vient pas de la télé, de la pub, d'où vient-elle ?

Après tout, la télévision n'est pas la seule source d'images populaires. On en voit des exemples dans le film : les jouets des enfants qui représentent des animaux, l'assiette dessinée, les objets que le père ramène de son voyage autour du monde...

Je repensais à cette idée d'imagerie cet après-midi, parce que c'est vrai que pour un film qui commence sur une citation biblique, je ne vois pas une seule image qui renvoie à l'art sacré, icônes ou peintures religieuses.

Ce qu'on voit, c'est juste des couchers de soleil, du vent dans des rideaux, des jardins ordinaires, des arbres, des vaches dans un pré.

Pour toute la partie "Création du monde", on pense bien sûr à 2001, d'autant que Malick est allé chercher un des responsables des effets visuels du Kubrick (Douglass Trumbull).
Mais bizarrement, j'ai plutôt pensé aux images que je collectionnais quand j'étais tout gosse, ou à ces encyclopédies bon marché, du genre "Tout l'univers", qu'on trouvait partout. Il y a avait tout, dans ces images : les animaux, les planètes, les joueurs de foot, les dinosaures...

En cherchant sur le Net, je suis par exemple tombé sur les collections scientifiques de Life Magazine : dans les années 50-60, ce magazine s'était fait une spécialité des séries scientifiques sur la terre, l'univers, les premiers hommes, la matière, les océans, les mammifères...




(un numéro de Life Science Library ; ça rappelle l'affiche du film)

C'est dans ces magazines à 20 cents, qui tiraient à des millions d'exemplaires, qu'on trouvait des images en couleurs de Saturne par Chesley Bonestell, à une époque où ça devait pas être si courant de voir de telles images ;
ou bien des fresques synoptiques de Rudolph Zallinger, qui rassemblaient en une seule image l'âge des dinosaures, ou l'âges des mammifères, ou la marche du singe vers l'homme (c'est Zallinger qui a inventé cette "icône" reprise partout ensuite).



(par Chesley Bonestell, pour Life magazine, 1944)


(poster d'après une fresque de R Zallinger)


C'est évidemment une pure hypothèse, mais je me disais cet après-midi que le petit Terrence avait pu "délirer" devant des images de ce genre...

The World We Live In
One of the books used as a reference for the pre-production of Q (the title is a misnomer, it is called something else which I am trying to get straight as I write this) is The World We Live In, a book Terrence Malick had read as a child (in its first incarnation as a serial in LIFE Magazine, Malick would have been the same age as Jack o'Brien in The Tree of Life).

This book, specifically, can be reasonably surmised as the basis of a further/another autobiographical strand of The Tree of Life. The World We Live In come to life, instead of showing the boy reading the book to understand the world, we experience it through the prism of Malick's creative sensibilities. The creation sequence in the film precedes the central sequence of the formative moral/spiritual development and disenfranchisement of the protagonist, Jack.

I have ordered a copy of this book (for .06 cents!) and will further assess this connection once I have had a chance to read it. Judging by the excerpts included below from Wikepedia, it seems that Malick's The Tree of Life 2007/08 script drafts depicting creative evolution are derived directly from The World We Live In.

Malick's script reads almost as a lay reader description of proto-earth, much as it does in The World We Live In, specifically passages like this:

"Indeed, it is probable that the mammals may have survived and succeeded to hegemony of the earth not in spite of but by reason of their very weakness and obscurity, their smallness in a world dominated by giants, their nakedness in a world of armor plate -- in particular, by their fear and sensitivity and awareness in a world of unperceiving, insensate, brainless brutes."

Malick details in his script how mammals superceded reptiles as the dominant life form of prehistoric earth on through early man where, according to my contacts, would have lapsed into Q's second half.


from WIKIPEDIA:

The World We Live In was introduced to Life's readership as "the greatest series of science stories we have ever produced"[1]. It promised a "unified, understandable picture story of the planet Earth" authored by Lincoln Barnett, "one of the most literate authors in the field of science". The series itself started two issues later. Each of the chapters sported art and photos, often presented in large gatefolds which showed two sides of a scenario.




I. The Earth Is Born - published Dec. 8, 1952[2]. Illustrated by Chesley Bonestell, the first installment of the series covered the formation of the Earth, its composition, and its eventual demise. Contemporary principles of geology were also introduced.




II. The Miracle Of the Sea - published Feb. 9, 1953[3]. The second part of the series discussed the geology and geography of the ocean, its , and its effect on coastlines. The first to include a gatefold, it featured a panoramic geological cross-section of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines of North America.




III. The Face Of the Land - published Apr. 15, 1953[4] Surface geology was the focus of the third chapter, which provided overviews of mountain formation and erosion. The geological formation of the New York area was included as a sample history. The gatefold showed forces of uplift in a bare landscape on one side, and the same landscape after the effects of erosion on the other side.

IV. The Canopy Of Air - published Jun. 8, 1953[5]. Chapter 4 was the only issue not to be featured on the cover of Life; instead, the cover story was on Roy Campanella. The Canopy Of The Air featured clouds, air currents, chemical cycles, and other atmospheric phenomena.

V. The Pageant Of Life - published Sept. 7, 1953[6]After a discussion of evolution, the history of life on Earth is recounted, starting with single-celled organisms and ending with the demise of the dinosaurs. For the gatefold, Rudolph Zallinger's Age of Reptiles mural was used; however, the version in The World We Live In was Zallinger's preliminary, detailed study. The actual mural in the Peabody Museum is significantly different.

VI. The Age Of Mammals - published Oct 19, 1953[7]Zallinger was commissioned to produce another panoramic mural, this time showcasing the evolution of mammals in North America across the Cenozoic, from small Paleocene animals to the woolly mammoth and Megatherium. The mural was eventually revised dramatically for the Peabody Museum, with several animals (such as the mammoth) revamped completely.

VII. Creatures Of the Sea - published Nov 30, 1953[8] After the physical properties of the ocean in part II, part VII introduced the organisms living in it. The gatefold showed the diversity of marine life on one side, and benthic organisms on the other.

VIII. The Coral Reef - published Feb 8, 1954[9]. Types of coral reef, different species of coral, and the colorful denizens of the Great Barrier reef were present in this chapter.

IX. The Land Of The Sun - published Apr 5, 1954[10]Focusing on the Sonoran Desert, part IX explained the vicissitudes of life in the desert and the adaptations of desert animals. The gatefold, painted by James Perry Wilson of the American Museum of Natural History, showed the same desert scene by day and by night. A perfectionist, Wilson worked slowly and included as much detail as possible in the panoramas. He was unable to finish by the deadline, and some animals were painted by Robert Gartland. Both paintings were presented to the Peabody Museum in 1976 by Wilson's nephews.

X. The Arctic Barrens - published Jun 7, 1954[11]. Life on the cold tundra was described in this installment, with a gatefold showing the seasonal transitions of the tundra. Life photographer Fritz Goro and reporter Jim Goode camped on the tundra for some seven weeks to obtain all the photos they needed, and by the end were reduced to living on macaroni[12].

XI. The Rain Forest - published Sep 20, 1954[13]The lush Amazon rainforest of Dutch Guiana was covered in part XI, with photos and several double-page spreads and a gatefold painted by Zallinger illustrating life in the forest. Zallinger, photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt, and reporter David Bergamini spent two months in Surinam gathering data[14].

XII. The Woods Of Home - published Nov 8, 1954[15]Terrain more familiar to Life's readers was discussed here, as the effects of the seasons are observed in the changing woods. Artwork by Walter Linsenmaier depicted animals of forest and pond, as well as insects of the ground and the trees. The photographs were taken in Mettler's Woods, now the Hutcheson Memorial Forest.

XIII. The Starry Universe - published Dec 20, 1954[16]Part XIII closed the series on a suitably grand scale, with Bonestell's art depicting the stars and planets. The gatefold showed a scale depiction of the solar system on one side, and the Local Group on the other.

[edit] Reprints

After its successful run at LIFE magazine, The World we Live in was released in book form in 1955[17], abridged in 1956 for younger readers by Jane Werner Watson[18], and re-released in a three-volume "Family Edition" in 1964[19].




The original book version of The World We Live In was not entirely complete[20] Some minor schematic diagrams were cut to better fit the format of the book. Furthermore, some of Chesley Bonestell's artworks, including the painting illustrating the end of the Earth, were removed, possibly because they were seen as dated by then. Jane Werner Watson's edition for younger readers[21], on the other hand, cropped many pictures or removed them altogether; for instance, the Paleocene landscape was removed, while the eroded geological panorama was relegated to the endpapers. This led to some odd situations, with some captions referring to animals that were cropped out of the picture[22].
[edit] Style

Lincoln Barnett's text can be criticized of being florid, sometimes to a ludicrous degree. As one reader put it, "[I] Enjoyed "Creatures of the Sea" most of all because of the way Lincoln Barnett slings the King's English around. While Nobel Prizer Sir Winston Churchill had an easier subject, he can't hold a candle to this guy Barnett"[23]. The rationale for mammalian dominance of the Earth from Ch. VI is only one example.

Indeed, it is probable that the mammals may have survived and succeeded to hegemony of the earth not in spite of but by reason of their very weakness and obscurity, their smallness in a world dominated by giants, their nakedness in a world of armor plate -- in particular, by their fear and sensitivity and awareness in a world of unperceiving, insensate, brainless brutes.[24]

There is also excessive personification and some bias, which is no longer favorable in objective, encyclopedic work. Large prehistoric mammals, for instance, are variously described as being "awkward" or "witless". Tyrannosaurus rex in Ch. V does not escape this treatment either.

The apogee of development was attained with the creation of Tyrannosaurus rex, the mightiest and most fearsome flesh-eater that ever terrorized the land. A towering agent of destruction, endowed with gigantic strength and power, Tyrannosaurus spanned 50 feet from nose to tail and carried his terrible head 18 to 20 feet above the ground. His hind legs were superbly muscled, from his thick thighs down to his three-toed, cruelly taloned feet. His main weapon of attack was his murderous mouth which had a gape of incredible size and was armed with rows of six-inch saberlike teeth.[25]

Finally, apparently as part of Life's effort to make science as palatable as possible to its wide audience, the text featured as many Biblical references as possible. One reader remarked that the "text was written as if the clergy were looking over Mr. Barnett's shoulder and crossing out anything that might be in conflict with the story of Adam and Eve"[26].

Still, the purple prose does its job of conveying awe at the natural world. Paleontologist George Olshevsky described Lincoln Barnett's text as having "the grandeur of the universe contained in every word"[27].
[edit] Factual accuracy

By modern standards, The World we Live In is highly inaccurate, but mainly due to the constant progress of science since that time. At the time, it was up-to-date with contemporary theories on the natural world, but major scientific breakthroughs in astronomy, geology, and biology severely date the series. For instance, the sections on geology assume geophysical global cooling instead of plate tectonics to explain uplift. The paleontological chapters (V and VI) are especially dated, considering the speed of new discoveries in the field and the Dinosaur Renaissance.

In contrast, the sections on various biomes such as the desert, rainforest, and woodland are still more or less accurate today, reflecting the relatively complete knowledge of them available at the time.
[edit] Reception and legacy

"The World We Live In ought to be in book form. It is extraordinarily well done, comprehensive and at the same time comprehendible - a great thing"[28]. Roy Chapman Andrews

"To own The World We Live In in book form is a not-to-be-missed opportunity for any family - old or young, it's a wonderful and exciting adventure in learning"[29]. Walt Disney

The World We Live In, with its several incarnations, successfully brought the intricacies of science to the baby boom generation. By the time the book version was being published, endorsements were printed by notable people, including paleontologist Roy Chapman Andrews, filmmaker Walt Disney, and Admiral Richard E. Byrd. The "Letters to the Editors" page frequently featured glowing reviews of the series, as well as letters from creationists that either embraced or rejected it.

After publishing chapter XII on Mettler's Woods, Life received mail from the Citizens' Committee for the Preservation of Mettler's Woods, which congratulated them for the article and encouraged readers to help save the forest from destruction[30]. Eventually, a letter from the Committee was published announcing that they had "raised to funds to purchase and study these woods and adjoining woodlands", adding that Life's article "not only stimulated several hundred persons to contribute to the fund to save one of the last primeval American forests, but encouraged the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America to contribute $75,000 in memory of W. L. Hutcheson"[31]. The forest was renamed the Hutcheson Memorial Forest.

Paleontologist Bob Bakker mentions Zallinger's dinosaurs as the spark that ignited his passion for prehistory; ironically, Bakker himself would later argue against Zallinger's rendition. George Olshevsky also cites The World We Live In as introducing him to science, and adds that he suggested authoring an updated version; however, Life's editors were not interested[32].

The World We Live In was followed by The Epic of Man, focusing on the development and history of human civilization, and The Wonders of Life on Earth, a series of articles tracing Darwin and evolution. Both of these were written by Barnett as well, and featured many of the same artists. Life's series on the International Geological Year was hailed as a spiritual "update" to The World We Live In.

This book, with its timelines, fold-out charts and color illustrations of proto-earth and the archaic periods, was referenced by Q's SFX man Richard Taylor and second unit cameraman Paul Ryan as a basis for the film's special effects and location scouting.