As far as I understand it from the Bible, God created farming as a punishment:

"17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-3/

Man shut up you don't know dick about film. Probably jerk off to Tree of Life and talk about how much of a genius Terrance Malick is. You're gonna sit there and say with a straight face that the Schumacher and Burton Batmans were better?! Just walk away now you very very dumb man.

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

Tree of Life is fantastic to look at and it was a very special experience to see it on the big screen. But it was not a good movie and I'll probably never watch it again.

I haven't seen any of your worst 10 which pleases me greatly.

Hanna, Super 8, Tree of Life, and Melancholia all fall into "ok/good but not great" for me.

Drive is teetering on the edge of awesome just for style alone... or perhaps I'm just biased because Ryan Gosling is such a fucking babe. (But he really is a great actor too -- everyone should see Lars and the Real Girl and Half Nelson.)

I really enjoyed X-Men: First Class.

I haven't seen it yet but I'm excited about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy because of the fucking amazing cast.

Cool. Never knew oak trees started life as a boner.

>> ^bareboards2:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/24/wa
rning-you-about-the-tree-of-life


Yes! That was what I needed! About six weeks ago!

The funniest part is that little warning was obviously written for an "art house cinema", which is exactly where people would be prepared for non-Hollywood films. But I saw it a theater that was also showing Fast Five and Thor.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/24/warning-you-about-the-tree-of-life

>> ^MaxWilder:

Long, slow, boring, massive tangents, non-sensical jumps around in time, preachy, plotless... I could go on.
Look, I have no problem with people who want to make films like this, but as a lover of the traditional three act Hollywood style, I just want somebody to warn me! Do I have to memorize the director's names to see through the marketing hype? Or should I just assume that any film that wins an award at Cannes is something I should avoid?


Most people who see Malick's name knows the film may lean toward the philosophical, but TOL was by far his most abstract film to date. I loved it (for reasons mentioned above), and I don't typically like films without a classic 3 Act narrative.

Sure thing.

>> ^blankfist:

When you check out Tree of Life, or if you do, would you mind swinging by here and laying down your take on the movie: http://cinema.videosift.com/talk/Anyone-else-see-Malick-s-Tree-of-Life
Cheers.

When you check out Tree of Life, or if you do, would you mind swinging by here and laying down your take on the movie: http://cinema.videosift.com/talk/Anyone-else-see-Malick-s-Tree-of-Life

Cheers.

@blankfist, didn't you have a blog entry about Tree of Life?

Just found this:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/24/warning-you-about-the-tree-of-life

SPOILER ALERT

Seriously, do not read further if you don't want the movie spoiled. You've been warned.

Here are my thoughts to kick this off. Today I'm a different audience goer than I was when I was first introduced to Malick's films. I remember seeing Thin Red Line in the theaters and thinking, yeah it's good but I like Saving Private Ryan more. Mainly because TRL didn't have much of a traditional 3 Act plot. Back then I also hated pretentious movies. Today I still dislike them, but not as much. I do dislike them when I feel the filmmaker is trying to outsmart me, or worse purposely trying to confuse me hoping I'll think the film is smart if I don't understand it.

This isn't the case with Malick. His films always seem genuine. As for Tree of Life, the critiques have been incredibly harsh and the one word used to describe it over and over is pretentious. In Cannes, where he won the Palme d'Or, the film was apparently met with both boos and cheers. Some have even eviscerated it for being preachy and overtly Christian. The title itself is a reference to the tree in the Garden of Eden found in both Genesis and Revelations.

I think we've become too cynical towards Christianity and religion in general. It's easy to politicize it and dismiss a very important mythology that can stand opposite of science. His reference to the tree of life, in my opinion, is a reference to creation and destruction. To beginning and ending. It's a metaphor for individual life as it is blinked into existence and then blinked right back out again. A transcendental metaphor that's smartly weaved in Malick's film. And it's not meant to preach the gospel of the bible, but to educate us on the mythology surrounding life and death.

He starts with a quote from Job that's essentially the part after god has tested Job and taken everything from him, and he speaks to Job directly after Job questions him, and god says (paraphrasing here) where were you when I created everything. In other words, Job asks "why me" or more specifically to the film "why didn't you intervene", and Job tried his entire life to make his existence what he wanted it to be, which for him was that of a pious one devoted to god. Then god smites him for no good reason outside of a game he plays with satan. When Job asks why, god answers by rhetorically questioning why Job didn't intervene when he was building the universe. It's not that he's asking why Job didn't help, but the futility of asking why things happen, as if there's no reason to it. As if life exists with loss and gains, and you have to affirm it as such. There is no why.

That's a great way to look at the film. The first hour or so takes us through a familial setup where we see a young boy's family in the 60s and his modern family today, both of which are experiencing suffering and loss, and both are questioning why, and then we see from god's perspective the size and wonder of the chaotic universe (and presumedly its creation) juxtaposed with the individual suffering of this one family. A dangerous universe. We see how all life has suffered through history (specifically focusing on the dinosaurs in the film at one point). It's all incidental. It's all without reason. It just happens, and we must affirm life this way.

Later in the film it focuses more on the 1960s family, and specifically from the perspective of one of the sons. His mother (Jessica Chastain) coddles him and his brothers while his father (Brad Pitt) is a phlegmatic and hard-nosed authoritarian that keeps his emotional distance - both the embodiment of being affected by passion and fear and emotion. At one point one of the sons dies. The boy we experience the movie through is always questioning why. He asks his mom why she couldn't save his brother. After a life of living under his father's violent authority, he asks why his father doesn't just kill him or kick him out. He suffers and then he questions why he's suffering, and then there's moments where he questions his own choices why he doesn't do things to ease that suffering - for instance at one point he considers dropping the car on his father who is working underneath it (effectively wiping out of existence one source of his suffering).

At one point in the film I felt as if Malick gave us a sneak peak at his intention for the film's message. At one point someone says something to effect of, "We should be good to everyone we come into contact with." This is the salient point. We can't control the suffering. We can't control the despair. Life comes with loss and bad things happen. We have to affirm it as such and make our moments as happy as possible, and also make the moments of other people's (and creatures') lives as happy as possible because they're experiencing the same kinds of suffering that you and me are experiencing. They, too, are incidental.

Malick truly demonstrates this point, I think, when he shows the boys strapping a frog to a rocket and sending it up into the sky. They added to the suffering of that creature even though they themselves are suffering. They didn't touch that creatures life in a way that enriched it, they only added to its suffering - and there was no justice, no penance. Their actions were considered incidental. At most they could be punished by their parents, but nothing intervened to stop them. Their actions were allowed to happen. In the end, I think that's the point of the movie. That we should remind ourselves that we have precious few moments on this earth, and instead of questioning why and giving into bad emotional cues (fear and anger) and acting out on those bad impulses, we should enjoy those few moments and ensure that we make them for those around us (animal and human alike) good as well. It's the classic path to enlightenment that surrounds the story of the Fall (Garden of Eden) where in order to get back into the Garden we must all transcend fear and desire. We must affirm life with suffering.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Use it to buy a stick of gum.

>> ^Sarzy:

ARRRRGH, it doesn't open in Toronto until the 10th. Stupid Canada!


I don't want to give anything away, but Rosebud is the sled.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I'm thinking about it. Was it good? I've gotten mixed reviews so far.


Yes, it's now one of my favorite Malick films; if not my favorite.