Tags for this video have been changed from 'letterman, clooney, damon, gay, interview' to 'letterman, clooney, damon, gay, interview, brad pitt' - edited by doogle

>> ^Fantomas:

Had to google him to see if this was real, and he actually seems to be a pretty cool dude.


Ahhhhh, now I understand how Angelina Jolie has access to all those African babies~She must get first-pick with the brother-in-law connection

Related: Brad Pitt is always eating - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4eg7V7O10E

I think most people here would know this, but Brad Pitt's character in Snatch was already a play on this. After hearing about the complaints over Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, writer/director Guy Ritchie decided to make a character that even the film characters wouldn't understand.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^jmzero:
I will note that Arnold was right - having nice abs is 5% having nice abs and 95% not having a bunch of fat over them. Get back on the carrots, Zach.

spot on


Forshizzle look at Brad Pitt in Fight Club he's skinny as can be I could put my hands around his waist, and just dance the night away... *stares longingly out the window*

QT is the most awkward big name director. There is a Brad Pitt + Quentin Tarantino interview on the Inglourious Basterds blu-ray which I watched last night (it turns out IB is one of those movies that gets better with repeated viewings). In the interview it's clear that Pitt finds Tarantino's energy irritating and draining. Apserger's + coke habit = very irritating to stoic potheads.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Brad Pitt, Erasurehead' to 'Brad Pitt, Eraserhead' - edited by shuac

>> ^BoneRemake:

dead


Fixed and thanks.

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.

>> ^eric3579:

So much sweet 80s hair.


1980s/80s were radical/rad.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'johnn depp, brad pitt, 21 jump street, 80s, 1988' to 'johnn depp, brad pitt, 21 jump street, 80s, 1988, mullets galore' - edited by kronosposeidon

Tags for this video have been changed from 'The Tree of Life, Terrence Malick, Brad Pit, Sean Penn, awesome' to 'The Tree of Life, Terrence Malick, Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, awesome' - edited by RhesusMonk

this is awesome, I loved it all the more for showing how powerful that scene is that even when you animate it and switch Brad Pitt for Yogi Bear it retains its intensity.

artistic license.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
This clip parodies a scene in the movie The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.
Where's the Brad Pitt skin rug?

>> ^Trancecoach:

This clip parodies a scene in the movie The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Where's the Brad Pitt skin rug?