The Tree of Life - 2011 by Terrence Malick As tradition has overtime, set in stone the shapes and transitions of films worldwide the debut of a a picture such as "The Tree of Life", means more than a broadcasting of mere experimentation [as opposing to what regular so called experimental films mean] for it offers, cinematographically speaking, an alternative route, and that said with no use of demagogy, to the best 'cinema' can offer. Malick´s tempo is at times, a puzzling feature, demanding a certain degree of familiarity that is not at first enjoyed by most of its spectators, for without a measure of analysis and complacency the unusul cuts and ballet like sequence of images would assuredly be an impediment to a casual viewer. But however dense the visual and sensorial aspects of "The Tree of Life" may appear it is far less pretentious than its discourse. It displays itself as an ultimate tribute to life on this planet, transcending the boundaries of civilizations and eras, being in its own way a cinematographic cross adaptation of Charles Darwin's "Origins of the Species" and the 4 Christian Gospels adapted to a 1950´s version of the United States. A task performed quite outstandingly we may add, but that by its own nature, was like trying to swallow a whole chicken in only one bite. However, Malick´s Iliad prevailed, due to its impressive virtues, best summed by Jessica Chastain (who so beutifuly Played Mrs. O´Brien in the film) in a recent interview: [The film] "Is more of an experience, It´s like a visual poem, is like a philosophy lesson." and indeed it is, at times. It´s by that light, by an aura of lyricism and sensibility, that the whole picture revolves, and [for the most part] progresses towards an even more intense experience, towards an even more poem like audiovisual display, towards a firmer consciousness of self and collectiveness. And so it was, in sum: 'too good to be true'. The Truth in "The Tree of Life", the Honest and Pure in its whole is drawn from the interactions of a family with the matters of life. We see generations Struggling with what Life is, as if a full picture of it could never be painted, as if it were always unveiling itself more widely and more intensely that we are led to infer that it can never be fully grasped. That it´s continual, independent of time, independent of species. So much so that Grace, embodied by Chastain´s Character, is introduced almost as an attitude of reverence and self awareness towards life itself. Brad Pitt´s Character is just the opposite, He´s the one who´s lost the meaning and connection with the sacredness of existence. But the best features of the fore mentioned interactions was its take on childhood, and the parents-children relationship, the collision of two worlds. For the picture gets so powerfully immersing as the time of the kid to protagonize his version of 'what life is' comes, that by then we are taken back into his feelings and anxieties as equals, as brothers. This acknowledgement is in deed the greatest vein of this narrative, the children seam to have been simply parachuted into existence and are now having the toughest time trying to absorb sense out of life and understand why adults are so not like themselves. Is in this sense, that Life is depicted as a cycle, of beauty and Transformation, illustrated by most of its footage, and solidified by Brad Pitt´s character. It´s important to note that it is not by accident that the 1950´s of the narrative, is depicted as the ideal standard time of humanity. It´s a personal reference, since Malick himself was at the best years of his childhood years then. In sum Malick depicts the sensations of a life time, in his 2 hour film at the best cinema is able to do it. And for that alone, this film deserves the best of acknowledgements. However it fails, miserably in attempting to synthesize all insinuations and sensorial associations so carefully crafted, into what turned out to be a really poor metaphor. as if an art work depended on a moral to conclude itself. So What was in deed a beautiful (and in spite of all pretensions), naive in the best sense of the word, revealed itself to be a list of great isolated elements in a mediocre recipe. As if Playing God wasn´t enough... So "The Tree of Life", is overall a majestic art piece of such density and depth but that betrays in a rude form it´s own intellect and pretensions. Only 'hanged together' by that which it ultimately denies; spontaneity and the Rapture of emotional connections, precisely the aspects of existence that reason could never fairly describe, nor contain in its logics.

#36: Holly Jolly Secrets,
_______the "Christmas Special" Episode
______ ______of the 3rd season
_____________aired on the 5th of december - 2011

__An ADVENTURE TIME 
[Spoiler Containing] Reflection.

(Watch Video)

Jim Jarmusch´s
Rule#5:

“Nothing is original.
Steal from anywhere
that resonates with inspiration
or fuels your imagination.
Devour old films, new films, music, books,
paintings, photographs, poems,
dreams, random conversations, architecture,
bridges, street signs, trees, clouds,
bodies of water, light and shadows.

Select only things to steal from that
speak directly to your soul.
If you do this, your work
(and theft) will be authentic.

Authenticity is invaluable;
originality is nonexistent.

And don’t bother concealing
your thievery—celebrate it
if you feel like it.
In any case,
always remember
what Jean-Luc Godard said:
“It’s not where you take things from—
it’s where you take them to.”

by Jim jarmusch (1953 - Now)
Film Director, Screenwriter, Actor,
Producer, Editor and Composer

(Check out his other 4 Rules)

(Photo by Sandra Mu/Getty Images AsiaPac)

Who: George North - 19 Years Old
When: 20th of October 2011
Where: Auckland, New Zealand
What: Bronze Play Off [R.W.C.]

Watching this framed George North
pressing forward on the above picture,
is a singular experience only
dared to be interpreted
by the rules of SEMIOTIC.

As defined by our dear Wikipedia:
............"Semiotics is the study of signs and
............sign processes, Indication, Designation,
............Likeness, Analogy, Metaphor, Symbolism,
............Signification, and Communication."

Thus by staring at the above Picture,
you have (without giving much
thought to it), being a victim
of the described phenomenons.

What comes to mind when you look at it?
[What it reminds You of : a UFC Fight? a Medieval War?...]
What questions you didn´t have to ask about it that
were actually never answered in the picture?
[Such as "Why would they doing that?" ...]
What reactions did it cause you?
[Repulse? Engagement? Censure?]

Every one of these inquires
are dependable upon our own
conventions and expositions
to 'the thing' [since it can be virtually any thing]
in front of us.
A rugby fan like me will doubtless
get really excited about this
particular photo, but for
an individual not as familiar
with this sport, the same exact
picture may cause him
completely different reactions
and conclusions.