Tree of Life: 2.5 hours that nearly killed half the audience

It's true. People in the theater were laughing out loud at the apparent ridiculousness of it, a handful left the theater, and most were falling apart by the end. I mean, sure fine you didn't like it. But get over yourselves! Read the reviews and walk into it knowing what it's going to be like!

And what was it like? Well, it's a representation of life, from the beginning of the universe through the evolution of Earth/animals/humans, and into the afterlife. It loosely follows a plot for part of the film, but the character development is a bit unclear and there's no real progression or resolution in the story. There are moments of total abstraction (think the National Geographic Planet Earth series), and most of it is simply a juxtaposition of images, sounds, and ideas. And that's all it has to be!

So in general, I liked it. It had beautiful images, cinematography etc. I didn't let myself get too caught up in its abstraction (which most others did, and therefore rolled their eyes and laughed), and just took it as a series of images like those one would experience at an art gallery. You can analyze how/why those images fit together or don't, or you can take them just as they are. So if you're prepared to sit and watch a series of beautiful images and sounds for 2.5 hours, go see Tree of Life!

Feeling blue after watching Blue Valentine

I really enjoy "domestic dramas." Some examples are: Closer, Revolutionary Road and, well,  Blue Valentine.  There's a focus on acting and content (screenplay, cinematography, and editing), because the space and the story are usually somewhat confined. By this I mean, it's no Spielberg plot-driven epic with major special effects etc. And I appreciate subtleties in films, because as the viewer we're more challenged by subtlety. We don't have the distractions of overstimulation by special affects, quick editing and overt plot points.

So that being said, Blue Valentine... For me the highlights were the screenplay/writing and acting. I enjoyed some of the subtle foreshadowing throughout the film; but it was also this exact foreshadowing that made it so saddening all throughout. You know from the beginning (or maybe from the trailer) that they're doomed. The opening scene shows a young girl, oblivious to the real status of her parents' marriage, looking for their family dog. Already from the start something is missing in their lives. (And when Cindy (Michelle Williams) finds the dog's body on the side of the road, she cries-- tears symbolizing that the love she's been looking for has been dead for a while.) The little girl runs into the house to alert her parents that the dog is missing. We see Dean (Ryan Gosling) asleep on the couch--and Cindy asleep in the bed. Because the film starts by revealing to us (to some extent) the end result (unhappiness, a marriage that's fallen apart), the duration of the film becomes not what happens, but why it happens. And it tells this story through juxtaposing the past, how they met and fell in love, with the present.

One of the main take-aways for me (based on how the film opened and closed with the young girl) is that she's the one who's really damaged. She didn't have a choice, she's the victim of her parents' choices: her mom's choice to have irresponsible sex, to not get an abortion, to commit to a marriage with someone she had just met, and her dad's choice to drink all day, neglect his responsibilities and live in a fantasy world where "love" is all we need to survive. As someone who strongly believes in the importance of nurture (as opposed to nature), this theme resonated with me.

Another take-away from this film that I appreciated is the notion that not all love stories are happy ones. In fact, many aren't. We all go through a little heartache at some point or another  because of love. And this film did a great job of portraying that reality. Yes, the couple is adorable when they first meet and really click. Their love is very real--in that moment. But, as with many things, their love fades.

Lastly, the focus on time. I mentioned above that the film's temporal style jumps from the happy past to the dismal present. Ironically it doesn't exactly show what happens in between--how Cindy's progressed in her career, how the daughter has grown and been raised by them, how Dean's been dealing with the fact it's not even his biological daughter. But witnessing the present is enough for this film. It all falls in to place and makes perfect sense. They're on different pages, they've fallen out of love and that's it. In addition, it points to the future through a few symbols: the daughter being one, and more overtly a sequence when the unhappy couple goes to a "romantic" hotel to get drunk,  make love, and hopefully work through a few things. They choose a future-themed room that's decorated in metal, atmospheric wall decor, and spacey (blue) lighting. Perhaps this scenario is meant to provide insight into what their future together would be like--disjointed, separate, on different pages.

All in all, I liked the film for what it was. It wasn't necessarily original or shocking, but it told a story that resonates with all of us. We all have parents out there somewhere, some of us have kids, some of us have careers. And life's about balancing all these factors and being the best people we can be. So if you're interested in a domestic drama that doesn't necessarily end happily, go see Blue Valentine!