Von Trier's steadicam use (apparently inspired by Homicide: Life On The Streets!), and handheld camera use in general, is most effective when used to express a contrasting psychological, internal state as well as a confusing external one (Von Trier's fractured editing between different takes is something which helps to highlight this dissonance).

And, while I know he can be a divisive filmmaker, any discussion of steadicam should also note the contribution of Darren Aronofsky and his cinematographer Matthew Libatique in attaching cameras to his actors in particular scenes in Pi and Requiem For A Dream, something which seems to crop up everywhere now, perhaps most obviously in a Mark Romanek directed music video for Mick Jagger.

EDIT: And I forgot the usage of the technique from many decades earlier - Harvey Keitel's drunk scene in Mean Streets!

They certainly made it more popular than ever, and I presume it's easier to do now with good stabilization technology, but it should be noted that this technique predates the 1975 invention of Steadicam. The earliest film in which I can recall seeing it is Seconds, and I'd be very curious to know if anyone can think of an earlier instance.

Frankenheimer's own Seven Days in May made two years prior comes immediately to mind

I just read (for the second or so time) parts of this thread related to the film after it was actually released, and just wanted to throw in some quick thoughts. I've never seen any Malick movie before this afternoon. I had the most vague sense of what the film would be "about" and "like" but honestly, this film was a lot more straight-forward than I'd been led to believe (especially by the friend who hated it, thought it was masturbatory, and claimed there was 30 minutes straight at some point of the camera just moving through trees).

I will say that I enjoyed the film immensely. Again, I just re-read/scanned some older posts, and can see where some people didn't much care for it (whatever Penn's role is in the film, the CGI dinosaurs and the worthy/un-worthiness of the opening and closing sequences), but personally, they didn't bother me (and as my girlfriend pointed out-it was nice to see the beauty of things that are actually around us). Again, in my short few years I've been into film, I find only recently have I come to enjoy some less-than-straight forward movies (and there have been plenty, such as Last Year at Marienbad, that I turned off after 10 minutes ((though I'm also getting better at finding when I'm in the right mood for certain movies, ie. not after getting home from work and being hungry!!)) )

But I digress, I thought the acting and the portrayal of family life was wonderful. I certainly look back and wish I hadn't treated my little brother as harshly as I did, and certainly wish I hadn't said some things to my parents that I've said. It did a great job of using the hardships that can occur in family life as a way to show what the kids, rather than the adults, were going through. When we get to the end, it doesn't have to totally link up or click, because we often group memories together and lump in times of our lives when thinking back about it, which is all that I really think Penn's character is doing throughout the film.

Regarding the religiosity of the film, I certainly felt some of it was in your face, but then again, if it was really overly religious, would it have shown something more traditionally "secular" like the big bang? I don't know. Honestly, I was raised Jewish and am now an atheist, so perhaps there was a lot more to this story that is meant to directly connect with God and the church, but I wouldn't know it! (Though it did occur to me the WHOLE story could be a modern Gob).

Actually, a similar technique is used in both THE LAST LAUGH (1924) and METROPOLIS (1927) but for a much shorter time.


There are quite a few progressive Christians out there, Malick being one of them probably, who see no conflict between their spiritual faith and the acceptance of science and evolution. The more literal fundamentalists get the press coverage for taking the more extreme position.

As for being an analogy to the Story of Job, I don't think there's enough in THE TREE OF LIFE to suggest that as there is precious little hardship actually shown; it's more of a philosophical crises. Now, the Coens' A SERIOUS MAN is definitely the Story of Job told in a recent historical setting with national implications.

Malick was overheard saying on the set of Tree that he liked the look of the RED, but he feared that it wouldn't favor the low-light conditions he was after like film could and did.


The only RED footage that made it into Tree is that flickering light at the beginning, before the creation sequence and at the end. The Lumina.

what happpened to 6hours cut bluray?