Personal critique for The Tree On Life

Terrence Malick is one of my favourite directors… no doubt. Although only having directed 5 films over a period of time covering 4 decades, his representations of life are so similar, yet so distant from ‘our reality’.
Putting aside, for now, the beautiful photography, the limited, essential screenplay and the perfectly adapted music, one can say that he IS one of today’s most talented and truthful directors.
We must consider that the type of film he makes is not , clearly, produced by a highly money-making production, it’s not meant for any commercial cinema and, from my point of view, his ideals follow a clear principle of poetic and fame-free business. Every film is personal to him.
Having started his career with ‘Badlands’ in 1973, he had just preceded the ‘explosion’ of the new type of movie-making in the mid to late 70s with Spielberg (Jaws), followed by Lucas (Star Wars) and Coppola (Apocalypse Now- The Godfather in 72),and so his masterpieces weren’t as noticed by the general public.
His style is unique. His technique consists in not following a linear story-line, but creating a mosaic that eventually fits perfectly together. Every character in every one of his films can be symbolically linked to an aspect of nature, which is what brings such familiarity to the characters, and what creates the link between them.

His latest creation, The Tree Of Life, is wonderful. You can see how he adapts to today’s advantages in the film industry (including special effects and CGI) while maintaining, always, his quality poeticism and style.
The meaning behind this film was guaranteed to be deep and fascinating… the auto-biographical story-line recalls ideas of religious and spiritual influence which clash with the clearly scientific creation of the world. However, the clash is barely noticeable as the two ‘views’ mould into one, magical bond representing life.
The creation of the Universe grows in a parallel fashion to the beautiful birth and growth of a child in Texas.
‘No film I have seen has shown childhood so perfectly’ says my father- who clearly would know better than I the feeling of looking back into his life as a child.
The view on childhood is so mysteriously (and at times frighteningly) represented, realistically but almost like a dream, or a distant memory. The accumulation of feelings, fears and emotions lead to a product of disappointment and, almost of frustration… when we see the ‘child’ as a grown man, we see another ‘creation’, a development from what we saw previously, a product of his experiences, teachings and a fruit of his memories and of the past (although maybe not entirely successful).
The spectator can’t help but notice particular details in the film which show various elements of life from the point of view of a child. As we become the child, we see things as drastic and unnecessary measures of leading onto life, especially within the family (the severity and discipline of the father), but added to this is our view as an ‘outsider’, and the realisation of the need and of the love for one another.
Just as in any Malick film, Nature plays its leading role (in the background, almost) and holds everything in place. The film shows nature: the Universe, as a creation, but also the world around us (and what we make of it) a creation of itself, and the ‘son’ of Nature. So as we see these parallel stories of life, we see the interpretation of the Big Bang as a family in Texas… followed by the outcomes who make us what\who we are.

Religion has a fundamental role in the story. Brought up in a religious family, Malick has his own space for an input of personal experience in the film. The interpretation of religion is taken seriously (within the family), and we see it as a pillar of hope and strength in the life of the characters, both in their youth and as adults. What I like about it is the way it doesn’t leave you with a feeling of necessarily having to believe in what is shown to understand the meaning of the film… the principle of it can be taken, I find, religiously, spiritually…and not even.

The reason I felt like giving a personal ‘critique’ on this film, other than the fact that I so much enjoyed it, is its title. The Tree has various meanings… the religious one of life, the open one of growth, and its metaphorical image (linked to the growth) of family. In the Buddhist religion, the Tree Of Life is what links the earth to the sky. The link between what is earthly, and what is not. As a whole, the tree represents Nature, the Universe, hope, life and creation all in one. I remembered the main screen of the IB Diploma website on my school account being a tree… in this case the tree of Adam and Eve, or the Tree of Knowledge, of good and evil.
Inspired by the film, and after falling in love with the beautiful cinematography, I based my Christmas art project on a similar ideal.

So as a conclusion I would strongly recommend seeing The Tree of Life, or any other Terrence Malick film.
As personal advertisement I’ll set the link to the trailer…
Hope you enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW4cMNue4m8&feature=fvst

Bryan McGee Lecture

On Thursday the 3^rd of November 2011, Professor Bryan McGee, an old blue, came to Christ’s Hospital to give a lecture considering mainly students of Philosophy (A- Levels, A2), Theory Of Knowledge students doing the IB course, and anyone with a general interest. Other schools doing the IB diploma were invited to assist the lecture, as this was, for Bryan McGee, a rare event.

There are different types of knowledge, that derive from various different sources. Sources vary on their reliability… obviously if we read something out of a science book, chances are that it is probably correct. However if we read something online, even out of this very blog, its reliability is discussable because of the origin of the information, and because it is published freely without control from, maybe a supervisor or Bryan McGee himself’.

Anti- Philosophy: We don’t like our basic suppositions to be questioned.  Because of our nature, we can’t allow people disagreeing with specific, basic principles that we believe in, because this creates fear and insecurity.

We can consider the origin of what we know to go back ever since man was created… mistakes brought consequences which made us understand what could, should and shouldn’t be done, and sometimes even how.  However, if we were to consider and specify the validity of a fact or of a theory, how do we decide?
there could be a million chances and possibilities out there that prove the contrary… So a genuine possibility is what we can call it, which means there are no ideas and arguments that can be used against it, but it still might not be reality.

Ideas must be tested against reality.

Thinking things threw logically may seem the easiest way to approach reality, but there may often be a contrast with reality itself. A good example of this is the principle on which Aristotle based the theory on woman having less teeth than men. He didn’t check the woman’s mouth, he just thought that, logically, a woman has a smaller jaw than a man, therefore less space for teeth. Obviously this is not true, but you can see how he lead up to this conclusion, and how what often seems logical, sometimes isn’t.

Scientific approval is always the definite decision for a theory. A good example for when scientific approval caused scandal (because it went against general belief), was when Galileo described his theory, which went against biblical scripts (up to the 17^th Century, belief was that the earth was at the centre of the  universe, and everything else moved around it. This would seem obvious if we looked at the movement of the sun from the earth).

The pursuite of knowledge is motivated by the links made from ideas to reality. By figuring a new piece of knowledge by reasoning, it must always be ‘reality-checked’  before it can even become a general  possibility. So with the development of a theory, something contrary to common sense, but factually true, could be the outcome of a theory.

Mathematical reasoning helps us reach conclusions that were far from what we originally thought. It can be described as ‘impossible to doubt’, ‘perfectly reliable’.

We can’t set off with logic alone. Creativity and imagination have their initial contribution, although no argument can prove truth (infinite regress).

The theory:
immediate facts+ immediate observation+ mathematical proof = reality
is the closest we can get to describing reality itself, although this still isn’t entirely true (although this was a theory for 3000 years).

Points we illustrate prove that we cannot trust what we see with our eyes, and describe it as ‘visual truth’. When you see a plane in the sky, 100 times smaller than its real size, you can’t describe it as a small plane, because that simply isn’t the truth.

Our scientific proof can always be deniable.

A theory can be proven in every way, however we must take under consideration the possible replacement of a theory by another theory. Einstein’s Theory has been ‘denied’ in Switzerland’s scientific experiment that has found molecules that travel faster than light (this leads to new, revolutionary thinking that will have to make rewrite entire textbooks, and leads to the possibility of an alternate reality). – a new conception.

In each example of our thinking there are four main stages:

1. Question is      raised. A problem (clarity, accuracy and depth of a problem).
2. Possible solution      to the problem (if it can be solved logically. Hypothetical solution. Proposed      creative thought).
3. Testing of      proposed solution, confronted to reality (experimental stage). Strong and      weak points are raised.

At this point we either have a solution, or we are entering a new situation, so considering other possible possibilities. More problems and questions are raised.

4. This is a      NEVER- ENDING process of discovery of new problems. When one is decided,      others come.
   The growth of knowledge never ends, however this causes the further expansion      of ignorance.

Language

Communication is essential. No matter how we perceive the world, communicating, convincing and organising is what we need to express ourselves, to make decisions, and it is what makes man ‘civil’.
Without language I wouldn’t be here, right now typing an essay on language itself. In fact, without language this computer, what I’m wearing, the house I’m in right now wouldn’t probably exist!

Everything man has created has come from the collaboration with others- even if subconsciously- ideas and necessities come from observing, finding a rational decision and manufacturing. How is a man meant to do this without speech or understanding of one another?

Initially language did not exist (and by language I mean any form of communication: sounds, gestures etc…) and man based any decision he made on his own instinct. He was hungry, he ate.
But how far would have instinct brought us without union and collaboration?
Things that are necessary in everyday life wouldn’t appear- like the police, medics, fire-men… everything that is defined as a team wouldn’t exist.

So language was created. It is said it was the discovery of fire which lead to the gathering of people, to unite for protection, warmth and reproduction. It was fire, in fact, which lead to the creation of spiritualism and religion… all of which wouldn’t exist without a strong basis of communication.

A particular aspect which can be used as a good example to understand the necessity of language is the idea of convincing. One could argue that you convince with facts, rather than words, but still how would you express a feeling of anger or love without jumping to extreme conclusions and gestures of violence and sex? Misunderstandings would be inevitable, and the evolution of man would be far from sapiens.

A particular question which I find very interesting is the creation of different languages. The tower of Babylon may be a bit too religiously influenced a conclusion for my beliefs…  but surely the environment and surrounding, the society you develop and adapt to must influence the sounds you make to express a feeling of anger ,or any other.

This is an interesting part of the course I am developing my knowledge in with a book on Anthropology which studies the political and religious development in society.

Sense Perception

Sense perception is, so far, one of the most in-depth arguments we have discussed in our IB sessions of TOK. Our perception, or awareness, can be defined in one of its most standard forms, as signals projected to our mind which link to our conscious and what we know.

It is debatable that each single human- being has a different perception of its surroundings -so far there is no scientific explanation to prove this wrong- however our understanding of the world as each individual sees it works in collaboration with others. Language in a way could adapt to the way our senses transmit the outside world to our brains.

This argument raises many questions, which is what intrigued me.

An interesting example which involves the perception of the world is the book ‘Island of the Colour blind’ by Oliver Sacks (1997). The book investigates the case of the citizens of Pingelap that began exhibiting symptoms of a rare recessive disorder known as Achromatopsia. This disables you from envisioning colours of the ‘outside world’. The book makes interesting comments on neurology, sociology, but especially the difference in envisioning the world. The question that arises to me is: are these people not seeing what has to be seen, or are we receiving signals of things which are not actually materialistically real?

The three primary colours – as far as light is concerned – are red, green, and blue. In order to “see” images, the human eye enables light to stimulate the retina (a neuro-membrane lining the inside of the back of the eye). The retina is made up of what are called rods and cones. The rods, located in the peripheral retina, give us our night vision, but cannot distinguish colour. Cones, located in the centre of the retina (called the macula), let us perceive colour during daylight conditions.

This article taken from a web page by Julie Wise clearly demonstrates that there is a scientific explanation behind this… but the idea of perception I find is much stronger. How do we know what we know? (epistemology) links to this strongly, and more so: how do we know that what we know IS? Well we don’t. As far as some people are concerned, what they see is what they know, what they believe in. that is as far as our knowledge reaches the comprehensive understanding of what we know. However this is not the case for all, and as a student I have come to some conclusions which I find, on a personal level, clear to the point which is fair (but not necessarily true).

Our perception of the world is what we sense with our physical senses. We comprehend from these resources of ‘truth’ that what surrounds us is material and has (or has not) got colour, smell and taste. As proven, not all people have the same perception of the world (because of illnesses and so forth) however their understanding of everything is different. We can tell a person who is colour blind that the sky is blue a thousand times, but how are they meant to believe us, or even understand us when they do not know what blue is? Maybe my perception of the colour orange is the equivalent of your blue! There’s no denying it because you cannot sense what I sense. So maybe we all live in our own world, and see things the way our brain perceives it and that’s where we have to sadly accept what we are able to understand.

What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what sort of person you are.

C.S. LEWIS, The Magician’s Nephew

 

The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

ROBERTSON DAVIES, quoted in The Wordsworth Dictionary of Quotes

 

Once again, all questions up to facts that cannot be proven or denied.

TOK is definitely an intense subject.

Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright (Bob Dylan- released in 1963)

Dylan once introduced “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right” as “a statement that maybe you can say to make yourself feel better… as if you were talking to yourself.”

 

Song lyrics

‘Well, it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
If you don’t know by now
An’ it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
It’ll never do, somehow
When your rooster crows at the break of dawn
Look out your window and I’ll be gone
You’re the reason I’m trav’lin’ on
But don’t think twice, it’s all right

And it ain’t no use in turnin’ on your light, babe
That light I never knowed
An’ it ain’t no use in turnin’ on your light, babe
I’m on the dark side of the road
But I wish there was somethin’ you would do or say
To try and make me change my mind and stay
We never did too much talkin’ anyway
But don’t think twice, it’s all right

So it ain’t no use in callin’ out my name, gal
Like you never did before
And it ain’t no use in callin’ out my name, gal
I can’t hear you anymore
I’m a-thinkin’ and a-wond’rin’, walkin’ down the road,
I once loved a woman, a child I’m told
I give her my heart but she wanted my soul
But don’t think twice, it’s all right

So long, honey, babe
Where I’m bound, I can’t tell
Goodbye’s too good a word, babe
So I’ll just say fare thee well
I ain’t sayin’ you treated me unkind
You coulda done better but I don’t mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time
But don’t think twice, it’s all right’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtkVGClqrT4

First impressions on TOK…

When I was discussing taking the IB diploma award with my
father, TOK was vaguely taken under consideration.

 

‘’French HAS to be perfect, he said.
Art is what you’re probably going to be involved in for the rest of your life. True.
Maths is essential in life. Keep it going.
DT is a challenge.
History opens many doors in life, and gives you many opportunities.
English Literature is wonderful and necessary.

… TOK seems interesting.’’

 

I almost felt as if it were an ‘extra’ subject… a bonus
material to the course.

‘Way of thinking’? Does TOK teach you how to think? Does it
establish ideas in your head?
… Or does TOK open your mind in suggesting things other from the ones that are
known, or can be known? Does it help you think? BUT does it give you any answers?
Is TOK just about asking your-self questions that CANNOT be answered??

Theory of knowledge intrigued me.

I often talk to friends and family, and have debates on
various matters regarding this subject:

The fact that we do not have direct acquaintance with the world, but only with
the sense it gives us…
Points of view….
The way we receive the images of the world surrounding us, but it not being
necessarily the world itself, but how we see,
or sense it.

All these matters that I KNOW, I will not accept an answer to, I’m very interested in.

This subject, which I will have a chance to discover and
discuss throughout the two years of the IB Diploma course, I think will be a
great chance to experience, almost, a
new way of thinking and discussing.

So on second thoughts, could we consider TOK a more relevant part of our
studies? Or maybe we should see the course as a whole… TOK being the heart, the core
of the project.

Is this where the philosophical thinking kicks in?

I’ll soon find out.