A Reading Theorist’s World View through the Lens of Terrence Malick:

The “Poem” Created from Transacting The Tree of Life Trailer

John Malich

Marcella J. Kehus

The University of Toledo

Abstract

This essay is divided into four sections. First, we discuss Rosenblatt’s meaning-making

transactional theory of a reading event which falls somewhere on a continuum from

predominately efferent to predominately aesthetic. Second, we summarize the empirical research

by Carole Cox and Joyce Many who, over a series of studies with short stories and short films,

applied the transactional theory and designed a 1-5 point continuum to classify reader stance as

predominately efferent, both efferent and aesthetic or predominately aesthetic. Third, we

summarize the research of film theorists David Bordwell’s constructivism; Richard Wollheim’s

central imagining and identification through characters; and Noël Carroll’s depiction of

unanimous empathy with the screen. These literacy researchers and film theorists provide

quantitative and theoretical support connecting a paradigm shifting literary theory to a movie

trailer and its written responses on YouTube. Finally, we evaluate – with method and discussion

– 500 random and 68 top-voted YouTube comments on The Tree of Life trailer and their

classification on the efferent to aesthetic continuum. Our essay found the top-voted comments to

be more evident of critical reading as users voted comments with more complexity into higher

visibility.

In 1978 Louise Rosenblatt expanded her transactional theory of reading with The Reader,

the Text, the Poem. She had introduced the concept 40 years earlier in Literature as Exploration

(1938; 1995). Categorized under the larger heading as reader response theory, Rosenblatt

modified her theory into a reader-plus-text perspective for the next 27 years. Meanwhile, in

1978, American filmmaker Terrence Malick had just directed a period drama set in the golden

Texas wheat cropping fields. Stubborn like Rosenblatt in her pursuit of clarity, Malick was

coming into his own as a perfectionist after two years of post-production on Days of Heaven (B.

Schneider, H. Schneider, & Malick,1978). The movie earned an Academy Award for

cinematography and its legacy lives as “one of the most beautiful films ever made” (Ebert, 2002,

p. 124). Malick then began pre-production for his next film titled Q which would include a

prologue about the beginning of the universe. The prologue grew to a level that exceeded the

main story, and without documented cause, Malick stopped production and mythically

disappeared. Two decades passed and Badlands (1973), his directorial debut, and Days of

Heaven earned American classic status.

In 1998, the elements of a Terrence Malick movie were seen again. The poetic voiceover,

the portrait and landscape imagery, and man’s place in and out of tune with nature, were the

backdrop on Guadalcanal Island, 1942, in The Thin Red Line (Geisler & Malick, 1998). A new

film project was announced during post-production of his historical epic The New World (Green

& Malick, 2005). After six years, Malick’s new film was set to open. This essay applies

Rosenblatt’s transactional theory of the relationship between reader and text to the two-minute

trailer of Terrence Malick’s upcoming film The Tree of Life (Green & Malick, 2011), which is an

update of Q and, in short form, is described as an “impressionistic story of Midwestern family in

the 1950’s” (The Tree of Life).

Introduction

As readers and literacy contexts change, the transactional theory has continued to occupy

a space in academic studies with new interpretations based on social, ethnic, educational,

technological and personal factors. Recent contributions to the field knowledge of reader

response and the transactional theory have included: addressing transactional theory application

to multicultural literature (Cai, 2008), studying gender differences in an English as a Second

Language (ESL) class (Chi, 2009), transacting online hyptertext (McEneaney, Li, Allen, &

Guzniczak, 2009), and identifying evocations of humor (Onofrey, 2006). Analyzing the

transactions of viewers of a film trailer and classifying YouTube comments with the same

efferent to aesthetic continuum designed as an empirical model of Rosenblatt’s transactional

theory, extends the possibilities of this research into visual, digital and communal texts.

This research has evolved from the prompts and control groups that Cox and Many

exercised through varied age groups, settings and methods. Prompts are still used between

distinguished control groups, as in the case to induce more efferent or more aesthetic responses,

but the transactional theory’s application to unexplored subjects and literacies continually

challenges researchers to think less variable-based and more venture-based. Our method

combines Cox and Many’s era of prompt and control group research with more recent research

that values new application of the transactional theory as the essence of developing students’ –

readers’ and viewers’ – ways of creating responsible reading and making valid interpretations

primary.

The singular prompt we considered was the intentional selection of The Tree of Life

trailer among so many current available film trailers. “Malick’s films are among the most

celebrated contemporary examples of cinematic art, and it is perhaps to be expected that great

works of art will support a plurality of interpretations” (Davies, 2009, p. 575). In an uncensored

community forum, interpretations generally take the form of opinionated evaluations. This trailer

invited zealous responses that declared responses ranging from declarations that it was either

beautifully illustrative of the imagery or a confusing shamble of a story to varying combinations.

We acknowledge the many variables influencing viewers’ comments outside of our control,

statistics and knowledge. As questions, they include: 1) Who read the synopsis before, after or at

all to complement the viewing and how did that impact the response?; 2) How frequently were

video player features like pausing and replay engaged?; 3) Did familiarity with Malick’s films

inform users’ viewing; 4) Did users expect a trailer with spoilers like many trailers; and, 5) Are

recent and archived comments read and how does reading influence responses? Clues about this

last prompt – reading past comments – are prominent and do occur regularly within replies and

are most obvious in voting, but a lack of clues to prior reading still does not guarantee a reading

or influence of having read others comments.

Directly related to this research, a previous study of a trailer promoting a Terrence

Malick film was found. Lisa Kernan (2004) classified 27 trailers from classical to transitional to

contemporary eras based on genre, star and story rhetoric. She called the Days of Heaven trailer

“a striking early example of the contemporary ’mini-movie’ mode, “condensing the film’s plot

using a visually rich montage rather than dialogue-heavy expositional clips” (p. 170).

The Tree of Life trailer continues the visual artistry and minimal exposition, but a reading

of this trailer usually includes also reading comments by other viewers who commented on the

trailer. As media in general and trailers specifically move from public screenings to mobile

devices, users and viewers take greater physical ownership of information and are held

responsible to defend their responses. The following study illustrates degrees of complexity and

understanding in efferent and aesthetic YouTube comments to The Tree of Life trailer as viewers

transact with text and make meaning.

Making Meaning from Choosing a Stance

The connection between Rosenblatt’s transactional theory and The Tree of Life trailer

begins early with the trailer’s first voiceover which is an expansion of Rosenblatt’s efferent to

aesthetic continuum. A woman’s voiceover begins, “There are two ways through life. The way

of nature and the way of grace.” (The Tree of Life). A newborn baby boy’s foot is gently held

between the hands of his father, and the voiceover continues, now recognized as the baby’s

mother, “We have to choose which one you’ll follow.” Rosenblatt’s evolving philosophy drew

from the arts, the social sciences, especially anthropology, education and the physical sciences,

and she called the efferent to aesthetic continuum, “the two ways of looking at the world” (2005,

p. 12). Influenced at the core that the “self,” the observer, must always be taken into account in

any observation, the reader selectively attends to or chooses – as said in the film’s trailer – which

stance to use to read text (2005).

Figure 1. Photograph 1. 04_19_2011. Father and son meet.

Response-based approaches to literature like the transactional theory de-emphasize

critical authority and teacher (the mere) transmission of literary knowledge. Instead, discussions

revolve around such aspects as the articulation of individual perspectives on interpretation and

consideration of the personal significance drawn from the literary experience (Cooper, 1985;

Purves, 1979). The theory considers and values the social contexts brought by the reader to the

text to create meaning. The text remains simply ink marks on paper until a reader transacts with

it. During the transaction, the literary work – the reader’s meaning – is created. That meaning,

Rosenblatt called the poem (2005). It is the reader’s involvement that is the basis for growth

toward a more balanced, self-critical, knowledgeable interpretation of the text (Rosenblatt,

1990). The poem then becomes the starting point to a critical response. As will be evidenced,

viewers of The Tree of Life trailer transact with an abstract 1950’s family drama and construct

unique meaning. Rosenblatt (1978; 1985; 1995) emphasized the importance of reading literature

actively as an experience to be lived through, rather than as an object of facts to be studied and

learned. Each way of reading carries a reader’s different purpose: a stance.

Rosenblatt describes stance as the reader’s purpose as part of the process of focusing

attention. A predominately efferent stance occurs when readers attend to the cognitive,

referential, factual, analytic, logical and quantitative aspects of meaning. These are public

aspects meant to be extracted and retained after the reading event. This stance is closely aligned

to informative texts, but Rosenblatt (1980) contended this stance was often stressed in the study

of literature. When reading a literary work, Rosenblatt suggests using an aesthetic stance for the

first reading. Here, foremost in the reader’s mind, is the literary world which evolves as the

reader savors the autobiographical and intertextual associations, visualizes the scenes and

characters, feels the emotions of the characters and reacts to events (Rosenblatt, 1978). As the

first – primary – stance, an aesthetic stance roots a reader’s criticism in her – the reader’s –

unique history, so that experience can be compared to other readers whose responses extended to

include history, culture, or the psyche (Cai, 2008). Rosenblatt (1985; 1991) says that these two

difference stances – efferent and aesthetic – form opposite poles of a continuum along which a

reader may fluctuate to contain more or less of an efferent or aesthetic emphasis at any given

point in the text.

The Transactional Theory Interpreted via Empirical Studies

Beginning with James Squire (1964), who conducted content analyses of readers’

responses in a structured think aloud, researchers have adopted empirical methods to the

demonstrate or test the transactional theory. In two related studies, Cox and Many (1989; 1992)

analyzed free response writing of students by incorporating Rosenblatt’s (1978; 1985; 1986)

description of reader stance on an efferent to aesthetic continuum. While work such as that of

Corcoran and Evans’ (1987) utilized descriptions of the types of mental activities involved in an

aesthetic reading, Cox and Many’s research included more than the traditional literary forms

such as novels, short stories, plays and poems in light of a generative shift in culture where

children were experiencing literariness in film and television. The fifth-grade students in the

study were asked to respond to a short story or short film and were prompted to write anything

with unrestricted time. To classify students’ stances, a five-point rating scale was designed that

determined the overall focus of the students’ attention based on an efferent analysis or an

aesthetic evocation. Efferent Points 1 and 2 are exclusive to their own categories like aesthetic

Points 4 and 5 are likewise exclusive with respective criteria. Point 3 can show a range of sums.

Figure 2 shows these distinct classifications.

Figure 2. The efferent to aesthetic continuum (Cox & Many, 1992)

Cox and Many diversified their studies with other researchers by varying teacher

prompts, literature and methods. The range of their many studies’ has investigated different

instructional approaches on the stance adopted by third-grade readers using open-ended prompts

(Many & Wiseman, 1992); explored associations between stance and types of intertextual and

autobiographical connections in written responses (Many & Anderson, 1992); explored stance in

education undergraduates by showing how students exposed to either efferent or aesthetic

instructional strategies tended to respond using the same stance in their reading (Wiseman &

Many, 1992); studied how both the efferent and the aesthetic prompts resulted in less aesthetic

responses (Many, Wiseman & Altieri, 1996); and presented open-ended prompts to fourth-,

sixth- and eighth-graders (Many, 1991). Results of this study (Many, 1991) replicated Cox and

Many’s (1989) results associating an aesthetic stance with higher understanding scores and

similar research results have continued (Altieri, 1996; Dressel, 2003; Many, 1992; McEneaney et

al., 2009).

The varied methods that produced the similar results of these studies validate the

continuum rating scale as a tool to explore reader’s responses to literary text. Authors and co-

authors of these studies that used the rating scale to assess stance through written response

classified their data with upwards of 88% agreement and consensus reached on the rest (Many &

Wiseman, 1992). This proven reliability and construct validity authenticates the transactional

theory and warrants future research using the rating scale (McEneaney et al., 2009). We propose

moving the rating scale from a traditional application of literary text to film text, specifically a

film trailer. The continuum (Figure 4) is the empirical basis for which The Tree of Life trailer’s

comments on YouTube are categorized as either predominately efferent or predominately

aesthetic.

The Thinking Film Viewer and the Feeling Film Viewer

The play, the poem, the short story and the novel are literary materials that are an

amplification of life itself. The motion picture, by extension, also has text readers, or in this case,

viewers who can imaginatively absorb themselves into a world (Rosenblatt, 1995). A film can

provide a duplicate experience like the story world readers create with characters and setting in

print text. Film theorist David Bordwell builds the meaning of film like Rosenblatt did with print

text. Bordwell embraces the view that perceiving an object requires actively receiving visual,

aural or tactile data then making an inference in order to reach a perceptual judgment. These

judgments are hypotheses “to suggest that perception is always open to revision in the face of

new data and a new application of relevant background knowledge” (Thomson-Jones, 2008, p.

88). This reinforces how the transactional theory can highlight the same reader different

transactions in different contexts or at different times. The text is “not set forth as permanent,

absolute truth, but leaves open the possibility that alternative explanations for the same facts may

be found, that new evidence may be discovered, or that different criteria or paradigms may be

developed” (Rosenblatt, 2005, p. 23).

Story.

Bordwell’s constructivist account catalyzes the principal thinking activities performed by

the thinking film viewer (Thomson-Jones, 2008). Making meaning begins with comprehension.

The literal meaning of a film is co-constructed by the viewer based on the film’s structural cues,

like images and music and the viewer’s prior knowledge (Thomson-Jones, 2008). Like readers

bring their experiential reservoir and use it to transact with print text, Bordwell adopts another

term and says viewers bring referential meaning during comprehension (1989). For example, at

0:37 of The Tree of Life trailer the camera catches the flight of a butterfly under trees and in the

next shot it rests on the palm of the mother’s outstretched hand. A viewer knows what butterflies

look like and uses her referents to match the image as imaginary or real. The viewer refers to her

background knowledge to determine the right configuration of three dimensional objects shown

in two dimensions (Bordwell, 1985). In addition to constructing the three dimensional world of

the film, the viewer incorporates background knowledge to construct fictional events and

characters according to the order of images which leads to building the plot. She fills in missing

narrative information and re-orders the plot and constructs her unique story; her poem (Bordwell,

1989).

Figure 2. Photograph 2. 03_31_2011. A butterfly rests on the mother’s palm.

Bordwell’s research progresses from the story created during comprehension to the level

of interpretation where he says viewers can generate more abstract thematic and symptomatic

meanings for a film. Ordinary viewers, however, tend to skip this level and jump to an

evaluation. Bordwell’s kind of interpretation is done almost exclusively by film scholars who are

concerned with the deeper meaning of film. There is a kind of interpretation not concerned with

abstract themes and messages but with further referential meaning of a film. Film theorist

George Wilson (1997) says this kind of interpretation uses the same cognitive skills we employ

when trying to make sense of salient episodes in our lives. We find meaning by connecting an

event to preceding circumstances and ensuing consequences that have a significant place in a

narrative framework. Aligned with the features of the efferent stance of Rosenblatt’s continuum,

Wilson explains how when we are watching narrative films, we often question why the story

took the turn it did at a particular point or why a character behaved a particular way. To answer

these questions, a second, narrative intensive viewing may be required which may refine detail

with new connections (Thomson-Jones, 2008). “As a result, we may find that the events of the

film tell a slightly different, and perhaps better, story than the one that we understood on first

viewing” (p. 94). These questions develop into the constantly self-revising impulse that guides

synthesis and organization of more valid responses (Rosenblatt, 2005).

Identification.

That we as viewers follow a story that unexpectedly changes or a character whose

behavior seems familiar to us, involves more than analysis of elements and building the story.

These structural cues complement the just-as-present feeling film viewer (Thomson-Jones, 2008)

who is more deeply alert to affect and emotions. Philosopher of the visual arts Richard

Wollheim’s (1984) account of central imagining explains how identification supports empathy to

characters. Central imagining involves imagining seeing from a certain point of view. As long as

a viewer knows enough about the character to infer how he would have experienced the event,

the viewer can centrally imagine the character’s visual experience as though it were the viewer’s

own. Take for example the significance of the shot at 1:46 of the trailer, (see Figure 3). In blue

Kodak color, a suited man drops to his knees on a wet desert as extras wander far in the

background. He is the protagonist, Jack, who “finds himself a lost soul in the modern world,

seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith” (The

Tree of Life). From Jack’s youth in the 1950’s to his adulthood, the trailer has chronicled his life

from infancy to childhood innocence to his current crisis. His life has been shaped by his

“Father. Mother” whose nature and grace “Always you wrestle inside me [him]. Always you

will” and polarizes his inner compass (The Tree of Life). The conflict he has carried ends in an

evocative, surreal moment of exhausted reconciliation. The viewer shares the relief and

represents his own image; the viewer can kneel. This identification is the lived-through

experience Rosenblatt wrote about; the aesthetic stance focused on sensations, images, feelings

and ideas. Rosenblatt (1995) says:

Imaginative literature is indeed something “burned through,” lived through, by the reader.

We do not learn about Lear, we share, we participate in, Lear’s stormy induction into

wisdom. In Huckleberry Finn, we do not learn about conditions in the pre-Civil War

South; we live in them, we see them through the eyes and personality of Huck. Even

while we chuckle at his adventures and his idiom, we grow into awareness of the moral

dimensions appropriate for viewing that world (p. 26).

Figure 3. Photograph 3. 05_11_2011. Adult Jack falls to his knees.

Empathy.

A film’s form elements – its camerawork, lighting, editing, music, sound effects – can

move identification from a shared experience to a shared emotion and elicit empathy. These

elements, especially when working together, exploit focused and secured attention in just the

way required for a particular intended emotional response (Carroll, 2008). In ordinary life these

elements do not combine to direct us. We have only our personality, background assumptions

and life experience to build an interpretation and a response. Viewers, however, respond

according to the film’s interpretation – progressive close ups, musical punctuation, soft-focus

lighting – so it is not a surprise that a film reliably elicits the same response from a diverse

audience (Carroll, 2008).

These elements reinforce the significance of narrative events and recreate the theory that

efferent and aesthetic stances are on one fluctuating continuum and that the thinking film viewer

and the feeling film viewer are, as whole, the viewer. Take for example a 10-second montage of

The Tree of Life trailer placed between two narrative establishing sections. Beginning at 0:34, the

lone intertextual title card reads “Written and Directed by Terrence Malick” as Bedřich

Smetana’s “Vltava” crescendos. The lively music immediately matches the mother playfully

swinging her son in a circle. The music continues overtop one second shots of lit sparklers

illuminating faces, a resting butterfly, outdoor sports and brotherly bonding. Predominately

aesthetic cues are featured, but on a nuanced level the narrative is enriched with the first look at

Jack in youth and his mother embodying grace. Transactional criticism is engaged as the viewer

“draws on the results of efferent analysis or study to illuminate, to reinforce or enrich, to place in

context, that aesthetic event” (Rosenblatt, 1978, p. 162). After an intensely realized aesthetic

transaction, the viewer should reflect on literary details in order to correlate them with the

original aesthetic meaning. Compounding these two modes becomes appropriate to critical

studies of the author’s creative process and intention, which are also tested on the viewer’s own

pulses (1978). To end the montage, “Vltava” promptly decrescendos on the father’s silhouette in

a door frame, beginning his nature narrative.

Method

Subjects and Procedures.

Subjects in this quantitative study were YouTube users who commented on The Tree of

Life trailer on TheMovieReel channel between the dates of December 15, 2010 and March 15,

2011. The study consists of two separate data (comments) gathering samples. On March 16,

2011, 500 comments were collected from 2,577 comments by selecting every fifth comment

beginning at a random point. These comments were classified using the five-point efferent to

aesthetic continuum (see Figure 4) designed by Cox and Many (1989; 1992). Comments could

otherwise be classified as Undeterminable, by way of their ambiguity, or Not Applicable, by way

of unrelated replies.

Table 1. The Tree of Life, Random sample, March 16

Stance Comments Percentage from 500

Percentage from 275

Random sample

Not Applicable 118 23.5 - -

Undeterminable 107 21.3 - -

1) Most efferent 23 4.6 8.3

2) Primarily efferent 68 13.6 24.6

3) Both efferent and aesthetic

4) Primarily aesthetic

5) Most aesthetic

41

58

86

8.2

11.6

17.2

14.8

21.1

31.2

Total 500 100 100

Top Comments

On March 20, 2011, all comments voted up at least 10 times were selected from the same 2,577

comment total, and the amount collected was 68. These comments were also classified on the

five-point efferent to aesthetic continuum or as Undeterminable or as Not Applicable. Locating a

digital version of Rosenblatt’s democracy of shared ideas, which negotiates through all meanings

for the best one based on a shared cultural milieu, also bore consideration. From a diverse

community of readers and responses “we can also consider some readings as superior to others

according to certain explicit criteria, for example, complexity of intellectual and affective

elements and nature of implicit value system” (Rosenblatt, 2005, p. 24). Comments become Top

Comments when other users vote with a thumbs up. Two Top Comments appear directly below

the video followed by the 10 most recent comments.

Table 2. The Tree of Life, Top voted sample, March 20

Stance Comments Percentage from 68 Percentage from 51

Top voted

Not Applicable 3 4.4 - -

Undeterminable 14 20.6 - -

1) Most efferent 8 11.8 15.7

2) Primarily efferent 7 10.3 13.7

3) Both efferent and aesthetic

4) Primarily aesthetic

5) Most aesthetic

11

7

18

16.2

10.3

26.4

21.6

13.7

35.3

Total 68 100 100

Stance

Cox and Many’s efferent to aesthetic continuum (Figure 2) displays the measurements of

each point along the stance continuum. Their classification of stance was determined by the

overall or primary focus of the responder’s attention on an analysis or an evocation. For both the

500 comment study and the 68 comment study, the same efferent to aesthetic continuum was

used. The results of the study record both groups in Tables 1 and 2. The most applicable

examples of complex and representative stances, whether from the 500 random sample or 68 top

voted sample, were selected and attributed to their classified stance.

Total Responses.

Point N.A. Not Applicable comments. In the random sample, 23.5% of the comments

were classified Not Applicable – the largest population. As contrast, in the Top Voted grouping,

4.4% of comments were classified Not Applicable – the lowest population (see Tables 1 and 2).

Already the results show how YouTube users are judicial at tapering the unrelated comments and

promoting the related comments. These comments were often in the form of replies – 73.7% –

but only in the random sample. The top voted sample produced only three Not Applicable

comments and none were replies. Replies, however, were not exclusively Not Applicable. In

fact, replies have a real value to the YouTube forum like a classroom. Replies are similar to

negotiations in conversations students might have to reach a best possible answer or agreement.

Point N.A. also classified the Top Voted comment with 200 votes. The comment is a YouTube

exclusive response commenting on how people position their bodies sitting in front of a

computer. User sk8erdude180x2 wrote: “Thumbs up if you looked at this video with your left

hand on your cheek.”

Point 0 – Undeterminable comments. These comments were specific to the trailer but

because of brevity or ambiguity, an aesthetic or efferent response could not be determined. In the

random sample, 21.3% of the comments were classified Undeterminable. In the Top Toted

sample, 20.6% of the comments were classified Undeterminable (see Tables 1 and 2). Within the

Undeterminable stance, users kept to consistent topics. Most commonly users asked about and

identified the composers of music in the trailer; wrote about their admiration or disdain for cast

and crew like Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Terrence Malick; and quoted voiceovers from the trailer

but wrote it as stand-alone. The voiceovers quoted were: “Unless you love, your life will flash

by;” “Some day we’ll fall down and weep and we will understand it all, all things;” and “Father.

Mother. Always you wrestle inside me. Always you will” (The Tree of Life). Other times users

quoted the trailer and elaborated their response. Those comments fell, based on their extended

response, somewhere on the continuum.

From the random sample, Point N.A and Point 0 combined to total 225 of the 500

comments. Since these comments were unrelated, these points have been nullified from the

percentages calculated for Points 1-5 on the continuum. The remaining comments in the random

sample will show percentages derived from a total of 275 (see Table 1). For consistency, the

same update has been taken to the Top Voted comments (see Table 2). Twenty-five percent

(Seventeen) of the 68 comments classified as Point N.A. and Point 0 have been removed. The

remaining comments in the Top Voted sample will show percentages derived from this

remaining 51.

Point 1 – Most efferent response: Clear evidence of literary analysis. In the random

sample, 8.3% of the remaining comments were classified as Point 1 or Most Efferent. Likewise,

in the Top Toted sample, 15.7% of the remaining comments were classified Most Efferent, Point

1 (see Tables 1 and 2). The comments classified as most efferent most commonly focused on

what was learned from the trailer to hypothesize about the movie. They also analyzed it against

trailers in general, often citing how this trailer is unconventional but still tells a story worth

knowing more about. Some comments analyzed production components like cinematography.

Users also questioned and hypothesized about the realism of the characters, particularly the

father as authoritarian. Voted up 41 times, this comment by user eilandqueen showcases a most

intelligent comment with what she learned:

I think this movie is about the inner war that every human being experiences: choosing

one of the two ways of life: "the way of nature" to be tough and have fierce will to get

ahead in life. And "the way of grace" that unless you love, your life will flash by. Learn

to enjoy the details in life big and small. But I think this movie is trying to show that it

doesn't have to be a war within- we can enjoy life and the people we love while

pursuing/being successful at our own personal endeavors [sic]

Subsequent users questioned the originality of thought eilandqueen exuded. The synopsis

attached to the trailer is the second one released. An earlier and less publicized synopsis could be

interpreted as coming through in this comment. The user maintained that she honestly forgot to

insert quotation marks, and her comment was based off one viewing. A controversy like this did

reveal a flaw in surveying a large population of Internet comments when the availability to

plagiarize was a click away and held no greater consequence than an unsolvable debate.

Point 2 – Primarily efferent response: Focused on re-telling. In the random sample,

24.6% of the remaining comments were classified Point 2 or Primarily Efferent. And from the

Top Voted sample, 13.7% of the remainder comments were classified Primarily Efferent or Point

2 (see Tables 1 and 2). These comments were the most uniform in their near exactness to one

another, most commonly curious what the movie would be about. These comments concentrated

on the plot and absence of plot. This Point is the first distinct detour from studies by Cox and

Many (1992). Their primarily efferent stance yielded the least number of responses. The authors

did say that some responses at this Point were characteristic of preoperational thought, but these

YouTube comments often registered at or below that. This could be a reflection of the stance

classification which is not characterized by analysis but only by re-telling. Many responses were

in the form of questions expressing their confusion and indecision about their viewing. It is

unclear how many times a user watched the trailer or if she read the synopsis which narratively

complements the trailer. At the cost of confusion on first viewing, the trailer could be seen as re-

readable text and, therefore, a success. Repeated, closer views could award increased

understanding.

As a significant and consistent indicator of attempting to trace the narrative, the second

and third most top voted comments, 146 thumbs-up and 135 thumbs-up, were classified as Point

2. User mcg413 voices his confusion. His response, while charged, is light compared to some

expletive responses. He comments: “Why the hell is this labeled fantasy and science fiction?

Footage of Earth and places in the solar system aren't enough to label it as that, considering it's a

coming-of-age tale.” One more user, DbagChix, does not approach a literary analysis, but his

comment also illustrates that a storyline is in the trailer. He writes:

The movie is actually about the son and how he struggles between understanding the

world through the morals of his mother and father because they are both so distinctly

different. It happens to take place in the south during the 50's which was a time of

segregation though I doubt the intention of the director was to solely capture that.

Point 3 – Elements of both the aesthetic evocation and efferent analysis. In the random

sample, 14.9% of the remaining comments were classified Point 3 or both efferent and aesthetic.

In the top voted sample, 21.6% of the remaining comments were classified both efferent and

aesthetic or Point 3 (see Tables 1 and 2). These responses used a combination of Points 1 and 2

with Points 4 and 5 and showed a variety of sums. This Point contained comments of varying

length and understanding like seen with undergraduate students (Wiseman & Many, 1992) and

third graders (Many & Wiseman, 1992). The Point 3 stances that resembled the undergraduates,

wove literary analysis through the lived-through experience to enrich the meaning. Other Point 3

stances, like the third graders, satisfied both an efferent and aesthetic stance barely adequately

and were separate points of discussion, not built upon one another. From the top voted sample,

user a11king’s comment integrates itself so well that a predominant efferent or aesthetic stance

cannot be determined. He writes:

To the relatively few commenters who say that this trailer doesn't provide any indication

of what the plot of the movie is about, I would agree in a sense, but the more important

to me is does the trailer convey what the movie will cause you to feel?I [sic] think it does

overwhelmingly. Almost to the point where you feel as if you've already seen the movie.

I imagine that Terrence Malik [sic] would say that the truth of the human condition

cannot be explained in rational terms, but it can be felt [sic]

A less captivated but still mixed stance from user jarreau2001 says:

This trailer sucks! It doesn't even tell you what the movie is about. A dad is hard on his

kid and the kid is all jacked up when he's older. I can go to my neighbors [sic] house to

see that no need to pay $12.50 to make millionaires wealthier. The title suggests some

biblical context but none is mentioned in the trailer.

User jarreau2001 voices strong opinions from his viewing. He begins his response with

an aesthetic focus by making a judgment. He extends his judgment with a clear efferent stance in

his next two sentences as he relates what he learned. For him, his knowledge gained came at the

point of frustration and confusion. His comment about his neighbors is insightful. It could be

interpreted that he would showcase a preference by watching the film if he does not have to buy

a ticket. With his final sentence he issues one more efferent stance to relate the title, but he is not

convinced the trailer supports the title’s claim.

Point 4 – Primarily aesthetic response: Selective attention given to specific parts. In the

random sample, 21.0% of the remaining comments were classified Point 4 or Primarily

Aesthetic. In the top voted sample, 13.7% of the remaining comments were classified Primarily

Aesthetic or Point 4 (see Tables 1 and 2). Comments classified as Point 4 were the most removed

from the trailer. These comments selected the image of the actors – as opposed to the characters

they played – and wrote about their preference of the actors. Comments were also the most

removed based on the predictions users took to the trailer to judge how the movie would be

received. Point 4 comments displayed the same length and understanding characteristics as Point

2. While Point 2 comments were confused at the meaning of the storyline without attempting a

conclusion, Point 4 comments were distorted, emotional presumptions that never entertained an

opposing opinion. User mrconcept says: “Slightly disappointed by this trailer, just makes the

film look boring. Here's hoping it will be good though, with Sean Penn its [sic] almost

guaranteed :)” This user’s comment is one of the more elaborate seen in Point 4, and he is

consistent to his stance. He is specific of his preference when he says the movie could still be

good because of Sean Penn, and he also displays a judgment when he notes the full-length film

looks boring based on two minutes.

Point 5 – Most aesthetic response. Clear evidence of the lived-through experience. In

the random sample, 31.2% of the remaining comments were classified Point 5 or Most Aesthetic.

In the top voted sample, 35.3% of the comments were classified Most Aesthetic or Point 5 (see

Tables 1 and 2). Both samples featured the most comments on the continuum. These responses

centered on the ideas, images, associations or feelings called to mind during the viewer’s

transaction with the trailer. YouTube user kalimul focuses on her lived-through experience and

extends her story world insightfully. She says:

No matter what, this movie will make you sad or depressed, or maybe it will make you

for a moment apreaciate [sic] the miracle that is you, you that are alive and kicking, you

tiny being privilaged [sic] in the history of life itself.

User itachiroxs2 was struck by the images. He says:

As a young child I sometimes shut my eyes and saw things such as the imagery in this

trailer. Watching it I feel fulfilled, intoxicated and, frankly, intrigued as f***ing [sic]

hell!!

These Point 5 comments were also representative of the experiential reservoir students

brought to the reading event. Two films in particular were repeatedly referenced in these

comments. The Fountain (Watson & Aronofsky, 2006) had a premise of everlasting life and

some users noted the similarity. Also, the editors of the trailer may have knowingly inserted a

reference to one of Brad Pitt’s former movies. As embodying the way of nature, the father Brad

Pitt plays a self-preservationist. He squares his son’s shoulders and commands, “Come on, hit

me! Hit me! Come on son” (The Tree of Life, 2011). YouTube users recognized this early in the

comments and continued to vote up and rewrite this line. Unlike other quotations in the trailer,

users did not copy the quote as a stand-alone poetic voiceover; users recalled that this line is

closely related to Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden in Fight Club (Linson & Fincher, 1999) when he

says, “I want you to hit me as hard as you can.”

Discussion

The results of this study are significant as the Point that yielded the highest percentage on

the efferent to aesthetic continuum is the stance Louise Rosenblatt described as the primary

stance for all readings toward critical reading. Excluding the Undeterminable and Not Applicable

Points, the most aesthetic response occurred most often. This response embodies users reading in

a lived-through experience to be shared against other readings as a singular experience becomes

a social conversation. Here, one of the variables that was beyond our control is revealed. We can

not know or even predict how many viewings a user has before he comments and thus can not

prescribe their stage of understanding. We can, however, accurately say that after the random

sample was so dominated by off-continuum comments, it is promising that the next highest

comment total came from a stance classified by evoked feelings and extension of the experiential

reservoir. Users who are engaged can work backward on the continuum from Point 5 to support

their like or dislike of the trailer literary analysis at Point 1.

Along those same progressive lines are the defining changes that occurred when the Top

Toted comments were totaled. As we just stated, the most aesthetic stance yielded the largest

percentage but equally insightful analysis is found in Points 1-4. Two Points – the most efferent

and both efferent and both efferent and aesthetic – raised their percentages and the other two

Points – primarily efferent and primarily aesthetic – dropped their percentages (compare Tables

1 and 2). This is significant as Points 1 and 3 – increased percentages by 7.4 and 6.8 – are

classified by analysis of elements according to what was learned and responses that integrate

efferent and aesthetic responses, respectively. Meanwhile, Points 2 and 4 – decreased

percentages by 10.9 and 7.4 – are classified by retelling what the story event was about and

personal preference of story events, respectively. The significance of these trends illustrates how

users with Point 1 or 3 comments make meaning more critically as defined by Rosenblatt and

Bordwell than do users with Point 2 or 4 comments, which were brief, inconclusive and

emotionally distorted. The results, therefore, are encouraging to our use of film text and our

choice of an unconventional film trailer, specifically.

Conclusion

This study began by amassing every available comment between the dates December 15,

2010 – March 15, 2011. A compromise was made that acknowledged The Tree of Life trailer

would receive thousands more views, hundreds more comments and new Top Voted comments.

By that time, the trailer had 1,328,276 views and 2,577 comments were recorded. Before

classifying comments with an efferent or aesthetic stance according to the rubric rating scale

designed by Cox and Many, an alignment was made between comment features and trends with

Louise Rosenblatt’s theory of a transaction between reader and text. As a simplified example,

Rosenblatt (2005) describes how a face-to-face conversation performs the transactional nature of

all linguistic activities. Speakers bring their linguistic-experiential reservoirs and confirm, revise

or expand the conversation – the text. A similar conversation, albeit more populated and more

delayed depending on response time, was found to occur in these comments. Writing and

replying to comments – which is to say, constantly revising the text – literalizes the conversation

among readers and text.

Two hundred seventy-five comments were classified as efferent or aesthetic, but the

complexity and understanding range between comments was resoundingly large. This study

opted not to use a second data-driven classification system to score the level of personal

understanding reached. Cox and Many (1992) had used this in addition to their five-point

continuum, but this study revealed how YouTube’s voting feature effectively mimics scoring

complexity and understanding. In the second sample, 68 comments were voted up 10 or more

times . One of this studies biggest findings dealt with how users used their voting power to

position the most complex comments into the highest visibility. As noted before, most of the Not

Applicable comments used the @ reply feature which hyperlinks to the initial user. Their

frequency was dramatically diminished in the Top Voted comments. Of the 68 comments, only

four comments were replies. Three out of those four comments answered with the name of the

first piece of music in the trailer. Comments like these serve more as markers of information than

insight.

64 of the 68 comments that were Top Voted were individual comments. These

represented the most complex, well-written comments that other forum members thought should

be seen. The Top Voted sample was vital to the study to understand how the conditions of

viewing the trailer replicates the process of reading. Users clearly had a purpose to vote up the

best comments. This negotiation and confirmation effectively considers some interpretations as

better than others. Users reinforce the validity of such interpretations.

The transactional theory addresses the challenge of establishing criteria for a valid

reading. Validity of interpretation, which Rosenblatt grounded in John Dewey’s idea of

warranted assertibility (1938), is central to a theory that invests as much emphasis in the reader

as the text to make meaning. Rosenblatt’s transactional theory rejects every personal

interpretation as automatically acceptable. Instead, she calls for responsible reading. She says,

“the reader is constantly faced with the responsibility of deciding whether an interpretation is

acceptable” (2005, p. 22). Personal responses do not extend critical thinking and only pad

relativism’s soft surface. Successive readings with differentiated selective attention, however,

can critically improve readings. Film trailers are brief, re-readable texts available for quick,

multiple studies. The amount and frequency of views by an individual user, however, could not

be determined, but by using a keyword search, six of the 2,577 comments said they “watched”

the trailer multiple “times.” User abacado1 said: “Breathtaking. Watched it countless times

already. Anyone notice the repeated imagery of water? The bath, the child trapped underwater,

Sean Penn touching the tap water falling to knees on the beach. Hope the movie lives up to this

magnificent trailer!!” His lived-through experience reflects his aesthetic response by citing

indelible images he visualized. He has assumed ownership of the text and his experiential

reservoir enters his aesthetic response to lead to self-criticism.

Figure 5. Photograph 4. 04_04_2011. A younger brother is underwater.

Figure 6. Photograph 5. 04_01_2011. Adult Jack has associations to water.

Critical reading is the end-all of Rosenblatt’s transactional theory. YouTube may not be

the venue to hold users and their comments accountable to standards set in classroom practice,

but this study found the largest classification group positioned themselves with a most aesthetic

stance ready to re-view the trailer and produce a more critical reading. Do not discount

classroom application of this trailer and age appropriate comments to highlight, though. With the

room darkened, assembled students are like an audience in a movie theater who react to the

complete experience which is both parts shared by the screen and the viewers. Representative

comments of points on the continuum add other perspectives to the goal of developing

transactive critics who apply skills wherever information is available: verbal conversations, print

text, film and online discussions.

References

a11king (2011, March 20). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=2

abacado1 (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=6

Altieri, J. L. (1996). Children’s written responses to multicultural texts: A look at aesthetic involvement and the focuses of aesthetically complex responses. Reading Research and Instruction, 35(3), 237-248.

Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bordwell, D. (1989). Making meaning: inference and rhetoric in the interpretation of cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cai, M. (2008). Transactional theory and the study of multicultural literature. Language Arts, 85(3), 212-220.

Carroll, N. (2008). The philosophy of motion pictures. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Corcoran, B., & Evans, E. (Eds.) (1987). Readers, texts, and teachers. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Connell, J. M. (2008). The emergence of pragmatic philosophy’s influence on literary theory: Making meaning with texts from a transactional perspective. Educational Theory,58(1), 103-122.

Cooper, C.R. (Ed.) (1985). Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of departure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Cox, C., & Many, J.E. (1989). Stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children’s responses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Cox, C., & Many, J.E. (1992). Reader stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional

theory to children’s responses. Reading Psychology, 13(1), 37–72.

Davies, D. (2009). Terrence Malick. In P. Livingston and C. Plantinga (Eds.), The routledge companion to philosophy and film (pp. 569-580). New York, NY: Routledge.

DbagChix (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=3

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Dressel, J. H. (2003). Teaching and learning about multicultural literature: Students reading outside their culture in a middle school. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Ebert, R. (2002). The great movies. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

eilandqueen (2011, March 20). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=3

Geisler, R.M. (Producer), & Malick, T. (Director). (1998). The Thin Red Line [Motion picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox.

Green, S. (Producer), & Malick, T. (Director). (2005). The New World [Motion picture]. United States: New Line Cinema.

Green, S. (Producer), & Malick, T. (Director). (2011). The Tree of Life [Motion picture]. United States. River Road Entertainment.

itachiroxs2 (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=6

jarreau2001 (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=5

kalimul (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=5

Kernan, L. (2004). Coming attractions: Reading American movie trailers. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Linson, A. (Producer), & Fincher, D. (Director). (1999). Fight Club [Motion picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox.

Lubezki, E. (2011). 03_31_2011. [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://twowaysthroughlife.tumblr.com/page/7

Lubezki, E. (2011). 04_01_2011. [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://twowaysthroughlife.tumblr.com/page/7

Lubezki, E. (2011). 04_04_2011. [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://twowaysthroughlife.tumblr.com/page/6

Lubezki, E. (2011). 04_19_2011. [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://twowaysthroughlife.tumblr.com/page/4

Lubezki, E. (2011). 05_11_2011. [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://twowaysthroughlife.tumblr.com/page/1

Malick, T. (Producer/Director). (1973). Badlands [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros Pictures.

Many, J. E. (1991). The effects of stance and age level on children’s literary response. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 61–85.

Many, J.E. (1992). The effect of reader stance on students’ personal understanding of literature. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 653-667). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Many, J. E., & Anderson, D. (1992). The effect of grade and stance on reader’s intertextual and autobiographical responses to literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(4), 60–69.

Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effect of teaching approach on third-grade students’ response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(3), 265-287.

Many, J. E., Wiseman, D. L., & Altieri, J. (1996). Exploring the influences of literature approaches on children’s stance when responding on their response complexity. Reading Psychology, 17(1), 1–41.

McEneaney, J.E., Li, L., Allen, K., & Guzniczak, L. (2009). Stance, navigation, and reader

response in expository hypertext. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(1), 1-45.

mcg413 (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=3

mrconcept (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=3

Pani88888888 (2011, March 16). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011 HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc&page=6

Purves, A.C. (1979). That sunny dome: Those caves of ice: A model for research in reader response. College English 40(7), 802-812.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1980). “What facts does this poem teach you?” Language Arts, 57(4), 386-394.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1985). The transactional theory of the literary work. In C.R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of departure (pp. 33-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(4), 122-128.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1990). Retrospect. In E.J. Farrell & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Transactions with literature: A fifty year perspective (pp. 97-107) Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1991). Literature – S.O.S.! Language Arts, 68(6), 444-448.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (2005). Making meaning with texts: Selected essays. (pp. 1-37). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Schneider, B. (Producer), Schneider, H. (Producer), & Malick, T. (Director). (1978). Days of Heaven [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount.

sk8erdude180x2 (2011, March 20). The Tree of Life Trailer 2011HD. Archived at http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fLPe0fHuZsc

Squire, J. R. (1964). The responses of adolescents while reading four short stories. Research Report No. 2, 1–65. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

The Tree of Life theatrical trailer [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thetreeoflife

Thomson-Jones, K. (2008). Aesthetics and film. London, England: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Watson, E. (Producer), & Aronofsky, D. (Director). (2006). The Fountain [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros. Pictures.

Wollheim, R. (1984). The thread of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, G. (1997). On film narrative and narrative meaning. In R. Allen and M. Smith (Eds.), Film theory and philosophy (pp. 221-238). Oxford, England; Clarendon Press.

Wiseman, D. L., & Many, J. E. (1992). The effects of aesthetic and efferent teaching approaches

on undergraduate students’ responses to literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(2), 66–83.