The Tree of Life

Brilliant to some, B.S. to others… make up your own mind.

The H-Bomb: As I was exiting the theater for Terrence Malick’s latest film, “The Tree of Life”, I over heard a middle age man say to his wife, “Well, that was… different,” to which they both chuckled. I really could not tell if that was meant as a positive or a negative, but I imagine that would be, positive or negative, what many in the general movie going public will say after viewing this film.

Me, I am familiar with Malick’s past work, with “The Thin Red Line” being in my top ten list of all time favorite films, so I knew going in that this wasn’t going to be a typical film. Not a typical drama. Not a typical period piece. Not a typical storyline. Not a typical anything, and just to state off the bat, this is a film that many, many people will truly dislike. To say it’s not for all tastes is an understatement, so take my high rating, and the fact that it won the Palme d’Or (Best Picture) at Cannes this past spring with a grain of salt, because while I did quite like it, I am somewhat hesitant to recommend it to people.

They say art is in the eye of the beholder, and in the case of a Terrence Malick film, truer words have never been spoken. I have never seen films divide audiences the way his do. His films can best be described as kind of cinematic poems, where plot and even character development take a back seat to mood, visuals, and overall themes. I would compare his films to David Lynch’s in their uniqueness, except the mystery and creepiness are replaced by spiritual and philosophical wonder. Malick has a style all his own, and his work is definitely for a limited audience, and even that audience is going to be divided in their assessment of “The Tree of Life”.

Some, such as myself, will find it captivating. Others will find it simply boring. Let me put it this way, if you hated “The Thin Red Line” and “The New World”, then just steer clear of “The Tree of Life”, as this is Malick’s most abstract, most esoteric, and most lacking in traditional story thrust film to date. If the meandering of his other films annoyed you, this one will drive you batty. Swifty, the fan of “The Thin Red Line” that you’re not, you would be well advised to stay the hell away.

So, with my attempt at a disclaimer out of the way, I shall now attempt to review this thing. At it’s core, “The Tree of Life” is about a man named Jack (played by Sean Penn as an adult, and by Hunter McCracken as a child), who, despite having a successful career, a beautiful home, and an attractive wife, seems to be going through some sort of inner turmoil. One of his younger brothers died at the age 19, and having never quite gotten over that, even decades after it happened, adult Jack reflects back on his childhood, growing up in a small Texas town with his mother (Jessica Chastain), father (Brad Pitt), and his two brothers.

I know that makes it sound like a typical coming of age story, but it‘s anything but. It’s a coming of age story, all right, but a very unusual one. Something, as mentioned by others, more akin to “2001: A Space Odyssey” than “Summer of ‘42”. One filled with ideas about the origins of the universe, life, and man’s place in it all… oh, but, wait, I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s focus on the “main story” of Jack’s childhood and family, first.

We follow Jack from his infancy to early adolescence, where we see a very stark contrast between Jack’s mother, who is kind, nurturing, and soulful, and his father, who is strict, at times distant, and often bitter because of his own failures. He’s a man who is trying to prepare his sons for the harsh realities of life, so they don‘t make the same mistakes he did. He’s never abusive, but he can be stern, even harsh. It’s while being raised by these two very different people he calls his parents that young Jack must find his own self… something he’s still trying to reconcile well into his adulthood. Sounds simple enough, right? Yeah, well, it would be, except for the way it all unfolds.

“The Tree of Life”, much in keeping with the style of Malick, takes the existential, expressionistic approach. The narrative is fragmented, often dreamlike, with very little dialogue, but many of those flowery voiceovers that Malick has used in his earlier films. Like before, these “deep thought” narrations come from different characters; the mother, the father, young Jack, adult Jack. Often delivered in prayer like whispers, sometimes they work, but other times they seem like the kind of bad poetry that a pretentious college freshman would write.

However, the fragmented narrative does make sense, when one stops to think about how memories, particularly distant ones, work. Many scenes seem incomplete, where we only catch a sentence or two of what was a much longer conversation. When we remember a conversation with someone, we typically don’t remember the entire conversation, just the most important things said. An example of this would be when young Jack is scolded for a reason we’re never told nor shown. We’re not shown the reason because adult Jack remembers the scolding, but perhaps not what he did to receive it. That is very much how it unfolds here. We don’t get the whole picture of this boy’s experiences, just the bits and pieces that left an impression.

Then, and here’s the aspect of the film that throws many, there is the story thread that deals with the birth of the universe. For a solid 15-20 minutes of zero dialogue, we simply see various kinds of space imagery set to music. Then we see the start and evolution of life on Earth, and yes, that includes the much talked about scene featuring two dinosaurs, in which one dinosaur shows what seems to be compassion and mercy for the other. What does this have to do with the rest of the film… good fucking question.

In fact, fuck it, no summary or synopsis can even come close to doing justice to what this film actually is. Much of the imagery, such as adult Jack following his younger self through a desert, or young Jack in an attic with a man who appears to be a giant, or the mother floating in the air under a tree, or the relevance of the birth of the universe sequence, is symbolic, the meaning of which is left up to your own interpretation.

If I must offer my overall interpretation of “The Tree of Life”, without spoilers, it is that it’s about a jaded man trying to come to terms with his past, his father, his brother’s death, and his place in the world. Maybe the universe scenes are symbolic of him thinking about his tiny role in the “bigger picture” and being humbled or frightened by it. Or perhaps he’s pondering the existence of God. Who’s to say? These are merely my impressions, and I could be wrong. But that’s what I like about “The Tree of Life”, it’s a film about ideas, and engages me to interpret those ideas without spelling anything out. Films of this kind, that challenge us in this way rarely come along, and I appreciate them when they do.

As far as the performances go, everyone does fine, considering their dialogue is minimal. Pitt makes for a very believable patriarch from that period, loving but less than affectionate. Chastain brings real warmth to what could be a star making role for her, assuming enough people see this. McCracken is impressive as the young Jack, taking on a complex role as a kid who seems to observe everything around him and absorb it like a sponge. He does well at conveying a wide range of emotion through, again, very few words. As the adult Jack, Penn is his stellar self, though I was disappointed by how little screen time he actually had. Despite his second billing, his appearance is little more than a glorified cameo.

Malick’s direction is very much in keeping with the visual style he has established in the past. Much of the film was shot with a steady cam, allowing the camera to float about freely like a ghost and capture moments on the fly. Another characteristic of Malick’s, images of a serene nature, such as trees in a forest or a flowing river, are composed like paintings. His trademark of juxtaposing man and nature, and the effect man can have on nature, is very present. Call his films dull to your heart’s content, but you must concede they are beautiful to look at.

But, pretty pictures alone will not sway a detractor’s opinion on this film, and I can understand why. There are even artsy-fartsy cinema snots who hated this thing, and granted, some aspects, like the dinosaurs or the mother floating, or the flowery narrations, border on being just silly. At two hours and eighteen minutes, it is long, languid, and some will say, not a whole lot happens.

Personally, I found it rich and thought provoking, from one of the few true artists working in cinema. Others will find it boring and incomprehensible. How you react to it depends on you. I know, that can be said of any film, but in the case of “The Tree of Life”, it has never been more true.