Tree of Life (2011)

The two most common responses to Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life are these:

Movie still from "Tree of Life"

1. That was a piece of cinematic genius and anyone who disagrees has no taste

2. That was so long and boring nobody but a pretentious fool could enjoy it

They have the mark of great debate points: insulting the opposition and preserving your opinion as the only one valid.

I saw the film last Friday and loved it, but don’t find myself inclined towards either camp.  For 1, I simply don’t know enough about cinematography to make that claim.  For 2, I enjoy art too much to blow it off for being long.

So here’s a review from a happy medium.

The story is a celebration of life, and tackles a lot of themes and ideas.  I went in knowing little about the plot, and the concept that “nothing happens” is both true and laughably false.  Most of the character action, between the O’Brien family, takes places over barely a year’s time.  Yet the movie itself encompasses the beginning and end of Earth.  It is filled with faith without being religious- the creation scenes don’t involve any god.

The movie sets up the themes early: Nature v Grace.  A voiceover tells us that humans are bent towards Nature but should strive for Grace.  We begin with Sean Penn as an older Jack O’Brien in his modern apartment, in his modern life as an important architect.  The movie follows his evolution from impressionable young boy to disillusioned adult, so naturally there must be some actual contemplation of evolution.

Cut to long artsy scene.

This is where the beautiful cinematography comes in.  The scenes are absolutely stunning.  I would watch this movie again just for those scenes of nature, the cosmos, and the ocean.

The scenes of the young O’Briens as babies are equally beautiful.  Soon the three boys have grown, and we have the center of the film: the relationship of the family of five in 1950s Waco, Texas.

Their emotions are transparent in meaningful gestures and furrowed-brow expressions.  Great depths of dialogue are told through simple looks; there are not many sections with a lot of talking.  The focal point is Jack O’Brien, especially his relationship with his father (Brad Pitt).  Where Mrs. O’Brien (Jessica Chastain) is doting and free-spirited, Mr. O’Brien is hard edges and discipline.  He sees himself as a big man, and wants his son Jack to grow up that way too.  Yet none of the boys take well to violence, and the acts of rebelliousness that Jack commits throws him into mental turmoil that we see mostly in brow-furrowing and aimless walking.

This section did get long.  Malick isn’t trying to make it so entertaining that you can’t look away, and the piece is painted in broad strokes.  Some mind-wandering is OK, and certainly happens during the creation scenes (for me it was drifting to “I want to study rivers!  I want to study film!  Ah no nevermind let’s just watch the movie”), but after a while with the O’Briens I figured the film was over.

It wasn’t.  We go back to Sean Penn, brow-furrowed, who has been having a rough day because he’s thinking about his dead brother.  The audience knows from the beginning that Jack’s middle brother dies at 19.  The scene with Mrs. O’Brien finding out through a letter, and then calling Mr. O’Brien, has the silence-loud dynamic that writers try to capture in moments of grief.  I thought that he died in the war, hence the letter, but my friend believed an officer would have informed her of that, and the letter meant an accident

So we’re back with Sean Penn, back with the voiceover, Penn wandering uncertainly through rocks and questioning his faith.  We end up on a beach, with all of the family together as it was, the lineage passed down and peace made.

This is a thinking movie.  It won Malick the Palme d’Or, and rightfully so in my opinion.  I saw the film in a small theater forty minutes from my house, and the usher- a local guy- expressed surprise that there were so many of us there on opening night.  The tiny room was maybe a third filled.  He said something along the lines of, nice to see people here prepared for something demanding when they could be watching a blockbuster.

I can’t compare it to any other Malick film, as I haven’t scene any.  The long creation section reminded me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I’m sure there are better comparisons.  I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be pretty but my butt might go numb.  Instead I was stunned by just how incredible something “artsy” and “difficult” to be.  I suppose I imagined all artsy films to be like surrealist paintings or whatever Andy Warhol did with his camera in the Factory.  Instead it was both intellectual and down-to-earth gorgeous in a naturalistic way.

Please go see this movie.  Find somewhere with comfy seats.

by Danielle Bukowski