Darrel Manson
Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is all of these things. What it is not is a film that will be appreciated by everyone. Don't misunderstand. I think it's a wonderful film—probably one of the best coming out this year. It's just that it is so out of the norm that it may just stump many viewers. It is not so much a film to be watched as it is an experience to be encountered and processed.
Although plot is not an especially operative word for this film, this is the story of Jack O'Brien and his family. But it is set in the context of all history from the formation of the galaxies to the end of the world. The film spends a sizable amount of time showing us the cosmos, the formation of the Earth, the beginning of life and evolution through the dinosaurs. All of this is done with no commentary. We watch it all happen. We see a bit of Jack as an adult, but mostly we see him as a child with his parents and brothers. We don't get a full story, but rather scenes scattered through his years.
Jack's father is loving, but demanding and hard. His mother is kind, even offering, in one scene, water to a prisoner being put into a police car. In an early voice over she explains that "there are two ways through life, the way of nature and the way of grace," and that each person must choose the way they will follow. It is not that the parents are in a competition for how Jack should live, but each tries to impart their own values to Jack and his brothers.
The film often lacks fluidity—even within a scene. This is part of the style of the film—not giving us a smooth story and storyline. Rather it often only gives us images, just as memory is often just a collection of such images. (My opening paragraph of adjectives is an attempt to create a feel of this disconnected manner.) Even in scenes where there is conversation, the words may be in the background while we focus on other things. Through much of the film there are voiceover comments, some lengthy, some only a sentence or two.
Certainly the film is full of metaphor and symbolism, but I would discourage you from trying to figure out what each means. These should be seen as tensive symbols—symbols that may carry various meanings and often are used more to evoke a response than to signify anything in particular. Rather than consider what each symbol might mean—just let them marinate in your psyche and see where they lead you. Above all, do not try to make an allegory of the film. It is tempting to see the relationship of Jack to his parents, especially his father, as how he relates to God. There may well be some correlation, but how Jack engages both God and his father are too rich to intermingle.
What we are offered in this film is a meditation on life, on God and God's presence (and absence), on faith, on love, on family, on rebellion and sin, on grief, on doubt. It gives us a chance to consider our place within the whole of creation. The film opens with the words of Job 38:4, 7 about God laying the foundations of the earth. What does it mean to place Jack's story within the whole history of the cosmos? Perhaps that we are a part of that ongoing story, but we really only really know it in the time frame of a single life—our own.
Perhaps knowing a bit of what to expect will help you choose to take a chance on this challenging film. While many people may shy away from something so out of the ordinary, I think those who are willing to encounter this work will find a great reward.
Opening Weekend:
Did You Know?
Normally, in describing a film one says this is the story of... da da da da. But this film is NOT a story in any but the crudest sense of the word. It is an impression... an impression of a childhood - perhaps Malick's own childhood, which becomes, through Malick's poetry, an impression of childhood itself... of being tactile, of feeling the love of one's parents, of experiencing the arrival of a sibling, of learning to walk... of a thousand things that we take for granted, but are wonderful and shape us more than we can imagine. It is by far the most brilliant evocation of rural childhood that, as far as I can remember, the cinema has ever given us.
This is a film of gesture and movement, of happiness and insecurity, of learning to love and learning to fear. It is unlike any commercial film I have ever seen.... it is as if Stan Brakhage had been given a $100 million budget. The trouble is that Malick may have been too uncompromising. Many, perhaps, sadly, most, of the film-going public, in my experience, find abstraction in films difficult. This is the most abstract film most of them will probably ever see... but it's wonderful and moving and visually stunning. So the question is will they stick with it. With immense sadness, I have to say that I have my doubts.
The much vaunted 'history of the universe' sequence is stunning and is like a poetic editing of all of the most stunning images from science documentaries. It adds even more gravitas to a film that is as philosophically weighty as it is visually impressive. Douglas Trumbull was a special effects consultant and many might immediately think of comparing this sequence with the 'Stargate' climax of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The film's philosophical/metaphysical weight rests, to some large extent on its deeply ingrained spirituality. Of course, this aspect has been there from the beginning with Malick, but here it is much more up-front. The film charts the paths of a family of characters. In the mother's opening line of dialogue she recounts how 'The nuns told us that there are two ways through life, the way of Nature and the way of Grace.' In the film, the characters show how much the difference between these two paths influences the personalities of the characters and the lives that they lead.
Because of this, it has a profound religious sense but without trace of piety or sentimentality. And if, like me, religion is not your thing, don't worry, the film's wonders do not require belief to reveal themselves.
There remains to be said a few words on Malick's stylistic approach. All of his films are incredibly visually rich, 'The Tree of Life' is no exception. But more important even than this is that large sections of 'The Tree of Life' are made in the magical style that he monumentalised in the two 'abstract' sections of 'The New World' - the love affair between Capt Smith & Pocahontas and the amazing final 20 minutes of the film covering her death. It is this fusion of magnificent meaningful imagery and musical montage that lifts this work to levels barely conceived of by most filmmakers.
'The Tree of Life', for all its wonders, is certainly not perfect as it seems again that Malick's dislike for dialogue has become a thorn in his side, as it was for 'Days of Heaven' and we get some embarrassing pauses as characters wordlessly confront one another or stare meaningfully into the void. It is not the matchless masterpiece to challenge 'Citizen Kane' that I was secretly hoping for, but it is wondrous and moving and unforgettable, a staggering piece of cinema that gives the impression of being immensely more meaningful than it appears at first sight... one just needs to put all of the pieces together... not in the narrative sense, for there is barely any narrative, but connecting up Malick's, 'universal' vision with the images of childhood that he presents. An example here is the confrontation between the two dinosaurs that has a resonance with the relationship between young Jack and his father.
All in all, this is one of those films, where it is more important to let one's psyche experience the incredible richness of the film's emotions, than to try to understand it intellectually - at first viewing, at any rate! (And I am sure that Malick would concur about the experience versus understanding conundrum.)
Finally... it is a very, very good idea to watch 'The New World' immediately before seeing 'The Tree of Life' - on DVD or VOD (if it is not being shown locally by some insightful cinema) because, stylistically, it puts you in the 'right groove' to appreciate Malick's cinematic expression... perhaps THE wonder of modern cinema.