Climbing "The Tree of Life"

Earlier this year, I'm not sure when, I saw a preview for The Tree of Life, a very ambitious motion picture from Terrence Malick. The trailer, which didn't actually reveal a lot, struck me somehow at a very deep level. The imagery shown and the hinted-at themes seemed massive and profound.

I had embedded the trailer clip here in the blog, but it was not playing any dialogue, just the score. Weird. See a preview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0KHlZMEquU&feature=related

The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May, and it won the prestigious "Palme d'Or," the highest prize. It then opened in the U.S. on a limited number of theaters on May 28th. Salt Lake City's "arty" theater downtown got a print, but I kept waiting for the wider release on July 8th. The wider release never happened.

Finally, earlier this month it was released on DVD. I then realized I could rent it on iTunes and, as I had a credit anyway, did so this past weekend. I knew it was going to be different. I had high expectations, but I generally just let it wash over me and absorbed every frame.

The Tree of Life is an amazing film, which leaves an indelible, lasting, and powerful impression on its viewers. And yet, it is also true that it is a strange film, and some people will not enjoy it at all. What do I mean by strange? Quoting from Wikipedia, "Malick's film chronicles the origins and meaning of life by way of a middle-aged man's childhood memories of his family living in 1950s Texas, interspersed with imagery of the origins of the universe and the inception of life on Earth." There are also dinosaurs, Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and an afterlife of sorts. It's operatic, it's existential, it's non-linear. How's that grab you?

It is, almost by definition, an "artsy" film, and some will no doubt call it pretentious. I would not, but some viewers unused to "art house" fare will deride it mercilessly.

Beyond the description I gave above, I will not attempt to explain the film. And...there is not really a plot that I can relate anyway. There is not a lot of dialogue and I can't recall any conversations lasting more than two minutes. Every scene feels portentous and crucially important. Although not obvious, Sean Penn's character, who is the older, current-day version of the family's oldest son, is reflecting back on life and trying to understand his place in, well, the universe, and to understand his connections to others around him.

The sense you get from the trailer is that Brad Pitt's character is abusive and despicable. I actually didn't think of him as abusive, as there are no scenes of abuse. He is demanding and strict, but he seems perfectly in place for a 1950s father. I like how Roger Ebert expressed it:

[The father] is doing what he thinks is right, as he was reared. Mrs. O'Brien (the ethereal Jessica Chastain) is gentler and more understanding, but there is no indication she feels her husband is cruel. Of course children resent discipline, and of course a kid might sometimes get whacked at the dinner table circa 1950. But listen to an acute exchange of dialogue between Jack and his father. "I was a little hard on you sometimes," Mr. Brien says, and Jack replies: "It's your house. You can do what you want to." Jack is defending his father against himself. That's how you grow up.

Suffice it to say that the film wrestles with the power, for good and ill, of relationships; the struggle (as the trailer says) between nature and grace; the frustrations and tragedy's of life; and an understanding on some level of what matters in life and what doesn't. The only movie I can try to compare it to is Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was of course odd in its own right.

What stands out in the film, and the reason why I am writing this post, is that I cannot recall a film that combined such striking images with such an unbelievable classical score, featuring a lot of liturgical pieces.

The "Lacrimosa" from Zbignew Priesner's "Requiem for My Friend" that accompanies the creation of the universe is breathtaking, awe inspiring, foreboding, and even doom. You can hear the song below and see clips from The Tree of Life (but, not as the song was used in the movie). A lacrimosa from a requiem speaks of "mournful that day" and the judgment in eternity of a guilty man. I wonder if the message is that anything that is born will eventually die.



The acting is also pitch perfect. Brad Pitt is excellent, although it's not really his movie. Jack, the oldest boy, is portrayed by Hunter McCracken and he captures all the turmoil, confusion, and wonder of a child (adolescent) trying to learn his place in life.

In some ways, I think you could say the film is spiritual without substance, or to use an oxymoronic phrase, it is secularly spiritual. At least, that's how it strikes me. The creation of the universe seems to be presented as chance, which suggests man also is a result of chance, rather than man being the central element of God's creation. I didn't sense any appreciation for a salvation of any sort; no hope that there is more to life than....life (of course, why would we expect one from a Hollywood film?).

Then again, there is a glimpse of an afterlife, but to me it felt a little sterile and, for lack of a better term terrestrial (but, to be fair, it's not like we see a lot of it beyond joyful reunions).

It is, ultimately, a film you have to see for yourself. Nothing I say can appropriately prepare you for this film. I will be very curious to see what happens at Academy Award time. I can't decide if I'd be more surprised if it were nominated for Best Picture or if it weren't.

In the end...I'm not even sure what to say about this movie, and writing is what I do. I don't know if it's a masterpiece. Probably not. But it is clearly a work of "art." Just go see it, then we'll talk.