Movie Review: 'The Tree of Life'
Jonathan Hutchings
Seen on: June 7, 2011
The players: Director: Terrence Malick, Writer: Terrence Malick, Cast: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain
Facts of interest: Heath Ledger was originally cast in the lead role, but it eventually went to Brad Pitt.
The plot: The eldest son of a 1950s-era Midwestern family sets out on an existential journey that leads him to question his faith while seeking answers to life’s most challenging mysteries.
Our thoughts: Terrence Malick has always been enamored (perhaps even obsessed) with the human condition. For the reclusive auteur, it is life’s great mysteries, its unexplainable inscrutabilities that are the fodder of his art. "The Tree of Life," his most sprawling and overwrought film to date, attempts to answer the great “whys” of our existence by starting at the very beginning.
After a brief introductory sequence, the film opens with a lengthy and awe-inspiring succession of images that strive to achieve the same sort of magisterial wonder as Stanley Kubrick managed in the opening moments of "2001: A Space Odyssey." The film visualizes the creation of the universe—an explosion from nothingness, the formation of the solar system, the inception of biological life, and the reign and eventual annihilation of the dinosaurs… and that’s in the first five minutes.
The most striking difference between this film and "2001" is that the latter’s abstract and impressionistic sequences were narratively coherent; here, not only do these sections lack narrative connectivity, but they barely satisfy what ultimately becomes Malick’s paper-thin thematic concerns as well.
Somewhere in this glorified Discovery Channel special with a good soundtrack is an abandoned story. It centers around family patriarch Mr. O’Brien (Brad Pitt), a stern and embittered martinet who is raising three boys with a toxic combination of intimidation and commanding affection—mixed messages brought into even sharper focus by the gentle presence of Mrs. O’Brien (Jessica Chastain).
Mr. O’Brien rules the home with an iron fist, and it’s through his oldest son Jack’s (a terrific Hunter McCracken and Sean Penn, as his older self) perspective that we find our point of view. His transformation from childhood innocence to irredeemable resentment is handled well in the poetic hands of Malick, but unfortunately these poignant moments that give "The Tree of Life" its legs are interrupted by disjointed (albeit beautiful) shots of steam, smoke, jellyfish and hammerhead sharks.
These scenes strive to help develop themes of spiritual searching, of reckoning with the “nature” of God and his frustrating insistence on allowing suffering in the world, and at times, Malick and company succeed in that endeavor; it’s when these shots are punctuated with artificial and shallow philosophizing voiceovers such as “Lord—why?” and “We cry to you… my soul” that any kind of momentum comes to a screeching halt.
Moreover, these fleeting, indelible moments are all but obliterated by the framing device featuring Penn, whose role here feels cursory, gratuitous, and finally, hopelessly artificial. What’s more, Malick and his team of five editors never make it clear precisely which son Penn is portraying, an unforced error that creates much unnecessary confusion.
That said, "The Tree of Life" is gorgeous to look at. Malick has an amazing eye and a tremendous gift for finding pure, unadulterated beauty in his shot compositions. He also manages to pull out tremendous performances by his cast, not least of which Brad Pitt, who may remind filmgoers that he still has chops when he’s not busy overacting. When played against the strong visuals and excellent production design, he makes the film come alive.
But strong visuals don’t necessarily equal strong visual storytelling—much like ambition doesn’t automatically equal achievement. Clearly, this is a very personal film (perhaps even semi-autobiographical?). To me, it felt like Malick was trying to make his masterpiece. He tries so hard to encapsulate the meaning of life in one film that he loses sight of the character development and narrative veracity that helped him become one of modern cinema’s greatest voices.
I’ve often wondered if this day would come, and perhaps it has: maybe Terrence Malick has finally bought in to his own hype. How else can one describe his uncharacteristic lack of focus? How else can one rationalize the notion that every butterfly passing by, every sun flare on the camera lens is supposedly loaded with so much meaning that in the end, nothing has any weight? It’s in the same way that "The Tree of Life" ends up becoming not a profound film, but a profound irony—that a story centered around the search for God fails to look in the most obvious place: its characters.
Freaky quote: "Someday we’ll fall down and weep. And we’ll understand it all, all things." - Brad Pitt
The final word: While featuring some truly beautiful moments, Terrence Malick’s hotly anticipated new film is not the masterwork of one of cinema’s most gifted auteurs, but instead a meandering, occasionally shockingly simplistic muddle of philosophical ideas and overstated impressions—a ponderous act of cinematic overreach.
On the web: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thetreeoflife/
Article by Jonathan Hutchings
Reader Comments (10)
Informative and well written. You speak of interesting observations that makes me want to see this movie.
"it felt like Malick was trying to make his masterpiece."
I think this is an interesting statement because I could not help but feel that when I was sitting through "A New World."
How do you compare this film with "A New World"? Are they even comparable?
I agree with the commenter above. Although you weren't enraptured with the film, your observations make me want to see the film. Also, because I know there will be some insanely gorgeous shots of wildlife.
Great review. Now I am even more intrigued.
Mr. Hutchings, I enjoyed your review a lot. You're a thought provoking writer who communicates his ideas well. But I must take issue with your reaction to this film. I found it to be beautiful hypnotic and it acheived a level of style that you just do not see in todays films. You also brought up "poetic" and I think that its a great description. The problem I think is that it wasn't supposed to be centered around a story, and the disconnected narrative through people off. The film-going public, in my experience, find abstraction in films difficult. The mainstream movie fans won't comprehend Malick's unusual approach because this is the most abstract film most of them will probably ever see. Perhaps he did short-change the story a tad, but I that's okay to do. I was disappointed that you didn't take this into account in your analysis
Tim I can see your point. It is a very abstract film and the masses will have a hard time sitting through it. I just experienced it myself last night and people came out incredibly frustrated. Yet, I do think Malick wanted it to be centered around a story of a family. He opens up with Chastain and Pitt's reaction to the awful news and so immediately the audience is brought right into the middle of this family's grief. Then he rips us out and takes us to the creation of the world and then after a while puts us right back in this family, except this time through the eyes of the oldest son. If it wasn't supposed to be centered around a story I think he would have given us vignettes of many different people's lives rather than spend most of the film focused on this particular family.
I have no problem with abstraction, I just don't think the film was balanced as well as previous films of his such as Days of Heaven where he brilliantly weaved together the breathtaking shots of nature with a story that the audience could hold on to.
It almost felt like there were two different films here. The first 15 minutes had me hooked. Then when it went to the creation story, I kept wondering what happened the the film I was watching before. Maybe he should have made a discovery channel special and a family drama separately. That is just my take.
Jonny, In my opinion I don't think he has bought into his own hype, I just think he bit off more than he could chew. Those shots of the butterflies and sunflowers are gorgeous and I believe that he himself is getting a lot out of them. I just think he wanted to make something so big that he couldn't fit it all on his plate. Yet, I do applaud him for trying and think that in the hands of most other filmmakers this would have been a huge disaster.
In the end, I wanted to like this film more than I actually did.
Tim,
Thanks for reading, and for the kind words. I, for one, love abstract films and champion unconventional film techniques just as much as anyone. In fact, some of my favorite films of all time basically reject plot all together. Your summation about mainstream movie fans not "getting" The Tree of Life didn't factor into my analysis because it's a moot point. The casual fan doesn't watch Terrence Malick movies; they watch The Fast and The Furious. I'd go so far as saying that the "average movie-goer" probably doesn't even know who Malick is.
That said, clearly he has a huge following -- and rightfully so, he's an immensely talented filmmaker. However, the majority of people who will see The Tree of Life are generally fans of arthouse cinema, where a disjointed narrative is nothing new. I think you severely underestimate the intelligence of this film's demographic by saying that they will automatically be thrown off because of a lack of a linear storyline. My problem is that his focus was so sprawling, his scope so large, that he more or less abandoned the story (and if you look closely, I think there's a lot of evidence that he wanted "story" to count in this film). He wanted to have it all, and, in my opinion, came up short in theme, direction and story because of it. And, for a guy who famously uses sparse dialogue, he used some of the most absurd, and philosophically shallow voiceovers I've heard in a long time. It's lazy, and frankly, it's beneath him.
This isn't an issue of abstraction, it's an issue of execution.
Reid, I think Malick "biting off more than he chew" directly correlates to him buying into his own hype.
Oh typos.
I guess for me I see them differently. If he buys into his own hype then I imagine him making this film so wide in scope because he believes that he can do anything he wants. That he believes himself to be so brilliant that he can throw whatever he wants at the audience and they will eat it up.
Where I see it more like he felt like the origins of the earth section was needed to make his points more powerful, it was just more than he could adequately handle. It is an autobiographical film and maybe he felt that there was only one way he could really tell it, but it was just too much for him to reign in.
So I could see how they correlate, maybe I just want to believe that he is above buying into his own image and had the best intentions. If that makes sense.
Mr. Hutchings, that is a very well reasoned response and I see the point you're making. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Maybe I am not giving enough credit to the kinds of people that will see this movie. I will take that into account when forming my next thought about this film of his.
Thank you!