This is a tough one. Some have described Terrence Malick's latest visionary musing The Tree of Life as a "love it or hate it" film. On the one hand, yes. If you're a mainstream film goer, expecting to see a movie about Brad Pitt as a stern father in the 1950's--you will probably hate this film. On the other hand, as someone who enjoys contemplative, visually stunning films (Wim Wenders's Wings of Desire and Julian Schnabel's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly are two of my favorites), I can honestly say I did not love this film, nor did I hate it. I mostly appreciated it. It's beautiful, it's thoughtful--but damn, I was so happy when it was over.
So what exactly is The Tree of Life? Let me describe what happens in the film play by play first (spoilers? I guess? It's not really a spoilerific movie, but don't read the following if you want to see the movie with completely fresh eyes). The film opens with a quote from the Book of Job and a soft, red light in the middle of a black space. Then it cuts to a scene where a woman (Jessica Chastain) receives a telegram informing her that her teenage son has died. She cries in grief. In the next scene, the father of the young man (Brad Pitt) gets the news over the phone. In the following scenes, the man and woman are grieving and being comforted by neighbors. This whole sequence of events seems to take place in the late 1960's/early '70's.The movie cuts to modern day. Sean Penn plays the adult version of the brother of the young man who died. He is getting ready for work and meditating on the death of his brother (which happened decades ago). There is a scene of him apologizing to his father on the phone.
Then the film takes off on a tangent--Malick essentially recreates the formation and evolution of the earth. It begins with lava, then bodies of water, then tiny organisms being formed and evolving into other, more complicated organisms. Finally, we see hammerhead sharks swimming and dinosaurs on the land. These scenes probably take up about 30 minutes of the movie.
The film cuts back to 1950's/1960's Waco, Texas. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien--the father and mother of a baby boy, Jack (who grows up to be Sean Penn). There are scenes of them playing with the baby and it growing up. Another baby boy is born, and finally a third. For almost the rest of the movie (a good 60-90 minutes), The Tree of Life focuses on the family dynamics of the O'Briens. Mr. O'Brien is a traditional, stern father who wants his boys to learn to "be men" and accomplish whatever they put their minds to. He has many rules and expects to be called "Father" or "Sir". Mrs. O'Brien is gentle and angelic. She never contradicts her husband, even though she sometimes silently disagrees with his parenting methods. The boys grow up and rough house with other neighborhood boys. Jack plays with and sometimes purposefully hurts his younger brother (the one that will die). The youngest brother is barely in the movie at all. Finally, Mr. O'Brien loses his job and has to relocate the family.
Now this above sequence of events might, in another film, suffice for a plot. But in this movie it is all just one, long, mostly dialogue-free meditation. The camera work is very artistic, with lush colors and unusual angles. It's very minimal, focusing on imagery rather than plot. Still, because we see small events taking place in real time (for example, a tense scene at the dinner table), the film really does "show" rather than "tell" and lets the audience get a close-up glimpse at the personalities of the characters and how their relationships play out.
The last twenty minutes or so of the film were the most frustrating for me. The movie cuts back to modern day/Sean Penn. Penn is on a beach, surrounded by people walking around. He is reunited with his mother, father, and younger brother. It's clearly some kind of afterlife/judgment day type situation. There are some more shots that look like the earth from outer space, and then the film is over.
So that is what The Tree of Life is on a literal level. What the film is metaphorically or spiritually is any number of things/interpretations. I personally read the film as an exploration of macrocosms and microcosms. So you get the sequence of the earth being formed--that's the big picture. The universe, time, the big bang. Billions of years of evolution. Then, you get the sequence of a couple years in the lives of one family in Texas in the mid-20th century--this is the little picture. Each member of the O'Brien family will live a series of small, quick moments in one tiny, confined space until they shuffle off this mortal coil (rather soon, in the case of the middle boy, who passes away before he's out of his teen years).
The movie made me think two things about myself and my own life: 1) How long it took, and how many events had to align perfectly for me to be born, 2) How tiny and insignificant my life is in the greater scheme of things. So, the film made me feel both unimportant and terribly lucky at the same time. I felt like Malick was saying, "You are a speck. We are all specks in the universe", but also "And look at what a lucky coincidence it was that you got a chance to have your life on this earth." That is the main message I got got from The Tree of Life: that life is both enormous and miniscule. That's the best interpretation I can give you.
There are other messages in the film that made me think. Chastain's character says in a voice-over, "The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by." Such a simple, yet complicated message. Is love what makes life worth living? I think so. But is it just enough to love others, or must you be loved in return? What if, as Major Briggs says in Twin Peaks, "love is not enough"? And doesn't life flash by anyway--whether you love or not?
The other message that intrigues me is the following, also spoken by Chastain in voice-over:
"The nuns taught us there were two ways through life: the way of nature and the way of grace. You have to choose which one you'll follow...grace doesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries...Nature only wants to please itself. Gets others to please it too. Likes to lord it over them. To have its own way. It finds reasons to be unhappy when all the world is shining around it. And love is smiling through all things."
When I heard this, my first thought was "I'm nature." Never satisfied, always wanting more. Wanting pleasure and love and excitement and for others to give it to me Right. Now. Isn't that what it means to be alive? If we didn't have desires, even selfish ones, wouldn't we all die out? Isn't it our drive to experience life that keeps us eating food, earning money, and making babies?
My second thought was that those nuns who taught Chastain this way of viewing things were, like most people, too simplistic and too reductive. Yes, there is a way of nature and a way of grace. Self-fulfillment and self-denial. Love of oneself and love of others. But--"You have to choose which one you'll follow". I don't think so. I think nature and grace are in all of us, in various and varying amounts. Some choose to live mostly out of grace. I suspect many religious people would fancy themselves living lives of grace, but of course they're deeply entrenched in their own natures and earthly, bodily, selfish desires as well. And I suspect some people would proudly proclaim themselves followers of nature and self-pleasers--and I bet those people would surprise themselves at their ability to sacrifice for someone they loved, if it ever came to that. I think we are all following the way of nature and the way of grace.
So, The Tree of Life. Not a film I'll run out and buy on blu-ray and watch over and over. Not a film I'd gladly sit through dozens of times. But did this movie have something to say? Yes. Was it an experience? Yes. Did it make me think? Definitely.
3 stars for enjoyment
4.5 stars for artistic vision
No comments:
Post a Comment