The Tree Of Life

Last week I made the argument that at the very least, a film like Transformers 3 is relevant because it shows incredible images that art house cinema could never compete against. Independant cinema will usually reach and touch you somewhere deep inside, whereas blockbusters pander to more broad, but no less important or worthy cinematic feasts for the eyes. Well after The Tree Of Life I may need to rethink that statement. For all of the films pretenses about the very nature of what it means to be human, it is at the very least ambitious. It is no exaggeration in fact to say, that The Tree Of Life is one of the most ambitious films ever made. This film strives bigger than most have ever gone before in the history of cinema. In five films over four decades, director Terence Malick certainly knows how to take his time. This is reflected in his films too; each one will take a leisurely amount of time to reach their goal or make their point. He is one of the most esteemed and respected auteurs working today and is part of a dying breed of film makers who aspire to a higher degree of authenticity on screen. I feel this is important upon watching The Tree Of Life. It should be watched with the respect it deserves. However upon walking out of the film I could not help but wonder why a director like Michael Bay is heavily criticised for presenting the audience with visuals at the expense of story and character, when Terence Malick has done the exact same with this film here. The Tree Of Life may well feature the most awe inspiring imagery you will see all year, but with nothing tying the lot together what are we meant to take from it all? Sure the film offers up such weighty themes as God, religion and man's place in the Universe, but has no discernible thread running throughout. It's unwillingness to conform to typical plot structure and a heavy emphasis on visuals shares elements with Koyaanisqatsi, but it is far less effective. For many, this will provide flummoxing viewing with those not used to existential musings of this nature keen to brush the whole lot off as 'pretentious'. That does a disservice to the film; I myself may not have enjoyed it, but that is not to say that others won't get much spiritual satisfaction from the picture. I feel I owe it to the piece to at least explain where my philistine opinions are originating and not just write the whole thing off as arty, obscure garbage. Surely it hasn't been proclaimed by many as the film of the year after winning the Palme D'or at this years Cannes for nothing?

The film has no real plot so to speak, rather a succession of scenes and images meant to stir up personal emotions and understanding of the films heavy musings. Beginning in the 60's, we open with news that Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain's son has died, through never explained causes. As everyone is shook to their very core, their eldest son Jack (a remarkable Hunter McCracken) tries to cope with the news and his parents' struggle with it. We then flash forward to the present as a now older Jack played by Sean Penn reminisces about his brother. Past and present collide with one another and if you are with the film so far then you are doing well - Malick heavily uses hushed voiceover filled with the wonderings of existence over seemingly random and unconnected imagery. There is no narrative so to speak, rather atmosphere and underlying metaphor. Malick then explores the very nature of the beginnings of time. Throughout a half an hour of a near wordless sequence, we are shown the big bang, the creation of the universe and the first ruminations of life on this planet. If it sounds interesting it is anything but. With no true emotion to hang anything on, the whole experience leaves you feeling cold. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki crafts some of the most gorgeous imagery to have hit celluloid in quite some time, but there is a hollowness behind it all. If Malick wants us to feel something, then he can't just show us nature at it's very essence and expect it to strike a chord deep inside you. I don't need the man to tell me the capacity of sheer beauty the world has to offer, or by that rationale just how harsh it can be. The film asks big questions such as why are we all here, what does it all mean, and where do we fit in, in the grand scheme of things. But this is nothing that any average human has ever pondered before; the feeling of having Malick ask you from his high horse leaves a bad aftertaste in your mouth. Just who is he to take such incredibly personal and ultimately inexpressible thoughts and put them up on screen? Sure, the man should be applauded for such an undertaking, but it was always doomed to fail. These are things that relate to the very core of humans and that is the only place it can truly reside. Malick seems to think he is asking profound, never before thought about questions, when they are anything but. Indeed the second half of the film is far more effective as, in the loosest term you can imagine, 'scenes' begin to form. Pitt initially is quite distracting, however proves his worth, commanding a very powerful performance. It is through those initial questions that Malick explores the true theme of the piece: how can you choose between Nature and Grace in life. Which is the right way to live? Here it is personified in a very stern Mr. Pitt serving as the metaphor for Nature, while the ethereally presented Chastain, is Grace. Jack is eternally caught in the struggle between the two, while Sean Penn (who looks like he shot his entire part in three days) is completely short changed in the film, aimlessly wandering around a desert, with his back to camera. This aspires to be transcendent and should be commended for doing so, but it is rarely executed as well as it's ideas and themes deserve. Many will be bewildered for most of it, and some will feel profoundly touched - the rest will wonder what all the fuss was about. This may be art, but it sure isn't cinema.

Verdict: 4/10
A film decades in the making and culled from six hundred thousand metres of film, this is a worthy, yet achingly slow moving paean to the meaning of life. Imagery is frequently stunning, but it is cut in a way that is never allowed to truly register. Moreover, Malick's themes are too personal and grand to ever fully realise them as well as they should. It's meditive, ponderous nature and frequently frustrating inability to ever give anything back to it's audience only serves to confound, rather than enlighten. Oh, and the CG dinosaurs are crap too.

"The Tree Of Life" Trailer