I finally got around to watching Tree of Life even though it just entered its third week showing there. Its reputation preceded it more than any story elements. I knew there were dinosaurs. I knew people were walking out because they were bored. And I knew that it got a very mixed reaction at Cannes. Given that a coworker gives me a hard time for being (paraphrasing) "too plot reliant," I wasn't sure what to expect. I was watching a late show, so at the very least, I was hoping for some fun hallucinations brought on by fighting away the tired. Color me surprised. Not only did I stay awake threw the film (with ease, mind you), but it only started to drag a little towards the end and I found Tree of Life to be intensely emotionally resonant. That's not to say it's a perfect, but I'll get to that below.
The first thirty minutes (maybe longer) is very disjointed. There are glimpses of a family in the '50s(the O'Briens, though I can't recall if that's ever actually said in the film), modern day life, shots of deep space, the aforementioned dinosaurs, microscopic action, and eventually, a narrative forms of a fetus developing then a child and family growing. The first thing that struck me about all of this is the floating camera work, the editing, the use of wide lenses that seem to push the borders of fisheye, and one amazing shadow shot that I'm certain I've never seen anywhere before. There's an intense, ethereal quality about it all and while I don't think the images always cut together smoothly, there's a rhythm and grace to the whole thing that feels like something I've never experienced in a theater. To put forth an old and hackneyed phrase, it felt like the closest expression of "pure cinema" that I've ever encountered. The editing seemed like it was time to an unheard score (and given the use and importance of (classical) music in Tree of Life, I wouldn't be surprised it that was the case. Given the nature of the editing, I can't even imagine how Malick shot the film without having a new set up after five second shots (this film very clearly doesn't subscribe to the notion that a director's hand should not be seen, which is not a knock against the film).
Terrence Malick does a good job of uniting the thematically linked space/dinosaur stuff with the narrative through visual motifs, water being the most noticeable. It isn't much of a reach to justify the existence of these elements in the film. By the time the main narrative kicks in, I was kind of mesmerized by the imagery to the point where I looked at my watch and was stunned that an hour had passed already.
As Tree of Life continues, we follow Jim O'Brien (Brad Pitt) and his three sons and wife (mostly focusing on the eldest son). Here is where the film really sunk its hooks into me. Even though the floating camera gets a little tedious at times and the editing feels a little clunky because it's alway cutting between moving images that aren't really compatible, the way it's all put together draws a picture of one of the most accurate and naturalistic childhood's I've ever seen depicted. Nearly everything that happens when the boys are playing I've either done or know people that have done them. Shoot someone with a BB Gun because they let you? I know people who willingly threw darts at each other. Play in the mist of the DDT truck? I know people that used to ride their bikes in behind the truck while it misted. What's remarkable is how much gets communicated to the audience with almost no exposition. You get to see the idyllic childhood and the harsh father both and there is very little dialogue between characters. It's shown with actions and glances. When there is finally a moment between father and son when emotions are actually expressed, it's incredibly powerful.
Upon further reflection, the film is put together in the manner of memory. Bits and pieces flitting about. Incomplete pictures mixed together. Thinking of it now, it's quite obvious why that is, but there's a lot of mental work that goes into watching Tree of Life that it's easy to miss the obvious. The only time the film slows down is during the Sean Penn scenes and only partially because I really don't care for the guy as an actor (I'd say human as well, but I don't know him). It veers in a direction that was much harder for me to unpack, though having talked with my friend after, I think we made some progress on it.
Tree of Life is long and deliberate, but if you're willing to put the moderate amount of work into it (which really isn't that much), it's an immensely rewarding experience, emotionally and cinematically. Even though I have my issues with the way it was shot and the editing (and Sean Penn), the combine to make something unique. It's rare that I have such a positive physical reaction to a film (see the last time I wrote about a new movie in this space). It's authentic, beautiful, and challenging and should be seen in the theaters. At the very least, it will give you something to talk about.
This would be a great pick for Sunday Screenings once it comes out on DVD. As you mentioned, it's a major discussion starter.
ReplyDeleteI need to see it again to help sort out all my thoughts about it, but I had a similar reaction: I had some things to nitpick, but overall it was pretty incredible moviegoing experience.
Would you care to expand on your thoughts? I'm definitely interested to hear them.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, although they're a little fragmented. In no particular order:
ReplyDeleteThings I liked:
-the childhood segment was really well-done — so many authentically portrayed moments that packed a lot of emotional power...the film is worth seeing just based on this section alone
-Jessica Chastain, Brad Pitt, and especially the child actors were all fantastic
-the birth/death of the universe segments were some of the most breathtaking pieces of filmmaking I’ve seen in a theater
-Malick’s usual impressionistic and naturalistic approach to filmmaking/editing (I’m a fan of this technique both in The Thin Red Line and The New World)
-the movie’s ability to prompt me to think about life and existence in mind-blowing ways
Things I didn’t like:
-the voiceover — I actually have no problems with it in Malick’s previous films, but here it didn’t feel like it added much
-how vaguely Jack’s brother’s death was handled — something that crucial should've been clearer, especially in a non-linear film
-I realize that Jack’s parents were supposed to represent “nature” and “grace”, but Jack’s mother was so thinly sketched at times that she seemed to stop being a character altogether and exist purely as a symbol
-the whole part with young Jack stealing the woman’s dress and feeling guilty about it felt like a detour — I think Malick was going for a loss of innocence thing here, but you could have removed that subplot and that theme would still have been clear through other scenes
-adult Jack’s epiphany (that’s how I interpreted the beach reunion scene at the end) suffered in comparison with the better realized childhood segment, and birth/death of the universe segment...I get that Jack's internal thought process is what drives all the disparate elements of the film, but for me the culmination came across as heavy-handed (but maybe it's hard to avoid that when you're tackling life's biggest mysteries head-on?)
I should add that the positives outweigh the negatives for me...it's just that the negatives are more specific and take longer to explain.
ReplyDeleteI didn't care much for the voiceover either and actually had people walk out because they couldn't understand it since it's all whispers.
ReplyDeleteDid you catch that it was the middle child that died and not the oldest? I kept thinking that it was weird to feature the oldest child so much when he dies and Sean Penn is the middle child remembering all this stuff. I didn't even figure it out until the movie was over and I was talking with someone (and he's the one that brought it up, but he didn't catch it either at first). I agree with your assessment of the scene on the beach, but part of the reason I struggled with it so much at the time was that I DIDN'T understand the relationship between the brothers.
I haven't seen any other Malick, so it'll be interesting to go back and see if this is a culmination of something stylistically.
When I watched it, I commented to the person I was watching with that I have no idea what the mom thought of the dad's handling of the kids, then immediately it turned sour and they were fighting (I didn't think she'd care for it).
For a while I was confused which brother was which too, until something clued me in that he was the oldest...maybe it was the fact that the middle child seemed quieter than the oldest, and that fit in with the tragic nature of the character.
ReplyDeleteHaving seen his other films, I'd say Malick has been building up to The Tree of Life both stylistically and thematically. It's the uber-Malick film.
I nearly bought the Criterion Blu Ray of Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line because they were 50% off, but held back just in case. Having only seen this one film by him doesn't make me secure enough for the blind buy.
ReplyDelete