The Tree of Life

So I saw this film as part of my pact to watch and review all nine films nominated for best picture this year from director Terrence Malick. When this movie originally came out I had wanted to see it until I heard more and more about the extreme non-linear narrative in this film and then I sort of lost interest in it. The movie did end up bringing in about $54 million while being produced on a $32 million budget, despite the numerous news stories about moviegoers demanding their money back from the theaters.

The story follows the life of a man, played by Sean Penn, who grew up in 1950's Texas with a very strict father, Brad Pitt, and gentler mother, Jessica Chastain. Penn's character deals with existentialist angst following the death of his beloved brother and the loss of innocence in his life.

The narrative in this film is very small and just a minor sidenote to the overall focus of the film. The story is pieced together with various clips and fragments of the main character's memory. Even with small little bursts of narrative, we still get a real feeling for who these characters are and their dynamics with each other which is quite impressive given the extreme style of the movie. The characters were written very well and quite complex as they each had different dynamics with the other characters. If Malick had decided to shift the focus to the narrative portion of the film, it would've played out as a very well written plot.

Obviously things were very non-linear in this film. This was not about the story or the characters even, it was about provoking a feeling to it's audience. Actually 'provoking' isn't quite right, it was about forcing a feeling on it's audience. Malick used extreme amounts of imagery to get his point across and make you feel the existentialism of the film. I'm talking about 17 minutes of non-stop imagery and by imagery I'm talking about; stars, waves, dinosaurs, volcanos, clouds, fire, etc. It was almost as if there was a discovery channel documentary spliced into the middle of the film. I get it, it's about creation, nature vs. faith, etc. I just don't like being beaten over the head about it. It felt very pretentious. I'm all for imagery and thinking outside of the box to provoke a feeling or a tone for the movie, but not forcing it upon you with a sort of self gratuitous feeling to it. While I'm not a fan of the extreme chopped up editing and imagery, I will say that the cinematography was breathtaking. At least I wasn't subjected to 120 minutes of an ugly movie. Malick used only natural lighting for almost every frame of the movie which was simply stunning. He also employed the use of uncommon camera work and cut out all of the normal pans and tilts and opted instead for handheld vertical movements. It gave interesting angles and perspectives to the film which I feel closely mirror how memories work. But beautiful cinematography aside, the editing choice in this film just completely detached me from this film.

Unfortunately Malick's decision to not focus on the narrative or give us much more than a feeling for the characters, the actors didn't get a chance to really shine. Sean Penn gave an interview harshly criticizing Malick for not telling him what he was going to do with the editing and Penn stated that he didn't even know why he was in the film with regards to the way it was finally edited. I can see where Penn is coming from. Especially with his character, who maybe has six lines of on screen dialogue and his clips are shown so sporadically throughout the film, who could've been played with a much cheaper actor. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain were given the most spotlight in the film and were able to really develop their characters. The boys in the film were also fantastic.

I was not pleased with this film as I've mentioned because of the choices Malick made with the narrative and editing. It really feels like a pretentious film and I can already hear the voices of the fans of this movie saying, 'you just don't get it'. Maybe I don't, but I think I do. We all have existential questions and could relate to this film if told in a different manner. I think that the only people who will connect with this are people who are in the same spot at Malick in their search for their role/purpose in life. And again, the 17 minutes of imagery, it was almost a test Malick through in there to weed out the truly dedicated audience. I read somewhere that an Italian cinema had actually gotten the first two reels of the film mixed up and nobody could tell a difference for two weeks. "The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by"