The Tree of Life [DVD]

I won't pretend to contribute in great detail to the heated debate on whether this film is a masterpiece or overrated. I would merely like to make one specific point, not often addressed by other reviewers. When I finally went to see this film, the decision was mostly based on the many reviews which said that the cinematography in this film was similar to Stanley Kubrick's, and I have to say, I strongly disagree.

As you will have guessed from context, I'm a Kubrick fan. That is not to say that I was disappointed by this aspect of Malick's film or thought it was not beautiful in its own way. But Kubrick's method was purist to a point which earned him the reputation of being a control freak. With regard to his images, this means that they look sometimes calm, sometimes tough, that they can be poetic or ironic or frightening, but that they are always painstakingly composed in a manner that heavily relies on symmetry, clarity, and, to a certain extent, simplicity (think of the flattened, painting-like zoom-lens shots in "Barry Lyndon," the hallways and the labyrinth traveled and scanned by the steady-cam in "The Shining," or the court-room scene in "Paths of Glory"). Kubrick's shots look inevitable, as if this particular object or event could not have been looked at in any other way, but they seldom look spontaneous.

Malick's compositions are far more spontaneous and far less strategic. They derive a good part of their strength from their sheer visual spectacle, which is precisely why they depend so much on the viewer's readiness to absorb them rather than reflect them. Like Kubrick, Malick often makes use of defamiliarising techniques like wide-angle lenses and unusual camera positions, and he also likes to play with shadow and light, but Malick uses his heterogeneous range of techniques less in the name of a composition which comments on its contents, than in order to achieve what I guess you could call filmic impressionism. Clearly, the visual experience is central to "The Tree of Life," which might be why it makes so many people think of Kubrick. But the look and rhythm of Malick's film is less sharp and more dream-like, its main function appears to be to create an atmosphere, and this I think is part of why the film polarizes opinions so much. There really are no different levels here, there is one single experience. If you agree with its philosophy, then "The Tree of Life" is an intense way of viscerally experiencing thought, or of thinking in images, whichever way you want to put it. But if you do not agree, then by removing one element the whole work collapses like a house of cards, and the images are, as it were, hollowed out by their inability to point to anything beyond their own beauty. (Some people might respond that this is true of Kubrick's "2001: a space odyssey," but I would argue that that film is the translation into images of thoughts that are more ambivalent and complex, though not necessarily more serious, than the concepts meditated upon in "The Tree of Life").

Again I must repeat that this is merely a review of one aspect, not of the whole movie. If you have, as I have, read or heard that this film's visual style amounts to seeing a long-lost work of Kubrick's, I would say that such comments are based on a misconception of what the two directors use their visuals for. Both want you to look at their images very closely, and both hope that this will heighten the intensity of your experience. Both are, in that sense, not interested in realism aspiring to either objectivity or neutrality. But where Kubrick often uses his images to comment on the events he shows, Malick uses his to remove all emotional distance. Which method and which experience you prefer is of course entirely up to you, which is why my rating of three stars is merely to be understood as the closest one I could give to 2.5 - no decision either way.

Much has already been written about this controversial masterwork, and an immense amount more will certainly be written. It is undoubtedly deeply autobiographical. We know little of the reclusive Malick himself, but he grew up in the town where the film is set (Waco, Texas), and his own brother committed suicide at the same age as the brother in the film at his death. Critics who knew small-town Texas in the 1950s say that its portrayal in The Tree of Life is uncannily accurate. I would hazard a guess that the parents in the film are based closely on Malick's own parents. It seems unlikely, however, that the morose character Jack O'Brien representing (presumably) Malick himself, played by Sean Penn, is much like the director; those who have worked with him say he is a most delightful, friendly, and helpful man.

The Tree of Life is like no other film you have seen. Its nearest equivalent I know of is Tarkovsky's Mirror (1974), another autobiographical work about a man's childhood memories, though deeply rooted in mid-20th century Russian history. Other reference points are Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), for the controversial 18-minute sequence illustrating (seriously!) the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang, and Fellini's 8 1/2 (1963), for the broadly similar ending.

Apart from the portrayal of childhood in a Texan town, as seen through the reminiscences of a middle-aged man, the film is of course concerned with Big Themes, ultimately religious. The quote from the Book of Job which opens the film, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?", is God's response to Job's crying out about the woes with which he is inflicted, like the woes inflicted on the O'Briens through the death of the son. The "history of the universe" section is Malick`s illustration of this, a kind of revelation to the adult Jack in his midlife crisis. There is the theme of "nature versus grace", represented by the tough-love father (Brad Pitt) and the saintly angelic mother (Jessica Chastain). There is the conflict between our ideals and our actions, expressed in St. Paul's letter to the Romans, and articulated at one point in Malick's film.

All seem to agree about the quality of the acting. I would particularly mention Jessica Chastain; just watch how her face flickers at moments when Brad Pitt unfairly chastises one of his sons, and she feels it is not her place (in 1950s America) to intervene against her husband. Equally memorable is Hunter McCracken as the young Jack; Malick clearly has a great gift with child actors.

Even those critics who do not warm to The Tree of Life, who use words to describe it like "pretentious" (which says more about those critics than about the film), admit that it is stunning to look at and to listen to (a whole range of European composers, both classical and modern, are featured). Admittedly there is no real storyline, and, as in Malick's earlier films, there is relatively little spoken dialogue, much of what there is being characters' interior thoughts and feelings. So if you want a good strong plot, with one scene following another in temporal sequence, The Tree of Life is not for you. But if you want a personal testament by a greatly admired filmmaker, like the aforementioned Mirror and 8 1/2 , Malick's masterwork is for you. I would make just one suggestion for the DVD-watching: switch on the subtitles for the hard-of-hearing, not just because much of the dialogue is whispered, but also because you can't always tell who is speaking, and the subtitles tell you. I found this very helpful for extra understanding.

In my opinion this film is destined to be ranked alongside the likes of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and (in our own century) There Will Be Blood as one of the Great American Films.

Every once in a very rare while a film comes along that not only changes your view of cinema and filmmaking but your view on your whole existence. For me, The Tree of Life is unquestionably a film of this nature.

The Tree of Life is only legendary director Terrence Malick's 5th film since 1973, and is a non-linear journey through Malick's memories, thoughts and beliefs. Oh, and there's even time to fit in astonishing sequences of the creation and evolution of the universe!

There's so much content here but the strongest feeling I got is that Malick is interested in where we come from, both as individuals and as inhabitants of planet earth. What makes us who we are? Also the Job-like musings of why bad things happen to good and innocent people. But what is evident most of all is that this is a form of autobiography.

The 'plot' and that is a loosely used term here, centres around flashbacks of an architect Jack (Sean Penn) who remembers his childhood and the brother who (we find out v early on in the film, and which was true in Malick's real life) would end up dying at just 19. On this note Brad Pitt is excellent as Jack's father and Jessica Chastain is wonderful as Jack's mother who both shape young Jack (clearly an autobiographical version of Malick himself), and the child actors (in particular Hunter McCracken as young Jack) are tremendous too.

Another point worthy of mention is the beautiful emotive score by Alexandre Desplat (who also did the Kings Speech) and which also features original music from the likes of Bach, Berlioz and Tavener.

The only downsides that people may point to is the older Jack (Sean Penn) was a bit of a one note character and could've been fleshed out more. Also maybe some of the evolution/nature shots could have been excised by 5 minutes over the runtime of 138 minutes.

But these are the only really criticisms I have. Malick bares all in this beautiful film; his guilt, his shame, his regrets.... his life. I don't think I've seen a film in which a director gives so much of himself, and if you know anything about the reclusive, secretive man Malick is (he hasn't even given a public interview since the 1970s for example) then this is even more remarkable. In an age of remakes, reboots, and throwaway, overwrought, explosion-based films; Malick is an artistic giant, never wavering from his unique personal path.

Hypnotic. Mesmerising. Moving.... Malick Masterpiece.