Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life sat on our dining room table in it’s Netflix sleeve for a week and a half before we finally committed the two and a half hours necessary to watch this behemoth. I have seen Malick’s A New World and the director’s cut at that, so I was prepared for a ponderously long film with lots of whispering, but not for two and a half hours of nature footage intercut with a cold man in a cold glass tower, who I hardly cared two straws about, intercut with an intimate, well-acted, if impressionistic childhood story. I found this film extremely frustrating to watch, at times infuriating. I am extremely busy with lots of films in my queue and to feel I’m wasting an hour on a ridiculous grandiose vision of life and the cosmos and evolution and being etc. etc. does not sit well. Mostly, I was frustrated because it felt like a missed opportunity. The childhood story was great and the performances delivered, particularly by the children were phenomenal, so to ruin it by going so over the top with all the other stuff just seemed a shame. 
Malick’s other motive for creating this film, besides telling the story of Jack, a baby-boomer who grows up in Waco, TX, with his two brothers, is conveying some sort of (possibly deist) concept of the origins and meaning of life. To do this, he feels it necessary to take us from the big bang through dinosaurs to their extinction, all scored with huge orchestral and choral pieces from the annals of classical music history. For a moment I thought I was watching Fantasia. One piece he uses, Smetana’s "The Moldau", is used for the trailer as well, and is actually a wonderful piece, that I’ve always liked.Overall, I felt like there was so much subtlety and nuance in the performances of the actors, but in the storytelling I felt I was being bludgeoned over the head with symbolism that didn’t feel subtle at all. Every time I felt myself being drawn into the film and the story of young Jack, Malick would do something to jerk me out of the story again. Very frustrating to watch, especially when everything is so beautiful and he was able to elicit such amazing performances from such young children. Overall, I wouldn’t recommend this film unless you are a solid Malick fan or a serious film buff and need to make sure you’ve seen it.
Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts on this highly original film. I personally liked the movie very much. I think the older Jack is very important for the film --the older Jack is the POV from which the whole film occurs: you actually do meet him, but you meet him through his imagination of his past. He's a ponderous middle-aged man who is thinking about the meaning of everything in a very personal (and biased) way. Malick indulges this character's point of view. I did at many points find myself thinking, "he needn't view life like this," or "there are other ways to come to terms with these memories and griefs," and perhaps once or twice I thought of a "missed opportunity," so I know what you mean. But in general, the film made me see older Jack (not necessarily Mallick) trying to make these grandiose visions of the cosmos "stick," but he is haunted by his past, and that's where all the subtleties of life still play out in his mind (you are so right about the performances of the young actors!) Yes, the film seems to buttress one point of view with all its powers, but it's filtered through older Jack. I hear him remembering his mother say, "I give you my son," and he has these cliched visions of heaven or whatever (I bet most people have a pretty cliched view of heaven), but it's clear he's still very, very troubled. His conversation with his father over the phone is only one indication of this. I wouldn't equate the "messages" with Mallick so absolutely. I really do think the older Jack is what the whole movie is about.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a review of No Country for Old Men? I hope you keep writing these--I enjoy your reactions.
Bill
Thanks for your comment Bill. I think it's much more interesting to see it from the perspective of adult Jack's memories, but what really bothers me are all the huge cosmos things, I just felt it took me out of the story. I know many other people who did enjoy it though, and of course I still highly respect Terrence Malick for the amazing filmmaker he is.
ReplyDeleteI have not reviewed No Country for Old Men and probably won't because I watched it too long ago. As a Texan transplant to California, I am always curious to see how Hollywood portrays Texas. It is often so stereotyped by Californians, so I am a bit sensitive about it, because it's such a culturally and geographically diverse state, which Californian's sometimes fail to realize. While Malick has lived in Texas for a long time, the Coen brothers really have no claim to Texas. Despite that, I did enjoy No Country for Old Men, and felt they did a good job. I just really like them in general, I think they are awesome storytellers. As far as Coen brothers westerns go, No Country is probably better than True Grit. I particularly like the exchange at the very end between Carla-Jean Moss (Kelly Macdonald) and Javier Bardem's character Anton Chigurh. The visuals are also excellent. It just feels dusty. Anyhow, thanks for reading and check out the right hand column near the top for other reviews. I post them in between posting my photos.