Sometimes a movie is bigger than a plot. Roger Ebert compared this movie to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I think it is a worthy comparison. Both films use the universe as their canvas. What makes them different is the humanity portrayed. In 2001, the most interesting character in the film is HAL 9000, a computer. Here, Terence Malick uses a Texas family to serve as either a focus of his reflections on creation or as a exemplification of creation.
For the first time that I can remember, I actually had an emotional response to a film even though I didn't quite know why I was having an emotional response to it. The film certainly evokes much emotion as it depicts the conflicting parenting styles of the mother and father in the family (Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt). Here, we see heartbreaking contradictions. We have Malick having the courage to show us a father who clearly loves his sons, but simply cannot go easy on them. Add to that a mother figure who never partners with him in his sternness, and it makes for an explosive home. All of this is seen through the eyes of the grown oldest son (Sean Penn), looking back on his life and dealing with his regrets
But the basics of the plot seem almost beside the point. This is a visual symphony. It has all the abstractness of an instrumental work of music, but since it is visual, it finds itself in a different category. In this vein, the film also is drenched in classical music, both choral and instrumental. There is a scene near the end when the strains of the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) give greater texture to the film. The ups and downs of this family are mirrored in nature, and even man made creations are used as meditations to evoke a sense of tone. All of the visual, natural and musical elements are brought together to make an experience unlike any other. Add to that a strong undercurrent of meditation on faith and the problem of evil, and you you have film that is extraordinary in its scope. The film opens with the famous reprimand of Job by Yahweh..."Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth." As the film reveals itself, the character of Job comes up again, and we sense that the film is somehow attempting to deal with the issue of evil in the world. However, since the family has been drenched in conflict, the evil hits so close to home, and the film also ends up exploring forgiveness, love and redemption.
If my thoughts seem disjointed, that can be explained by how difficult this movie is to nail down. This is not a popcorn film. It is a challenge. Honestly, I cannot imagine seeing it anywhere except in a movie theater. Only in a movie theater can these extraordinary images be given their due, and the sound system can give us the nuances of the music that Malick uses for his film. There are so many images in the film that it was difficult for me to see how all the images worked together. That's fine. Even though I have seen Van Gogh's "Starry Night" once, I know that I could go back, see it again, and have a similar yet different experience. It is difficult to go to the movies and truly see something unique. "Tree of Life" is such a movie.
I've seen all five of Malick's features now, and I would definitely say "Tree of Life" is his most challenging, and most "Malicky". But apparently this story has been gestating in his mind for four decades, so good for him, I say.
ReplyDeleteI think what I got most out of it is the juxtaposition between the insignificance of our collective lives, and the significance of our individual actions.
So with the passage from Job, the creation/evolution sequence, and the prayers offered up by various characters through Malick's trademark voiceover, we get the sense that in the grand scheme of things, the cosmic scheme of things... we are nothing. The universe will continue on long after we have passed and will never remember us.
But then cutting to a family, the extreme focus and attention on little actions, and the flash-forwards to a still-wounded Sean Penn, we see that choices we make everyday have consequences that last decades. We have the power to rip relationships apart, estrange our family, corrupt our souls. But there is also the power to build, to nourish, to... create?
I wonder if it is presumptuous to say the message is that there is a bit of the divine in human beings. That we are gods in our own universes - the small worlds that we can control. But the cosmos itself is uninhabited by a higher power, and has no concern for us.
I have no idea if that was complete bs or if I got close to the mark. I'm still not entirely sure what the repeated phrase "The way of nature and the way of grace" means in the film. I also don't know what the significance of the death of one of the sons means. And the ending is the most ambiguous. Is it afterlife? But I thought it was a humanist film?
So many questions. But that's what I love about Malick.
Rob, I like what you said about the divine in humans. The only other film of Malick's that I have seen is "Thin Red Line", and I saw that 13 years ago in the theater, so it's been awhile. But I remember some clear themes of monism in that film, so I think I could see that here as well. Part of what I was saying in my post was that the film covers so much material, and yet it seems somewhat effortless in the process-that's quite an accomplishment.
ReplyDelete