The Tree of Life

While recovering from an illness last month I took a sick day from work and spent most of the day lying on the couch.  With nothing to do but rest, stay hydrated and try to force some food down, I decided to watch a movie.  And since Mrs. went to work that day it meant I was able to watch any movie of my choosing (an early Christmas present for me!).  So I looked through my collection of movies I’d purchased but hadn’t gotten around to watching and decided on Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life.  Mrs. had already informed me of her lack of interest in this movie, so it was perfect.

I’ll say up front that I was really excited for The Tree of Life.  My initial interest was due to the trailer, which looked incredible (I’m a sucker for a good movie trailer).  And several times I’ve been irrationally excited for a movie because of the trailer only to have the film fail to live up to those lofty expectations – I’m specifically looking at you The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (an ok, but flawed film).  So I knew going in I could be setting myself up for disappointment.  

I think the film can be neatly divided into four sections:

1) The introduction montage

The best way to describe the first 15-20 minutes would be as one long movie trailer, or at least a long movie montage, with background music but little in the way of dialogue.  It introduced the audience to the characters and settings – a family in 1950’s Texas (Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and their three sons), that same husband and wife getting some bad news maybe 10 years in the future, and then one of the sons (Sean Penn) now an adult in present day.  It wasn’t quite a conventional movie up to that point, and I really didn’t know what to think, but the quick flashes from scene to scene were a bit maddening.  And I’ll say that at that point I started to seriously consider whether his was going to be the most disappointing movie ever (relative to my expectations – Steven Spielberg's A.I. Artificial Intelligence currently holds the title).

2) Discovery Channel special

So what follows that opening montage?  Well for the next 20-30 minutes (did I mention this was 2 hours 18 minutes of running time?) the movie shifts to resemble something akin to a show you’d see on Discovery Channel (well of course it does).  Starting in space (the big bang theory perhaps), then moving to the evolution of life on earth, single cell organisms up to dinosaurs, and then concluding with an asteroid striking the planet and I assume the extinction of those living organisms.  So, yeah, that was interesting.  I mean, what?!  It was a beautiful and fascinating sequence, but umm . . . it didn’t make a whole ton of sense.

3) 1950's Waco, Texas

So after this “brief” interlude, the movie goes back to something more closely resembling a normal film.  Not quite a normal film mind you, but at least no more dinosaurs.  We settle in for the next hour or so with that family in Texas, with the main focus on the oldest son and his relationship with his parents.  There’s a little more dialogue, but the movie is still mostly voiceovers and short and sweet scenes more resembling a montage.  At least I can finally see a story emerging.

4) Wandering in the desert

So the final 15-20 minutes flash forward again to present day and the oldest son as an adult.  This is Sean Penn, who’s in the movie, but probably says 15 words, almost all in voiceover.  He’s dreaming (I think) about wandering a desert in some sort of afterlife, where he encounters people milling around the beach and ocean.  He meets up with his family (all looking like they did in the 1950’s) and they embrace and don’t say anything.  And then he’s back in the big city where he works.  And that’s your movie.

After the movie ended I sat there for a moment.  What had I just watched?  Was that a great film (it was nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award after all), or was it a terrible film?  I didn’t know what to think.  I can safely say it will NOT go down as my most disappointing movie (A.I. rejoices) because if nothing else it was fascinating and beautifully filmed.  My thoughts were divided.  I started to think about what a chore it was to sit through the movie, but at the same time I considered watching it again immediately.  I read afterwards that film critic Roger Ebert recently updated his top 10 movies of all time to include The Tree of Life.  I thought, what?!  I mean wow, that’s crazy.  But then I thought maybe I should do the same thing (note – I will not be including The Tree of Life in an updated top 10). 

So yes, it was a confusing film.  While I suppose the structure was creative and experimental, I’m not sure it couldn't have benefitted, and still been a great film, with a slightly more conventional narrative.  I specifically would have liked to see the scenes drawn out further and more focus on the dialogue between the family members.  I think it was an ambitious film (it had to be with a theme like "what's life all about?"), but I’m not sure Malick quite achieved the big ideas the film had.  Maybe it’s brilliant.  And maybe it’s just pretentious garbage.  But if it wasn’t great, well it was at least remarkable.  And I’d recommend it, if for no other reason than to have someone to discuss it with.