The Tree of Life (winner of the Palme d'Or)

Syferus

I've been looking forward to this film since I first heard about it but I knew I'd only get to it on home release because it didn't strike me as a film entirely suited to the particular annoyances of the cinema, it's far too personal a work. I'd go as far as to say a large potion of the films I watch are far more naturally enjoyed at home but that's a debate for another day.

I think the mixed reaction to a The Tree of Life can, to a large extent, be explained by how overtly spiritual it is. It's not that all those who claim not to understand what the film is saying don't comprehend enough of the piece, but that the film's journey explores something they've took a very negative or hands-off approach with and it makes for an uncomfortable two hours. The meaning of life. Grace. Whatever you want to call it.

I'm hardly a religious zealot, but I, like most people in Ireland over twenty, grew up in a Catholic Ireland where spirituality became as accepted and as primary a part of life as government or sport. The Tree of Life speaks to those emotions and searches for meaning that flower when you've been continually told about God's goodness, his grace, yet finding that existence can be a very cruel and unfair place.

I hate to pull the 'you don't get it' card, but I imagine anyone who hasn't a similar sort of spiritual grounding to the O'Briens, be it Christian or Jewish or even Islamic, or has actively shunned that spirituality and grown to treat it as something foreign, is going to find this film very emotionally taxing beyond even its intent.

Critics, and many film goers, have found it very difficult recently to appraise spiritual or religious films because popular sentiment (rightly in alot ways when you look at the overbearing influence of the Church here and its catalogue of abuses) has turned so against Christianity. The Passion of the Christ is still one of my favourite films of the last decade and the reaction to it, with people entering the film with a conscious or subconscious intent to disparage it, seems to have plenty of parallels with The Tree of Life. Though without the neon signage of spirituality that is doing a film based on the Passion, The Tree of Life probably lulled alot of people into watching it that either shouldn't have or should have went in far more prepared for what they were about to see.

I saw this directly after Moneyball and my respect for Brad Pitt as an actor and as an artist only increases, this was another wonderful performance by him. He played Mr. O'Brien with the nuance that comes from years of working at your craft and never threaded into the pantomime or theatrical, never becoming fully dislikable or lovable. A human, if you will.

Hunter McCracken deserves a Best Actor nomination from every organisation who doles them out. He deserves to win them, too. Never mind being his first ever film, this was as perfect a performance as I've ever seen - Malick's talent as a director was clear to see in every flick of Jack's eyes.

The film is obviously and gorgeously beautiful, full of techniques, practically with the camera and aurally, that will probably end up being absorbed into the film-making lexicon in good time.

There are some sticking points; I had no issue with the dinosaur scenes, but their cg will enviably date the film in time; the creation segment could have been maybe a few minutes shorter and that's coming from someone who loves that type of thing; the ending had about three cuts to black that made me think it was about it end, it felt dis-jointed, but there was also a huge amount of themes and imagery in those last few scenes that it may have simply overwhelmed me by that point, I'll have to see how I react the next time I watch it.

Stripped of everything else, though, what makes The Tree of Life work is that the central battle between grace and nature, even simply their fabrication in one's mind, rings as true as any theme in cinematic history.

bigJames

Alexandre Desplat's score was impressive, even though Malick's own musical choice dominate the film. I'd rate Desplat as among the best composers currently operating.

fisgon

Syferus wrote: »

I think the mixed reaction to a The Tree of Life can, to a large extent, be explained by how overtly spiritual it is. It's not that all those who claim not to understand what the film is saying don't comprehend enough of the piece, but that the film's journey explores something they've took a very negative or hands-off approach with and it makes for an uncomfortable two hours. The meaning of life. Grace. Whatever you want to call it.

I'm hardly religious zealot, but I, like most people in Ireland over twenty, grew up in a Catholic Ireland where spirituality became as accepted and as primary a part of life as government or sport. The Tree of Life speaks to those emotions and searches for meaning that flower when you've been continually told about God's goodness, his grace, yet finding that existence can be a very cruel and unfair place.

I hate to pull the 'you don't get it' card, but I imagine anyone who hasn't a similar sort of spiritual grounding to the O'Briens, be it Christian or Jewish or even Islamic, or has actively shunned that spirituality and grown to treat it as something foreign, is going to find this film very emotionally taxing beyond even its intent.

This reference to 'spirituality', as if this is something only a certain number of people have the capability or the open-mindedness to relate to is very questionable. I only heard about Malick's supposed 'spiritual' intentions regarding the film after I saw it, it never occurred to me that it had any real religious or spiritual significance, whatever 'spiritual' actually means (it can mean a million different things to a million different people.)

The fact is that negative reactions to The Tree of Life are not down to some amorphous prejudice against religion or the life of the spirit, they are down to the fact that it is a work of monumental self-indulgence and tedium. Some of the visuals are stunning, but the attempt to explore these deeper questions are cack-handed and clumsy and at times, especially near the end, when they are on the beach, utterly laughable. To suggest that those who criticise the film arent' spiritually developed or clued in enough to understand it is just plain silly and patronising.

'Emotionally taxing'? I wish it had inspired an emotion in me other than that of desperately wanting for the thing to be over so I could get on with my life.

Syferus

fisgon wrote: »

This reference to 'spirituality', as if this is something only a certain number of people have the capability or the open-mindedness to relate to is very questionable. I only heard about Malick's supposed 'spiritual' intentions regarding the film after I saw it, it never occurred to me that it had any real religious or spiritual significance, whatever 'spiritual' actually means (it can mean a million different things to a million different people.)

The fact is that negative reactions to The Tree of Life are not down to some amorphous prejudice against religion or the life of the spirit, they are down to the fact that it is a work of monumental self-indulgence and tedium. Some of the visuals are stunning, but the attempt to explore these deeper questions are cack-handed and clumsy and at times, especially near the end, when they are on the beach, utterly laughable. To suggest that those who criticise the film arent' spiritually developed or clued in enough to understand it is just plain silly and patronising.

'Emotionally taxing'? I wish it had inspired an emotion in me other than that of desperately wanting for the thing to be over so I could get on with my life.

With all due regard, eh?

This is the most powerful judeo-christian statement committed to film in living memory. I don't know how anyone can watch The Tree of Life and not see that everything centers around the search for meaning, and given the family's background, God in the Christian understanding of the word. It's as overtly spiritual (in that very definable sense) as any film I've ever seen. It hardly has a frame without spiritual implications.

All the hushed narration? The characters are talking directly to God, at least their understanding of him. The film is one long stream-of-consciousness prayer.

I don't think I said that an already-seated negative opinion of Christianity is the only reason The Tree of Life got a mixed reaction, it's also a challenging film in terms of execution and how it delivers its message, but that message and topic are hardly in vogue.

The amount of times I've read British or American film journalists disparage evangelicals (because they're the obvious targets in an industry with its heart in America) makes me wince and most of those journalists don't even try to remove their politics from how they appraise films like The Passion of the Christ or The Tree of Life. They do the same on other issues but Christianity is at the top of that list, along-side abortion. I was talking more directly to that point than audiences but the same does apply to a significant and vocal minority of the cinema-going audience.

That's more the problem than someone coming at the film with an open mind; people who come to it with one closed tighter than a locked diary. It's not even questionable to say someone that having experienced the journey portrayed in The Tree of Life will find a far more instinctual resonance in the film. Different experiences offer different perspectives. I know plenty of films with topics where I haven't had personal experience in that I understood and enjoyed, but in this case this production is a cocktail of technique and theme that can lethally effect the viewer's perception of the film. It's not an easy film.

The Tree of Life is, even on a thematic level, not for everyone.

fisgon

Syferus wrote: »

The amount of times I've read British or American film journalists disparage evangelicals (because they're the obvious targets in an industry with its heart in America) makes me wince and most of those journalists don't even try to remove their politics from how they appraise films like The Passion of the Christ or The Tree of Life. They do the same on other issues but Christianity is at the top of that list, along-side abortion. I was talking more directly to that point than audiences but the same does apply to a significant and vocal minority of the cinema-going audience.

That's more the problem than someone coming at the film with an open mind; people who come to it with one closed tighter than a locked diary.

Again, the implication that criticism of this film is based on 'politics' is absurd. It smacks of the persecution complex of many religious people here and in the US who interpret any criticism of their position as 'anti-christian' or 'anti-religion'.

The fact is that there is no great conspiracy, many people simply saw the film as a po-faced failure of a work, weighing it up on its own merits, without some great agenda. Implying that anyone who doesn't 'get it' is closed minded, is indicative of how weak your argument is. I have no problem with someone expressing a contrary opinion, but the implication that I, or anyone else who shares my opinion, is not 'spiritual' enough to understand the film or, worse, has a prejudice against the themes and is not 'open-minded' enough to appreciate it, is laughable.

johnny_ultimate

I'm an atheist through and through, and I'll fully admit to finding some of the spiritual messages a bit cringey, as I do in any predominantly religious work. Outside of that, however, the film is a sensual tour de force. The cinematography was so hypnotic, the music so intoxicating and the general atmosphere and tone so dreamy that at its best moments I was entirely willing to forgive the grander themes I do not personally agree with.

Taking spirituality out of the mix, I also thought it was a pretty breathtaking portrait of life, the universe and our place within that mix. Perhaps it was not Malick's intention (although I'd imagine it was), but the creation section is every bit a celebration of evolution and astrophysics. It's also perhaps the most intense account of growing up and nostalgia anyone has had the bravery to make. I also think its a film that's (mostly) sensible enough to keep the themes ambiguous enough to allow various interpretations. Proselytising this is not.

I do not think spirituality is a prerequisite to enjoying this film, and I'm genuinely surprised that people didn't enjoy the film on a purely technical and atmospheric level. It's a flawed piece of work, and I don't even think its Malick's best film (maybe third or fourth - definitely better than the New World though :P). But it is a work of such monumental ambition that I still got drunk on its many visual and aural pleasures even when I had issues with the narrative or grander thematic focus. And, like a Renaissance painting of a religious icon, as an artpiece it's a film that IMO could still be admired and appreciated no matter what the viewer's spiritual grounding. Or, indeed, lack thereof.

Syferus

fisgon wrote: »

Again, the implication that criticism of this film is based on 'politics' is absurd. It smacks of the persecution complex of many religious people here and in the US who interpret any criticism of their position as 'anti-christian' or 'anti-religion'.

The fact is that there is no great conspiracy, many people simply saw the film as a po-faced failure of a work, weighing it up on its own merits, without some great agenda. Implying that anyone who doesn't 'get it' is closed minded, is indicative of how weak your argument is. I have no problem with someone expressing a contrary opinion, but the implication that I, or anyone else who shares my opinion, is not 'spiritual' enough to understand the film or, worse, has a prejudice against the themes and is not 'open-minded' enough to appreciate it, is laughable.

You see, the difference is I have no side nor am I even engaged in a church of any hue. I wouldn't even say I agree with the conclusions this film reaches. You also seem to have taken what I said means someone who isn't spiritual won't appreciate the film, yet even I am not hugely spiritual. I was saying that the experience of living in an environment where those questions had a primacy only serves to enhance the resonance The Tree of Life had with me, and that the same would be true for others.

There is no conspiracy, nor did I intimate there was one. The popular sentiment has meant there is alot of sneering where rather poor film journalists let their politics over-ride their brief of reviewing film and, especially in a hyper-polarized environment like America, even a film that handles issues of faith as deftly as The Tree of Life can fall into those ideological cracks. You seem to have taken these points to extremes they were never intended to; just because some do that doesn't mean you or all do it, that's simply ridiculous.

Bodhidharma

I liked it, glad I saw it, but probably wouldn't reccommend it to many or watch it again. I can see why some people hated it (not so much why someone would leave a cinema after 15 minutes) and I can see why people couldn't 'understand' it.

I think Mallick is a breath of fresh air, and even if it is only to look at a beautifully shot film, I think people should give it a go.

Not sure if anyone picked up on it but there is a definite reference to Buddhism, in particular The Buddha leaving his father's palace for the first time and noticing death and decay.

Sad Professor

I don’t think the mixed reactions to the film have anything to do with its spirituality, but rather because it’s a very unconventional film, even by Malick’s own standards. I mean, if the modern feature film is comparable to the novel, then The Tree of Life is more like a poem. Mainstream audiences aren’t used to films like this. And I suspect most of the people who really complained about Tree of Life didn’t like Malick’s previous two films either.

I think there’s nothing overtly Christian about the film anyway. Whatever about Malick’s personal religious practices, Christianity is defined by the idea of Christ who I don’t see any evidence of in this film. Okay, so the family in the film are Christian and attend an Episcopalian church or whatever, but the film is set in Midwestern America in the ‘50s, what else would they be? I don’t think any other religion can lay claim to the film either.

What I found most interesting about the film was how Malick attempts to reconcile religion with science. And he doesn’t do it in a preachy or particularly theistic way either. He shows you the beginning and end of the universe with as much scientific accuracy as he can. There’s a lot of biblical imagery and music, especially at the end, but it’s presented in a way that is extremely subjective and metaphoric. As in the The Thin Red Line and The New World, Malick seems primarily concerned with exploring our place in the universe and the possibly of a state of being beyond the physical world. For this reason I’d consider his work to be more broadly philosophical than theological.

Syferus

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don’t think the mixed reactions to the film have anything to do with its spirituality, but rather because it’s a very unconventional film, even by Malick’s own standards. I mean, if the modern feature film is comparable to the novel, then The Tree of Life is more like a poem. Mainstream audiences aren’t used to films like this. And I suspect most of the people who really complained about Tree of Life didn’t like Malick’s previous two films either.

I think there’s nothing overtly Christian about the film anyway. Whatever about Malick’s personal religious practices, Christianity is defined by the idea of Christ who I don’t see any evidence of in this film. Okay, so the family in the film are Christian and attend an Episcopalian church or whatever, but the film is set in Midwestern America in the ‘50s, what else would they be? I don’t think any other religion can lay claim to the film either.

What I found most interesting about the film was how Malick attempts to reconcile religion with science. And he doesn’t do it in a preachy or particularly theistic way either. He shows you the beginning and end of the universe with as much scientific accuracy as he can. There’s a lot of biblical imagery and music, especially at the end, but it’s presented in a way that is extremely subjective and metaphoric. As in the The Thin Red Line and The New World, Malick seems primarily concerned with exploring our place in the universe and the possibly of a state of being beyond the physical world. For this reason I’d consider his work to be more broadly philosophical than theological.

Without dragging this further from the film at hand, it's reductive to think 'Christianity' equates to 'Christ'. God is of even more importance than Jesus even in Christianity because he is, after all, 'God'.

That said, I said the film is about God in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word because it's, like you said, the conduit that was readily available in the time and place of the film but do you really think the people I was referring to would even care that the God the film talks about is as applicable as a philosophical ideal as a literal one? When some see themes like 'God' and 'faith' it's like a red rag to a bull.

I certainly feel that the themes the film discusses contribute significantly to the mixed reaction. Even for the least religious person questions of faith or lack of faith can be very, very sensitive. To think it doesn't add another important reason for bemusement by significant portions of audiences - and I'd hazard a guess that films of The Tree of Life's experimental and art-house roots attract an overwhelmingly liberal and secular audience - is wrong.

Sad Professor

I wasn't suggesting that Christianity does equal Christ. Rather that Christ and his teachings are a unique and defining characteristic of Christianity. But you're right, you did say God in a Judeo-Christian sense, which there are many references to in the film: the title, the opening quote, the whole structure of the film arguably, as well as how the characters in the film seem to think of God. But I feel Malick uses this merely as the framework and that the substance of the film is far more complex in its spiritual make-up. Malick's God has always seemed very deist to me, never more so than in this film. so it's kinda fitting that he picked Job for the opening quote.

I'm not denying that the film's perceived Christian themes are a reason for the film's rejection by many people. There are those who in rejecting religion tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I don't think this film has proved anymore divisive to mainstream audiences than The New World or The Thin Red Line did. The only difference with this film is that Christians have been far more eager to adopt it as their own. Many people may rule out seeing the film as a result, but I can't imagine those who did see the film disliking it because of its focus on God. Most people have complained about the film not having a plot or a conventional narrative, rather than complaining that the film was trying to sell them God. I'd consider myself an atheist, yet I never once felt that Malick was trying to convert me.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that Christianity does equal Christ. Rather that Christ and his teachings are a unique and defining characteristic of Christianity. But you're right, you did say God in a Judeo-Christian sense, which there are many references to in the film: the title, the opening quote, the whole structure of the film arguably, as well as how the characters in the film seem to think of God. But I feel Malick uses this merely as the framework and that the substance of the film is far more complex in its spiritual make-up. Malick's God has always seemed very deist to me, never more so than in this film. so it's kinda fitting that he picked Job for the opening quote.

I'm not denying that the film's perceived Christian themes are a reason for the film's rejection by many people. There are those who in rejecting religion tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I don't think this film has proved anymore divisive to mainstream audiences than The New World or The Thin Red Line did. The only difference with this film is that Christians have been far more eager to adopt it as their own. Many people may rule out seeing the film as a result, but I can't imagine those who did see the film disliking it because of its focus on God. Most people have complained about the film not having a plot or a conventional narrative, rather than complaining that the film was trying to sell them God. I'd consider myself an atheist, yet I never once felt that Malick was trying to convert me.

same here pretty much. I wasn't really aware of malicks religious leanings so I didn't really pick up on the god stuff at all tbh (apart from the biblical stuff), I think the film is, for want of a better word, broad enough in its philosophical sense that it can pretty much take whatever meaning the viewer wants to put on it to an extent.

Syferus

The film is bookended by visions of 'God', some manner of energy existing in a desolate space-like environment; the naration is almost exclusively hushed prayer to God. These are intrinsic aspects of The Tree of Life.

You can read it as a philosophical device as well as a religious one, a represenation of the characters' image of God, grace, nature and the afterlife, but to say it doesn't also have deep religious significance is to not see the trees for the forest.

Mickeroo

Syferus wrote: »

The film is bookended by visions of 'God', some manner of energy existing in a desolate space-like environment; the naration is almost exclusively hushed prayer to God. These are instruntic aspects of The Tree of Life.

You can read it as a philosophical device as well as a religious one, a represenation of the characters' image of God, grace, nature and the afterlife, but to say it doesn't also have deep religious significance is to not see the trees for the forest.

They looked like nebulae to me.

Syferus

Mickeroo wrote: »

They looked like nebulae to me.

It's a quite common representation of God in popular fiction, everything from Futurama to more serious productions have used similar visualisations.

Mickeroo

Syferus wrote: »

It's a quite common representation of God in popular fiction, everything from Futurama to more serious productions have used similar visualisations.

Yes but where you see god I see vast clouds of gas from which stars & planets formed/came from collapsing stars, not to mention a lot of that stuff in the film was actual photographs from the Hubble Space telescope. I'm sure Malick could very well could have meant them to represent god to some extent but thats not what it represented for me while watching the film. For me the film was depicting the vastness of the universe and the insignificance of our lives within it, yet also at the same time illustrating very well the fact that though our lives and the events in them may be insignificant on some level they are incredibly significant and profound to us.

Sad Professor

The film undoubtedly deals in the language (and music) of religion and God. But what kind of God? The characters in the film are obviously theistic, but the "God" of the film comes across as very deistic to me. He doesn't play an active role in the universe and doesn't seem like the kind of god you can have a personal relationship with, except indirectly through his creation. And given that most of the imagery of the film is of science and nature, I think you could easily come away with a pantheistic interpretation of the film, which is basically atheism.

It's a great strength of the film that it can mean different things to different people. As I said earlier, I think Malick set out in large part to make a film that reconciled religion and science by showing them both to be different ways to understand the same thing. I would hate for the film to be remembered as a religious film because it's so much more.

Syferus

I don't think the point is that it should be remember simply as a religious film, though. It's a coming of age film, the story of life from literal beginning to end. That said, it's no issue, a least for me, if a film has strong religious overtones in it's themes if it is handled intelligently. Faith and emotion are perhaps the strongest themes in the film, but Mallick doesn't prophetize anywhere as much as some people have took The Tree of Life as having.

johnny_ultimate

I rewatched this last night and TBH I was more fond of it second time around, for two major reasons:

1. The cinematography is literally the best I've seen in recent years. The camera is constantly motivated in its movements. It swoops and drifts with such grace (or is that nature ) that makes it seem completely predetermined yet also strangely unpredictable and random. The way it captures the perspective of characters, almost like we are an observer, a further extension of the family. Or sometimes that Jack is the observer, recalling things in fractured, vague form. And then there's the creation sequence, the most formally shot bit, and it's just a glorious ode to the power of imaginative special effects. The dinosaurs are still a tad naffly rendered, but apart from that it's just beautiful. Looks great in HD. I was also much fonder of the soundtrack second time around, which I think further enhances the power of the imagery throughout.

2. While it's impossible to deny the Christian motivations behind the film, Malick is smart enough to not condescend. Over the last year I had convinced myself through a single watch and numerous discussions that the whole thing was one big Christian lovefest. But last night I didn't interpret it as that at all. In fact I was quite moved by the ending, which reinforced my initial interpretation that it doesn't represent an afterlife at all. It's Jack reflecting on the people and events that have led him to where he is, and how they have influenced his personality and outlook on life. God barely factors into it. It's a spiritual film, but one that doesn't preach, rather embracing the director's own spirituality as a way for the audience to negotiate the emotional discoveries of the film's protagonist.

I still think small sections of the Waco story drag, but overall I was engrossed. The film is nowhere near as long or overextended as its detractors contend, either - it just barely passes the two hour mark, after all. I still have some small issues with the film, but the film's depth, scope and plethora of successes render them close to moot.

dublinman1990

I hope to god that I don't get this thread closed as I post my thoughts on this movie.

I gave this movie a go by seeing it on RTÉ One last night. I did not know what to expect by watching it tbf. I watched the whole thing from beginning to end & I was still trying to find out what type of plot in the movie was having a solid purpose. I just felt lost, very shortchanged & not drawn into it more to gain an overall experience from my first viewing.

I did try very hard to be positive for this movie to be good; but overall I felt that it was a huge challenge to see this film go right for me in the end.

I thought cast members like Brad Pitt & Sean Penn were giving the impression that the movie had a little bit of credibility but all I mostly saw from it was scenes from Brad Pitt & his on screen family in the movie. Sean Penn was largely non-existent throughout the whole thing. I was really disappointed in his lack of Penn's overall screen time.

It was beautifully shot with it's visual scientific imagery. The CGI dinosaurs in the nature scenes did look to be poorly executed on screen.

The movie had some idea of trying to tell a proper story with Brad Pitts on screen wife & sons after most of the nature science imagery had passed through it.

I didn't realize by reading reviews of it was that this movie was made for an art house cinema setting & not your usual Hollywood blockbuster. It has to be said that my experience of art house movies is quite limited. I have never seen any art house movies in the cinema. I have never been to the IFI at any time in my life so far. I also didn't know that by reading online comments from websites like the gaurdian, amazon, variety & blu-ray.com that the movie had a religious or spiritual slant or was a movie that had very little spoken dialogue in between most scenes.

Most of these comments that I have read on it so far on these sites have been met with a lot of division. It is probably understandable in the way that a movie of this nature doesn't cater for everyone's taste of a perfect movie from their prespective. The people who had written negative reviews on this movie were given the impression that they were expecting a lot more effort to be evident in it's structure & dialogue. That type of opinion is probably fine in their eyes; but other people who didn't see that were perhaps looking the other way.

The director of this movie couldn't make everything go perfect in a movie like this one to suit mainstream sections of the audience. It only had to be made to suit his own film making vision. In that sense it had to cater for a certain type of audience who love these movies regularly. That is where most of the positive acclaim is coming from when the movies fans are talking about it. A regular joe soap like myself wouldn't give a lot of positivity to it because I felt that it lacked a certain amount of persuasion from me to say that it was good.

Art house cinema is a rare beast for me to see movies that are actually good. This movie should have showed a lot more potential done to it to make it better. But I will try to see other art house movies if they make a better effort.