Tree of Life (2011)
Some films are made for audiences to escape. Some try and tell an engaging story. Some are mindless. Some are meant to affect, and some are something all together different. Which film was this, you ask? I feel this is a film Terrence Malick NEEDED to tell, but I don't believe it was meant for anyone but himself.
Allow me to explain. Tree of Life is a 2+ hour "story" told through fragmented glimpses into the past, present, and future, of both the universe, life and the protagonist Jack. The loose way of describing it would be to say it chronicles the impact of Jack's "daddy issues", grief over his deceased brother, existential crisis, all undercut by symphonic (at times operatic) and borderline preachy themes of religion.
Does that do the film justice? No, not by a long shot, but it is the gist of the "plot" of what is essentially a film that needs to be experienced in order to remotely understand it.
So how is it meant for Terrence Malick? Given the history of the film (several years to film, petproject, no real commercial release, etc) this was a labour of love for Terrence. One need to only look at his wikipedia page to know he is drawing upon his own personal experience as the basis for the film. I believe that he needed to find catharsis in this film from the experiences he had unresolved still affecting him. Including deeper philosophical issues, his perception of the cosmos and the afterlife. Is it happy? Is it sad? Is it dark or is it light? In a word, no. As personal as this was for him, it is ambiguous (albeit poetic and frustratingly at times pretentious and self indulgent) enough for each to derive their own meaning.
In another sense it is clever and cruel, because it is impossible to review, as no two audience members (who sit through the whole thing) would ever have the same opinion about what transpired on screen.
So for a film, not meant for the movie going public, or for myself, how did I feel about it? Well, as you may have seen it alluded to above, it isn't positive. To do this though I will have to break it up into a few different categories.
Visually/Audibly: In this sense, the film is beautiful. For roughly half the film, we are treated to wondrous musical scores (each carefully selected and poignant I am sure) and beautiful scenes of the cosmos, nature and more. Each would make for amazing screen savers. Truly a great film to enjoy in HD.
Narratively: Narratively terrible. I am fine with fragmented narratives, I don't need a direct line from point A to point B, but this was way to indulgent on menial elements that I know serve to encapsulate the quiet moments of Terrence's past (sorry I mean Jack) and the raucous. But like any home movie you watched of someone else's family, you can't really care as they are not YOUR exeriences. Was it dramatic? Oh yes. Was it engaging though? Not terribly. Not to undermine terrible losses such as suicide in a family, but without directly tackling those issues, and starting the film off with glimpses into the grief process BEFORE fleshing out the characters, you lose interest in them. So much are we in Jack's version of his life and thoughts, that the characters around him become two dimensional. Even the pivotal character of Brad Pitt as the over bearing hypocritical father, felt dangerously close to just being a caricature. The mother is too idolized and innocent that she never feels real, and the brothers (one of whom's death is supposed to affect us so) just feel like shadows in the background to Jack. Wait, Jack is the one we are supposed to care about right, you ask again? True, but this is where the narrative really falls apart. At no actor's fault, the character of Jack as the elder brother is just not a person I could care about. His troubles, his cries for attention as a youth, his daddy issues and frustration at life, all just made me think of him as an unsympathetic whiney momma's boy. Hate to break it to you Terrence but the issues you put forth on screen for the most part are what most people call being a teenager and puberty.
But maybe it was an earlier time, and you really were the odd one out. I feel for you. Suicide in the family is tragic, but that isn't depicted in this film, despite many parts echoing a symbolic grieving process. As such, a troubled youth being angsty, doesn't make for great pathos.
Philosophically: Well the bigger picture is the religious allegories and such right, you as? (Who are you anyway?) Sure, that could be argued, but when juxtapositioned next to angsty Jack's childhood, and the 15 minute shot of the cosmos, it is more likely to lull you to sleep, than evoke any greater philosophical thought. If anything, seeing such magnificent imagery, it renders the parrallel narrative even more trivial and mundane. The voice over thoughts questioning god allude to nothing more than agnostic/atheistic freshman debate. Purposefully inconclusive, I doubt anyone watching the film will be so moved to question or be invograted by whatever beliefs that they had before.
The good: Visually amazing and the score is great. Really though nothing you couldn't get by finding a peaceful screensaver and putting on some spa music.
The bad: Nothing is bad, per se. Self indulgant and clearly a labour of love, the target audience for this film is Terrence Malick and devotees of Terrence Malick. It isn't as profound as some articles try and suggest it to be, and at the end of the day you won't be any better or worse off than you were before. So "the bad" maybe could really be "the indifferent".
Final Thoughts: I can see this film being predominantly used in the film studies classes I took in University. Students can expect to be bored to tears and lose a few nights on the inevitable essays. Otherwise, unless you really want to see pretention on film, do not see this. Might even give Lars Von Trier a run for his money.
Add to the Vault? Nope.
If I have not convinced you yet, here is the trailer for Terrence Malick's Tree of Life:
Visually/Audibly: In this sense, the film is beautiful. For roughly half the film, we are treated to wondrous musical scores (each carefully selected and poignant I am sure) and beautiful scenes of the cosmos, nature and more. Each would make for amazing screen savers. Truly a great film to enjoy in HD.
Narratively: Narratively terrible. I am fine with fragmented narratives, I don't need a direct line from point A to point B, but this was way to indulgent on menial elements that I know serve to encapsulate the quiet moments of Terrence's past (sorry I mean Jack) and the raucous. But like any home movie you watched of someone else's family, you can't really care as they are not YOUR exeriences. Was it dramatic? Oh yes. Was it engaging though? Not terribly. Not to undermine terrible losses such as suicide in a family, but without directly tackling those issues, and starting the film off with glimpses into the grief process BEFORE fleshing out the characters, you lose interest in them. So much are we in Jack's version of his life and thoughts, that the characters around him become two dimensional. Even the pivotal character of Brad Pitt as the over bearing hypocritical father, felt dangerously close to just being a caricature. The mother is too idolized and innocent that she never feels real, and the brothers (one of whom's death is supposed to affect us so) just feel like shadows in the background to Jack. Wait, Jack is the one we are supposed to care about right, you ask again? True, but this is where the narrative really falls apart. At no actor's fault, the character of Jack as the elder brother is just not a person I could care about. His troubles, his cries for attention as a youth, his daddy issues and frustration at life, all just made me think of him as an unsympathetic whiney momma's boy. Hate to break it to you Terrence but the issues you put forth on screen for the most part are what most people call being a teenager and puberty.
But maybe it was an earlier time, and you really were the odd one out. I feel for you. Suicide in the family is tragic, but that isn't depicted in this film, despite many parts echoing a symbolic grieving process. As such, a troubled youth being angsty, doesn't make for great pathos.
Philosophically: Well the bigger picture is the religious allegories and such right, you as? (Who are you anyway?) Sure, that could be argued, but when juxtapositioned next to angsty Jack's childhood, and the 15 minute shot of the cosmos, it is more likely to lull you to sleep, than evoke any greater philosophical thought. If anything, seeing such magnificent imagery, it renders the parrallel narrative even more trivial and mundane. The voice over thoughts questioning god allude to nothing more than agnostic/atheistic freshman debate. Purposefully inconclusive, I doubt anyone watching the film will be so moved to question or be invograted by whatever beliefs that they had before.
The good: Visually amazing and the score is great. Really though nothing you couldn't get by finding a peaceful screensaver and putting on some spa music.
The bad: Nothing is bad, per se. Self indulgant and clearly a labour of love, the target audience for this film is Terrence Malick and devotees of Terrence Malick. It isn't as profound as some articles try and suggest it to be, and at the end of the day you won't be any better or worse off than you were before. So "the bad" maybe could really be "the indifferent".
Final Thoughts: I can see this film being predominantly used in the film studies classes I took in University. Students can expect to be bored to tears and lose a few nights on the inevitable essays. Otherwise, unless you really want to see pretention on film, do not see this. Might even give Lars Von Trier a run for his money.
Add to the Vault? Nope.
If I have not convinced you yet, here is the trailer for Terrence Malick's Tree of Life:
No comments:
Post a Comment