The movie opens with the following: “There are two ways through life, the way of nature and the way of grace,” says a mother from the fifties. A laughable simplification of actual human existence, but she was only a housewife.
Tree of Life doesn’t really work. It is hard to separate myself from the fact that I like it when directors swing for the fences. However, Tree of Life is just a bad movie.
Malick is an incredibly talented person, but maybe the conventions of narrative films exist for a reason? Maybe movies like this don’t come around much because they’re bound to be fail unless the filmmakers hit a mark that is so very small.
There are extraordinary moments. The sequence containing the birth of the universe all the way up to the dinosaurs and beyond might be one of the best sequences of all time. I can’t wait to watch it again. Never have I been so captivated by a moment in a movie. Maybe the movie works just because of those fifteen minutes?
The problem is the movie’s narrative structure works against itself. It is told in typical Malick fashion with the whispering, contemplative voice-overs, but has too much of a boring central story about a Dad who flips out at his kids once and a while. Yes, it is a touching movie that will make you think, but that doesn’t mean it succeeded in being an entertainment or metaphysical consideration of the cosmos and spirituality.
Another failure of a movie, The Fountain, had similar faults: Its heart was in the right place, but dealt with the madness of our existence without narrative boundaries — a tactic that should not be adopted when trying to make a thoughtful film.
Maybe Malick, indeed, wanted to make a visual poem. That is fine and dandy, but when the conventions of even the most experimental narratives break down, you lose your audience.
The movie’s plot is right there in front of you: A snap-shot of a man who is still dealing with the death of his little brother. We see his childhood, his father who likes to be a dick once and while, and his mother who is considered as a saint. The characters are boring and Malick is so busy whispering about stuff, we never really get to know them. Sure, the Dad wishes he was more, the son wishes his father would act as he preaches, and the mother…well…I’m not sure. She is something. Loving? Very.
My interpretation of the movie is a religious one. Many other interpretations exist and will be endlessly discussed. None of that really matters. But I can’t separate myself from Malick’s childlike, religious imagery.
I did occasionally find the spiritual exploration touching and effective, but the whispering and cut-aways for their own sake damage the movie. The moments of 2001: Space Odyssey — a far superior movie — that are the most effective are in complete silence aside from music and sound effects.
What need is there for the whispering questions on existence and explanations of a character’s inner conflict? I know that is how Malick rolls, but so many and so frequently? Also, was I the only one who was annoyed by the endless cut-aways to nature photography?
Like I mentioned before though, the moments that do work are incredible. The reasons for Malick including the “creation” section in the middle is unknown to me. I can only guess because we only occupy a small time and space in the universe and it is better understood when things are out of order…maybe?
I think the ending of the movie is a disaster. Not because I revolt at the concept of a heaven (which I sort of do), but because its imagery is too transparent for the average viewer. I’m guessing 80% of people consider the ending heaven in some form. I don’t — but I might be wrong. Malick leaves a little room for guessing, but only a little.
Malick’s questions and introspection, imagery and wonder of nature and the cosmos, is that of a child. And maybe that is the point? He looks at nature and spirituality with a heightened awareness.
But is two hours of “look at that” enough? I’m not knocking poetry. I’m not even knocking Malick. I’m knocking boring movies and childish considerations of a complex universe. For those who have never considered such questions and events — The Big Bang, the (maybe) endless universe, death, and, above all of those, how life formed — this movie might be nauseatingly profound. What was most special about these segments was how it visualized a lot of things I’d spent so many nights trying to imagine in my mind.
Stripped of its spiritual messages, narrative structure, and thematic implications, Life is one of the great visual triumphs of medium. Emmanuel Lubezki proves time and time again that he is one of the greatest cinematographers working today. As a part of the Mexican New Wave I mention constantly, he provides an endlessly fascinating techqniue that combines practical lighting and creeping wide-angle shots. The movie owes a lot to him considering how much of the movie is devoted to beautiful images of nature.
I feel myself smirking because anyone reading this can tell that there is a lot I like about the movie, but I feel myself making a defense about why the movie remains a failure.
It is too direct. It is too preachy. Too boring. Too redundant. Too childlike in its contemplation of the universe and our place in it. You may appreciate the poetic images of a boy emerging through a door that is underwater or people moving through “gates” and “door ways”, but I didn’t. And plus, the “nice dinosaur” segment was embarrassing — again, like a child.
2001 was rejected in its time. Maybe this one will grow on me? But 2001 is ambiguous and considers the universe with awe. Tree of Life doesn’t really have much to be ambiguous about.
Recent Comments