Skip to main content

Film Review: The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life, which I saw last night in Kilburn, is Terence Malick's fifth feature-length film - in his late 60s, he has just wrapped up filming a sixth.  As most film followers are aware, he is a cult director of genius, whose latest won the top prize at Cannes this year.  His style, which is entirely original, and influential, features jump-cuts, reveries, meditations, lots of voice over, rural Americana and childhood themes, nature shots, and a lyrical sense of the world as a place of peril and wonder, always about to lapse from Eden.  The Tree of Life left many in my British audience giggling last evening, at its end - and no doubt it feels very long.  The film is semi-plotless.  Instead, it deals with the biggest themes imaginable - literally, Genesis, or the creation of life, from the Big Bang, through to the formation of Earth, to the first life, death of the dinosaurs, and culminates in Texas, in 2010 or thereabouts, as a rich man looks back upon his early childhood in the late 50s and early 60s in Waco Texas; and reflects upon the death of his musically-gifted brother, presumably in Viet Nam.  We never see any depictions of warfare (or sexuality) - instead, the film emphasises the smallest moments and gestures - hands brushing against hands, looking at light, rain drops, running, climbing trees, glimpses, glances, small lessons handed down - and in almost every scene the sun is setting or rising.  Filmed mostly at "The Golden Hour" it is the most achingly beautiful film ever made by an American about childhood, and must bear comparison to the work that Twain did on the subject.  However, it is also one of the five most ambitious American films ever, if once includes Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Apocalypse Now.  The film is insanely vast in canvass - Miltonic, sublime.  It is not for the secular - for it is everywhere asking for God (literally) but also noting "His" absence.  To judge it by normal standards would be futile - it has no narrative pleasures, and though there is much suspense, little pay-off in the usual sense.  The scenes near the end are extraordinarily moving, but then the film ends suddenly, and little has been explained. How can it be?  Life is inexplicable, and always happening.  The film's central spoken messages refer to Love, Nature, Grace - and show the struggle between a patriarchal instinct (Brad Pitt, never better, as the father who can play the organ, is an inventor, and a pilot), and the mother, who floats, gently, above things, heals, plays, and protects.  Very few movies are likely to provoke yawns and cheers of joy quite as much as this.  But I am better for having seen it.

Comments

Mark Granier said…
Thanks for the review Todd. This is a film I have been looking forward to, but I am wondering now if I will be able to endure what sounds like its rather overwhelming portentousness. Nothing to do with my being 'secular' though; do you not think it's a tad sweeping to assume that the film is 'not for' the entire population of non-'spiritual' humans?

Anyway, I'm sure Tree of Life is remarkable, but I'd be amazed and delighted if is anywhere near as great a film as Badlands (and Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line are pretty wonderful too). Here's hoping.
EYEWEAR said…
Mark, the film is so "Christian" in places, I do think it will annoy non-believers. This happened in the screening I attended on Friday, there were loud snorts and guffaws.
Anonymous said…
I thought the film was magnificent, too. No-one laughed at the screening I was at, though I have heard of that at other screenings. I wish people wouldn't ruin the silence for others. I hope I'm not ruining yours by saying here I'm not a Christian or an anything (not an atheist or an agnostic - even those are loaded classification terms applied within and from a religious discourse I quietly but I hope politely refute [for me]). Reference points for me for this film? Poetry wise, I think of Basil Bunting's Briggflatts (key childhood memoir, collage effects, and more), prose-wise Neil Gunn's Highland River (same, with added war subtext - do read that novel if you don't know it, it is as magnificent), film-wise all those Todd mentions, but also Bill Douglas's Scottish Childhood Trilogy from early 1970s, and Ramsay's Ratcatcher. All best. [Richard Price]
Mark Granier said…
Maybe this is true Todd, and I'm more than happy to reserve judgement till I see the film. Simple question though. How do you know that there weren't any Christians (or believers) among the people guffawing? My point being that it may not be the Christian theme per se, but how it's handled (e.g. a chronic humour-deficiency often makes people giggle, whatever the subject matter).

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".