The Tree of Life

To add symbolism to a movie is a bold move on the part of the filmmaker. To add enough depth that allows for the audience to leave the movie interpreting many of the film’s aspects shows ambition and an attempt to create art rather than just simple entertainment (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, depending on the film).

However, it is important to note that when symbolism is added to a movie, it has to be added in the correct dosage. Terrence Malick’s latest effort, The Tree of Life, is one of those films that adds symbolism in the wrong dosage. While by all means a good movie, it also shows a little too much ambition on the part of the 67-year-old auteur. It seems like he has so much to say that his message gets in the way of telling a coherent story.

Have you ever been in a situation where you were with a group of friends and you had a story you really wanted to tell? And as you tell the story, you get yourself so worked up telling the story you rush through it and end up leaving out certain key aspects? So by the end of the story, your friends have a general idea of what happened, but also give off that vibe that they couldn’t fully appreciate the story because you botched it. That’s kind of what watching The Tree of Life was like.

Malick takes a different approach to the film than he did with more straightforward efforts like Badlands, Days of Heaven, or his ensemble piece The Thin Red Line. The film never stays with one particular scene all that much. By that, I mean a typical scene will contain constant jump cuts showing the passage of mere seconds, generally accompanied by a voice-over. So many jump cuts occur that the scene only lasts for about a mere minute or two and we move right along to something new, and at times something seemingly unrelated. For those with the attention span of that dog from Up, this may prove to be a problem. A big one.

This especially proves to be a big problem in one sequence about a half-hour into the movie where we are presented with a lengthy sequence depicting the birth of the universe. It abruptly appears, stops the current narrative, and goes on for a good twenty minutes, presenting us with nebula after nebula, orbit after orbit, and ending with a sequence involving two dinosaurs. It feels like something out of 2001: A Space Odyssey. We leave the sequence as abruptly as we entered it, and just go right back to the film’s primary narrative. Like, “Oops, sorry folks. Sorry for that minor inconvenience. Back to the movie.”

There is a great deal of meaning behind this sequence, and its placement almost directly after we learn of the death of a character is meant to represent one person’s place in such a vast universe. It’s great that Malick is trying to present this idea to his audience. However, due to the approach he takes to the film, abruptly presenting it in the middle of the narrative, this may prove to be confusing for most viewers. It was during this sequence where I witnessed a great number of walkouts.

For those with patience enough not to walk out, there is actually a great deal of positive elements for them to find within the movie. For one thing, if there’s one thing I have to give Malick credit for, it’s the fact that he does a fantastic job with cinematography. Each of his films are beautifully shot, and The Tree of Life is no exception. The birth of the universe scene, as abruptly placed as it is, is also a fantastic sequence. Each orbit, each nebula, is presented to the audience with such bold radiance and such grace that some will be staring in awe. It also gives off this strange sense to those with patience enough not to walk out of the movie by this point, having them wanting more, even if they don’t completely know what direction the film is going to take.

Now, the cinematography should not be the only reason to watch this movie, as no movie should be judged for such aspects. There is still much more to behold. Despite my criticism for its lack of focus, there are actually a great deal of times, mostly in the second half of the film, where a focus is found and we are presented with a somewhat coherent story. And a nice story, at that, to put it in the simplest terms possible. At the heart of all the symbolism and all the jumping around is a coming-of-age story about a boy in a family that is going through a lot of internal conflicts.

Each member of the family are people we find ourselves drawn to, whether we like them or dislike them. There is a great chemistry amongst them that comes off as very natural, as if they had all been living together for all this time. Their personalities are vastly different, yet they work so well together as the different traits that they carry with them clash so very well.

Brad Pitt is one of the film’s strongest points. He comes off as cold and demeaning, yet you can very well sense an underlying loving nature to his character. You want to hate him, yet at the same time, you almost want to justify some of his less-than-favorable actions, such as unnecessarily screaming at or hitting his kids. It’s as if you feel you would do the same thing if you were in his shoes. He brings a kind of presence to him that feels almost scary, yet at the same time is extremely fascinating.

His presence in this film, however, may not be enough for some. The Tree of Life is not a movie for everyone. Some will find it to be a masterpiece, while many will hate it. It’s the kind of movie that I had to warm up to as it progressed, and by the end of it, I found it enjoyable. I still feel Malick could do - and has done - a lot better, but he still proves he has it in him to make a good movie. Just hopefully, for all future endeavors, he’s able to find the right balance between his story and what he’s looking to say beyond the story.

3.5/5