Anyone who has seen a Terrence Malick film knows that it will be more about the emotions the come from the long, slow, arduous shots of water running, bugs flying or a close up on a character’s face rather than about fitting into the formula which most films follow. He is not a director who rushes the pace of a film but instead builds the film slowly and calculatingly. His latest movie, The Tree of Life, has taken his signature style one step further. Dialogue becomes secondary to the ambient sound of trees rustling or birds tweeting. Dialogue barely carries the story; in fact in some scenes classical music overpowers the dialogue. While the dialogue is still audible it acts more as secondary background sound while the music of Bach and Brahms sets the tone, pace and style of the film. At times Tree is like a silent film and other times it’s like an experimental movie in a modern art gallery. Yet, every moment, no matter how pretentious they may seem, are there for a reason, setting a mood, building emotion and sending multiple messages. As with Malick’s last few films, the style takes some getting used to and is really not for everyone as my husband can attest to.
I appreciate Tree for what it wanted to do in its strange and complex way. I left the cinema unsure of my feelings, confused and a little elated. Often when I’ve seen a great film that is different from anything I’ve seen before (my first time with Ran, Raging Bull, Bonnie and Clyde) I finish the movie trying to figure out the images I have just seen and why they have spoken to me the way they have. I replay scenes over and over again in my mind; I try to remember lines and dialogue; I try to figure out the motivations behind the character’s actions. I’m left thinking and rethinking the film and in the end I find myself only more impressed with what I’ve seen. There were moments when I was watching Tree that I felt frustrated trying to find some cohesiveness from one scene or one image to the next. In other moments, such as some of the voice over’s and long shots of the creation, I was thinking, “God, this seems pretentious and unnecessary”. And then at other times, I was struck by the beauty of the images filling the screen. It seemed that once I got over the style and got into the story I couldn’t peel my eyes away. I felt so much for the characters that I was unfazed by the things which had distracted me in the beginning.
Tree jumps around in time beginning with a mother (Jessica Chastain) receiving a letter telling her of the death of one of her sons. The film then skips to the present day where Sean Penn plays an older version of the eldest son Jack. As he goes through the motions of his day the anniversary of the death of his brother sends him spiraling outside the reality of the successful world he is involved in. His mother’s voiceover continues and the film goes back in time. When I say back in time I mean way back in time, to the creation of the universe. Images of the big bang, dinosaurs and eventually humans led us up to the beginning of Jack’s life and through his childhood where the majority of the film is concentrated and where, at least for me, the film really took off.
Part of the reason it takes off is Brad Pitt. Where did this Pitt come from? His jaw protruding out and the lines around his eyes markedly visible even with his wide rimmed glasses covering them. He seems like a different person from the Pitt before. The pretty boy with the side cracked smile and cocky manner are a thing of the past in this role. In their place is a matured and a bit unsentimental character. Something has changed in Pitt, maybe it has been fatherhood, maybe it’s getting older, but whatever it is it has allowed him to turn out a character, hardened by the failures of his life and yet desiring to give love and protection to his only achievement, his children. His actions towards them, especially Jack his oldest, are brutal, tough and painful at times. His is a scary drill sergeant, controlling and commanding his home through his temperamental volcanic personality. But Pitt and Malick don’t allow this character to become a one dimensional, over-the-top bully. Moments of tenderness coexist with the hardness, allowing Pitt to create a complex portrait of a difficult and damaged man. It’s this juxtaposition of the brute and the gentle, along with life and death, right and wrong, nature and God that perplex and captivate.
The question I’m left with after seeing it for the first time is, “Was the beginning, the long set up, the images of the universe, the volcanoes, fish, ocean, etc. all necessary to put me in the mood, to give the rest of the story the impact which stayed with me long after I saw the film? Or could the film have done without it?” Malick is a 67 year old director who truly marches to the beat of his own drum and in this movie it is even more apparent that Tree is the mark of an older man, grappling with old age, the meaning of his life and the idea of an afterlife.
For me, the movie may have had one too many big ideas and life questions but as in all Malick films he doesn’t seem to care. It seems to me that Malick says everything he wants to say and makes the film for himself. It’s as if he’s saying F*** you to the rest of the world, I’m going to make a movie which expresses what I want to express. He seems to be working out all his inner conflicts, turmoil, and confusion right there on the screen and then doesn’t feel the need to explain or justify it afterwards. And for that I say, viewers let go of your premonitions and just “go with the flow”. Let the movie suck you in and even if you’re unsure of what is happening in front of your eyes, the movie will leave its mark, good or bad.
