May 31, 2011

REVIEW: The Tree of Life (dir. Malick)

Does Terrence Malick intend Sean Penn's die-job in The Tree of Life as an example of mankind's corruption of the Natural Order? Why must every character weave their hand through the sunlight like a dolphin coasting through waves? Where does Jessica Chastain get all her dresses? Where do we come from? Where are we going? And if I work it out before Brad Pitt unfurrows his brow do I get a prize? Such heretical thoughts were prompted by the new Malick flick which the wife and I caught this afternoon. I say "caught" and "flick" advisedly since the whole experience more closely resembles that of going to church to kneel in prayer that Malick may deliver us from the Evils of Cinema. The effect he's going for is the cinematic equivalent of six Hail Mary and half-a-dozen Our Fathers. You emerge from the experience feeling as if the better angels of your nature have had an all-expenses-paid spa weekend for two. You feel as if no video clerk will ever be able to chastise your film choices ever again. Not with this puppy in the bank. One viewing and you've pretty much earned the right to watch as many crappy superhero flicks and summer blockbusters as you like — whole franchise streams, Troglodyte cycles, Orc sagas, junk marathons, as much popcorn as you can eat. Bring it on, Captain America! Beam me up, Steven Spielberg! Ahem. You'll have to excuse my tone. It's what happens after two-and-a-half hours suppressing my lower instincts. Sex. Humor. Irony. Plot. Dialogue. Pretty much all the things the critics said were missing from this picture are indeed absent and unaccounted for; my only complaint is that it is not nearly as boring as some have suggested. For a good hour in the middle there, I was wholly absorbed by Malick's account of growing up in Waco, Texas in the shadow of his father, played here by a stern, stony-jawed Brad Pitt, and the (sinuous, sun-dappled) shadow of his mother, played here by Jessica Chastain, an actress of such pale, sculpted beauty that when butterflies land on her you simply accept it as you do Snow White's way with the morning lark. Chastain is shot from the breastbone looking up, to accentuate her mythic stature, or in silhouette against clean linen sheets, to suggest her diaphanous nature and fleeting detachment from this all-too-sullied earth. Malick's attempt to convert cinema into a Joycean novel-of-consciousness is surprisingly effective, largely thanks to the fact that childhood itself, particularly early childhood, is largely devoid of sex, humor, irony, memorable dialogue and so on, too. All I can remember are huge, ambient washes of feeling — safety, threat, joy, despair — all meeting and merging like coalescing cumulus. And if there's anybody who can capture this internal weather — with all its barometric build-ups, cloud bursts and lightning strikes — it's Malick. Hollywood's long-lost auteur is also cinema's answer to the weather channel. There is some lovely behavioral stuff here about brothers and the tender, fretful static that flies between them.

Would that Malick had left it there. It should have been enough. It gives me no pleasure to report, however, that in addition to making this supple, impressionistic film about childhood, he has also squared off against his demons, summoned hither his muse and succumbed to the entirely regrettable impulse to deliver a masterpiece. Regular readers of this blog know that I have a relaxed, laissez-faire position towards many things — character arcs, sequels, special effects, Adam Sandler — but a zero-tolerance policy for talk of masterpieces. I found There Will be Blood a monotonous dirge. The only Kubrick film I really like is The Shining. I find Strangers on a Train preferable to Vertigo. The reason people like Vertigo so much, I've found, is that it's the least Hitchcocklike of Hitchcock's films. It's too long, its plot wanders, and it contains no jokes. Same with the White Album: the one Beatles album that sounds least like The Beatles. Which makes me wonder about the people who call it their 'masterpiece', as I wonder about the people who say the same thing about Vertigo. They tend to be the same people who talk of "transcending" genre, and refer to directors as "masters", as if cinema were something to be bent to the will of a single man, rather than forged in the roughhouse of creative collaboration. The trouble with Malick's "mastery" of his movies is that he tends to overwhelm them, blenderizing his characters into one vast, soupy Malick-consciousness, thinking the same Malicky thoughts, expressed in the same Malicky way. There is barely a line in The Tree of Life that couldn't be uttered by any or all of the characters — and some are. Gestures are repeated, longings pool, Whitmanesque reverie breaks its banks, flooding all. Malick is a dreadfully incurious artist when it comes to things like work or sex, which rules out his ability to offer solace or wisdom on about 80% of the human condition — which is odd, when you think about it, because the human condition is pretty much the one horse Malick has put all his money on. If he doesn't get that, then what's the point of him? To be worshipped, I guess, although Malick's "depth" is too often just a bunch of fancy reverb effects; the much-vaunted theme of The Tree of Life just needless amplification. So in addition to Malick's tender, fretful evocation of childhood's lost Eden, we get an actual, literal Eden: a history of the world in 25 chapters, complete with dinosaurs, lava flows and angelic choirs, plus a climax set, I think, in the afterlife, where the entire cast get to hold hands and gaze into one another's eyes while walking across a white sandy beach suspiciously similar to the white sandy beach last used to represent the hereafter or sell sanitary napkins, or life insurance, depending on which channel you chance upon. That's how you know its a 'masterpiece': the redundant stuff about dinosaurs and beaches. I know there are people who drop to their knees at the mere mention of Malick's name, so I'll put this as delicately as I can: using the books of Genesis and Revelation as bookends for an otherwise mesmeric bildungsroman about childhood is simply a very bad idea —grandiose, over-literal and structurally ugly. To tell a tale of childhood so well that people compare it to the story of Genesis would be a wondrous thing. To supply the comparison yourself, not so much. A nice performance from Pitt, though, maybe his best. B-

14 comments:

  1. Completely agree! Tempted to leave 45 minutes into the movie and opt for the Nature channel at home, which would have supplied more narrative and less spirituality, then there was a sudden shift where I found myself mesmerized by the dialogue-less story. That transformation merits some acknowledgment, but as you said, he lost me again towards the end. I thought that all the acting was excellent, not just Pitt. The facial expressions on those boys said so much in the nearly speechless film.And, as usual, your review made me laugh. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 100% right. I hope I can implement some new ideas in my upcoming movies. Let hope for the best for me and also foe you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeezus! Now I don't think I'll force myself to see it. My butt hurts from simply reading your review!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Given your potshots at "There Will Be Blood" and "Vertigo," I'm guessing we'll also be on the same page about this one. Thanks for the heads up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The movie was beautiful, and possibly the best movie I've ever seen. It is not within the realm of any other movie, therefore there are no comparisons (except for maybe another Malick movie). This movie is pure emotion, it is an experience. The acting is so seamless that you feel as though what is going on is actually taking place. And yes, of course, the visuals are amazing. The cinematography and graphic effects are the best I've ever seen (I've seem a lot of movies people!). Some criticize Malick for losing grasp on the plot or veering too far away from a single narrative, but I believe that's the point. This movie does NOT have a traditional plot structure, there is actually nothing traditional about it whatsoever. You must go into this movie with an open mind, and be ready to let yourself go a little. It runs very slow, but that is the beauty. The music is absolutely breathtaking as well. I really hope you enjoy it, because it may be my favorite movie of all time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for this, Tom; I love a good heresy. More than you, though, I love a good masterpiece too, as well as the ambitious botch-jobs from gifted filmmakers crazy enough to go for broke. There aren't many demented artists around, so exercising patience with a handful of them doesn't seem like to much to ask amid the mind-numbing stream of mediocrity. I also admire directors like Malick and Kubrick for thumbing their noses at the system and make the movies they want to make; I've seen angry patrons stomp out of the last four Paul Thomas Anderson movies, and anyone who can piss off the complacent that consistently has earned my respect.

    My source of irritation is less with the auteurs themselves than their respective bands of devotees. Like all evangelicals, they're more interested in talking at you than with you, which makes for pretty boring conversation. If they insist upon having Gods of Cinema, I wish they'd make like Jacob and wrestle them instead of worship them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rejecting masterpieces out-of-hand is a foolhardy business, but otherwise I agree with what you appreciated and what you scoffed at in The Tree of Life (which is definitely no masterpiece). Very funny post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I like Malick's films. Some people do. I tend to like them better than summer blockbusters. Personally I don't pretend to like movies in order to lord it over other people, because I'm not an asshole. I don't get around much, but I have never met a single member of this hypothetical species of asshole who for peculiar reasons sits through movies he doesn't enjoy so that he can have the pleasure of mocking philistines.

    I don't get it. Why'd you even see this, if you hate artistic individuality, ambition, etc so much? Why do you have to frame your criticism of the film as if you're speaking truth to power? You're breaking a butterfly on a wheel and then congratulating yourself that you did not stand for this butterfly's reign of terror. It's bullshit, lazy smug bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For all of you dissenters out there, I thought Mr. Shone did a pretty good job of respectfully laying out what he considered to be the film's merits whilst castigating the director for his overreaching grandiosity. Take a look at his best of list; it still garnered a B- and is hanging in at #7. and really... it IS called "The Tree of Life", after all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Stephanie ZacharekJune 4, 2011 at 7:32 AM

    I [heart] you, Tom Shone. But watch out for the Malick police, people who will accuse you of being a philistine because you didn't fall for the Malick juju. Worse yet, they'll suggest that you need to see it -again-! Stay strong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. From one of the guys who admits that Malick has made me drop to my knees on occasion (although I don't think our Conversations piece is as reverential as the opening might suggest), I must say that I appreciate this passage even as I disagree with it:

    "So in addition to Malick's tender, fretful evocation of childhood's lost Eden, we get an actual, literal Eden: a history of the world in 25 chapters, complete with dinosaurs, lava flows and angelic choirs, plus a climax set, I think, in the afterlife, where the entire cast get to hold hands and gaze into one another's eyes while walking across a white sandy beach suspiciously similar to the white sandy beach last used to represent the hereafter or sell sanitary napkins, or life insurance, depending on which channel you chance upon."

    What I appreciate is that, in the crack about the film's beach sequence, you don't treat Malick any different than you'd treat, say, Christopher Nolan. There's a tendency amongst fans of "art" films (whether they're by Malick or anyone) to treat the excesses and/or faults of those films with much more compassion than heavily-marketed films that we call "blockbusters" (even if they aren't). Malick's films aren't beyond the kind of blunt criticisms that you apply here; he needn't be treated like God just because he's fascinated by him. So it's enjoyable to read a review that doesn't genuflect in Malick's presence.

    That said, we have significantly different interpretations of why the Creation sequence exists. In short, I don't think the Creation sequence is redundant (the beach sequence? mostly, yeah). But it took me a second viewing to fully understand that sequence's meaning, for whatever that's worth.

    Anyway, thanks for calling it as you see it (and the link). I promise not to show up at your doorstep with the Book of Malick under my arm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your гeport has eѕtablished useful to me.
    It’s quite educational and you are certainly extremely well-informed of
    this type. You have got poppеd our eyes
    for you to dіffеrent thoughts about thiѕ ѕрecific topic together with intгiguing anԁ reliable cоntent.


    my site ... Buy meridia
    Feel free to visit my web site :: Buy meridia

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice response in return of thіs dіfficultу with real arguments
    and tellіng everything conceгning that.


    Αlso visit my web-site ... payday loans

    ReplyDelete