Looking Up: The Tree of Life

Looking Up
A Review of The Tree of Life
A film by Terrence Malick

by James M. Kushiner

Who would expect a film starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn to be one of the finest religious films ever made? Released this past summer, Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life won the coveted Palme d’Or award at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival in May and is arguably a difficult masterpiece in dealing with the question of the meaning of life.

            The Tree of Life centers on a Texas family with three sons. It is set in the 1950s, 1960s, and the present. Sean Penn, who has few lines, plays the oldest son, Jack, in the present. Brad Pitt plays Mr. O’Brien, the father.

            The film opens with Job 38:4, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” The mother, played by Jessica Chastain, declares in an opening voiceover that there are two ways of life, the way of nature, which is both beautiful and harsh, and the way of grace, which is longsuffering, forgiving, and loving. In voiceover, the main characters often address God in the second person.

            The death of the middle son at age 19 sets the drama in motion, and the resulting grief of the mother and Jack serves as bookends for the main section of the film. In the first bookend, Mrs. O’Brien encounters the absence of God in her son’s death; and the older Jack, successful but pensive, wanders in steel and glass skyscrapers, as well as in a symbolic wilderness, haunted by his brother’s death and the memory of their life together as boys.

            The film then moves to the largest possible canvas—the universe. Malick serves up stunning images suggesting the Big Bang, followed by deep space, stars, galaxies, and the earth. In a voiceover, Mrs. O’Brien, in her grief, asks, “What are we to you?” reminiscent of Psalm 8:4, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” We see the early earth with volcanic eruptions, followed by the appearance of living cells, marine life, dinosaurs, and an asteroid impact. (One skeptical viewer said that the film was the most persuasive argument for intelligent design he had ever seen. If so, it’s through art more than argument.)

            The film returns to the mother, showing her being courted by Mr. O’Brien, followed by their marriage and the birth of the first son, Jack, who soon must deal with the arrival of a rival brother.

            This longest section is set in the 1950s. Interspersed with idyllic scenes, which are achingly beautiful, a neighbor boy drowns, another is injured in a fire (which is not directly shown), a sermon is delivered about the sufferings of Job, the parents fight, Jack and neighborhood boys experiment with mischievousness and cruelty, and Jack flirts with meanness and kindness.

            The family experiences both the genuine affection and the outbursts of a father frustrated by earlier failings. He warns Jack not to get “sidetracked” and to be tough in order to “get ahead.” He essentially proposes the survival of the fittest, the way of nature, as opposed to the mother’s “way of grace.”

            In the second bookend, the mother has to reconcile herself to the loss of her son, and Jack to the loss of his brother and his felt loss of grace. The film, like the Book of Job, does not answer the hard questions directly, but allows the viewer to ponder them as it moves toward reconciliation in its final act, which is highly symbolic.

            Admittedly a difficult film to grasp on the first viewing, The Tree of Life, like all fine art, rewards multiple viewings. But reactions have been mixed. Some moviegoers have gotten up and walked out, saying, “What was that about?” If you want to see a movie with a straightforward storyline, skip The Tree of Life. But if you are willing to make the effort to take in a more complex cinematic experience that contemplates the mystery of existence, suffering, and love, you may find The Tree of Life a hauntingly beautiful work of art in the service of ultimate questions.

Comments

[Rob G]

Well said, Jim. This is a wonderful and very special film. It's that rare example of a cinematic artwork that could not have been presented in any other medium. Unlike so many other movies, it would never "work" either as a book or as a play. The viewer has to approach it in that manner, almost as one would approach a poem or a symphony. You give it the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, then let it take you where it will.

I think that what makes it challenging to many viewers is the fact that the story is told almost entirely visually. The sparse dialogue and the voice-overs are there to provide cues, not to carry along the narrative. The music also serves in a similar manner, providing an important aural background to what's happening on the screen. And oh what music! Bach, Berlioz, Brahms, Mahler, Tavener, Gorecki...the list goes on. One of the most striking is the use of Polish composer Zbigniew Preisner's "Lacrimosa" during the Creation sequence -- it's literally breathtaking.

Quite simply, this is a stunning piece of cinema which no one should miss. And don't make the mistake of waiting for the DVD -- the cinematography is gorgeous, making this a big screen film if there ever was one.

[Greg Cook]

Rob G's comments are spot on, as is the original review by James Kushiner. My wife and I went to see this on July 4th: I found myself weeping (with joy, not despair) during much of the film. We saw it again a week or so later. It elicited much discussion between us; others I know who saw it were also moved, but some found it opaque. It helped that I had seen a review by Catholic priest (link here: http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-Terrence-Malick-s-Tree-of.aspx) who brought out some things for which to watch. Malick has made a glorious career of depicting the beauty of creation with fallen humans doing what fallen humans do. This is an intensely moving piece of art with a devastating spiritual impact.

[Rob G]

Greg, I saw it for the third time last night -- its power was not diminished, and I found myself thinking about it again this morning. It really does stay with one, in a good way.

I went into it not really knowing what to expect. I liked Malick's previous films very much, but purposely avoided detailed reviews of this one. Frankly, I was bowled over, and like you, was brought to tears in several places.

[Greg Cook]

Rob--I think I will match you this week. The movie is leaving the local art house so I will see it either Weds. or Thurs. When I saw this both previous times, some folks walked out early on. The review I referenced was the only one I saw before viewing that grasped the spiritual foundations. Comments at the NY Times (I love the Times but get riled at their hostility to traditional religion, esp. Christianity) mostly dealt with "Tree" qua art, with many postings about how cool the movie was, but how the themes were opaque to them.

[Rob G]

Yes, strange that. Ebert calls it a masterpiece, and gets a lot of his observations right imo, but doesn't really even mention the spiritual aspect.

I purposely avoided reading reviews ahead of time, as I wanted to go in cold, and not be predisposed either to like it or not like it. I've liked all of T.M.'s previous films, but to be honest, I was a bit iffy on this one. But not after it started.

When I went this last time, a group of four senior citizens were sitting in the aisle ahead of me. During the creation sequence, they got up and left. As they were exiting one woman said, "I kept wondering when the story was going to start..."

[Jim Kushiner]

I am hoping that the film will have enough staying power with audiences to keep playing until it catches on more with a larger audience. Obviously it will not be a major box office hit and draw big crowds, but there are enough literate Christians (and others) who would appreciate its art and meaning. I expect down the road there will be those who discover it on DVD and wish they had seen it on a large screen in the theatre. I've seen it 3 times, each time finding more (part of that is because I am slow reader--and viewer) depth. What is Jack O'Brien doing with his first words (chronologically) in the film? Naming animals.

[Rob G]

Also, if when they announce the Oscar nominations it receives some major ones, it may get a rerelease early next year. I can't imagine the academy ignoring it after it won the Palme d'Or, although stranger things have happened.

Great observation on Jack and the animals, Jim.

[Rob G]

The film is now available on DVD, although I'm not sure it's the type of movie that will make a good transition from the big screen to the small.

Here's an excellent video discussion of it by Roy Anker, English prof. at Calvin College:

www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/july-8-2011/the-tree-of-life/9110/