This has been compared to Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Although they share a few things in common - ultra-slow pace, long running times, symbolism, spirituality – they're two completely different beasts. For one thing 2001 is a science fiction fable; this is – for the most part – a family drama. 2001 has - with the exception of that rather dubious jump-cut ending – a simple and straightforward story that's easy to follow. While Tree of Life is a similar comfortable watch, putting the meanings together afterwards isn't exactly easy.
Simply put, the film tells the story of Jack, a somewhat strict and overpowering husband (Brad Pitt) who with his saintly wife (Jessica Chastain) are shaken to their cores upon the sudden death of one of their three young boys. Friction starts to develop between the eldest boy 'Young Jack' (Hunter McCracken) and his father. From there we are shown the creation of the world and dinosaurs (seriously) in an almost twenty minute sequence before going back to the family again and seeing the rest of drama between father and son play out. What was once friction has now evidently become hatred for young Jack towards his tough father. This bit plays out very straightforwardly until things go 'far out' once again for a somewhat 'WTF' ending.
So what exactly is this strange mix of a film trying to say? On one hand it could be classed as being religious. The movie is introduced with a biblical quote and has spiritual themes recurring all the way though it. There's even a colorful, undulating amorphous light that pops up at periodic intervals that seems to symbolize the presence of a divine deity. But it could also be classed as cynical. While the death of the child is sad, it figures almost trivially when fitted into the overall scheme of things. Among the many things the film seems to be saying is that death – no matter how tragic – is only a small cog in the universe. Things are born and they die. That's just the way it is. Even during the much lauded 'creation of the world' sequence, the film is at pains to point out that the earth and life was not created by the hands of God, but by the immense forces of nature . It's this 'open to multiple meanings' aspect of the film that will get people on the defensive.
Of course it's not a perfect film by any standard. It's overlong and even if the Kubrickian 'creation of the world sequence' was removed, you would never even miss it. But for all the vitriol, there are connections to the rest of the film here during the aforementioned sequence. For example we see the much discussed/dismissed dinosaur bit: a beached Plesiosaur stares longingly at the ocean and knows it can't get back, while an injured herbivore is about to be pounced on by a carnivorous dinosaur, only for the carnivore to seemingly hesitate and have a change of mind.
These portions have been classed as doing nothing beneficial for the movie but they are relevant: lack of water will kill the Plesiosaur whereas the family child dies due to too much of it, i.e., drowning. In another pivotal scene later on, young Jack watches hatefully as his father works underneath a car. He stops at the lift handle's release and we know he's considering letting the car fall down on his father. But like the scene with the carnivorous dinosaur and the helpless herbivore, he hesitates and doesn't follow through with it. Are we witnessing the birth of choice/conscience?
Brad Pitt is excellent as the strict authoritarian but otherwise decent father. Likewise Jessica Chastain playing his long suffering wife adds a much needed gentleness to many tougher scenes. Hunter MacCracken, while effective as young Jack, was seemingly told to emit one facial expression for the whole running time.
Terrence Malick has a lot in common with Stanley Kubrick: they both shun the limelight, both have a small back catalog and only make movies once every few years, and both have a deep interest in the human condition. Heck, even their names are similar. But if Terrence Malick is Stanley Kubrick's heir, one thing his movies have is heart, whereas Kubrick's output was more soulless and clinical. It's the same thing here: this movie has a lot of heart.
Of course there are a lot of critics who are applauding this as a 'masterpiece' for the wrong reasons. Let's just say the gift of hindsight is great thing. Many of the critics who slated aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey upon release in 1969 were left with egg on their face years later when that film's initial reception was revised and it was hailed as a modern classic. Likewise modern critics seem to be only too aware of this fact and are clamoring to praise Tree of Life, just in case its reputation grows over time too.
This is a movie that won't be to everyone's taste. In fact to the majority of people, it will come across as being boring, over reaching, ponderous and pretentious. The slow pace will feel like it's doubling the already hefty length, pushing the patience of most viewers to the limit. There are a lot of whispery voice-overs in this film. It plays out almost as if those lyrical poetic voice-overs from Malick's own 'Thin Red Line' were stretched to feature length. If you like the idea of that, then you may like this. But compared to the standard stuff that clogs up multiplexes on a weekly basis and the formulaic movies that roll down the Marvel 'production line', 'Tree of Life' has a heart, sincerity, and an intelligence that's rare in movies today and for that reason alone it must be applauded. Even if you only ever watch it once in your lifetime, it's still worth watching at least once.
Simply put, the film tells the story of Jack, a somewhat strict and overpowering husband (Brad Pitt) who with his saintly wife (Jessica Chastain) are shaken to their cores upon the sudden death of one of their three young boys. Friction starts to develop between the eldest boy 'Young Jack' (Hunter McCracken) and his father. From there we are shown the creation of the world and dinosaurs (seriously) in an almost twenty minute sequence before going back to the family again and seeing the rest of drama between father and son play out. What was once friction has now evidently become hatred for young Jack towards his tough father. This bit plays out very straightforwardly until things go 'far out' once again for a somewhat 'WTF' ending.
So what exactly is this strange mix of a film trying to say? On one hand it could be classed as being religious. The movie is introduced with a biblical quote and has spiritual themes recurring all the way though it. There's even a colorful, undulating amorphous light that pops up at periodic intervals that seems to symbolize the presence of a divine deity. But it could also be classed as cynical. While the death of the child is sad, it figures almost trivially when fitted into the overall scheme of things. Among the many things the film seems to be saying is that death – no matter how tragic – is only a small cog in the universe. Things are born and they die. That's just the way it is. Even during the much lauded 'creation of the world' sequence, the film is at pains to point out that the earth and life was not created by the hands of God, but by the immense forces of nature . It's this 'open to multiple meanings' aspect of the film that will get people on the defensive.
Of course it's not a perfect film by any standard. It's overlong and even if the Kubrickian 'creation of the world sequence' was removed, you would never even miss it. But for all the vitriol, there are connections to the rest of the film here during the aforementioned sequence. For example we see the much discussed/dismissed dinosaur bit: a beached Plesiosaur stares longingly at the ocean and knows it can't get back, while an injured herbivore is about to be pounced on by a carnivorous dinosaur, only for the carnivore to seemingly hesitate and have a change of mind.
These portions have been classed as doing nothing beneficial for the movie but they are relevant: lack of water will kill the Plesiosaur whereas the family child dies due to too much of it, i.e., drowning. In another pivotal scene later on, young Jack watches hatefully as his father works underneath a car. He stops at the lift handle's release and we know he's considering letting the car fall down on his father. But like the scene with the carnivorous dinosaur and the helpless herbivore, he hesitates and doesn't follow through with it. Are we witnessing the birth of choice/conscience?
Brad Pitt is excellent as the strict authoritarian but otherwise decent father. Likewise Jessica Chastain playing his long suffering wife adds a much needed gentleness to many tougher scenes. Hunter MacCracken, while effective as young Jack, was seemingly told to emit one facial expression for the whole running time.
Terrence Malick has a lot in common with Stanley Kubrick: they both shun the limelight, both have a small back catalog and only make movies once every few years, and both have a deep interest in the human condition. Heck, even their names are similar. But if Terrence Malick is Stanley Kubrick's heir, one thing his movies have is heart, whereas Kubrick's output was more soulless and clinical. It's the same thing here: this movie has a lot of heart.
Of course there are a lot of critics who are applauding this as a 'masterpiece' for the wrong reasons. Let's just say the gift of hindsight is great thing. Many of the critics who slated aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey upon release in 1969 were left with egg on their face years later when that film's initial reception was revised and it was hailed as a modern classic. Likewise modern critics seem to be only too aware of this fact and are clamoring to praise Tree of Life, just in case its reputation grows over time too.
This is a movie that won't be to everyone's taste. In fact to the majority of people, it will come across as being boring, over reaching, ponderous and pretentious. The slow pace will feel like it's doubling the already hefty length, pushing the patience of most viewers to the limit. There are a lot of whispery voice-overs in this film. It plays out almost as if those lyrical poetic voice-overs from Malick's own 'Thin Red Line' were stretched to feature length. If you like the idea of that, then you may like this. But compared to the standard stuff that clogs up multiplexes on a weekly basis and the formulaic movies that roll down the Marvel 'production line', 'Tree of Life' has a heart, sincerity, and an intelligence that's rare in movies today and for that reason alone it must be applauded. Even if you only ever watch it once in your lifetime, it's still worth watching at least once.