Review - The Tree of Life

“Ambitious” is a word I keep hearing in connection with Terrence Malick’s latest movie, The Tree of Life. Given a title like that, it had better be – however, genuine ambition of this kind is not likely to find much of an audience. Answers of life are not likely ever to be found, so too often we deride even attempts to think about them, never mind find them. I’ve been to see this movie twice now, and both times I was probably the only person under forty in the theater.

The Tree of Life contains a story of a family in Waco, Texas, in the 1950s, intercut with footage of the universe being created and different stages in the life of the Earth. Most of these sequences are in the film’s first half, and contain some of the most striking shots Malick has ever made, which is saying a lot. After the first hour, the film is almost exclusively about the family’s oldest son Jack (Hunter McCracken), and in particular his relationships with his father and brother. His father (Brad Pitt) is an old-fashioned disciplinarian, a veteran of the Second World War, and unsuccessful in most of his business ventures. As the children get older, Jack becomes more distant towards his father, while simultaneously becoming more like his father as he tries to dominate his younger brother (Laramie Eppler).

There is more to the story than I describe, but, like The Thin Red Line, this movie does not have a very clear plotline. Instead, it serves more as a collection of disparate memories that combine to form a fairly clear idea of what Jack’s childhood was like and how it affected him. In the early sequences, for instance, when the children are younger, the outdoors is shot very brightly as a young child seeing it for the first time would see it, and the camera usually tends to be at a low level looking upward – again, providing a young boy’s point of view. As the boys get older the film becomes darker and shot more inside the house, as the focus becomes more on Jack’s relationship with his father.

Malick has an obvious fascination with this story (it supposedly has some basis in his own childhood), but doesn’t really let on to us what it is beyond that – his approach is more one of, “I found this really interesting; take a look and see if you do too!” He doesn’t give us much more than that, leaving us to form our own conclusions almost entirely on our own, but his own obvious interest and enthusiasm helps keep us interested too.

The one part of the movie that really doesn’t work is the modern-day stuff featuring a grown-up Jack still thinking about his father and dead brother. I am not suggesting they should have taken it out – we need to see how he has ultimately turned out, I think – but rather there is so little of it. We don’t see how his childhood has affected him later beyond the fact that he still thinks about his father and dead brother. Because of this, the final sequence where he imagines revisiting his parents and neighbors is not nearly as potent as it ought to be.

Some have criticized the use of the special-effects sequences outlining the history of the universe, claiming it tries to elevate the story to a grandeur it has not earned. I think it does the opposite: it puts into perspective our own problems as relatively small when compared to the grand scope of the world and universe over untold billions of years, but still important to the people who have actually lived them and been personally affected by them. The story and issues faced by a small boy in Texas are neither pumped up to a ridiculous level nor minimized into worthlessness.

Just as with 2001: A Space Odyssey, there are plenty of interpretations to be given to this film, and no doubt many people will argue for a long time to come what they are. When the subjects of a film are the origins and meaning and significance of the earth, life and living, simply getting us to talk about them again is daring and achievement enough.

Past Years and Decades . . .

On my old YouTube account I had made a montage using old posters of Siskel's, Ebert's & Roeper's end-of-decade lists. However, as my account is gone (and thanks to a computer crash, the original video is gone too), I decided to make a new one and include their alphabetical best-of-the-1970s lists too.

I've decided to put this up again now partly as a reaction to the rather uninteresting year for movies it has been so far - there's not too much to talk about as far as current films go, so why not discuss about some past treasures?

I won't begin by dissecting their picks in any great detail, just mentioning a few that I strongly agree with, don't at all agree with, or feel were left out. Take a look at what they chose and see what you think:

1970s:
The biggest surprise is Ebert's omission of Taxi Driver - he's since called it the best movie of the decade (which I agree with), and even in 1982 he called it one of the ten best films of all time. I guess it was just overlooked, or it took a little longer to grow on him.
He's also packed a lot of movies from the decade's final two years, allowing The Deer Hunter to come in rather unexpectedly (not that I disapprove of including it!)
Siskel mentions some films that are not mentioned on such lists that often that I'm glad he remembered, particularly The Conversation, which might be my favorite Coppola movie. I wouldn't have included The Last Detail on such a list, but am still a bit glad he put it in: it's not nearly well-remembered enough today, and Jack Nicholson is just fabulous in it.

1980s:
When I first saw this list, I was surprised by how high The Right Stuff ranked - again, it's not a film too many people remember now, but it's easily my favorite for the decade and probably for all time, so I'm very pleased they put it in.
I have mixed feelings about My Dinner with Andre; I still am not quite sure whether I like that film or not, but I've watched it more than a lot of other movies on the list so it certainly has me curious.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit & Mississippi Burning are two movies that, while I probably wouldn't include them on a list of mine, I am still rather pleased were included here. Roger Rabbit is probably as fun a movie as you could ever find, while Mississippi Burning is a very good crime story (though not so much a history lesson, which is unfortunately how it was marketed), with Gene Hackman at his very best (which is saying a lot).
The only film on any of these lists that I flat-out dislike is E.T. - even when I was eight and saw it for the first time, I felt like I had to scrape the sugar off myself with a spatula. Spielberg is sometimes called too sentimental, which I often think is unfair, but in the case of this film it's more than deserved. He pulls on my heartstrings so relentlessly (not just at the end, but much of the way through) that I just became irritated.

1990s:
Schindler's List is by far my top film of this decade, so I'm actually a bit surprised Ebert ranked it outside of his top five, but at least he mentioned it. The Three Colors films are perhaps my all-time favorite film trilogy, and Leaving Las Vegas & Breaking the Waves, while I wouldn't include either of them on my own list, are not nearly well-remembered enough today, so I'm happy he put them in as well. As for Fargo, Goodfellas & Pulp Fiction . . . what can I say? They appear on just about every 1990s list, and deservedly so. Glengarry Glen Ross & The Big Lebowski are more cult films (though Ebert seems to have come round to both of them quite heavily in recent years) and are among my favorites of the decade, but no way would Ebert ever have included them here.

2000s:
Ebert seemed to go almost out of his way to include little-known or little-seen movies here, especially in comparison with past decades, but they are all good - in particular The Son. Almost Famous was my favorite of 2000, and 25th Hour is great, but I find myself more in agreement with Roeper's list: The Departed, his top pick, is a favorite of mine (it seems to have suffered from post-Oscar revisionism, which is a shame), as is Mystic River. Ebert's honorable mentions list does have some jewels in it, though: No Country for Old Men, Minority Report, Pan's Labyrinth and especially City of God (my favorite of the decade).

Let the Ranting Begin

Now that the Oscars have actually been handed out there's not a lot more to say as there were pretty well no surprises this year, even in the technical categories.


The King's Speech proved to have fairly limited coattails, winning Director & Screenplay (which usually follow Picture anyway) as well as Actor for Colin Firth. The Social Network winning three categories, including Editing (which also tends to follow Picture), indicates that it wasn't too far from winning Best Picture.
As for the ceremony itself, it seemed a bit shorter than the norm, with less unnecessary stuff added in; perhaps this is a good sign for future years, though I doubt it. They ought to go back to just one host - as with last year, having two just doesn't seem to work well.

Going to what I said before - that the reputations of the losers often tend to hold up better than those of the winners - Steven Spielberg mentioned past Best Picture winners & losers before opening the envelope, citing Citizen Kane, The Graduate & Raging Bull as legendary losers.

From a historical perspective, this is a bit of a change from recent years: the Academy, for most of its history, has tended to pick movies that were somewhere in between critical & commercial success (and in the process usually satisfied neither critics nor audiences with its choices). However, perhaps in recognition of the complaints by reviewers (and movie fans) that never seem to end no matter how many years have passed, for the last few years they've come down on the side of critical acclaim, picking movies like No Country for Old Men & The Hurt Locker that weren't big audience favorites. This year, they've gone back to their old ways, choosing a movie that's an audience hit, as well as being well-reviewed.

The Flip Side

Eyes are still on the Oscars tomorrow, but today I'd like to cast a brief glance at the enjoyably silly Razzies.

M. Night Shyamalan has won Worst Director once already for Lady in the Water, but no movie of his has ever won Worst Picture. I suspect that will be corrected tonight. The Last Airbender is easily the worst-reviewed movie he has made, the worst-reviewed of the nominees, and one of the worst-reviewed movies of the year overall. Shyamalan will win too (for Director and probably Screenplay), and Rathbone will likely get Supporting (he's up for both Airbender and Eclipse, so it's a way to ridicule both films with one vote). It may get the Worst Eye-Gouging Misuse of 3-D prize as well, as things like that are often used to pad the tallies of films they want to give lots of berries.

If The Last Airbender doesn't win, then Eclipse will. It's hardly the worst of the series, but its nods are likely in recognition of the first two movies (think of the avalanche of Oscars given to the third Lord of the Rings film). As there are more Twilights coming, I suspect that the final one will sweep the Razzies. Robert Pattinson, however, will probably win, for both Twilight and Remember Me.

As for Worst Actress, there's a good possibility for any of them, but the most likely are the Sex & the City 2 cast (a way to slam that film), Miley Cyrus (music stars tend to win - think Neil Diamond & the Spice Girls), and Megan Fox (in recognition of just about every movie she has made and of her almost instant punchline status). If pressed, I'd say Fox will take it. For the same reasons, I'd say Alba is likely to get Supporting.

I'll likely be totally wrong on most of this, but what the hell? It's all in good fun.

---------------------

Wow - I was actually right on most of them. Airbender takes home Picture, Supporting Actor, Director, Screenplay & 3-D, and Jessica Alba wins Supporting Actress.

Sex & the City 2 did rather well (or badly, I suppose), taking Actress, Ensemble & Sequel. Ashton Kutcher won Worst Actor, which should please Richard Roeper.

Across the Ocean

The British Academy is announcing their own winners right now; not always a good predictor of the Oscars, but they can provide something of an indicator. Inception is winning many technical categories, and Helena Bonham Carter has won too - perhaps a good sign for The King's Speech, but it has also just won the Best British Film award, which usually goes to a film that doesn't win the Best Film prize (I don't know if it's against the rules for a film to win both, but no film has done so for about forty years).
Perhaps there will be an upset later today - and if The King's Speech doesn't win the BAFTA Award (which is more likely to go to a British movie than the Oscar), perhaps The Social Network may be rallying. We shall soon see.


---------------------


Never mind - a King's Speech victory as was generally expected. One small surprise: the win for David Fincher in the Director category, though there is not as firm a match between director & film at the BAFTAs as there is at the Oscars. Fincher's win here does raise some hopes for his Oscar chances, though.

Oscars

Since just about everyone else has already written plenty about this year's Oscars, there's probably no need for another to put another one on the pile, but what the hell . . .

If I had been writing this a few weeks ago, I would be predicting The Social Network to win in a walk. It's gotten as close to universal praise as a modern film can have, and made enough money to get itself noticed by the voters. But as more and more of the indicator awards have gone to The King's Speech it looks likely that the infamous Weinstein marketing machine is working its magic yet again.
I quite enjoyed The King's Speech, and when I first saw it I did not expect it to get much notice - it felt like a movie that only people with my own tastes would enjoy. Now it seems that it's going to go down as a much-derided movie only by virtue of winning the Oscar over better-liked movies (think Shakespeare, which I also liked very much). There may be a last-minute rally round The Social Network, but as the ceremony draws closer it looks less and less likely.

As for The Social Network, it still may win, so I'll write a bit about it too - I liked it a lot (and would prefer it to The King's Speech), but mostly out of admiration for its technique - it takes a story that you wouldn't think would make a very interesting movie and makes it fascinating. David Fincher tended to overdo the atmosphere and the stylistics in his earlier movies like Se7en and Fight Club, but in this film and Zodiac he's made his sense of style all the more effective my using it in a way that doesn't immediately announce itself. Thinking about both movies afterward, I realized all of the different tricks he had used, but I wasn't thinking about them all that much while I watched. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best sign of their effectiveness.

There's been a lot of praise for its relevance to contemporary society, but I'm a bit less interested in that; it doesn't seem quite sure what it thinks about this new phenomenon, but since we're all not quite sure what effects these new social networking sites are going to have on our society, it's probably the best route to take.

Before the sudden Speech bandwagon, it didn't look like there would be much of a contest in any big category - the only one I could think of would be Original Screenplay - would they give it to The King's Speech or Inception? Now it looks like Picture & Director will be the ones with suspense, while Nolan will have to wait until his next movie. Cinematography and editing might go to Inception as The Social Network's stock falls, but I doubt it. Aaron Sorkin still has a lock in the adaptation category, though.
The lead & supporting categories, in contrast, are looking more certain all the time, so there's not much point in saying too much - Firth, Portman, Bale, Leo. I don't know if any of them would be my own choices (though I have yet to decide who would be), but they were all very good so I won't complain. I would have expected all four of them to go down in history as talented actors who never won, and perhaps that's why they're likely to win - well-respected people who get it as much for their entire careers as for the nominated films.

As for my own choices, I still have yet to make up my mind on most of them - usually it's long after the ceremony before I'm satisfied as to what I would have chosen, but since so many people like to gripe and grouse for years afterward there will always be an audience for such opinions.

It's become the trend to bash every winner - a film may be well-loved, but as soon as it wins the Oscar it loses a lot of appeal. Maybe it's the old "Mom and Dad like it, so it must not be cool after all" effect. For that reason, I rather prefer it when my favorite nominee doesn't win because I know it may still claim a future place among classics. Perhaps it will be ultimately good for The Social Network not to win because its reputation will be better preserved. Bad luck for The King's Speech, though, which will probably become the latest punchline among movie lovers. Such is the way of the film fan.