“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment