The Tree of Life

Terrence Malick is probably one of the most elusive and influential film makers of our time. Having never been interviewed or photographed for press material there is a mysterious aura which surrounds the man, an aura which he seems to imbue within his work. Having only made four films prior to his latest offering, incurred largely via a self imposed twenty year exile to escape the fame which the success of Badlands and Days of Heaven produced for him, he is a man whose work is eagerly anticipated both for its rarity and its refreshing originality and quality of vision. It is hard to talk about Tree of Life without extrapolating upon the context of his other works, all of which have a very clear, distinct authorial stamp whilst dealing with very different subject matter in varying time frames. The main thing that seems to link Malick’s films together would be an obsession with nature, and capturing it on screen. In every single one of his films to date entire sequences are utilised to showcase shots of animals, insects and plants in ways which initially seem fairly separate from the narrative body of the text. Tree of Life is no different and pushes this trope to unprecedented levels- often it appears visually and thematically to be more of a nature documentary than a fictional feature film. Whilst Tree of Life has a clear Terrence Malick flavoured stamp worn proudly on its sleeve it is clear that in his latest directorial effort he has tried, largely successfully, to push the envelope of what was expected from him. While his other works used specific historical periods to explore larger issues, such as the way in which The Thin Red Line uses WW2 as a backdrop to look at the war which is in the very heart of nature itself, The Tree of Life instead attempts to traverse the very notion of existence, the concept of life itself and everything it could mean.

It is actually very difficult to write on this film in a coherent manner due to its complete refusal to be comprehended with coherence. There essentially is no plot to the film, instead the narrative swoops back and forth exploring different issues and themes in a family’s life as well as lending large segments of screen time to charting the dawn of the universe, the solar system, planet earth and the birth of life. The narrative and thematic complexity of this film makes the work of Marker, Nolan and Noé look lazy and decidedly straightforward in comparison. Malick’s film refuses to be understood in the way any other film made before it has been understood. It does not matter if you don’t know or understand what’s happening, it seems more like you are expected to feel your way through the film rather than comprehend your way through it. For instance shots of children playing in the yard will cut to vast galactic landscapes, to and fro in a dizzying carousel of images that bend your expectations of where or what is going on. Unfortunately this does make the film edge, others would say plunge, into the realms of pretentiousness. However this seems like an inevitably fair trade to have created something almost unlike anything cinema has aspired to be before.

The incomprehensible depth of the narrative is paired alongside cinematography that beggars belief. This is hands down the most visually stunning film I have ever seen, not just the construction of the shots with Malick’s characteristic use of swooping tracks matched against rapid edits, but in some of the iconographic imagery the film effortlessly espouses. Characters inexplicably float and dance in the air, the solar system burns up as the sun engulfs it, a man walks along a beach surrounded by mirages of his past. I could go on and on inexhaustibly about the visuals of the film but they seem to speak more eloquently for themselves, as displayed in the trailer.

Pitt, Penn and Chastain provide dazzling performances of characteristic intensity in their respective roles but if you want to watch this film based purely on the star pull- I would dissuade you. The lack of dialogue and unconventional narrative distances their performances from being a central focus within the film. This is definitely more of a film for Malick fans than Pitt fans, not to say the two don’t go hand in hand, but if you came to see a knock out central performance from Pitt you will be disappointed. This is a film which is definitely not for everybody, the softly whispered voiceover with the odiously repeated lines of “Mother”, “Father”, “Brother” after a while gets fairly exhausting and I can completely understand why people would find this film pretentious, boring, incomplete, self-indulgent and potentially even preachy. However the visual and narrative vision of this piece of work for me dwarf the potentially alienating aspects of the film. Whilst the extremely bold ambitions of this piece of work tend to occasionally let the edges of this commanding masterpiece droop over its illustrious frame one thing is clear- Malick has made a film of unprecedented proportion, groundbreaking and inspirational. Go and see it.

p.s. If none of this has persuaded you to take a trip to the cinema let me put it this way- Tree of Life is like a cocktail containing 2 parts 2001, 1 part Fantasia, ¼ cup of Badlands and a splash of Jurassic Park. Yes, it has dinosaurs in it. I’m not even joking.