Mark takes a look at director Terrence Malick's impressionistic drama, starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. The film has been dividing opinions since its debut at Cannes - what does the good doctor make of it?
3rd Gunman One of the kids who played in Mud actually played in the Tree of Life. He plays Steve, the youngest son of Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt’s characters :):)
So good I agree, it felt so natural and especially the boy who plays young Jack was really a special presence in the film. His facial expressions and movements were all so good.
That may be the best single movie review I've ever heard. The eloquence with which Kermode wrestled to channel his conflicted feelings was a drama in itself.
I think that in terms of cinema people view this film with too much of a western cinematic understanding. This movie is a visual poem. Invoking sorrow, nostalgia, joy, acceptance. Just a great film.
Watched for the first time, and as a person who is now an atheist and also had a case of authoritative dad at home, the struggle depicted for the older boy was really touching to me.
Tree of Life was one of the first films in a very long time that genuinely made me reflect on my experiences and the time that I have spent on this planet. I believe if a film can make me think and reflect in such a way has enormous merit.
This film is not about the family life, the loss of a child or remembrance. It is a fable of life, grace and nature, their intertwined relationship, and how we make sense of it, with the help of the story line. The narrative is merely a clever incarnation of this primary message in a more relatable manner. There are countless symbolism of the more abstract idea. If you think the dinosaur sequence is a waste think again. It is conveying a message about life and death, weakness and forgiveness, grace and nature, always enveloped in the fabric of our existence (and the universe's). The film's discrete narratives and long story-independent ten-minute long ending is almost a give away of the significance of the abstract thesis. You have to look at this film as a complete work of abstract art to penetrate deep into its secrets.
@@shredbettystixx agreed. The imagery was very powerful in and of itself, but it just drags on and tests your patience. It’s like Terrence didn’t understand that brevity is the souls of wit.
I saw the movie as a series of prayers/ thoughts overheard by God, and the movie seems to be largely from God's point of view. The creation of the Universe scene is presented as the answer to Chastain's question posed just before it. The quote from Job at the beginning is the key to understanding the answer. I figure the dinosaur scene is important 1. because that species became dominant after a long series of evolutionary leaps being shown and 2. because it's about a creation that had its day and faced extinction...but not before one of the dinosaurs was shown sparing the life of the injured one on the ground. Sort of a "first example of empathy", a major evolutionary step, in a symbolic sense. Humans have the potential to evolve even more and take this empathic response further, by walking in the way of grace rather than nature. The rest of the movie is about the tension between those two choices, throughout a life. Just my interpretation.
Count me among the few that this film really spoke to. I think it's the best film of the 2010s. Mark's point about the need to look at transcendence through the corner of your eye was brilliant. I love the fact that the Tree of Life has the audacity to do both the sidelong view and head-on view - the small family drama juxtaposed with the God's eye view of creation. The dinosaurs, etc. didn't bother me, in fact I found it remarkable. Marks' review is a lesson for aspiring critics, and for the "critics of the critics" who believe a good review is one that most accurately reflects your own views.
This film really spoke to far, far more than a few. It’s one of those like Synecdoche, New York or something. Sure, masses of people haven’t seen it, or even know it exists. But for many, many people it is one of their favourite films of all time
The dinosaur part was good. It gave me sense of how ancient the world and life is, and how minuscule I am compared to it. Life has been going on for millions of years. Lives just as complicated as mine briefly coming and going billions of times over.
Moreover, that came after a line when the wife said who are we to you? and the magnificent Lacrimosa universe scene that the great creature which is the dinosaur and an indication of the start of the earth and also is a response to the question being asked, showing how human seems small in everything huge in the universe, yet God close to us and we should be connected to him.
Agree!! It reiterated the insignificance of first world problems. And I believe the long length of that segment was necessary to impress upon us that humankind has been but a blip in the Earth's history...
The Tree of Life is an incredible film. I think even the smallest vignettes and sequences have a startling power. Malik is a true genius of a filmmaker. As for Kermode's lukewarm review, I find Malik is quite open with his doubt about God and the divine, Jessica Chastain's character is so often asking questions of God, 'Lord, why?' 'Where were you?' 'Did you know what happened?' 'Do you care?' As he is with Javier Bardem's priest, going through a crisis of faith in To The Wonder. These characters remind me of Ishmael in Moby Dick, seeing the blankness of an unanswering God in everything including the whiteness of the whale. It isn't pantheistic at all. Malik introduces doubt into this film in a big way and I suspect that Kermode's reading of it and the 'cynicism' that got up and walked out is his particular brand of atheism reeling at Malik's viewpoint. But then, why should anyone listen to Kermode, he put Minions on his ten favourite films list for the first six months of 2015. Strange chap.
I don't love the walk on the beach. I'm on the fence about the dinosaurs but I think it's a wonderful piece. To me, its about the "divinity in nature" and not religion. Loved everything else.
The child acting in this film is phenomenal. Have you guys seen "Shoplifters"? It's a Japanese film with great child actors. Check it out. Respect to both Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain as well.
I have to say that I'm not really very well versed in film, and I'm not very familiar with the director but I do enjoy watching movies. This was one that had caught my eye for some time, although I admittedly avoided it because of the poor reviews. I finally watched it this film last weekend, and I thought it was incredibly powerful. I actually hardly noticed that it was missing dialogue. I viewed it as though we were peaking inside Jack's mind, and thought the story was told well with music and the whispers of consciousness. I think that often our own thoughts flit about, and our memories are skewed, often glorifying one parent over the other. I'm a mother of three, and the movie was particularly moving when it showed the early childhood of the boys. It made me think of my own experiences, and made me feel overwhelmed with absolute glory that I've been able to love and be loved and to be a mother in such a vast universe, where we are so small. I didn't particularly like the long creation segment (I actually skipped through it), but this was a movie that will stick with me for a long time.
The thing about this film is you can knock it, say it's pretentious, overambitious, ridiculous even... But when I went to see it, after the lights went down, and this beautiful music started, and they lost their son, I began to cry. And I don't cry easily. 'The Tree of Life' is a beautiful work of art and it would be churlish not celebrate it.
I will say, having watched it for the first time today, and going into it as a bit of a cynic being aware of its reputation that the harsher reviews that it had cultivated had bestowed upon it, I found it thoroughly enjoyable. I wouldn't say that I'm a massive sentimentalist either, but nothing about the narrative course that it takes - yes, even the dinosaur section - bothered me. The voice-overs, yes, I could absolutely do without, but to anyone that watches this review before watching the film itself, I'd just note that the stuff Kermode didn't get on with based on what he says here, is all pretty much out of the way in the first half-hour. The child acting is superb, it's one of the most visually stunning works of cinema I can ever recall seeing, and it isn't anywhere near as naïve or "lovey" as a lot of people would have you believe.
I'm not always crazy about Kermode, but this is one of the most insightful reviews I've seen in quite a while. He talks specifically about the movie, gives a great sense of it, its feel, its strenghts and weaknesses, while also speaking cogently and sensitively about larger issues with the nature of art and criticism. I actually feel like I gained a little clarity while listening to him here.
Either you like this film or you dont, but please dont say you think its "pretentious" just say you didnt get it or like it. I hate when people describe a film as "Pretentious" a film trying to claim it has higher importance than it really does ? no this film certainly isnt that. It's Malick's view or meditation on life and its meaning and how we journey through life FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE. either you like it or you dont. simples.
I think for the most part you're right. But have you seen BARAKA or even the QATSI trilogy? Once you begin to consider film as a total visual medium, you can accept cinema without narrative. TREE OF LIFE still works for me as a hybrid silent film. This and TO THE WONDER both are more about the moods, expressions, sequencing rather than act I, II, typical linear structure. Important to recognize this as experimental rather than expecting something more common.
This reviewer has got the point of this film wrong, the family is not getting over the death of a child through the main portion of the film, as at the start of the film they're in a different house and Chastain looks older, and the furniture and decor is more modern, than the house they live in, in the main section of the film. It's implied that it is the second eldest son which dies and that it is after the main section of the film. It's also implied he drowns, by the several sequences - one where he is seen swimming out of his underwater room, one where the child drowns at the pool/river and the other where the clown is seen submerged under water. Futhermore at the end of the film, you see the second eldest child walk out of the house into the tundra, this imagery evokes that he has died as none of the other family members follow him. The film itself is focussed on a child developing more complex emotions and losing innocence. The scenes of creation emulate this, as the earth goes from a basic form to complexity. In the creation scene, we firstly see a sea dinosaur bleeding, after being attacked by the sharks - the music played her is the same as that played after Jack has stolen the girls dress, showing the loss of innocence and increasing complexity of emotions. Secondly the dinosaur exhibiting mercy is a reflection of Jack learning forgiveness, after he shoots his brother in the hand he then apologises soon after.
nicely put. i watched this last night and it had me riveted to the scree. utterly beautiful film. for me, it's memory fragments. what we're watching is sean Penn remembering. at least during the narrative part..his memories of life with his brothers and especially his father...I believe the end was his own death and the peace it brought with it for him.
To me, the dinosaur scene always represented the relationship between Jack and his father, but it could mean anything knowing Malick. I don't know if it works but it's just...there
This film expanded the language of cinema. It defies comparison to other films in part because it isn't telling a linear story. Spoke to my soul in a language my soul understood, somewhat like the music that pervades it. The best of it simply evokes and calls to our own experiences. It rolls like a dream that is strange and familiar at the same time, where the living and the dead see each other again and connections overcome physics and time.
The book of Job is about suffering ( which ultimately ends with Gods grace and blessings) And here we see that such is life, there is suffering. Which if met with Grace we can enjoy the fruits of life, if met with nature we can get caught up in a tangle of regret, unhappiness and anger. There is a choice in which we are free to make (freewill) I feel there are so many levels at which there can be many insights and aha moments about life in this film. The main insight into life is that the character that Sean Penn played, lived his life ‘natures way’ and could not break free from past suffering which still in a way held him hostage and caused suffering in the present day. On this day as he reminisced and agonised over his childhood sufferings and regrets, he purged all this ill feeling (including forgiving his father), in this purging he released natures way and grace fell upon him, (because God does not forsake his “children” ). And his pain and suffering was lifted. The ending shows acceptance and rejoicing of suffering (and death) as part and parcel of this magnificent life! ❤️❤️❤️ Loved this film! I am sure it must be watched several times to fully absorb all its insights and realisations.
pricklyphlox That's true. But the problem is the ending, where we witness earth and water, life and death coexisting together, works only if you're a religious person (particularly if you're a christian). His other films didn't have this problem.
Nameless Paladin The ending is *not* the afterlife. It is a metaphorical situation happening only inside adult Jack's imagination. Notice that everybody (except Jack) appears as they did during Jack's childhood. It represents adult Jack's mental catharsis, where the loose ends that have haunted him for his entire life become resolved.
Just finished watching it, I quite enjoyed it, ..Malick has that Kubrickian touch in a lot of scenes. I loved the early scenes with Jessica Chastain and the very young children. Brad Pitt was excellent as the tough father, and the kids performance was utterly believable. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it held my attention throughout.
Years ago the sign on the box office said, "If you don't like the movie, there are no refunds." So I walked away. Then I turned back because I did come to see the movie. For me it had one of the most extraordinary moments of cinema. In one of the most painful moments a person could encounter, the death of a child, the film diverts to remind us of the absolute miracle of life and the potential billions of years of creation that had to unfold just for us to even be born and to experience the worst day we could possibly ever imagine. That life truly is a miracle at every level and in our worst or darkest moments, we should still strive to find gratitude for just the gift to experience even a bad day.
I finished this movie and almost agree with everything you say. Perhaps I wasn't in the right "frame of mind", but I found most of the non-narrative sequences a chore to sit through. Beautifully shot - Malick's\Lubezki's craft is extraordinary - but tediously long and it left me with a mixed opinion of the film.
Watched it lastnight, loved all the actors, but we both got completely lost and bored, it's a well made boring film with moments of pure magic that mean absolutely nothing ,absolutely love this film maker who got it wrong this time. Best War Film Ever Made! Without doubt The Thin Red Line.
Some people walked out of the cinema where I saw it but personally I'm glad that it was not only made but has also seen such a wide release despite how experimental it is (I'm sure Pitt, Penn and the director's prestige obviously helped.) I went in with a decent understanding of Malick's films so overall I enjoyed and appreciated it on many levels, more so in hindsight. The abstract and difficult nature of it will clearly divide people but if given the chance, it's an incredibly rewarding film.
@DoctorHello I agree with your interpretation of the dinosaur scene. However, I also think this is why many people have reacted negatively towards that scene (and the film in general) as it appears to anthropomorphise dinosaurs. I believe that the scene can be viewed as I described it and also explains the confusions that arise in the family, between Pitt and Penn. As a boy, he asks himself: "Why do I do things I hate?" This also muddies the simplistic dualities that people have criticised.
I saw the film as the pivotal time in a persons life when they must decide to be good or bad. The scene with the car jacked up with the hated father under it while the boy looks to see if anyone is watching. How easy it would be for the boy to dis-engage the jack, thus killing his father. I think the dinosaur scene was great. I interpreted it as the first time empathy & compassion were carried out. The raptors would now be ruling the world in not for the asteroid that hit earth.
I first learned that there was a sort of morality in the dinosaur world - where some dinosaurs were good and some bad, and some that would positively save the day - in Jurassic Park. Malick was not the first. He simply has a more nuanced morality than - yes! - Spielberg.
I remember seeing it in the theatre for the first time and not quite understanding it. Over the years ive really loved it more and more and think it is a great movie
I totally agree with his last statement. For those who have suffered a loss or who witness pain and death daily (I work in an intensive care unit), this film does resonate and bring one to a ?catharsis/?resolution/?consolation. Most of us going to a movie won't necessarily be in such a frame of mind; entertainment is what we usually seek, not introspection.
@Neekstarrr but it wouldnt be honest. This film has high aspirations, and well meant intentions and some outstanding shots. Theres also an interesting debate to have about it stuck somewhere in the middle. I think Kermode's review is spot on, I didnt like the film myself but its not devoid of merit and for anyone who likes movies and likes to think a bit about the deeper questions this is a good excuse, or rather better than most hollywood films
On your point about Kubrick, fair enough about him pushing limits. Regarding high-quality art being time consuming, though, obviously from my original post I agree with you. That is why I say CG is often harmful (it is too easy) -- but also why it doesn't have to be harmful (because diliberation can be applied there as well). The thing that matters is not where the effect came from, computer or handmade, but rather the heart and care that goes into the effect's realization.
i just his pacing difficult. he could cut 15% off all his films, but he has so many 2-3 minute small montage sequences that are utter film poetry and beauty its hard to deny his talent, but he needs a producer or editor or someone to guide him more.
Basically everything I was gonna say. Malick is reinventing cinematic language for his own gain. And the dinosaur bit was inspired, not contrived like some people are making out. The Tree Of Life was everything I wanted it to be, and more.
Again, agreed - I think when he said narrative, he meant conventional structure. Of course anything filmed cut against something else filmed is instantly a narrative, if we're talking basics. Malick was heading in the direction of a loose/poetic narrative and hit the nail on the head with The Tree Of Life. To The Wonder explored the method a little deeper and I see it as a kind of 'b-side' to the (frankly superior) Tree Of Life. But both are beautiful...Knight Of Cups soon I hope.
When watching this movie,you have to 'enter' this movie, as you would a work of art. The whispers seem to be the deep thoughts he hears when entering past childhood memories. The child in this man's memory comes to terms with life in all its glory and misery, even back to why we are all here and how mankind began. I believe the child in us must meet the adult we've become in order to resolve difficult issues hidden in the soul and to realize how we stand in the big picture of creation.
@DoctorHello Hi there. I agree that it was not supposed to be taken literally. That's why I interpret it as Sean Penn's reconciliation with his past rather than his literally being in heaven - which is how many people, including those who hooted with derision at its Cannes screening, have interpreted it. It seemed to me as if Malick wanted to say that love and forgiveness are heavenly, if not heaven per se.
TOL was a nice cinematic experience and [even though I've never been religious in any way] I did not have a problem with the spirituality in the film. However I began to lose patience with the Sean Penn sections/voicover which just reminded me of a perfume advert. There were times that i felt that it was too long and meandering and after seeing it I did not feel that i needed to see it again on dvd......it's not that i didn't like it I think it's just that i need narrative :)
well said, but what i think is that you can't have themes with out narrative. I mean you can't really explore theme with out story, which is narrative.
I didn't care much for Tree of Life; even though several people gave me the pretentious "it's art" explanation to the surreal nature of film. Thanks to this review; I do have a more appreciative understanding of Terrence Malick and his work, even though I'm not a fan of Tree of Life.
@avastyer Further, Pitt's character represents Nature while the mother represents Grace. Nature is strong, bold and beautiful but can be brutal and harsh -- Survival of the fittest. These ideas are part of the father's character and could well explain his attitude toward his sons, teaching them how to be strong, brave and disciplined otherwise they'll be overpowered by others.
Some very interesting thoughts. I pretty much agree with what Kermode is saying here, particularly with regards to how completely unabashed it is. I'd argue that to call this film pretentious (which you're certainly entitled to) is to skirt over just how heartfelt it is and how much effort Malick poured into it. I don't think anyone can deny that the cinematography is nothing short of stunning throughout, for instance. Overwrought? Almost definitely. A film that needs to be seen? Absolutely.
@gbrlmccllm Though I enjoyed Kermode's review, one of the things I couldn't agree with was how the dinosaur was somehow bad. It doesn't feel right that sequences as abstract and surreal as that should be labeled "good" or "bad." You cannot define any sequence with one word. There is so much going on within every moment--the colors, the movement, the composition, the sound--it seems you'd have to be incredibly perceptive if you were to definitively say, "This entire sequence was a mistake."
Films that contain high spirituality levels and abstract originality, always get badly reviewed e.g Enter The Void which was highly original. This film is wonderful.
This analysis was much better than most. What does Malick believe ? Whilst still perhaps clinging to modern pantheism and cliched scientism, he seems close to Christianity in seeing the real possibility of hope, purpose and an eternal perspective.
Following my previous comment (2): Tree of Life reminded me of what cinema can do as a form of and medium for expression, art, philosophy and storytelling. It reminded me of Andrei Tarkovski's works. It reminded me of my own childhood as it brought back certain childhood memories and feelings of mine. We need more films like Tree-of-Life, or at least more attempts at making such type of cinema; otherwise cinema will be forever hijacked by the Michael Bay and brainless action CGI flicks.
There are moments of Tree of Life which are pretty amazing, but the 20-odd minute sequence which doesn't have any humans in it from what I can remember culminating in the dinosaur scene was beyond too much. The stuff about Sean Penn's character growing up was great but a lot of the stuff outside of that was just utter nonsense. It also seems odd to me that you'd cast an actor as good as Sean Penn in your movie just to have him walk around looking somewhere between angry and confused
Finally the good Doctor's opinion. I for one loved the film and I kind of take in all its faults dinosaur and what not and don't see them so much because I just admire Malick's Balls and audacity to make a film like that, imagine all the things in that film, its astounding that someone made it. I would say though that I actually really liked The New World as well. What can I say i'm a massive Malick fan.
@avastyer The beach scene could be interpreted in many ways. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's more experiential and allegorical than anything else. Whether or not they died and are in heaven, however the idea being explored is love, forgiveness and reconciliation indeed. The beach scene could be interpreted as heaven is on earth if we love and forgive one another. The dinosaur scene is about empathy. A prehistoric creature exercising empathy. It's consistent with the film.
@harrymjackson I second your opinion. I have much respect for Kermode as a film critic but he needs to expand his knowledge and understanding of cinema.
I watched this film but stopped at around the 10min mark because I thought I knew where it was going. Then I heard what Kermode said about the dinosaurs, and i knew I had made a grievous error. Love this film.
As you lose your youth and life no longer has the magical powers that seemed to have presented itself , cynicism and ennui take its place. Supertramp Lyrics of the Logical Song is the best quote for this movie.
I thought the dinosaur section was demonstrating the continuation of progress of life since its genesis. But also to show the vulnerability and perhaps the insignificance of life... ?
No he wasn't. If you read the credits, the credit for "Special Photographic Effects Director" goes to Stanley Kubrick. Trumbull was one of 3 supervisors; the others were Con Pederson and Wally Veevers, and there where literally hundreds of other technicians. Reportedly, Kubrick was really furious that Trumbull got all the credit in the press. Trumbull's main contribution was, along with Zorin Perisic, the stargate and the nebulae-type things seen in that sequence and solving matte work problems.
Following my previous comment: people are being quick to jump to conclusion about the film. Many people (and some film critics) forgot that cinema can be a form of art, that linear narrative isn't the only form of cinema. For instance, when you look at a Leonardo Da Vinci's painting, do you take one glance and say 'I got it' or 'I don't get it' to then walk away? No, you would need to contemplate the painting and reflect upon it. Tree of Life calls for contemplation and reflection.
Dear Kermode, I'm surprised in your review and analysis of the film, you didn't mention anything about 'the book of Job' which is clearly at the center of this film and its themes and structure. Malick gives us a hint in the opening as he quotes from the book. The space sequence comes right after the mother questions God by asking why God took his son away, and like in the book of Job, God answers by showing what he's been up to: hence the space sequence and creation of the universe etc...
Oh, let's stop it. Can't we just be "pals"? Honestly, I respect your opinion. Sometimes, it's tough for me to hear the true tone through text. Especially, via this conflict ridden site. Cheers, friend.
