SWAMP&REVIEWS

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

This is a particularly hard film to put into words. Mostly because it is a visual experience that doesn’t bother itself with narrative conventions and finds Malick fully assuming the “cinematic poem” form he has been cultivating for years – to the edges of abstraction. So bear with me. The Tree of Life is perhaps the only films I’ve seen, with the exception of perhaps Kubrick’s 2001 that is as deeply concerned with the visualization of the sublime as an aesthetic, spiritual and philosophical concept. But instead of throwing us in the confine of the cosmos directly, where one is forced to look at his own mortality right in the face, Malick structures, mirrors and crafts an extremely ambitious diptych, spanning eons of time and space and giving human context to the immense philosophical preoccupations of life, death, eternity and so on. On one hand, there is the scientific, cosmological development of the galaxy and the world we inhabit and on the other hand, there is the Christian family of the O’briens, as reminisced by Sean Penn’s character, and their microcosm of interactions and influences on each other.
In submitting his viewers to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki’s (The New World, Children of Men and the upcoming and anticipated Gravity)astounding visuals of breathtaking beauty, Malick seeks to confront us to nature’s undeniable power and unfaltering beauty one more time. Following a brief introduction of the characters, the film pretty much follows three acts, that while intertwining occasionally, mostly mirror each other to form this tableau of the sublime quality of the unfathomable powers of creation, of the meek human condition that necessitates a God to make sense of life and finally of personal spirituality, and whatever representation of the afterlife one might create for oneself – and loved ones.
This is a film with undeniable power, breadth and depth and unlike anything I have seen. But it is not the perfect masterpiece some claim it is, nor is it the disaster the unholy amount of people with little patience and even lesser minds – people leaving the theater tonight or booing at Cannes, you know who you are; I have no respect for you – seem to claim it is, either. The Tree of Life is extremely ambitious, generous and somewhat pays the price for its tendency to self-indulge. Some moments of pure cinematic brilliance run too long and as the viewing progresses, the spiritual angle transforms from free-form and personal to preachy and uncomfortable. That said, there is plenty to fall back on, if the imagery doesn’t make your head spin already. The performances – especially Brad Pitt in the role of the hateful father – are stellar and the score is, not only extremely well thought-out (the use of the Requiem at the end is what clued me in to what was happening!) but essential and hauntingly beautiful. The ethereal cinematography is beyond anything I could’ve imagined possible and elements combine to form a dense and exhausting experience that will most likely necessitate closer study and repeated viewings. I, for one, wasn’t a big fan of the abundance of apparent CGI during the dinosaur sequences and heavy-handedness of the (anti?) theological message, but it doesn’t mean the film isn’t absolutely, 100% required viewing. It is not for everyone, that is certain, but it’s bound to be an experience you will not forget.
I feel I had more to say about this, but I’m at a loss for words and this is already way longer than expected. The film’s finale definitely put a smile on my face, because it was quite reminiscent of Guido’s procession at the end of 8 1/2, as well as the end of another thing love, but don’t want to spoil. The film has its flaws, but don’t listen to me and go experience it for yourself.

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

This is a particularly hard film to put into words. Mostly because it is a visual experience that doesn’t bother itself with narrative conventions and finds Malick fully assuming the “cinematic poem” form he has been cultivating for years – to the edges of abstraction. So bear with me. The Tree of Life is perhaps the only films I’ve seen, with the exception of perhaps Kubrick’s 2001 that is as deeply concerned with the visualization of the sublime as an aesthetic, spiritual and philosophical concept. But instead of throwing us in the confine of the cosmos directly, where one is forced to look at his own mortality right in the face, Malick structures, mirrors and crafts an extremely ambitious diptych, spanning eons of time and space and giving human context to the immense philosophical preoccupations of life, death, eternity and so on. On one hand, there is the scientific, cosmological development of the galaxy and the world we inhabit and on the other hand, there is the Christian family of the O’briens, as reminisced by Sean Penn’s character, and their microcosm of interactions and influences on each other.

In submitting his viewers to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki’s (The New World, Children of Men and the upcoming and anticipated Gravity)astounding visuals of breathtaking beauty, Malick seeks to confront us to nature’s undeniable power and unfaltering beauty one more time. Following a brief introduction of the characters, the film pretty much follows three acts, that while intertwining occasionally, mostly mirror each other to form this tableau of the sublime quality of the unfathomable powers of creation, of the meek human condition that necessitates a God to make sense of life and finally of personal spirituality, and whatever representation of the afterlife one might create for oneself – and loved ones.

This is a film with undeniable power, breadth and depth and unlike anything I have seen. But it is not the perfect masterpiece some claim it is, nor is it the disaster the unholy amount of people with little patience and even lesser minds – people leaving the theater tonight or booing at Cannes, you know who you are; I have no respect for you – seem to claim it is, either. The Tree of Life is extremely ambitious, generous and somewhat pays the price for its tendency to self-indulge. Some moments of pure cinematic brilliance run too long and as the viewing progresses, the spiritual angle transforms from free-form and personal to preachy and uncomfortable. That said, there is plenty to fall back on, if the imagery doesn’t make your head spin already. The performances – especially Brad Pitt in the role of the hateful father – are stellar and the score is, not only extremely well thought-out (the use of the Requiem at the end is what clued me in to what was happening!) but essential and hauntingly beautiful. The ethereal cinematography is beyond anything I could’ve imagined possible and elements combine to form a dense and exhausting experience that will most likely necessitate closer study and repeated viewings. I, for one, wasn’t a big fan of the abundance of apparent CGI during the dinosaur sequences and heavy-handedness of the (anti?) theological message, but it doesn’t mean the film isn’t absolutely, 100% required viewing. It is not for everyone, that is certain, but it’s bound to be an experience you will not forget.

I feel I had more to say about this, but I’m at a loss for words and this is already way longer than expected. The film’s finale definitely put a smile on my face, because it was quite reminiscent of Guido’s procession at the end of 8 1/2, as well as the end of another thing love, but don’t want to spoil. The film has its flaws, but don’t listen to me and go experience it for yourself.