Tree of Life

Director: Terrence Malick

Year: 2011

Malick's work, like some of Kubrick's, has intimidated me at times. I've feared not understanding it and therefore feeling I am not worthy as a filmmaker myself. So it was with this film that I put it off when it came out. Though I was tantalized by the trailer, Malick's name and the reviews that I chose to listen to led me to a place where I put it on the back burner. Discovering it today, I'm thrilled to have it enter my lexicon and I look forward to watching it multiple times for greater meditation. 

Malick puts a small story about relatively small people (in terms of global or historical importance) against the greatest creation myths the Bible has to offer. For reference sake, when I use the word "myth", I mean it in the classical sense, not the modern manner in which it is, quite sadly in my opinion, conflated with lies or untruths. These characters of the early 1950's include a mother, father and three young boys. Malick pits nature against grace, not opting for either as correct but rather universal qualities at odds with each other. The boys are growing. The parents are somewhat at odds with how they raise them, but not in a grand sense that caused me to feel either was right or wrong. The marriage was at times challenged. That sounds about right. There were misunderstandings, frustrations and beautiful moments of love, shown physically with kisses and hugs that sometimes felt like surrender. So much was evoked with so little dialogue. 

Malick makes a tremendous case for the idea that "less is more" throughout. The cinematography is stunning, mixing the natural with representations of the spiritual. All of this is grounded against images of a small, sweet and simple 1950's era that, at times, reminded me very happily of "Stand By Me". The viewpoint of children, especially those that are just struggling to find their way out from beneath their parents watchful eyes is incredible. Can children think, feel and do these awful and profound things? Not only can they, but they do every day. Malick gives us the gift of listening to them at a close range. 

Pitt's character was particularly intense for me. I felt his pain of the unrequited life. The idea that he'd done everything right and been cheated by God by not getting what he felt he deserved or, at least, not what others around him got with, seemingly, lesser qualities. How he brought his passions home to his children, teaching them to take care of the yard, play and appreciate music or how to fight showed his character in deep and complete terms, with so much more interest for me than what I would call the typical portrayal of the 1950's man. He was sensitive. He was unafraid to show affection and artistic ability. He was present. 

Some reviewers and fans complained about the elements they didn't understand, like the appearance of dinosaurs, for instance. I won't try to say I have a literal answer for every shot, but what I got from the dinosaurs was depth and perspective of how long the universe and life on earth have been at play; how long God has had his eye on us and what has and hasn't changed in that time, regardless of the species.