THE TREE OF LIFE Review

Majestic in scope while bewildering to audiences and film critics alike, "The Tree of Life" has finally arrived. As one who is open and encouraging in regard to films which explore the big questions of life, I have to admit that I am not feeling the bafflement or frustration that so many others are claiming about this one. Some have leveled the accusation that director Terrence Malick is overly obscure with his high-art impressionism. I respectfully beg to differ. Having had the pleasure of experiencing this film twice, I can say that "The Tree of Life" really tells you all that you need to know in its opening quotes and narration. That's not to say there aren't unanswered questions and lingering doubts - not by a longshot. But in this case, that's part of the grand design. The film is built to be beautifully oblique, but not off-putting.

For the past several years, cinemaphiles have been anxiously awaiting this long brewing latest from the enigmatic filmmaker Malick. After a smattering wrongly rumored dates, notorious post-production tweakings (five editors are listed in the credits), and rumblings about dinosaurs being in the film, it's fair to say that "The Tree of Life" has become nearly as enigmatic as its intensely reclusive creator.

Like most other such projects in the recent pantheon of notoriously delayed projects of an ultra personal nature (perhaps not the most apt examples, but the Guns & Roses album "Chinese Democracy" took over a decade to materialize, and The Flaming Lips' homemade film "Christmas on Mars" took nearly that long), the mystique associated with the long wait only adds to the enigma. With the two musical examples I've cited, the actual completed work, once released, didn't begin to live up to their inevitable hype. Upon hearing the news that Malick is addressing the meaning of life itself in this film, it's fair to wonder if even a filmmaker as great as he may be over-reaching this time, as well.

Despite the fact that "The Tree of Life" is only Malick's fifth film in just under forty years, (there's also "Badlands" [1973], "Days of Heaven" [1978], "The Thin Red Line" [1998], and "The New World" [2005]), he nonetheless thoroughly and deservingly earned the reputation as one of the world's foremost cinematic artists. His films are obtusely lyrical, and nearly free of plot. Yes, they contain some semblance of story (beautiful story!), and there are movie stars in the mix, but those things are wholly secondary to Malick's defiantly poetic form, in which he's perpetually exploring the truths of nature (both ugly and pleasing, the spiritual and physical) through jaw-dropping imagery, philosophical voice-overs, and his trademark shots of hands brushing through long stalks of grass.

Although we don't know all that much about the tight-lipped Malick, it can be deduced that "The Tree of Life" is his most strikingly personal film to date. Centering on an average family (a whimsical mother [Jessica Chastain], a staunch disciplinarian but loving father [Brad Pitt], and their three young boys - the main one, Jack, played by young Hunter McCracken) based in Texas - not unlike Malick's own childhood. The boys run and play and fight and goof off and get into trouble as such themes as sin, regret, savagery and the plague of human disconnection are explored through this pastiche of the everyday, the commonplace. (Even the Oedipus complex is addressed.)

Meanwhile in the modern day, we find a disgruntled grown-up Jack (Sean Penn) moping through existence, what was once no doubt the sweet life, now tainted by existential angst. His soul is haunted by past family trauma and suppressed unreconciled issues. ("Father, Mother. Always you wrestle inside me. Always you will.") But more than anything, it appears that he simply let life get away from him in favor of materialism and corporate success. It happens so easily. "When did I lose sight of you? When did I lose you?" are the sentiments he internalizes, perhaps prayerfully, perhaps otherwise. It is all so fragmented and puzzle-like that some have admitted to being uncertain which of the three boys Penn is (This is understandable, and forgivable on all counts). Near the end of the film, Penn's character moves about through one of the strangest and most contemplative of sequences put forth in a long while. This ending will prove the breaking point for many; for me, it was more unseen lush greenery.

These freewheeling scenes boldly contrast with the already notorious sequences of no less than the beginning of the universe. Utilizing space telescope footage, micro photography, and beautiful visual effects courtesy of "2001"'s Douglas Trumbull, these daring moments utterly transcend their inherent possibility for pretension in favor of a cinematic beauty and wonder the likes of which we've not seen before. For me, these may be my favorite portions of "The Tree of Life", a film so utterly, fantastically spiritual that it transcends modern conventions of what a film can and should be.

But what truly makes it all work is the obvious and simple dichotomy that Malick presents by crosscutting the seemingly small-scale personal scenes of domestic Americana with the absolute biggest scenes of all possible scenes. Upfront, the issue of grace versus nature is put forth. More to the point, the exploration is one of the nature of grace, and how it relates to the nature of nature. The biggest news of all is that it works. The film works! (And makes you work with it, even as it washes over you.)  Malick has given us one of the most purely personal and audacious works of film art ever put forth on such a scale. The miraculous truly meets the mundane in "The Tree of Life", one of the most purely spiritual films you will ever see.  It is not at all a dry exercise, but rather a wholly emotional, and sometimes-difficult one.  I will say this - it has brought me to tears on more than one occasion.

If you see only one film in the theater this year, it's got to be this one. "The Tree of Life", with its seeming arbitrariness (although I find that accusation not to be valid), whispery voice-overs, and unexplained symbolism, is, quite frankly, not a film to everyone's tastes. I get that. But missing "The Tree of Life" on the big screen would be tantamount to missing Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" on the big screen during its initial run. Even if you're not on board with these filmmakers, you'll want to be able to claim the experience. (And if "The Tree of Life" can claim a spiritual cinematic older sibling, it would likely be "2001".)

Like any great work of metaphysical wonder, multiple viewings are not only rewarding, but essential. This is why so many of the early reviews are scattered and frustrated. And while I can't safely claim that this review hasn't been one of them, I will refrain from any expanded discussion of my interpretation of the film at this juncture. This is one film that will be referenced, debated and discussed for years to come. Like the mythical tree of life itself, of which there are many variations and versions of spanning the course of human history and religions, so too will this film be considered.

Within Christianity, which is the faith most referenced in "The Tree of Life", and which I happen to believe that Malick is speaking about directly and not metaphorically, the tree of life, beginning in the Garden of Eden, is a long-spanning and essential spiritual symbol. Of course, my own thoughts and beliefs notwithstanding, there will be as many interpretations of this film as there are of the legendary tree itself, and in Malick's own quest for the Grand Truth, he is inviting us to consider as many of them as we are inclined to. Filmgoers will likely disagree on the merits and meaning of this film forever, but at the end of the day - the sunset magic hour, if you will - the shrinking pool of exceedingly rare works such as this one remind us that film, as a pure art form, can indeed soar to unknown heights, guide us toward greater understandings, and be truly majestic.

- Jim Tudor