I've never seen a Terence Malick film before seeing The Tree of Life. But, having seen that, I just don't really feel any desire to see another one of his movies. The Tree of Life is one of the most pretentious, overly-ambitious and self-indulgent motion pictures I have ever seen. Interest in the film began a while ago when I saw the trailer, which looked both epic and humble. Then the movie premiered at the Cannes Film Festival to both boos and thunderous applause. Finally, the movie won the Palme d'Or or Best Picture at the festival. Having read some reviews, I was skeptical but willing to be won over.
That didn't happen.
Instead, about fifteen minutes into the movie, I began to check my watch and looking for a way to leave without disturbing anyone who may be enjoying it. I ended up sitting through all 138 minutes of the movie but not without multiple eye-rolls.
The Tree of Life stars Academy Award nominee Brad Pitt, rising star Jessica Chastain and Oscar winner Sean Penn. Written and directed by Malick, the movie attempts to correlate a boy losing his innocence to the creation of the world. The story jumps between 1950s Texas and the 21st century in an unnamed city. Pitt and Chastain play the boy's parents and Penn plays the boy in the present (or is it the future?). Within this loose narrative is an extended sequence that literally depicts how the world began. That's basically the best synopsis I can give you because even I was not sure what was happening on screen.
According to IMDb, the characters do have names but I don't really remember anyone saying them. That's partly because the "dialogue" in this movie is just lot of nonsense monologues that sound more like Bible verses than real human speech. The script is full of voiceovers and metaphors and after a while, it just becomes exhausting. Of course a statement like that is what fans of the movie are going to cite as an example of American stupidity. If it makes me stupid or ignorant to want straightforward dialogue and a clear narrative structure (whether linear, non-linear, whatever), than that's fine. I'm okay with that.
Because at least I'm not getting behind a movie that feature multiple voiceover moments where a character whispers "MOTHER. FATHER. BROTHER." or where the image on screen is a laughably precise and over-composed shot that is supposed to be ripe with symbolism and deep meaning. For example, a butterfly flittering around and then landing on the palm of the angelic Jessica Chastain. I mean, really.
The problem with Malick's composition and visual design is that everything is just so heavy-handed. It's like every little detail is supposed to be sooooo deep and grand! It's like being hit over the head with a shovel. Throughout much of the film, I just wanted to yell out WE GET IT! But social decorum forbids such an outburst.
Also, the characters aren't even real, three-dimensional people but agents of Malick's thesis. That would be all well and good if Malick's thesis was clear and focused. How is the creation of the world connected to this family in Texas and that sad man in the urban setting? And even Malick's depictions of Americana/humanity are cliched and uninspiring. A white middle-class family in 1950s Texas! Three boys! Pretty mom! Stern dad! So unique!
And matters are even worse with Sean Penn's scenes. Malick shows present/future life as a stifling modernity--blank, prison-life skyscrapers and a color scheme of black, white and grey. There is a hilarious scene where Sean Penn wakes up to find what we assume to be an estranged wife sitting at the other end of the bed, staring blankly away from him. Then they just walk around their home. In fact, walking around is basically what people do in this movie.
Or when the characters do anything besides walk around, their actions are dripping in grandiosity. Monotonous occurrences are overblown and exaggerated to Biblical proportions. Really it just reeks of "been there, done that."
And then when it comes to the Creation of the World sequence, that is when the movie is at its most preposterous. Malick hardly makes any connection to the main "narrative." It just seems to come out of nowhere. And then some dinosaurs walk on screen and it's like WHAAAAT?! I don't mind a movie taking some risks but it has to make sense with the rest of the movie. Here it just seems like Malick wants to throw something to the wall but doesn't even care if it sticks. I will say that this sequence looks gorgeous and massive and spectacular. But it seems more National Geographic documentary than cinematic art.
Would I recommend The Tree of Life? All polarizing movies deserve to be seen by those who don't truly mind being frustrated by a film. Even with the aimless direction, intrusive soundtrack, mind-numbing dialogue and missing narrative structure, this movie deserves a chance because who knows? It might just click. And maybe it's ahead of its time? I mean, maybe I'm now misunderstanding this movie the way people misunderstood Vertigo back in 1958.
In all honesty though, I sincerely doubt I'll ever like this movie.
The Tree of Life: C+
No comments:
Post a Comment