The Tree of Life (2011)

I feel incredibly conflicted over Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life (2011). It is, without question, one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. The theatrical release poster, showcasing a barrage of images from the film, is a fitting marketing tool, as the film's raison d'être is not the story nor the performances by Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, and the children.  The film's being stems from Malick's work with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (who also shot Children of Men) and production designer Jack Fisk (and, in a few sequences, with special effects guru Douglas Trumbull, who designed some of the effects for Tree of Life's formal ancestor, 2001:  A Space Odyssey).  Each shot in the film aims for the sublime (and the film has a lot of shots...I'd love to see a shot by shot analysis, but someone would need to have a lot of time on their hands to put that together) and the formal achievements of the film should not be underestimated.  On the other hand, the vague impressions of plot that Malick attempts to tie the images together with simply does not provide enough narrative momentum to justify the 140 minute running time.  

The plot of the film focuses on the upbringing of three children (Hunter McCracken, Laramie Eppler, and Tye Sheridan) by Mr. (Brad Pitt) and Mrs. (Jessica Chastain) O'Brien in 1950s Texas.  Mr. O'Brien is a hard parent, who the film links with "nature," expecting a lot from his children to justify his own existence.  Mrs. O'Brien is kind and allows the children to be just what they are...children (she is "grace").  At some point in the future, one of the children dies at age nineteen, a death which causes Jack O'Brien (McCracken as a child, Sean Penn as an adult) to contemplate his own existence, God, and the history of the Earth.  

The problem is that Malick, as he did with Days of Heaven (1978), strips the plot and narrative down to a minimalist trickle.  This technique worked better in the former film, as the philosophical questions it posed to the audience were less audacious and the relationships between theme, plot, and running time were functioning in perfect harmony.  This time around, the plot is thinner, the questions are larger, and the whole endeavor becomes bloated.  The form is unable to sustain the philosophical weight placed upon it by Malick.  


A few months back, Sean Penn slightly criticized the film, noting "The screenplay is the most magnificent one that I've ever read but I couldn't find that same emotion on screen....A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact....But it’s a film I recommend, as long as you go in without any preconceived ideas.  It’s up to each person to find their own personal, emotional or spiritual connection to it.  Those that do generally emerge very moved."  Truer words have not been said about the film in my opinion.  There is a profound, aesthetic, beauty at the center of the film.  The cinematography and editing are unparalleled and I hope to see it win several Oscars for those achievements.  The performances are top notch, for what little bit of material they are given...another noteworthy achievement considering the difficulty of working with child actors.  Perhaps The Tree of Life is one of the best films of the year, but that's chiefly because it has been a lackluster year at the cinema.  In the end, it is bested by Malick's earlier efforts, which found the sublime in the intersection of form and content and not simply in the image.