THE TREE OF LIFE
Few recent films have generated as much passionate response as Terrence Malick’s THE TREE OF LIFE. Many people think it’s a masterpiece. Others could not disagree more. On the surface it’s the tale of a Texas boy’s journey through childhood. But it’s really a mediation on life and death and the “meaning” of it all. And any film that includes extended scenes of space and of the creation of the universe is bound to trigger a strong response. It has dazzling cinematography and amazing music. But it does not have a conventional story, so be forewarned. This is a “movie theater” movie, though, that’s for sure – it demands to be seen on the big screen. THE TREE OF LIFE is the writer-director Malick’s fifth film and it “stars” Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and Jessica Chastain.
USA – 2 hr, 18 min – Terrence Malick
Reviews | IMDB | Official Site
Pingback: Tree of Life Captures the Birth of the Universe « Renew Movie Blog
Love the county theater, but have to say that this was the worst movie my boyfriend and I have ever seen. Read negative reviews to understand what you’ll really be seeing, as the positive ones are so subjective one must wonder what the people are on.
I also left a horrible review, but I see it did not get published. Sorry Mr. Toner, but the Tree of Life is terrible — maybe after the film leaves you will run my comment. Sorry if it diminishes attendance, but really, this film is not worthy of the time or cost to see.
Mr. Gold – Your comments did get posted, but it is on a different post. I have pasted your thoughts below so they are part of this thread.
**************************************************************
One of the reasons I like to view films in theater is because it is a group experience. The audience helps one know when to laugh, when to cry, when to applaud, and so on. I might not be exact in the statistic, but I venture to say that at least 80% of the audience the night I saw “Tree of Life” was wishing the film would end soon. Much, much sooner than it did! Don’t get me wrong, we are all film buffs and we saw the film at the Ambler Theater, among a majority of film buffs. All around us there were comments, “when is this ever going to end???!!!” Ok, the acting was good, but the story line (whatever it was) and the imagery, c’mon Terry, it was just too, too much! How this film warranted four stars is a mystery to me … and everyone around me. We wanted to like it, really, but it qualifies for the all-time worst “four-star” film we have seen since the Ambler opened and we became members. See “Midnight in Paris” twice, rather than invest your time and money in this film.
My husband and I were both disliked Tree of Life. Despite the negative reviews, we went to see it and wished we hadn’t. Brad Pitt … we want our money back.
Pingback: The Best Movie You’ve Ever Walked Out On: The Tree of Life’s Polarizing Effect « Renew Movie Blog
I have to agree with Ilona – my husband and I, walking out after a LONG 2hrs and 18 mins, simultaneously commented that this is possibly the worst film we have ever seen. We see most films that come to the County and are seldom disappointed and love the variety, but this film….well, to quote my husband, “I just felt stupid the whole time for sitting through it wondering when it was going to get better.” I came home and read reviews to try to understand what I was missing and why I saw literally no point in the film — only to be further flummoxed by those! As a child of the 50′s, it was charming to relive the simplicity of the era in household life and, as Roger Ebert said, the long idleness we experienced in our childhoods and the world of open windows and running through the neighborhood, but I’m still trying to connect the dots in this film. Love shots from Hubble, love Jurassic Park scenery with dinosaurs, explosions are totally awesome up close, but exactly how do these fit into the movie? Obviously this escapes my basic intellect – if this is a masterpiece, it was way too high-brow for me.
The Tree of Life isn’t for everyone. Obviously. I can absolutely understand why some (most?) people don’t like it. I did, though, want to go on the record as saying it is by far my favorite movie of the year, and I believe has cracked my Top 10 of all time. I can’t stop thinking about it, reading about it, and remembering it. You might want to call me a film snob or something, but I swear I’m not (my second favorite movie of last year was How to Train Your Dragon, for crying out loud). I think it will either touch something in you fundamentally or you will think it is slow and pretentious. Possibly even both! But I felt compelled to show it some love on here, just so people don’t think there is unanimous disdain for it.
I feel I must provide some quantitative and qualitative detail to my partner’s and my disgust with this film. Ten of the eleven people who went to see it with us didn’t like it. One liked the images. At the end of the movie, when we stood up and turned around, most of the audience had this shell shocked appearance to their faces, much of like how we felt during the film. I feared I would leave the film with that awful look (I know I had it for two hours) frozen to my face, as adults used to threaten would happen when I was a child!
The awful look came from the fact that nothing made sense or felt connected. While I love psychological dramas and do not shy away from abuse films that may make me feel uncomfortable, I could not understand why I had to be subjected to so many clips of Brad Pitt emotionally, mentally and then physically abusing his family without end and without any resolution under the pretense of “grace” vs. “nature”. It was overkill and so were the supposed creation images which also did not flow; they just stuck out of context to the rest of the film. This film went against the general basics of writing or telling a good story. (See below)
We are both big film buffs and can watch almost any genre from silent films and the classics to The Goodfellas to Amelie to even Hedwig and the Angry Inch! which stretches it a bit far! We can admit when a movie is produced, edited and written well, but perhaps doesn’t interest us personally. .. I could go on for pages about all the things wrong with this film. However, I will settle upon the biggest most blatant problem which is that it does not represent what the trailers or descriptions imply, and that is why people feel ripped off during and still days after seeing the film. The following does not happen, “But it’s really a mediation on life and death and the “meaning” of it all” as the top site description post on this site page implies.
There is no character development of Sean Penn’s character as implied by the trailer and the Fox searchlight description on rottentomatoes.com stating, “The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.”
Tries to reconcile????? – there were merely only cameo shots of Sean Penn with a stupid smirk, wacky gelled up hairstyles which changed in every take, a confused look or smile on his face while wandering around and he does not “interact” with his father in any sense. (The wandering around at the end with all the characters is not interaction, but only led to more confusion by the other guests who attended the film with us – as in no explanation of how he meets up with himself as a child?) As my Brit friends would say, “Total Rubbish!” No interaction, no conversational scenes, no scenes displaying character behavior or growth of any kind on the part of the adult son reconciling or seeking existence of anything . Seeking answers?? He spoke less than 10 words if that! If you’re seeking answers, one must at least ask questions! (or at least be depicted as actively watching, listening, etc. of something going on.)
As far as that Fox searchlight description (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_tree_of_life_2011/) also stating, “Through Malick’s signature imagery, we see how both brute nature and spiritual grace shape not only our lives as individuals and families, but all life.” There was no depiction of how nature and spiritual grace shape our lives, let alone all life; there were only two hours of disconnected pieces of abstract photography and clips of an abusive father and a disconnected, quiet mother, with no storyline including the basics of good writing.
Here’s what I learned in high school and college on how a good story is compiled. See http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Short-Story for details
Steps to a good short story are:
Introduction (Introduces characters, setting, time, etc.)
Initiating Action (The point of a story that starts the rising action)
Rising Action (Events leading up to the climax/turning point)
Climax (The most intense point of the story/the turning point of the story)
Falling Action (your story begins to conclude)
Resolution/Conclusion (a satisfying ending to the story in which the central conflict is resolved – or not -)
Bottom Line: The movie trailers and descriptions suggest this and do not deliver.
Like an earlier poster, I thought about leaving the screening room to see Midnight in Paris again. I was thirsting for a plot. Some people did, but then the live actors returned and I thought I’d give it another try. I left the theater shaking my head in disbelief and feeling like I was duped.
I wholeheartedly agree with B. Gold’s comments. In fact, this person’s posting could have been the same words I used to express my reaction to this movie. Tree of Life could not end early enough for me. I found the imagery not related to what I was seeing and much too overdone. I would have loved to get my money back for this movie – I was so looking forward to the 4 star film which disappointed me so much and ruined my evening.
I agree with Shane, so I also need “to show it some love here.” This is a dazzlingly made film that is not afraid to contemplate the big issues of love and death and the creation of the universe. And it’s a beautiful tone poem about childhood and family and America in the fifties. Does it have a normal linear storyline? No. Does it take a few false steps? Yes. But the creative impulse is so nakedly honest that they were easy to overlook (the beach scenes didn’t work for me at all, for example). Overall, though, it’s a beautiful and powerful work of cinema art. To me this film is more like a Beethoven symphony and less like a normal movie. Take Symphony No 5 – now there’s a pretentious bit of business where nothing really happens, right? Well, The Tree of Life may not be Beethoven, but it’s pretty amazing stuff in its own right!
I am a manager at the County Theater and I have to say I was not surprised by the negative reactions we have gotten from some people about Tree Of Life(We’ve had plenty of positive ones too don’t get me wrong). It certainly is not a film for everyone. I personally loved it, it was elegant, moving, and challenging. Like Shane said above I’ve found myself ruminating on it each day since I’ve seen it. I found it refreshing because it truly strives to be something. It is handled with so much care, and that is something I think you will find missing in a lot of film today. It isn’t happy to simply ‘run the course’ taking its viewer from point A to point B to point C, it engages you in a different sense. It asks you to allow yourself to be taken in, to experience it and not just watch. Films like Tree Of Life are harder to come by these days because most people are afraid to even try making them. So I would say to anyone who really did not enjoy the film, at least consider the effort and the bravery it takes to attempt something like it.
I and the people who accompanied me loved this film. It was beautifully, intelligently, and masterfully rendered. It was also extremely deep, without being the least bit pedantic. The director leaves interpretation up to the viewer. My wife and I are still pondering it’s ramifications three days after seeing it. That being said, it is a very unconventional film – not your typical narrative plot structure – so if you want light and fluffy summer entertainment, you are probably going to react the way those who could not open to the film’s style did. They either left early or complained when it was over. Before you go, read the review from Salon.com. I think it appeared on Saturday or Sunday. I don’t think the reviewer’s interpretation is the same as mine (especially on the last scene), but he loved it too. If you love unconventional film, you will love this movie.
My mate and I had been anticipating this film since first hearing of it. After seeing it on Sunday, we were both left bewildered and disappointed. Although the imagery was beautifully shot, the characters weren’t given any depth. I couldn’t get my arms around who they were or why they did the things they did. There was no cohesiveness to the film. It was a blatant attempt at art with no artistry and it asked the audience to fill in the gaping holes. A bunch of random images a a few undelveloped characters does not a great movie make!
Obviously I am in the minority here, and somewhat also among my theater mates the evening I viewed the film; but, I thought The Tree of Life was profoundly moving, deeply symbolic, and visually stunning. It engaged me thoroughly every minute…I was emotionally wrought throughout the movie and afterward at the myriad spiritual conflicts and the supporting visual symbolism which accompanied those struggles from several characters. I was intrigued by the honest nuanced treatment of complicated real relationships between spouses, siblings, community, birth order, gender and the inescapable influences of time and place of development. I was fascinated by the polarity of life essences of each parent and how that influenced each character. I appreciated the exploration of loss of a deeply connected love one. I found rhythm, repetition of theme, idea development and reason for the iconographies used. It was a social scientist’s (which I am not) dream in it’s portrayal of the aptly named “Tree of Life”.
I saw both “Tree of Life” and “Midnight in Paris” at the County last week.
Loved both–and even saw a common thread: while neither is produced in “WOW!”3-D technology, both are skillfully presented in FOUR DIMENSIONS– experimenting with and carefully, attentively “fondling” time–each appreciating in its own way the amazing, flexible fourth dimension. I say it’s time (so to speak) we get used to that…. After all, c’est la vie.
PRETENTIOUS AND BORING. I WOULD HAVE WALKED OUT BUT I WAS SURE IT WAS GOING TO GET BETTER SINCE IT WAS A MALLICK FILM. UNFORTUNATELY I WAS WRONG.
I think it would have been a much better movie if they had chopped out the 30 minute solar flare, tar pit, dinosaur part with lovely music and made that into a nice IMAX short. The movie was long, and strange. I say see Midnight in Paris, see anything, but don’t waste your money on this wannabe classic.
My wife and I expected to see an excellent movie(according to the critics), but we found ourselves impatiently hoping it would either end or take an abrupt turn for the better. Unfortunately, that turn for the better never happened. We were very relieved when it finally ended.
We found it to be pretentious and overly “artsy” We are sorry that we wasted our evening.
Great film….not linear and therefore not for everybody. Gorgeous and glorious. This film tackles the big stuff….relationships, the existence of god, who are we and why are we here, etc. There are resolutions in this film if you pay attention…..the family dynamics are resolved…..words like forgiveness and love are spoken. Loved it….it is a film for the ages. I find Kubrick’s, 2001 A Space Odyssey….way more obscure and that film is considered a classic.
I thought the film was okay. It could actually stand to be a little longer in my opinion and it would have probably done what so many people seem to want. Oh well. I thought the dinosaur scene was the worst in the movie, but found most of the other visuals appealing. The film reminded me of things from my own life and the way it is to try to understand the world around you from a young age, how you are almost forced to act or think about things before you can really make any choices at all. I mean this about both the domestic situation and religious ideas, as well. The film actually reminded me even more of my fathers childhood, at least what I have been told of it, which makes sense given the time period. The scene with the kids cooling off in the D.D.T spray most of all. I guess you either get or you don’t. I just find it so boring that everyone wants everything so linear and tied up with a bow. Life is certainly not like that.
I’ve not yet seen the movie, but I am ever more intrigued due to the negative reviews that seem focused on the lack of a strong, traditional narrative flow. As a teacher and English major, I know very well the moves of the traditional narrative. And sure, Francis, you’re right…the outline you provide of what you learned about the short story in high school is correct…but I’d argue that what you provide is not the narrative flow of a “good short story”, it’s the flow of a “traditional short story.” But Antonia is right. This film seems to be playing with the fourth dimension in a way that is as intriguing to me as it is infuriating to most everyone else. But then, I’ve seen ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND at least 10 times, pleasantly puzzling over the non-traditional narrative of that movie and even more so by the fact that it is overt in its assertion that nothing about how the mind works and how memory is created is ever as linear as a traditional narrative.
I can’t wait to see Tree of Life.
My wife and I saw Tree of Life over the weekend in Ambler and we were bewildered and very disappointed. Unlike several of the patrons around us – we did not try to get out money back, but we did feel like it was a waste of a movie outing. It would have been a big help to many to have heard an honest review of the film – in this case we felt we were stuck in a “buyer beware” situation. So to add the the drumbeat of negative reaction to this film – this was a very shallow, pretentious film. The only thought this film provoked in me was that I did not need this film or its director for me to consider living a life by “nature” or by “faith” and I thank God for that.
have to agree it had to be one of the worst films I have seen in a long time. My friend and I went figuring it would have 2 good actors never realzing it was like a cameo appearance. Everyone around us felt the same way.
Read the comments>>>Chris…I have GOT TO SEE this film.
Saturday…Steve
Because I left the County Theater hoping The Tree of Life would be held over another week so I could go back again, thinking it perhaps the most beautiful movie I’d ever seen, I’m amazed to read so many negative reactions to it. This movie is one of those truly rare works of art that actually grapples with the biggest of all human subjects, human life itself, seen in the greater context of the dawning of the world, its turbulent evolution, the terrible, cruel and luminous beauty of nature, and humankind’s hope for grace without which “unaccommodated man” as mad King Lear saw with terrible clarity, is purposeless.
Worlds collide, volcanoes erupt, milennia pass, and the movie comes to earth to tell the simple story of three boys growing up in one very specific middle-class white family in Waco, Texas, in the 1950s and 60s. Terrence Malick comes from Waco so the film is almost certainly autobiographical, at least with respect to time and place and what Malick so perfectly remembers of his own awakening to the wonder, mystery, pain and confusion of life. All of this is done with great delicacy and beauty. The story continues where the movie begins, with the griefstricken mother’s search to comprehend the meaning of life, to find grace, on receiving news of the death of one of her sons; it goes on to show the eldest brother’s inability to reconcile his own sense of loss as he goes up and down in the unnatural city of glass and steel where he lives, himself the same age now as his mother was when she got the terrible telegram.
One writer has objected to the fact that this movie has no traditional beginning, middle or end, and she’s right, it doesn’t, but this isn’t a traditional movie, it’s about time as much as it’s about nature and grace, and who’s to say that time has a beginning, middle or end either. As the scene on the beach will demonstrate toward the (movie’s) end, all things in time may be happening at the same time, so that middle-aged Sean Penn can meet his mother when she’s still young, and she herself can meet the child she lost. (At least that’s a possible explanation for that heartbreaking scene, and it certainly worked for me).
The truth is, though, that the movie does have a beginning; it starts with a human end: the arrival of a telegram informing a mother of the death of her son. Everything in the film proceeds from that cosmologically insignificant, enormously human event.
While I can understand that this movie may not be to everybody’s taste, I’m stunned that so many intelligent people should be so dismissive of it. The Tree of Life is not the daring effort of a young man out to shock the bourgeoisie, but a carefully constructed, beautifully conceived work made by a mature artist who’s put a lifetime of thought into it. Whatever our own preconceived ideas of what we expect from a film, and whether or not we believe that Malick succeeded in what he was trying to do, as opposed to what we think he should have done, we owe him a deep measure of respect for his effort. I personally think he succeeded magnificently.
THE TREE OF LIFE is one of the worst movies I have ever watched. It is slow, boring, and unrealistic. I feel sorry for any family who lives their life the way this family did; horrible. Go see this movie if you want to get depressed, and waste 138 minutes of your life.
While I can understand why people would respond negatively to “Tree of Life,” for those who can put together apparent narrative incoherence on their own (imagine why the director might be including the material he/she does and in the order he/she does), the movie makes much sense, as many reviewers have written.
Malick inserts an apparently somewhat autobiogrpahical story of his growing up in Texas into the cosmic context of the history of the universe. I admit, shots of fake glowing nebular clouds, Martian landscapes, roiling waves, and beautifully realistic shots of dinosaurs don’t immediately add up. But once one realizes Malick has framed his story of the O’Brien’s inside the history of the universe, and ends that story with a scene in an imagined afterlife of the dead brother and the O’Brien family, then it makes sense. And no one can deny the film is beautiful to look at. Malick captures a very believable 1950′s Texas, and it’s always fun to look at scenes of boiling suns, galaxies, the earth before life existed, and of course, the many, many underwater scenes.
It seems that the folks who walked out didn’t use their imaginations much, I’d say. They didn’t seem willing to expend a little effort to try to figure out what Malick was trying to communicate. Had they read even one review before going to see the film, they would have known what they were in for, or should have. If they went to the film only because Pitt and Penn were in it, then of course, they got something they didn’t expect. (Pitt produced it, and Malick has used Penn before, so presumably they both believe in Malick’s work.)
Watching a Malick film is like reading a poem that you don’t fully understand immediately; most films are like reading a contemporary novel, that is, easily digested the first time and then safely ignored once one’s easily sucked all the pleasure out of it. The fault here is not in the film; it’s in the poorly prepared and, perhaps mentally lazy viewers. They should exercise their imaginative muscles–develop some filmgoing chops–by seeing some Bergman, Fellini, Antonioni, or Godard films. Then they might be able to stomach Malick, who’s not so great as those directors, but is ambitious like them, in his perhaps clunky way. Or they could try “Days of Heaven,” and “The Thin Red Line,” other Malick films perhaps more easily accessible.
I must admit, those beautiful dinosaurs were hard to take. The point of them, beyond their being part of Malick’s potted evolutionary history of the development of life on the planet, I think, was to show the aggressive dinosaur showing mercy to the smaller one, perhaps not unlike the boy Jack’s later showing mercy and kindness to his younger brother.
One would have to have a heart of stone not be moved by the afterlife scene, in which Sean Penn sees his family as he remembers them as a child, reunited, happy, and watches his mother release his now dead younger brother, not happily, of course, but resignedly and with some hope and optimisn, into the light of heaven, or the great beyond. That scene, which veers into the inane at moments, is a daring attempt to express the adult Jack/Penn’s coming to terms with his brother’s death (suicide?) at 19 by imagining his mother’s being able to let the brother go. And, of course, it’s the scene is beautiful to look at. Shot in a salt flat somewhere out West, it’s the culminating scene of the adult Jack wandering in the desert and represents his own acceptance of the brother’s death. Since he’s surrounded by everyone in his family, it’s an emotional and psychological reunion of sorts. Perhaps one has had to have lost family members oneself to appreciate Malick’s ambitious attempt to render a psychological and emotional process visually. It’s not Dante or Milton, of course, but it’s not too shabby, as far as movie renderings of human realities go.
Two cheers for Malick. May he go on to make more filmic poems. I’ll always be glad to see them, as will many others. Those who don’t will miss out, whether they know it or not or care. And those who dump on him need to learn not to project their own failings onto the filmmaker.
These two threads are so related, I felt the need to post in each : )
The Tree of Life is certainly not a film for everyone and I am not surprised that some people are frustrated by it. What is disheartening is that so many film lovers seem to feel films have an obligation to entertain and that an “arthouse” theater has an obligation to program films everyone would like. You certainly would not ask a museum for a refund because you liked their Renoir exhibit, but hate Picasso. We’re so fortunate to have a resource like Renew Theaters in our area. If they are going to bring variety to our theater experience, we need accept that EVERYONE will not like EVERY film. To huff and make noise during or after a screening is no different than a teenager texting – it’s disrespectful to those around us and to an artform I think we all love.
While I do not think The Tree of Life is perfect, I found it to be beautiful. I think it’s great for some films to be less like short stories and more like poems – moments rhyme, the rhythm breaks from a clear narrative spine, but because of this it can surprise us and paint a different kind of picture. I think it is fine if the film does not fall into one’s personal taste, but it is undoubtably thoughtful and well-crafted. The fact that the spiral shapes swimming millions of years ago and the spiral shapes the father is trying to patent are one and the same is a great example. Each shot lasts barely two seconds, an hour apart. The swimming organisms had to be designed, created by an FX house, revised and the same with the Father’s artwork. We can think it’s pretentious, but I also think it’s OK for a filmmaker to say -” I’m not explaining this to you, but it’s important to me. You can’t be passive here. This is a puzzle and you have to work a bit.” It’s not as entertaining, but we can be rewarded.
Someone mentioned Solaris, and at the risk of sounding even more pretentious, I wanted to share a Tarkovsky quote I always loved. I don’t agree that art can or must do any one thing, but this is a beautiful thing to aspire to (either from a secular standpoint or spiritual one): “The allotted function of art is not, as is often presumed, propagate thoughts, to put across ideas, to serve as an example. The purpose of art is to prepare a person for death; to plough and harrow the soul and render it capable of turning to good.”
I loved The Thin Red line in the theater. But it hits me more deeply today, after several viewings, because it does break form and it takes time to understand what it’s trying to do. Now, when watching the film alone, at home, at 2AM, I’ve started crying at times because a line that meant nothing then resonates now. I think the tree of life aims to trigger the audience’s own memories – “remember that time you did something you were ashamed of, or hugged your sibling, or that great day you had in fifth grade running outside in the neighborhood? Remember the best parts of you? The loving parts of you? The excitement you have that is unique to childhood, and the fears too? How can we hold on to that? How can we enjoy each moment and be the best version of ourselves?”
This may all sound silly, but my point is that films that break form can actually be fun to dive into. You certainly have to adjust expectations, but the dialog with a film is pretty cool when it asks you to participate. Thanks to John and The County for bringing it to our area.
Unlike Bob, I am not at all surprised by the positive or negative reactions to this tripe. I am, however, baffled by the examples that some proponents have used on this website. JToner–Beethoven’s Fifth exists within a very tightly-constrained structure. It follows, in a sense, a strict musical “storyline;” it contains several classical symphonic forms with minor variations, and it is within those variations that the spark and the beauty shines against the backdrop of rhythm, familiarity, and formula. It is astonishing and hilarious to see you pass that masterpiece off as “a pretentious bit of business where nothing really happens,” while praising this terrible movie that really does not follow any kind of structure at all.
Then there’s Eternal Sunshine. Garreth, that movie had an extremely well-defined structure. The timeline of the out-of-dreams “real” world was strictly linear, while the in-dreams world consisted of two parts, unreal fantasy and deeply-entrenched memory. In every instance, the order of events was very clear, and most of Joel’s travels through his own memory occurred in a very straightforward A-B-C (or C-B-A, with the occasional obviously-disconnected point D thrown in, e.g. Baby Joel).
This movie was absolutely irredeemably awful, and I could talk about every single aspect, but I’ve already taken up too much space, so let’s just focus on one that I haven’t seen ragged on yet: grace.
In the beginning of the movie, the Present Time Mom (PTM, we’ll call her, since she doesn’t have a name) is angry at God and the Universe for taking her son. She whispers (a highly irritating and thematically vapid technique that his grotesquely overdone, incidentally) things like, “why me?” “I always obeyed your will.” “What are we to you?” “Answer me!”
To anyone who has ever suffered a loss (that is, every single human being), these demands of Fate are at once familiar and off-putting, endearing and pathetic. They are inherently selfish questions; the asker assumes that she knows the right way to live, that she has done no wrong, that the universe makes decisions based on her actions, etc. etc. They are the questions a child would ask after skinning his knee for the first time. They are not the questions that an adult woman with any intelligence, strength, or spirituality would ask (unless, of course, that adult woman lived an idyllic fantasy life in a beautiful home and had never suffered before… like Mrs. Nameless).
PTM, then, is graceless, both in the sense that she exhibits hubris toward God and in the sense that she is an utterly unlikable inhuman non-character who has never lost anything before and has not learned the coping mechanisms that every other person in the world had picked up by age 5.
After about 30 minutes of whispering, crying, Dutch angles, and disconnected images of leaves, PTM disappears. Oh, sure, the Mom is still a character, but the Present Time Mom (the Mom grieving the loss of her son) leaves the movie entirely. We see her at the end of the movie on Heaven Memory Beach, where she says (paraphrasing!), “I submit myself to you. I give up my son to you.”
There are two crucial points here: 1. because we never see PTM again before this final nauseating, prosaic, meaningless beach scene, we have no idea what changed her mind. Any answer she gets from God takes place off-screen, we spend the bulk of the non-idiotic section (that is, the part without stars/bacteria/dinosaurs) in the memory of the eldest son. PTM is nowhere to be found. How does she go from cursing her fate and demanding answers from the Universe to her statements in the ending? This is a VITAL QUESTION–IT IS THE CORE OF THE STORY. You cannot say “we’re meant to figure that out for ourselves” anymore than you can say “A Few Good Men would have been a better film if they cut out all that stuff about the trial and the main character’s father.”
Point 2 is the ironic point, the Fridge Logic that crumbles the entire ending–namely, even in the final moments, PTM gets it wrong. She says, *I* *CHOOSE* to submit to fate, *I* decide to *GIVE* my son to you. Whatever changed her mind, her outlook is still fatally selfish. The entire movie is about the cosmic insignificance of suffering vs. the intensity of human emotion and individual pain, and yet PTM still addresses God as if SHE chooses, as if SHE decides, as if SHE matters. She still utterly lacks grace, even as heretofore unheard-of sexy angels caress her under cliche white light.
I’d love to go on about this disaster forever, but I’m a guest here, so I’ll pipe down. Please, somebody else, pick up the torch. May I recommend discussing the failed symbolism? It’s almost as if the hacks who slapped this together got together and said, “Hey, what’s symbolic? How about random and inexplicable dino violence? Wait, wait, that’s terrible. I know, MASKS! What, we’ve never used masks anywhere else in the film–shut up! Who cares! Somebody give me a CGI mask falling into the ocean. So deep, I’m a genius. Now, what else, oh, I KNOW–slow-mo running through 900 identical grassy fields! SO DEEP! I’M A GENIUS!!!”
I love the passion of these posts. That’s one of the things I like about The Tree of Life – since it goes for broke and ventures beyond normal movie expectations, it engenders VERY strong reactions.
People seem to have serious objections to the fact that the film is non-narrative and has a very loose structure. But what can be gained by that? Unpredictability. The human story and the cosmic and spiritual elements in the film interact in odd, offbeat rhythms. Their introduction and presentation and duration are idiosyncratic and personal. The story gets big and then small and then philosophical and then observational. All swirling around the loose themes of life and death and meaning. Does it all work? No. Does it offer a single coherent message? I don’t think so. There are more questions than answers. And some false steps. But the journey is fascinating. And exciting. And thought provoking.
And, at the very least, The Tree of Life is a work of art. A serious work of cinematic art. Even if we didn’t actually know that Terrence Malick is a super-earnest, painstakingly-dedicated filmmaker, the tone of this film radiates sincerity.
Is it the worst movie you’ve ever seen? Maybe. But in a world where Transformers, Horrible Bosses, and Zookeeper are currently the top three films, I assume by “worst”, people mean “disappointing.” And when people say “disgust”, “rubbish”, “literally no point”, “the hacks who slapped this together”, and “absolutely irredeemably awful”, they are enjoying the pleasures of hyperbole.
I love hyperbole, too. In fact, I think that The Tree of Life is BETTER than Beethoven’s Symphony 5! (I mean, dude!, Ludwig couldn’t even decide what key the damn thing was in, man.)
Or put another way: The Tree of Life is a magnificent, beautiful, inspiring, insightful, crazy mess of a wonderful movie.
Love the posts. Keep them coming.
Saw this film in 35 mm print at the Ritz East with two friends. One said he didn’t understand it. One hated it. As for me, I believe this is one of the best films I have ever seen. Going to the Ambler tomorrow, and am very disappointed to see the negative comments from Ambler viewers. You call yourselves film buffs? This film is a great piece of work which captures the minutia of the thoughts that together form our larger memories and concepts of life. It is a look forward and back at what makes us. It is a journey of the mind– not in order, but are any of our thoughts confined to a prescribed order? A great film will leave you thinking and talking about it long after you leave the theater. This film has major impact and, I believe, falls legitimately in the great category.
It has come to my attention through observations on this site and other Tree of Life review sites on the web:
95% of those who disliked even hated the movie, state why they didn’t like the movie and let it go at that.
95% of those who liked the movie, state why they like the movie and let it go at that.
Some on both sides of the fence really cannot understand those on the other side!
While about 75% of those who really loved the movie, state why they liked the movie and then commence to insult those who didn’t.
Insults such as, being unimaginative, ignorant, clueless, not a film buff and the best one not being as intelligent as those who liked the film. Really, just because those who didn’t like the film didn’t agree with you on this one film!!! When one reduces oneself to insulting others because they don’t share the same opinion of a “movie”!!! Fill in the disconnected gap here about what kind of unresolved emotions this film has brought out in you!!
Just perhaps those who didn’t like the film were intelligent and clued in enough to take the agitation/discomfort the film’s content caused them back onto the film itself where it belongs, but the insulting commenters seem to take out a passive/aggressive attack on other people for having been able to see something they didn’t in the film!
This intimidating behavior in itself is very pretentious. Maybe, just maybe, this explains why those condescending commenters can’t even begin to see the pretentiousness many others find in the film, because they have the same off-putting trait as the movie!
The last comment from John stating that “75% of those who really loved the movie (ie, TREE), state why they liked the movie and then commence to insult those who didn’t” is clearly not talking about this blog.
I don’t see ANY insults from either side at our little site. Just a disagreement about whether TREE is good, bad or indifferent.
But no insults.
I wished I had stayed home and watched the National Geographic Channel instead, it could had saved me some money and 2 hrs and 18 mins that I wasted watching this nonsensical movie.
Hahahahaha. Sure. Sure. No insults. Don’t want to hurt nobody’s feelings.
No way. No! These troubled times call for honesty, for courage, for straight talk. And for speaking truth to power. Stop beating around the bush. Just say it:
The people who don’t like The Tree of Life are just dopes.
Bingo!
Now, doesn’t that feel better? Hahahahaha.
We attended the film with optimism and open minds. Sorry to say that we were horribly disappointed. It is a heavy handed religious film and if you do not subscribe to the doctrine it is difficult to endure. We were never so happy to see the end of a film – and celebrated the fresh air outside the theater.
BBenjamin,
So you’ve partially proved my point as well as missed another point. Eternal Sunshine is not a traditional narrative. Your astute explication of the narrative as being of two parts (dream and “real”) simply feeds my argument that it’s not a traditional narrative. As well, your description of Joel’s memory travels as A-B-C or C-B-A (with the occasional D thrown in…)? First, perhaps with the exception of the A-B-C movement, and then only within the alternate narrative line of the memory travels…perhaps that is a traditional movement. But look at how much work you had to do to get there. On the narrative scale that most people come to a movie with, that’s just not traditional. But aside from that I think you’ve missed the entire concept that memory itself is not linear, and the structure of the movie makes an overt attempt to make this clear in almost every way it can–non-traditional narrative, the ridiculously amateur/low-tech machinery used to track and “kill” Joel’s memories.
I’ll not argue that there are two narrative thrust in the movie, as you describe, and that within each there are kernels of traditional structure. (Sure, go to the microcosm and you’re bound to find motifs that riff off of the traditional. Symphonies move similarly, as I think you noted.) But at the macro level, the movie moves entirely differently than a traditional, chronologically linear narrative.
Of course, you seem so cocksure of your aesthetic criticism, especially as regard Tree of Life–”May I recommend discussing the failed symbolism.” (“Oh yes!, Can we, please? I’ll sit back and listen to you pontificate. I find it/you utterly enthralling.”–maybe I’ll just wait until you come out with a superior movie to Tree of Life. Obviously your’s will be better.
I’m still looking forward to the symphonic, cinematic, synesthetic beauty of Tree of Life.
A beautiful masterpiece! One of the most meaningful films my husband and I have ever seen in our 50 adult years of moviegoing. If you are into linear concrete story lines then this is not for you. However, if you can go with the flow, then the beauty of this slow paced family drama is profound and exciting.
Seen mainly through the eyes of a 12 yr. old boy we can witness a moving documentary of 1950′s family life in a small (Texas) town. Tree Of Life is a film about memory- free flowing memory . Few words are spoken. All the relational dynamics are in the action.
I was disappointed when this fine film ended.
I thought it was gorgeous, one of the most moving and memorable movies I’ve ever seen. I’m looking here because I want to see it a second time and bring more people. I will probably see it a few times in a theater (and I can’t remember the last time I did that). Thanks for showing it!
I can not believe that the paper’s review said “SEE IT”..Maybe that was to show what a REALLY BAD movie looks like..My boyfriend and I not only hated it but both agreed that it was the worst movie that I have ever seen (worst than Howard the Duck”..you need one of those books to tell you WHAT is going on, plus you could not hear what was being said…and finally you just didn’t care…don’t waste your money. I just wish that I had read these reviews before I went.
In a previous comment I wrote that this was probably the worst 4-star film I had seen at the Ambler since it opened. But, after reading the positive comments, I had an Aha moment. Show up stoned and you might like the film!!!!
I prepared myself for this movie knowing I wanted to see it in my own space & on the big screen, so the 1pm matinee was perfect. Heard the reviews, listened to 2 family members, and 1 friend tell me they disliked the movie. One called it “really bad art”. So with all the hub bub haters, those that said they wouldn’t recommend it, & dislikers, I knew I HAD to see it. IMO perhaps they were missing something. Since I live in an open mind I knew that the this quality would suit me fine for the movie’s space.
I loved it… and so much that I will return again to see it. There is too much in it that was I missed…words that were said softly (purposely), or fading that I think were important enough to the meat of the movie to be not be heard. The content in this film was deep, hugely meaningful, and so big that I think it either scared people or they simply couldn’t go there.
I said to a friend that I knew would appreciate hearing my idea of the movie, “it occurred to me that one ought to view this film with their subconscious mind”. The conscious, linear mind cannot put this together, therefore, maybe this is why the haters stood their ground. Perhaps this crowd and the crowd that walked out have not evolved in their soul journey to even consider allowing such a theme in. I’ll stop there in my philosophizing.
To the above comments this exemplifies what a large percentage of my fellow humans are like: “I was sorry that I did not give my money to Owen Wilson” or “this film ruined my night” and “I left the theater shaking my head in disbelief”… this film is way beyond the possible perception of anyone who needs something to grab onto that will add to their dumbed down pleasure so that you can leave the theater feeling like you got your money’s worth. Stay home and watch your reality shows, root for your favorite baseball team, drink your Red Bull and talk to each other about the same old, same old stuff and call that “life”.
But if you live in an open mind, are not one of the walking dead who dumb and numb themselves on a daily basis then GO.
I’ll return with that friend that ‘gets it’ to see it again!
I can’t wait!
A great cast but the worst movie and a waste of our time. The first 20 minutes of the ocean in bright colors put my husband to sleep. I was very bored. There was a LOT of religion in the movie. I like to be entertained; I don’t want to sit there trying to understand the religious meaning of each scene. This was NOT entertaining. 4 STARS?
A waste of time and money.
Wow! Above is a another perfect example of my post above re: attacks on others who didn’t like the film. Note: The statements provided on behalf of those who didn’t like the movie were not negatively directed at those who liked the movie. E.g. “film ruined my night”, “shaking my head in disbelief”, etc.
The personally insulting barrage against those that liked Tree of Life that follows, e.g., “way beyond the possible perception”, “haters”, “watch your reality shows, root for your favorite baseball team, drink your Red Bull and talk to each other about the same old, same old stuff and call that “life.” “If you live in an open mind” If you “are not one of the walking dead who dumb and numb themselves on a daily basis then GO”.
I don’t do any of the above things and do have an open mind. I have above average intelligence, and I am an avid film buff. I love deep and engrossing movies and mindbending, mysteries of life. I just don’t have to agree with you on this movie, and I resent the bullying of anyone who didn’t for whatever reason they didn’t. Can’t we all just agree to disagree and stick to reviewing the qualities of THE FILM! instead of putting down those who didn’t like it??
Intelligent people can have different likes and dislikes without having a closed or numbed mind, did ya know?! Its called difference of opinion! Some “might” say that those who enjoyed the movie had a numbed mind, etc. etc.! Not nice; gets us nowhere, makes people more upset. Members and guests of the County should feel safe here. So, let’s cut out the demeaning remarks on others, huh?
I just read the comments here before posting, and I have to agree with John, and appreciate his courage at trying to keep this review site safe for opposite viewpoints.
My boyfriend and I would consider ourselves film buffs. His degree, career and life has been actively and passively involved with art, music and film production. When we disagree with each other on why we liked or disliked a movie, we don’t resort to insulting each other. It wouldn’t make us feel safe to express our views in the future, so I wish it would stop here online as well. Even if one feels it is only a general stab in the dark at the opposition, let’s keep it about the movie itself, so that those who didn’t like a film could feel safe in discussing why they don’t. Otherwise, the proportion of comments will end up one-sided, and viewers will not get a fair representation of what other local audience members think!
When my boyfriend and I disagree, we actually dig more info from each other in an effort to understand the person’s opposing reason. This would to me, be more demonstrative of an “open mind”, than just assuming or accusing the other of being shallow, clueless or unimaginative. By asking questions and listening, we learn more than by accusing.
Personally, we disliked Tree of Life, and both felt it was the worst we’d ever seen. Acting was good, clips upon clips, we understood the memory clips, my mind also works that way about the past, the non-linear construction and what the experience was supposed to be about. I liked Space Odyssey, Sci Fi, psychological movies of every kind, Eternal Sunshine – a similar but different kind of combo of linear and non-linear film. We understand what Malick was trying to do, however, we feel that the reality is that the editing together of Tree of Life was bad, choppy, boring and pretentious with no satisfactory ending, either demonstrated or implied, which made us wish we’d left earlier when the film already started annoying us. As any film buff knows, a film doesn’t have to have a happy ending or even a concise ending, so let’s not start arguing characteristics again of “who” here is a linear thinker or not.
I think it could have been a great movie, but failed miserably for many reasons. The way the music was clipped together at a sustained anticipatory drone annoyed us both to no end and made it all the more pretentious. I could waste hours writing what was good in the movie versus all the things that made it bad for us, but it would be simpler to just say read all the negative reviews. I haven’t disagreed with one of them yet. Weeks after seeing it, my boyfriend stated he disliked it so much he wishes he could have hypnotherapy to wash it out of his mind. (Hey Joel – have they fixed the bugs in that machine yet??)
And no, we don’t watch reality shows, baseball or go through life numb like the walking dead, though we’ve seen plenty of zombies like that!, but rarely at the County Theater!!! It’s not the kind of place that attracts them. Thanks for having such a great website and allowing your patrons to comment here! Love Matt the manager’s positive comments above about showing all kinds of films. Think it is great the Ambler has posted a warning to help customers decide if this movie is for them. This website definitely provides for a local perspective of how people feel about the movies shown at your theater. Great Job, County!
Regarding LB’s comments … I find it quite interesting and inciteful into someone’s personality when he or she defends their position by simply denegrating others. That, as opposed to an intellectual analysis and discussion of considerations such as plot, character development, acting, imagery, use of sound, and other attributes of a film.
John says it well when he writes stick to the qualities of the film, don’t dwell on putting down those who disagree.
LB, no one in the audience the night I viewed Tree of Life could be characterized by “Stay home and watch your reality shows, root for your favorite baseball team, drink your Red Bull and talk to each other about the same old, same old stuff and call that “life”.” Perhaps the evening audience was different than the 1:00 p.m. matinee.
John Toner, it would certainly be gusty, but how about holding a guided discussion of Tree of Life as the Ambler and County have done in the past? I would welcome LB’s comments about the film.
To those that became offended by my remarks, apologies. Not my intentions.
I’m not a film buff, nor do I ever review a movie.
I’ll bet it was hard to view this movie according to a degree, experience in watching films, appreciation of arts.
My comment about this film is what will go back to …“it occurred to me that one ought to view this film with their subconscious mind”. It almost is best being absorbed vs. waiting for things to happen.
You may not get that, that’s okay as it is my opinion.
I don’t see many films in the big theater and when I do I choose The County because of their different choices.
I love the simple experience at The County.
In my opinion, the movie didn’t fail. It just wasn’t for some. I do feel the need to ask why someone ‘would want hypnotherapy to wash it out of his mind”. It is those comments that make me so very curious to ask “what is that about?”
I think an underlying tone of the movie was the brilliant capturing of that which we go through autonomously on a daily basis. Or let me take that further, that which we do and become in life because that’s what we are told or that’s what our parents did.
It is this ‘underlying tone’ that corralled my attention. The faces of the children had such a pure realness without needing any words, any dialogue. I wondered ‘what is it that we are caught in that takes us on another track than that which we become?
We become ‘this’ and then as adults we may or may not choose to be curious enough to explore beyond ‘this’.
This film in a really weird way explored the depth of perhaps our essence. We become this personality filled with lots of stuff that later we discover isn’t. It protects us.
But what we truly enter this world as is essence. It gets lost, chopped, tangled- the personality then takes over perhaps to protect and that is what we see each other as, personalities. In my opinion, that’s not real.
IMO this film explored essence. The origins, the many flavors of it expressed in the pureness of the oceans, volcanoes, cells, space, and us as beings.
I enjoyed this exploration. AND you really can’t explain essence to those that can’t go there, don’t consider it, or even have any idea. I only have come to go this route because I grew to be curious beyond the numbed realm that I feel many of us live in.
To clarify, my mind lives in the curiosity of this inquiry of our being-ness. That is what I referred to living in an open mind. That is qualifying my idea of my open mind by not criticizing anyone else.
I hesitated in going the ‘philosophizing route’ because I thought I couldn’t relay my feelings. I did though and thanks to B. Gold for asking for my comments about this film. It allowed me to explore that depth.
You may or may not agree- and that is the value of such a venue here.
So, without insult to anyone that is my opinion.
I may have more once I see it again!
peace.
A couple of thoughts that I think sum up the debate for me:
1. My wife felt mixed, which I was surprised by because she likes many slow, minimalist films (Gus Van Sant’s Gerry is one of her favorites). I started to explain what I thought it was saying and she cut me off: “Don’t think that just because I don’t love it doesn’t mean I didn’t understand it.” That knocked some sense into me : )
2. On the flipside, there’s a line in the film that Brad Pitt says to his sons, kind of sums up the director’s approach: “Subjective means it’s from your own mind so nobody can tell you you’re wrong.”
Tom
After seeing the trailer I realized it would be great or a pretentious mess.
I must say I did like it. If you want to read my complete review please click here:
http://www.notreadyforgrannypanties.com/2011/07/tree-of-life.html
I don’t usually reply when given the opportunity, but The Tree of Life has elicited unusual responses from many people…me included. I find it interesting that some people have said this is the worst movie they have ever seen while others see it as a masterpiece. I wonder if the ones who hated the movie prefer Broadway Musicals over Plays. I happen to like plays. Musicals are very entertaining but I prefer character driven entertainment. That doesn’t make one person right and the other one wrong. I am just not sure if I think this is a great movie or just grandiose.
No one can deny that the film is visually spectacular. Jessica Chastain is luminous. Mid nineteen fifties Waco is beautifully presented as every small American town of the era. And how about the creation of the universe; you can’t get much more spectacular than that. Hardly boring!! I loved the movie visually and can’t imagine that people wouldn’t like it for that even if they didn’t like the non-traditional structure of the film.
The overriding theme of The Tree of Life for me was our connection to the great universe vs. our connection to our personal universes. All of us have had experiences when we visit the ocean or the Grand Canyon where we feel infinitesimal. We are just a speck in the Grand Theme. But our daily universe consists of our friends and especially our families. We create our families and then through a series of collisions, explosions and implosions we continue to shape them. Then when the time comes for us to die, the universe will continue; the sun will rise, the seasons will continue to change and life will go on. Our deaths will only directly affect our personal universe. Then those left behind truly consider our/their relationship to the larger universe. The movie starts with the grand universe, then explores the personal universe of the O’Brien’s and then finally shows them together again in another dimension.
I have just decided that a movie this thought provoking must surely be great. I love that there are films that make us think.
I’m sorry to see The Tree of Life leave the County and the Ambler. Personally, I loved the film. And it certainly generated passionate responses – more than any movie in a long time. Besides that, a four week run for a true “art film” is pretty darn impressive.
I had friends ask if the film was still playing. They so much want to see it and unable to go to Jenkintown to see it at the Hiway. Oh well, sometimes 4 weeks just isn’t enough.
How could any one think this movie is good. I’m sorry, but its a bunch of BS. I have loved masterpieces like Memento, 21 Grams, Fellini and Bergman’s works of art on film. This was junk. To make people sit through that and the message cannot even be cleanly cleaved from the movie is like holding people hostage in the theater. We escaped. I am so angry that people could pass that off as a good movie